Gaming The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

[Semjaza]

[url]http://cube.ign.com/articles/515/515922p1.html[/url]

This is a good article to check out. It's about the two and a half minute Zelda video that Nintendo apparently decided to pull at the last minute. Instead we got stuck with the shorter one minute version.

I can't wait till we get more information on this game, particularly on the story side of it.

Edit: Nintendo apparently showed some of these scenes during their actual press conference. I have some screen shots of it that I've attached if people want to see. They're on the small side though.

I'm currently downloading the Nintendo press conference so I can cut the Zelda footage out and make a small video of it so people can see... will be awhile though, since it's 500 MBs.

[Box Hoy]

While flipping through my newest EGM I saw an article on the newest serious Zelda game in awhile.
I thought Legend of Zelda: The Wing Waker was sort of cheesy and kid like but screens from this new one look like its going to be the best ever.

So far, from what I've seen, Link is now grown up and is better looking than ever before.

I was wondering if anybody has some info other than what I have on this.

[SonicSlash]

There isn't much info out on it yet, other than it isn't the sequel to Wind Waker, and that it is just basically the game in which the E3 2003(or was it 2002..) Zelda was shown.

It looks like the same type of graphics as ocarina of time and majora's mask, and I could get killed for saying this, but quite frankly, I think the 3D games like that ruined zelda.

But that's just my opinion.

[KarmaOfChaos]

[SIZE=1][color=deeppink]Well, I'd like to start this off by saying that I really wasn't too fond of Wind Waker. * dodges people throwing rocks * It wasn't just the graphics though, I actually could have dealt with those, as they definitely had their good points. It was the fact that I really didn't enjoy the storyline either. The killing point for me was when I saw the Deku Tree and Kokiri children. At that point, I was just said, "You've got to be kidding me," and laid that game down to rest. Between the strange new graphics and the weird storyline, I just thought they had tried to do too many different things in too little time.

Yes Shin, I know you think I'm lame.

To the topic at hand, I really love the way this new game looks. I always prefered the traditional, more serious graphics, and I'm hoping the storyline won't disappoint. I'm glad that they seem to be decided against giving Link a real voice actor, because I simply just have gotten used to our silent and sexy warrior. ;) But you never know what they'll decide on adding in at the last minute.

I definitely agree with Des on the bigger world though...this game has a lot of potential to be very long but still very interesting if they design the world and enviroment to be both extensive and graphically pleasing.

Long story short, I can't really say good or bad at this point. We won't know until we play the game, right? ^.~

-Karma[/color][/SIZE]

[Desbreko]

[color=indigo]Not that this is directed at anyone in particular, but. . . . It really saddens me that, so often it seems, people dismiss Zelda games simply because of the graphical style or the storyline. When has the games' main focus [i]ever[/i] been on the graphics or story? Unless I missed something really big, gameplay has always been the main focus of every Zelda. Graphics and story have always been secondary, so I think it's sad that people are missing out on some games that are fun simply to [i]play,[/i] just because they don't like some of the minor details.

In a sense, I think I kind of agree with SonicSlash, actually; I think Ocarina of Time did ruin Zelda for a lot of people. I think the introduction of a more realistic, 3D world grabbed a lot of peoples' attention, but the problem is, it never let go. People started focusing more on the graphics, and less on simply how fun the game was to play.

And I think that's the root of the whole backlash over The Wind Waker's graphical style. People were focusing too much on the graphical aspects of the games, so when those graphics changed to something they didn't particularly like, it ruined the game for them because that was the main reason they liked the N64 Zeldas.

If you really look at OOT and TWW side-by-side, though, the core of the gameplay is not that different. Yes, you've got the ocean overworld in TWW, but look at the combat, the dungeons, the puzzles. . . . TWW basically took OOT/MM and improved on their gameplay mechanics, they just also changed the graphical style at the same time.

And now, with this new Zelda game, they've done exactly the same thing. They've taken the gameplay engine from TWW, made (or are making, I guess) improvements, and changed the graphical style at the same time. The transition from OOT/MM to TWW is the exact same process as the transition from TWW to this new game.

And for me, I see this as a good process, because they're improving the gameplay the whole time. I really couldn't care less about the change back to a more realistic graphical style. I started playing Zelda on the SNES with A Link to the Past, where the graphics were cartoony, and they never bothered me then; I played through the N64 games with their realistic style, and those graphics never bothered me; I played through TWW and yes, again, the graphics never bothered me; and now I'm going to play this new Zelda when it's released, and I'd be willing to bet just about anything that the graphics won't bother me.

Really, if graphics were an issue for me, I would never have played OOT, MM, or TWW. Why not? Because I actually prefer the 2D style of A Link to the Past and Four Swords Adventures to anything in out there in 3D. So why did I play the 3D games anyway? Because they're still fun to play, regardless of what they look like; just like all Zelda games are, because their main focus is on fun gameplay.

To sum things up, I think that far too many people are focusing on the graphics in the newer Zelda games and not on the gameplay, where the focus of the game itself is. I believe (or at least I hope) that if people weren't so caught up with the graphical styles, they could look at OOT, MM, TWW, and this new Zelda as all the same. As Zelda games. Not as "cartoony Zelda games" and "realistic Zelda games," just Zelda games that are simply fun to play.[/color]

[KarmaOfChaos]

[SIZE=1][color=deeppink]Des, that's fine if graphics and storyline aren't a big deal for you. You play the game soley for the game. However, some people (like myself) get into the games simply because of the aforementioned qualities. To me, a game's just not worth playing if it's not fun for me to look at, and inspires me intellectually with a good story. This is probably why most people don't label me as a 'gamer' and probably never will--because I don't play the game just for the game. (This is also a big reason why most puzzle and racing games don't appeal to me. Most of the time there's no real story or goal.)

There are many different kinds of people who play video games, and for many different reasons. Just picking one (like gameplay) and saying that's the only quality you should focus on as whether or not it makes the game worth it isn't fair to the people who have other tastes. I would never tell someone they were wrong for judging a game with beautiful graphics and storyline badly because they didn't like the gameplay, so the same goes vice versa.

-Karma

PS: I hope I didn't come off as snobby. I was just trying to defend my point of view on why I didn't like TWW.
[/color][/SIZE]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

I think too many "gamers" don't realize that visual appeal is a large aspect of what makes a game all-around enjoyable. Whether it's sheer texture quality, character [i]design[/i], realism, good lighting, or anything else that is pleasing to the eye, it makes a difference to any gamer.

The switch from 2-d to 3-d that came with Ocarina took nothing away from the gameplay. All it did was make the game more of a visual treat. While Wind Waker only strived to add MORE of one with its incredible fluidity (and really, "cartoony" is not a good description when you consider Batman: TAS is also a "cartoon"), but it failed to impress because of its... character design! Really, that's what the problem was. So much fewer people would have had any problem with WW if Link didn't look 100 times worse than in Ocarina (or, say, Soul Calibur 2, which was really I think the biggest kick in the pants for Nintendo when it came to people saying "this is how Link [i]should[/i] be"). If WW kept the cel shaded engine but overhauled the character design, things would've been different, and we may not have been looking at a "realistic" Zelda in May.

As far as story goes, that is also a major element that Nintendo should maybe begin to consider. Des, you must realize that back when Zelda started off, most games did not have any story at all. Nowadays, when we have Xenosaga-friggin-Episode-II coming out, an involving story doesn't even count as a "bonus." In a game series as respected as Zelda, it's almost expected by those who aren't won over by gameplay mechanics alone.

In short, gameplay isn't everything. If it was, Nintendo would be king of the hill when it comes to the console industry. Graphics count for a lot, as does music (something else Nintendo needs to work on, as far as quality goes), and storyline. Character design, really, is almost paramount. And that's where WW failed, if you ask me.

[Semjaza]

I find some of these complaints strange, but not surprising. While I don't personally agree with them, I do understand where people are coming from.

As far as I'm concerned, Wind Waker is one of the better games in the series in terms of story. Let's face it, Zelda has never been about an absolutely amazing story. Certainly it has gotten deeper as time has gone along, but I really don't know how anyone can play a Zelda game expecting tons of great plot devices and crazy turns. There just aren't many.

In my opinion, other than Majora's Mask, Wind Waker has made more strides in the story department than any game before it. I felt the Kokiri were cool creations and their imporantance was interesting. The humanization of Ganondorf was a very, very welcome addition. Tetra was an awesome character any way you want to slice it and [spoiler]the fact that she was Zelda added a whole other side to her character that never even remotely existed in previous games.[/spoiler] I don't play Zelda games for the story per se, but for the main characters... and as far as I'm concerned, this game was probably the best in that aspect.

Character design is subjective, but I don't have any problem with Link's design. I find it fitting. While people might not like his design, there were some others in the game that were certainly excellent as well. Between Ganondorf and the various enemies and bosses, I certainly didn't feel anything was out of place.

Of course, people now expect every Zelda game to be related to OoT in some way, so what can you do. I felt it was a nice, welcome change. I can understand if others do not.

So when we get to this new Zelda, I'm a bit mixed. I'm bothered that they ditched the cel shading so quickly (I honestly thought it would be a bit more realistic, but still with cel shaded graphics), but it is intriguing. Especially considering this is still the Wind Waker engine. It really proves how strong that engine was and how much it was capable of pushing. I think a lot of people think Wind Waker was a lot more simple than it really was.

At the same time, I am very interested in seeing where they'll be going with this... although part of me wishes they were saving this style for the next system where it can really be so much more impressive. Still, more Zelda is never a bad thing.

[BlueYoshi]

[color=teal]To me, the LoZ games were always just fleshed out puzzlers. LttP was a unique addition for the SNES because there weren't enough games like it that concentrated on reinstating such levels of depth and analysis. I'm thankful to Nintendo for deciding to follow in their own footsteps and continue to produce the series in the same manner, but other attempts really have been a constant let down when compared to their old-school counter parts.

I can't complain about the graphics. I know that whatever is thrown into the muddle can only be good or bad, but graphics add its own sense of flair, and is not really a principle that I'd care to moan about, especially when there are other more pressing issues. A good example is Resident Evil. RE always did show off a nice detail of graphics and realism, and despite it being a survival horror, it's genuinely part puzzler too. However, that certain element has become distort within the series because of the over-hyped visuals it displays; Capcom's predominant battle plan in down to earth terms. Sadly, RE fell into that trap, which is something I'm hoping won't happen to the new Zelda game.

Besides, with the capabilities that the GameCube holds, how can you not want to take advantage? Many undiscovered possibilities are still locked away, and that's what makes me feel bad. Nintendo aren't really committed enough to preserving a decent game that enacts all the critical points any gamer would look into.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

...Well, really, story-wise the problem with Wind Waker (which is my second-favorite Zelda game actually, and probably my favorite GCN game not counting the Zelda Bonus Disks) wasn't that the story wasn't "involving" enough (you don't need depth for an enjoyable story), but that it was really really lame (at least for me). A reincarnation of Link 100 years later? Gimme a break! And then there's the lame Tetra being [spoiler]Zelda; I don't even know why I put this as a spoiler, except maybe that it spoiled the game even further[/spoiler]. It annoys me to no end that Nintendo pulled a Mummy Returns on people with WW's plot.

So, in short, WW's story was deep enough and long enough, but it still sucked. That's my opinion.

[Desbreko]

[color=indigo]Ugh. . . . I just [i]knew[/i] people would take that post the wrong way.

I wasn't saying that gameplay is the only factor you should look at when judging how good a game is. I am, however, saying that I think people who play Zelda games mainly for the graphics and/or story are playing them for the wrong reasons. Because, like I said, the graphics and story are secondary to the gameplay in Zelda games. Not all games, but Zelda games. Zelda games are primarily designed around their gameplay, so I think that's what they should be primarily judged on.

And I wasn't saying that it's wrong to like games for reasons other than gameplay. Different people have different tastes, and I'm not about to tell them they're wrong for liking a good story over good gameplay. But I don't think it's fair to call TWW -- or any Zelda game -- a bad game because of its graphics/story, because the games weren't meant to rely on their graphics or story. (And again, this is in a general sense; I've been hearing things like "TWW sucks because it looks kiddy" ever since the cel shaded style was first shown, so this isn't even directed at anyone in this thread). Just like you wouldn't say a platformer such as Super Mario 64 sucks because of its story. You may be someone who only cares about games' stories, and so you wouldn't like Super Mario 64, but that's hardly justification for saying it's a crappy, seeing as the story is a very minor part of the game.

Oh, and no, you didn't come off as snobby, Karmi. ^_^ Really, I wasn't even arguing with your opinion of TWW. I don't care if people don't like the game, I just get a bit annoyed when people won't even give it a chance just because of the cel shaded style. You were willing to at least try the game out, so I have no problem with your dislike of TWW. It's just the people that absolutely refuse to even try the game, yet still want to bash it, that annoy me.[/color]

[Beorhun]

Well, first off, I'm going to be, like, the first person to defend windwaker. First off, at least it strived for a different plot after having the same 'find the eight or so thingamajigs to open the entrance to Ganon's castle' thing. Sure, it wasn't all that different, but at least it strived to tell a mature and dare I say it, darker tale than OOC. It dealt with the apocalypse of Hyrule and how people are attempting to survive on a completely shattered planet. Windwaker was simply trying to be innovative, but it got shot down by a group of dissafected GTA playing teens and adults who wanted more 'maturity' and blood in their Zelda. Still, I'm here to talk about the new one, and I'd encourage others to do the same.

So...is this a throwback to the older N64 games? I know that a lot of people b****** about the sea in windwaker, but like the plot, it was another stab at innovation. Maybe it got a bit boring, but it was still something new. I'm glad that you can go rider of rohan on all of Ganon's creatures. This game is looking to take a lot of cues from LOTR, when I look at it. Not that that's a bad thing, it's actually really, really good. The combat looks to be a lot like past 3D Zeldas, mainly WW. The world is gorgeous, and the enemies and Link look very detailed and a lot darker than in previous installments.

Well, in summary, my only problem with the new Zelda is that it's not coming out today. :laugh:

[Sir Gawain]

Excellent. A new Legend of Zelda look. I can't wait to try my hand at it. I've gotten bored playing Oot and Majora's Mask (along with a lot of others) in less than ten hours. A shift in gameplay will be a challenge.
Of course, in my opinion this could be a REMAKE of Oot! It is possible, and a new variety of monsters! Ha! Not to mention, this doesn't show the popular Deku, Goron, Zora, or Gerudos! We'll all just have to wait and see. Hmm, maybe they should have Link travel to the future (Jet Force Gemini + Zelda = Machine Gun Master Sword ^_^).
Anyways, this looks like a great game, but will the story and voices be up to standard? And, the one thing we're all thinking is, what about Zelda? What does she do in this game?

[lavonia]

I think I just wet my pants. Anyway... :love:

I'm looking forward to this game. I've been holding off on getting a gamecube unit until this game comes out (then I'll get Windwaker as well). My PS2 is lonely and needs a friend.

Thanks for sharing screenshots. I was poking around recently trying to find some info, but I didn't find any new news.

[S9per]

Just had to give a shout out because I'm hella excited about this game...duh.

(haha, don't ya just love n00bs?)..but seriously, I imagine this'll be a pretty busy thread right up till the game comes out...at which point there will be multiple threads regarding this topic that will be thus busy. :P

[Desbreko]

[QUOTE=AnujSuper9]Just had to give a shout out because I'm hella excited about this game...duh.

(haha, don't ya just love n00bs?)..but seriously, I imagine this'll be a pretty busy thread right up till the game comes out...at which point there will be multiple threads regarding this topic that will be thus busy. :P[/QUOTE]
[color=#4B0082]Yeah -- they'll be busy being closed/merged with this one. :rolleyes: So annoying when people don't even look through the first page of threads before posting a new one. ...

But actually, this thread hasn't been nearly as busy as the Wind Waker thread was back before its release. Though TWW caused a fair bit of controversy with the cel shaded graphics, while the new one is just going back to what all the OOT fanboys/girls want, so I guess it's to be expected. (That was a general statement and not directed at anyone specifically, by the way, so nobody flame me.) This thread should really pick up again when E3 2005 rolls around and we get more information about the game; I'm guessing Nintendo will probably have a playable demo available if the game is still on track for a 2005 release, which would be good for some hands-on impressions. I can't wait to see the full extent of horseback combat.[/color]

[b]Edit:[/b]

[color=#4B0082]New screen shots! (Courtesy of [url=http://www.nintendo.com/screenshotgallery?gameid=54610f14-1826-4d46-9981-8f72874aee2e][u]Nintendo.com[/u][/url].) Only three, but I'll take anything I can get. This game looks like it's going to rival Metroid Prime 2 Echoes for the best looking GCN game.

[img]http://media.nintendo.com/mediaFiles/685e7282-187c-45b6-acf9-a58112bf1488.jpg[/img]
I'm thinking this is a Moblin. Remember the ones in TWW, that carry the big spears? Yeah ... this looks like one of those, except much nastier. Heck, it looks like it could bite Link's head off in one go. And check out the lighting effects on its armor, as well as Link's sword and tunic.

[img]http://media.nintendo.com/mediaFiles/4d66c878-3ee8-4650-9642-e0ec15d6a1ba.jpg[/img]
Holy crap, just [i]look[/i] at the level of detail on Link's character model! I can't even imagine how much better it looks in motion. And notice the rolling hills in the background? I am so hoping that's not just a skydome backdrop.

[img]http://media.nintendo.com/mediaFiles/66a7a631-714e-4ae0-99ba-82152bfd758b.jpg[/img]
More of the sweet, sweet horseback combat shown previously at E3. I can't wait to see the full depth of what they've done with the combat system. Nothing like trashing Bokoblins as you ride by at high speed, when you just don't care enough to stop.[/color]

[James]

[color=#811C3A]In some ways I'm a bit disappointed that Nintendo is apparently buckling under the pressure so soon, but this is looking really good. It seems as though they're actually going a bit MM-esque, by creating some pretty twisted characters. And that's always good in my book (I wonder if someone from Nintendo read my Zelda RPG idea? lol :-P).

Anyway, I can't wait to hear more about this game. This year's E3 will be massive, full of next generation game systems and some amazing new games. I can't wait.[/color]

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]As long as they keep the cel shaded style for the Four Swords series, I think I'll be happy. I was looking forward to a larger cel shaded overworld (that's not 90% ocean), but yeah. ... It's hard to complain when I look at those screen shots.

And I definitely wouldn't mind it having more of the atmosphere that MM had. It would certainly suit the graphical style. Even though OOT was made in a more realistic style, its atmosphere feels a lot like LTTP's to me. MM has been the only Zelda game with a dark and dreary feeling to it, so getting more of that is fine by me. Variety is always good.

I'm promising myself I won't cry when I see the game in playable form at E3. :p[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='James][color=#811C3A']In some ways I'm a bit disappointed that Nintendo is apparently buckling under the pressure so soon, but this is looking really good.[/color][/quote]
Nintendo made a goof-up to begin with; they deserved that much pressure and more. There's no room for senseless pride in game design, and I'm glad Miyamoto didn't continue to push with the abortion-gone-wrong that was the Wind Waker Link.

I'm still not sure how good of an actual *story* this Zelda will have. Hopefully we'll get something mature, because the WW story was abysmal. OMG, Zelda's in a disguise! Never saw it coming! Yeah, so anyway, they better have worked on that. And no more scavenger hunts, for triforce pieces or chozo artifacts or anything.

I am nevertheless expecting this game to be a contender for "best game ever," along with Elder Scrolls IV.

[James]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Nintendo made a goof-up to begin with; they deserved that much pressure and more. There's no room for senseless pride in game design, and I'm glad Miyamoto didn't continue to push with the abortion-gone-wrong that was the Wind Waker Link.


[/QUOTE]

[color=#811C3A]What absolute rubbish. Had Nintendo simply gone with the same artistic formula, there would be a large percentage of fans who would have said that Nintendo are resting on their laurels and not making any attempt to revitalize an ageing franchise.

The problem is that Nintendo often can't win in that situation.

While you may not have appreciated TWW's art design, I can tell you that I (and the several million worldwide who bought it) definitely did. I like the fact that the creators of Zelda had the balls to actually experiment with it and try something new. Afterall, experimentation was what delivered Majora's Mask -- which was an absolutely brilliant game in its own right, but which is also one of the best examples of the Zelda franchise. No question, it's a dark horse in the series...but you don't get anywhere if you're unwilling to experiment and try new ideas.

To some degree, the same is true in the new Zelda. From the very little I've seen, it seems as though Nintendo may be experimenting and branching out in other ways. Without that kind of experimentation, the games remain stale and repetitive -- they never develop further. As a long time Zelda fan, that would be highly frustrating for me.

My only regret is that The Wind Waker's gameplay wasn't pushed forward as much as its visuals. I didn't like the redundant fetch-quest and I felt that more dungeons were needed (so more development time was probably warranted).

But do I have any qualms about a 3D Zelda that brings the gorgeous art style of A Link to the Past into a fully-realized 3D world? Absolutely not. Punishing a developer for doing that will only get you one result -- more tired, stale clones. No change, no development, no nothing. And that's really bad for everyone, whether they're a Zelda fan or not.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='James][color=#811C3A']What absolute rubbish. Had Nintendo simply gone with the same artistic formula, there would be a large percentage of fans who would have said that Nintendo are resting on their laurels and not making any attempt to revitalize an ageing franchise.[/quote]
Ummm, yeah. Zelda was soooo aging after that bomb that was Majoras Mask, lol (and I find it funny that you bring it up as an "experiment" later on in the above post, btw). People couldn't wait for the next-gen Zelda, and suffice it to say were not elated at seeing the then-new Link design. James, your "resting on their laurels" might be valid *today,* (I've read the n-sider editorial), but pre-Wind Waker you'd have been hard-pressed to say much of what you now may think.

[QUOTE]While you may not have appreciated TWW's art design, I can tell you that I (and the several million worldwide who bought it) definitely did.[/QUOTE]
I bought Wind Waker the day it was released here. And it's not the art design, it's the character design of Link that is the problem. You can make a great cel-shaded engine and still go stupid with the character design. Had it been a darker, more adult Link, the game could've had the atmosphere of even something like Batman: TAS. Nobody would've complained.

[QUOTE]I like the fact that the creators of Zelda had the balls to actually experiment with it and try something new.[/QUOTE]
Balls is one thing. Successful design is quite another. Ford might have the "balls" to come out with a new butt-ugly car every model year, but those balls are hardly a redeeming quality considering what they're releasing.

[QUOTE]To some degree, the same is true in the new Zelda. From the very little I've seen, it seems as though Nintendo may be experimenting and branching out in other ways. Without that kind of experimentation, the games remain stale and repetitive -- they never develop further. As a long time Zelda fan, that would be highly frustrating for me.[/QUOTE]
What Zelda game got stale and repetitive? The Oracle series, perhaps. But I hardly think Nintendo was planning on continuing in *that* tradition for the GCN at any point in time. And anyway, I'm not even talking about keeping a Zelda game the same as its predecessors in terms of design/gameplay. I'm saying make whatever design there is a decent one.

[QUOTE]But do I have any qualms about a 3D Zelda that brings the gorgeous art style of A Link to the Past into a fully-realized 3D world? Absolutely not. Punishing a developer for doing that will only get you one result -- more tired, stale clones. No change, no development, no nothing. And that's really bad for everyone, whether they're a Zelda fan or not.[/color][/QUOTE]
Again, it was not the graphics engine. It was the terrible-looking Link. That's really what put people off, whether they realize it or not. Look at the LttP Link and tell me *that's* the Link they brought to the GCN with Wind Waker.

James you make it seem as if it was gonna be one of two things with Wind Waker. Dumb-looking Link, or the most boring stale repetitive game ever. Have you any precedent for that as far as Nintendo is concerned? It's either a re-release or it's controversial? Heck no. You're making excuses for Nintendo here, and the truth is there are none. If a design decision can put the visual appeal of a game at risk, it is a risky decision but by no means a commendable one. It was a design decision Miyamoto made, he was happy with it, tons of his fans were not. He was smart to acknowledge that. You can make a design that gels with all of your fans and still retain artistic integrity and innovative gameplay. James, if you say you would have complained that Nintendo was just "playing it safe" had they not designed Link the way they did, you are assuming way way too much and you know it. Or perhaps you did not understand my post entirely.

[James]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Ummm, yeah. Zelda was soooo aging after that bomb that was Majoras Mask, lol (and I find it funny that you bring it up as an "experiment" later on in the above post, btw). People couldn't wait for the next-gen Zelda, and suffice it to say were not elated at seeing the then-new Link design. James, your "resting on their laurels" might be valid *today,* (I've read the n-sider editorial), but pre-Wind Waker you'd have been hard-pressed to say much of what you now may think.[/quote]

[color=#811C3A]Absolutely -- it was ageing. By that I mean, it was an old franchise. Part of the reason that Majora's Mask was a success (both critical and commercial), was that it didn't simply become "Ocarina of Time and a bit extra". Nintendo went back to the drawing board and they crafted a game in the Zelda universe that was significantly different in a number of ways -- some quite bold. That kind of experimentation is key.

I agree that people were not elated to see the Link design when it was first unveiled. But as Miyamoto said "you need to play it and see it moving to understand it". And that's very true.

You know, before demo kiosks were set up in North America, opinion on the game was very poor. Most people thought it was a poor decision. But when people actually played it and saw how various elements interacted, they [i]understood[/i] why the decision to create that type of art style was taken.

Really, Nintendo have always been a bit questionable in terms of relying on particular franchises. People constantly complain that they only re-release old Mario games and never do something new with the series. People even complained that Mario Sunshine wasn't different enough. So this is always a problem that Nintendo is coming up against, at least in terms of public perception.[/color]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']I bought Wind Waker the day it was released here. And it's not the art design, it's the character design of Link that is the problem. You can make a great cel-shaded engine and still go stupid with the character design. Had it been a darker, more adult Link, the game could've had the atmosphere of even something like Batman: TAS. Nobody would've complained.[/quote]

[color=#811C3A]Okay, that's fine -- I think that Link probably could have been a little better as well. I mean, the actual Link model.

But you have to be careful when it comes to throwing around venomous comments. As you know, a lot of fanboys on the Internet have continually bashed the decision that Nintendo took.

The entire artistic design of The Wind Waker -- from the exaggerated clouds to the unique NPCs, is something that I think we should at least appreciate.

I absolutely abhor the attitude that says "Don't ever change it or try to improve it, because I want the same old thing fed to me constantly". I can't tell you how much that attitude goes against the grain for me -- had that been the prevailing wisdom for many companies, we simply wouldn't have seen many of these franchises at all in the beginning.[/color]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Balls is one thing. Successful design is quite another. Ford might have the "balls" to come out with a new butt-ugly car every model year, but those balls are hardly a redeeming quality considering what they're releasing.[/quote]

[color=#811C3A]If you're only talking about the design of Link himself, I can somewhat understand. But I don't think it's a particularly justified point of view.

Remember, Nintendo could have taken the easy way out and delivered OoT but with prettier visuals. It isn't in Nintendo's interest to deliberately upset people and create things that they don't want. But Miyamoto believed that people [i]would[/i] be attracted to a game that looks much more like Zelda than OoT ever did. And in the end, he was right about that.[/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkblade]What Zelda game got stale and repetitive? The Oracle series, perhaps. But I hardly think Nintendo was planning on continuing in *that* tradition for the GCN at any point in time. And anyway, I'm not even talking about keeping a Zelda game the same as its predecessors in terms of design/gameplay. I'm saying make whatever design there is a decent one.
[/quote]

[color=#811C3A]None of them got stale and repetitive, but that wasn't my point.

My point was that we really don't want to see ten 3D Zelda games that all look exactly like Ocarina of Time, but with progressively more detailed graphics. I can definitely say that there are people who would be perfectly happy with that, but like I said earlier, I think that such an attitude contradicts any desire to actually try something new and find something that feels fresh for gamers.

The Wind Waker, despite its faults, was definitely Nintendo's attempt to do something new with the franchise. Artistically, it was a massive success -- even with the potential blot that the Link model put on the overall art design.[/color]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Again, it was not the graphics engine. It was the terrible-looking Link. That's really what put people off, whether they realize it or not. Look at the LttP Link and tell me *that's* the Link they brought to the GCN with Wind Waker.[/quote]

[color=#811C3A]But I think it's kind of a hollow point in general. The people who did nothing but complain about that model would have whined about anything -- they are the people who would complain if Nintendo had changed nothing. I tend to feel that Nintendo fans can also be the biggest complainers out there; they're never satisfied. lol

Whether people appreciate or don't appreciate Nintendo's move with TWW's graphics/art design...I think that they should at least be thankful that Nintendo made the attempt to do something quite different.

I'm not greatly fond of the Link character model, but I wouldn't say that Nintendo should be beaten into the ground simply for having a slightly annoying character model. The overall experiment was worth it.[/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkblade]James you make it seem as if it was gonna be one of two things with Wind Waker. Dumb-looking Link, or the most boring stale repetitive game ever. Have you any precedent for that as far as Nintendo is concerned? It's either a re-release or it's controversial? Heck no. You're making excuses for Nintendo here, and the truth is there are none. If a design decision can put the visual appeal of a game at risk, it is a risky decision but by no means a commendable one. It was a design decision Miyamoto made, he was happy with it, tons of his fans were not. He was smart to acknowledge that. You can make a design that gels with all of your fans and still retain artistic integrity and innovative gameplay. James, if you say you would have complained that Nintendo was just "playing it safe" had they not designed Link the way they did, you are assuming way way too much and you know it. Or perhaps you did not understand my post entirely.
[/quote]

[color=#811C3A]I now know what you mean about it being only about the Link model (now that it's been clarified here). But I also think you might be misunderstanding my overall point -- remember, my previous posts have been general references to the irrational TWW-bashing that went on, which related to the overall art style.

I am not saying that a risky decision -- for the mere sake of being risky -- is a good thing. Not at all.

What I am saying is that a calculated risk, with the intention of providing something interesting, new and fun, is a [i]good[/i] thing and something to be encouraged. This is particularly important when you consider the people who complain about the fact that Nintendo often avoids tinkering in any significant way with various games.

So, I'm not saying it's a re-release or it's controversial -- not at all. I'm talking specifically about the art design here. I'm saying that Nintendo should be commended for making some significant artistic moves, rather than punished. If Nintendo really did something horrible here, and if the game wasn't received well, then sure, I'd say that we should be asking Nintendo what went wrong.

But the game was incredibly well received. So...Nintendo was successful in their aim with this style, whether or not people were happy with how Link himself looked.

I have [i]never[/i], in my original posts, said that people would complain if they'd just left Link himself alone. That totally fundamentally misunderstands my point. lol

I'm talking about the game's overall art style. I am aware that there are people who were not happy with how Link looked. But generally speaking, those people still enjoyed the overall art style and the direction of the game.

Perhaps I wasn't even considering that this was just about the Link model, because I don't even think that's worth debating. Whether you like the model or not, that's just a matter of taste. But I would not then take that and say "Don't ever experiment or try something new" -- not that you are saying it, but there are people who do. And they don't realize that their way of thinking would have stifled Zelda's original creation in the first place.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Yes, my beef was with the character design specifically, and I invite everyone to read post #32 in this thread if they do not understand where I'm coming from.

But I do think it was specifically the Link model that put most people off. (Do you think design of the main character, the character you play as, and stare at the *** of, for 25 hours, a minor issue? Of course you don't.) People generalized their views and dismissed the entire graphical design of the game, true. I suppose it's not necessarily fair to the developer to attack fundamental decisions like that without having played the game. And certainly rejecting fundamental change *can* create a negative trend in the industry.

However there are two things I want to say in regards to this. One is that the fundamental change was to such a beloved franchise which people were already happy with. It's the idea of "don't fix it if it ain't broke." I don't need GM to turn the Corvette into an all-wheel-drive buggy as a creative exercise. If they feel the need to strech their horizons, they can do it with a car I haven't grown to love. That is how some fans probably felt.
Another thing I want to say is that it isn't fair to those who did NOT like the visual style of Wind Waker to attack them for wanting to hold creativity back or something. I can't think of anyone who was unhappy that it was *different* so much as *worse.* People go for different all the time. Metroid Prime wasn't exactly a failure. People had the specific complaint about the specific look of Wind Waker. I could understand attacking those complaining for being unfair if the design could reasonably be considered "no worse from the point of view of most people." But Nintendo turned the game into something that was less neutral (like Ocarina or the new GCN Zelda) and more of an... acquired taste.
People weren't trying to bash Nintendo for being different. They were unsatisfied specifically with what Nintendo did to their beloved franchise.

You can "appreciate" Nintendo's push for something new in Wind Waker, but because Nintendo could have done something new AND BETTER in so many peoples' opinion, this "appreciation" shouldn't be demanded. Not at all.

[James]

[quote=ScirosDarkblade]One is that the fundamental change was to such a beloved franchise which people were already happy with. It's the idea of "don't fix it if it ain't broke." I don't need GM to turn the Corvette into an all-wheel-drive buggy as a creative exercise. If they feel the need to strech their horizons, they can do it with a car I haven't grown to love. That is how some fans probably felt.
[/quote]

[color=#811C3A]The thing is, that kind of attitude is really what stifles creative development. I am glad that there are developers who don't rely on that crutch all the time. Sometimes I think it's warranted, but usually sequels and new games in a franchise will need to make changes and improve/add things in order to be successful.

The thing is, making a Corvette into an all-wheel-drive buggy isn't akin to what Nintendo did at all. What you are talking about is taking something and changing it fundamentally, to make it something that it isn't. That isn't what Nintendo did.

What Nintendo did, is re-examine the game and see if they could bring it back to its roots, by creating a visual style that captured the kind of atmosphere that Zelda games are all about -- a young boy going on a grand adventure. To that end, Nintendo's aesthetic decision with The Wind Waker was not only correctly-intentioned (as it relates to the franchise's entire point and appeal), but it was also commercially successful.

I mean, if the game hadn't been a commercial success at all, I'd be more inclined to look at what they did and suggest that they made Zelda something it isn't. But that isn't true -- they actually brought Zelda back in-line with what it has been traditionally, while making some obvious gameplay changes. [/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkblade]Another thing I want to say is that it isn't fair to those who did NOT like the visual style of Wind Waker to attack them for wanting to hold creativity back or something. I can't think of anyone who was unhappy that it was *different* so much as *worse.* People go for different all the time. Metroid Prime wasn't exactly a failure. People had the specific complaint about the specific look of Wind Waker. I could understand attacking those complaining for being unfair if the design could reasonably be considered "no worse from the point of view of most people." But Nintendo turned the game into something that was less neutral (like Ocarina or the new GCN Zelda) and more of an... acquired taste.
[/quote]

[color=#811C3A]I'm not attacking rational people. I'm rebutting those who went out there and labeled Miyamoto as "senile" when they first saw the screenshots -- people who were unwilling to give this man the benefit of the doubt, at least for a period of time before they could play it themselves. This is why Miyamoto originally didn't want static pictures to be taken; he wanted to show videos and to have journalists talk about the animation and movement.

So, I can tell you, as someone who didn't particularly like the Link model (I think he could have been cel-shaded and exaggerated but still made more appealing to fans), I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm not going to totally condemn Nintendo simply because I don't like a character model. I can see what they were trying to do -- and what they actually achieved from it -- and as a longtime Zelda fan, I can appreciate that The Wind Waker is probably closer to Zelda's core than the other 3D games were. In terms of intent and execution, I can appreciate that, as I probably should.

When I hear "neutral", I also hear "bland". I think Zelda has always had a specific kind of art style, from the very early games. The Wind Waker is really just taking us back to that place, in a three dimensional world. Again, if people don't like it, that's their choice and I wouldn't attempt to tell them that they are somehow wrong in that sense.

What I would say, however, is that Nintendo should not be condemned for making what was ultimately a successful design decision -- with plenty of reasoning behind it. If they'd taken Zelda and made it Wave Race, I'd have complained. But they didn't do that, basically.[/color]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']People weren't trying to bash Nintendo for being different. They were unsatisfied specifically with what Nintendo did to their beloved franchise.[/quote]

[color=#811C3A]The irrational fanboys who were calling Miyamoto various names are definitely not presenting a legitimate point of view. They reacted hastily and many of them -- the majority -- ended up liking the game once they actually played it. Bear in mind that many of these "critics" were only basing their opinion on a single screenshot of Link.

And as I frequently stress, one should never judge a new game based solely on that. The Wind Waker's visuals need to be demonstrated to be understood, I think.

On a more basic level, I don't know how "beloved" the franchise is to such people. To me, their early venomous complaints simply demonstrate that they either never played the pre-N64 Zelda games, or they didn't know what Zelda was all about to begin with.

Again, to stress this point, not liking a character model is one thing. But extrapolating that into saying that Nintendo totally bombed with The Wind Waker's art style is blindly irrational. I know you are not saying this yourself, but my comments on this subject have always addressed the particularly nasty Zelda "fans" who were more interested in throwing stones than having a real, legitimate discussion.[/color]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']You can "appreciate" Nintendo's push for something new in Wind Waker, but because Nintendo could have done something new AND BETTER in so many peoples' opinion, this "appreciation" shouldn't be demanded. Not at all.[/quote]

[color=#811C3A]People are always going to second guess Nintendo. I mean, it's just something that happens and I understand that.

But I think that when people actually dismiss the entire game based on its art style...well, that's not even worth entertaining. It's just foolish. Even people who didn't like the game very much can often appreciate what it aimed to do. And I think that's all anyone could ask for. It's not about liking or disliking, it's about maturity versus irrational fanboysim.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=James][color=#811C3A]The thing is, that kind of attitude is really what stifles creative development. I am glad that there are developers who don't rely on that crutch all the time. Sometimes I think it's warranted, but usually sequels and new games in a franchise will need to make changes and improve/add things in order to be successful.

The thing is, making a Corvette into an all-wheel-drive buggy isn't akin to what Nintendo did at all. What you are talking about is taking something and changing it fundamentally, to make it something that it isn't. That isn't what Nintendo did.[/color][/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that the people who felt that way were necessarily correct. They weren't from most points of view. Now, if we're talking character design (and I personally consider character design a fundamental aspect of game creation, I don't know if you do), then Nintendo DID turn cool Link into crap, and that's where my analogy came from. Many people saw that Link, figured the game was entirely in that... "flavor" let's say, and I think likely felt the way I described.

[QUOTE]I mean, if the game hadn't been a commercial success at all, I'd be more inclined to look at what they did and suggest that they made Zelda something it isn't. But that isn't true -- they actually brought Zelda back in-line with what it has been traditionally, while making some obvious gameplay changes. [/QUOTE]
Now you're just making stuff up. Zelda's roots do not as a rule involve the aesthetic of Wind Waker. Zelda 1 was basically no which way at all in terms of that. Zelda II had a grown-up Link and nothing cartoony about it. Link to the Past was pretty dark and shares many qualities with Ocarina. Majora's Mask was way dark and creepy. The Gameboy Zeldas... well they're like Zelda 1 in that sense.
Perhaps Wind Waker was what Miyamoto originally wanted Zelda to be. But it's not Zelda's legacy and we all know it. So, saying that Wind Waker brought Zelda back with what it was traditionally is to make up some traditional Zelda that never existed. Really.The truth is Nintendo never deviated from what *is* Zelda. Perhaps in your opinion Zelda's "core" is "a little boy on a grand adventure," but I disagree. In terms of execution, Wind Waker was true to the other Zelda games, but not more so than any other with the exception of these recent Four Swords ventures.

[QUOTE]When I hear "neutral", I also hear "bland". I think Zelda has always had a specific kind of art style, from the very early games. The Wind Waker is really just taking us back to that place, in a three dimensional world. Again, if people don't like it, that's their choice and I wouldn't attempt to tell them that they are somehow wrong in that sense.[/QUOTE]
Look at the instruction manuals for the old Zeldas and see if you can really agree with what you said up there. Wind Waker didn't take us "back" anywhere. It was a total overhaul of the Link character visually. If you think that Wind Waker follows in the "specific kind of art style" that you find in the old Zelda games, then you're way off. Ocarina is closer, in fact.

[QUOTE]What I would say, however, is that Nintendo should not be condemned for making what was ultimately a successful design decision -- with plenty of reasoning behind it.[/QUOTE]
So successful they had to abandon it. Miyamoto is releasing the upcoming Zelda due to demand from fans! He basically said it himself that they wanted the grown up realistic Link back. Sure, Miyamoto delivered in terms of gameplay and level design, as he always does, but Wind Waker was *less* for his character design and ultimately I think he realized that.

[QUOTE]Again, to stress this point, not liking a character model is one thing. But extrapolating that into saying that Nintendo totally bombed with The Wind Waker's art style is blindly irrational.[/QUOTE]
It is extreme, but it is not blindly irrational. I can understand it, in fact, because to me character design is paramount. If I don't like who I am playing as, I will dislike the game experience as a result. That is part of the reason I didn't like Metroid Prime (I hate Samus Aran). Seeing as the Wind Waker art style is what drove the character design to a degree, I can see blaming it for the issue.

[QUOTE]But I think that when people actually dismiss the entire game based on its art style...well, that's not even worth entertaining. It's just foolish. Even people who didn't like the game very much can often appreciate what it aimed to do. And I think that's all anyone could ask for. It's not about liking or disliking, it's about maturity versus irrational fanboysim.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Appreciating something means liking it to at least some degree and acknowledging that. If you can't bring yourself to like a game because it is painful to look at, then nobody should expect you to show appreciation for it. I can dismiss an entire game based on its visuals. I did that with Animal Crossing. The graphics killed it for me. I do the same with 90% of racing games that don't look as good as, say, PGR2 or Forza Motorsport. Visual appeal is not something that can be taken so lightly for many people. Graphics can sell a game, they can also do the opposite. Wind Waker did some things very *right* visually, but it did some things very *wrong* and hatred from some fans is the price it paid.

By the way, it's true that Wind Waker sold relatively well. But I think it would have sold far far better if it did not look the way it did (particularly Link, who really was the center of attention in the screenshots that annoyed people). Ocarina sold really fricking well, much better than Wind Waker. I think visuals made some of that difference.