Among the many things brought up in the recent Nintendo Direct, Star Fox Zero was given a new trailer and some new footage. Indeed - after the initial E3 presentation - a common concern brought up about the game was its perceived lacking in the visuals department. Whether or not this was an entirely valid complaint depends upon the individual, but the recent footage that Nintendo showcased certainly did seem to be a cut above what was shown before.
Nintendo World Report TV recently did a comparison video between the footage then and now, in order to highlight the changes that have been made. While not everything lines up perfectly, it is fairly obvious that extra attention has been paid to improving the lighting and adding in higher resolution textures. Take a look:
What do you think? Does the game look more up to snuff now than it did at E3? What did you think of the new footage? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
[source youtube.com]
Comments 126
I see the difference, but it still looks highly outdated. Platinum can do sooooo much better (look at Bayonetta 2 and The wonderful 101)!
Maybe a small face lift, but not enough to cause a 3 month delay.
OK course that is assuming that was what the delay was for. My guess is Nintendo did not want a clash with Xenoblade and Mario Maker during the Christmas period and wanted to spread the few Wii u games out.
Unless you are showing a Wii u version compared with an NX version.
still looks like garbage.
I think by April, SFZ will look quite amazing!
If you watch the trailer through the Eshop the difference is striking.I have no doubts now this will end up being a visual stunner.
I love the Wii U, but watching the trailer (both old and new) made me think it looks like a PS2 game!
I like the changes and appreciate the additional work they put into the game. Of course Star Fox Zero doesn't completely live up to the expectations of todays players. It has a classic gameplay combined with the art style of its predecessors. I never was a fan of the look of Star Fox for SNES. But I think Zero will provide fun gameplay and thats what it's all about, isn't it?
I thought it looked different... very interesting.
you folks need to learn to stop being pessimistic when it comes to Nintendo - they always deliver - how many times has this happened? The only time I can think of that Nintendo actually did a bonehead move was the Virtual Boy. Just wait for the game to come out - and play it - then you can complain. Remember Wind Waker? People were complaining about that - saying it looked dumb - Iwata just said "Wait until you play it" - and that philosophy should extend to just about every Nintendo product.
@vitalemrecords I would argue that it was our criticism and pessimism that forced them to delay and rework the game. Being critical is not a bad thing so don't underplay it's importance. If we just accepted it for what it was I can guarantee Nintendo would have released it in that state. Maybe now they will rework the visuals even more for April. I can wait for that. I have plenty of other games and no time.
@vitalemrecords Whoo! Yep from a game standpoint, don't bet against them!
I don't get the fuss really, cirtain games have cirtain styles, I think this one looks just as it should...they have added the extra details to the water and ships that people complained about...looks like a PS2 game? I don't know what kinda of crack people have been smoking...this looks great, runs at 60 fps, on two screens and when this is in motion it's going to look good....
I don't know if people remember what a ps2 game looked like...I just played through XC...took me a year and a half, and over 100 hours...that tech looked like a ps2 game...and I was so lost in environments that I never ever thought this looks like poop...if we are going to say we are a gameplay first community lets back that up...not saying don't want good or crisp graphics, but all these games look good now...I mean they really do.
@Savino Haha ,yes maybe just a tad but still take a look at the new trailer through the Eshop, Youtube doesn't do it justice. I think by the time this arrives many of the naysayers,me included will be pleasantly surprised,
@6ch6ris6 Bet you are a laugh at parties!
Yeah looks much, much better. Actually playable now, before it was a strain on the eyes.
@garthvader No, you suffer from delusions of grandeur - they also delayed Zelda - and nobody was complaining about the way that one looked - you should understand - ya'll were just complaining into the void - Iwata died - and then there were delays. Delays in game dev happen - when the President of the company dies - that causes delays. And sometimes delays just plain happen. Don't pretend that you had anything to do with it. Delusions of Grandeur.
(guy complains about the way a game looks - over a year before it comes out - game comes out and looks great - wash - rinse repeat - but that is how Nintendo operates - the other companies put up footage of a game to Hype it up - then when the game comes out - everyone is like "What? This looks terrible" - looking at YOU dark souls 2.
@vitalemrecords And WW was a pretty poop game ... It look crap on the GC and still dose on the WiiU ... Yes cell shaded graphics age increadibly well, but that's only because you sacrafice detail while using it and highly stilising your visuals ... which isn't necesarily a bad thing ...
Overall, I really only liked the music in WW and I really don't want to see Nintendo repeat that ...
But I have to say, that I too don't understand the bitching about this game ... yes it looked kinda wired at E3, but I played it a thisyears Connichi and it was awesome and now the new trailer too looks way better, so I have no doubt that Nintendo and Platinum will find a way to let their magiv shine trough with this game ^^
ps2 gen
Respect to Nintendo for delaying and bringing us a better game! Countdown, 160 days to the release.
It still uses the same amount of polygons as an early ps2 game...
So you mean that trailer we saw at E3 wasn't the final product?!
@Josaku: What are you talking about? Wind Waker plays and looks beautiful on both GCN and Wii U.
@Freeon-Leon That's your personal taste and stuff ...
I didn't like the Story, the sailing (waiting), the overstylised artstyle, the way to easy dungeons, most of the minigames and most of the characters ...
As I said, there is only the fighting and Music left ... the fighting was cool I guess, but that's it ...
I bought this game 2 times on full price ...
First time with my GC because I was pretty hype about this game and it kicked me in the balls multiple times ....
Second time with my WiiU because everybody and their dog was cumguzzeling about it and how it was "THE GAME" to play that winter .... and it kicked me in my balls slightly less than the original .... but still pretty hard if you ask me ...
Looking pretty swish now! And still running at 60fps on both screens? That's quite the achievement!
Those saying it still looks like a PS2 game? Go look at a PS2 game before saying that. Those saying this wouldn't take all that long? Go work in the games industry before you say that. These things are not quick, not to mention all the addition QA and bug fixing that comes as a result of even the smallest tweak.
Looks much better but the main problem for me is not graphics but the fact that scenarios and stuff looked so litle detailed and empty
I actually think the old / right side looks sharper and better. Like they say in the video, left is a bit washed out. But it is just my opinion. I guess I appreciate strong colors over dynamic lightning etc. (I also prefer plasma-tv over lcd and led and I'm not working with graphics or anything.)
"Wow, SF Zero's graphics look like crap. I heard that from NetWarrior1129, so I think so, too. Don't tell me I should watch the video. I know it looks like a PS2 game. I've never played a PS2, but those are PS2 graphics, I can tell you."
Yeah looks amazing now
If I cared that much about graphics then Wii U would not be my platform of choice. Forget the number of polygons - the only number that counts is 60 (fps).
I hold whatever opinion makes me sound most edgy and aloof.
...Actually, I think it looks very nice.
I think what most people don't factor in for this game is that both screens are playing the same game simultaneous at the same frame rate. This game is basically playing two games at once while showing two different camera views which to my knowledge would put a HUGE strain on the wii u
@vitalemrecords You mean that other companies put CGI gameplay or downgrade it before launch, but mostly big third parties.
@Josaku
I agree with you. I never had the chance to play Wind Waker on the GameCube but all my friends did and throughout the years they would talk about how great the game was. I finally got to play it on the Wii U and I was extremely underwhelmed. I wish it was a physical copy that was included with the system instead of a digital code because now I'm stuck with it.
I can't tell the difference between this game and River Raid. Totally Atari 2600 level graphics!
Seriously the game looks good. I like the game play of Star Fox and I imagine I will enjoy this too. My only complaint would be if there is no split screen or online dog fighting.....and thats a minor complaint because it is at its core a single player game. I just had a lot of fun with the N64 multiplayer and hope they consider something similar.
Some areas look slightly better while some areas look slightly worse. It's still an ugly game even after all this time.
Brilliant. I'm back to being cautiously optimistic about Zero.
Here's hoping there's some multiplayer and the stealth sections don't derail the whole thing.
@Fandabidozi Here here.
I can imagine the stealth sections being a welcome change of pace, and helping the game feel like more than just a 64 clone.
On the other hand, I can also imagine all the reviews being released and uniformly bemoaning them as tedious and unnecessary.
Here's hoping for the former. Cautious optimism is go!
@vitalemrecords Actually the Virtual Boy was pretty cool. I had one back then. I heard Nintendo discontinued supporting it because there were some people having health issues because of it. Nintendo didn't want to be seen as a company that supported a device that could give people seizures or heart attacks. If they had wanted it to be a success all they would have had to do was put the right games on it.
Cool I thought it looked better
Impressive, Star Fox.
Looks much better but I'm hoping they also increase enemies and decrease necessity for looking at two screens at once.
Plus it doesn't make sense how the reticle on the gamepad moves. It should be locked in center and only the reticle on the TV should move.
That video was very dynamic.
I never thought SF0 looked bad then and I still think it looks great now.
@ActRaiser you sir need to go boot up your ps2 and play it again
@SuperiorTech @Josaku I agree with you both. I really didn't enjoy the Windwaker. The sailing was awful, the dungeons were easy, and I didn't feel engrossed by the plot. Playing it on GC was enough for me not to buy the HD version on Wii U.
I can't say this game looks great, but no this game looks much better than a PS2 game. The sharp angles have produced a kind of low-poly appearance, and some areas are visually anemic, almost disturbingly uneventful and clean, but that desert landmaster scene looks great. Hit and miss so far, but to call them PS2 graphics, you should get an express ticket to an acting class.
@ActRaiser haha. No where close. When did you last even look at a ps2 game!? Haha.
It looks like a work in progress and it looks like it's improving everytimeyou see it, AND they've got like 5 months left to work on it
@Dr_Corndog Do you realize how ignorant you make yourself sound
@ActRaiser I saw the video myself. Do you really think PS2 is capable of handling this level of textures and lighting
@ActRaiser you could not have been alive during the 6th gen if you think a ps2 could do anything close to this.
Complete History of Video Game Graphics According To Comments Sections:
-32 bit... or something, nothing really recognizable, pixel games
-PS2, old, blocky looking, really low texture everywhere
-Everything now, welcome to 2015
Lol
The graphics look fine to me. Just give us online multiplayer.
It's better but still not up to the standards set by previous releases ranging from Mario Kart 8 to Pikmin 3 to DK Country: Tropical Freeze, among others. The bottom line is that the Wii U has been proven capable of FAR better visuals than what Nintendo is bringing to StarFox 0. I have no idea why that is because normally they put such an emphasis on quality in every facet of their first-party games, but regardless the buzz for this one has been absolutely killed.
On the topic of this looking like a "PS2" game - first off this clearly is well above what a PS2 could handle, the comparison is rather silly. There's no way a PS2 could handle this stuff, espcially at 60 fps. I should know, I actually just bought a PS2 for cheap & am in the middle of playing through it's huge library.
Also on a second note, I think art style far trumps actual graphical fidelity. Games that were more stylized in previous generations tend to age far better than those that go for realism. Even though it's being used as an insult, there are still several games that look stunning on the PS2. Metal Gear Solid 2 & 3, Shadow of the Colossus, Shin Megami Tensei III, all those games still look great, not the least of which is because of their impeccable art design. Wind Waker is a ninty example of that same principle, that game still looks great, even the original gamecube version.
Finally - it's Star Fox! You guys have complained and begged for a new Star Fox for years! You all played and loved Star For 64, and probably still do, and some of us enjoy the other games as well & this has better graphics than those by far! When you go back and play 64 do you think "This looks like sh*t?" Or any of the gamecube games? Seriously, it's rather ridiculous that after so long we finally get a new Star Fox with improved gameplay, and all the people who begged for it for so long are ranting about the graphics....yeesh.
Besides the game looks very good & they're clearly improving it before release.
@AtlanteanMan Mario Kart 8, Pikmin 3, and DKC Tropical Freeze were not dual screen intensive games. If Star Fox Zero were to have the same level of detail as Mario Kart 8, the frame rate would probably be bad.
too bad this looks like a PS4 game... oh wait...
I feel like most people saying this looks like a ps2 game have not played a ps2 in a long time, and are utalising graphical nostalgia which makes the games look better in your head than they are in real life due to how fondly you remember them.
This game does not look as good as many Wii U games or even some 360 and PS3 games. But the reality is it doesn't need to. Solid gameplay and framerate are key. Ocarina of Time had terrible graphics for the time when i first played it around 2008 but it's still my favourite game because of everything else featured.
Gameplay, story and fun-factor all trump graphics 100 times over. Even though this game looks better than any high end Ps2 game out there.
Regardless don't stress have fun with it. You should buy a game for the content not because of the graphical style. Why else do you think people still prefer:
OOT over twilight princess
Super Wario World over New Super Mario Bros U
Star fox 64 over Star Fox Assault
Paper Mario Thousand Year Door over Sticker Star
Melee over Brawl and SSB4
The list goes on. With those only being Nintendo examples.
Also don't try to explain that it graphics should improve over the years. Style is style. Rouge Legacy, Shovel Knight and Minecraft all have technically 'bad graphics' if you compare them to Fallout 4 and the likes. Yet are all excellent games. Just enjoy what arrives and don't buy it if you don't want it - instead of whinging over something as insignificant as a few extra polygons.
@Boyoshi Fallout 4 is a bad example. That game has some pretty rough graphics too. Oh and mostly sub 30 fps on consoles, with dips to 0 fps on XB1.
@zool I agree.more money if they wait
The second someone puts more concern into GRAPHICS than they do actual GAMEPLAY, I stop reading/listening to anything they are saying because they have identified themselves as a moron.
Does the game look as slick as something brand-new on a PS4? No. Is it going to be fun as hell and control perfectly? Absolutely.
Now this just may be my opinion, but I believe the point of a video GAME is to be FUN. So to all of you idiots saying "lol not buyin it it looks like ps2". You're a moron, go play a generic Cinematic Game on PS4 or XBone. You know, the ones where you spend 15 minutes watching a beautiful cinematic cut scene, then play the game for 5 minutes through Quick Time events, then watch another 15 minute cinematic cut scene. Meanwhile, I'll be over here having a blast playing unique Nintendo games.
@Rocko52 day one buy for me
SNES Starwing looked better than this.
@Boyoshi :Thousand Year Door looked way better than Sticker Star, and practically every other game ever made.
@zool
I think it's obvious that this game was not ready for release this holiday season, in terms of graphics or enough content worth a 50 or 60 dollar purchase.
Every 'PS2 graphics' comment never played a PS2 game. You may as well say 'NES graphics.' So dumb.
Told you the graphics got a bit better. Now who else is excited for this game?
I don't understand how this looks dated to some people? It's a visual style which can't be really improved in any meaningful way. Does the Wind Waker or Wall-E the animated movie look dated? No. They just look as they do, 'cause of the style. "Dated" is not the same thing as "the lack of huge amount of insignificant details/ lighting effects." It's always possible to increase these things to the point of burst.
Is it possible for a live action movie look dated as well following this tiring logic? The entire argument about graphics these days defy common sense...
The game's being displayed on 2 screens at once, with different perspectives. The Wii U has to render the whole thing twice, once at 480p on the Gamepad, and once in HD at 720p on the TV screen. Both at 60 frames per second, which most PS4 and Xbox One games don't manage.
How are people not grasping this?
It looks very good for what it is.
@CB85
I think they get it. I just don't think they've accepted it.
@zool The game is getting released before the Nx is getting announced.
@Tisteg80 No, it's all about graphics, man...
(This is sarcasm—I'm saying this, just in-case.)
Wowza didn't expect some hate or dislike for Wind Waker in this comment section.
@Cia That's the problem though. This game has no art direction. It's the most uninspired, generic look I've seen in a long time. You could have gone with the Star Fox look and stylize it, but they just took a look that's based on N64 graphics and try to modernize it on a console that couldn't do it good it enough for it to look good.
It still looks horrible and boring to me but again as long as the change the control scheme I'm fine...but it didn't sound like they did in the European direct.
People complaining that PS4 and XBOne rely too much in graphics and not in gameplay, then Nintendo shows Star Fox Zero and it appears a fantastic game with a great gameplay and people complain that the graphics sucks... Who understand you, people?
It saddens me to see the public reaction to this game. I was fortunate enough to get to go to E3 this year, and Star Fox Zero was my favorite game that I played there. It's a lot of fun, which is supposed to be the whole point, right?
@amiiboacid OK. You must have inside information.
@Hero-of-WiiU That's not what Nintendo implied. They said it was ready but they wanted to add some additional enhancements.
Have the people who are saying this looks like a PS2 game ever actually seen a PS2 game?
@Haz It is. I went to Gamescom with a couple of friends. Nintendo-fans, PS-Fans, Hardcore gamers and very casual gamers. All of them including me thought it was super super weak. I really don't understand what people see in this game. I can only explain it with fanboyism....
@skarmachild So did you completely miss the point of what I was saying? My point is that focusing solely on the graphics of a game when you make a decision about it is completely foolish. It's not even about whether it is supposed to be more geared toward the 'cinematic' genre of games or traditional gameplay, it's about dismissing a game and saying "it sucks" because it's not the most textured and graphically enhanced games on the market.
It makes me feel kinda old that kids today are saying "This looks like a PS2 game" instead of "This looks like an N64 game"
Isn't this game going for a retro polygon look? Seems entirely appropriate to me. Complain when it comes out and gets crap reviews, not on the basis of a trailer six months before release!
Why did I scroll down to see the comments? I was expecting nothing but bait over the graphics, and so, I was correct...
Lmao, the game looks fine. The dumbest argument I EVER heard about what makes a game good or bad is the graphics.. are people that adapted to CoD that every game has to atleast share CoD's textures to be appealing? Nah. Minecraft shouldn't have sold a single copy, and undertale would have a 0/100 metacritic score instead of 93/100 even though the game only been out two months.
Plus this is nintendo.. we're lashing out at nintendo of all companies about graphics. If a new CoD game came out with poor graphics, I could see that, but since when has nintendo been the company responsible for cool looks and textures?
People need to accept nintendo isn't a serious company like microsoft and sony when it comes to their mature audiences with games. IMO, this game looks great as is, especially an improvement from previous starfox titles, while not beeing too dark toned and surrounded by death.
I think is bettere to get a trailer with "crappy" looks and a nice look release, that and stunning grafics trailer, with a watered down release. I mean we had HW, with an awful looking trailer, but when it was released it looks really good, not amazing, but good enough, and the we had WD, AC, and a lot of more games
It looks better than it did at E3.
With a few more months of polish it should look even better.
FYI if you viewed it on Twitch, YouTube, or the Direct it by default scales it down to 380p and will be highly effected by your internet connection.
This applies for all videos you watch these services.
You can change the resolution by hitting the resolution button on each service.
@Dr_Corndog
LOL pretty much!
I can't stand people that post stuff like that. Either they never played a ps2 game or have not seen one in years. At least it points out that their opinion is irrelevant though. That is nice of them.
PS2 games never looked that good not even close.
The reworked lighting and better textures for the crafts and other parts really make a difference, even though the poly count isn't increased.
Saying it looks like a PS2 game is just ignorant! :'D
I have a feeling the main improvement may be dynamic lighting
@Spectra_Twilight .....and Starfox was a Christmas release. Things change.
Star Fox Zero
host images
Star Fox Zero
image hosting without account
PS2 Game
image post
When will the trolling stop.
@IceClimbers - Understood, I do generally agree with fallout 4 not being a great example, but it was modern and relevent so seemed to fit. DMC Definitive edition is another example I suppose, but it doesn't really matter. The point is that it is never gonna look as good as some AAA party titles on other consoles that are simply more powerful.
@Fee - Although I technically was never impressed with TTYD's graphics, and if you compare them on the devices they're designed to be played on I still beleive Sticker Star to 'look better'. But even then TTYD does definantly not look better than thousands of modern games but you sill obviously love it, likley implying you liked the gameplay, story and the 'graphical style'. Which many people have been saying nintendo has been trying to achieve with Stat Fox. Also unless you are blind it is impossibe to compare this graphically to Starwing.
@zool Starfox Zero is being released April 22. The Nx is getting revealed E3 2016.
@Spectra_Twilight that's what I am doing. But you are being emotionally led by Nintendo.
Telling us in 2014 a new Zelda is on the way and in 2016 we will be none the wiser to when we get to play it, is being emotionally led by Nintendo.....unless you don't like Zelda.
@amiiboacid maybe, maybe not.
I actually really like the art style and the way things look. Things like shadow resolutions I can see getting me a bit peaved over time but I'm liking the style of it all in general. I'm sure this is going to be an amazing game and I'm really looking forward to it. I LOVED Starfox 64.. I played and it beat it.. It's got to be upwards of 500 times counting Starfox 64 3D also and I'm am just beyond excited for this...
@zool This is factual evidence.
@zool This is factual evidence.
@MegaBeedrill THANK YOU. I'm happy with everything here. I'm still a tad skeptical with the controls but I think it's going to give us more options and control more than anything else-- not gimmicky.
I see you can detect the enemy's weaknesses through the game pad. That's a really cool idea.
@amiiboacid it can only be factual if it has happened.
@JaxonH Honestly SFZ looks way better than fallout 4. Damn that game is fugly.
@Hy8ogen
For a PS4 game, Fallout 4 is pretty ugly. I'm playing it and Rise of the Tomb Raider, and there's such a stark contrast.
Being someone who has revamped through his PS2 library recently, I find it really hard to take someone seriously when they say SFZ has PS2 graphics.
I do agree with @OorWullie — watching the game on the eshop on the big screen did clear it up
To all the people replying to those who say the game looks like a PS2 game...
Why are you wasting your time? XD They'll never listen!
Hell, Even from watching YouTube videos, I never thought Devil's Third looked like a PS2 game like some users here claimed (although some elements could have used a little bit of polishing).
A lot of people just love to complain for the sake of complaining!
Looks fine to me.
it looks much much better
althou thats not saying much :/
Looks like PS5 level now.. Ultra HD.
I don't care for graphics, I'd rather the delay be for multiplayer!
@Miss_Dark indeed....did a lack of detailed graphics make Tetris any less of a classic? Super Mario World didn't exactly have the best graphics at the time but is rated as one of the best games of all time.
I guarantee these are the same people crying for traditional controllers and achievements.
I'm not surprised. You can never judge a unfinished game, really. If it's not released, it's not finished. Common sense sure comes in handy
It looks better than before, but still has room for improvement. The landscapes could use a visual upgrade.
Nintendo is still working hard on improving Wii U's graphic engine as a whole, for sure. I'm not going to be surprised when a game comes out that looks as good as the Zelda tech demo, period. That's just how graphics improve over a generation.
Compare Gears of War 1's graphics to the progress they made to Gears of War 3, or Halo 3 to Halo 4, and that's why the 8th generation consoles were getting ports of 7th generation games.
That's why no one should be surprised when the graphics get even better in later games. These graphics are on par with games of similar graphic styles on Xbox One. Wow.
Dynamic.
This does not look like a PS2 game, have you guys ever played a PS2 in the last year? At worse this looks like a PS3 game, which still is fine considering that it still runs at a smooth 60 fps with 1:1 streaming to the gamepad.
I really like the look of the game, not just visuals but the action too. Am really looking forward to Star Fox Zero.
Still looks like it could have easily been done on the Wii. Just isn't up to par with other Nintendo 1st party games on the Wii U.
looks like 2012 xbox 360
I agree that it still looks mostly like a high quality PS3 game, but that says more about the studio progression, than it does the hardware. There was no way to make every game look like Uncharted 3 or Beyond Two Souls(and even those needed more texture work, IMO), besides Sony's efforts(3rd parties just ran the Xbox 360 version), and Nintendo wasn't even doing HD, yet. That's why it still matters that Nintendo is continuously improving Wii U's graphics.
I would still say the geometry and textures are a bit better than most last generation titles. Wii U will also be running the GamePad, 5.1 PCM, and running in 720p upscaled to 1080p(like Nintendo's other games), so the Wii U is running things that weren't being done on Xbox 360 and PS3.
Even Xbox One and PS4 don't have as good of sound quality, as far as I can tell.
Rambling over...
I'm optimistic for this game and can't wait for it to release.
Graphics-wise, I think the character models have been improved and the lighting has vastly improved but I'm still seeing a lot of early PS3 era style polygons and effects. But the Gamepad once again dictates the look. The Wii U lives and dies by the Gamepad and they've died more than they've lived. It's the same reason XBone dropped Kinect. Too many resources being used for an underutilized and shoehorned peripheral.
A powerful system, built for graphics has a host of gorgeously detailed games. Surprise.
A 4 year old system, built cheaply for playing games looks outdated. Another surprise.
10 years from now, people may love Star Fox Zero and turn their nose on the highly detailed games.
It's a pro and a con about graphics wars: art style is usually forsaken for the current cutting edge.
And when it's not cutting edge anymore, it shows. Wind Waker and Tearaway seem like the kind of games to endure. Goldeneye, not so much.
Still looks awful.
@GraveLordXD OK? After all of those boneheaded decisions, you still read and comment on news about them. Cool.
@Boyoshi My e-mail notifications were incorrectly labelled as spam so it took me a long time...but practically everything in your post is wrong. I obviously wasn't talking about specs. There was a lot of obvious stuff you missed. Your spelling is wrong. Your grammar is wrong. You don't understand jokes. You just dropped the ball bro. Don't bother posting like you did. You're not profound and no one can learn something from someone who doesn't know anything.
@Fee Lmao dude. Calm down. My emails not the one that's broken so don't try to tell me I'm the moron here.
P.S - If you want to insult my English you might first want to work on your sentence structure; as it is awful. Please read your last sentence if you want verification of that statement.
@Boyoshi Why does everyone always think I'm mad? Whatever.
Bro "definantly" isn't a word, it's spelled "likely", not "likley" and it's Star Fox not Stat Fox. So yeah, your spelling was wrong. I didn't say you were a moron. I'll admit I implied it but I never said it. Course you never said I said it so whatever. If you still(sorry sill* that's the proper spelling right?) refuse to admit your spelling was wrong you'd be a moron. I'm not going to bother talking about the rest. Let's see if you're smart enough to admit you made a mistake. If you are, maybe I'll bother talking to you seriously(as if I could manage, it's all a joke to me).
P.S. I won't trust your word about sentence structure. You don't seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to English. My sentence probably just flew over your head. To be honest I don't care much about grammar, but I had to add spelling to the list when I was saying you were wrong about practically everything. By the by your first sentence could have been structured better. "I was never technically impressed by TTYD's graphics" would have been a better start to it. Starting sentences with "but" is also usually frowned upon, but like I said I don't really care. I'm only talking because you challenged me.
OH! You thought you had me. Claiming your spelling wasn't wrong was a joke. So now I'm the moron who doesn't get jokes. Good show mate.
@Fee Congratulations you pointed out some spelling errors. 3 to be precise. You also dodge the point repeatedly in your continually pathetic arguments; as I pointed out in my previous statement if you were patient enough to actually read it.
Notice how your entire last 3 paragraphs were informing me I'm incorrect about... spelling and grammar. You avoid the argument I'm making, being that graphics is less important than just about anything else in video games.
People might think your mad because you go on and on about irrelevant things with no actual evidence to support your statements of "everything if your post is wrong", hence making you sound like an 8 year old that guessed the password to their mums computer. I made 3 mistakes that you pointed out, then implied majority of my spelling is fine unlike you retorted in a single statement. Then made a P.S about your hypocrisy, and suddenly that's adequate to tell me I'm wrong about my original statement made a week ago.
Stop being a fool and get to the point. You've provided no evidence, no relevant facts and no actual information about why I'm wrong in saying that graphics don't make a game, which is the entire point of all of my arguments as I've stated repeatedly.
You can't just say - "I'm not going to bother talking about the rest" and leave it at that, you've said nothing to support you thinking this game is terrible due to graphical incongruity. If this was an actual debate you would have already lost 400 times over, you cant just stand up, say "THE OPPONENTS ARE WRONG AND HAVE POOR ENGLISH" and sit back down again.
P.S - You started this mate, you responded to my original post with incorrect information about a fraction of my statement, I'm only responding because YOU challenged ME. I don't take lightly to people that are wrong and simply call me stupid without any substance to their argument.
P.P.S - This is hilarious. I guess we just don't take each other seriously.
@Boyoshi Actually, I pointed out four. Your argument is invalid.
@Fee Lmao
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...