More good news for Zelda in America

[Private Hudson]

Didn't check if it was posted already..

"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."

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8279

[OB1]

Their biggest pre-order ever? Wow, that's pretty damn good!

[Dark Jaguar]

No, Nintendo's biggest pre-order ever.

[Sacred Jellybean]

That's what he said, silly!

Good to hear that Wind Waker has eclipsed OoT in terms of preorders.

[The Former DMiller]

According to EB it's their biggest preorder sale ever as well. I think that number that was thrown around for Vice City last year must have been the number of copies sent to retailers, not the number of preorders sold.

[Great Rumbler]

:shake: @ Everyone who said a cel-shaded Zelda game would never sell.


Okay, so it may be a little too early to start celebrating, but that's very good news.

[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: 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?"

[big guy]

that's great news, i'm glad the enthusiasm is there for the new zelda game. hopefully it'll sell a lot.

i was one of the people who argued that the masses would be turned off by the new look. i still think that it's a possibility, and will certainly feel that way if zelda doesn't break the 1 million mark. however, i'd really like to be wrong in my prediction and have the game sell phenomenally. in this instance, nintendo's continued success is more improtant to me than my pride...in this instance (to repeat myself for emphasis).

[Great Rumbler]

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]

You just have to go and ruin everything, don't you? :shake:

[Dark Jaguar]

According to gamespot...

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/new...48,00.html

It seems to have "beaten Vice City's preorders". Weird huh? What happened to that 2,000,000 number? If they twisted the numbers...what should we think of Nintendo's numbers then? Alright, opinion set to void.

[A Black Falcon]

How odd... I do think I remember Vice City having 2 or 3 million "preorders", and this one has 580,000... maybe Vice City's number there wasn't exactly accurate? :)

Anyway... maybe it'll convince Nintendo to do this again with Star Fox 2 or F-Zero X: Expansion Pack or something... :)

[Nintendarse]

Let's go to the video tape...or in this case, the press release.

Gamers Take Detour from Vice City and Head to Hyrule; The Legend Of Zelda: The Wind Waker Generates Record Pre-Sell Numbers

REDMOND, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 12, 2003--Since it was first announced, The Legend of Zelda®: The Wind Waker™ pre-sell program for Nintendo GameCube™ has captured the hearts and attention of gamers across the country.

Still two weeks from launch, more than 560,000 Zelda fans have reserved their copy of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and received the nearly sold-out limited-edition disk featuring two playable, full-length games originally for the Nintendo® 64: The Legend of Zelda®: Ocarina of Time® and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Master Quest, for a suggested retail price of $49.95. This makes The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker Nintendo's most successful pre-sell program in history.

"The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is the most anticipated video game in Electronics Boutique's history based on our pre-orders, even outpacing last year's Grand Theft Auto: Vice City," says Jerry Madaio, vice president, merchandising, Electronics Boutique. "And the number of pre-orders is still growing! Clearly, this game's appeal is so wide, that it is a 'must-have' for any Nintendo GameCube owner."

"Given the history of the Zelda series, we expected overwhelming interest, and this solidifies the ever-growing phenomenon and attraction gamers have to the characters and story," explains George Harrison, senior vice president, marketing and corporate communications, Nintendo of America Inc. "It doesn't matter which system you own, gamers across the world respect and anticipate the launch of any Zelda game and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is a killer application that will move hardware."

Launching March 24, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is an epic adventure that will have the character Link sailing the high seas and searching for clues to his sister's mysterious disappearance. The game is brought to life with incredible toon-shaded visuals and a unique facial animation system. Link's eyes not only show his emotions but also provide hints and spot danger, inspiring a sense of wonder in players of all ages. Connect the Game Boy® Advance, via the Nintendo GameCube Game Boy Advance cable, and players can summon the mapmaker Tingle to uncover hidden secrets to help Link in his voyage.

To date, worldwide sales of The Legend of Zelda series have surpassed 36 million software units.

I think the Nintendo statement of being the most pre-ordered game in history is based on on of two things:

1.It is the most pre-ordered Nintendo game in history.
2.It is the most pre-ordered game in EB history (coming from the EB quote in the press release).

PR people have a history of taking little quotes like the one made by the EB vice president of merchandising and extrapolating them into statements like, "Zelda is the most pre-ordered game ever." I'm always skeptical of PR.

About my previous post, I'm sorry for putting such a pragmatic emphasis on it. The thing is, from a total sales perspective, the dropoff from week one to week two is a key factor. People can predict the overall sales of a game given the release date, first week of sales, and second week of sales. And that really interests me.

[The Former DMiller]

The Vice City numbers from last year were orders by retailers, not preorders by actual customers.

[Laser Link]

Wow, and they called those pre-orders? Good old Sony. As EB is one of the bigest videogame stores, I would say it's a big deal when they claim teh Zelda pre-order is the biggest they ever had. Maybe there's a chance that everyone went to EB to pre-order Zelda and everyone went to Walmart to pre-order Vice City (exacgeration, of course) so we can't know for certain that Zelda is the most pre-ordered game ever. Not that it really matters, the point is it's doing well so far. I do think that is almost entirely due to the OoT disc, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more pre-orders than first week sales. There will probably be some people who considered $15 a good price for OoT, and that was all they wanted. You would have to be a fool to pass up on a NEW Zelda game for only $35, but the world is full of fools. :)

But it's a good start, and hopefully this will get word of mouth going. The game does indeed rule, if you can get past the initial shock of the graphics.

[OB1]

But what a great shock! I've seen a lot of doubters totally fall for the game because of how crisp and clean it looks (especially when compared to the blurry screenshots) and how incredible the animation is. And that's just from the demo.

[Darunia]

I myself have prordered the new Zelda, but mark my words---A REALISTIC OoT/MM Zelda on GC would've been better, still! Never-the-less, I do like the loose, exotic feeling that this one has with it's fluid graphics.

[EdenMaster]

Come now, Darunia, you cannot honestly tell me that you would rather have a graphically updated game that you've beaten years ago (probably more than once, like I have), insead of a brand new quest with cel-shaded graphics? You can't be serious. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a graphically updated OoT (not bloodly likely now with this pre-order deal), but in no way would I want it more than the Wind Waker.

Graphics be damned, I wants me Zelda!

[big guy]

man, i just earned $60...i gotta make this last another 12 days for WW...ooooh, maybe i can just go and pre-buy the game...put the full amount down on it...then i won't be tempted to spend the money. sweet, not only do i get to add another pre-order to that huge list, but i get to get the game when it comes out. i'm so thrilled.

[Laser Link]

I think Darunia meant a OoT/MM styled game. I'll take any new Zelda quest regardless of the graphics over a pretty version of a game I've already played, and I think most of you would too.

[Nintendarse]

I think what Darunia is talking about (and what I originally imagined as Zelda GCN) is that all of the major gameplay elements of Wind Waker: the battles, the puzzles, the story, the ocean, the emotion, etc. could be done in the style of Space World 2000. Thus, imagine Wind Waker as we know it does not exist, and that Zelda 2000 is all we know. To appease OB1, I'll say that yes, certain things would seem out of place in a realistic game. However, I think that with a little imagination and inginuity that practically all of the features of Wind Waker could be replicated with a SW2000 style. Instead of fantastical wind swirls, the wind direction in SW2000 Zelda would be indicated by leaves, rain, dust, fog, Link's hair, the ruffling of Link's tunic, the direction of the clouds, the direction of sound (for those with surround sound), and all the other things we pick up on in real life which allows us to know which direction the wind is blowing simply by watching through a window (without tactile clues). Puzzle design, I might add, has very little to do with graphics. Sure, Link wouldn't dodge in the same way that he does in Wind Waker, but that hardly makes it impossible to include a dodge/counterattack move in a SW2000 Zelda. For example: Link in SSB:M has a dodge move that is quite acrobatic. Does this look somehow awkward or out of place? I think we can agree that it does not. In addition, I think that a Zelda game that attempted to realistically tackle the epic proportions of the ocean would be just as innovative as Wind Waker, just in different ways. If you're claiming graphical/emotional innovation, I think that a reflective, refractive, transluscent ocean that reacts properly to weather and time of day would create magnificent vistas that evoke just as much emotion as Wind Waker. It would simply take a lot of work to get it right. The type of commitment that Miyamoto had with Ocarina of Time. And we would have to be willing to wait several years. *Sigh* Perhaps the next generation of consoles...

That said, I'd take Wind Waker over a prettier version of Ocarina of Time any day. It's just that I don't believe that the SW2000 style is so limiting that it could not allow for several of the innovations that are included in Wind Waker.

[The Former DMiller]

The main thing that could not be done using realistic graphics would be the facial animations. Miyamoto has stated that the facial animations are the main reason they went with cel-shading. It's nearly impossible with today's technology to have as many facial animations in the Wind Waker in real-time using realistic graphics.

[OB1]

That's not true. Miyamoto wanted to go with the cel-shaded look for various different reasons, and I'll list a few of them here:

1) To make a realistic world within the context of the game. Everything has to obey the laws of physics, which in this case is cartoon physics. Doing half of the stuff with realistic graphics could be done but would look terribly out of place. That is a fact, whether people like Nintendarse want to accept it or not.

2) To concentrate more on the animation instead of the models. With a realistic look they would have had to spend most of the time on little details such as individual fingers and less time on animation, but with this cartoon style it's the exact opposite.

3) To go back to his orginal vision of the series/get away from the realistic look that Zelda was headed for. Miyamoto didn't want the game to start looking too realistic.

[Dark Jaguar]

I'll say this, I can see his fear there. If they had gone too far, we would be right back in the early/mid 90's, when EVERY SINGLE PC GAME had pretty much solid live action, and the games were usually like 7 CDs in size (and lasted 5 hours :D). I was SO SICK of games like Mortal Kombat and Phantasmagoria going for this WAY TOO REALISTIC look. It just wasn't fantastical enough... I think Miyamoto may have been afraid of limiting the series by thinking too much about using a realistic look. This is the same reason Final Fantasy 9 used super deformed characters instead of the taller more realistic characters in Final Fantasy 8. I still think Japan's delightfully yet entirely ignorant of any reason a cartoony look doesn't look serious.

[A Black Falcon]

Haven't we beaten this issue to death several times over? Its getting really old...

[Dark Jaguar]

Obviously not. An issue only dies when everyone finally agrees completely.

[A Black Falcon]

And as a result, no issue ever dies.

Anyway... OB1, you just aren't making sense.

Would a 'realistic' (OoT/MM style) Zelda be able to be exactly the same and have the same exaggerated movements and animations of the cel-shaded one? Of course not... but as Nintendarse said, they could replace them with SIMILAR BUT REALISTIC LOOKING ONES! It WOULDN'T BE THAT DIFFERENT!

As for animations, it is clearly true that with this style model detail is a LOT lower... and they sure save time on textures when they are mostly just shaded polygons... and it does create a unique stylistic look that looks like its trying to be, as I've said 20 times, LttP-3D. And it looks nice... but, imo, not nearly as nice as a realistic version of that would look. Its just the way it is. :p

[OB1]

You don't get what I'm saying. Let me just quote Miyamoto as he explains it better than I do:

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.

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

[Great Rumbler]

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

No it isn't.

[OB1]

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?

[Great Rumbler]

Wait! I think I saw an "imo" in there somewhere! Oh...no...wait!...no...There it...no wait that's just a smudge on my screen.

[OB1]

:D

[Dark Jaguar]

You two.... Don't you realize you are exactly the same? Do you not see the irony in insulting the other person's stuff when you do the same thing?

[Great Rumbler]

you are exactly the same

Stop trying to pass off your opinion as fact.

you do the same thing

There you go again!!

[big guy]

uhhhh...

i don't get it

[Great Rumbler]

I don't really understand it all either...

[Nintendarse]

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!"

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.

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.

P.P.S. By the way, it's futile to argue that something cannot be done given an infinite environment.

[OB1]

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!"

That first part of what you mentioned is exactly what I was talking about, but I disagree with the second half of your paragraph. The Matrix worked because these guys were doing all of this crazy stuff in a computer-generated world. It would look ridiculous if there was a realistic-looking Zelda game that animated like Wind Waker.

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.

Sure it could be done with enough time, but Miyamoto doesn't even want to do that. He said himself that if they were to take the next step after OoT and make a realistic Zelda game that it would stray away from his vision of the series. All of you guys whining about how much you hate the look and how "wrong" it is need to take a good long look at what you're saying. 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. Not you, and not ABF.

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.

Just one example? Okay. The fighting. The way Link flips and flies over his enemies would look very out of place with photo-realistic graphics. Sure they could revert it back to OoT's fighting which was much more tame than this one, but would that be a good idea? I certainly don't think so. 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.

[Sacred Jellybean]

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.

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.

[Nintendarse]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[OB1]

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.

OoT is photo-realistic to you? I guess you haven't seen it in a long time, huh? It's certainly not as cartoony as WW, but it's not this photo-realistic-looking game that everyone seems to remember it as. I'm sorry but these are very cartoony designs:

[Nintendarse]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Let me quote myself:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

[OB1]

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.

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.

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.

I meant that art can be criticized, but that it shouldn't mean anything more than just a person's opinion.

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

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

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.

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

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.

What kind of a point is that? Of course they could make a realistic Zelda game that would be good, but they'd have to change quite a lot from WW in order to make it work.

And really, there's a big difference between imagining these changes in your mind since you have no real boundaries and actually doing them. This is why I take Miyamoto's word above all others'. He knows a wee bit more about this than you and I.

[Nintendarse]

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.

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.

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

That statement assumes that I think entertainment is lower than art.

Rather, I like to think of video games like movies. In movies, there is an artistic element. For example, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon would score high on my subjective art scale. Something like Die Hard would have a low score. Entertainment is a completely different scale. While Die Hard may have received a poor art score, it would receive a high entertainment score. But, for me, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon succeeds on both scales. It is great in both enertainment and art. My argument is that Nintendo can and should try to succeed on both of these scales, for as many people as possible. I hope that Nintendo will not sacrifice art for entertainment's sake, nor entertainment for art's sake.

However, I understand that we disagree on the last sentence. And I'm okay with that.

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

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.

[lazyfatbum]

I didn't read any of the arguments here but I get the idea...

In every single Zelda game the formula for the graphics are the same. Make the back grounds and environments as realistic as possible and then create imaginative characters and enemies that dont have to relate to anything "realistic". Such as Ganondorf, Windfish, "Animal Village", Princess Ruto or Leevers, Bonefish, LikeLikes, Deku Scrubs, etc..

I seriously dont understand how this game is any different. The backgrounds and environments are beautiful and more realistic than any previous Zelda game. Now there are even deeper physics and more interactive environments, from the subtle to the extreme. The only difference this game presents to players as far as graphical artwork goes is Link's look and the themed artwork for all 'human' characters that Link will interact with. There will still be gorgious sunsets behind mountains and flowing landscapes to oggle at for hours, except now it will LOOK BETTER.

If you still have a bone to pick about Link's design then go play OoT, MM or Master Quest and imagine Link being 10 times faster and able to jump around like a Ninja and fight like Yoda in Episode 1.

[OB1]

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.

[A Black Falcon]

Been on vacation (skiing in New Hampshire) since friday night... so this is responding in general to everything back to OB1's response to my last post in the thread...

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

Wel, yeah, it is a difference of opinion and not something that can be objectively proven to be fact... well, except for sales/public opinion. And I will admit that while the initial opinion was really bad, it does seem to have been improving over time... it IS a Zelda game, and more people have played it and saw how it does look good for its style...

No it isn't.

I am scared for you if you can't tell I wasn't serious there... given the smily...

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?

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

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.

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...

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.

Well... I agree with you on this point for sure...

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.

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...

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!"

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...

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.

Yes... but of course they have limited time, and since its Nintendo they require near-perfection, so spending more time on gameplay (and less on complex graphics and realistic rules) is a reasonable thing to do...

photo-realistic fantasy world.

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...

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.

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... 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...

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...

[OB1]

Oh crap... here we go again.

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

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

Well it's obviously important for Shigeru Miyamoto, and who are we to argue with him?

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...

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

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...

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.

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...

But one that the creators objected. Perhaps someday you'll get your realistic Zelda, but that time is not now. Deal with it.

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...

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?

[A Black Falcon]

Oh crap... here we go again.

What, like the two day break? I did too... crosscountry skiing is fun... last year at this same time there was almost no snow. This winter is much better... plenty of snow in mid march... like it should be.

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

I don't think I do...

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.

I don't think that wanting a company to do things that will actually be sure to make them money (that IS the purpose of corporations...) is so strange... should they take some risks? Fine... but I'm not so sure about ones on major properties, especially when they are this dramatic... it really takes a lot of selling to get people to accept it...

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.

The gameplay? I'd expect it would be almost exactly the same... modified somewhat in places to adjust for a more realistic world (it would be harder to program, for sure, because it'd require more detail and stuff... for things like wind...). I am just talking about graphics and presentation. They are hardly the most important factor in games... but you DO have to look at them so they are a vital part of the picture. Not as big as gameplay, but big enough to be an issue, especially when something like this is done...

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.

Since he's the creator obviously his word is law... but still, I'm free to disagree... his opinion will obviously shape where the series goes but I don't see why that makes it automatically the best thing to do...

Oh, and I don't see how that statement directly relates to the quote you replied to there.

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.

Well, I thought that the Spaceworld demo looked a lot like OoT with better graphics... and that necessarially made it more realistic, but I just don't see why it was some big departure from OoT's style... I bet that a full Spaceworld demo styled game wouldn't be some dramatic shift towards realism in the way you seem to fear...

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?

Exactly the same? No. But VERY, VERY similar? YES! I don't see why you don't get that! It could have been done almost identically but with realistic graphics and slight modifications to animations to make the characters look like they were fluidly moving in a realistic environment! And it would hardly have changed the game so dramatically if the base game had been the same...

[big guy]

i never want to see this topic argued again. it's so frustrating to watch you guys argue, it makes me want to never come back to the forum again. i wish we could all just say our opinion on the game, state how we think it could be improved (to suit each of our individual needs), or why it shouldn't be changed and have no further discussion on it.



now that the responsible side of me has had a say...



i have to say that ob1's arguments infuriate me. the way he selectively takes what was said, twisting words, and distorting messages makes me want to scream. it seems like every time somone posts to contradict it they start with a huge disclaimer about "maybe this time i can make you see what i'm trying to say" but it never helps. and i know it's not the fault of the person arguing OB1 because i've been able to follow their logic, and understand them from the beginning.

this newest tangent about OoT being realistic isn't even an issue. no one has ever said it was realistic, just more realistic than WW. and i certainly don't think that the spaceworld demo was that realistic. Link's eyes were huge. the style was definately anime, not lifelike, it was just more akin to something like Vampire Hunter D, or Princess Mononoke, or Nausicaa of the Wind Valley (same artist as PM), or like Trigun, as opposed to WW which is more like Hello Kitty (i'm exaggerating, please don't start arguing about that).

speaking of trigun, i'd like to comment on how a SW2000 demo styled Zelda game could retain the light hearted feel. and all you need to do is look at trigun. that series had a very "realistic" look, or, at least realistic in the way that OoT was "realistic", yet it was, for the most part, silly. it had its serious moments, and, as it went along it became more serious, but i'd say overall it was a fairly lighthearted series, with a serious look. and it was one of the best animes i've seen.

now, i'll agree with OB1 that i don't know what ABF means by

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...

because i certainly don't want this game to look like baulders gate, diablo, neverwinter nights, or those other realistic looking PC RPG's. i still want it to look like a cartoon, just, a more sophisticated looking cartoon.

i think i should say at this point that everything presented here is my opinion and should be regarded as such. it is also not what i think SHOULD be done but rather what i would like to see done in regards to the game. furthermore, i'm not saying that i don't like the way the new zelda looks, it's just not what i'd prefer (although i still hate the link model, they should have let me do it ).

finally

:shake:

i guess that's all for now, i'm spent.