$60 for a gameboy game that was $30 26 years ago

They did. It sold extremely well. It beat Super Mario Maker 2. I'm the messenger. No bulli.

toddlers would defend Nintendo even if it was $100+dlc. yes, they are this much of a drones

Its over. You got BTFO once again.

youtu.be/tI5UafuIJo8

I really hope you didn't waste months of your life shitposting about this game endlessly only to get humiliated by Nintendo yet again.

That would be pretty embarrassing, don't you think?

Attached: 1568900434807m.jpg (1024x576, 86K)

like something like this but with tons of moving stuff to make it feel alive, like leaves moving etc.

Attached: 015.png (240x160, 8K)

This is a remake done right. Don't get the complaining.

it's soul-lacking

>"don't kid yourself, my delusion is the perfect and only representation of our reality. I'm right, don't kid yourself"
>you're actually wrong

people like you need be to hunted down and shot like rabid animals

Attached: DPB2bPzWkAMnDKz.jpg (666x556, 54K)

Jesus Christ can Nintendo please stop winning?

How are the mentally kiddies on Yea Forums supposed to cope with this dabbing?

Attached: 1569113863542.png (605x762, 444K)

Not saying you're wrong - what I'm saying is all those buyers are people who have already played it, not fresh faces.

The load times concern me more than the frame rates.

>more casualized
>includes hero mode and you don't have to pick up heart containers like you were forced to in the original

Its packed with soul you seething baby. Cope harder.

>I really hope you didn't waste months of your life shitposting about this game endlessly only to get humiliated by Nintendo yet again.
I didn't, actually. This is the first thread I've made about it and the first time I've been on Yea Forums in at least a few months.

Just figured this would be the right place to share some cynicism in good company.

I never said it was a bad game. What I will say is that LA as a game aged much, much better than Zeldas 1 and 2, so much so that I still think the original plays just fine in 2019. This is a game that didn't NEED a remake, and I'd have taken a remake for one of the first two games instead.

Also that $60 for this is ludicrous, not just because the value of an experience degrades over time, but also because this game cost about $30 when it first game out 26 years ago.

If an indie studio had released this exact same game, you fuckers would be hurling shit at the wall if it was a penny more than $15.

Attached: 1556505207822.png (719x713, 587K)

it looks so dead because everything looks like a plastic playset, doesn't feel like an adventure at all to play this, the game is the opposite of immersing

>More casualized

>Gameplay improvements are now "casualisation"

FUCKING KEK THIS BOARD CANNOT COPE.

It's cool if you don't like it, but at least give me complaints that aren't just meaningless buzzwords that represent your nostalgia.

Nobody agrees with you. The entire world is gushing about how gorgeous the game looks. And I agree.

Whats it like being you right now?

well thankfully this one game isn't the only thing in my life I can focus on, everyone is gushing over wow classic too and I gave it a ago but it just felt like a chore, I don't feel rewarded by leveling up in that game because you do it so mindlessly

Why does this game make so many people so angry? It doesn't appeal to me either, especially at a $60 price point, but I don't see a real reason to whine at this game over any others.

statistically, the entire world is voting with their wallets and saying that CoD and fortnite are the most engaging games of all time

consensus doesn't mean shit about anything regarding market appeal. just because something casts a wide net doesn't mean it's good, i thought being on Yea Forums you'd know that idiot

Attached: man held hostage by competent bioware writers.jpg (250x250, 22K)

>Why does this game make so many people so angry?

Because its a Nintendo game.
Because its another Switch exclusive.
Because its a Zelda game.
Because it got rave reviews.
Because haters spent the entire year trying to shit on the game and they've been BTFO because the game is a critical and commercial smash hit.

All of the above. And I can't stop laughing.

Attached: 1562024042216.jpg (240x251, 23K)

>what is inflation

>consensus doesn't mean shit about anything regarding market appeal
aside from, i meant to say

I don't get all the praise Link's Awakening gets. I thought it was okay, definitely not better than A Link to the Past.

lol it's almost like, there's a bias towards Nintendo and their games....HMMMMM. It's almost like, despite the quality, people will buy ANYTHING Nintendo and praise it.

Experiences degrade over time as genre innovations become obsolete and what was the standard yesterday becomes subpar today, idiot.

If inflation is a factor, why was OoT3D priced at $40 when it came out?

It has nothing to do with consensus when people are able to articulate their opinions intelligence with taste and maturity and you cannot.

See, not all opinions are equal, some opinions hold more water than others because they are backed up reason, accountability and facts.

You can't argue against how gorgeous LA looks on Switch. The arguments against it are laughable and reek of a 12 year's seething jealousy mentality.

Attached: 1534282010682.jpg (261x328, 28K)

not him but you reek of neckbeard

>there's a bias towards Nintendo and their games

LMAO

Or... OR... - get this - ... they just make really good video games?

Attached: 1568789240930.jpg (344x433, 34K)

What’s wrong with the game?
I looked at it remembered playing the original and just decided to skip it.
You don’t have to buy everything Nintendo puts out
I never brought a Wii Fit board

just like apple

>You can't argue against how gorgeous LA looks on Switch. The arguments against it are laughable and reek of a 12 year's seething jealousy mentality.
for what it's worth, i'm not the guy you were arguing with before, actually

i absolutely can argue against how gorgeous LA looks on switch, though, actually - it's very par for the course for its aesthetic and i don't feel it did the toybox feel as well as 3D dot game heroes, and that game had the courtesy to have an acceptable framerate

also i'm just really not a fan of the nubby appendages everyone has, no animation in this game has a satisfying, full range of movement because of it

Attached: 1563476200523.png (1684x1151, 1.76M)

In an industry where fallout 76, yearly fifa games, 2k20, madden, anthem, control (an 8 hour game) starwars battlefront 2 all launched at $60. Are you telling me that Nintendo cant release a 15 hour single player game at $60?

Nothing is wrong with the game. I literally said in the post you were replying to that I don't think it's a bad game.

It's just not worth twice the price of what it cost when it came out on the Gameboy 26 years ago. I would pay 20 dollars for this game. It's perfectly fit for purpose, but it is fundamentally not a $60 experience.

Attached: 1553704689748.jpg (410x411, 10K)

I agree, after all the original is like 5 bucks now and this isn't 12x the experience

Pop, goes, the funky pop
Funkin un the shop for pop
POP POP
FUNKO WUNKO
FUNKY POP

Not when it's a game they already released a quarter of a decade ago. The only substantial addition here is a tuned-up aesthetic, and if you're earnestly trying to convince me that that makes up the ~$55 difference between that and buying it on the VC, I don't know what to tell you.

Because it was ported, this game was made from scratch

An argument could be made for it being the better game. LA overworld is the best in the zelda series by far.

>>More casualized even

They actually made some of the bosses harder. Though I don't know if that worked since I haven't played it.

Exactly my point, thank you. It's not about the game as a standalone experience, it's about the game competing with itself in terms of worth as you can get fundamentally the same game for a tiny fraction of the cost.

Why should I have to care about that if the play experience is fundamentally the same as the original? I don't give a shit how inefficiently they spent their time rereleasing it if the game I'm playing now is the same game I played 26 years ago and that can currently be had on the VC for about 6 bucks.

Attached: 1556245335357.jpg (1080x1241, 140K)

Pretty much.
Personally I didn’t even buy the game but I knew the younger audience and woman demographics would be gushing about it.

>you can get fundamentally the same game for a tiny fraction of the cost.

Go and emulate the GB version then and stop being assmad because everyone else is playing this beautiful definitve version.

Then dont buy, its quite simple.

Here's how it works:
-Company puts product out on the market
-Consumers decide if that product is worth spending money on.

people keep arguing that since i don't like the business behind this game i must be a sony/microsoft drone instead of a nintendo fan who just wants more beneficial consumer experience

how much shit do you have to eat

We all know nintendo could be making infinitely better stuff than lazy shit like this stop lying to yourselves, your standards are just so low

As expect of the Shitch

Oh, boy, it's the "if you don't like it you're not allowed to complain" argument again.

Alright, sure, fellas. I'll go play the GB version again. It still plays just fine. Didn't really need a remake.

...Have fun with your framedrops?

Attached: 1554508070678.png (682x767, 29K)

>remake of bonafide classic costs the same price as a regular video game

>I must be upset about this and try and convince everyone not to buy it!

My fucking sides.

Attached: 1549113592976.png (604x675, 587K)

But they're. Aren't AC New Horizons and BOTW2 coming out next year?

>Why should I have to care
You don't, but some people want stuff like this

you do realize the original was a gameboy game that cost $30 back in 1993 right

like you aren't honestly this retarded, right?

>that 1 nintendo fanboy sperging out in every zelda thread
Why are some people like this?

Yeah, and I'd actually be convinced to spend $60 on BOTW2 because it's a new game

No we're laughing at all the loser because they spent the entire year irrational bitching about the game and got BTFO when the game got rave reviews and everyone jizzed over the artstyle.

They fucking FAILED. But rather than accept it, they're still fucking seething lmao

I bet the same people that are complaining about this are the same that are going to spend over 200 bucks on all FFVIIR Episodes.

Tree hunit and thirty dorras for ONE QUARTER of a PSX game.

BARGAIN!

Attached: 1560292626378m.jpg (1024x375, 78K)

I can't speak for them. I haven't posted on Yea Forums about this game until today.

All I'll say is that whether a game sells well often doesn't have anything to do with its quality and the vast majority of people can be suckered into bad business, or else the entire notion of a cult classic would not exist.

Attached: 1553704223580.gif (91x158, 900K)

Do you really think this? Tendies literally latch onto anything that appears in Smash and buy the original games, what makes you think they'd ignore a fucking Zelda game?

I'd honestly be willing to be convinced about this, I just don't see this style of game as something that would appeal a lot to kids these days.

Hell, even Smash seems to me like it might not be for kids these days, I might just be hugely out of touch with what they're into.

Absolutely fucking seething.

Why did you waste all year shitposting about this game? Don't you feel embarrassed now? LOL!

No time to spare, time to get back to work shitposting about the next superb exclusive hitting Switch next week! No rest for you at the moment!

Attached: 1519708974079.jpg (930x1300, 247K)

Dude the game is made from scratch
It’s gonna be more expensive than just updating some assets

man, you autists are no better than the spyrofags with all that SOUL vs SOULESS shit

user stop, you're going to make people buy it out of spite

A year?
It’s been like 3
Just another stupid faggot user

I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that that doesn't make a damn bit of difference to me as a consumer because the experience of playing the game is so similar that the original devalues it simply by existing.

As an aside, they made the original from scratch 26 years ago and didn't charge $60 for it then either.

Attached: 1557389432255.jpg (960x946, 92K)

Was *This* close to doing so.
Hell I brought Xenoblade out of spite.

I enjoyed it but if it wasn’t for this faggot and all his “Japanese humor” fucking spam never would have brought the game.

According to inflation
Yes yes they did.
They charged 53$ this is 60$
So a whole 7 dollars more when adjusted for inflation

For what it's worth, they're welcome to. I'm (OP) a Nintendo fan as well, and the main thing I'm upset about here is lazy and consumer-hostile business, not them doing well.

I just think they could stand to be better to their consumers, that's all.

I was hoping one of you fuckers would bring this up.

Alright smart guy, now go ahead and refute the tacit claim you're making that console-grade games back then cost ~$80 and by your logic BOTW and all other console games should cost $140 now, because that's exactly what you're implying.

Attached: 1560979169704.png (561x471, 207K)

>I just think they could stand to be better to their consumers

What? By remaking a beloved classic for them? How dare they!

>framedrops
How to tell if someone hasn't played the remake. Ignore all posts mentioning frame rate. Anyone who has actually played it knows the framerate only drops for a second when loading a new section of the overworld.

By selling it for a reasonable price and not playing so exploitatively on their consumers' nostalgia.

But if you want to argue with me in such bad faith, then sure, I won't bother. Keep eating shit, I guess.

>Ignore all posts mentioning frame rate. Anyone who has actually played it knows the framerate only drops for a second when loading a new section of the overworld.
>ignore all posts mentioning the framerate, anyone who has actually played it knows that there are framerate issues

Attached: ops.meme_.nba_-1024x768.jpg (1024x768, 89K)

Yes, because 10 seconds over the course of 10 hours is just TERRIBLE.

>look ma! I posted it again!
Why the fuck do you faggots insist on making the same thread over and over again, holy shit

>it's not a problem by my arbitrary standard!!!

Just play Alundra.

Attached: 26061-alundra-.jpg (640x480, 52K)

It's censored too.

You're the one who has an arbitrary standard. My standard is that it doesn't affect gameplay or my overall enjoyment of the game. Enjoy hating something you haven't even tried though, I guess.

...how is that any less arbitrary? both of our standards are arbitrary you fucking idiot, that's why the same thing that bothers me doesn't bother you

Too difficult for zelda people.

people dont know how to make a successor anymore: new content with old graphics. instead we get old content with new graphics.

The frame rate not affecting gameplay is not arbitrary, you retard.

except it is, because i say that if the framerate dips while i have control over the character, that is literally affecting gameplay in a binary sense

They didn't add anything stupid at least. Actually they didn't add ANYTHING unless you count being forced to replay minigames several times now as """""content""""".

Come back and have this conversation after you've tried the game.

i don't think you know what "affect" means

>When you buy the same console for half its price

Attached: nikola_tesla_napoleon-sarony-public-domain-via-wikimedia-commons.jpg (1200x1200, 119K)

I remember screen transitions being kind of slow in this game, can you make them shorter when emulating?

that looks ugly

What about the deduction? The thing about the camera.

Attached: linkle_inquisitive.webm (480x700, 3M)

What? I have no recollection of the transitions being slow.

youtube.com/watch?v=y-QDhiAU8Hg

fucking zoomer

Apparently a lot of people wanted this remake
I’m not one of them.

I didn’t get mad nor cared when they made Nintendogs or Wii sports resort

There’s a bunch different teams at Nintendo for different demographics.

Hardcore games, games for women, games for kids
It’s a business so they got a lot of people to take care of

$30 26 years ago is equivalent to $55 today.

They should have let Koei Tecmo make this game.

Attached: Marin_(Hyrule_Warriors).png (511x1032, 380K)

Regardless if you don’t want it can’t you just ignore it?
It wasn’t even made by Nintendo:Nintendo just Grezzo Co. all they do is remastered

Watch it in motion on YT or play it then. It's a good looking game.
I'd take it over what we got with the full price Link's Awakening remake any day.

Attached: 52496121.gif (576x360, 171K)

sauce?

SAUUCEEE! I NEED TO COOOOOOM!

Because Links Awakening is many peoples favorite Zelda and they fucked this remake so hard.
The game couldve used a proper remake for gameplay reasons too.

Attached: 1561573842783.jpg (239x255, 13K)

Alundra is too complex for zelda brainlets so stop recommending it to them

>gatekeeping action-adventure games

Just try it.

>gatekeeping
The only gate for Aludra is low IQ. Sadly it's a impassable hurdle for most Zelda fans.

Cadence of Hyrule has way more effort and love put into it which is pretty pathetic.

Wand of Gamelon had more effort put into it.

>This is the first thread I've made about it and the first time I've been on Yea Forums in at least a few m

Consensus doesn't mean anything until it sells PS4s I guess.

>lol it's almost like, there's a bias towards Nintendo and their games....HMMMMM. It's almost like, despite the quality, people will buy ANYTHING Nintendo and praise it.

Yeah that's why the WiiU sold so well.

Attached: 1545727501666.gif (450x531, 47K)

For real my friend would probably commit suicide if they make it too realistic. You would not believe how traumatized this guy is over the ending.

Best comparison. Nintendo really are the Apple of console gaming. Offer inferior products, but charge excessive premiums on them and claim that their better... and the best part? People actually believe it. Consumerism and advertising really fucks up human psychology.

Actually it sold TOO WELL for the shit it was.

it shouldnt be realistic anyways. LA had a cartoony artstyle.
you can put more effort into cartoony looks did you know that?

>The entire world is gushing about how gorgeous the game looks
Compared to what? It's one of the worst looking remakes this gen. The dumb shit like blurring the edges of the screen doesn't help, nor does that dumb auto-panning camera.

This is no Spyro: Reignited. The pill would've been easier to swallow if it wasn't 60 buckaroos either (which none of these other remakes are either, they're all sub 40, mostly hovering around 30).

If anything, it makes you far less trustworthy when it comes to what is good or not.

Why does this game have not options menu or controller settings? It's almost like they forgot that you can have options in games or something. I hate the face button set up. I want to reverse A/B and X/Y functionality, but nope... Also, what the hell is up with the framerate issues. This game looks like baby shit to run, even on an Xbox 360.

the music is pretty atrocious
youtube.com/watch?v=Vx5y1WC4Bjs

Options tend to confuse NPCs so better not include them when your game is aimed in their direction.

This can't the official soundtrack, please it can't be true. Tracks on OCRemix that are infinity better than this. Who is responsible for this abomination?

Yeah, probably the only reason I even played this remake was because I have a hacked switch (only reason I even bought the damn thing anyways). It isn't all that impressive. The only new feature is the Dampe dungeon maker and it's too shit to care about. Also they added pointless filler with 30 more seashells when it doesn't really add anything of interest. Now it takes 20 more than before to get the good sword. The first 20 get you an item to help you search for the 30 more pointless shells and the 50th upgrade is another useless dungeon tile for the Dampe game. You can just tell how desperate they were to make this game "worth" $60. They knew it wasn't worth it. Honestly beat the shit in like around 3-3.5 hours and that's with collecting almost all (42) of the seashells.

whats most depressing is that this is probably it.
LA will most likely never get another remake. it was the only chance and they fucked it.

Attached: 1538756653768.jpg (954x954, 91K)

Have there been any Zelda remakes that were actually good? Majora and Wind Waker butchered the originals as well.

OoT remake is really good.
Wish it was on a home system.

I mean OOT remake was good as the only shit thing is completely optional and out of the way (the mask hints). Everything else was solid and it played well, without framerate issues. And plus even if no one like OOT remake (since it is on 3DS, after all) then there is about a 95% chance they'll release it on another console in the future or remake it again because it's the literal most popular Zelda ever. It's like Capcom's RE4. It gets rereleased and remade more than any other Zelda ever will.

>whats most depressing is that this is probably it.
>LA will most likely never get another remake. it was the only chance and they fucked it.

COPE! I'm having a great and so is everyone else.

Attached: neverlearn.png (1600x900, 1005K)

Is this supposed to be a defense of the game or something? A bunch of corrupt, corporate journalists? I mean any other day of the week you'd be detesting them, but when it's your favorite series they're somehow trustworthy now?

he most definitely doesnt like zelda.

How come everyone suddenly loves top-down Zelda all of a sudden after years of people endlessly shitting on them? Why are people defending this game to the death when so many people shit on Link Between Worlds?

It's the latest Soitch exclusive so soitendies MUST defend it at all costs

I heard this game could be beaten in 10 minutes? Is that true?

DAT SEETHE.

Why can't you cope?

WHY IS THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN SO BLURRY? Seriously, I feel like going blind every time I look a screen of this game. I don't even care about the artstyle.

Nintendo 10 years behind the times as always, they only just discovered bloom and blur

Console wars aside, how come every suddenly loves short top-down Zeldas all of a sudden when they have been shit on since the DS era?

Make that 3. Absolutely shameless

Have they? LA is pretty famous and well liked, it's why it's getting a remake. From what i remember if shitposters were shitting on ALBW it was by arguing that it was a poor imitation of LTTP and shit like that

>how come every suddenly loves short top-down Zeldas all of a sudden when they have been shit on since the DS era?

That never happened though.

>funko pop visuals

Attached: Wojak wheel.png (205x246, 7K)

>Forced to

What the fuck?

A better questions is why do they use realistic lighting for a stylized game? It makes things like the grass, roads, etc. look plastic and flat.

Even a random low budget indie game looks less shit because of it.

Attached: Switch_CreatureintheWell_screen_01.jpg (1280x720, 249K)

Link Between Worlds was good and also looked better than this.

Attached: giphy.gif (640x360, 1.67M)

It was way too easy.

>the game is a critical and commercial smash hit.
Wow, a Nintendo game got a good score, and people will buy anything with the Nintendo logo on it? Yeah, really proves that LA is a good remake and the price isn't retarded.

Your "standard" hits the trifecta - arbitrary, retarded as fuck, and so low as to barely be a standard at all. congratulations

Attached: 1552259979494.jpg (814x500, 44K)

The fact that the WiiU sold anything at all is proof of the pervasive nintendo bias. And the mental deficit of nintentards.

the price is to account for inflation

boss doors would not unlock unless you picked up the heart

And a 2x markup over that. But mummy will buy it anyway for her little darling.

>wake up every morning and check Yea Forums
>Euro snoys eternally sneething over Zelda

Attached: meming-the-meme.png (830x987, 721K)

no amount of infantile attention seeking from extremely online misanthropes has the power to change that this is the definitive version of one of the all-time Nintendo classics.

The game looks great but they removed the fucking mouse. Why remove one of the best things of the game?

>botw made zelda more popular than ever
>nintendo can now use this to make actual good zelda games
>we're just going to get remakes and botw sequels until we die

worst timeline.

SEETHING
get over it just don't buy it if you don't want it

Attached: download.png (231x218, 8K)

I played the original in 1993 and Im playing with my kids the new one right now. Stay mad.

Some of the puzzles in Alundra will make you want to kick a dog. It's a fantastic Zelda clone in certain regards, but less so in others.

Attached: 1488021313257.png (591x797, 310K)

strawpoll.com/wkceyfpk

Are there any seashells or heart pieces in Dampe's dungeon mini game?
I literally can't think of any other place these last few seashells/hearts are.

I want to play it, but only if it were $30 or $20. I wish they did thr artstyle like and released it on the 3DS instead. No idea why they put it on the Switch.

Same. I've been playing the game while my 3 year old daughter watches. She keeps telling me "we have to wake the wind fish". Fucking adorable.

This remake is amazing. Of course, Nintendo-hating shitters are fucking seething.

Attached: 39dxl8.jpg (888x499, 105K)

>first time I've been on Yea Forums in at least a few months.
>makes a thread about LA just like all the others.

What is it about this game that throws Yea Forums into a tantrum? Why so assblasted?

I hope they remake Ages and Seasons next, even if they flip a bunch of assets. I had more fun than I thought I would with this game.

Things I don't understand frighten and upset me. And I can't for the life of me figure out who would want this enough to buy it.

Can’t you fucking autists ever enjoy anything?

Pic related

Based

Attached: LAcost.png (1050x760, 122K)

Link's Awakening did not retail for $30 at release, what are you talking about?

It's 60 dollars. That's it. Nobody would complain if it was 40 or below like standard is for the 1:1 remakes of this generation, but Nintendo's bootlickers keep acting like this isn't a problem. These are the same kind of people who vehemently defend Sword and Shield.

>Someone mentioning Alundra
YES

Attached: Sleeping Sybill.jpg (1000x720, 204K)

Is this official art? I've never seen it. Looks great.

Wait this shit is actually $60? Lmao Nintendo fanboys are really the goddamn worst huh?

For a 6 to 12 hour game without any replayability (to my knowledge) I want more bang for my buck. For example, I bought Toki Tori for a couple dollars and am getting my moneys worth. There is too much competition to justify $60 for that short (but good) of an experience.

>can't appreciate the beauty of muted earth tones with dull greens and pale yellows because his child-like brain only responds to bright neon colors
I'm just going to tell you this: you have a very, very low IQ. I'm being serious by the way. You are extremely stupid.

>There is too much competition to justify $60
Luckily Nintendo didn't hear or listen to your retarded opinion, they sold it as $60 to incredible critical and commercial success.

It's okay if something doesn't appeal to you, I don't buy Grape soda but I'm not gonna lecture people for buying it/tell them what the price should be.

Attached: LAsales.png (1136x314, 376K)

>grape soda
>"people"

Attached: 1_IduXCmrfrWvt8q1sCxru2w.jpg (1800x1580, 193K)

user, I have put at least 30 hours into Mario Maker 2 because it was worth that $60. I am stating why people have problems with the price, because sometimes, no matter how fun the game is, justifying $60 on that short of an experience is not worth it. I want to play it, but won't unless it is on sale. Too bad.

Attached: Sybill Tea.jpg (1704x1500, 1.74M)

>that cute Marin smile after the credits roll

Fuck you Nintendo :(

>dumb reviewers say something else
WOW THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING

I payed absolutely nothing for it with my hacked switch. I got bored after I got the sword from the beach because I realized it’s just the same fucking game.

Attached: 41B5929D-2068-4945-8B0A-453291E35395.jpg (700x999, 104K)

pretty disgusting how shit this is if you compare it to the kind of remakes capcom makes for RE.

Someday I will get more Sybill pics

Attached: Hardcore Handholding.png (259x307, 41K)

26 years ago 30 dollars was 60 dollars basically.

I don't get it anyway, price tag doesn't make a game less good. i pirated it and it's a lot of fun. more fun than some games that are "Worth" 60 dollars.

Attached: 1565810940723.jpg (832x982, 251K)

this board never mentions the obvious fact that Japanese devs and pubs buy their own product to maintain their image and name brand. People have lost interest in Nintendo every year until a new smash arrives to give them something to care about.

The rest of Nintendo's catalog is just shoved into the face of ANYONE who so much as even thinks about buying video games. This is often parents buying for children and when they see the Nintendo advertising vs the Microsoft and Sony they will obviously pick Nintendo for their kids.

But people aren't retarded, our votes have been rigged for decades. Its a fugazi that Nintendo sells so well. Too much jappy pride won't allow them to allow their bosses to fail.

Attached: 092ao31b67w11.jpg (350x319, 14K)

notice they heavy context and distinct lack of numbers and figure comparisons to previous consoles or all consoles

Based.

I fucking want a Zelda Maker to come out of this.

Attached: 1568946677654.png (1100x1528, 527K)

Nintendo can get away with literally anything due to shills in the media and their zombie fanbase.
They could slap the Zelda logo on some literal dog shit and it would be praised as GOTY. Any other company would be raked over the coals for a cash-grab like this remake.

>tfw Minish Cap is the last original 2D Zelda ever released
Fuck Nintendo

Personally it's threefold.
1. The devaluation of pixel art. Rather than remaking the game with better pixel art, they opt to go full 3D. Quite the shame. What will they remake next? The Oracle games? And then Minish Cap? Why can't we appreciate the pixel art?

2. Despite deciding against pixel art, they still retained the WORST aspect of pixel art, which are the blank dots for eyes. The ONLY reason Link had dot eyes in the original, was due to the color and size limitations of the sprite. It really wasn't a desirable part of the style. Just a concession the artists were forced to make. This is evident by the fact that whenever they drew a larger sprite character, they actually drew the shape of their eyes.

3. This reinforces my idea that the reason games are so costly to produce nowadays, is that they dump a huge portion of the budget into the art alone. They can ask $60 bucks for such an old game, because the art is """better""". All that time and energy put into an art style that misses the flavor of the old game, and has performance issues aside. I also heard the game is missing the photography sidequest. So it has less content than the older DX version. But people pay more for the graphics.

Attached: Pixel-Papercraft-2D-Ganon.jpg (650x469, 36K)

This is a true and well thought out explanation, good job user.

i really want a new 2d zelda game in the style of mc

Check out Cadence of Hyrule, the spritework is fucking smooth as butter.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure if the game got negative reviews, they would suddenly count then, right?

>b-but Nintendo bonus!

Shut up user. There's more to the artstyle than muted color, and you know it. You only assume his opinion is so simple, because you can't imagine anyone having a more complex criticism toward your special jewel of a game. Faggot.

Not him, but I'm in my 30s, and I love pixel art, and even work on some as a hobby, and even I think that looks ugly. It's just an ugly artstyle. Nothing to do with age. And everything to do with art direction.

Yes, it's retarded to not want framerate affecting my game. Good Goyim, keep purchasing. Consume.

There is a seashell, a heart piece and a bottle.

30 dollars 26 years ago was more than 30 dolars today.

The problem is the hyperbole. The price is shit, but unfortunately most people here are too stupid to differentiate between the price of the game and the game itself.

>>$60 for a gameboy game that was $30 26 years ago
>>the most notable addition is framerate issues
It was $40 on release. Inflation: How the FUCK does it work?

Attached: Capture.png (535x306, 12K)

>What will they remake next? The Oracle games? And then Minish Cap?
Why would Nintendo remake games that Capcom made?

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 11K)

Money of course. Why wouldn't they do it?

I've played this game for over 12 hours already. That's $5 per hour, which is less than the price of a movie ticket and I'm already happy with that investment into my entertainment. I'm only 75% done right now, so I'll get at least another 3-4 hours out of it and that hourly cost will drop even further. Then I might replay the entire game on Hero mode. Stop acting like $60 for 20+ hours of entertainment is a bad deal, because it's fucking not. Get a job or something because you sound like a teenager living on allowance from his parents.

1. Opinions
2. Opinions
3. The remake objectively has more content.
You get partial credit for not sperging out and actually having a rational thought though.

best selling title of 2019 so far

gg

It's the same game! Only the graphics have improved. They must have saved a shitload of time on development by the sheer fact that they can just remake the same fucking game tile by tile. In fact, they don't even need to manually place titles. Just code a program that automatically reads the old tilemaps, and reconstructs it using the new tiles.

>It's the same game!
And it's being sold $11 CHEAPER if you actually account for inflation.

Do people still believe in these game journos?
They cant shit on nintendo esp when the product isnt an overt shit. Otherwise theyll lose exclusuve access to the latest nintender stuff.

>Every shill in this thread uses wojack.

Pokemon Red MSRP back then was 40$ at Funkoland.

Cool. Buy a hooker so you can finally have sex

Cartridges costed more. A better metric is comparing the price between handheld games and home console games prices.
It has almost always been
>40 dollars for handheld game
>60 dollars for home console game

Don't bother. The people bitching are not old enough to have stepped foot in a funcoland.

Don't forget its ugly as fuck.

Oh, I didn't realize we are only allowed to get upset over facts. That we can't feel strongly over subjective matters. How is the weather up there on mount apathy?

2 is not an opinion. Literally every time they had a chance to draw link's sprite to be more than dots, they took it.

Prove 3. You say it has more content. But how? They took the photograph sidequest out. So objectively, you need to tell me of new content that not only makes up for the lack of the sidequest, but goes beyond that.

Attached: MyVHw4R.jpg (665x612, 207K)

It should be sold even CHEAPER. How can you assume that they did enough work to warrant the $60 pricetag? Doing half the work should equal getting half the pay. Adjust $20 to inflation and see how it comes out.

But work value aside, let's look at this from another angle. What about competitive pricing? Why is a wholly new game built from the ground up worth $60, but a remake worth the same?

i didn't think the game looked so bad in screenshots but i saw gameplay and holy shit it looks like a fucking chink mobile game, the artstyle really is terrible

If you're going to bitch about something, you might as well bitch about the right things. If the artstyle isn't your cup of tea, then no big deal, I would completely understand disliking the game, which is why I chose not to address your subjective points. Photo sidequest was replaced with dungeon builder. They also added bottles, more heart pieces and more seashells. The QoL updates also make it ten times less annoying to play since You're not in the menu for a third of the game.

Why do you keep saying it cost 30$ 30 years ago as if that means anything. I agree the HD version should be budget priced like shadow of the colossus and others but saying something cost less 30 years ago is so fucking retarded. 30$ probably was 60$ 30 years ago, or close to it. Just say remakes should cost less instead of trying to make a retarded price correlation.

Obviously competitive pricing is not an issue, since it's selling amazingly well.

Am I the only one who never had any problem with Link's Awakening's original inventory system? Like, I get that the new controls are definitely an improvement, but I see people acting like the menu traversal was some huge ordeal in the original and honestly the thing I remember the most was how cool I thought it was that the sword was just another item you could equip and unequip at will.

arch.b4k.co/v/search/image/5YJ0ugecMW7Gghs76Qcbbw/

Jesus fucking autism

It's more playmobil than funk pop.

I don't think most people take issue with it, but the remake is less tedious in that respect.

>It should be sold even CHEAPER
Just how fucking entitled can you get?
>Why is a wholly new game built from the ground up worth $60, but a remake worth the same?
Because people will pay it. That's how capitalism works. Personally, I look at the dollar-per-hour value of any entertainment I purchase. If I spend $60 on a game and spend at least 10 hours playing it ($6 per hour) I consider that completely worth my money. I've already exceeded that playing Link's Awakening and I'm only about 75% done with the game.

The frame rate issues and the lack of d pad kills this remake for me. I bought and returned it within the day. I played the original, don't see why I should spend $60 on the exact same game I played 20 years ago with a tacked on dungeon maker designed to sell amiibo.

>If the artstyle isn't your cup of tea, then no big deal
Art is a huge fucking deal. Look, if art can be the selling point of a game. If art can make soibois wet their pants in excitement. If art can boost the game to a selling price of $60. Then why can't art also be disappointing? Why do you think strong feelings should only work one way? Don't ask questions. Just consume product, and then get excited for next product.

Quality of life update is a given. Bottles sound like casualization to me, if it works like I assume it does. more heart pieces and seashells sounds like they just replaced rupee chests with heart pieces and seashells, in order to make it feel like you're getting better rewards. When in fact, they're just redistributing the costs of rewards. The byproduct will be further casualization, as you gain more hearts sooner. QoL updates should be a given.

The only significant addition I'm reading is the dungeon builder. I forgot about that. But it only proves that they have the tools to easily remake the old dungeons. Meaning they were unwilling to create new content. Thus saving on development cost.

great game, much harder than any 2d zelda

Is there a way to mod the original Gameboy rom to use more buttons for items?

I like it...I don't see what the problem is...
Is it the artstyle? I get that, took me a bit to get into it.
Is it the price? I mean yeah it's a bit expensive but that alone isn't a reason to call this game utter trash.
Is it the performance? Yeah it sucks, but I'm sure they'll attempt to reduce the FPS drops, they have in the past.

I don't understand the hate for this.

Attached: Misuzu frown.png (184x184, 43K)

Yeah, they can always bet on new chumps buying into repackaged content.
btw, part of the reason its selling so well, is that a ton of people played the game on emulation for free.

I keep seeing people act like the original is somehow clunky and I never found that to be the case. For me, the remake just doesn't do enough to justify its existence. Leaving aside the artstyle (which I think is hideous), the fact it runs at 30fps with drops is shameful, and the fact that there's nothing new is extremely disappointing.

When there were rumors about a potential remake of Link's Awakening, I was really excited, thinking it would be like LBW where it's a mix of old and new. But the LA remake is just a carbon copy with marginally better controls and worse performance. What's the fucking point? A fucking LBW switch port would have been preferable to this.

Keep seething about the graphics, bitch.

Then again, if you put that $30 from 26 years ago, it's still $60 in today's money.

This sold very well because it's a game both kids, teens and manchildren will all buy. Theres no specific audience this is aimed towards as it aims at everyone. Just because children and manchildren buy it does not make it a good game. If thats the case, fortnite is one of the top 5 greatest games of all time.

>Art is a huge fucking deal.
If you read his entire post, he acknowledges that disliking the art is a valid reason to dislike the game but it's completely subjective and cannot be argued against in any fruitful way.

>hurrr durr inflation brings back the price to 60 dollars
The cost was higher due to catridges. With that logic, games these days should cost well over 60 dollars. Handheld games are usually 20 dollars cheaper than its home console counterpart.
The switch have been receiving ports of wiiu which are clearly home console games. I cant imagine a game that is a copy of its gameboy counter part can be considered as a home console game.
Obviously you fucks can buy whatever you want to but dont start crying when nintendo releases more overpriced remakes of gameboy games.

>Just how fucking entitled can you get?
Not that guy, but personally I wouldn't pay more than 10 bucks for this shitty looking remake. It offers me nothing over the original.

>Just how fucking entitled can you get?
How fucking entitled can Nintendo be, to put in half the work and expect full price?

>Because people will pay it. That's how capitalism works.
ok, so you completely gave up on the idea of any artistic merit, and and now you're saying that its only value is being popular. That's the definition of soulless.

>Bottles sound like casualization to me, if it works like I assume it does.
Bottled fairies work like potions in this game, they don't automatically revive you. The only auto-revive you can get is Crazy Tracy's balm, which was in the original game as well.

I didn't say art wasn't a big deal, but it's not a hill worth dying on. What looks like shit to you might look nice to someone else, there's no point in arguing its value in this context.

Fairies do not revive you upon death, so bottles really just circumvent the need to whack bushes for hearts. They also allow you to do 3 heart runs in this version, so it's less casual.

And lastly, no, they didn't replace the rupee chests, they just needed up the amount of content. You're forgiven for forgetting the dungeon builder, it's fucking boring.

Think the funniest thing about this threads is the fact that sonygers have had nothing else better to do than complain about games they won't play
FE:3H, Astral Chain, this game

What games have been coming out for u guys this month?

There's no reason for it to exist. It doesn't offer anything new and it doesn't offer anything particularly better than the original.

It feels like they were making a prototype for a "Zelda Maker" and ended up canning it and reusing the assets for it to slap this together cheaply. That's the only scenario where the toy aesthetic actually makes sense.

>Keep seething about the graphics, bitch.
That's all the remake has going for it though.

You can indeed argue what the game used to look like, against what the game currently looks like, and extrapolate the best way to adapt the old look to new graphics. That's why I focused on the objective measure of the way they drew eyes in the old game compared to the new game, and the translation of art across limitations.

The "art is subjective maaaaan" argument only works on wholly new products. NOT remakes.

Soul

>It offers me nothing over the original.
It has better controls by a fucking mile. Being able to move in 8 directions, having the bracelet, boots, sword, and shield always assigned to a button... It's a monumental change in how nicely the game plays.

>How fucking entitled can Nintendo be, to put in half the work and expect full price?
It's their product, they can set the price they feel is worth it. You have the choice to buy it or not. Entitlement is demanding that a creator honor your personal values over their own.
>ok, so you completely gave up on the idea of any artistic merit, and and now you're saying that its only value is being popular. That's the definition of soulless.
No, I'm saying that prices have always been at least partially arbitrary and in the end it comes down to what people are willing to pay. If Nintendo feels enough people will pay $60 to make their investment worthwhile, they'll charge $60. If they're wrong and too few people buy it, then they lose. If they're right and more than enough people buy it, they win. Your job as a consumer is to decide whether the price is worthwhile to you. It's fine if you think $60 is too much, then don't buy the game. But sitting around bitching and moaning and whining that Nintendo isn't specifically catering to your personal preferences is pathetic.

>a GAME is doing WELL?
>that's impossible, Yea Forums told me it was shit!
>I WANT MY TORTANIC AAAAAAAAAAA
go off yourselves you shit for brains

There's no reason for any remake to exist user, you can apply that to just about any remake.
And the Toy Aesthetic is because it's a dream.
It's supposed to be a dream-like Aesthetic with the blur too.
Just like in the original, it went from Realistic looking Link to a world that was very cartoony and cutesy, even in it's own art.
Promotional media used Puppets and in the DX version the photographs were all Chibi.

>That's why I focused on the objective measure of the way they drew eyes in the old game compared to the new game, and the translation of art across limitations.
But even all of that is actually subjective. Someone out there could easily prefer the way they drew eyes in the remake, because it's all personal taste.

>$30 26 years ago
Now adjust for inflation.

Based and funkpilled

>It has better controls by a fucking mile
I don't care. The original already controlled just fine. Yes more buttons allows things to be smoother now, but if that's the only selling point then that is a fucking pathetic effort on Nintendo's part. That's the bare fucking minimum of what one would expect in a remake.

>when I heard there was a Links Awakening remake I got excited because I thought they were going to make a new game and not remake Links Awakening

Okay then.

>remake changes things
>reee soulless how dare you change it
>remake keeps the exact same sprite design
>reee soulless how dare you not change it

Attached: 503-5032595_links-awakening-oracle-of-seasons-ages-links-awakening.jpg (840x680, 89K)

>The remake offers me NOTHING.
>Actually it offers this objective improvement.
>I don't care.
Well... okay.

>expected a new burst of gameplay/lore discussion for LA since some people haven't played the original but will play the remake
>instead every thread on Yea Forums is the same cut and paste "$60 for a gameboy game" or "the graphics sux"complete with the same complaints and same defenses for the game

Attached: 1547091393840.png (756x734, 29K)

>What looks like shit to you might look nice to someone else, there's no point in arguing its value in this context.
A lot of people might not know the value of a piece of art, until its pointed out to them. I include myself in that. There are time when I wasn't aware how something could be better, until someone demonstrated it to me. Or I didn't realize how cheap of a trick something was, until someone taught me how to do it. A lot of people might shrug off the shittier artstyle, if not for someone going "look, this is why it's shit".
Does that mean I'm going to spend every waking moment of my life dedicated to shitting on the game, of course not. But when the topic of the game happens to come up. I'm not going to sit on my hands and pretend like nothing is wrong either. I have strong opinions about art, and I'm going to express them. So cope.

>Fairies do not revive you upon death
Sounds like one more method of healing that the player didn't have before.

>And lastly, no, they didn't replace the rupee chests, they just needed up the amount of content.
How could they fit more heart pieces and shells in such a small map? Do they just randomly leave goodies out in the open? Or do they construct new challenges?

>you can apply that to just about any remake
You can, but many remakes try to actually justify their existence in some way, Link's Awakening didn't even fucking bother. REmake 1 and 2 are great games with big departures from their source material. Even OOT3D and MM3D offered more than this LA remake, albeit just barely.

There is no connection between "toy-like" and "dream-like". The best justification one can give is the idea that "plastic = fake" but that is a flimsy excuse. It is far more likely that they were making a game where the toy aesthetic actually tied into the theme of the game and then repurposed the art assets.

MM3D offers better controls than the original, do you prefer it too?

>LBW is a brand new game
You are retarded. LBW is a remake of LTTP that was smart enough to not try to replace LTTP and instead establish its own identity and new ideas.
LA remake is just LA but with worse visuals and an abysmal framerate.

There's nothing interesting to discuss, there never has been. It's not a deep game, it's just a well made little adventure with an unusually melancholy ending.

Express away, just do so knowing that your opinion means fuck all when talking about the game objectively. Again, this is why I chose not to address your complaints about the art.

Bottles are just another method to heal, With the tradeoff that you can actually make the game challenging this time.

Hide things in water/ bury them mostly, some in shops/ crane game.

Honestly the worst thing for me is that blur all around the screen, its a fucking headache to look at.

LBW is not a remake. At best you might call it a reimagining. You're literally upset that a remake is a remake.

Entitlement is demanding the audience honor your personal value over your own.
It's funny how you guys flip flop from capitalistic values to artistic values whenever it suits you. First you argue that the free market decides how much the product is worth. Then you argue that the artist decides how much the product is worth. Whichever takes control away from me, the critic, that's all that matters to you.

>If Nintendo feels enough people will pay $60 to make their investment worthwhile, they'll charge $60. If they're wrong and too few people buy it, then they lose.
You can argue that value of ANYTHING based on that system.
>Well People are PAYING hundreds of thousands for the harvested organs of kidnapped children. So that's how much it's worth.
>Well people are PAYING millions for a blank canvas. So that's how much it's worth
It's a bullshit system that sways absolutely nothing about the quality or ethics of the work. Only that people want it.

The only control improvement in MM3D's control is the gyro aiming. But with that one improvement, the game brings with it fucked up momentum on the Deku Scrub and shitty Zora swimming, which make both control worse than the original. Without even going into any other problems, that trade-off alone is not worth it.

Opinions don't invalidate facts. I could prefer that the sky be red, but my preference says nothing about reality.

If it's the exact same, then why doesn't link have black hair in the remake?

No, it's supplementary.

Your subjective interpretation of how an 8x8 sprite should look in 3d is not a fact.

>tfw Link's Awakening was my favorite 2D Zelda game
>LA gets a remake announced
>Not fond of the artstyle, but still excited to see the game brought into the mainstream and have more people discover how great the game is and discuss it with more people
>Remake comes out
>Nobody is talking about the game and threads are just filled with shitposters that are angry that people like the game
Why does it have to be like this

Attached: 1546170893857.jpg (1266x1280, 280K)

>All these shit games made by money-grubbing Jews are overpriced, so it's also ok when Nintendo does it!
No, retard. That just means all of them are wrong.

>just do so knowing that your opinion means fuck all when talking about the game objectively
Just know that you're wrong. There are objective measures within art.

>Bottles are just another method to heal, With the tradeoff that you can actually make the game challenging this time.
Uhhh.... what? How? Increase the damage enemies do?
I watched someone play a bit of the game on twitch, and it's nearly exactly the same. I struggle to imagine where they increased difficulty.

>Hide things in water/ bury them mostly, some in shops/ crane game.
oh ok, so take a function that already existed, and then just litter little goodies around. So it feeds into people's reward receptors more frequently. Without actually making worthwhile content.

I think my favorite zelda deserved a better remake.
its that simple. this is awful.

You assume that they should be basing the new graphics on the sprite in the first place. You assume that the sprite itself wasn't based on more complex art. You're entire argument is based on an invalid objective measure.

It's also a brand new game and sold for a third of LA's price.

>Entitlement is demanding the audience honor your personal value over your own.
Setting a price is not a demand. It's an offer you can choose to accept or not accept.
>First you argue that the free market decides how much the product is worth. Then you argue that the artist decides how much the product is worth.
No, you completely misunderstand my argument. It is the creator's RIGHT to set ANY price they want, as they personally see fit. It is then left up to the free market to decide HOW MANY PEOPLE will ACCEPT this price, which then determines whether the price was worthwhile or not.

Nintendo has essentially placed a BET that at a $60 price point they will sell enough copies of this game to recoup their costs and also make a meaningful profit.
The reason they don't set the price to $120 or $1000 is that they know it would reduce their consumer base too greatly to make the increased price per unit worthwhile and it would eat away their profit potential.
The reason they don't set the price to $40 or $20 is that they know that, while it could increase their consumer base, it may not actually increase the number of sales by an amount that makes it worthwhile compared to the $60 price point.

If Nintendo prices at $60 and expects 1,000 sales they will make $60,000.
If Nintendo prices at $120 and ends up with 400 sales they will only make $36,000.
If Nintendo prices at $40 and ends up with 1,400 sales they will make $56,000.

They have to strike a balance between how much money they charge versus how many people they expect to purchase the game to maximize their income from the sales. This is not a sure thing, they are only BETTING that enough people will pay $60.

If you DON'T WANT to pay $60 for the game, that is your RIGHT as a consumer. I am not demanding you pay it, I'm only saying that you demanding the price be lowered instead of just refusing to purchase it is entitled and whiny. Just don't play the game if you don't think it's worth the price.

>not just because the value of an experience degrades over time
I guess me watching the original blade runner moive and the terminator two movies for the first time last month and absolutely understanding why they are considered masterpieces is me just being a dumb dumb then? Fuck sake user, it's not like the ghost of Iwata is actively chaning these games from beyond the grave. These games are just as good/bad as they were back then. Just becuase you are an absoulte brainlet with 0 taste in vidya does not mean that the rest of us are as retarded as you.

>You assume that they should be basing the new graphics on the sprite in the first place. You assume that the sprite itself wasn't based on more complex art.
And which one to adapt is subjective preference. How to adapt it is also subjective preference. Just because many people can agree on the same preferences doesn't make it any less subjective. Agreement does not equate to fact.

Blah blah blah subjective shit blah blah blah I hate the art. Yeah, we get it.

By allowing you to skip heart containers, where in the original, you were forced to pick them up.

>say there's no new content and claim it has less than the original
>bitch when there's more content than the original

It must be terrible being incapable of having fun.

And you assume they should be basing it off of 5 whole seconds worth of cutscenes. Subjective.

>A Link Between Worlds

Not him, but there were the photos too as well as literally any official art for the game. There isn't a single one that uses that style.

Currently playing as it was included in a 2-game bundle with my Switch purchase.
I loved LA DX, but I hate the artstyle on this one the more I play it, not the other way around. Framerate doesn't help either.
Why they didn't mimic the intro artstyle is still beyond me.

Attached: IMG_20190921_230452~2.jpg (2861x3022, 2.6M)

>Setting a price is not a demand.
It is a demand. Because if you don't pay the full cost of the product, then you go to jail for theft. The price they set is literally back up by police enforcement.

>Nintendo has essentially placed a BET that at a $60 price point they will sell enough copies of this game to recoup their costs and also make a meaningful profit.
>No, you completely misunderstand my argument. It is the creator's RIGHT to set ANY price they want, as they personally see fit. It is then left up to the free market to decide HOW MANY PEOPLE will ACCEPT this price, which then determines whether the price was worthwhile or not.
This says nothing about the value of the product. People get caught up in the cult of personality all the time. Take Kim Kardashian for example. She slapped her name on some shitty microtransaction phone game, and it became one of the most profitable games in the world. Does the game do anything more or better than the others? No. It's just Kim's game, and has Kim's endorsement, so people want it.

Your argument is soulless. Even on a smaller scale as between $40 and $60. They're still asking a high price for half the work. They only "improved" the graphics, and put some QoL improvements in the game. Tweaked the balance a little bit, and now they want to demand a full price? You know that the actual content of the game isn't worth the full price., That's why you're arguing soulless capitalism to excuse it. Rather than arguing the artistic merits of the video game.

In a world where Bell Delphine sold her bathwater and spit. You want to argue that the market decides what is valuable?

Played the original Gameboy game years ago so why not

Bought this new game day 1.

$59.99 plus tax out of my pocket

How the fuck did they make a game that handles and looks so terrible compared to something that came out 20 years ago. This is like the Turtles in Time Remake

Attached: $_12 (3).jpg (500x375, 33K)

I don't actually mind that track so much. It's the fact that they made the music just as kitschy as the visuals, so they've effectively taken mysterious sounding music from a mysterious themed game and purposely performed an un-mysterious rendition of the soundtrack.

>How can you assume that they did enough work to warrant the $60 pricetag?
They remade the entire game in a modern 3D engine. Nothing in the game is reused except for the game design, map layout and the story. The speech in the game is also re-done, so they didn't even copy-paste the dialogue.
>What about competitive pricing? Why is a wholly new game built from the ground up worth $60, but a remake worth the same?
Where is this elusive ''competition'' you are speaking about? Is there some other zelda-like game that plays like LA that I and many other anons have missed out on?

This is art

t. AoT faggot

>Phantom Hourglass
>Spirit Tracks
>ALBW

What did he mean by this???

>they didn't even copy-paste the dialogue
They recycled most of it.

>And which one to adapt is subjective preference
Your preference does not invalidate the objective fact that the sprite was based on more complex art. You seem to have this idea that preference is like a magic dust that makes reality go away.
You're like that bike comic "well the person who stole my bike is probably more happy to have it than I. So the amount of happiness in the world was a net increase"

Why would you pay $60 for a sf3 bootleg? Why is it relevant?

>Because if you don't pay the full cost of the product, then you go to jail for theft.
Or you just don't get the game. What the fuck is wrong with you? What is this world you live in where owning Link's Awakening is a requirement to fucking live and you gotta do it by paying or stealing and there is NO third option? You can just... not own the game.
>This says nothing about the value of the product.
Newsflash! Nothing in the world has intrinsic value, ESPECIALLY art. It's all a game of seeing how much money you can get someone to pay. If you don't want to pay the price, don't get the game. Easy as that. Nintendo offers you a price for a product and you choose whether or not to accept it: Buy it or don't. But don't demand the price be lowered just to suit you; if enough people don't buy the game then Nintendo would be forced to lower the price, but if that doesn't happen then it means that Nintendo accurately predicted the value of their product in the minds of the consumers.

Just pirate it poorfag. Nobody cares

They replaced all 2d sprites and tiles with detailed 3D levels and animated characters. You think it takes the same amount of time and manpower to draw a set of 16x16 grayscale sprites as it takes to model and animate a character in 3D?

Also I can guarantee you that the original (written in Z80 assembly) and this game (likely written in modern C++) share zero code. They redid all the game logic from scratch, and made the gameplay match the various quirks of the original.

>By allowing you to skip heart containers, where in the original, you were forced to pick them up.
Huh? Who would skip heart containers? And how were you forced to pick them up before?

>Your preference does not invalidate the objective fact that the sprite was based on more complex art.
You are correct, that the sprite art was originally adapted from more complex art is a fact. But today, whether to go back to the original art and try to make a new adaptation of it OR to go back to the pixel art and make a new adaptation of THAT is actually still subjective preference. There are people in the world who love the new art and love that it's based on the original sprites, what do you say to them?

Post a single piece of promotional art for Link's Awaking that had the dot eye artstyle.
This is the official instruction manual.
zs.ffshrine.org/album/link's-awakening/inst-jap/LZv04-002(a).jpg

The door to the dungeon's instrument wouldn't open until you picked up the heart container that the boss dropped.

>Who would skip heart containers?
Plenty of people do low-heart runs in Zelda all the time. There's also a Hero Mode in the game that makes enemies do double damage and makes hearts not drop from enemies or bushes, forcing you to only use fairies for all healing. You could even go as far as doing a 3-heart run in Hero Mode to see if you can beat the game without getting hit by the bosses at all.

>And how were you forced to pick them up before?
The door to the instrument would not open until you grabbed the heart container dropped by the boss.

so much soul

>twitter.com/magnumtriored/status/1175037035712634880

Why the hell is this tweet so popular?

Sony must be an ugandan brand, it seems

Price has zero impact on how good a game is.

>They remade the entire game in a modern 3D engine
So 3D art is easy to do now. Every fuckhead is going to school to become a 3D artist. The market is saturated with talent. Engines are easy enough to make now. A lot of stuff like shaders comes in packages. You only need the framework to put them in. Nintendo has been doing the top down 3D style Zelda since Phantom Hourglass in 2007. Since then, I imagine things have only become more streamlined, as they become more practiced at the technique, and as more technical shortcuts are found.

>Nothing in the game is reused except for the game design, map layout and the story.
Sooo half the game then.

>Is there some other zelda-like game that plays like LA that I and many other anons have missed out on?
Yeah, it's the game they didn't make. The game that could have been. The game people would want, if they had any other standard but blind nostalgia and graphic whoredom.

translate it weaboos

but it does on consumer value.

Of course owning a game isn't life and death, or anything so lofty as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But still, logically, it IS a demand. Diminishing its importance, doesn't make that fact go away. If I want the game less for its supposed value, then I will go to jail. It stands logically.

>Nothing in the world has intrinsic value, ESPECIALLY art.
ok, I'm glad you finally came out for the modern artfag you are. I have this blank canvas here, I swear it's worth 100K. I swear some high rollers in italy have their eye on it. Better get it now before they do.

>implying black eyes => funko pop

Attached: file.png (760x1300, 836K)

>I have this blank canvas here, I swear it's worth 100K.
If someone paid you $100k for it, then it would indeed be worth that much to that person, as noted by the fact that they paid it. Link's Awakening was worth $60 to me, so I paid it. It is not worth $60 to you, so you didn't pay it. See how this works? If Link's Awakening is worth $60 to ENOUGH PEOPLE, then Nintendo gets a profit. Welcome to the free market.

>Is it the performance? Yeah it sucks, but I'm sure they'll attempt to reduce the FPS drops
I actually didn't notice any framerate drops myself.

Actually, I was kinda hoping they'd recreate the slowdown of the original when you'd throw one of these elephant statues in face shrine. (at least the original b&w version had those, dunno about the color version)

Attached: la12-3a-524x459.jpg (524x459, 88K)

Hey can you link me to the video you're regurgitating info from?

>But today, whether to go back to the original art and try to make a new adaptation of it OR to go back to the pixel art and make a new adaptation of THAT is actually still subjective preference.
One preference has more value than the other preference, due to its objective measure backing it up.

>There are people in the world who love the new art and love that it's based on the original sprites, what do you say to them?
Those people are kind of mush brains to be honest. They make up any excuse to like something. They're the kind of people to tell you to "calm down", when you have a passionate negative opinion, because they can't process negativity in a healthy manner. They assume all negative opinions should be avoided. And we should only talk about things we like.
Oh and like I said, their opinion has less value, due to it's lacking of an objective measure to back it up.

sure, but that's completely dependant on the individual
for some people 60 bucks is literally nothing, for others it's a huge expense

a game does not get better or worse on the price tag

Would the oracle games being remade and bundled together justify $60? They could even add some of the scrapped shit from the canceled third game.

But it matches the style quite a bit..

Attached: 001.png (480x432, 11K)

Ah, ok. I forgot that detail. It's been a long time since I've played the game.

Hero mode is just changing a couple values. Easy as pie. They can make that in an afternoon.
So if I understand this correctly, bottled fairies make normal mode way more casual, unless you intentionally make the game more difficult by avoiding hearts? If I wanted a challenge, why wouldn't I just avoid bottle fairies?

Didn't Charles Martinet voice some of Mario-looking characters in this game?

And none of them are consistent with each other.
And you know the art wasn't created after the sprite how, exactly?

>this is one of the men that replaced Kondo
At least he isn't the retard who thought it was a good idea to make the soundtrack as shit as it is overall. It would've been a lot better had they gone with a better theme that incorporated wind instruments heavily.

>If someone paid you $100k for it, then it would indeed be worth that much to that person
BWAHAHAHAHA
No, some mush head doesn't know what it's worth, so he got swindled.

I'm actually talking completely off the cuff. But I'm happy to know that you think I sound as informed as a researched opinion piece.

Because LA is piss easy even without bottles.

Hooray. So much for me waiting to buy this when it went on sale. Looks like that's not happening for two years+ now.

>3D are is easy now, so it should be SUPER CHEAP
>"the market is saturated with talent", so it should be SUPER CHEAP
>Engines are is easy now, so it should be SUPER CHEAP
>They made games before so their process should make it SUPER CHEAP

NINTENDO HIRE THIS MAN!!! You can start selling games for FREE and still profit! Or at most 1 dollar each if you are money grubbing whores!

Attached: qq.png (760x369, 335K)

>And you know the art wasn't created after the sprite how, exactly?
Because we have access to concept art of Link going back as far as the first legend of zelda. And pretty much any and all video game production is going to draw characters before drawing them in-game. Hell, we have napkin sketches of Mario before he was ever a sprite.

everything looks like plastic and you know it and the characters literally have funko pop proportions and look like plastic as well

Or just sell the game for $40, like the original was worth. Talent, and technology has evolved over time. But the game design is exactly the same. Even accounting for the increased amount of artists, the fact that they don't have to work on game design, and can just crib notes for the older game, evens things out.

>So if I understand this correctly, bottled fairies make normal mode way more casual, unless you intentionally make the game more difficult by avoiding hearts?
Bottled fairies are just like potions, they don't auto-revive you in this game because only Crazy Tracy's balm can do that (just like the original).
>If I wanted a challenge, why wouldn't I just avoid bottle fairies?
You could do that, too. Thankfully, this game is full of choices you can make to customize difficulty. You can avoid heart containers, avoid fairies, and not buy Crazy Tracy's balm. In addition, you can choose Hero Mode so that fairies and balm are the ONLY ways to heal, and within that mode you can ALSO avoid heart containers, choose not to use fairies, and choose not to buy from Crazy Tracy. Or, get this, you could do ANY COMBINATION of these things as you personally see fit.

In terms of actual difficulty, they did improve some enemy behaviors. For example, spear-chucking enemies will actually back away from you and try to avoid you when you walk toward them, and sword-and-shield-wielding enemies actually have a pattern where you have to block their sword to open them for attack, THEN hit them. Whereas in the original, spear enemies just walked around mindlessly and sword enemies were killed by just spamming the sword until you happened to hit past their defenses. The game really has been improved in terms of challenge.

Maybe if they had priced the game appropriately and made sure its graphics didn't affect its performance, people would be more willing to discuss the game instead of its blatant, glaring flaws, being that it's a poorly made dirty money-grabbing nostalgia-pandering piece of Jewish sewage.

In that moment, it was worth $100k to that person based on the lie that there were other people lined up to purchase it for that price. Now that he has it, it's not worth $100k to anyone else and coming to that realization may then destroy its value in his mind going forward, but at that moment in time it was worth $100k to him because if it wasn't then he wouldn't have paid it.

>Bottled fairies are just like potions
But it's MORE than what the original game had, right? If the original game lacked bottle fairies, then it lacked that healing option, right?

>Thankfully, this game is full of choices you can make to customize difficulty.
What if I want to collect all the key items in the game, and still have a decent challenge? Why must I avoid completion, in order to "customize" the game? What if you don't like the feeling that you have to shirk content in order to have fun?

>For example, spear-chucking enemies will actually back away from you and try to avoid you when you walk toward them, and sword-and-shield-wielding enemies actually have a pattern where you have to block their sword to open them for attack, THEN hit them.
ok, now this is something worthwhile. All that other stuff sounds like nonsense for speedrunners.

How? I’ve never had more than a 5-6 second load time. Although I did buy digitally and have only played it docked.

>What if I want to collect all the key items in the game, and still have a decent challenge?
There's a hard mode.

Wrong. Only Nintendo is the villain here. All the other developers are justified.

>What if I want to collect all the key items in the game, and still have a decent challenge?
I'd suggest Hero Mode. You take more damage, enemies don't drop hearts, and coupled with the improved enemy behaviors and patterns it makes the game more challenging in a worthwhile way.

This
It's fun and worth, incels can stay mad

>But it's MORE than what the original game had, right? If the original game lacked bottle fairies, then it lacked that healing option, right?
Yeah, that's true. But if you don't want to keep fairies on hand you still don't have to. It's no different from, say, Link to the Past or Ocarina of Time. Those games also had bottles where you could keep potions and fairies, but it's not like you're forced to if you don't want or need it.

Modern art is based on creating imagine value where there is none. Oh sure, the thing about other buyers is an outright lie. But how is it different than attributing other nonsense importances to the work? For one, taking up a fancy handle, to give your work more prestige? You have people taking up Italian or French sounding names, because it sounds more impressive to mushbrains. Or being told what the art "means" to the artist. Which is most likely a load of horseshit. Impressing upon meaning to a piece of work where there is none.
>"The blankness represents the emptiness of our existence, but if you look closely, you can see how straight the strokes of the white paint are. The uniformity of the strokes represents the uniformity of our empty lives"
And then it's fucking sold for 100K. All based on manipulating the mind of an impressionable dumb dumb.

I'd like it a hundred times more if they would fucking fix the framerate. It's nauseating how bad the framepacing is. It's almost never stable. Also the DoF blur halo around the entire screen is ridiculous.

See
Forty 1993 dollars is not equal to Forty 2019 dollars. So just arbitrarily pinning the price to an outdated currency value because some boomers associate that number with the old game is dumb, you are just picking a number that sounds good to you. Also you are making tons of assumptions that they didn't do major analysis of how to update/change the game, develop and test different artystyles, etc - this is all behind the scenes work we don't even know the details on.

If the game isn't worth the price to you just don't buy it, we're not talking about the price of potatoes and chicken here - this is a luxury item and easy to boycott if people feel the price is reasonable.

Attached: static1.squarespace.com.jpg (1000x1315, 971K)

60$ isn't a lot if a game is good. And this is a good game.
When your like me and buy games rarely and only good ones then you don't give af if it's 60$.
Every game except for indies is 60$ I don't see nintendo or anybody else changing that. What is exactly the point of this shit?

Are you autistic? It uses 3D models, user was clearly talking about sprite-based games.

That's still a personal opinion tho, I'll replay LA on hard mode ATLEAST once. So for me it's worth and for you it isn't

They're also not considering the fact that most modern games have been adding microtransactions and DLC all over the place, so the true final price of a AAA game today isn't actually the $60 you pay at launch, but the >$100 you pay throughout the lifetime of the game to obtain all the DLC and shit. The fact that Link's Awakening is a COMPLETE game for $60 does actually make it substantially cheaper than its AAA DLC-laden counterparts.

Fair enough, I suppose. Still, is this real hard mode? Or bullshit hardmode like skyward sword? Remember in SS, you could buy a medallion that enabled heart drops. Kind of defeated the whole purpose of the mode. How am I supposed to avoid the temptation of an item like that?

What kind of moron doesn't walk around with full bottles? It's not like you have to go far out of your way. I mean, back when I was about 10 years old, I would mindlessly avoid stocking up on necessities. But as I got older, I was like "why don't I just get the fucking potion and fairies?"

>30 bucks 26 years ago
But that's 100 bucks now you stupid retard

Bruh they remade it from scratch with 0% of the original game code used.
Development-wise it's an entirely new game.

Not him, but I'm 10 hours into playing the game and haven't beaten it yet. I'll probably be close to 20 hours on my first completion and then I'll play again in Hero Mode for another probably 10-15 hours. Seems plenty worth $60 to me.

maybe they shouldnt have fucked up the remake then.
something like that is supposed to bring joy to everybody, now people are just bitter because its shit.

>What kind of moron doesn't walk around with full bottles?
Someone who wants to extract more challenge from an already easy game.

The original looks like standard 2D top-down art of the time. I don't know how you think it looks like cheap 3D Playmobil remake made in Unreal Engine.

www.romhacking.net/reviews/4610
Just play the original with this hack.

i don't remember recent handheld game costing much less than home console game, have you been to a store recently?

I did see that. In fact I was the first to respond to it. You don't think I have inflation in mind? I still say it evens to about $40.

Why do you assume that behind the scenes a corporation has settled on a price that keeps the best interest of the consumer in mind? When behind the scenes, they likely *also* calculated how much they can hike the price up before consumers complain. Testing to see how much they can get away with. Not necessarily how much they need to profit.

I think it’s more like you people should stop being fucking autistic as hell

Shouldn't most of the challenge of an adventure game be figuring out how to do things? Not reflexes? If your game can be trivialized because of a few healing items, then it's poorly designed. I figured out how to get around the challenge using the available tools. And I didn't even have to try hard.

To me, I would get far more satisfaction winning by the skin of my teeth with full bottles, than winning with no bottles. Because then I feel like I tried every resource available to me, and it was only barely enough. Rather than just "lol, I dodged gud"

romhacking.net/hacks/2892/
Here's a hero mode alternative as well.

and I think that you should kill yourself

Nah I'll play this gorgeous definitive remake on my Switch instead thanks.

You know a company has become a shadow of their former selves when they resort to having Funko Pop aesthetics be the main marketing/gimmick of a game.

Didn't the original have some framerate issues? Wouldn't this make the remake even more authentic then?

Attached: gored_dog.jpg (700x692, 94K)

Yawn. Keep crying. The world has already unanimously decided the game looks fantastic and the art style is great.

I'm playing the game right now and I agree. Its utterly gorgeous looking and completely charming.

You got nothing but seethe kiddo.

All kids want to play these days are fucking mobileshit.

When fucking MiHoYo becomes the next Nintendo in a few years, I'm killing myself.

Value isn't inherent. Value can be either prescriptive, or descriptive. In art, it is nearly always descriptive, while for consumer goods, including this game, it is prescriptive in that it is, generally, sold for MSRP or a specific price, rather than as deemed fit by the market. Over time, the price, and thus value, will also diminish and become largely descriptive.

Zoomers LIKE ugly, dull, grayscale shit, tho.

I kind of want to buy it but I know I'll fucking regret it terribly because it's only 5 hours but still $60. How much of a shithead would I be if I went to gamestop, beat the game, and returned it before the store closed?

Attached: villager.jpg (750x400, 100K)

>what is inflation

The fact that people like you exist makes me weep for the future of escapism. Neon colors are lovely and lively. If I wanted ugly dullness, I'd simply go outside.

>I still say it evens to about $40.
Yea you say it, but back it up with assumptions on what they spent to make it pulled from your butt. Work was obviously put into the remake and you don't even know the extent of it.

And yes Nintendo is a profit seeking corporation. No shit. But in this situation consumers actually do have a huge degree of power to decide price - unlike Internet Service/Healthcare monopolies you can EASILY not buy a Zelda remake. Obviously many people feel it is worth the asking price.

I've been replaying LA every year for the past 25 years. It's an annual tradition for me. I always go back to it.

And now I have this superb remake to play. I'm so happy I'll never have to dig my gameboy out or rely on emulation ever again.

The problem with the inflationary argument is that video games don't appreciate in value. Only Nintendo can pull this off via the magic of having 10-15 million diehard drones they've been coddling since early childhood. This is not incidentally why Nintendo will never stop targeting children as their primary demographic even when it isn't. Hook someone when they're young and they'll be a lifetime customer

So you have no actual evidence that the art came first? Awesome.

it's really not that good dude I'm cringing that you spent $60 on a gameboy game

I had to look up descriptive and prescriptive. But it sounds like you have them backwards. A prescriptive assumption would be the price Nintendo sets for the game. A descriptive assumption would not assume the value of the product. Rather, it would naturally fall into its value over time, as the game gets resold without Nintendo's hand in the market.

>it's really not that good dude

Who are you trying to convince?

>n-no! That review doesn't count. And that other review doesn't count! And all those other reviews don't count either!

Attached: Screenshot_2019-09-19-13-05-39-1.png (1080x1215, 94K)

So I guess move shit like TLoU and utter trash like Skyrim are masterpieces now? how dumb are you holy shit

Consumers also have a huge degree of power to decide if a product is overpriced as well. Like I was telling the other user about cult of personality. Slap a famous person's endorsement on a game, and suddenly its worth more. And for what? The game is no better or different. It's the same game with a famous person's face attached.

TLOU and Skyrim were pretty great games for their time.

But LA has been great for 25 years and is now ever better. Keep trying to convince yourself I'm not having fun.

Attached: 1564227423091.jpg (453x470, 24K)

No review counts for any game, not just that one. They're glorified advertisements, and they all have rules governing their relationships with publishers. Nintendo has paid for a score of a certain level and if the reviewer fails to deliver, they risk their entire relationship: that means early access to review copies, advertisement deals, etc.

Try running a review business when you have to buy a release copy with every other mug and then your review must come out several days later or people will question if you've even played it. If you don't get a review copy, you're obsolete. And if you don't jump through the predesignated hoops, you don't get a review copy. It's that simple. This is Nintendo's game, and it's a totally rigged one. Not that Nintendo is the only guilty party, all of the major publishers are. And reviewers don't assign less than 7 unless a game is seriously broken, so 70% of the scale is unused.

>Just because I don't like it it means it's trash!!! Only my opinion matters reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Attached: 1499521015932.png (719x719, 564K)

Yes

>TLOU and Skyrim were pretty great games for their time.
so, this is Yea Forums

I never understood why this board is so damn obsessed in trying to ruin other people's fun.

Listen dude, I am not interested in the remake, but that doesn't mean it's shit. The other user seems so happy one of his greatest games got a remake.

What's so fucking hard about letting others have their fun? Stop being so damn autistic and sour.

How can you say with a straight face that game critics matter? On this entire list only OoT, SMG, and maybe BotW deserve to be here, everything else is overrated

Attached: Screenshot 2019-09-22 at 2.35.02 PM.png (654x521, 83K)

>open vid
>european voice
>close tab

Jesus Christ you sould like a 14 year old who thinks he has the world sussed.

>it-its all a conspiracy!! Nintendo Bonus!!

Yeah that's right. For the past 30 years Nintendo have carefully orchestrated a yakuza level conspiracy based on threats and intimidation and bribery, to facilitate positive reviews for their games amongst thousands of journalists, publications and websites. And in 30 years not one single disgruntled journalist or news outlet has ever tried to blow the whistle.

OR

Nintendo just make good games.

Attached: 1563434301071.jpg (423x222, 26K)

Huh? I very clearly said in my post that Nintendo isn't the only one. But keep believing everything you read

$30 dollars 26 years ago was $60 dollars today.

>OoT, one of the must fuck overrated games next to FFVII
>BotW, equally overrated and shilled on a daily basis
>not overrated

Seriously? How am I supposed to take YOU seriously when you're as retarded?

Is anyone old enough to remember when moot turned one of the boards into the Densha Otoko intro? Was it Yea Forums or Yea Forums? Or was it global?

Attached: densha.webm (640x360, 212K)

OoT was revolutionary and BotW was one of the best open world games of all time. Link's Awakening is still an extremely overpriced remake of a 5 hour Gameboy game, that's prime jewry I don't care for it

who is hunting rabid animals? you are retarded

Are you serious? You're seriously going to push this? I don't think any of the other remake defenders would even stoop THIS low. So the photographs show link with full eyes, the instruction manual shows link with full eyes, all the promo art before and after had full eyes. But I need to show the existence of concept art that may have never been released, in order to prove Link has full eyes?

Perfect Dark and Golden Eye literally revolutionized the FPS genre and yet you think it's overrated.

Yet you claim OoT was revolutionary and is not overrated.

You're just a fucking idiot with a shit opinion.

Dude you can finish BotW in 45 minutes. This "length = quality" argument is fucking ridiculous. Its all the haters have left to cling to - to convince themselves the still have a legitimate reason to pretend this remake is bad.

Its all you have because all your other arguments have been BTFO.

Perfect Dark and Golden Eye didn't revolutionize shit, maybe console fps

>Perfect Dark and Golden Eye didn't revolutionize shit

Educate yourself child

Not the other guy, but you really got BTFO there. You should take a couple days off to ice that ass

what a disingenuous fucking argument, you know for a fact that BotW has hundreds of hours of content and Link's Awakening has very little. It takes a competent, normal functioning adult around 10 hours to 100% everything in LA

BotW has over a hundred hours of additional content. There's nothing left to do in LA after 5 hours. Maybe 8 if you're extremely slow.

I criticized BotW for the quantity vs quality problem, but it at least had a lot of quantity and LA isn't abundant in the latter either. It's just not a $60 game any way you slice it.

what a pathetic comparison

Yes, I need to ice my ass because some butthurt drone who didn't read my post called me a 14 year old when he's probably a couple years older.

Ok now I know you're just retarded no questions asked.

>It's just not a $60 game any way you slice it.

And what is a $60 game to you?

>I don't have friends to share homemade dungeons.
That must feel bad. You should feel bad

Not him but if that's your standard for being 'BTFO' that's pathetic. All he did was strawman the guy, acting like he was suggesting some kind of crazy conspiracy, when the fact of the matter is if you give first-party, big budget Nintendo games shit scores you will no longer be given certain privileges and opportunities when it comes to covering Nintendo games. That's how it is for all companies, this isn't a conspiracy. If some publication gave Spiderman PS4, God of War PS4, Persona 5, and Horizon Zero Dawn a 5/10 or below each time, sony would no longer want to give them access to behind the scenes at TGS, or preview copies, or early review codes, etc. .

I’M GOING TO SHILL FOR THIS GIANT CORPORATION BECAUSE A YOUTUBE E-CELEB SAID SO AND THERE’S NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP ME

Attached: 9E3F495D-D165-4910-9B94-2A1BA7B8AC04.png (212x238, 7K)

I am not sure what age has to do with it, and the fact that you completely "I know you are but what am I"'d the butthurt angle proves you are pretty upset. Maybe take a walk and think about things for a bit

You're just pointing out the sorely lacking features. If you're going to charge $60 for a Gameboy game you could have at least had a net sharing function. It's so ridiculously barebones, and the atrocious constant framedrops just point out how little they cared to polish this game.

Here's the problem: if everyone buys this and doesn't complain about how awful it is, this is the new bar. Nintendo won't bother exceeding this if they don't happen, and they've been continually testing how low they can put it.

All of those accusations without proof won't make your rear swelling go down. Maybe try some protein instead of the onions.

>he actually enjoys putting prefabbed rooms together and defends not being able to share them online

Attached: stay mad.jpg (397x391, 67K)

Because the PS4 hasn't had any game in more than a year now and all they have on the horizon is that Kojima garbage, so Snoy kids are seething pretty hard right now.

I'm merely dignifying you with a response since butthurt drone #1 fucked off and you mysteriously took his place. Don't delude yourself into believing this is the only conversation in this thread that I'm having

>this is the new bar. Nintendo won't bother exceeding this if they don't happen
Good. I want remakes to be an actual remake of the original instead of some re-imagined horse shit

What I'm gathering overall is that the remake is an objective improvement in gameplay but in exchange it more or less jettisoned the original tone.

Which is a crying shame, because the tone was my favorite part.

You probably haven’t seen the ending cutscene have you?

>the fact of the matter is if you give first-party, big budget Nintendo games shit scores you will no longer be given certain privileges and opportunities when it comes to covering Nintendo games.

This is utter, utter HORSESHIT. There have been many games where Nintendo have given review copies only to get tanked with 70% scores - zero consequences because - get this - that's how reality works.

And mentally ill shits like will still sit there and say "well, it-it's really only 50% without the Nintendo Bonus!"

>without proof
Yeah no proof whatsoever. It's not like Gamestop fired someone for giving a bad review to Kane and Lynch

>he cares whether or not strangers enjoy his shit
>he has no friends to actively share with

Attached: 1562645761184.jpg (660x371, 27K)

I meant in the sense of how little effort was made to polish the game and add features that would have gone miles to justify the value proposition.

I hope you're not implying that only Nintendo can make faithful remakes?

Because those are low budget games no one cares about. You'll never see a Zelda game get bad reviews. To be fair it's usually because Zelda games are pretty good, but it's also because review outlets are trying to retain their corporate connections

It had the same scores for all consoles

How come nintendo makes Yea Forums seethe day in day out?

Cost of living was much lower back in the day

All of my friends are grown adults (I'm 22 and so are most of my friends) and none of them play video games, especially not switch. We have more important shit to do.

ps4 just got iceborne, borderlands 3, control, and cod beta this month. all of which are less popular than a literal who platinum game, a full price gameboy remake of a 6 hour game, and lets on forget shitty armored core. Yea switch is killing it!

>add features
>remake
do you not hear yourself? It isn't a remake if it is different

Continually dropping the bar in quality while continuing to be praised for being better than everyone else, when they're the industry equivalent of McDonald's. Yeah, we get it, they're extremely popular. But that's mostly due to there being no shortage of people with no taste

It will be on sale within the year

SIXTY

US

DOLLARS

>You'll never see a Zelda game get bad reviews

Name a bad Zelda game. Seriously, name a single bad Zelda game (no 3Di shit doesn't count).

Nintendo make very good games. That is all. Even the worst Zelda game is better than 90% of all video games ever made.

>Thinks 5 seconds of loading is reasonable for a gameboy game
It's amazing how technology has gone backwards.
I remember playing Zelda on my Gameboy. No loading times anywhere, no frame drops, no input drift and a goddamn 30 hour battery life.
Where has it all gone so wrong?

The original didn't have a level builder either. As it stands, it's a shit addition and they shouldn't have bothered. It could have been good. It could have justified the price. But they didn't care. And if you don't either, then they'll continue giving you less game for the same price. That's how these things work.

They created the bit wars so people would care about their consoles, but they just made people care about graphics. 'gameplay > graphics' is nonexistent

>Name a bad Zelda game
Windwaker and the train one on DS

I actually asked this question a while ago. I mean, why does the 3DS carts have to fucking LOAD when systems like GBA and N64 didn't? Wasn't that the point of carts?

Tech fags advised it was due to the advancements in processing power and graphical / mathematical complexity. Data is so dense it has to uncompress, leading to "loading times".

Even Pokefags have figured this out.

What's your excuse?

Attached: 1569078699136.png (539x604, 602K)

Both great games, whats wrong with you?

Wind walkers combat was good. Art style wasn’t bad either.

I don't see what your fetish community's growth has to do with this here video game

>Name a bad Zelda game.
>(no 3Di shit doesn't count).
Why doesn't it count?
You named three bad Zelda games in your own post, you idiot.
How can you pretend there are none when you can only say there are none if you exclude the ones you admit are bad?

Link's Crossbow Training

wind waker combat was simple and easy as fuck. TP and BotW have the best combat in the series

Skyword Sword, without question

actually scratch that skyward sword has the best combat need a switch port of it NOW

It was good also 60 FPS.

Does the game really respawn you on the spot where you died?
Like, what's the fucking point of death?

Not in dungeons. Dunno about the open world

you get a cute cutscene if you don't ever die, which is actually incredibly easy

I don't know cause I haven't die for real yet. You won't be getting the good ending if you die.

Wind Waker was a remaster, not a remake

Because I'm talking about ACTUAL Zelda games, unless you think Mario Hotel is a mainline Mario game. Dumb fuck.

>unless you think Mario Hotel is a mainline Mario game.
>mainline
First you didn't add a modifier.
Then you shifted to "actual" Zelda games.
Now it's "mainline" Mario games.
I guess if you randomly cordon off games you don't like however and whenever you please you can say every series has never released bad games.
What the fuck is a mainline Mario game?
The CDi games are official releases, and that's all that matters. Mario has also had plenty of other shitty games like Mario Teaches Typing, Mario's Missing etc etc
They aren't one offs.

>Nintendo make very good games. That is all.
They do, but it's a fallacy to jump from here to that all of their games are "very good", when in fact the bulk would be lumped together with most of the other mediocre trash in that "90%'' pile.

And to answer your question, the DS games aren't good. Compared to the good ones, they certainly look bad

Read again user, that is literally what i said.

It's easy to have huge sales numbers for games when you only release 4 a year. Thirsty thirsty switch overs.

You must be thinking of the PS4, which only got REmake 2 this year and only has Kojimbo's game on the horizon.

Must be easy to write off multiplats when you don't get access to them

The point is, and I can't believe we're back here, subjective. Repeat it with me: subjective. Why are you the authority on how it should look? LA doesn't even have consistent art, so you stamping your feet and saying it's wrong is plain silly.

That's the saddest part, though: even REmake 2 is a multiplat. All you have for this year is a peeing simulator!

Show me one piece of art prior to the remake where link has dots for eyes. Out of all the art they commissioned, the art they did for the manual. even that commercial where everyone was made out of puppets. link never had dots for eyes. They were all referencing a more complex source.
I'm not the authority. I'm only pointing out how they dashed their artstyle in favor of toyifying the game.

>advertise a juicy, delicous looking burger
>give you a greasy hockey puck with no substance
You're describing Sony.

I may as well say all you have this year being a level editor and gameboy game. See? I made myself look stupid because I'm imitating you

I'm not. Sony barely even makes games. If you have an issue with PS4 games, you should take it up with the respective publisher. Switch, on the other hand, only has value for its Nintendo games, unless you've never owned another platform that can play indie games of yesteryear.

>no load times
Motherfucker the game was constantly loading. Every screen transition is literally a fucking load screen. And no, you didn't get 30 hours of battery life from a fucking game boy. How do you kids manage to go unchecked? Just blatantly lying about the most mundane shit.

Nah, you made yourself look stupid because you didn't mention 3 Houses, Astral Chain, Daemon X Machina or Luigi's Mansion 3. And that's just the big exclusives, of course.

>>$60 for a gameboy game that was $30 26 years ago
So it's nearly the same price as today.

Attached: Untitled.png (241x216, 5K)

>Every screen transition is literally a fucking load screen
This is a bit of a stretch
>you didn't get 30 hours of battery life from a fucking game boy
That's the upper end. It lasted a long time at any rate

Links Awakening. In game. The art has dots for eyes. Again, this just comes back to you autistically screeching that they didn't choose your preferred style. If there were only one external source of art you might have a point, but there are 3 or 4 different artstyles used for LA. Why is your preferred style the right one?

I left out the shit no one cares about just like you did. And also I didn't forget that we were talking about current releases and not future releases

The hell are you smoking? I know you're accustomed to 2 games per year tops, but all those are 2019 games.

kill yourself

or maybe you're just seething bruh

LM3 isn't out yet. Again, I was imitating you

Can't you even follow a simple conversation? We've talked about Kojima's scam before and that's not out yet either.

Not a stretch at all, they literally are loading screens. They are masked fairly well though.

>That's the saddest part, though: even REmake 2 is a multiplat. All you have for this year is a peeing simulator!

There is art in game that contradicts the notion that he was supposed to have dots for eyes. The gameboy could literally only fit 4 colors. And not 4 colors per sprite. 4 colors for EVERYTHING. Link's sprite is bound to a 16x16 square. There was no way they could have drawn anything more complex.

> but there are 3 or 4 different artstyles used for LA
And NONE of them reflect what the sprites are. Odd, considering much of the art came post-production. And yet, none of it has dots for eyes.

>And no, you didn't get 30 hours of battery life from a fucking game boy.
You sure did, thing ran on 4 AAs.

Dude, I'm saying that RE2 doesn't count, so the only game that counts is the peeing sim. You know, Kojima's game? The game where you walk from point a to point b and you can pee sometimes?

Technically the scene has to be in memory before it can be transitioned and the transitions were not delayed while you were switching screens, they were instantaneous. The entire transition was complete in less than a second

So no, I disagree, it was a limitation of what the GB could display at once and a design decision to make the overworld a grid. It had nothing to do with loading

Ah, I was unfamiliar with the reference. Alright, let me revise.
>I may as well say all you have this year being a level editor, gameboy game and a "Mariooo? MAAAArriooo." simulator. See?

I'll ask again. Why is your preferred style the right one? Or hell, lets go with an even better question: why do his eyes (or lack of) bother you so much when link is like the one thing you're not looking at throughout the entire game? I'm personally usually focused on enemies/puzzles/collectibles, why is it that you're only staring at link? Because you haven't played the damn remake.

I played the original. And considering the gameplay is nearly identical, I would be looking at about the same thing in the remakes as I would the original. And the faces of characters are important. Hell, why do you think that even with only a 16x16 box to work with, half of the sprite is just a head? Why not draw the limbs longer, and shrink the head down? It's because faces are important to human players. People like to see the face, even if it can only fit an emoticon's worth or information on it. So why WOULDN'T you look at the character's face in game?

Back in the day, people understood that games had limitations, so they never expected that the sprite would look exactly like how its supposed to in artwork. But the artwork was meant to fill in information that the sprites lacked. If you know what link looks like on the box, then you know what he looks like in game, even if it requires suspending your disbelief.

But aside from all that, if you are more focused on the enemies and puzzles, then why are you defending the dot eyes so much? Why are you arguing on behalf of the style at all? Are you really just arguing the principle of the matter?

Well I'll tell you, its very simple. The game has concept art. And then everything else is based on that concept art. The concept art is what dictates the style and energy of the visuals. Even if the everything else goes askew, the concept art is what binds it all together. Keeps it consistent. The haruda artwork references the concept. The manual references the concepts.(And I suspect IS the concept as well, although I can't 100% confirm it) The commercial references the concept. It's all consistent, if only askew.

So logic would dictate that the remake would reference the concept again. Take what material they had in mind at the time, and rebuild it using better technology, more skilled artists, and fewer limitations. But did they do that? No. They just made up a new artstyle.

skyward sword, spirit tracks, and tri-force heroes are bad games. phantom hourglass is mediocre.