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.
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
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.
I think that there is just as much chance of Nintendo porting Zelda as there is of Sony porting Gran Turismo. The console manufacturers want there to be a game related reason for choosing their console. Having every game available for every platform is great for the consumer, but bad for the smaller console manufaturer.
Not bloody likely. Hiroshi Yamauchi would appear in the night as a Ninja of all that is Nintendo and eviscerate any executive stupid enough to do that with a katana. Of course the blood would be green.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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. 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.
You expect me to fall for that a SECOND time? Yeah right.
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.
I've never understood people like you. So the game is fun and has spot on control, but you can't enjoy the game because you're hanging on to some weird voice telling you that because it's got "kiddy' graphics it's for kids? WHO CARES as ong as IT'S FUN? Do the graphics insult you in some way? Do people come over while you are playing a single player game in the privacy of your own home and point and laugh at you calling you a wimpy two year old girl when you pop the disc in?
Ludicrous.
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!!
I know everyone's pocketbook is different, but a used GC at EB/GStop is $59.00. I traded in a few crappy PS2 titles and got mine for $6.00.
I've since traded in a bunch of stale PS2 titles and have Mario Party 5, Donkey Konga 2 w/bongo's, Starfox Adventures, Puyo Pop, Mario Sunshine, Metroid Prime, and Luigi's Mansion for a total investment of about $60 including the system.
That's about the cost of just one new title, and I have had more FUN with the GC than I've had with my PS2 in years.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
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.
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.
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".
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!
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.
Screw realism. I've already got all the reality I can handle. On a game console you've got the power to make any reality you like - why slave away making a pantomine of this one?
The same thing cheeses me off in FPS games - how players want sniper rifles and nazis and waiting for the next round to restart because respawning is unrealistic... this perspective limits things so damn much. Reality and history has a much shorter list of gameplay and artistic possibilities than your imagination.
I loved the cel-shaded games the moment I saw them. Dreamcast had a laundry-list of awesome titles with cartoon shader graphics.
The problem is that the US game market is full of early teens. These kids are quite possibly the worst possible target market - look at the wasteland of the movie and music industries that cater to them. In games, they're obsessed with things being adult and serious and dramatic, because they're so desperate not to look like kids. In the end, it's a reflection of their music - the games are as emo as they are. Everything has to have an end-of-the-world plotline and serious, dramatic graphics and real-world weaponry.
By the time you realise that what really rocks are games that are fun and unique, you're too old to have the time on your hands to kill playing them.
Which is the more adult person? The one who plays KillZone? Or the one who plays Chu Chu Rocket unabashedly because it's FUN.
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!!!