Post by: supreagles on April 27, 2003, 05:48:29 PM
Sorry if this has already been addressed.
Post by: Gibdo Master on April 27, 2003, 05:53:02 PM
QuoteThen it would have realistic graphics. I don't get your point. I hope you aren't saying that just having realistic graphics would somehow make Wind Waker a better game. Game play and graphics are two separate things and rarely affect each other. How about this question. What if Metroid Prime was cel-shaded? Ohh, ahh.
Originally posted by: supreagles
It just made me wonder, what if zelda looked realistic like prime does. What do you guys think?
Post by: supreagles on April 27, 2003, 05:57:45 PM
Post by: Scyth3r on April 27, 2003, 06:00:30 PM
I suppose I'll attempt to finish it up when Im done w/ Windwaker but its just so boring IMO.
Post by: supreagles on April 27, 2003, 06:03:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Scyth3r
I just have to go around and collect the rest of the artifacts now, but YAWN. Theres not story that keeps me hooked to keep playing.
I suppose I'll attempt to finish it up when Im done w/ Windwaker but its just so boring IMO.
WW has its share treasure hunting.
Post by: Grey Ninja on April 27, 2003, 06:09:34 PM
I think that there is absolutely no question that Wind Waker is the better game.
Post by: joshnickerson on April 27, 2003, 06:11:03 PM
Post by: supreagles on April 27, 2003, 06:14:12 PM
Post by: "Sky" on April 27, 2003, 06:17:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: supreagles
I just think the next zelda game would be better if it was not cell shaded (and I am hoping that this would be the case).
Well... at least I'll remember your name so that I won't hold your posts high regard in the future
Post by: Grey Ninja on April 27, 2003, 06:22:53 PM
supreagles, it's nothing personal, but you have to realize it's like saying that the Mona Lisa would have been much better if it was drawn in black and white. Not appreciating the art style in the new Zelda is basically misunderstanding the entire concept of the Zelda game.
Post by: supreagles on April 27, 2003, 06:24:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: "Sky"Quote
Well... at least I'll remember your name so that I won't hold your posts high regard in the future
Perhaps you did not see that my my comment on how I thought that zelda was a great game. I just thought it could learn some lessons from prime (difficulty, length, and yes graphics). I did not realize that I would get flamed for having an opinion. Its cell shaded graphics were nice this time around, but I hope they at least try one that is not shaded so they can be compared.
Post by: TheResidentEvil on April 27, 2003, 06:28:02 PM
WW, so . . . . WOlderfully designed, beautifully drawn, wonderfully thought out . . . . But, the cel-shading may have looked great, the bright, colorfulness did tak away from the epic feel, and the game didnt feel nearly as compelling to me as OOT.
OOT, IMHO the undesputed best game of all time.
Post by: TheResidentEvil on April 27, 2003, 06:29:50 PM
Brests, so . . . round, soft, delectable, delicious, supreme, magnificent . . . . Mmmm. Boobs.
*Leavs to go on a quest for boobs.*
Post by: Gibdo Master on April 27, 2003, 06:54:12 PM
Everyone's point is that even if Wind Waker had realistic graphics it would still be the same game. Yes, it would look different and some people would say it looked better while others would say it looked worse. Beyond that though it would still be the same game so any complaints like, "it's too short. it's too easy" would still be there.
Your question really strikes me as weird though. Any time I've played a game I've never thought, "Gee, this game would be so much better if it had a different graphic style".
Post by: Grey Ninja on April 27, 2003, 07:13:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gibdo Master
Your question really strikes me as weird though. Any time I've played a game I've never thought, "Gee, this game would be so much better if it had a different graphic style".
I never actually realized that before you just said it... But it is entirely true.
I personally find it kind of disturbing how inflexible gamers have gotten recently. Gamers have a long history of being early adopters, by driving the computer industry forward at a breakneck speed, and buying all sorts of devices that cater to us. Yet nowdays I see trends such as this popping up more and more, that if the item isn't EXACTLY what you had in mind, then you gripe about it.
I admit I was shocked when I first saw the new Zelda style, but it wasn't long before I had become a full fledged fan of the style. I look around at some of the Mario Kart threads on the internet, and it seems that there are people all over the place upset at the new appearance of the carts, and the fact that there are two people on each cart. Where is your flexibility people?
Post by: KrazyJ1098 on April 27, 2003, 07:23:10 PM
Post by: PIAC on April 27, 2003, 07:23:53 PM
, even took the day off work to get it as soon as the store opens )
Post by: supreagles on April 27, 2003, 07:26:34 PM
Post by: PIAC on April 27, 2003, 07:36:58 PM
if you get me
Post by: "Sky" on April 27, 2003, 07:41:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: supreagles
Perhaps you did not see that my my comment on how I thought that zelda was a great game. I just thought it could learn some lessons from prime (difficulty, length, and yes graphics). I did not realize that I would get flamed for having an opinion. Its cell shaded graphics were nice this time around, but I hope they at least try one that is not shaded so they can be compared.
Yes, I did see your comment that Zelda was a great game. You just happened to miss the reason why what I quoted from you doesn't necessarily sound intelligent.
Post by: DaDoc on April 27, 2003, 07:45:09 PM
Post by: supreagles on April 27, 2003, 07:49:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: "Sky"
Yes, I did see your comment that Zelda was a great game. You just happened to miss the reason why what I quoted from you doesn't necessarily sound intelligent.
Well since you gave no reason why you quoted me, your reasons are exactly full of brillance either.
Post by: "Sky" on April 27, 2003, 08:16:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: supreagles
Well since you gave no reason why you quoted me, your reasons are exactly full of brillance either.
I don't believe I am required to state the reason, for others have already stated the same exact thing going in on my mind and if you don't see the flaw in your post then me stating my reason would be futile anyway. Apparently others can see the reasoning behind my post, why can't you?
Post by: supreagles on April 27, 2003, 08:48:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: "Sky"
I don't believe I am required to state the reason, for others have already stated the same exact thing going in on my mind and if you don't see the flaw in your post then me stating my reason would be futile anyway. Apparently others can see the reasoning behind my post, why can't you?
What you fail to realize is this thread topic is based on opinion, there is no right or wrong answer. Since there have been differing viewpioints posted I must assume that you have either no opinion or you like WW graphics (since you wont tell me your opinion it must be a secret or something). If you do that is fine, but I would like to see a realistic zelda in the future (with graphics as well as gameplay). If you dont want that that is your opinion.
Post by: "Sky" on April 27, 2003, 08:54:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: supreagles
What you fail to realize is this thread topic is based on opinion, there is no right or wrong answer. Since there have been differing viewpioints posted I must assume that you have either no opinion or you like WW graphics (since you wont tell me your opinion it must be a secret or something). If you do that is fine, but I would like to see a realistic zelda in the future (with graphics as well as gameplay). If you dont want that that is your opinion.
Since you apparently fail to realize why you have the negative views you have and why I quoted that particular post then I suppose I need to spell it out for you.
You say that having realistic graphics will make Zelda better somehow. Reality check, if Zelda has realistic graphics any flaws will still be there. The game will still be as "short and easy" as you put it as. Do you understand now? It's not your opinion that's the problem, it's your statement.
BTW, I do happen to like Metroid Prime more than Wind Waker. My opinion on The Wind Waker's graphics is neutral. You want to see a realistic Zelda, fine with me. But saying something like "I just think the next zelda game would be better if it was not cell shaded" is not an opinion, and is the reason to you being put down in this thread.
To be honest I didn't expect that I would be needed to explain it all to you, I always assume that people can easily read between the lines and grasp the meanings that are implied.
Post by: supreagles on April 27, 2003, 09:03:47 PM
Post by: "Sky" on April 27, 2003, 09:22:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: supreagles
I suppose you a right at some points, Sky, but if you practiced some of what you preached and did not put words into my mouth then you would see what I am getting at. I said zelda would be better if it took some lessons from prime in terms of lenth, difficutly, and graphics. Not just graphics (which of course is opinion). How does my statement make you think that a realistic zelda would be flawless? It probably wouldn't.
Did I comment on your thread starter? No, it's just that when you put that specific post is when I came in. Have you noticed that? I put no words into no one's mouths. In fact I believe you may be practicing what you are accusing. I quoted you and that was all.
I never said that you thought that a realistic Zelda would be flawless. I just quoted you and made a joke comment on how I won't hold your posts in high regard in the future. It was a joke, but not one without purpose as at the same time it was to show you the flaw in what you have posted.
You said that Zelda would be better if it took some lessons in terms of length and difficulty, that I never argued with. Now you have also done it again... "and graphics". You also said "would". So there. I have the exact quote in my thread, my specific argument, as well as the argument of many others, is on your statement that Zelda would somehow be magically better if it had graphics that weren't cel-shaded, which is the conclusion that is drawn by multiple forum members to your posts in this thread, some with even earlier claims than me. You state that it's opinion, but at the same time what I mentioned earlier contradicts that.
"Would" it be better if it was a longer and more difficult? That would certainly be nice and I would surely welcome it in the next Zelda. But the claim on graphics is the key to the reason behind the controversy in this thread.
The graphics style you prefer is not the graphics style that "would" make it better. I hope you understand now.
In order to ensure clarity:
"Not just graphics"- But how will a change in graphics style make the game better if the other two elements stay the same? Take this for example, say the next Zelda is more difficult and longer than The Wind Waker, but stays with the same cel-shaded style. It'll be better right? Based on your previous posts I'm sure you'll be inclined to agree. Now take the same game and change it to non cel-shaded style. Is it more preferable to you? I suppose so based on your previous posts. But does that suddenly make it better? Nope. It "would" not make it better no matter what you "think".
Hate to sound mean but I do think that these posts are needed in order to establish a few things. Besides, if I don't do it others would and some may not be as tranquil in their rebuttals (which would only make things worse if they're hostile).
Post by: phil1984 on April 27, 2003, 10:39:26 PM
For the people out there who think that it doesn't really matter what graphical style a game has, get a clue! The whole idea behind the graphics (and the sounds and music for that matter) is to help involve the player into the game. If some people here feel that a realistic zelda would have been a better game then the cartoon zelda, then this is a perfectly valid point. If the Cel-Style type of graphics did not help to involve them in the game or, even worse, distract them from the game then why do you people say that the graphical style makes no difference to the overall game?
Post by: PIAC on April 27, 2003, 10:48:45 PM
Post by: Mario on April 27, 2003, 11:28:44 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on April 28, 2003, 12:26:55 AM
PIAC, you are 100% correct. The game has a style and fluidity that would not be possible with a more realistic style. For example, there is a fish in the game which helps you out from time to time, and carries a paintbrush in his teeth. For the life of me, I cannot imagine that fish as a realistic character.
This is but one example. The game is full of little cartoonisms, and that is half of its charm. It's like a Link to the Past has been resurrected, and it's beautiful. The reason we are jumping on supreagles, is because he has completely missed the point of the game.
Post by: supreagles on April 28, 2003, 05:06:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: "Sky"
You said that Zelda would be better if it took some lessons in terms of length and difficulty, that I never argued with. Now you have also done it again... "and graphics". You also said "would". So there. I have the exact quote in my thread, my specific argument, as well as the argument of many others, is on your statement that Zelda would somehow be magically better if it had graphics that weren't cel-shaded, which is the conclusion that is drawn by multiple forum members to your posts in this thread, some with even earlier claims than me. You state that it's opinion, but at the same time what I mentioned earlier contradicts that.
"Would" it be better if it was a longer and more difficult? That would certainly be nice and I would surely welcome it in the next Zelda. But the claim on graphics is the key to the reason behind the controversy in this thread.
The graphics style you prefer is not the graphics style that "would" make it better. I hope you understand now.
In order to ensure clarity:
"Not just graphics"- But how will a change in graphics style make the game better if the other two elements stay the same? Take this for example, say the next Zelda is more difficult and longer than The Wind Waker, but stays with the same cel-shaded style. It'll be better right? Based on your previous posts I'm sure you'll be inclined to agree. Now take the same game and change it to non cel-shaded style. Is it more preferable to you? I suppose so based on your previous posts. But does that suddenly make it better? Nope. It "would" not make it better no matter what you "think".
I'm not talking about WW though, of course just changing the graphics in WW would probably have a negative effect on WW, because that is the way it was made to be. I THINK that the next zelda would be cooler ir it was not cell shaded, they would have to change the gameplay as well though to make it fit. Of course just changing the graphics may or may not make it better. And you have no idea if the next zelda would be better or worse, so don't say that you know. Perhaps I have been unclear but the point of this post was playing prime after WW was a nice experience because of its realistic appearance (wouldn't it be cool if the next zelda could look like this) I am not talking about WW looking like prime. You can't tell me my opinion would be wrong (which it could be), but I could also be right and we have no way of knowing that until the next one is released (if they change the style). How can you tell me my opinion is wrong? If I liked the style of OOT better, that is my opinion.
Post by: EggyToast on April 28, 2003, 08:27:34 AM
The more realistic zeldas (on the N64) had plenty of cartoony elements that seemed awkward and out of place (like the talking owl, and the silly things the gorons did). A realistic Link flying thanks to chickens? err... A talking boat? uhh...
From the way older Zeldas have played out, I think they always wanted the detail and smoothness of non-link characters in the game but never had the processing capabilities to do so. Sure, the NPCs in Wind Waker aren't bump-mapped with realistic skin pores, but thanks to the choice to use cel shading, they have an amazing amount of detail that actually tells you something about the characters, instead of just "ultra-cool costumes." the pirates have earings that move, bits of things on their belts that move, and there are a LOT of characters with differences like that. If Nintendo went with a realistic Zelda (which, from the way they were talking, they didn't want to do anyway), then you would be able to go up on a high roof in Windfall Island and look out over all the characters moving their own way with all the same levels of detail. It'd be like OoT, where everyone hides in a house and the wide-open areas use awkward camera angles.
But besides the processor limitations, the cel-shading just seems to make sense. A game like splinter cell, where you're playing a human guy working in real-world situations, and the physics of the game and how everyone reacts is based on real-world physics, *should* have realistic graphics. A game with a talking boat, a talking tree, giant talking creatures that are 'gods', talking frog-gods that control the wind, fairies, magic floating leaves, tree-people, and "triforce?" Should that even be realistic? It sure doesn't sound realistic...
But it would've been better if it was a bit harder and a bit longer. Only because I enjoyed playing it so much. it was a treat to look at
Post by: Bloodworth on April 28, 2003, 10:57:01 AM
