the difference between this new cartoony and the SNES Zelda: ALTTP is hard to explain. this new one is just more "clean".. not trying to get the graphics to look like things are actually there. You can tell the difference between "cartoony" and not cartoony by looking at it, but i don't know how to explain it. Yeah, i'm not saying it's gonna be a bad game.. and my friend will probably convince me to buy it, but the cartoony part dissapoints me because it shows that they're going in that direction; i'd rather that they go in a different direction. (like a game where emotional response is similar to LOTR movies, as opposed to Mario 64)
how many people have preordered it over the age of 13? zero?
no offense, but it offends me that nintendo went in that direction. I've been a long time zelda fan (since it was called zelda and not Link)... Yes, i played those 2 or 3 nintendo 'Links', but didn't really like them.. got interested in SNES Zelda: A Link to the Past.... beat it a couple dozen times, got Ocarina of Time, beat that; loved both of those games because the graphics were realistic in the "not-cartoony" sense. Then i read that they're making the new one, get a little excited, kept reading the article, turn the page, and there's a screen shot. no more than 1 minute later i burned the magazine. They have our generation hooked to Zelda, they're not going to be very successful with the next generation (entirely different discussion), so why do they do this to us? I just hope they make up for it later on.
btw, A Link to the Past is the best Zelda game ever.
it takes a lot more than just advertising to push 64 bit processors. (didn't mention in previous post, i thought people would already know this)... they also have to convince companies, people, and robots that 64 is the way to go.
THe reason why Intel is not interested in the 64-bit desktop is because there isn't really a market for it.
a market for it yet... I'm no business major, but do you think they're waiting for AMD to make a market for it? They'll be way behind on developement, but they don't have to spend any money on advertising the "NEW" 64 bit chips
I agree; for now. There are currently no games that *need* 64 bits for their next version, but why not plan ahead? In the next 10 years gaming will have taken a major jump into the realistic world. Doom 3 starts this jump, even at 32 bits. 4 GB will be required for this jump to continue forward. I want to look into my 3D monitor and see a monster; not a cartoon.
making 64 bit chips is not the only way to "court" the gaming market. I'm sure intel has other plans for bigger (read: smaller) and better chips. Eventually I think they will start to make the 64's, but for now they're making chips with Hyper Threading (great for game servers).
i thought i read somewhere that there's a shortage of silicon, but NOW they're saying that there's an entire VALLEY of the stuff??? anyone want to give the final word? this is pissing me off
Slashdot Mirror
the difference between this new cartoony and the SNES Zelda: ALTTP is hard to explain. this new one is just more "clean".. not trying to get the graphics to look like things are actually there. You can tell the difference between "cartoony" and not cartoony by looking at it, but i don't know how to explain it. Yeah, i'm not saying it's gonna be a bad game.. and my friend will probably convince me to buy it, but the cartoony part dissapoints me because it shows that they're going in that direction; i'd rather that they go in a different direction. (like a game where emotional response is similar to LOTR movies, as opposed to Mario 64)
how many people have preordered it over the age of 13? zero? no offense, but it offends me that nintendo went in that direction. I've been a long time zelda fan (since it was called zelda and not Link)... Yes, i played those 2 or 3 nintendo 'Links', but didn't really like them.. got interested in SNES Zelda: A Link to the Past.... beat it a couple dozen times, got Ocarina of Time, beat that; loved both of those games because the graphics were realistic in the "not-cartoony" sense. Then i read that they're making the new one, get a little excited, kept reading the article, turn the page, and there's a screen shot. no more than 1 minute later i burned the magazine. They have our generation hooked to Zelda, they're not going to be very successful with the next generation (entirely different discussion), so why do they do this to us? I just hope they make up for it later on. btw, A Link to the Past is the best Zelda game ever.
it takes a lot more than just advertising to push 64 bit processors. (didn't mention in previous post, i thought people would already know this)... they also have to convince companies, people, and robots that 64 is the way to go.
hmmm...
THe reason why Intel is not interested in the 64-bit desktop is because there isn't really a market for it.
a market for it yet... I'm no business major, but do you think they're waiting for AMD to make a market for it? They'll be way behind on developement, but they don't have to spend any money on advertising the "NEW" 64 bit chips
I agree; for now. There are currently no games that *need* 64 bits for their next version, but why not plan ahead? In the next 10 years gaming will have taken a major jump into the realistic world. Doom 3 starts this jump, even at 32 bits. 4 GB will be required for this jump to continue forward. I want to look into my 3D monitor and see a monster; not a cartoon.
this leaves AMD to court the gaming market
making 64 bit chips is not the only way to "court" the gaming market. I'm sure intel has other plans for bigger (read: smaller) and better chips. Eventually I think they will start to make the 64's, but for now they're making chips with Hyper Threading (great for game servers).
i thought i read somewhere that there's a shortage of silicon, but NOW they're saying that there's an entire VALLEY of the stuff??? anyone want to give the final word? this is pissing me off