Author Topic: One Problem with Wind Waker (Read 14654 times)

PorpoiseMuffins · « **Reply #25 on:** April 01, 2003, 09:50:58 AM »

The thing is that your eyes do that to an extent when you're playing a video game anyways without them putting in any effect. The difference is that with the effect you CAN'T CHOOSE where you want to focus. And when I'm playing a game, I'm not looking at the character, I'm looking at what's in front of me and off into the distance. Whenever there's something big in front of you in the game it looks okay, but when you're just staring out into a big blur it really annoys me. It's very limiting. It's fine in cut scenes. Sure, there are cartoons that use the effect, but I don't want to see it in my video game. I mean, go outside and stare down the street. Do you see a blur in the distance? (Or should I say 10 feet in front of you?) No. Not unless it's foggy out. I think that makes my point.

In responce to "who ever said the game was cell-shaded?" The answer would be Nintendo. The difference between zelda and those other cell shaded games is that Zelda does not draw lines around the edges of objects to make things look more hand-drawn. I think the reason the game doesn't look cel shaded after a while is because you just get used to it. If you went back to a realistic look you'd see the difference again. The game is definately cell shaded. There is no doubt. Cell-shading is a graphical technique that is easily distinguishable.

kennyb27 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 01, 2003, 02:51:16 PM »

My apologies, theaveng, I was ignorant of the blur effect in cartoons when I wrote that. I concede that it was an ignorant statement to make with my having no knowledge of the blur in any given cartoon. However, I hold true to my argument that this effect does not improve the gameplay, in fact, in some cases, it hinders it. Also PorpoiseMuffins captures my point about the eye-blurring expertly and completely. In fact, I believe I acknowledged that I understood what Nintendo was trying to do with the in focus/out of focus perspective.

Quote
I understand what it is trying to do (in focus/out of focus), but I don't agree with it.

Oh...would you look at that. I did acknowledge it.

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #27 on:** April 01, 2003, 02:57:04 PM »

Uh. . . I'll see about this, but I probably won't mind. I don't waste time fretting over pointless details. . . especially ones that aren't that bad (no offense, kennyb, I haven't played the game and don't know, it's just that I don't tend to be very critical of anything).

theaveng · « **Reply #28 on:** April 02, 2003, 06:32:32 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: PorpoiseMuffins
The thing is that your eyes do that to an extent when you're playing a video game anyways without them putting in any effect.

Another wrong statement. The videogame is projected onto a flat 2D surface that is equal distance from your eyes. So when you focus on one corner of the screen, the whole screen is in focus.

Anyway, this is all a matter of opinion (whether you like blurring or not), but in my opinion the blurring is essential. The background is blurred in movies. The background is blurred in high-quality cartoons. Likewise I expect the background to be blurred in high-quality 3D games. Only sub-standard companies would put out games where everything, even distant objects, are sharply focused. It would make the game look 2D.

PorpoiseMuffins · « **Reply #29 on:** April 02, 2003, 09:57:03 AM »

Well, maybe your eyes don't blur things in the background of a video game naturally, but they do put out of focus things you're not focusing on. The eyes' focal point is a very small area that does not cover an entire screen. I want to make this as clear as possible. YOU CANNOT CHOOSE WHERE YOU WANT TO FOCUS WHEN THE VIDEO GAME VOCUSES FOR YOU. I want to be able to look into the distance and see things clearly, just like I can do while I'm driving down the road. Until they make a game that can READ YOUR MIND and focus on whatever your focusing on (The foreground OR the background) and blur everything else, I don't want to see depth of field blur anywhere near as drastic as it is in the Wind Waker. It is not realistic when you're eyes are looking at something in the distance and yet the object in focus is Link himself. It is not possible when you're playing a game to be focusing on everything on the screen at once. Trust me, I've tried it. Go have a look for yourself if you wish.

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #30 on:** April 02, 2003, 11:02:01 AM »

It seems to me that it's not entirely a matter of focus, but also of distance. Things farther away are blurrier. Proven fact. Trust me, I've tried it. Go have a look for yourself if you wish.

PorpoiseMuffins · « **Reply #31 on:** April 02, 2003, 01:07:02 PM »

I did go have a look for myself :-) Just a few days ago. Sure, it looks blurry about a mile away, or if your near-sighted... But seriously, things are only blurry far away if there's something in the air, and there must be a LOT in the air in Zelda, because the blur is really close to the camera. Honestly, I'm finally getting used to the blur effect. I don't really like it when your on the sea or on land in the daytime, but it's okay at nightime, and I think it's well done indoors. I still think it's too extreme. I'm not totally against it, but I would have rather they didn't use it for the reasons I've stated before. The thing is that it's kind of hard to tell exactly what Nintendo wants it to be-- focus or distance or what. In Mario Sunshine it's supposed to be the heat. What I do know is that most people who see it immediately think it's bad graphics. I don't know. I don't like it a lot of the time, but I am getting used to it and agree that it is appropriate in some places. What I really want to see is the game running in hi-resolution on a wide-screen plasma HDTV. I'm sure that the effect makes more sense and looks better on one of those. There are probably less jagged edges, something that the blur effect seems to enhance. Say, does anybody here have one of those HDTVs along with the special video cable? How's it look?

VideoGamerX · « **Reply #32 on:** April 02, 2003, 01:51:37 PM »

Actually, your eyes do naturally blur when you focus on something specific NO MATTER what you are looking at. If I focus on my batter in a baseball video game, I can guarantee you I can't really make out the things around him. If I look at the batter and not homeplate, I am more likely to miss hitting the baseball. If that's not any natural blur (loss of focus is what it's called), then you tell me what it is.

The blur effect is supposed to suggest less focus on background and more focus on what's directly in our character's view. It's supposed to give us a sense of distance so we have an idea of just how far away some things really are.

Quote
Originally posted by: theaveng
Another wrong statement. The videogame is projected onto a flat 2D surface that is equal distance from your eyes. So when you focus on one corner of the screen, the whole screen is in focus.

First of all, the majority of TVs are not flat screen. Secondly, if they are curved, they are curved toward the projector. The surface is not equa-distant to our eyes. In order for that to be true, the screen would be of parabolic shape opening toward a focal point, and we would have to be that focal point. We have more than one eye and it is therefore impossible for the screen projection to be of equal distance from our eyes. Furthermore, it's natural for everything around our focus to be negated so it doesn't interfere or put strain on our eyes when we're trying to look at something specific. Why do you think our eyes move around in their sockets? If when we looked at one object, we could see writing out of the corner of our eyes just as clearly, we wouldn't need to change the direction we're looking in. There also wouldn't be a thing called a blind spot.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I have to focus on a page in a book in order to read it. My eyes also flow from line to line so I can read more quickly and flawlessly. I have trouble reading the words toward the top of the page when I'm looking toward the bottom. The words tend to blur as they flow out of my focus. They do it naturally.

PorpoiseMuffins · « **Reply #33 on:** April 02, 2003, 03:53:09 PM »

Thank you VideoGamerX for keeping me from sounding like an idiot :-)
Anyways, I'm over the "little thing that bothers me" about Wind Waker. For some reason the blur effect isn't bothering me for the most part anymore. It looks good most of the time, especially when there's something big close to you, but still looks a little weird when you're just looking off into the distance. Oh well, it's not keeping me from enjoying the game or anything. I love this game so much. Definately the best out of Nintendo (EAD) since.... well, Ocarina of Time! Anyway, I guess I'm done complaining. My point still stands though; you should be able to pick what you want to focus on in an interactive video game.

theaveng · « **Reply #34 on:** April 02, 2003, 04:49:26 PM »

I'm watching a game show. The host is in perfect focus. The audience is blurred. That's how the real world works... and that's what Zelda imitates.

If the blurring bothers you, cool, but you can't call the game "flawed" when the programmers are just reflecting reality. It's a difference in opinion, not a flaw.

PorpoiseMuffins · « **Reply #35 on:** April 03, 2003, 10:06:49 AM »

Ahh... But did you notice that when the camera looks right at the audience they are in perfect focus?
Again, I don't hate the effect anymore, but I don't like it because you can't switch focus. A game show on TV isn't interactive, but a video game is. A cut scene in a video game isn't interactive either, so I don't mind the effect at all in a cut scene. But the effect in Zelda is based solely on distance, not your personal eye focus. But hey? It brings up the question of what video games are trying to imitate. Real human vision? A camera lense? Looking through only one eye? Looking through two eyes? It's really confusing and I don't claim to understand it all. That's why I think they should have stayed away from it all together. But hey, I think I'll just stop whining and go play Wind Waker now :-)

kennyb27 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 03, 2003, 11:50:38 AM »

I believe this is a problem for me. In absolutely no way does it diminish the greatness of the game, I love it as much as any other game EAD has ever made (excluding SM64). However, I do think it is annoying, but you are right, I do adjust to it and it does look less obvious at night.

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #37 on:** April 03, 2003, 02:03:44 PM »

I'm getting really pissed. My game should be in my hands now. I shouldn't even be on this message board at the moment. . .

. . . but I suppose it's for the best. I have a research paper due tomorrow and I'd never get it done if I had the game today.

theaveng · « **Reply #38 on:** April 04, 2003, 02:32:00 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: PorpoiseMuffinsAhh... But did you notice that when the camera looks right at the audience they are in perfect focus?

Yes, and when you use your telescope and focus on a distant object, it too is in perfect focus. It's all about the focus. Wind Waker focuses on the foreground: on Link. If you want to focus the camera on something else, you use the telescope. It's not flawed... it's 100% accurate to real-world conditions.

BTW, Mario 64 has the same blurring effect. Again, because the camera was focused on the foreground: on Mario. Did you guys not notice?

Troy

kennyb27 · « **Reply #39 on:** April 04, 2003, 12:20:05 PM »

In my opinion, it wasn't as obvious in SM64. Maybe I should let this go...

PorpoiseMuffins · « **Reply #40 on:** April 04, 2003, 02:44:11 PM »

::whines:: But I don't WANNA use the telescope!!!!!! ::cease whining::

Haha... Seriously though, it is kind of annoying to have to use the telescope just to look at something in the distance clearly. And the telescope doesn't then blur the things in the forground like it should if it were imitating real life. I mean, you have to assign it to a button and then push the button, and even then it doesn't fill the whole screen. What I'm trying to say is I wish it wouldn't always focus on the foreground. But I'm hoping that you skimmed my previous posts at least enough to know that's what I'm trying to say.

Anyways, I don't care about it anymore. It's not that bad. I hope it doesn't sound like I'm really complaining anymore, just trying to defend my intelligence. But go ahead, insult it if you want... :-)

PorpoiseMuffins · « **Reply #41 on:** April 04, 2003, 02:47:36 PM »

"In my opinion, it wasn't as obvious in SM64. Maybe I should let this go..."

Yeah, that's because it wasn't there. Zelda: WW is pretty much the first game to use it during gameplay itself. Please don't take that like I'm trying to sound real smart or something, but it's true.

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #42 on:** April 05, 2003, 06:48:05 AM »

Yet, of course, if the telescope blurred things in the foreground people would complain about that. Everyone always finds something to complain about, a ritual I have grown tired of. I just play the game and have fun.

Cashcow · « **Reply #43 on:** April 05, 2003, 12:27:16 PM »

I actually like the blurry effect.

Can't really explain why, but I like it.

VideoGamerX · « **Reply #44 on:** April 05, 2003, 02:43:41 PM »

I like it, too. I also really like the telescope and pictobox zoom features. It makes the game feel a little more special since these devices have such effect over our view. The depth is one of the more amazing effects in the game even if it isn't a technological masterpiece.

The other thing I'm really enjoying is the night sky right now. There are two constilations that I can see. Are there any others? I only see the little dipper and Orion the Hunter.

rodtod · « **Reply #45 on:** April 08, 2003, 02:30:24 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: StRaNgE
the further I get the more it seems not like a cartoon but a "Disnet" cartoon.
High quality cartoon action...

Oh hell no. Disney is crap compared to some of the animé production houses. Sure, it was king back when all the old classics were made (and certainly influenced animé at the time, as is evident in Miyazaki's more recent works), but nowadays Disney is nothing but a worldwide mishmash of talent drowning in corporate bigotry.

In other words, the name Disney has lost its honor and respect. No, today the real "Disney's" are Miyazaki (Spirited Away), Nishimura (Trigun), and Iwasaki (Love Hina), among others.

If you like what you saw in Wind Waker, then perhaps you should ditch the Disney and rent some decent animation. Anyone who thinks Zelda WW's style is neat or cool is definitely going to like animé in general.

News:

Author Topic: One Problem with Wind Waker (Read 14654 times)