Zelda
 

What are the chances that Nintendo was kidding about Zelda being cell-shaded, or that they decided to go back to the original format because of all the complaints? I have so many friends that got a PS2 instead just because of this decision. I also was thinking about not getting a GC altogether. What does Nintendo think it's proving by drastically changing Zelda? Why didn't they just make another franchise to use cell shading and be innovative that way? Zelda is already a popular franchise and they are jeopardizing it by making it something that it isn't. Zelda was known for being one of the only Nintendo mature games, and now that isn't the case anymore.

I've been a Nintendo fan ever since the NES, but they dissapoint so much by making dumb decisions, such as using carts on the N64, making the GC purple, and now changing Zelda. They said they would become more mature, they said things would change, but they just seem to be repeating history. When will they change their ways?

Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system.

Well, Miyamoto said something about changing it so he can get the feel or atmosphere or something of the game he's making right...

So I dunno, why don't you just wait and see?

The way I see it... Cel Shading looks similar to older 2D games... only it's 3D... Older games like LttP...

Soooooo

Style of LttP in 3D with OoT-ish gameplay = Great potential...

Whereas most people see it like this...

"GRAARRR TEH GRAPUIX IS KIDDEY AND THEY ARE SUCK!!"

.... *cough*..... :D

Re: Zelda
 

Who are you to say that? Did you create Zelda, how about no. It's small minded gamers like you that say things like this. But since Jin created Zelda and the games, let's hear him tell us what Zelda is since it isn't cell shaded. How do you know Miyamoto's primary intentions for Zelda in beginning weren't to be cell shaded? Shame on you Jin, I expect more from a cool guy like you. :(

Re: Re: Zelda
 

It would be great if everyone was as optimistic about Zelda as the people in this forum, but nearly all the people I know at church, and school decided not to get a GC just because of Zelda's change.

Also, Miyamoto's original intent for Zelda was not cell shading, because of the way they presented it at Space World.

Re: Re: Re: Zelda
 

Well, it was just a demo... doesn't mean the game's supposed to be real doesn't mean it's supposed to be cel shaded... It's just showing purty graphics :p

Of course it got people so hyped up about the realistic graphics and that's a big reason they were let down but meh...

and yeah I know lots of people are dissapointed with the new look... I was too, for awhile, until I saw the movie and thought up that Lttp style + OoT-ish gameplay thing...

Now my only worry is that they will have a bunch of dumb cartoony things in the final game... people running off a cliff, but not falling until they look down and realize they are standing on nothing... stupid crap like that ;)

Re: Re: Re: Zelda
 

Why is he doing it now then? Maybe if he was gonna do cell shading, he wanted it to look good, and at that time, he hadn't yet experimented with how the Cube could handle this art.

I like cel-shading...more my kind of style I guess. And the video shown was the most fluid I've ever seen. Miyamoto's not releasing anymore screenshots or videos because of the responses that first video got. That's why the next time you'll see it will be in playable form. I suggest reading the editorial at PGC about cel-shading in relation to sprites and 3D.

I just hope it doesn't turn out looking worst like Mario seems to have.

I would disregard the latest "screen shots" and remember the cool video.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Zelda
 

Does it really matter what Miyamoto's intent was? All that matters is the final result. I must remind you that I do own a GC, and if Zelda does turn out to be a better game, I'm all for cell shading, but Nintendo is risking an already well renown franchise. They could have experimented under the name of another franchise to be innovative, and kept all the fans that went away because of the Zelda change.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zelda
 

To some extent it does matter. I tire of listening to players critisizing him for making changes to his own creations. If they don't like it, they can make a cheap rip-off like Digimon. I too own a Gamecube but am not worried about their risking a franchise. Those who play it for what it is not for it what it looks like will stay true to this classic and others will have moved on to their next "eye candy." So what is Miyamoto losing? Or maybe I should ask you what he's gaining? :D

Nintnedo always take chances
 

And in the end. It ends up being for good. I can remember people where skeptical about zelda being done in 3d before they launched OOT.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zelda
 

Of course it all comes down to the gameplay. That is the most important aspect of an RPG. I wonder if Zelda will have a storyline other than the old "save the princess" theme. I'll get Zelda regardless of whether it is cell shaded or not, but in my opinion, it would feel more realistic if it was in the form of the Space World demo.

I agree to some extent but hey, it takes all kinds, right? :)

Miyamoto created Zelda without knowing what he was creating. And although we might be quick to say that we know what is best for the series, I think the only person that can decide that is Miyamoto himself. Honestly, I don't know why we think they have to show off screenshots or movies at all. Nor do I know why developers have to make their games conform to how we think things should be. Look at books nowdays. They don't give away part of the plot in ads. Nor do the authors give you a voice in what happens in their books. It is written by the author.

Despite the fact that he doesn't admit it, video game making can be an art. Just like writing, singing, and dancing can all be arts, so can movie and video game making. They are allowing themselves to think out-of-the box, with whatever creativity they can muster for the project.

Miyamoto created the game. I hope he's creating it for himself.

Then he'll be happy with it.

We come second. If you like it, as I do, buy it. If not, don't. It's your loss. It's a Zelda no matter how it looks.

Y'see, on one hand, yes Miyamoto created it, it's his and he's free to do what he wants with it etc etc...

but on the other hand...

He's also out to please other people... they're a business, we're the people who will be playing the game and he has so many loyal fans because he's known to make such great games etc etc...

Not to mention the fact that they're a business and they're out to make money FROM US by making stuff that WE want to buy so we will buy it and... they'd make money...

Soooo really there are two ways to look at it and each one makes sense in a way... so it just depends on your point of view...

You might think "Oh it's his game, let him do what he wants with it" or you might think "It may be his game, but he's making it for us to buy"... yep...

And this being said, the argument thickens...

Re: Zelda
 

It doesn't appear that you even know why you are this upset. Even now, I'm still looking for a substantial point throughout this topic. I can't find any, but believe you are just another gamer caught in the web uncertainty; it's clear you have mixed priorities.

"Do I want a great Zelda game, or will I prefer if Nintendo made a wicked realistic 3D engine, oozing with adult content, slap the Zelda logo on it and sell it to me?" While reading this topic, all I hear echoing is: "Game Is Noting, Image is everything!"

Sure, you'll probably deny it when/if you reply, but hey man, all the evidence is right here, and I'll be kind enough to point it out to you and everyone else.

For the record: I could easily prove my point by stating the pure fact that your are basically condemning the entire worth of a game(and possible ownership of GC) on it's visual style. There's is no reference at all to it's gameplay(nor can there be), so the basic point of this thread really has NOTHING to do with Zelda at all, but it's more about a pathetic CRAVE/LUST for a "mature image"(whatever that is). Still, somehow, I bet you wouldn't except that, so I'll have to go on a little further.

See! Your very first sentence already sets to tone for what will turn out to be a shallow rant condemning a game you haven't played, because it's not "mature-looking" enough.

From here on, it's pretty straightforward. As I mentioned...the echoes!

"Game Is Nothing, Image Is Everything!"

"Game Is Nothing, Image Is Everything!"

Game Is No...wait a sec, I like this one, it deserves a different reply.... So let me get this straight. Do it with another game, and it's automatically innovative. Do it with Zelda, and that's "jeopardizing" it? I would think Zelda needs that bit of innovation, especially since the last to games were the same exact stlye/look. What do I know anyhow, huh? :unsure:


"Game Is Nothing, Image Is Everything!"


This is especially disturbing. That's because, more than anything else, Zelda is known for being one of Nintendo's most greatest games, one of the world's greatest, in fact. Yet, here you are, depleting the game of all it's worth and achievements, only so you can fit it in a pathetic category of being "mature" or not. That's a scary example of just how the general consensus is beginning to look among many forums these days. A game's achievements are overlooked, and all that matters in the end, is if it's mature or not. Sickening! :Puke:

You know what... I think I'll just stop here. There's no need to continue, especially after that last portion. Scary stuff man...:(

PS: Sometimes I question myself whether or not most gamers know how unhealthy their "new" attitudes are. When gaming has seen it's best days(not speaking profit wise), when SNES and Genesis were around, that's where tons of awesome games were out there, and we enjoyed every last one of them. That was also when we didn't concern ourselves with this kiddy-mature crap. If this worsens, someday gaming will be crippled, waiting for another Nintendo to save it like 20 yrs ago. Only this time, it will wait in vain.

(Think I'm taking this to serious? Maybe I am.. or maybe one day we'll regret we all didn't)

Well, I've heard various theories before, and they all could be possible (and maybe that's what Miyamoto meant or whoever it was I remember hearing say like he did it because it fit right with his idea for the game or whatever...), but making a game with both cel shaded and realistic graphics would mean you'd need like two seperate graphic engines or something.. I'm not game development expert or nutin, but wouldn't that take a good bit to make? A good bit-o-time?

Neat idea though... but meh *shrugs*

If for some reason Zelda's sales are lower than expected, and they think it's from the cel shading or something, they'll probably make the next one realistic... hopefully there will be at least 2 zeldas on gamecube in it's life time (and I'm not talking about that "They are making two different zeldas!" rumor, I just mean like OoT to MM on N64...)... yep

I don't consider Zelda a "mature" game. You're a little elf boy in tights [or in some cases kilt style :eek:] whacking chickens with a sword. Sure the games create a great sense of feeling and whatnot but there's still a lot of comical stuff in it. Miyamoto never intended the series to be "mature". Link is a mischievous boy. Always was. Always will be. Going into various houses and smashing the residents' pots and bombing their walls. Seemed like an elf version of Dennis the Menace.

Then again the "mature" games aren't mature anyway. "Dude, let's go shoot zombies, run over people in cars, and save the world from aliens...again." Violence and realisim doesn't have anything to do with the maturity level of a game. It's the subject matter and plot that makes something "mature". Take the anime "Metropolis" for example. You have astroboy looking cute people yet there's polictical scandels, murders, the quest of one's self, how the world is changing, and a look at society in general.

The people I know who play "mature" games have the lowest possible maturity level imaginable. Take the guy who reviewed all the GameCube games in Aza's topic. He seemed like a total idiot.




I forget the actual point I'm trying to make here so let's just say the above is food for thoguht.

You wear a tunic, which was the common choice for clothing during the time. It was either that, or a robe. Often times during early parts of human history men have worn clothes that would now be considered feminine. The dress for example was at first worn by men and women.

I agree that the game isn't meant to be mature. But the fact that he's similar to an elf and wears a tunic doesn't make him kiddy.

Err.. this is also just food for thought... Blowing steam out of my butt...

(Butt steam for food :D)

In the instruction booklets for the older games he's not wearing anything on his legs...

The whole cel-shaded Zelda thing is a double sided coin.

On the one hand, it has not fared well in terms of asthetic popularity. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." is something that has not been applied here it seems. However, if Nintendo provides an extremley succesful international marketing campaign, they may yet swing back the nay-sayers. Winter 2002 has the potential to be like Winter 1998: A Christmas in which other formats have no killer titles, where as Nintendo has a cavalcade of AAA software. If Nintendo can achive this every year, then we might see SONY re-evaluated as the industry leader.

On the other side, it may be videogame art at it's purest: Made for gamers, not consumers. It is a pity that the "realistic" Zelda asthetic was abandoned, but it may be that the folly of Miyamoto is the oddesey of the art of videogames that we have been crying out for since we completed The Legend Of Zelda Ocarina Of Time: The greatest videogame created to date.

Whatever happens, I'm going to be hacking and slashing in the equivelant of The Great Deku Tree on December 25. I hope that many others will join me.

Re: Re: Zelda
 

How can you tell me or anyone else what their priorities are? If you hate the "new" attitude of gamers that's good for you, you're free to feel however you want. If you think image is nothing, and aren't conscerned about anything except gaming then go ahead and feel that way, but don't tell others that their way of looking at video games is wrong, or that yours is completely superior.

Why do you speak as if you're the messiah spreading the gospel of truth. Everyone likes different aspects of video games. Some like the graphics, some are focused on the gameplay, others on the storyline, and a few like replay value. There are people that like certain parts better than others, but you can't just tell people that your way of thinking is right, and others are mislead or wrong.

It's not like I am kiddygamephobic or anything. I've played many kiddy games in my day, and I plan to pick up many more. If Kirby turned into another conker who drank, cussed, and used an assault rifle I would also be dissapointed. Why? Not because I hate mature games, but because I've grown up with the character, and don't want to see him drastically change.

You do know you're talking to someone that owns a Genesis and SNES, and spends more time on them then his latest systems. Maybe the reason why you weren't concerned about the whole "kiddy-mature crap" was because you were a kid back then. This kiddy-mature crap isn't exclusive to video games, it's in everything. Like teddy bears for example. Yes some people still keep their teddy bears, but others feel that they have outgrown them. Does that mean that the people who have outgrown them are stupid, ignorant, or lost the meaning of truely having fun? No. Is the teddy bear industry also going to face this doomsday that you have created in your head when talking about the video game industry?

:eek: Now that's a mature game ;) :D

Guys whoever says cell-shading sucks obivoiusly didn't play Jet Gring Radio for Dreamcast.

Can't wait for Jet Set Radio Future...

Apparently, Jin only cares about "eye candy." :confused:

I never said that it was the only thing I cared about. I love classic games, not for their looks, but for their gameplay. Of course gameplay is more important than graphics, but graphics and presentation are also an important part of any game. Also, there's nothing wrong with cell-shading, it's just that I feel it isn't right for the series. Like I don't think it would be right for series like Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, or Gran Turismo.

::Expects to get a dozen posts telling me that it doesn't matter what I think is right for the series, but what Miyamoto thinks is right for the series::

Wasn't he the one that decided to go cartridge based on the N64, and launch the GC as a purple console? He isn't God, he makes mistakes too.

Let's just say Link's looking better than Mario these days...

I disussed Jin's issue with Mr. Miyamoto a couple days ago and this is what he wanted me to tell Jin (excuse any gramactical errors, translating isn't my best yet).

Miyamoto says modern game designers have fallen into a trap of designing games that are more focused on exploiting a console's hardware capabilities than telling a story.

"Tell Jin I don't see that there is much of a need to continue to progress in the direction of even more realistic and beautiful graphics," Miyamoto said. "We really need to move more toward creativity, and new ideas."

"In the game industry we see this trend to create the most realistic games," he said. "I see that as kind of limiting what the game creators are able to do and limiting their freedom."

Well, there's two cents worth from the big cheese.

Ouch...


Mario doesn't even look like he is on next gen console.