Galaxy 1 or 2

Which is better? Galaxy 1 or 2

  • Galaxy 1

    Votes: 27 48.2%

  • Galaxy 2

    Votes: 14 25.0%

  • Both

    Votes: 12 21.4%

  • Neither

    Votes: 3 5.4%
  • Total voters
    56
I'm not one who cares for graphics. I mind if the gameplay is good and enjoyable. I do adore ecstasy-looking graphics, however, which is why I love the look to the Galaxy games. Whether or not they are just sprites... IDC. lol

Also, I'm 19(i don't act like it, though. i feel "older")... That makes me the middle-aged group of this forum?
 
well, i think the average age is somewhere around 12-14

then as the age climbs, the number of users that age decreases

mason is probably the oldest (somewhere around 25?), though i'm not really sure
 
Dr. Javelin said:
well, i think the average age is somewhere around 12-14

then as the age climbs, the number of users that age decreases

mason is probably the oldest (somewhere around 25?), though i'm not really sure
Click to expand...

well me and mason are among the oldest so it wouldnt surprise me

overall forum is pretty young though

i remember in mfgg there was a guy that was like 40.
 
Mario Party X said:
Yeah, they do look like low-end Gamecube models. They don't even have a mouth; it's only a texture.

But, Galaxy 2 didn't even improve it slightly, and reviewers are hailing it as a "graphical triumph" and that other crap.
Click to expand...

Actually, I learned that a Wii IS a gamecube. It just has motion controls added. Like the circuit boards and such are the same. No joke
 
Let me tell you something, nowadays, graphics don't mean shit. We're looking towards gameplay. Take Minecraft for example, blocky, low graphics, and yet people love it. I know that's the style they intended on, but still, it proves that graphics really don't have any effect on anything

would you rather have a fantastic game with shitty graphics or a shitty game with fantastic graphics?
 
Kingbowser99 said:
would you rather have a fantastic game with *bleep*ty graphics or a *bleep*ty game with fantastic graphics?
Click to expand...

I would rather have a fantastic game with fantastic graphics
 
Kingbowser99 said:
Let me tell you something, nowadays, graphics don't mean shit. We're looking towards gameplay. Take Minecraft for example, blocky, low graphics, and yet people love it. I know that's the style they intended on, but still, it proves that graphics really don't have any effect on anything

would you rather have a fantastic game with shitty graphics or a shitty game with fantastic graphics?
Click to expand...

i find this comment hilarious as the 3ds was revealed fans went apeshit over the fact that it would have better graphics than the wii.

dont even make me pull out wii u on this.

on that note wind waker is even achieved and noticed because of its unique graphical style and many fans praise it to be incredible.

you obviously dont know much about graphics.

hell why do think people call mario kiddy? because it doesnt look realistic. Why do think most mario fans are not interested in realistic games? because it has no style.

Graphics are EVERYTHING as everything else, do not pull this weakling excuse of GRAPHICS DONT MEAN SHIT ITS ALL GAMEPLAY scenario, graphics matter, as they themselves can make an impact, such as metroid primes incredible atmosphere to many metroid fans it was glorious to any fan, such as myself. They might not matter to YOU but plenty of people feel like they matter. I mean im sure if we went back to white lines and black backgrounds people would lose all interest in videos games.

also btw minecraft has retex mods and whatnot so your argument again is meaningless.
 
^Good posts, you exactly summed up my thoughts on the whole "GRAPHICS DON'T MEAN SQUAT" argument.

Both graphics and gameplay make an excellent game. That's why even Nintendo attempts to make their games look good...great presentation of games would mean better sales. Nice looking games grab people's attentions. Sometimes, having good graphics mean that the developers spent much effort in the game in general.

That's not always true since some games are just all glitter and no gold but my point still stands.
 
galaxy 2
i just enjoy it more, it has yoshi, more stuff, and what have you.
 
I feel that graphics enhance the game to make it much more enjoyable experience, but I don't think it should be compared to graphics of other games, but rather to itself. Like, with Wind Waker HD coming out, the graphics are going to make the game much more enjoyable than the original mostly because of the graphics. It's not going to change the experience so to say, but it just makes the game feel a lot more...refined.

On that note, even though Super Mario Galaxy & Super Mario Galaxy 2's graphics could be improved, I still love the games and the graphics, and I really feel that it was a great game.
 
I voted for SMG1. The second one is trash and should be called Super Mario Galaxy 1.5 because that's exactly what it is.
 
Baby Luigi said:
^Good posts, you exactly summed up my thoughts on the whole "GRAPHICS DON'T MEAN SQUAT" argument.

Both graphics and gameplay make an excellent game. That's why even Nintendo attempts to make their games look good...great presentation of games would mean better sales. Nice looking games grab people's attentions. Sometimes, having good graphics mean that the developers spent much effort in the game in general.

That's not always true since some games are just all glitter and no gold but my point still stands.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'm just going to point out here that gameplay vs graphics is CLEARLY a matter of opinion. So, Neptune likes gameplay over graphics. That's good. That means he enjoys games with excellent gameplay. You guys like graphics a lot. That's good. You can enjoy games with good graphics.

Personally? I'm with Neptune. Gameplay makes or breaks a game for me. Considering I play lots of old games with graphics that would be unbelievably bad by today's standards (TIE Fighter, Total Annihilation, etc.) and can enjoy them just as much as new games, I don't really care much about graphics, although it's nice as an added bonus.

But it's a matter of opinion. There's no right answer to that question, just "whatever you prefer".
 
i would have been fine if he said graphics are just a preference, but he insisted that they are not important in the slightest.

when they're pretty important, just like soundtrack, story, characters, they all matter to one way or another.

although i should clarify that even older games can have good graphics too, so age doesnt have too much to do with it in quite a few cases.
 
Dr. Javelin said:
Okay, I'm just going to point out here that gameplay vs graphics is CLEARLY a matter of opinion. So, Neptune likes gameplay over graphics. That's good. That means he enjoys games with excellent gameplay. You guys like graphics a lot. That's good. You can enjoy games with good graphics.

Personally? I'm with Neptune. Gameplay makes or breaks a game for me. Considering I play lots of old games with graphics that would be unbelievably bad by today's standards (TIE Fighter, Total Annihilation, etc.) and can enjoy them just as much as new games, I don't really care much about graphics, although it's nice as an added bonus.

But it's a matter of opinion. There's no right answer to that question, just "whatever you prefer".
Click to expand...

That's true too. I'm sorry about that, I tend to have really strong opinions and forget what I said is just an opinion.
 
Zae said:
i would have been fine if he said graphics are just a preference, but he insisted that they are not important in the slightest.

when they're pretty important, just like soundtrack, story, characters, they all matter to one way or another.

although i should clarify that even older games can have good graphics too, so age doesnt have too much to do with it in quite a few cases.
Click to expand...
Maybe I worded it wrong. Let me rephrase it.

When playing games, whether you like them or not, they have to have a good storyline in order to make a good game. The graphics simply add an effect on the gameplay, and should not really influence the reviews of the game. If someone takes a fantastic game with shitty graphics and says it's a terrible game based on the graphics, then they are doing it wrong. If they say it's a terrible game based on the gameplay, THEN they have a few points to go with it. It's wrong to base a game on the graphics and not the gameplay. It's like judging a book by its cover.

So no, you're right, graphics aren't unimportant, but they're certainly not as important as the gameplay itself, or even the premise. It can be a simple blue background with a grey cube as the main character, and it wouldn't matter, because what you should be looking towards is things like gameplay, the storyline, the premise, etc. Graphics are just there to make the game LOOK good. They do nothing more.
 
One was pretty fun when I first got it, but after a few months I'm like "when will this game end" and it turns to bullshit. Also the game has a lot of cheap elements which I really hate. I still went through and beat it though, but the whole process took me a whole year.

I didn't want to get Galaxy 2 based on my previous experience, but after I played it at a friend's house I liked it and decided to get a copy. To make a long story short, 2 pwns 1. The only downside is that I did a terrible lets play of it.
 
Drift said:
One was pretty fun when I first got it, but after a few months I'm like "when will this game end" and it turns to bullshit. Also the game has a lot of cheap elements which I really hate. I still went through and beat it though, but the whole process took me a whole year.

I didn't want to get Galaxy 2 based on my previous experience, but after I played it at a friend's house I liked it and decided to get a copy. To make a long story short, 2 pwns 1. The only downside is that I did a terrible lets play of it.
Click to expand...
Take a leaf out of Slimkirby's book and replay the project
 
Galaxy 1 had a better story and character background (thank to Rosalina)

But Galaxy 2 had much better gameplay IMO.

But really, both games are amazing.
 
I liked them both equally, maybe 2 was taking ideas from 1, but I still liked it.
 
Maybe I'm getting older or I'm spoiled by Rayman, but I don't really like either anymore. I think they're both overrated, just that two is more disgustingly so
 
I'm part of the 41.8% that say SMG1 is better.

Quite simply, it just is. I have a ton of nostalgia from that one game. SMG1 was just awesome. It was difficult, it was so cool being able to move around worlds and they'll change direction with you, there were tons of new enemies, the music was great, and that feeling you got when you finally beat Bowser. I'll never forget it. I could keep the list going on forever.

SMG2 however...

While I think SMG2 is a great game and all, it didn't have the same feeling as SMG1. For starters, SMG2 was wayyyyy eaiser than its predecessor, and there were really no surprises - just new levels, some new features, etc. While that part is just unlucky because it's the second one, it still could've been better than the 1st like everyone thought it would be.

tldr version:
Both games are great, but SMG1 was better overall and I enjoyed playing it more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back