More good news for Zelda in America

[OB1]

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.

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.

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.

George Lucas does not screen test any of his movies. He finances his films out of his own pocket and has complete control over them. Of course anyone can criticize his movies, but what's your point? Ever heard of an art critic before? There are plenty of them out there, and they do indeed criticize paintings and sculptures and what have you. Likewise, there are film and game critics as well. Are their opinions objective fact? No. They're just that: opinions. Paintings, movies, and video games are art forms. A lot of it might be "bad" art, but it's still art whether or not it was made strictly for making a profit. But I suppose that anything that was made with entertainment in mind cannot be art, right? I never said anything about limiting criticism. I said that if you're going to pass judgement, keep in mind that you are not the authority on this subject and that your opinion is just as subjective as everyone else's.

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.

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.

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.

As do I, but the difference between me and someone like ABF is that I don't consider my opinion to be objective fact. I'm just supporting Miyamoto's decision.