Quote:"The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker has entered Nintendo's record books as its biggest pre-order ever. The game has racked up 560,000 pre-orders. That's $28million in sales before it has even been released."

Quote:Originally posted by Nintendarse
If you're doing a straight comparison, Super Mario Sunshine sold 300,000 in its first week. The following factors, however, mess with any proportional comparisons:

1.The Zelda pre-order campaign

This will cause a greater proportion of the total sales to come from preorders. Nintendo is hoping that by having those games out in the mainstream that it will encourage others to buy the game, increasing the total sales. More skeptical people predict that there is a fixed amount of people that would buy Zelda regardless of the preorder, and that the preorder campaign has mearly shifted the sales curve toward its launch date, but not increased overall sales. These skeptics predict that, after a HUGE first week of sales, the sales will slow rapidly and the game will sell possibly sell less than 1 million copies. I tend to lean towards a compromise position, one that rules out both Nintendo's GTA comparisons and naysayer's doomsday rants. However, who knows? I was dead wrong about how many people would preorder Zelda. To be light on myself, I made a prediction before the preorder campaign was announced. Regardless, I am very impressed by these numbers. But I must remind myself: [B]preordered does not equal sold.

2. Zelda is being released in MARCH

If you were thinking of doing a straight proportion of SMS v. Wind Waker(so far), it would tell you that Wind Waker will sell about 1.62 million copies in the first 5 months and five days. This, however, is bad predicting logic. Super Mario Sunshine received a huge increase in sales over the holiday period. For evidence of this fact:

Source: NPD TRST

Super Mario Sunshine (release date: August 25, 2002)
August: 350768
September: 266592
October: 66436
November: 131498
December: 177409
January: 22680

With these numbers we see that the traditional sales dropoff (SMS sells 350768 copies in its first five days, 266592 copies in days 6 through 35, and 66436 copies in days 36 through 66) is interrupted during the holiday season. Zelda cannot depend upon this seasonal phenomenon. It is likely that Zelda will follow a traditional sales curve. The real question is, "After the big first week, how steep is the dropoff?" [/B]

Quote:We actually think that as you play this game and look at the world around you, it's going to seem very realistic despite the graphics style. By using the term "realistic," I mean the qualities of the world itself. I don't mean to deny the value of the more photorealistic graphics, but the more realistic graphics get the more unrealistic things such as bumping into a wall or getting hurt might be. If not expressed properly, it will seem out of place. This time we've tried to have very realistic expression. We want to have a game where everything in the world feels like it is in its place. We think that when you play, you will see Link do something and not react in a way that's not realistic. From the point of view, The Wind Waker is very realistic in terms of expression and the whole oneness of the world.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Its just the way it is. :p

Quote:you are exactly the same

Quote:you do the same thing

Quote:The thing is, I'm looking at the same words from Miyamoto, and I come to a different conclusion: that a SW2000 Zelda would be an arduous task, one that would take many years of polish. I absoutely agree with him. That, because it is a cartoon world, things like exaggerated animation and such are consistent for the world. And that consistency is important for a game. This consistency is what he calls, "realistic." Every photorealistic game to date has had inconsistencies (bumping into a wall strangely, etc.) that reduce the immersion. However, a realistic game does not require such glaring inconsistencies. It is simply because the graphics are photorealistic that people expect the rules of reality to apply. Yet, within the first five minutes, the Matrix skillfully explains to the audience that its photorealistic world has different rules from reality. And most of the audience accepted that without saying, "Ugh, that's so unrealistic!"

Quote:I must use part of that quote: "If not expressed properly, it will seem out of place." This leaves arguing room for my opinion. I agree with the statement, but what if it is expressed properly...?

And Miyamoto replies, "Well, it's very difficult to do that. It would take years and years. We would spend months just on realistic facial animations alone."

And I reply, "But it's not impossible, right?"

And I think we can all agree that, with the right amount of time and the right amount of inginuity, a "realistic" photorealistic Zelda could be done.

Quote:P.S. OB1, name ONE innovaion in Wind Waker that I cannot explain how to convert into photorealism (with no time cap) and I will be convinced that you are right. It's just that I have not seen ONE thing in Wind Waker that I could not imagine working (with a generous amount of retooling) in a photorealistic atmosphere.

Quote:And they'd actually have to tone down OoT's fighting engine even more since OoT wasn't actually very realistic-looking like the SW2000 demo was. Unless of course they use your wonderful "Zelda Matrix" idea.

Quote:OB1-I guess I didn't explain it well enough. Forget Matrix, because that's a side point, unrelated to Zelda.

Main point: photorealistic graphics do not require glaring inconsistencies (walking into walls, etc). However, to meet people's expectations of reality, lots of time must be spent to polish everything. But it is not impossible.

Of course if Zelda was photorealistic, it wouldn't have exaggerated animations like Wind Waker. Time would be spent to create fluid, realistic animations. And if you're claiming that the exaggerated animations are the innovative aspect of Wind Waker, take a step back and look at that statement. The original Donkey Kong had exaggerated animations. Super Mario 64 had exaggerated animations. The final fantasy series on SNES had exaggerated animations...but then what is it about th animation that makes Wind Waker stand out? I believe it to be the fluidity of animation. Again, fluidity of animation can be created in a photorealistic world, it just takes a lot of time.

Quote:I see we have come upon argument of entertainment v. art. I understand (and believe) that video games can be an art form, but there is a time and place for that. The question is, "Is Miyamoto Van Gogh or Steven Spielburg?" I only have to look at the case of Sega on Dreamcast to convince myself that artists must focus their creative spirit toward a product that will ultimately sell. Samba de Amigo? Sequels to games that didn't sell very well? These are impulsive decisions that may work for an independent artist, but are counterproductive for a entertainer. I see myself in parallel with the Sega fan, screaming and shouting, "I love your games, I love everything about them, but I want your company to succeed more than I want you to please me." I get insulted when OB1 assumes that I am asking for change to suit my own tastes. I have come to love the look of Wind Waker. But it is not impossible for me to love something and simultaneously think that it is bad for Nintendo as an entertainment company. Of course, on free merchandise and name alone, Zelda has sold 560000 copies, so I may be wrong.

In the argument of whether Miyamoto is an artist or an entertainer, we might want to use a more modern artist/entertainer: George Lucas. It would be false of me to go up to Van Gogh and say, "don't paint that way." Art is self expression, which occassionally touches other people emotionally/aesthetically. But video games are equal parts art and entertainment (as are movies). Would it be incorrect of someone to watch a pre-release version of Star Wars:Episode I and say, "I understand what you're trying to do with Jar-Jar, but the character keeps on pulling me out of the movie."? Or, "I think that teenagers like me will be pissed off by Jar-Jar."? Or even, "This movie sucks."? Obviously, the fact that there are previewings of movies are proof that Lucasarts is willing to diverge from George Lucas's artistic vision if it does not please audience. By your logic, someone should not be allowed to criticize Episode I, because it is an infallable artistic work. By the way, if you're limiting freedom of criticism, you must simultaneously limit freedom of praise. It would be logically inconsistent to limit only one.

Quote:Challenge #1: Fighting. The only change in fighting system is the context-sensitive dodge/critical hit button. I don't understand where this "huge difference" is coming from. The flipping and such that you have seen is not under the control of the player. The "b" icon button flashes, you press it quickly, and Link performs an acrobatic manuever that is chosen by the situation. So it is essentially a context-sensitive evade button. This could be implemented in a realistic game just as it is in Wind Waker. Acrobatics are not out of the realm of possibilities for a photorealistic Link. Let's say Link is facing off against a Moblin, and the Moblin winds up for a big hit. The b-button icon flashes. The player hits it, and Link performs a manuever IDENTICALLY like the dodge in SSB:Melee. Link is now behind the Moblin, just like the evade function in Wind Waker.

But perhaps you want something more intense? Instead of doing the SSB:M dodge, the computer chooses the critical hit function, so Link automatically whips out the hookshot, shoots it off-screen, and performs a huge jump in the air over the towering Moblin. At the peak of the jump, Link performs a flip (a-la- Majora's Mask). Mid-flip, he sticks the sword into the Moblin's head, delivering the coup-de-grace. Link lands on the ground with a facial expression of triumph, made even more sweet by the spontaneous combustion of the Moblin corpse, now lying on the ground. The Master sword falls to the ground with a "clank," and a transluscent Moblin ghost is released from the flames and escapes into the sky to swim among the clouds.

Quote:Given that Zelda is Miyamoto's artistic expression, he probably knows what direction it should go in artistically. I am simply questioning his market sense. I may be wrong, and I would be the happiest man alive if Wind Waker tears up the charts. However, I hold in high regard everyone's right to criticize/praise the entertainment value of anything, and furthermore, to express that view.

Quote:Originally posted by Sacred Jellybean
OoT was plenty realistic-looking. What couldn't be done in OoT that couldn't be done in a more photo-realistic Zelda? I mean, sure, some of the magic aspects couldn't be done in *real life* (such as the sword... swinging... thing...), but we're talking about a photo-realistic fantasy world.

Quote:This is a very tiring argument. You, ABF, and whoever else can go ahead and disagree with Miyamoto on whatever you want to. You have the right to do so. If you cannot see what makes WW innovative and unique then that's your problem. Perhaps you'll find out for yourself once you play the game long enough.

Quote:It would be like me going up to Van Gogh and saying "Dude, don't paint like that! It's wrong! You're wrong!". This is Miyamoto's game. He created it, and he decides what's right or wrong for it.

Quote:Of course anyone can criticize his movies, but what's your point?

Quote:But I suppose that anything that was made with entertainment in mind cannot be art, right?

Quote:But video games are equal parts art and entertainment (as are movies).

Quote:If you honestly think that the fighting in WW (or just about anything else in the game) wouldn't look out of place in a realistic-looking Zelda game then you're either blind or have yet to see the game in action.

Quote:That's precisely it, OB1: I'm not disagreeing with Miyamoto on art or quality AT ALL. As I said, I LOVE WIND WAKER. I love the beautiful simplicity. I love the charm. However, I'm concerned that Miyamoto is letting his artistic impulses get the best of him.

Please, if we're being fair with subjectivity, not being impressed with something is not a "problem," just as being impressed with Wind Waker does not carry a positive connotation.

Quote:I think I'm misunderstanding this, because in the first one, you say that art shouldn't be criticized, and in the second, you say it's okay for art to be criticized. I think what you're saying is that it's okay for people to share opinion, but people shouldn't make themselves out to be the authorative source on art. On that point, I say Amen.

Quote:That means that video games are partly art, and partly entertainment. So...why do you think I said otherwise?

Quote:Umm...does Link look awkward in Soul Caliber II? No. Of course, Link wouldn't be all jumpy and skippy. He would have realistic animations, so that it WOULDN'T look out of place. But the improvements are kept intact.

Quote:What can I say, I have a big imagination. In my mind, I can see how every feature of Wind Waker could work in a realistic art style. The essence would be retained, but the presentation would be different. It would be like taking a beautiful Spanish novel and translating it to English. If you translate it word-for-word (as you seem to think is the only possible way), of course it'll be a piece of crap. It would end up like Babelfish translations. One step up from there is the political translator, who would get the right meaning, but the flare of the language would be lost. The best would be to have the writer himself, who knows both languages more than fluently, translate the piece. What I'm trying to prove is that all of te amazing parts of Zelda:WW COULD be translated properly, not that I'd want them that way, but that they could. And that even me, a lowly adolescent who's never even met the creator himself, could translate it in a satisfactory manner.

Quote:So... you don't like artists to flex their creative muscles and are more in favor of sales? I feel the exact opposite. As I've said in the past, I'd rather see Nintendo die trying to breathe life into the industry by making original, innovative, and artistic games than see them continue forever without innovating as much and pushing their limits of creativity.

Quote:Because you put down the artistic integrity of people like Shigeru Miyamoto and Steven Spielberg because they made art and entertainment.

Quote:Yeah... key words being "realistic movements". He would look silly using WW Link's animations.

Quote:And if you disagree with him then well, good for you.

Quote:No it isn't.

Quote:Stupid! Don't you understand that ABF's word is fact, even though he says that whenever he says anything like that it's just his opinion, but then contradicts himself immediately afterwards?

Quote:Then we must agree that we have different ideals for Nintendo...one being no better than the other. Your ideal is for Nintendo to be the undying artist. Mine is for Nintendo to be the artist that uses all of his creativity to entertain.

Quote:I thought my metaphor was pretty good...oh well. What I'm saying is that Link's animations in Wind Waker are not a key element in the Zelda experience. I think you could change the animations, the art style, the presentation, and it would still be Legend of Zelda:Wind Waker. But if you honestly think that the animations are one of the elements that are intrinsic to Zelda, I can't convince you of anything, because even the slightest change would ruin the game for you.

Quote:The thing is, I'm looking at the same words from Miyamoto, and I come to a different conclusion: that a SW2000 Zelda would be an arduous task, one that would take many years of polish. I absoutely agree with him.

Quote:That, because it is a cartoon world, things like exaggerated animation and such are consistent for the world. And that consistency is important for a game. This consistency is what he calls, "realistic." Every photorealistic game to date has had inconsistencies (bumping into a wall strangely, etc.) that reduce the immersion. However, a realistic game does not require such glaring inconsistencies. It is simply because the graphics are photorealistic that people expect the rules of reality to apply. Yet, within the first five minutes, the Matrix skillfully explains to the audience that its photorealistic world has different rules from reality. And most of the audience accepted that without saying, "Ugh, that's so unrealistic!"

Quote:And I think we can all agree that, with the right amount of time and the right amount of inginuity, a "realistic" photorealistic Zelda could be done.

Quote:photo-realistic fantasy world.

Quote:Well that's the thing. OoT sort of touched the whole realistic thing but wasn't really able to pull it off because of the graphics engine, but the SW2000 demo looked like it was taking the whole realism idea much further and trying to make a "what if Zelda was just a bunch of real humans in funny costumes" game. And if you look at the art style from OoT you can see that it's actually very cartoony, they were just stuck between the art from the game and a somewhat-realistic look. The visual style of WW is actually much more true to the series than the SW2000 version would have been.

Quote:I thought I'd explained this enough times... maybe this post will get it through? Probably not...

Quote:Art, or success? Tough question for artists... but this isn't exactly art. This is videogames, and Nintendo isn't a artist in a attic... its a company that wants to be succesful... so they will of course do whatever it takes to succeed while staying in their moral (and whatever other) boundaries that they set... if they were smart they would do that anyway... but like Sega, as you point out quite well, Nintendo doesn't exactly always do that.

Should they? I don't know. Art for art's sake is good, but not the way to run a successful games company... a balance of the two is probably best. You just can't make art and expect the people to adjust to like it all the time... as both Nintendo is doing here and Sega does regularly.

It just doesn't work often enough. However... in this case Nintendo has a big thing in their favor: its a major, super-popular franchise that they are running this experiment on... instantly helping it gain in the consumers' eyes... but still... as I've said many times, its questionable to make a game like this that requires the consumers to adjust to like the game for them to be able to accept it... it just isn't a good business practice to follow much...

Quote:I thought my metaphor was pretty good...oh well. What I'm saying is that Link's animations in Wind Waker are not a key element in the Zelda experience. I think you could change the animations, the art style, the presentation, and it would still be Legend of Zelda:Wind Waker. But if you honestly think that the animations are one of the elements that are intrinsic to Zelda, I can't convince you of anything, because even the slightest change would ruin the game for you.

Quote:Yeah... it definitely does seem that he is saying that the realisitc style would be a lot harder to do, and would take a lot more programming and art time that they would rather not spend on the art and graphics style... a understandable choice, of course, but a interesting one, given how in most places these days graphics are so important...

Quote:Yeah... I do see how people COULD expect a realistic world to have realistic physics, but I don't see why they'd REQUIRE it... like OoT -- it hardly had realistic rules in many ways but that wasn't a problem... but I guess it is true that with the increasing complexity that newer graphics bring people expect more. But still... it doesn't seem impossible to do -- just more challenging than a cartoon world is...

Quote:OB1, attempt to understand this concept -- by 'photorealistic' I'm not looking for something exactly like real life... I'm looking for the most realistic look the game could have while still staying true to being a light fantasy game in a fantasy world... it obviously can't be "complete realism". But it could look realistic for that fanstasy world...

Quote:Hmm... I don't understand something. Why do you think that I think OoT looked realistic or something? I never said that in the way you take it to mean... as I tried to explain above here. As for the Spaceworld 2000 Demo, it looked like OoT in improved graphics... and while Link and Ganon did look very serious, they could easily have had some much lighter elements to the graphics in a full game to make it not super-realistic or something...

Quote:Zelda has never had absolutely serious graphics, of course, and since its fantasy that style might not work so well... A 'realistic' Zelda would be like a (improved version of the) Spaceworld demo... but not without humor or anything... I don't see how that style would rule out realistic or convincing nonhuman creatures, or a fantastic world, or something. Its Zelda... it would have those elements, just in a more 'realistic' (considering the subject) style than TWW... its really not a challenging concept...

Quote:Oh, and as said before, Link would have equilivant, but more realistic, animations to what he has in WW... same for the enemies. And it wouldn't hurt the game in any possible way I can see... I just don't understand at all why you think that there would have been some major creative sacrifice if it'd been done that way... it just doesn't really make sense...

Quote:Oh crap... here we go again.

Quote:We've been over this already. You say one thing and then completely contradict yourself the next post.

Quote:You're opposed against any sort of change or risks. Risk-taking is essential to this industry. The reason for the big video game crash was because of Atari's unwillingness to make anything new and different.

Quote:That's a complete contradiction of what you two have been saying this entire time! You say that the look, animation, and presentation are unimportant yet at the same time protest it. If it's not a big deal then why the fuss?? Fantastic point. I applaud you.

Quote:You simply don't get it, do you? If Miyamoto thought that the realistic style would have been right for the game then he would have gone with it. But he has stated several times in the past that he did not feel that the direction Zelda was heading for was right for the series. You have to take all of his comments as a whole rather than one sentence out of context.

Quote:But OoT wasn't realistic-looking. The graphics just weren't good enough to portray the cartoony art design.

Uh, because you've said all along that you want the new Zelda to look realistic like OoT. Hello? And the SW demo looked far more realistic than OoT. It did look like an evolution of OoT, but it took the whole realism thing much further.

Quote:I've repeated myself too many times, but I'll do it once more for you since you seem to have a problem understanding me. The fighting and the movements in WW were made with the visual style in mind, so they made things very exaggerated and cartoony. You could still make a fine Zelda game without these changes, but it wouldn't be the same. That's it. I'm sure they could make a damn fine realitic-looking Zelda game, but it would not be the same as Wind Waker. What about that don't you guys understand?

Quote:the most realistic look the game could have while still staying true to being a light fantasy game in a fantasy world... it obviously can't be "complete realism". But it could look realistic for that fanstasy world...