Quote Originally Posted by KiriA500 View Post
How did I miss your point? You posted a picture of a crappy Atari game when I mentioned realistic movements and how they shouldn't factor into your enjoyment of a game. I still don't understand how that should make a game not fun to you, which is why I gave an example afterward. That game is just bad, the animation has nothing to do with it.

And it's funny how you bring up Zelda into this. Notice how Zelda II: The Adventures of Link has "better graphics" than The Legend of Zelda, yet it's generally seen as the worse game? That's because it took a great departure from the original and people weren't a fan. It had NOTHING to do with the graphics/animations (which were both better in the sequel, in case you were wondering). The gameplay is the factor in those.

Ocarina of Time was the first 3D Zelda game, and at the time, it was incredible. Every 3D Zelda since then has followed the same formula, but changed some things to fit into it's story (like no horse in Wind Waker). In the many times I've played Wind Waker (my favorite), I can't recall a single time I just suddenly stopped having any fun at all, because of the way Link didn't react to something a certain way, or the way he moved. I was too busy having fun playing the game.
Everything you say, is absolutely 100% pointless, since we both agree that 1 single factor is not going to determine if a game is good or bad.

If you had 2 absolutely identical games, except one of them had amazing graphics and animation, the game with the amazing graphics and animation would be the better game because...
It's a factor.