Topic: Prime vs. Windwaker

[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.

["Sky"]

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).

[phil1984]

I'm Australian so I haven't yet had a chance to play the latest Zelda so baring that in mind.

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?

[PIAC]

hrm, also being an australian who hasn't played the wind waker yet, something tells me a realistic style to it would have made it too sterile, from the miniscule amount and from what ive heard, ww oozes style and emotion.. i dunno, just gives me that impression

[Mario]

Well i havent played Wind Waker yet so my opinion means dick, but i would like it if the NEXT zelda was realistic looking. Like you know, with polygons and Starfox Adventures style graphics it could be GOTY! Just my two cents...

[Grey Ninja]

Mario, the current Zelda has polygons and stuff, and I assure you it is GOTY.

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.

[supreagles]

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.

 

[EggyToast]

There are certainly opinions that are wrong.  There are still people who are of the opinion that forced slavery is a good idea.

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

[Bloodworth]

I was out this weekend, but this was a poll from the start and appears to be composed of little more than an argument now.  The end.