28th August 2003, 12:19 PM
Hey it's not like I enjoy these stupid debates! ABF always starts them.
It doesn't matter what you imagine while you're playing a game; there has to be an actual image on the screen that you manipulate. Words describing an image is a completely different thing, and it saddens me that can't see that.
You can't use the same standards of classifying a sequel for something like Tomb Raider with Zelda. Tomb Raider is the product of a complete lack of imagination, the complete opposite of Zelda. With each true Zelda sequel you'd get different graphics, sound, controls (even if only slightly so), interfaces, etc. MM does do a lot of original things, but that doesn't mean that it can't be considered a side-story to the franchise. It's the same thing with the Oracle games, which I also consider to be side-stories. They do a lot of new stuff but look and feel exactly like Link's Awaikening. Miyamoto even talked about Wind Waker as the true sequel to Ocarina of Time, implying that MM wasn't really a true sequel. There's nothing wrong with that, as it doesn't make them any less good than they are.
Quote:That wouldn't be a video game... it needs some kind of screen display, obviously, to be a VIDEO game. I never questioned THAT fact... I just said that text can be an image. That is it... you seem to think I said video games don't need any kind of graphical display at all. That is not true... I just said that words that describe images are images in enough of the sense of the word to count as the 'video images' in video games.
Yes, yes, they are in your mind... but the mind-picture is a image of what you read on the screen! How is that so dramatically different from seeing a drawn image in a game of a apple and then imagining what it looks like in full 3d?
As for a sound/input-only game, I don't think any exist, so I don't really think classifying them matters much.
It doesn't matter what you imagine while you're playing a game; there has to be an actual image on the screen that you manipulate. Words describing an image is a completely different thing, and it saddens me that can't see that.
Quote:MM is a sequel, unquestionably. It adds a bunch to the gameplay system (the whole timing thing) -- far more than many sequels, for sure! LOTS of sequels do very, very little innovation, yet they are definitely sequels. Now MM does feel quite similar to OoT, but it changes it a lot more than many sequels... so of course it counts as a full sequel!
You can't use the same standards of classifying a sequel for something like Tomb Raider with Zelda. Tomb Raider is the product of a complete lack of imagination, the complete opposite of Zelda. With each true Zelda sequel you'd get different graphics, sound, controls (even if only slightly so), interfaces, etc. MM does do a lot of original things, but that doesn't mean that it can't be considered a side-story to the franchise. It's the same thing with the Oracle games, which I also consider to be side-stories. They do a lot of new stuff but look and feel exactly like Link's Awaikening. Miyamoto even talked about Wind Waker as the true sequel to Ocarina of Time, implying that MM wasn't really a true sequel. There's nothing wrong with that, as it doesn't make them any less good than they are.