Quote:
Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma
(sprites refer to 2D shit like SNES/NES era specifically, I think they call 3d stuff models)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reincarnate
Dynam0: No, sprites are basically 2D images (think Doom or Wolfenstein or most SNES games)
|
Technically everything on a monitor is 2D : - )
I think what people like Mike Weedmark or Pseudo Enigma severely underestimate nowadays with games like Ocarina of Time is how small the game actually is in terms of size and how little tools people had to work with at the time. The pipelines that exist for today's games allow for much more content to be created in a shorter time period, but back in the day it wasn't that easy and they also had deadlines to meet. Apart from that though, they also had to optimize everything and sometimes downgrade several things in order to fit a game on a cartridge (Ocarina of Time fits on a
freakin' 32MB cartridge! Only a couple of games used a 64 mb cartridge) whereas the playstation had much more wiggle room with 700MB space on a disc (zzz loading times) and a max 64MB memory card for saving your progress.
Also, the graphics, the sheer size of the worlds, the fluidness of the gameplay and the story were all revolutionary for that period in gaming history. You have to review it from that period of time, a period that was still pretty much in its infancy in terms of 3D gameplay/visuals (and/or added storytelling). It's like if you reviewed the VFX of a 70's or 80's movie to today's standard of VFX. That's what I see happening here with OoT.
Of the two N64 Zelda games, I prefer Majora's Mask by a long shot though. While I acknowledge that OoT was revolutionary, I feel Majora's Mask was severely underrated due to late release but the story (and the various subplots) as well as the grim setting of the game personally appealed to me a lot more.