I kind of doubt that the "majority" were opposed to the style, at least of the people who played the game. People who actually tried the game and still ranted and raved about how the style was terrible are, firstly, imbeciles, and secondly, likely teenagers who were raised on The Ocarina of Time (which was a great game, but it shouldn't be cited as the ultimate example of what Zelda is "supposed to" look like).
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.
Microsoft hasn't come close to making up for the loss. They've lost $3 billion on the Xbox over the past four years, and are still losing a tremendous amount of money on every Xbox that's sold (some say they still cost nearly $300 to make).
I'm not sure what Sony's total losses have been with the PS2, but I'm not sure that they've made much of anything, if anything all.
I know that Sony's gaming division lost $100 million last year.
By contrast, Nintendo made $100 million in profits last year.
All of the people preaching doom and gloom for Nintendo need to recognize the fact that in spite of Sony's large marketshare, and MS's "we're the greatest" arrogance, Nintendo is the only one of the three that's actually making a profit on games. And between MS and its deceptive "$299! Oh wait, $399 if you've got half a brain!" marketing, and Sony with its overpowered and likely overpriced hardware, it looks like Nintendo might be the only one left when the smoke clears.
Either way, Does this asshat REALLY expect the ESRB to go through this trouble to find easter eggs (for lack of a better term) like this and rate THEM as well? People had to go through A LOT of trouble in order to get their games to have these scenes in it, you can hardly hold the ratings board accountable for people doing things like this. This guy is absolutely ridiculous.
The ESRB doesn't actually play the games they rate. The developer/publisher/whatever generally provides a video of the most "objectionable" content, and the ESRB people rate the game based on the video.
If this minigame was on the disc, whether it's easily accessible or not, Rockstar should have made the ESRB aware of it. If developers are allowed to leave things like this out of what they show the ESRB, then the whole rating system simply breaks down.
The PlayStation and PlayStation 2 were both released for the same price in Japan--39,800 yen, about $380. Sony people in Japan are reportedly saying that they're aiming for the same price with the PS3.
You're right that the PS3 probably won't be $400 here, though. The last two were released for $300 here, so I'm predicting it will happen again with the PS3.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
I'm not sure what Sony's total losses have been with the PS2, but I'm not sure that they've made much of anything, if anything all.
I know that Sony's gaming division lost $100 million last year.
By contrast, Nintendo made $100 million in profits last year.
All of the people preaching doom and gloom for Nintendo need to recognize the fact that in spite of Sony's large marketshare, and MS's "we're the greatest" arrogance, Nintendo is the only one of the three that's actually making a profit on games. And between MS and its deceptive "$299! Oh wait, $399 if you've got half a brain!" marketing, and Sony with its overpowered and likely overpriced hardware, it looks like Nintendo might be the only one left when the smoke clears.
I can always dream, can't I? ;)
Either way, Does this asshat REALLY expect the ESRB to go through this trouble to find easter eggs (for lack of a better term) like this and rate THEM as well? People had to go through A LOT of trouble in order to get their games to have these scenes in it, you can hardly hold the ratings board accountable for people doing things like this. This guy is absolutely ridiculous. The ESRB doesn't actually play the games they rate. The developer/publisher/whatever generally provides a video of the most "objectionable" content, and the ESRB people rate the game based on the video. If this minigame was on the disc, whether it's easily accessible or not, Rockstar should have made the ESRB aware of it. If developers are allowed to leave things like this out of what they show the ESRB, then the whole rating system simply breaks down.
The PlayStation and PlayStation 2 were both released for the same price in Japan--39,800 yen, about $380. Sony people in Japan are reportedly saying that they're aiming for the same price with the PS3.
You're right that the PS3 probably won't be $400 here, though. The last two were released for $300 here, so I'm predicting it will happen again with the PS3.
It's not a $35 difference. The DS is $140 in Japan--after tax. The PSP is $195 after tax. It's a $55 difference.