New Miyamoto interview (must read)!

[A Black Falcon]

I wouldn't say WW is innovative because it uses a new graphical style... the gameplay sure isn't innovative... is it different than the gameplay in OoT/MM? Yes... but not so dramatically that its truly innovative... its just a small change from that game. As for the graphics... I don't see how making them in a cartoon style is innovative... different? Sure... but innovation? No... plenty of games before have used cartoon-styled graphics...

Oh... and while Nintendarse's posts aren't easy to follow, they make more sense than yours do, OB1...

Sure, it would have been a very different game.

No, no, no! It would have been different, sure... but not very different...

They changed the character model a bit. That's it.

I'd say it was a bit more than that... Link looks totally different... and the world? More similar, but still not the same as LttP.

The game isn't selling poorly in Japan because of the visual style. The Japanese weren''t turned off by the great visual style of WW as most Westerners were. The Gamecube is just terribly unpopular over there. Look at Mario Sunshine's sales. That game was the perfect evolution of Mario 64 (which was a huge seller in Japan), but it sold like crap (for a Mario game). Part of that was because of Nintendo's bad marketing (some people thought that it was some sort of weird-ass paint game), but also because of the Gamecube's inpopularity over there.

Well... yes. Between poor public opinion and abysmal marketing, great Nintendo games have failed at retail, sure...

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. Hey I think it would be great if Nintendo made games specifically with my tastes in mind, but that's not going to happen any time soon. And believe it or not, I'm not the only person in the world who thinks that WW's visual change was quite innovative. Most of the gaming media shares my views on this subject.

You sure seem to think that Nintendo should do things according to your wishes...

WTF is with this whole lightbulb analogy? It doesn't make any sense. And the gameplay has indeed changed quite a bit because of the graphics (of course it's still Zelda, but that doesn't mean that it's identical to OoT in every way). The way Link controls, the way fights were designed (flipping over an enemy real fast and landing right behind him and slashing him with your sword would look ridiculous if it were a more realistic-looking game), and even the dungeon designs were built around the visual style. Nintendo didn't just change the look of the game because they thought it would be nifty. This isn't just OoT cel-shaded. It's the difference between live-action and animation. There are certain things that you can do in animation that would look out of place in a live-action feature. The same applies to Wind Waker. Everything in Zelda obeys the laws of that world's cartoon physics.

That analogy made sense... once you read it and deciphered it...

I just don't see how WW is so dramatically innovative when it, at heart, is just a improved version of OoT's system... that doesn't seem to qualify as innovation to me... it was innovative in OoT, but not now... it does change things, but not hugely...

I know that you said that you would have wanted WW to look more like Zelda in the GB manuals, but you also said that the game is not innovative as did a few other people who do want it to look more like the SW 2001 demo. You're right, they could have made the same kind of game with the visual style of from the GB manuals, but that would pretty much just be changing Link's model.

No it wouldn't... I don't think that a game based on that graphical style would be all cel-shaded like WW is... and it'd be better for it... Yes, that probably would have been a much better style for Nintendo to use. Just graphical? Partly... but graphics, as you say OB1, affect many parts of the game... not so dramatically as you want to think, but they do. And that style was way better than the one they used... the game itsself? It'd probably end up similar... but it'd be better for it with graphics that would actually be one that, IMO, are right for a Zelda game... unlike the ones that it has... I'd still prefer the OoT-ish spaceworld '01 graphics most of all, but ones based on the GB games would be worlds better than what we got...

This is Nintendarse's newer comment.

Innovation is subjective (which, in Physics terms, is "relative")
We must choose a reference frame (like in physics)
The reference frame should be the consumer
From th reference frame of the consumer, Zelda is not innovative
Therefore, for all intents and purposes, Zelda is not innovative.

Hmm... I don't know. Is innovation subjective? Mostly... but it doesn't require the consumer recognising that its innovative for it to be innovative. Plenty of things have been ignored by consumers and were innovative... also, innovation usually (not always, but usually) connotates a positive emotion about the game... unlike what general public opinion is about Zelda WW. So its not innovative to them... is it innovative otherwise? Not especially, given how it doesn't really do anything truly new...