Slashdot Mirror
Realism vs. Style: the Zelda Debate
By Bonnie Ruberg With the stylized aesthetic of Wind Waker all but gone, Nintendo has implemented carefully rendered, highly realistic polygons in its place - perhaps in response to the outcry of fans who disapproved of "kiddy," cel-shaded Link. The game's release date has even been pushed back in part to allow developers more time to perfect the new look. The question of realism versus style is one that has plagued art for centuries, and video games are no exception. Since the 2003 release of Wind Waker, a title both adored and despised, the Zelda series has come to epitomize that debate for the gaming industry, and heated words have been exchanged on both sides. Now, with Twilight Princess on the horizon, the old argument has been rekindled. What better time to take a look back at the issue and ask, once and for all: Is this really just a question of a pretty face?
When The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker came out two years ago, it's cel-shaded graphics caused a big stir in the American gaming community. Since then, debate over the value of the game's stylized aesthetic continues to be a popular topic in online video game forums. While there are some gamers who openly defend the title and its style, it seems the majority of voices express disappointment, even disgust. Many feel that the cel-shading gave Wind Waker a "cartoon-like" or childish look. One fan writes of encountering the new aesthetic for the first time, "I felt as though something had been stolen from me." Other forums-users remark, in comments that mirror thousands by like-minded gamers, "The graphics ruined the game," and "[Wink Waker] destroyed everything Zelda stood for." Now that Nintendo is taking the series back in a more graphically realistic direction, one precedented by the artistic approach in Ocarina of Time, those same disappointed fans are starting to rejoice. "These screens are exactly what i have been waiting for [sic]," writes one forum-user. Another: "All I can say is wow!!! I am so glad the cartoonish Link is gone. That is what kept me away from the whole Zelda franchise."
The press too seems glad to see the return of realism. After playing the demo at E3, Gamespy called the change in graphics an "upgrade," noting that "the overall style is a lot more grownup" and that "the game simply looks more alive." Gaming Age said realism "seals the deal" on the title, which is "by far one of the best looking games Nintendo has ever made," while Gamespot simply refers to "the undeniable appeal of realistic Link." According to Eiji Aunoma, the director of Twilight Princess, the decision to move away from the highly stylized aesthetic of Wind Waker was based partially on fan reaction. It was also dictated in part by the new game's storyline, which follows an older Link and a more serious adventure, and therefore needed a more "adult" graphical style. Still, even this decision to focus the game on a mature hero was affected by criticism from gamers who didn't enjoy playing as younger Link. As Planet GameCube notes, in the end, "The fans asked for a realistic Zelda, and Nintendo is delivering in a big way."While it's understandable that players would have opinions about the looks of a favorite game, the debate over the aesthetics of Zelda has gone beyond friendly banter. What makes the topic so important that gamers just can't let it go? It's not really all about looks. If Zelda weren't Zelda, no one would make such a big fuss. As it stands, the series has so strong a fan-base, full of so many die-hard followers, that it has come, in a way, to represent video games as a whole, if not the industry itself. This makes the question of realism versus style in Zelda a much larger one than if it were applied to an unpopular, or even moderately well-known game. The issue has been further complicated by Zelda's close association with Nintendo, which struggles constantly with its already "kiddy" image. While the developers of Wind Waker made an artistically bold decision in utilizing cel-shading, their choice may have weakening Nintendo's mainstream image - one which must remain welcoming to adult gamers if the company is to compete against Sony and Microsoft in the current market.
But for the video game community, the question of aesthetics is also a cultural one. Whereas, in the Japanese market, unique style is highly regarded, realism in games is more often an American ideal. This can be seen in the supposedly negative link that critical gamers draw between Wind Waker's cel-shading, officially called "toon-shading" by Nintendo, and cartoons themselves - considered by most Americans to be a juvenile form of entertainment. Yet in Japan, anime and manga (the Japanese equivalents of cartoon shows and comic books) are regarded as legitimate art forms, and though some are designed for children, men and women of all ages enjoy these products, which lack the "kiddy" connotations they hold in the United States. Similarly, the gender expectations that are so rigid in mainstream America are not as clearly defined in Japanese culture. Japanese gamers are less concerned with appearing "masculine," at least in the American sense of reveling in games that flex their graphical muscle. The comments of U. S. gamers, especially those participating in forums, are influenced by the need to protect a certain macho image, one in favor of "grownup" realism instead of "childish" stylization. The larger question at hand, however, is perhaps unanswerable: Is the point of gaming to recreate reality, or should it go beyond realism, into the realm of art? Video games confront this issue directly through the use of interactivity. Developers must decide whether to make a gaming experience as realistic as possible, allowing the gamer to step inside the character and his actions, or to keep him at a distance through an unfamiliar visual style. Certain types of games logically benefit from an inclusive aesthetic; racing and fighting titles rely on increasingly robust graphics technology to bring you more believable interactivity. With other categories of games, such as action-adventure, the genre into which the Zelda series falls, the decision isn't so clear. Neither is who makes the call: Should it be the developers/creators/artists themselves, or the game's fanbase, its potential consumers? If gamers demand graphical prowess in a quality game, as their response to both Wind Waker and Twilight Princess implies they do, they also have to face the possibility that all games, if rendered as realistically as possible, may soon look the same - not so much art as playable photographs of the world around them. Then they must ask themselves, honestly, whether or not that's a bad thing.
well, the old graphics sucked...
if you ask me this was just a much needed change.
I'm excited enough about the new "realistic" Zelda I've even considered a Gamecube pruchase for it (can't justify it yet). I wish Ninetndo would port this to other consoles like PS2.
VOTE!
Tradition vs. evolution is such a classic set of counterpoints. It pops up in religions, in corporations, in clubs, and it's no wonder it rages now in video games. They now have enough history for tradition to take a foothold. In the long run, though, I doubt that it was the cartoony appearance that really made Zelda players into Zelda fans. It may have been endearing, but it was the gameplay and stories that really made it addictive. IMO, the story, gameplay, and AI quality will be the final arbiters of the fate of this game, not the visual realism or lack thereof.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
To me, the Mario and Kirby games are the ones that are supposed to be cartoony, not Zelda games. Looks like Nintendo has realized that a lot of people would at least agree with the third part of that statement.
Realism isn't the opposite of style; it's just one kind of style.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Sony and Microsoft are fighting a war to dominate the living room, Nintendo is making great toys for adults and children. There's a marked difference between the two strategies. While more realism is a move towards the current market, I like to think that Nintendo is going to last while Sony and Microsoft are going to sputter out... Perhaps I'm just idealistic in thinking customers don't WANT the complete dominance of a single appliance M$ and Sony are aiming for.
My little site.
Every game is different. The mood that is being established dictates the drawing style. Beyond that, it's not a matter of drawing style preference, it's a matter of mood preference. Serious will be realistic. Funny/comic will often be unrealistic (that's not to say low quality). This realistic/unrealistic is obviously JUST THE GRAPHICS. Everything else is quite variable.
The general public will always choose literal presentation over a stylized one. That's why there is so much boring CG in movies. That's why games all look the same. Truly visually innovative games like Rez will never get the attention they deserve. Abstraction and symbolism are lost on alot of people these days.
I didn't play Zelda with the cell-shaded graphics except for about 10 minutes at a Best Buy, but I have to admit the control was phenonminal; I just hated the graphics.
With games like Resident Evil 4, and now Twilight Princess, Gamecube appears to be finally trying to break into the 20-something market that Playstation and Xbox have had in a death-grip.
I know I finally wanted to play Zelda again (having stopped at SNES) when I saw the previews for this one.
Well if your like me, you had to look that one up.
Sense you already looked it up ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cel-shaded_animation ) that link was redundant to you. Perhaps some are more lazy.
Basically, cel shading is like commander keen but with more gamma.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
I think the graphics for wind waker looked totally awesome. It was the most beautiful video game I had ever played.
I think the graphics for twilight princess also look totally awesome.
I think I may like the art style of wind waker better.
However, it seems reasonable to me to be able to like more than one thing!
When I see them doing something one way the first time, and another way the second time, and find that some people like the first way and some other people like the second way, my response here isn't to think "huh. we should figure out which way is 'better'." My response is something closer to "yay for variety". Doing it this way means that the people in group one get what they want in the first game, the people in group two get what they want in the second game, and I get exactly what I want in both cases-- because, much as I think both art styles look awesome, I think it could get a little tiresome to look at the same art style all the way through two games in a row, even if it was the one which I preferred (Wind Waker's). I think it's much neater that they are mixing things up, and thus satisfying my sense of artistic ADD.
It's just funny, Nintendo gets frequently accused of making the same game over and over but then on the other hand there's a huge contingent of people on every single game complaining about the things they changed.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I'm not sure what the issue with the other graphics were. 8 bit Zelda was rather cartoonish, as was the 16 bit SNES Zelda.
Zelda was never touted as a "realistic" game, and was instead a fun RPG romp. Splinter Cell and the myriad of FPS games need to have realistic graphics in order to convey a sense of place and time. Zelda was never about being in a real world, it was the land of Hyrule where sticking out your sword in one direction was the name of the game. I'm not saying Zelda can't grow up and take advantage of the new graphics, but why push the game in a more realistic vein?? It's like making the new Street Fighter and using actors for Ken/Ryu. It worked for MK, but SF was about that cartoonish feeling.
That said, there was almost nothing in the game that seriously challenged the kids. Despite the (deservedly) legendary depth of play from Zelda titles, I think the designers decided they were making a cartoony title so they should pitch it to kids in terms of the level of challenge too. Which sucked.
We can accept gritty realism or the cel shading thing. Either one has to be stylishly executed, and the game has to be far more than a shooter where I'm opening doors in order to hold my interest.
(Near as we can tell the delay with the new Zelda is the development group adding play depth. Props to them.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
not so much art as playable photographs of the world around them.
I'd like to see someone take a real photograph of whatever is in that bottom picture. I know I would not partake in the photography side of the game business!
It is utterly impossible - at this point - to reproduce each and every pattern the brain is looking for. In consequence, realistic graphics often look slightly ghoulish. They aren't what the brain is expecting, so the brain signals that something isn't right. This is actually a part of why Gollum, in the Lord of the Rings movies, was so effective.
In consequence, the games that are labelled "realistic" are often deliberately unrealistic enough that the player can be comfortable. It's also often less demanding on the computer and the programmer.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Who cares what it looks like. Is it fun?
So the graphics in Twilight Princess "realistic" and not stylized? Would anyone confuse them with reality?
The fact is, Twilight Princess, which embracing a darker style, is still heavily stylized. I do like the style, but I do not believe it's any better or worse than Wind Waker's style. (Wind Waker's graphics, in my opinion, were absolutely stunning and held a charm perfectly suited to the storyline.)
The problem with "realism" is that it's very difficult to get right. The closer to reality you get, the more grotesque the imperfections seem to the human mind. It's called "The Uncanny Valley," a term coined during the development of human-like robots. People have a much stronger negative reaction to graphics that look almost, but not quite, real than ones that approximate features.
FTA: "Is the point of gaming to recreate reality, or should it go beyond realism, into the realm of art?"
Realism and art are not opposed; rather, realism is one method of creating art.
IMO, the point of games such as the Zelda franchise is player immersion. Some people can feel immersed without realistic graphics; others have a harder time making the leap.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Wind Waker is a perfect example of why games are polish over substance these days. People bitch about how there's no focus on gameplay because the industry is too busy pushing more polygons, and this is why.
There were plenty of things wrong with Wind Waker, but the graphics weren't one of them. They successfully conveyed the mechanics and story. If you're one of the people who didn't by Wind Waker solely because of the graphics, you're part of the problem. How can game makers focus on good gameplay when financially everybody makes graphics king?
Worse, maybe we could have had a few more Zelda games this hardware generation with new plots and content... But instead they had to waste time writing a new engine.
Arguments like this are stupid. Artistic choices (i.e. photo realistic, vs. stylization of varying sorts) should be used to further the story & representation that the artists/creators are trying to get across. They should choose what they want to express, and everyone else should shut the hell up.
You can complain that you like style x over style y, but don't tell people what they should use to tell their stories.
There are lives at stake here!
This newer title also seems very stylized. I certainly wouldn't mistake it for a video and the context (sword, elfin outfit, monsters) is obvious fantasy.
This isn't a conflict between realism and anime. It's a choice of ghost in the shell anime over hello kitty.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
If this is true, then Anime is not one of the hottest entertainment media imported to the U.S., especially among the demographic that plays video games, it is not a forum topic on slashdot, and it does not occupy as much self space as any other single genra in the DVD section of your local BestBuy.
Why do ignorant people feel that it is necessary to write articles? All article writing does is showcase their ignorance.
One thing I have to say with windwaker is the fact that it has a Timeless look, just like A Link to The Past before it. Both of these Zelda games took what the console hardware gave them, and rendered a style that as time goes on, does not lose graphic appeal. I feel like Ocarina of Time\Majoras Mask and maybe Twilight Princess, do not have this effect. I look at Ocarina of Time today and it looks ugly compared to todays games, yet I can still pop in my A Link to the Past cart and not have a problem with the way the game looks. The same with Wind Waker, It looks just as nice as the first time I popped the disc in my Gamecube, and it still has a unique style that works well with the gameplay world it lives in.
This rationalization is just asinine, and is demeaning to both Americans and men. Why is it so hard to accept that the appreciation of different styles (yes, realism is a style!) are simply a matter of cultural preferences? It seems like the submitter was really reaching here to find a way to bash those who prefer realism.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
We all know that the outrage has nothing to do with cel-shading itself, given how well Katamari Damacy did. It must also not deal with the expectation that Zelda should somehow be "realistic," since Zelda's roots stem from being cartoony up until the N64 days. Therefore, this must have something to do with some sense of "continuation" or "evolution" with the series itself through the N64 "realism" Zelda. I would go even as far to say that this expectation is the sole reason for the outcry.
Realism is entirely overrated. It's just one of many styles, and one that's been used way too much lately. Twilight Princess looks to be very very pretty and cool, but I'd be sorely dissapointed if every zelda game for the rest of time looked like it. I don't dislike realistic graphics as a matter of course, but they have their place, and there's room for all kinds of expression. For example, what in the world would have been as appealing about Rez if it wasn't wireframe? Would Mario 64 have been nearly as fun if it was animated like Ocarina of Time?
The article is pretty much right on the money. The realistic look is popular, but I don't think that it should be to the exclusion of other forms of expression and style. Game designers are artists, and they should be able to paint their picture with less concern for what sells and what doesn't. But that's not the enviroment right now, so...
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
First thing I said when Wind Waker was released "This is not Zelda". Though I did not like the graphics, the game was alright. While I was talking to my friends about it I came to the realization that the new graphics were really really good...just not for Zelda. Since the announcment of Twilight Princess, I have been looking over screenshots and videos, this game has the type of graphics Zelda should. I mean sure sometimes you can have a really odd game and have it turn out well (Animal Crossing) but for a classic like Zelda, it has a mind of its own and what the people like is where it needs to go.
Utinam me logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant.
The article's first paragraph promised juicy discussion of sexuality in gaming. But there wasn't one single mention of sex, it's just a stupid, boring discussion about rendering styles.
I feel bad that some people are willing to instantly dismiss some of the most fun and creative games because they feel the graphics are too "kiddy." Nintendo's games carry a charm which I think is sorely lacking in the industry today.
Paper Mario, Pikmin, Wind Waker, and other Nintendo franchises are games I think everyone should have the chance to play. They're charming and fun, and somehow manage to be so without featuring multiplayer killing action or large weapons to blow other players up in numerous ways.
They fear that anything that is not dark and realistic is calling them a "kid". That is why they get so upset. Americans would be embarrassed to play a game like Wind Waker because they fear that people will perceive them as not adult or not mature. Sure, the game may be FUN as hell... No, wait... it can't be fun... if I enjoyed it, that means I must also be a kid... No... Musn't play fun Ninja Turtles game... must maintain respectable mature, macho adult persona... :)
:)
It's really sad, because many of the "dark and realistic" games are mediocre, at best, and yet they will become best sellers here because they re-inforce the player's ego as an "adult gamer" who has "adult needs".
I can see the reason and market for making a dark and mature game, but I think the game's "world view" should be what decides that, not a need to make players feel better about themselves. This is a real bummer because I like fun games, and yet they're being driven out of the marketplace by insecure gamers with lots of money to burn. Developers spend so much time making sure the sweat drips off the CG player's face so realistically that gameplay is almost an afterthought. I used to go to a video game store struggling over which game to buy, now I go and say "meh." Once I decide I don't want an FPS or sports game, I'm about ready to walk out of the place.
It's a popular myth in the US that anime and manga are respected art forms in Japan. In Japan, if you are an adult, and you get caught reading manga on your lunch hour, you will be held up to some redicule. I feel that the cultural relevance of manga are nearly equal to the cultural relevance of comics in the US.
I'll take style over realism when the style contributes to the storytelling and enjoyment of the tale.
I started reading comics in the late 70's/early 80's, and realism was big then. Artists such as Neal Adams (all over Marvel and DC), John Byrne (X-Men), Jim Layton (Iron Man), etc. had taken over from the 60's stylized art of Kirby, and Ditko (Aparo, Swan, Steranko and others sort of spanned the fence between aping an old style and trying for the new realism).
Then, suddenly, there were stylists that blew my mind: Bill Sinkiewicz' wild line style (Moon Knight, Stray Toasters), Mike Mignola's world-devouring blacks (Corum, Hellboy), Walt Simonson's angular structure (Thor), Howard Chaykin's zip-a-tone (American Flagg!, Black Kiss)... I could go on and on... oh, yeah, Frank Miller too.
But for every thing there is a season: sometimes the realistic style works better: Art Ross' painterly style works well for grand epics. Brent Anderson's realism works for Astro City's interaction with the real world, and sometimes a Jim Lee crisp and clean can be a relief.
But this is gaming we're talking about. Sometimes a 64-pixel sprite makes a fun game. Certainly the original Zelda can't be considered realistic. I thought that games such as Wind Waker and Paper Mario were innovative in their use of graphics, and should be applauded.
But the market does rule this sort of thing. If *everybody* wants realism, that's what will be made. If 10% of the market wants some cool style, well, sometimes, they'll get ridden roughshod over.
Design for Use, not Construction!
I'm not sure how many others are with me on this, but I am getting tired of realistic games in general.
It's cool to have physics that work like real life but then again, that's not why I play games! I play them so I can see things that can't be done in real life. Remember in Virtua Cop when you shot someone they flipped around like the bullet was 20 times powerful than it should be? That was cool! I loved it when RUSH came out because it let cars drive with semi-realistic physics but they could fly off cliffs and float in the air unrealisticly - but it was awesome and fun! I want the physics to be a little warped. I want characters to be huge compared to normal humans. I want them to be able to do things not possible in real life... I want to see things I've seen in a few games to be extended upon - such as jumping off walls, or small explosions that make characters bounce really far into the distance... I don't know! Just something new and crazy that isn't supposed to happen in our laws of physics!
It still puzzles me why Nintendo refuses to grow up
Uh, cause they keep succeeding? Where's sega now? Sure you can claim that they've lost their dominant position in the market, but so what? Apple isn't the dominant force in their market and nobody's telling them to grow up.
I've grown more and more fascinated with nintendo with each new system the release. It's clear that they've got a commitment to doing things that are innovative, rather than create programming sweatshops like EA, or other companies who are only interested in cranking out variations on the same engine. Granted, nintendo still does that (i.e. pokemon), but that doesn't overshadow the gems that they produce, and the interesting things that they try. Sometimes they're wrong, but when they get it right, they're definitely right.
There are lives at stake here!
We must remember that realism is a ceiling. Once a photorealistic 3D gaming engine achieved, there's really nowhere else to go but towards new realms of style and pushing the boundaries of gameplay. I'm fascinated to think what games are going to look like in 15 years... I'm still waiting for a game which looks like a 3D moving impresionist painting. But that's just me.
I see no particular "better" or "worse" in the realism vs. style debate. Realism draws the player in and helps to create a sense of connection with the player's real life and world... great for horror games and driving games in particular. An interesting visual style, on the other hand, helps a game stand out from the crowd and be memorable... there's a zillion realistic and serious games, but we tend to remember ones like Mario, and Katamari Damacy which create whole universes of their own. River City Ransom is recalled as a classic, while Double Dragon is scarcely remembered at all these days.
I see no reason at all why realism and style must be mutually-exclusive even within the same series. Final Fantasy games tend to be on the realistic side, but most gamers also enjoyed the chibi-ism found in Final Fantasy Tactics. Developers: pick whatever suits your game and go with it.
Andrew Lenahan http://www.starblind.com/
Style is fine by me but make a new game, dont take one as loved as Zelda and turn it into some saturday morning cartoon. I grew up playing the series and with OOT it seemed maybe the series would grow up with me but in standard Nintendo fashion they made it with a childish look that just didnt apeal to me. I bought Wind Waker and I liked it but graphics aside it was not as good as OOT, it was filled with so much boring sailing and BS tasks it was just a snooze fest for most of the game. Im glad they are changing the art direction but what about the gameplay? Call me crazy but I dont want to play as a Wolf, I want to play as Link! What if Aragorn suddenly turned into a wolf half way through the movie, it would be stupid. Hopefully the story mechanic is done well enough that it wont hurt gameplay, and more so I hope the gameplay is used well and not overdone simply to extend the wolf sequences.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I already know what reality looks like, and the whole point of games is to ESCAPE that.
I don't want to feel like I'm playing a modern version of DOOM from 1997.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Take for example Metroid Prime (and Metroid Prime: Echoes), a very realistic looking game (as realistic as an alien planet can get anyway), not cartoony at all, and yet both games are very stylish.
I don't think you have to forego realism (or photo-realistic graphics) to keep an interesting artistic direction. Would you say that a city like.. say.. venice, is not stylish? I know I wouldn't. Does it look like "the real thing"? Hell, I guess so, I've never been there.
What I'm trying to say here, and based on what daniil just said, is that there really isn't a "realism vs. style" grudge match, that makes no sense, if your art/design/graphics team can't make your game look "real" while keeping the level design and graphics interesting, then I guess you need to get a new team.
The problem I have with this, is that one of the two types is called "realism", and, to me, realism means more than just, "well the polygons have all this nifty shading and lighting."
But hey, at least it's not Jon Katz! And there are little pictures along the side too. I like it.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
The problem that the gaming industry needs to somehow resolve is the knee-jerk reaction/impression that Video Games are just for kids. The rating thing isn't seeming to do it. Movies, it's a given, that some are for kids, others for families, and others are for Dates, Chicks, Guys, and sicko-freaks. The "Summer Movies" are well known to be for guys that like big hair and big boobs on girls who are holding guns... and thusly not really movies for kids. But in essence there are movies that are not for everyone... and everyone pretty much knows that. With Video Games, the general opinion is that they are all for kids. Considering that the Gaming Industry is starting to take in more money that the Movie Industry (Look at the $ numbers for Halo II compaired to what the movies brought it) and we can see that obviously they have some financial power if they pulled together on some things like propper marketing strategies that divided the audiences. So that eventually people would just get used to the idea that Games are not just kiddie stuff. Funny how Congress got worked up over Hot Coffee, yet have no problem with the readily available porn on the Net. This stems from a base misunderstanding of the nature of the Gaming Industry, the games themselves, or the people playing the games.
MadOgre.com
This is an interesting debate. On the Windwaker question itself I was kind of divided myself.
I thought it was very pretty graphically, even refreshing in a way , and a very fun game all around (save for the "fishing" involved.) But, and this was the "Deal Breaker" for me, it just didn't feel like Zelda. Now this was just my experience with it, and I know several people that thought that this was the end all be all of video games.
I'm looking forward to the next installment, but I'm sort of worried that they may take it just a little too far in the opposite direction, making the game feel a bit too much like Devil May Cry (once again, rather subjective ymmv.)
Style does have quite the impact on how a game feels, and if you push it too far in any direction it can suffer. But I don't think that all games will end up looking the same, there really are places cell-shading works, just as there are places that photo realism works. The trick, however is, deciding where to use them.
It still puzzles me why Nintendo refuses to grow up. Since the Sega Genesis, they've been stuck in 'baby game' mode where you play as fruity little stuffed animal characters and use whistles instead of swords. Nintendo didn't even use 'blood' in their games at the time the Genesis did, and for them it was almost a selling point at the time.
I've said it before and I'll say it again..Nintendo, it's time to grow up.
Nintendo found a profitable niche. It will stay there. Blood and sex aren't what defines a "mature" game. Blood and sex are what defines a adolecent game. What a mature game would have is a mature story line. Dealing with war, death, loss. So something like Xenogears would be more mature then Thrill Kill or mortal combat. There is a stupid fixation of violence in American culture, I played GTA (own GTA and vice city) and got bored silly of it. While I'm heavily addiicted to Katamari Damacy. Gameplay is what matters, its a distraction from my real life.
Nintendo is doing well with their formula, they are not #1 but a comfortable #2 world wide. They make money, they make fun games. They needn't change. Shaking up the formula doesn't garentee they will make more money, there is already 2 other major companies chasing the 13-20 demographic (the 'mature' gaming audience). Those over 20 already know that graphics and "mature" themes are just hype and that the only thing that matters is having fun.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I don't care what they try, they will never surpass the level of realism of the original NES Legend of Zelda.
Everyone knows that in REAL LIFE, a young elf like Link is exactly as wide as he is tall, can only move in the four cardinal directions, and goes "beep beep beep beep beep" when he's not feeling well.
I don't see how gamers' rejection of Wind Waker's specific look could possibly be interpreted as a rejection of stylized graphics in all videogames.
Everyone loved the use of heavily stylized graphics in games like Grim Fandango and Parappa the Rapper. These games were also huge critical successes.
When executed well, heavily stylized graphics can make a game far more compelling, and increase its emotional impact. When poor decisions are made, the use of heavily stylized graphics can be an annoying distraction to the gamer.
Clearly, a lot of players found Wind Waker's graphics to be a distraction.
Representing this conflict as one of stylized representation versus realism is highly misleading. It was not *that* wind walker was stylized that made wind walker bad but *how* it was stylized. Wind walker was done in a particular style that in the US is reserved for very young children's cartoons and hence associated with childishness and a lack of substance. Conversly the new zelda is hardly trying to maximize realism. I think many zelda fans would be just as disappointed if the game was rendered in a photo-realistic type manner like that often used for thrillers/detective games.
Suggesting that the failure of wind walker shows a dislike of stylized representation is like saying my hatred of Kazinski (sp) paintings means I won't like Monet. In reality the difference between the US and Japanese market in this matter is just a preference for different types of style as one would expect from two distinct cultures.
As an aside I think the low popularity of adult comics/graphic novels in the US is mostly a combination of embarassment and a puritanical streak in our culture as any stylistic objections. Adults in the US are reluctant to be seen reading graphic novels least people think they are reading stuff for children. Furthermore most books for adults whether they are Charlotte Simons or something by Tom Clancy include some sex scenes. Americans seem able to tell themselves they don't have any purient interests when reading written word but not when looking at pictures.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
I agree.
A true gamer will enjoy a good game no matter what it looks like. I mean, why do some of us go back to visit the games of yesteryear time and again? Their graphics are certainly nothing like it is today, yet we still play them. They're good games. Nobody busts out their copy of E.T. for NES because it sucked, so it can't all be nostalgia.
Anyway, in the case of Wind Waker, I found myself having fun playing it (and isn't that what games are all about?). Honestly, I thought the cartoon look would kill it for me, but after about 15 or 20 minutes, I didn't care what it looked like, because I was enjoying the game so much.
This sig rocks the casbah.
While this is an obvious troll, I've heard this argument many a time.
A game doesn't need blood to be good, and Nintendo has only proven that notion time and time again with their excellent games.
"It never got weird enough for me." - HST (RIP)
It still puzzles me why Nintendo refuses to grow up. Since the Sega Genesis, they've been stuck in 'baby game' mode where you play as fruity little stuffed animal characters and use whistles instead of swords.
In my experience, (this may or may not describe you personally as well) people protesting the loudest about Nintendo's 'baby games' tend to be the ones that equate "mature" to really mean "Full of extreme violence, blood, sex, and/or guns".
Some of us aren't afraid of some bright colors and cuteness if it means there's a great game behind it, which Nintendo titles often are.
The comments in the blog article from hardcore players, complaining about the graphics on the last title, bear this out. The world no longer consists of single platform living rooms, and Nintendo needs to face the facts.
Maybe I missed something, but Wind Waker sold very well, was generally thought of as an excellent game, and many people loved the new graphical style.
Comments from "hardcore players" and forum posters don't always reflect the opinions of the larger player base.
Who cares about Nintendo anymore, seriously? Sure, they have a great handheld market...well except for the dismal sales of the DS and lack of titles. The GBA is still strong right?
Where are you getting that the DS is doing dismally? Got any specific numbers to back that up?
I've said it before and I'll say it again..Nintendo, it's time to grow up.
Grow up? Yes, because the world really needs more of the avalanche of cookie-cutter "mature" titles that Sony and Microsoft have for their systems.
This is the biggest problem in the gaming industry today. Screenshots of eye-popping graphics might sell games, so developers spend a lot more time on the graphics than they do on gameplay.
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
If you think blood or 'realistic' graphics makes a game more fun to play, it's time you grew up. I find games that focus on sex or violence to be mostly about the marketing and those devices serve to cover up for the missing gameplay...
The interactive way to Go -- http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/
Quite frankly, it changed the entire feel of the series. Of course, with KQ VII, designers wrote dialog, sound effects and score to match the cartoony feel of the game, so this is probably a somewhat apples-to-oranges comparison.
Looking at some of those screenshots, Link looks fairly intelligently designed. *ba dum ching* Oops, there goes my karma. :P
All these people crying and whining about Wind Waker's look. But how many of these people actually played the game through?
All these people just dismiss something off hand because of appearance, it just shows how little people have come. "OMG ITS A KIDDY GAME BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE A CARTOON!" How utterly immature of people to dismiss WW as a childish game. I have been a Zelda fan since I got my hands on the original gold cartridge version of The Legend of Zelda for the NES and have been a vivid and rabid fan of Zelda since then. I've played pretty much all of the Zelda games (except two for the iCD).
These people claiming that WW "betrayed everything about Zelda" obviously don't have the slightest clue about what Zelda is. Its an adventure for the heart that is meant to make people feel good. Hell it was based on Shigeru's Childhood, its supposed to have a child like feel to it.
Anyone who dismissed Wind Waker because of its looks is absolutely immature about how games should be. They missed out on a great game, sure the TriForce hunting was a bit boring, but by the end of it you felt as if you had completed an epic game that even shadowed OoT in some respects. Plenty of more than memorable battles, traps, puzzles, and of course probably the best end boss in any Zelda game to date.
And the way Link finishes off Ganon is definitely not "kiddy."
The Zelda debate wasn't a Realism Vs. Style debate.
Zelda came out when I was 6. Listen to the music. The dungeons were dark and harrowing. The monsters as scary as they could be. Invincible Knights, Wizrobes that popped out of thin air to hit you, the Feared shield eating Like-Like's.
All the later Zelda games reinforced this concept of you were exploring into enemy teritory and were mostly on your own. Most had at least half the game in a world controlled by evil. The Cell-shading trounced the long time fans expectations of what a Zelda game was.
It wasn't that it wasn't real enough it was that the FEEL of the game created by the STYLE was different from the other Zeldas. It look like and felt in certain ways what happens when certain anime get translated over and they edit out all the blood and change all the guns to cork guns. It wasn't quite that bad of a perversion but it still didn't feel right.
You weren't isolated. You didn't have a feel of the entire world versus you. Those feelings defined the Zelda experience more then any graphics. Yet the graphic style didn't convey them. Basically Wind Waker was a good game, but it wasn't really a Zelda game. Calling it Zelda was a marketing ploy.
While at the same time kind of sideways-calling-americans-immature (she doesn't come right out and say it), the whole question is "unanswerable." So what was the point of the piece? I mean all you did was point out how we americans don't accept cartoons as being mature.......big news flash. I guess I was just irritated because she didn't just state it out that she preferred the animated version. I thought it was cool too, but I can't help really looking forward to the new realistic style Link. I just hope there is no drudgery, as the boat was to me in Windwaker. Drift, drift, drift....zzzzz....
Posted by yintercept - "...science...[is] the study of the 'divine creation.' "
Good news, everyone! You get to live!
:)
Actually, Legend of Zelda (no subtitle) was only on 8-bit Nintendo. Today you can play it on pretty much anything, though, through the magic of emulation.
I've got it on my Palm Pilot.
(By the way, I know what you meant. Mean what you say, though...Legend of Zelda is a pretty awesome game IMHO)
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
It's not like the new Zelda isn't stylized. It's just differently stylized. Zelda isn't about to look like an animated photograph, it's going to look like an animated illustrated storybook.
There are game designers out there who simply push polygons and pixels in an effort to look realistic for no apparent game benefit, but this doesn't look like the case here.
I really don't care if Zelda comes in cell-shading look or with a more realistic look, I think both look fine. What I however care about is gameplay and the world in which it plays and seriously Zelda couldn't grab me on that one for a long long time.
Each Zelda game so far felt the same, basically like a set of script-triggers and dungeons hold together by some duct tape. Running through a town in Zelda doesn't feel like running through some town in a fantasy world, but more like running through a town full of braindead sprites. Hardly anybody ever moves and basically nobody has ever anything meaningfull to say. All people are simply waiting for Link to ask them, they don't feel like having a live of their own. Its also the same with the puzzles, its always 'find special item', 'use special item to open door/blockade/etc.' or 'find small key', 'use small key (and lose it...)', etc.. While that was quite original a decade ago, it feels today like the red, blue, green keys in Doom, ie. stupid things to force you run around a bit, but don't really have any purpose of their own. This is made even worse since plenty of items are always the same and even those that are different often have the same purpose as previous items. Its just so boring and predictable.
I really would like to love the Zelda games, the controls in Zelda games are still a lot better than many other such as Drakan or Gothic. The Zelda games also feel far more polishes and finished then those two. But when it comes to exciting worlds Drakan or Gothic simply feel lightyears ahead of Zelda, since the worlds in them look far less 'prepared for the player by the gamedesigner', but more live-like.
I'm of the belief that it was far less the art style of Wind Waker which irritated people, and far more the fact that the Link incarnation was all of eight years old. Anyone with a passing familiarity with anime knows that most of it really isn't childish at all (or, at least, the Japanese versions aren't - Sailor Moon was made for teenage boys in Japan, but the American adaptation is geared for 4-year-old girls, for example).
When the main character is a little kid, however, that'll suck the macho out of the title no matter *what* graphics style is used.
My opinion has always been that it's better to aim for a less realistic graphics style and do it perfectly rather than aim for a realistic graphics style and still have huge holes. A favorite quote of mine from an old game design book (I forget which, sorry) goes something like: "Nobody ever complains that you can't go fishing in Mario 64. Yes, there are lakes, and yes, there are fish in the lakes, but the lack of the ability to go fishing doesn't even register in players' minds. The game's style, through its graphics and gameplay, focuses completely and perfectly on its intended play style, and everything else falls to the wayside."
Compare that to, say, Doom 3, where the graphics are very realistic, but people bitch about not being able to do all sorts of things, like affect certain parts of their environment or hold a flashlight and shoot at the same time. Mario64 had many more limitations than Doom3, yet nobody really notices those.
Real life is, on the whole, boring. Games are there as an escape from it, some would say that's their entire purpose. Now while interest can be gained from an accurate simulation of a real but rare event, e.g. a formula 1 racing sim or a flight simulator, with a completely fantasy game like Zelda the point is to throw out the real world and make one where you can be a hero and save the world, because you're really just another boring person. With that established, the graphics should be those that are most enjoyable when gaming, or more precisely those which enable you to enjoy the game most. Like an impressionist painting, the graphics are not meant to give an "accurate" representation - this is even more true in the game because there can't be an accurate representation when the world being represented doesn't exist. Wanting it to look like the real world is a lack of imagination on gamers' part, nothing more. The only important things about the graphics is that they are aesthetically pleasing and they enable you to play the game.
I am trolling
I'm a graphic / interactive designer and I don't think this has anything to do with "evolution."
Deciding to apply cell shading to Zelda isn't what hurt the franchise, it's the illustrative style they adopted. Nintendo adopted an illustrative style that is, traditionally, associated with childhood. If their art director opted for more universally appealing illustrations, they wouldn't have seen the big backlash.
That being said. The game was quite fun... but too easy in comparison to past Zelda titles.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Really, there is no "debate", there are:
Those that apparently cant handle a game that doesnt look like all the others.
and
Those that were able to enjoy a fun game.
People can debate the graphics all they want, it doesnt change the fact that they are missing out on a great game because they feel threatened by bright colors.
Guess what, games are a consumer product. If it doesn't sell then it won't be made. In order for more games of the type you like to be made, there needs to be a large enough buying audience for them.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Nobody has real looking graphics! I've heard this whole real vs toon thing since the SNES--- and anything "realistic" from back then is a joke today.
"realistic" graphics are for shallow people without imagination or those who have some serious insecurity issues (americans are brought up with major insecurities so they consume more.)
I suppose next they will want nintendo to add voice overs to the game because its more realistic than learning to read.
I just hope the new Zelda at least is on par with Windwaker gamewise. They probably need the extra time to make it into a real nintendo game---not to tweak the graphics.
Windwaker had MORE emotions come out from a game than I've ever seen. Studies show that toons do a better job at this, so I don't see how they will be able to top windwaker on that.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Ultimately, it's not important what superficial style you use -- cel shading, cartoons, photorealism, 2D sprites, whatever. What does matter is that you get actual artists, with actual talent, to draw your graphics for you. I mean... Doom III was fairly photorealistic, and all it did was put me to sleep. There are only so many rusty pipes that I can look at before getting bored.
>|<*:=
True, some people can become obsessive, but the games aren't to fault for that any more than it's the beer's fault when someone is an alcoholic.
Yeah, and watch as videogames begin to falter against some other form of entertainment that offers people what they actually want. Face it, people want to escape from reality from time to time. Doing so (in moderation) is by no means unhealthy. Take away video games and they'll watch more TV, or do more dope, or maybe even *gasp* read more fiction. Or would you prefer fiction books to stop presenting a "fake reality", too?
Why go for Realism at all cost. This week I have had more than enough realism.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Realism vs style should actually be realism vs illustration. Or even beter, representation vs illustration.
Ok troll, i'll bite. First off, i'd like to say that Nintendo is indeed alive and kicking. This generation, nintendo's showing was not as great stateside, but i do expect things to pick up next go around. Nintendo is the only one of the "big three" with any kind of focus, and any kind of innovation. The solution Sony and Microsoft have towards gaming is "let's throw as much power at the game as possible instead of showing people something NEW". dispite being the underdog, and having much less "buzz" around their product on the handheld market, the DS is not selling dismally, in fact it's quite the oppisate.Record numbers in japan, and I've certianly seen alot more of them around campus (PSU) then the overpowered, overfragile PSP. Not only that, but the games are INNOVATIVE, not just half assed console ports. I, for one, am very excited to see what nintendo does with the revolution, and I think that they'll be around for years to come.
You thought I was maybe playing Halflife with my pre-teens?? By that "we" I just meant, you know, us. (They'd have been maybe seven when your titles came out, or younger, I'm not keeping close track.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Am I the only one to realize that this debate is largely off topic? The problem with the Wind Waker was that it had some serious flaws that made the game so painful to finish, only one of my 4 roomates (including me) bothered to finish this game. More realism wouldn't have changed any of these flaws. Had Nintendo simply substituted more realistic graphics, the game would have been no better. The author touched on the subject about cell-shading vs. realism debate largely being important because the series has such prominence. I'd actually argue that the debate is only there really because the game was not all that it could have been. I fell in love with Wind Waker when I first played it. I felt it was an awesome game. It was beautiful, the controls were clean, the fighting was interesting, and the early levels were fun to explore. Unfortunately, there were a number of things that made the game terrible (the biggest one being the unfortunate amount of time needed spent in the boat along with a number of unnecessary animations). The debate should really be more about what made Wind Waker a bad game. Graphics can definitely make a game bad, but the graphics in Wind Waker were far from bad (I haven't seen any cell shaded games done more beautifully on any platform).
not to mention XIII, which was excellent by the way.
dead on brother
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
So what if the haters are louder? The game is inspired, and remains one of the best of all time.
I don't believe in fairies, elves or magic in real life, and I don't need them to 'look real' on the screen in order to suspend disbelief and 'get into the game'.
The review is practically flamebait. People bitch and moan about trifles regardless of how awesome the game is... that is not newsworthy.
-ZOD-
They re-use charecters, but that's about it. The games manage to stay fresh.
cartoons are not taken seriously in the USA. period.
I personally know many game playing people in a wide age range, and most of them think like the rest. Only a few real gamer types don't mind---but sometimes still complain about this "realism" people think some games have.
Its far more the case that anime fans play video games than people who play games like anime.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If there is any debate I am totally sick of it's this one. Wind Waker at first site was an atrocity to me. I was waiting for what was shown in Spaceworld 2001. Even though I was disappointed I still followed the game and purchased the day of release. When I played the game for the first time my jaw literally hit the floor. The visuals were stunning in their own right. At this time I realized Zelda is Zelda no matter what the graphical style. Wind Waker is a gem and because of the media craving blood and gore it was overlooked by far too many. It takes true maturity to fully realize what Nintendo did. They created a living cartoon. They really showed off the potential of cel-shading. I loved Wind Waker and I am sure I will love Twilight Princess. I guess my two cents here is that just because it looks 'kiddy' doesn't mean it isn't a beautiful game. I honestly wish Nintendo would spawn off a new Zelda line and do two games. One that follows Link as a child in cel shaded graphics and one which follows an adult Link with realistic graphics. All I can ever think about is how awesome it would've been to play Ocarina of Time with child Link in a cel-shaded Hyrule and an adult Link in the Dark very realistic Hyrule. Sometimes I think I am the only one who saw the potential of Wind Waker. Oh well.
When it boils down to it, the game needs to be challenging and fun.
Wind Waker wasn't kiddie because of it's graphics, IMO, but because there wasn't any challenge to it compared to its predecessors. It felt very dumbed down.
I didn't mind the cell-shading at all. To be honest, I don't care WHAT the game looks like, hell, it could have the 16-bit overhead style - just give it some worthy CONTENT.
Games these days focus too much on eye candy, which ultimately ends up taking away from content.
In the end, the success of the new Zelda won't be on how it looks, but whether or not it's an ACTUAL sequel that fits what Zelda really is: tons of dungeons filled with CHALLENGING puzzles that get progressively harder as the game goes on.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Thanks for the link!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I don't see this thread anywhere here. I went so far as to ask google answers at one time(no answer). I want to know who created this style in Windwalker? And what process they used for the still illustrations(on the box & in magazines etc.). I know there was an important guy directing the project but there must have been an individula illustrator whome this style sprouted off from.
Did you even play beyond Outset Island? The game's style gets much more epic as it goes along, culminating in an absolutely fabulous final battle against Gannondorf. Link and Zelda fight for their lives and the future while old Hyrule dies around them... But apparently that's not epic.
And for people who complain the game was too easy, give me a break. Yes, it was easy. On the other hand, so was every other Zelda game. If you want a really difficuly challenge, you don't play Zelda. Just because something's not really that hard doesn't mean it isn't amazingly fun.
Based on what I've seen on Twilight Princess, I can't see it being a cartoon game. Killing monsters from a horse and turning into a werewolf doesn't quite say "cartoon" to me. Similarly, I can't see "realistic link" boarding a little sailboat and sailing around the world.
This same argument has been raging for years among Final Fantasy fans. Some like the Cartoonish manga style of FF7 while some (like myself) perfer the realism of FF8. I think FF9 was an especially good job at combining these two looks. Realism with style is possible. It's like looking at Chinese landscapes. They are sort of super realistic. They look real but at the same time tend to have features that aren't really found in real life (impossibly steep hills). A lot of anime does take this route with realistic bodies and backgrounds but with exaggerated facial features. It's all a balance. You should stick to a games tradition but for these game families that have existed for decades they have to find a way to evolve to the times or they'll be left behind. 3D realism seems to be the thing right now but adding some surrealistic touches can be good.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I think it's funny that it's mostly kid that thinks that Wind Waker was looking kiddy. I didn't and i'm almost 30 already. It IS a really good looking game. The graphics are coherent, something you will have a very hard time to achieve with realism. For god's sake, people don't seem to realise that we have a game that is very, very close to a freaking animated film!
You mentionned Paper Mario. I think I honeslty never saw something as beautiful as this game. Because of the lack of a real 3d environnement (it's more of a 2d game) I didn't experience a single graphical glitch over the course of the game. Not once I saw a ugly texture zoomed to the max, or there was a problem with the camera, or I saw a polygon glitch...etc.
I think alot of people just need to open their mind a little and give those kind of game a chance. What you're calling kiddy, I call it beautiful and what you're calling mature, well I dare to call it immature, whether it's running your car over a pedestrian or being part of a highly specialised SWAT team of some sort, in order to kick some 'serious ass'.
If you're smashing a giant squids face in or beating an orc round the head with a boomerang at what point do you go "hey this isn't real enough!".
RPGs are 99% of the time a fantasy genre, they're not ment to look real, they're ment to be a fun story. It's just a shame the FPS crowd are so small minded and refuse to accept that realism can ruin a game just as well as it can make one.
There is no magic style to fix all things. Some will suit a dark broody style, others will suit a more animated cartoony style. Different tools for different jobs.
I like muppets.
Chibi style vs More believable style:i nkdesign.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/adambetts/forums/abetterl
Honestly, which one would you prefer to play as? I know I will enjoy Zelda: TWW a lot more with this more believable design. It's hard to feel emotionally attached to chibi one.
It has nothing to do with cel-shading itself, it's all about art direction which most people didn't like.
While newer realistic looking games are cool, I wish someone would make a new 2D game. There's something nice about a "simple" to play and control 2D game. The Zelda games for NES and SNES were my favs.
People who say "money does not buy happiness" are just people without money trying to make themselves feel better.
I think Nintendo sealed their own fate by refusing to switch to the CD format back in the late 90's. If the N64 would have been CD based like the original Playstation was (hell even the Saturn had one), they would have kept more developers around and might still have a position of dominance. AFAIK they're in third place, behind Microsoft for god's sake! 15 years ago this was unimaginable.
Yet, according to all the numbers I've been able to find, Nintendo is still making more profit than any competing divisions.
Wind Waker was easily among the best-looking video games I've ever played. It impressed me more than DOOM III, that's for sure.
I agree with you...the game that has surprised me the most in complexity and depth is ... wait for it... Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life. Cute graphics, a title worthy of any Hallmark card, but *not* an easy game to play and play well. There are a lot of websites that give tips and tricks, and they're worthy of a massive game like Everquest in the number of possibilities.
Meanwhile, I've got a *very* complex game that I can play with my 4yo daughter who loves brushing the cows while I'm pouring over multiple PDFs and websites trying to figure out how to get Nami to like me.
Realistic graphics, cell-shaded graphics, hell, I'd play a game made entirely of stick figures if it was *fun*. Come to think of it, Alien Hominid doesn't win any "realism" points, but the game is a lot of fun and has a cool look too.
I think this comic sums it up quite nicely.- 14&res=l
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=2001-12
As for Nintendo's supposed failure to grow up, playing a game where you can slaughter people with a chainsaw isn't necessarily a sign of maturity.
Sure GTA:San Andreas is great but there are alot of other games that focus on the violence instead of the gameplay.
I play many different games, and one of the main things that bugs me about games today is that, in essence, they all look alike.
Why? Because the development houses are going for a "realistic" looking game. Oh, sure - the atmosphere in a Half-Life 2 is different from a Halo is different from Doom 3 - but the fact remains that they are trying to make things look like they "really would" if you were in any of those situations.
A rare-ish exception is World of Warcraft. I *like* that it doesn't look real. I *like* that the fantasy world looks, more or less, like a dream. I enjoyed XIII as much for the game as for the aesthetic, and I enjoyed Wind Walkers unreal style as well.
In my opinion, "realistic" graphics often wind up wrecking the concept of suspension of disbelief for me: Doom3 had "realistic" graphics, but the whole damn point of the game was that it was a nightmare scenario - in the "real" world, the undead don't walk around trying to eat you (except in Congress) - so for me, the realism really made it hard to immerse myself in the story. World of Warcraft, however - when I'm there, *anything* can happen exactly because the world doesn't look like the one I am familiar with, and therefore there's no expectation that gets violated when I see something strange.
Personally, I have one hope for games, and that be that eventually the rendering engine come with controls that let the user change the render option. Want Cel shading? Go for it! Want it to look like water colors? Stained glass? Real? Tweak your settings and change it on the fly.
Real is good for some things - sports games, I suppose - but when you're trying to sink into a world that is as unreal as it gets, I think it hurts.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
I think Wind Waker and Twilight Princess both look great. Yeah I guess TP is impressive, but Wind Waker was beautiful in its own right. What really matters to me is how well they play... And I don't see where Wind Waker was such a departure... Was the original Zelda so realistic? http://www.zelda.com/universe/game/zelda/
"If gamers demand graphical prowess in a quality game, as their response to both Wind Waker and Twilight Princess implies they do, they also have to face the possibility that all games, if rendered as realistically as possible, may soon look the same - not so much art as playable photographs of the world around them."
I think that statement is nonsensical. To say that all games may soon look the same is to imply that Batman Begins, Lord of the Rings, and Fight Club all looked the same. If asked about the aesthetics of The Matrix how many of us would say "It looks just like Three's Company."
Style is a concept which goes way beyond realism vs. cartoons. From my viewpoint art and games are seperate issues. You often use art to express a game, but you shouldn't use a game to express art. If you're creating a work as an artistic statement, maybe creating it as a game is a mistake, you'd be better off with an independent film, or a good old-fashioned canvas and paint.
... as long as it comes with a cup of Hot Coffee
You know what that's describing? How the majority of American's are weak-minded, immature, neanderthals.
HEY EVERYBODY! VIDEO GAMES WERE INVENTED FOR YOU TO ENJOY THEM, NOT FOR YOU TO WHINE BECAUSE THE GRAPHICS MAKE YOU FEEL INSECURE ABOUT YOURSELF!
It's not (just) the difference between the IQs each cartoon markets to, it's simply smoother, better graphics which look as though they took more than five minutes of effort and three years of age to create.
The graphics in Wind Walker are brilliant. They're smooth, fast, and technically demanding. They're not trying to emulate Pixar or the latest SIGGRAPH output, but they used the latest technologies in a whole new way. The sylized smoke and simulated cels are just as hard to do right as the painstakingly rendered dirt and grime in Half Life.
These aren't "low quality" in any sense. They're just a more subtle kind of quality than you're used to. Yes, it's "toony", but it's compellingly toony... it's not "toony because it's all we can do", it's "toony because it's hard to do well".
Gosh. Using cel-shading makes it look like a cartoon?
If only Nintendo knew that beforehand. I bet they feel pretty stupid now. Luckily there were some hardcore gamers on hand to point these things out.
Why bother making a choice between which you like most? Some games are obviously much better off using today's technology to incorporate highly realistic graphics; this absolutely does not imply it is void of style. The difference we're looking at here is simply how much authentic style the graphic design team decides to push through.
Some games benefit from realistic graphics, and some are better off being more aesthetically original. That's just the way it is.
Don't worry, though, both sides, since we'll always be seeing games that utilize either method.
Hi, I'm an incredibly arrogant despicable individual who thinks Windwalker is about a ghey as the francise has ever been. I don't care if the gameplay causes cowpers-gland cramps and worried parents/spouses, grows my manhood, or allows me to generate an areola stimulation field in a quarter-mile radius. It was the "ghey" style that kept me away.
I choose to be ignorant of the finer points of Windwalker because I'd rather look at Lara Croft's shapely ass, or Rayne's sexy wireframe for three months of game play rather than futz around with some stylistically ghey next-stage take on a classic video game (I played Zelda, Zelda2 on the NES and beat them). I enjoy realistic and explorable environments much more than simplified ones when I'm looking for something between a game and a movie--even if we're lacking the tech to make it more than a couple of steps removed from the lab. The next Zelda game is at the very top of my list--and unlike 90% of the games I buy, I'll be buying it new instead of used two years from now.
When a game pings the gheydar like windwalker did I just don't go there. Even my 11 year old said,
"Damn that looks ghey Papa".
You can bet someone figured it out a couple of years ao and knew what to do--make Link a heroes hero. It's about frickin time. Next step after that is a movie. Hell yeah, if Steve Jackson could make hobbits Hollywood can damn well give us Link and Hyrule.
For those who enjoy playing with a Link that would be just as cute and cuddly as a stuffy please go right ahead, I'm not dissin you--just pointing out that some of us have an inability to identify ourselves as either a super-deformed carricature or as wanting to be identified as being able to identify ourselves as a super-deformed carricature .
Flame away, where I'm from we enjoy the heat.
Cheers.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
The effect you are talking about has been dubbed the Uncanny Valley. It was first discovered in the 70s in robot research. Essentially its an emotional effect where people are creeped out by a human image that is too close to real, but not perfectly realistic. More at the link!
This wonderfull debate, I feel, owes it's existance to the mid 80s. I'd like to site the "accident" that made video game series' what they are today, the whole Mario 2 fiasco. A sequal to the smash-hit Super Mario Bros. was released to Japan, but it was simply an alternate level set to the original game, (later released to America as "The Lost Levels"), but quickly got a high amount of criticism from for being too difficult, and Nintendo realized it would be a bad move to ship the floundering game to America. To supply America with a sequal to the smash hit of Super Mario Bros. 1, they simply sold them another game, "Doki Doki Panic" under the same name, with alternate "mario-esque" character sprites. This lead to an interesting side effect, though. Notice that most games previous to Mario 2 (mario itself, if you count Mario2j), were simply alternate level sets built off the same engine as the first. But in this case, since a new engine had been completely developed for a new series, lead to the expectation that every sequal in a series had to have some fairly drastic changes to be able to sell. Consider the movie industry. Even today, the bulk of sequals are rehashes of the same plot done with a slight twist. They're the same tried-and-true formuals with one change in the mix. Some sequals are more guilty than others, you have the abysmal mass-market kids movie like Home Alone 2, which have the same plot, minute-to-minute as their predicessor... whereas you do have some incredibly brilliant sequals like Godfather 2, which do take the narrative in a new direction, and are an attempt by the director to actually out-do or match the quality of the original. Sadly, however, the movie industry's over standards for sequals is quite low, and 95% aren't even worth watching, even if the original was exceptional. It seems, however, that the gaming industry does not suffer the same problems. Where-as the movie industry suffers from lack of inspiration in series, games seem to thrive off their sequals, in a similar fashion to the music industry, in which many musicians achieve lasting success while honing their skills. Rarely do I look back on a video game series and consider the first game to be the best. It's my belief that this is due, to a fair amount, to this shift in sequal behavior during the NES's mid-life, which I believe owes itself, to a large extent, to the Mario 2 fiasco. Now every Zelda game has a completely altered feel, which gives the series incredible deapth and variety. There's something for everybody. The only game in the series to be built off the same engine as a previous game was Majora's Mask... interestly, probably the most "unique" game in the series, do to the fact that the team had to wildly alter gameplay, story, and mood in order to overcome the fact that it was based off the same engine and would take flack for this. As for Wind Waker? I loved the graphics, they really brought back the feeling of innocence that had been left behind during the N64 era (though leading to two incredible sequals). However, I was incredibly dissapointed in most of the other aspects of the game. Even though the engine and mood had changed, all the other elements were extremely similar to Ocarina. Pacing was widly inconsistant, and at some times the game slows to an incredible crawl while sailing back and forth between ends of the map. The Donky Kong/Mairo/Zelda team have always been some of the biggest movers and shakers in the gaming industry, I play and love their games because of the inspired feel of each release. While WW did offer some of it's new elements, it was one of the less ambitious offerings from them. I'm excited by this new release not because of the graphics, but because from the things I'm hearing, they've been giving a lot of thought into radically changing gameplay and story elements, coming up with unique ideas and entering new territories that have yet to be treversed.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
I like a lot of what Nintendo tries to do, but they certainly lost in the last round. Actually, the funny thing is, it didn't. Nintendo continued profiting off its GC related products pretty much the entire time. Microsoft's Xbox gaming division never pulled an overall profit, and Sony's console gaming division didn't start profiting until recently. Nintendo's 'slow and steady' approach may not be making them much of a competitor against Sony and Microsoft, but it is keeping Nintendo healthy, and profitable, and that's what really matters in the end. It looks like they're taking the wise approach: let the fools invest billions onto trying desparately to have better specs than each other, and just concentrate on making a solid, inexpensive console that enough people will buy to make a profit from it.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
I think Scoot McCloud talks a lot about realism vs. more abstract images and posits that we tend to identify more with sparser representations. When we see a photograph of someone, we think of them as someone else. When we see a line drawing of them, we can *become* them or they can *become* us.
I think we should stop thinking that more abstract representations are for kids, but rather realize the advantages of both and make our choice for one over the other part of our technique as creators.
Wind Waker is my favourite [single player game].
I don't give a toss about the graphical style, it isn't as if Link's Awakening was the pinnacle of realism is it? In fact I liked the style, I found it more interesting than Yet Another Realistically Rendered Game (YARRG). I didn't think the graphics were childish. I thought the game was a cheerful, happy game, it made me feel happier playing it. If it had been totally gritty and realistic then it would have been much more depressing.
As a side note, I really didn't ever get into Ocarina Of Time. I tried, but I think it was let down by having the confines of the N64 to work within. It tried to be realistic when the hardware couldn't let it be. I don't think the Gamecube can do it (although it will be better), and I'd even go as far as to say that the next generation consoles will have difficulty imparting good realism. Humans are very good at detecting when real-looking things aren't real, and that gets in the way of actually enjoying the game.
I wonder how many of these moaners also watch Anime or Hentai without issue?
I love cel-shading. I loved it in Jet Set Radio, I loved it in WindWaker, I loved it in DBZ Budokai 3, I loved it in the upcoming Ultimate Spiderman which I saw at E3.
I think well-used cel-shading makes for better graphics. I think that so-called realistic graphics tend to suffer more from the inevitable comparison to reality (Oh! look, I see polygons, That texture looks fake, real people don't move like that, and so on and so forth).
I also think that any person who would pass on a ZELDA game because they think it looks cartoony is a tasteless moron who doesn't know what he's missing.
My favorite part of the Zelda series is that they overhaul the engine and the visual style with every game. Much like the Ultima series.
The exceptions: Majora's Mask, for my money the worst game in the Zelda series, and Ultima VII part 2, which I never played.
The fact that the designers can maintain the themes and tropes of Hyrule and Britannia through several generations of technology and artistic direction is precisely what makes these series great.
The interesting thing about both Zelda and Final Fantasy is that they are games with large fan following, and they are constantly building up on that by releasing new versions with better graphics, better movies, better music and better this that. But what these developers fail to realize is that sometimes playing a video game is like reading a comic book. If you make it real, like make a movie out of X-Men, you take away that "thing" from the comic. You don't use your imagination anymore in a movie, or in a really real game.
There is also this thing with character voices. When I play a game full of text dialogues like Final Fantasy VII, I assign a voice to the characters that I feel suits them. In newer games they destroy that feeling and give them a voice that doesn't suit them as much. The way things happen in games claiming "more realism" destroys that little private thing betweem the gamer and the game, and introduces a third person's assumptions out of nowhere.
Then there is this whole issue of "realism" when it has to do with "reality". You keep trying to make the physics better, the flames real, the sky blue and the grass green, and spend hundreds of man/woman-hours perfecting these little things. I say, its great but what comes out of it? These are just tools to coy the publisher into thinking that the customers really want this game and will want to but the game because of its awesome graphics and its beautiful physics and AI. But what they forget is that reality isn't what makes us play a game. Its the reality that we usually want to go away from when we are playing a video game. If you make everything perfectly real, it just becomes a simulation of our world with some added effects. Thats so cruel!!!
I must agree with you there... I am one that doesn't let the graphics get in the way of me enjoying a game. Some of the hardest, most enjoyable games I have played are Nintendo's "kiddy-games". While on the other hand, those "mature" games everyone raves about... I've seen apes that can play them, and play them well... Though my view may be a little biassed because of all the systems I own, my SNES sees the most gameplay even today...
I'll see your computer nerd, and raise you two Chess Clubbers and a role player
I'm quite sure a lot of people can identify with a big breasted woman who can shoot tribesmen a few hundred times and jump twelve feet in the air. Or better yet I bet people can identify being a serial auto thief, or even better than that I'm sure everyone can identify being a 8 foot tall cyborg that can flip tanks over.
Get over it, video games are meant to be escapism, not something to identify with.
Now if you will, I must go out and steal a few hundred cars, kill some cops, rape some hookers, and shoot rockets at cars.
I actually loved the visual style of Wind Waker. My problem with it was there were hardly any dungeons, not much challenge and the final boss was a cut scene that you could die in. The game just didn't feel like the ones that I had grown up with. It takes more than good graphics to make a good game.
...that ruined the game for me, it was the actual drawing style used for Link. He just looked silly, infantile, and hopeless, not like a cartoon version of the Link we've seen in games past (also look at the drawings in the instruction manuals). I doubt that many would argue that XIII's cel-shading was inferior to more realistic graphics, but if the characters all looked as stupid as Link, the game would have not been as good. Also, the move from a traditional overworld to that awful ocean, and the attendant struggle with the wind and sailboat, that's what really did the game in for me.
I loved the fire pits personally. The way the air moved and blurred the scene. The real sense of heat.
I don't think they'd have been as enjoyable if instead of Link leaping in the air with a squeal he let out an agonising scream of tortured pain as his flesh charred and burnt away from his blackened skeletal remains.
FWIW.
I don't know if you should use socialist realism as an ideal to strive for, seeing as many historians believe it had a deadening effect on Soviet culture.
What the hell is a "realistic" rendition of a walking plant, an elf, or a magical spell anyway? There's never going to be a "realistic" Zelda by definition.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
This works great if you want zombies. Maybe some of you out there have some scientific theories of why this is.
I suspect that even if the characters had perfect photorealism they would still look bad without some human-like intelligence controlling its features. It would seem we actually stylize our selves by displaying appropriate expressions/reactions to our surroundings. Even real people that do this badly look sick and frightening to us.
Dont Worry. Nintendo will not leave us with a zombie Link, fighting zombie monsters, rescuing a zombie Zelda. It will be stylized in some way. I'm sure it will be something new and great!
I've played a fair number of games that had good graphics and still had darn good gameplay and plot etc. Gameplay and graphics are not mutually exclusive, it's just that too much compensation tends to occur between the two.
Play the game first, then if it sucks, complain. Chances are while you're busy whining I'll be enjoying my good gameplay and awesome graphics, because the series has yet to dissappoint me...
Nice job on this article, thanks.
Seriously, most people who played Prince of Persia: Sands of Time really enjoyed the game, despite the fact that the characters were "stylized" in a quasi-cartoonish manner. That didn't distract them from the fact that there was great character development and engaging gameplay, which made it a favorite.
Then along came Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, and this very debate exploded. Yes, the game had an engaging storyline and phenomenal graphics, but the artistic direction had taken a darker, grittier, more realistic tone. Some people loved it (myself included), and some people absolutely hated it, but the response from Ubi was great: The prince himself was older, jaded, and in a much darker place in his life than when he was in the previous game.
Those things being said...the graphical styling is really secondary. So long as they are well done, it's the game play that makes people give a shit about the character enough to spend a dozen hours with them and consider buying the next chapter.
I might be mistaken here, but I don't think people stating the game as "easy" is that cut and dry.
Wind Waker was easy, sure. It also could be completed in a fairly short time period. I think back to Majora's Mask where it took me months of playtime here and there to solve due to the constant time travel. I think the combination of the two factors -- easy AND fast --are what people are referring to when they say it was "easy."
A prime example is the case of "the other world" that exists in a good number of the other Zelda games. Where a gloriously long adventure has been divided evenly by two different worlds.
In the case of Wind Waker, the "alternate world" was basically a room or two in the castle and a single dirt road outside leading to a dungeon where the final battle took place -- a far cry from the light and dark worlds of previous adventures.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that wished they could have gone and explored the rest of Hyrule (especially in cel-shaded world) instead of it being barricaded off like some poorly put together landscape.
culminating in an absolutely fabulous final battle against Gannondorf.
Oh yes. The best end battle of the series, without a doubt. Best boss battle, period, I'd say.
One of the reasons why, something that took me a while to realize, was that for the first time ever Zelda isn't a useless weight around your neck. I was dissapointed by Ocarina's Zelda who seemed bad-ass, but turned into your typical damsel in distress as soon as she put on a dress. Not so in Wind Waker.
Yes, it was easy. On the other hand, so was every other Zelda game.
And speaking of every other Zelda game, every game has featured Link as a child or at most a teenager saving the world from evil, and taken pains to remind you of it both with the story and with the graphics.
On the other hand, the original Zelda wasn't that easy. For the later games, in particular Ocarina and Wind Waker, I wouldn't have minded some kind of difficulty knob.
The enemies of Democracy are
Does Metroid Prime count? What about Eternal Darkness? I see your point, but does it matter if those more mature games come from 1st party teams working closely with Nintendo, rather than an internal dev team in Nintendo itself?
I just don't think "mature games" are the kinds of games Shigeru Miyamoto wants to make, and frankly I'm not about to tell that man what he should do.
The enemies of Democracy are
...Of slashvertisements.
Now, I read Slashdot regularly - At least two or three times per day. And quite seriously, I have not noticed images inline in a FP ever before. And not just randomly linked images, either - real, Slashdot-hosted images included in an article.
Not a good sign of things to come, when Slashvertisements start resembling any other "independant" bought-and-paid-for gaming (or other niche-industry) site.
every person over the age of 25 that I've heard comment on the cell shading has been supportive of it
You hit it on the head there. Firstly, there is the fact that older fans of the franchise fondly remember the early incarnations of Zelda when EVERYTHING in videogames was "cartoonish" because of limited technology. Somehow staying with such a rendering would make sense--It's linka like if Nintendo decided to render Mario to look like a REAL Italian-American plumber from the Bronx or something--replete with coarse facial stubble, yellow teeth, sweaty armpits and exposed butt-crack--it just wouldn't be right!
Second of all, most people become less superficial as they age. Bells and wistles will still grab attention initially, but factors of more substance will bring people back for more--basically, looks matter less. That, besides simple nostalgia, is what makes "retrogaming" and long-running franchises popular among older videogame enthusiasts. It doesn't matter if Pac-man is just a yellow dot--there was a bit of fun character deveopment, cute music and simple addictive gameplay. The same factors make those "popcap" games and dinky little shareware titles popular.
Grown-ups will give a game a more fair shake. They will NOT put up with a photorealistic game if it is harder to manage the controllers than it is to play the violin, the plot is pointless, the characterisation is weak and the puzzles are more tedious than the paperwork and procedures HR makes them fill out at the office. They care not about how the smoke looks, or if the frame rate hits 100FPS (so long as it isn't so jerky that it gives them a headache).
Nintendo should release a cell shaded game where the main character is a persecuted homosexual who has to solve puzzles which refer to classical literature... etc. etc.
That is certainly a "grown up" premise for a game, although it is a lousy example, since pretty much EVERYBODY would avoid such a game like the plague. The 14-year-old would be put off by the "cartoony" graphics. The "Church Lady" types who can be equally shallow in other ways would interpret the cartoony graphics as promoting "deviant lifestyles" to children. The controversy would generate a handful of sales but then people would realise that the game sucked because the plot was pointless (how would one's knowlegde of classical literature convince a gay-bashing goon to cease and desist?), the puzzles are tedious (unless you are an English-Lit major--and even they might prefer to read the literature than answer trivia based on it), and the characters are flat and stereotypical (assumtion that all--or even most--people with moral objections to homosexual behaviour would "lynch" or "attack" a homosexual person). And above all else, games are supposed to be fun and the whole premise is a pretty depressing commentary on society.
As a better example I might point to games like "Leisure Suit Larry" where the environment is decidedly cartoony and the theme definitely for "adults only". One might also point out as I did above the success of small and simple but addictive games that are popular amongst players who are not considered the traditional demographic (ie. women over 30, or retirees)--the ones that are "too primitive" for hardcore teen gamers but are still great fun.
I guess that immature people crave "realism" because they have had limited exposure to reality and as such realism is still exciting--and older people have enough reality in their lives that something that departs from reality is a welcome escape.
I think a lot of the initial outcry over Wind Waker's style was that the initial screenshots for "the next Zelda game" looked realistic (similar to the upcoming title). Then, after a delay, the next set of screenshots were cartoonish.
Could it be that maybe certain people liked the idea of a grown-up Link and really liked the style of the older Link in Ocarina of Time? Could it be that people want to see their favorite characters grow up like they have?
...
Could it be that someone can like the child Link as well as the adult Link at the same time? Ocarina of Time did the job of making fans of young and old Link enjoy the same game incredibly well.
Personally, I'm a fan of the adult Link (and have been since Zelda 2), but I still really enjoyed Wind Waker and Minish Cap.
This whole thing is a non-issue meant to stir up crap about kiddy versus adult.
And I fell for it. Crap.
"Apparently so, but suppose you throw a coin enough times. Suppose one day, it lands on its edge."
Cel-shading is rendered as polygons too, you know.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Exactly. If I want to blow stuff up and look real doing it, I have two systems to go to. If I want to play frisbee with a dog (yes, I play Nintendogs) or make plankton make music I have no choice but Nintendo. They time in and time out deliver interesting, fun, completely unrealistic experiences. And that's the charm. If I'm going to be "taken away" by a game, I want to be taken away to somewhere strange and different and fun. Even if it is kiddy.
I think the Zelda games should split into two different types of games.
Darker-3D realism:
There could be a line of Zelda games that have realistic graphics but are also very dark, as how it seems this new Zelda game might be like. Target it toward an older audience, and not necessarily be full of gore, but perhaps just be overall darker ( think scarier, people dieing, etc. ).
Cartoony-topdown:
This would be of the old style of games, with it being top down and more cartoony. This doesn't mean that it should be targeted toward kids, but perhaps a little safer for kids, a Kids to Adult game. I think this would also appeal to the Classic Zelda fans who liked the older top-down style of play.
While I agree that many people can't see past the "kiddy" graphics, I believe that most of us diehard Zelda fans that were turned off were turned off by the shocking change. They changed the whole style that Zelda has matured elegantly with since the Super Nintendo version. Where we left off at was Majoras Mask, an extremely creative and dark game. A game where even though the engine didn't change and there was no Zelda to rescue, the experience felt like something Link would encounter. It truly felt like a next step in the evolution of the game. Then they show us a clip for what appeared to be a great step forward with a darker, deeper experience. It's like the game was growing up with us and with what technology could permit it to do. Then all of a sudden, that game is pulled and we're shown a clip of a trendy, cell shaded link and expected to awe at the Dreamcast regurgitated "style" and over the top facial expressions. They weren't believable, they were overdone to make sure you didn't miss out on any smile or frown! The video clip was then topped off with a pig that dances his feet mid-air before he falls down a hole. Can you see why so many of us were so pissed off? It was a repeated mistake like Mario 2 (Fun game, BTW) or Zelda 2 on the NES
Between the Zelda decision and news when Rare was bought out by Microsoft, I saw no more reason to pick the Gamecube over the Xbox. However, about a year ago, I did pick up a used gamecube and have played through Zelda. Did I think it was a fun game and worth my time? Absolutely. Am I disappointed that it didn't feel like the Zelda I had been waiting years to play? Absolutely. Would I be less peeved if they gave us the two games in opposite order or if they never set the wrong expectations to begin with? Probably. I'll be scheduling a few days off from work when the new one releases! Nintendo is really scoring big points with its fans by seeing this project through.
-Lucas
The people who said that Wind Waker "destroyed Zelda" need a good reality check--go look at Miyamoto's own artwork for the first Zelda; not just the sprites in the game--Miyamoto's own art, his original artistic concept of what he wanted the game to be like. What do you see? A short, little "cartoonish" Link.
Play A Link to the Past on the SNES, and pay attention to the visual style. Then go play Wind Waker. Most people should be able to tell that Wind Waker has a lot in common with A Link to the Past visually--it's kind of like A Link to the Past in 3D.
Miyamoto has said that at first he attempted to do cel-shading on Ocarina of Time, but the N64 hardware simply couldn't handle it.
People need to recognize that Wind Waker was the fulfillment of what Miyamoto had been aiming for for nearly 20 years, and people who condemn him for that artistic decision should not call themselves fans of the Zelda series. They may be "fans" of Ocarina of Time, but having played only the N64 Zeldas does not make one an expert on what a Zelda game "should" be.
Regarding the issue of realism vs. style, I have to say that it bothers me that the only concerns in the tech demos so far for the next generation consoles so far have been how realistic everything will be able to look. I guess it's true that Sony and MS both did that the last time around, and there have still been some "artistic" styles used (even from Sony itself, as in the case of ICO and the upcomg Shadow of the Colossus).
It's definitely a cultural thing, though. I bought DS and GameCube games all summer at my local EB, and every single time, I was either laughed at or insulted by the guy working there, because I was buying "kiddie games".
I was in GameStop a while back, and was talking to the guy at the register (who in all fairness was a nice guy), and he thought it was cool that I was buying Star Fox 64 (used, of course), and said that he was ready to break down and buy a GameCube because of Zelda (Twilight Princess). I didn't bother to ask why, if he was apparently so into Zelda, he hadn't already bought a GameCube for Wind Waker, because I already knew the answer to that one.
It's sad that Nintendo feels the need to compromise its artistic style for the sake of satisfying spoiled American kids, but I guess it doesn't really make any difference. Twilight Princess does look great, both graphically and...well, in terms of being a great game. It does concern me, though, that in the next generation, we'll see fewer developers willing to take a risk on a style that's more artistic than realistic. I think that Wind Waker's style fit the Zelda series perfectly (moreso, I daresay, than Ocarina of Time's did), and I hope that we haven't seen the last of it.
This is completely backwards, actually. Iconic characters are easier to step into than realistic characters. Realistic characters are more distinctly someone else, and thus, have a sense of otherness about them. Iconic characters, on the other hand, being abstract, can effectively be possessed more completely by any player.
I recommend reading The Undead Zone for a good primer on this topic. It invokes both Mori and McCloud to make the case against realism.
That all said, I think people are making too big a deal about all this, with respect to Zelda. Twilight Princess ISN'T realistic. Link only looks about as realistic as a 3D-ified Disney character, to be honest. The game still looks stylized -- just a different style from last time.
*sigh* The first post in this thread mentioning "uncanny valley" was at 1:32 -- 16 minutes before my post, the second to mention it. And there were several after.
Mods on crack, as usual.
You were not. I am pretending that I will some day.
Open Source Sushi
Glad to see that Im not the only one who thinks this way. I love Zelda. To me, Zelda brings back childhood memories. Zelda is about puzzles and gameplay, but its also about funny characters, blue sky, green grass, silliness, and fun!
Twilight Princess will no doubt be an excellent game, but to me its not Zelda. Its dark, misty and gray. Link turns into a grey wolf when he goes to another world, not a pink bunny like in "A Link to the Past".
I am 27 years old and I often play games that are dark and mature. Thats why I sometimes want to play bright and silly adventures like Zelda, games that are just about fun and dont take themselves too seriously. "Adult" and "mature" do not mean a character with an "attitude" and darker surroundings. Even with more realistic graphics, Twilight Princess will be about a teenage boy in a funny hat who goes to save a princess. Im betting that just like in the previous Zelda games, the storyline will have as much depth as a puddle and as much intellectual content as cotton candy. The way I see it, Wind Waker is more mature than Twilight Princess. At least it didnt try to pretend to be anything more than it really was. Calling TP "mature" just because the game has realistic graphics really says something about the true maturity level of the industry.
...that the people who tout realism tend to talk about explosions, bullet impacts and sound like psycopathic gun-nuts, and the people who tout Nintendo's "charm" and the unrealistic graphics tend to sound like overprotective parents of three-year-olds who would blanch if someone said "poo"?
Maybe the fact is that our culture, our personal biases, and our views about what the world is or should be are a large part of what determines if we enjoy a given game's presentation. Wind Waker took a threat to the lives of everyone in the world and scaled it down to a stylized, sanitized level of violence that could be applied to pre-teens. The people who want their children to be playing games without body parts flying everywhere loved it. The people who want to play games where they can make body parts fly everywhere didn't.
Granted, there are middle views to those two extremes, and my argument is deliberately over-simplified...but I still think it's a valid point. I'll go put on my asbestos underwear now. :)
Thanks, if it comes past my attention maybe we'll take a look.
(By that time my kids will be old enough to beg for something more halflifeish, probably. Sigh.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The Mona Lisa is realistic and not cartoony. Does that mean that it isn't really art and its just pandering to it's fanbase? What makes most of these comments rediculous is that they don't consider realism a "style" even though it is just as much as cel-shading is a "style". I don't play games because they are cartoony or because they are realistic. I play because its fun...
Creative Demolition
A thought on this article has been posted here: http://www.gamesareart.com/index.php?sec=home_comm ents&eventoid=80#comments
Cheers
Your character (the hero) is not Link. Links is long dead. You are just some kid that gets swept up in a major series of events. They make this quite clear before you leave the first island. Heck people who love you/know you don't want you to leave on the dangerous quest. Remember that your character was dressed in greed for a coming of age (whatever that may be in that universe) ceremony that was clearly part of the Legend of Zelda that survived the flood and being passed down through over a thousand years of history.
To me all the key points in the game (the things involving the main plot) had the necessary epic whateverness.
Try reading The Lord of the Rings. Every moment is not an epic struggle of good vs. evil and heroic combat. Thats what makes it IMO a better story since you don't get bored with yet another battle scene, and when they do come along it makes them that much more interesting. The point where the Rohirrim sweep down into the fields in front of Minas Tirith is possibly one of the best described battles (outside of epics like the Mahabharata, also something that spends little time being all about epicness) I have ever imagined, based on the words on the page.
Yes, I wish there was a bigger Hyrule part to Wind Waker, but I wouldn't trade in anything if it meant a change to the central plot and it's delivery.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Maybe Link can Smoulder with Generic Rage.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.