Why Zelda is Awesome and Reborn!
Mips36
There seems to be a lot of controversy regarding the newly released footage of
the Legend of Zelda for GameCube. Much of what I am personally thinking has
already been said on the internet...but a few points have been skipped over,
those of which I will address now.
Those around the internet and the gaming community who advocate as a mistake
the new concept that gaming master Shigeru Miyamoto has introduced to Zelda
need to take a step back and absorb what Miyamoto has done. Many seem to think
that Zelda has become "their" franchise or "their" game because at one point
during their childhood they played one of the games and enjoyed it. However,
those who challenge this new Zelda concept are challenging the mind of the
creator who actually made "their" game. What right have they to claim Zelda as
their concept and only theirs to change when they so feel inclined?
The actual creator of the original Zelda, Shigeru Miyamoto, has stated he did
not like the direction in which the GameCube incarnation was going. He did not
think it fit the series...and felt that even he was losing sight of what Zelda
is all about. Zelda, according to him, is about "fairy tales". It is about the
exact definition of a person's childhood, and is not about seeing how realistic
it can be through portrayal of Link as a perfectly formed human. I have said
this before, and I will say it again. Videogames are the essence of
imagination, not a finite progression towards reality. Our aim should not be to
gain realistic perfection through our technology, but perfection of the
imagination. New technology should be used to create worlds that nibble and
bite at our minds...ones that challenge our imagination to think in new and
more enjoyable ways. If we are exposed to the same reality in games that we are
in our own lives, do not both entities become less enjoyable and more boring?
We must challenge ourselves to create games which trigger and satisfy our
imagination.
The latest Zelda incarnation is exactly that. A true re-enforcement to our
pre-defined notion of Zelda's definition. It is a Zelda which is realistic only
in the world of Zelda, and not realistic according to our own definitions. And
that, in my opinion, is the best type of game. A game which defines its own
rules and does not borrow from our world is one which will trigger our
imagination more than we could have ever hoped.
On a side note, I will say that to me thus far Spaceworld has been an overall
disappointment. But to claim that Zelda is part of that disappointment is to
deny Shigeru Miyamoto the right to make HIS game more focused and fun. In my
humble opinion, that is not for us to decide. Zelda is Miyamoto's game with
which to work, and no one has final say on what is right or wrong for his game
and world except him. He is the only person in the world who truly knows what
Zelda means. It originated from his mind, and only his mind can change it for
the better or worse. At its most basic form, Zelda is the definition of
Miyamoto's childhood. Who are we to say how his childhood is best communicated
through a videogame? We have no right, and therefore, it is almost insulting to
say that Zelda "should be" this way, or "should be" that way. Miyamoto is the
ONLY person on this planet who knows how Zelda "should be".
In the end, I ask those who are stating Zelda is ruined to take a step back and
realize...Zelda is not your game. We may have played Miyamoto's childhood, we
may have made it a part of our own, but the fact remains that it is still his
concept, his idea, and his mind which will better communicate it to us. Make
sure not to lose sight of exactly what Zelda is...it is a piece of Miyamoto. I
do not think I would want people thousands of miles away telling me how to best
recreate that piece of me in a videogame.
(e)magius
Well said.
reastlack
often let us do things we can't do in real life, and the more they look like
real life, the more they give us that illusion. It's perfectly OK to have
games set in an alternate cartoony reality like the Link demo, but other
times you want the game to look as close to reality as possible but with
fantastic things happening. Think of it as the difference between the old
Lord of the Rings animated film, and the new live action ones they are
making now. Both formats can be a valid representation of the books, but
will have totally different appeal to the people watching. Thanks to
special effects, the live action films will look very realistic, yet will
have places, races, creatures, and magic that don't exist in real life.
Video games are the same way, and just as moviegoers want better and more
realistic effects in their movies, gamers want to see similar improvements
in their games.
However, you're right in one sense, that realism alone should never be the
single goal of a game, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with
attempting to reach it, either.
Oh, and as far as this being Miyamoto's game and not ours to judge, I
disagree. We judge with our wallets and support. If Nintendo thinks they
will make more money and sell more consoles with a cartoon Zelda then fine,
but don't get upset if others disagree. Personally I'm looking forward to
it and I'll buy it, but I can certainly understand if not everybody feels
that way.
"Mips36" <mip...@aol.comxyz> wrote in message
news:20010823234517...@mb-ms.aol.com...
Rev. Owen Allaway
> You entirely miss the point about games progressing towards reality.
> Games often let us do things we can't do in real life, and the more
> they look like real life, the more they give us that illusion. It's
> perfectly OK to have games set in an alternate cartoony reality like
> the Link demo, but other times you want the game to look as close to
> reality as possible but with fantastic things happening. Think of it
> as the difference between the old Lord of the Rings animated film, and
> the new live action ones they are making now. Both formats can be a
> valid representation of the books, but will have totally different
> appeal to the people watching. Thanks to special effects, the live
> action films will look very realistic, yet will have places, races,
> creatures, and magic that don't exist in real life. Video games are the
> same way, and just as moviegoers want better and more realistic effects
> in their movies, gamers want to see similar improvements in their
> games.
I would have cut down that paragraph a bit for space, but I like it, so it
stays intact. I do however, disagree to a certain extent. I think there is
a fundamental difference between live and action and animation. While half
the movies I watch are live action and, yes, realism in the effects is
usually a good thing, the other half of the movies are animated and realism
doesn't really matter. Design, consistency within the created world and
production values do matter across both formats.
I think games are now beginning to reach realistic levels. If you look at
Gran Turismo 3, for example, you can tell it's only a few years before we
reach near perfection in limited areas - with the confines of a race track
being a good example. So designers can go two ways, either towards outright
realism or to a more stylised look. Both, I think have their place. Cell-
shading wouldn't work for Gran Turismo 3 or Rogue Spear, as I said in an
earlier post, but works very well for Jet Set Radio and, in my opinion, the
new Zelda.
Of course, people are free to object. Some people do want a more realistic
fantasy world - almost a contradiction in terms, I know - and some don't.
Equally, some people with no objections to a cartoony Link don't like this
particular Link. They're all valid points of view. Personally I like it.
Just as I want a balance between 2D and 3D games, live action and animation
movies, I'd like a balance of realism and "cartoonism" for want of a better
word in future graphics.
All day I've been thinking back to Tempest, of all games, and how that had
a look that was utterly stylised - due to technological limitations no
doubt - but one that worked very well. Now that we've got the technology to
let us make things close to real, I hope designers don't feel they have to
make things look real.
In the end, as you said, we'll vote with our wallets on this. If nothing
else, the next couple of years are going to be interesting.
--
Related Keywords -
Batman, digi, Ryoko, Guinness, sci-fi, Houston, Stortford, DVD, JC007,
Buffy, Capcom, SNK, Farscape, GCPD, Warp, Visor, ebooks, TiVo, Bubbles
DaveC
>
> http://www.gamerlog.com/spaceworld/0823/40000.htm
>
> There seems to be a lot of controversy regarding the newly released footage of
> the Legend of Zelda for GameCube. Much of what I am personally thinking has
> already been said on the internet...but a few points have been skipped over,
> those of which I will address now.
>
> Those around the internet and the gaming community who advocate as a mistake
> the new concept that gaming master Shigeru Miyamoto has introduced to Zelda
> need to take a step back and absorb what Miyamoto has done. Many seem to think
> that Zelda has become "their" franchise or "their" game because at one point
> during their childhood they played one of the games and enjoyed it. However,
> those who challenge this new Zelda concept are challenging the mind of the
> creator who actually made "their" game. What right have they to claim Zelda as
> their concept and only theirs to change when they so feel inclined?
Because we are paying for the game, and Miyamoto's salary.
>
> The actual creator of the original Zelda, Shigeru Miyamoto, has stated he did
> not like the direction in which the GameCube incarnation was going. He did not
> think it fit the series...and felt that even he was losing sight of what Zelda
> is all about. Zelda, according to him, is about "fairy tales". It is about the
> exact definition of a person's childhood, and is not about seeing how realistic
> it can be through portrayal of Link as a perfectly formed human. I have said
> this before, and I will say it again. Videogames are the essence of
> imagination, not a finite progression towards reality.
Why not a progression towards reality? What is wrong with better
textures and the better mood that it creates? Maybe we should go back to
Apple IIe character map graphics?
Our aim should not be to
> gain realistic perfection through our technology, but perfection of the
> imagination. New technology should be used to create worlds that nibble and
> bite at our minds...
Well he did it, as it does bite.
> more enjoyable ways. If we are exposed to the same reality in games that we are
> in our own lives, do not both entities become less enjoyable and more boring?
> We must challenge ourselves to create games which trigger and satisfy our
> imagination.
And you need lousy graphics to do that?
>
> The latest Zelda incarnation is exactly that. A true re-enforcement to our
> pre-defined notion of Zelda's definition. It is a Zelda which is realistic only
> in the world of Zelda, and not realistic according to our own definitions. And
> that, in my opinion, is the best type of game. A game which defines its own
> rules and does not borrow from our world is one which will trigger our
> imagination more than we could have ever hoped.
>
> On a side note, I will say that to me thus far Spaceworld has been an overall
> disappointment. But to claim that Zelda is part of that disappointment is to
> deny Shigeru Miyamoto the right to make HIS game more focused and fun. In my
> humble opinion, that is not for us to decide. Zelda is Miyamoto's game with
> which to work, and no one has final say on what is right or wrong for his game
> and world except him. He is the only person in the world who truly knows what
> Zelda means. It originated from his mind, and only his mind can change it for
> the better or worse. At its most basic form, Zelda is the definition of
> Miyamoto's childhood. Who are we to say how his childhood is best communicated
> through a videogame? We have no right, and therefore, it is almost insulting to
> say that Zelda "should be" this way, or "should be" that way. Miyamoto is the
> ONLY person on this planet who knows how Zelda "should be".
I don't want his childhood, I want flashy graphics dammit!
>
> In the end, I ask those who are stating Zelda is ruined to take a step back and
> realize...Zelda is not your game. We may have played Miyamoto's childhood, we
> may have made it a part of our own, but the fact remains that it is still his
> concept, his idea, and his mind which will better communicate it to us. Make
> sure not to lose sight of exactly what Zelda is...it is a piece of Miyamoto. I
> do not think I would want people thousands of miles away telling me how to best
> recreate that piece of me in a videogame.
Zelda is my game if I pay $59.95 for it!
Joe Ottoson
Mips36 <mip...@aol.comxyz> wrote in message
news:20010823234517...@mb-ms.aol.com...
> http://www.gamerlog.com/spaceworld/0823/40000.htm
> Those around the internet and the gaming community who advocate as a
mistake
> the new concept that gaming master Shigeru Miyamoto has introduced to
Zelda
> need to take a step back and absorb what Miyamoto has done. Many seem to
think
> that Zelda has become "their" franchise or "their" game because at one
point
> during their childhood they played one of the games and enjoyed it.
However,
> those who challenge this new Zelda concept are challenging the mind of the
> creator who actually made "their" game. What right have they to claim
Zelda as
> their concept and only theirs to change when they so feel inclined?
It has more to do with being unable to play the game without feeling
physically ill. It has all the design sensibilities and humor of the toons
from Who Framed Roger Rabbit. They're not funny, they're just forced.
> The actual creator of the original Zelda, Shigeru Miyamoto, has stated he
did
> not like the direction in which the GameCube incarnation was going.
Lots of writers have lost their creative way before. If it's inconsistant
with what came before, fans will get upset. In Zelda 1, Link was supposed to
be in his teens at least according to the story in the manual. He was not an
aborted fetus, he was not 4 years old.
He did not
> think it fit the series...and felt that even he was losing sight of what
Zelda
> is all about. Zelda, according to him, is about "fairy tales".
Hmm... No comment there. ;)
.
It is about the
> exact definition of a person's childhood, and is not about seeing how
realistic
> it can be through portrayal of Link as a perfectly formed human. I have
said
> this before, and I will say it again. Videogames are the essence of
> imagination, not a finite progression towards reality.
The Zelda games were never about reality. OTOH, they always tended to retain
a much more mature feeling than any of Nintendo's other franchises with the
possible exception of StarFox. Miyamoto just took a big randy dump on all of
that.
Our aim should not be to
> gain realistic perfection through our technology, but perfection of the
> imagination.
In other words, we're supposed to thank Miyamoto for ruining Zelda.No
thanks.
> The latest Zelda incarnation is exactly that. A true re-enforcement to our
> pre-defined notion of Zelda's definition.
No, people wouldn't be pissed if that was the case. The new Zelda totally
ignores all of the games that came before it. That's not reinforcing
anything previously present in the series. There was no horrible art before,
no sight gags from Wile E. Coyote cartoons, and Link was never protrayed as
anyhting less than a teenage or older hero.
Peter L. Ward
Accepting your argument that Miyamoto, as a creator, has the sole
perrogative to determine the look and feel of his creations, there's also
an equally compelling argument: do we, the gamers, have any obligation to
buy the game, even if we don't care much for its style? I argue no. In a
free market, no one should be compelled to buy something he or she doesn't
care for unless it's a necessity in life.
Sure, there are those who do like the new style, and it's perfectly their
right to buy the game. Likewise, there are those who do not like the new
style (such as myself), and it's perfectly our right not to buy the
game. Whether or not Miyamoto's perrogatives are vindicated depends on
how many people like the new look and how many don't. If his new look
wins out, so be it, though I won't be buying the game regardless. If his
new look doesn't win out, so be it. It doesn't matter to me anyway.
I'll come right out and say it: I am not a Miyamoto worshipper. Is he a
talented developer? Sure. I've enjoyed several of his games in the
past. Likewise, there have been others (notably Mario ones) that I passed
on because they didn't appeal to me.
I enjoy playing the GBC Zeldas, and if the GC Link looked like the Link
from those games, I would've been much more receptive. I have no opinion
on the N64 Zeldas because I don't have an N64 and have not seen enough of
a compelling reason to get one. As for the upcoming GC one, it animates
very well, and the gaming interface is reminiscent of the old-school
Zeldas. However, the look does not appeal to me...enough to cause me to
take a pass on it. I can take or leave Miyamoto's games depending on
whether or not a particular one appeals to me, the customer.
That's the bottom line: will the potential customer buy the game? That's
the most important thing. It doesn't matter if Miyamoto went
ultra-cartoony or ultra-realistic. If he doesn't appeal to his potential
audience, he doesn't get the sales. If he does appeal to his potential
audience, then he does get the sales. That's life.
To be honest, I highly suspect this game will be a success, though
several (including myself) will not contribute to its success. It's got
the Zelda name, after all. People will buy it regardless of the
look. That's also life.
--
Peter L. Ward
fal...@best.com
ICQ# 100145303
Studio Stormfalcon: http://www.best.com/~falcon/
"I'm here, so I'll be with you forever."
- Iwakura Lain
John Thorenson
>disappointment.
In what way?
__
"You know you all take all this a bit to seriously. I think his snap comments
give this NG some personality---in a weird kind of way.
Lighten up."
John Kitchar, telling rgvn to lay off from trying to kick me (yes, ME!) off the
boards.
John Thorenson
>Well said.
Thanks for quoting the entire passage for one line, moron.
schell
> realize...Zelda is not your game. We may have played Miyamoto's childhood, we
> may have made it a part of our own, but the fact remains that it is still his
> concept, his idea, and his mind which will better communicate it to us. Make
> sure not to lose sight of exactly what Zelda is...it is a piece of Miyamoto.
All very true. Personally, I think the movie was fine, once you get
over the initial surprise :)
I did have one interesting thought while watching the movie. A lot of
children who never heard of Zelda will fall in love with this game and
a new generation of Zelda lovers will be made. Otherwise it will
become a bit like the endless sequals we all know we hate where at one
point, the magic is lost and Zelda will not be what it is anymore ;)
As for realism, I felt that the N64 had a perfect blend of realism and
fantasy to make it workable. In anycase, is this movie a definite
representation of how things will be on gamecube? Perhaps only partly.
What we saw the first time was an adult Link in an adult world. Now we
see a child link in a child world...
This could actually work well if the game progresses in this fasion :)
In any case, the game is not yet finished. The main sprite is one of
the easyest things to alter, and the gameplay is definity Zelda. I
have to say, I am intrigued by the move and will just have to wait and
see. I know I will probably buy it, it certainly looks fun :)
Jonathan Timar
"John Thorenson" <omar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010824054335...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> >
> >Well said.
>
> Thanks for quoting the entire passage for one line, moron.
Tsk, tsk.
terrell gibbs
wrote:
>Why not a progression towards reality? What is wrong with better
>textures and the better mood that it creates? Maybe we should go back to
>Apple IIe character map graphics?
Because reality leaves so little room for creativity in artistic expression. It
was beginning to seem like every fantasy game was going to look alike.
Congratulations to Miyamoto for having the courage to buck the trend, and pursue
his individual expression. Look at the history of painting. Early on, there was
an attempt to progress toward realism, but once that was attained, artists moved
away from strict realism.
reastlack
news:Xns91071E2965EBjc...@130.133.1.4...
> I read a message that "reastlack" wrote. I shall now write a reply...
>
> > You entirely miss the point about games progressing towards reality.
> > Games often let us do things we can't do in real life, and the more
> > they look like real life, the more they give us that illusion. It's
> > perfectly OK to have games set in an alternate cartoony reality like
> > the Link demo, but other times you want the game to look as close to
> > reality as possible but with fantastic things happening. Think of it
> > as the difference between the old Lord of the Rings animated film, and
> > the new live action ones they are making now. Both formats can be a
> > valid representation of the books, but will have totally different
> > appeal to the people watching. Thanks to special effects, the live
> > action films will look very realistic, yet will have places, races,
> > creatures, and magic that don't exist in real life. Video games are the
> > same way, and just as moviegoers want better and more realistic effects
> > in their movies, gamers want to see similar improvements in their
> > games.
>
> I would have cut down that paragraph a bit for space, but I like it, so it
> stays intact. I do however, disagree to a certain extent. I think there is
> a fundamental difference between live and action and animation. While half
> the movies I watch are live action and, yes, realism in the effects is
> usually a good thing, the other half of the movies are animated and
realism
> doesn't really matter. Design, consistency within the created world and
> production values do matter across both formats.
Oh, I totally agree. My point was that both formats are valid, not that
there aren't differences between them.
> I think games are now beginning to reach realistic levels. If you look at
> Gran Turismo 3, for example, you can tell it's only a few years before we
> reach near perfection in limited areas - with the confines of a race track
> being a good example. So designers can go two ways, either towards
outright
> realism or to a more stylised look. Both, I think have their place. Cell-
> shading wouldn't work for Gran Turismo 3 or Rogue Spear, as I said in an
> earlier post, but works very well for Jet Set Radio and, in my opinion,
the
> new Zelda.
And you can, of course, go for a stylized look even in a "realistic"
setting. Movies and games do this all of the time. GT & Rogue Spear are
both games that attempt to be as realistic as possible, in both graphics and
gameplay, so they will be designed that way. A more realistic Zelda game
would probably still be very stylized, though.
> Of course, people are free to object. Some people do want a more realistic
> fantasy world - almost a contradiction in terms, I know - and some don't.
> Equally, some people with no objections to a cartoony Link don't like this
> particular Link. They're all valid points of view. Personally I like it.
> Just as I want a balance between 2D and 3D games, live action and
animation
> movies, I'd like a balance of realism and "cartoonism" for want of a
better
> word in future graphics.
Exactly my point, both are valid. I like the look of the new Zelda demo,
though like many others I think the face could use some changes. If this is
how it ends up, though, it still looks like it will be great. On the other
hand, I'd love to see a more realistic Zelda game as well, and something
that continues the style of the N64 games.
The good news is that technology has hit a point where a lot of different
styles are possible, and that's a good thing. I want the possibility of
games that look ultra realistic, ones that don't look realistic but still
look "real" if you know what I mean, games that border on cartoon style,
games that look like animated feature films. The more variety that is
possible, the better, and the more gaming will continue to gain in
popularity.
> All day I've been thinking back to Tempest, of all games, and how that had
> a look that was utterly stylised - due to technological limitations no
> doubt - but one that worked very well. Now that we've got the technology
to
> let us make things close to real, I hope designers don't feel they have to
> make things look real.
Yes, you hope for the opposite, actually - that they feel that there is
little that they couldn't do if they wanted to.
John Thorenson
>
You're one person. Name one person who has more authority than Miyamoto as to
the direction of Zelda.
>Well he did it, as it does bite.
No it doesn't. Don't cry.
John Thorenson
>style (such as myself), and it's perfectly our right not to buy the
>game.
Sure. And you and I both know that you (and your imaginary contingent) will buy
the new Zelda game.
>However, the look does not appeal to me...enough to cause me to
>take a pass on it.
Well knee-jerk justification is never a pretty sight.
>To be honest, I highly suspect this game will be a success, though
>several (including myself) will not contribute to its success.
What do you mean "several?" Five, six people? Time to stop being such a
flagrant ass.
Jonathan Timar
> flagrant ass.
Shut up, Omarichu.
DaveC
Making simplistic sparse graphics does nothing for creativity, it just
takes away from the immersive experience and believability. If the
graphics were good how would that make the game bad? Doesn't make
sense. You can be creative and make it look good too. I suppose you
don't like movies either because they all have the same "realistic look"
to them. You only like cartoons?
Karim Swainson
http://www.petitiononline.com/gundar21/petition.html
I want to make it clear to Nintendo that there are those of us out there
that do appreciate this new style and we don't want to see the game
destroyed.
Please sign and tell others about the link on what ever other newsgroup or
messageboard you may visit.
"Mips36" <mip...@aol.comxyz> wrote in message
news:20010823234517...@mb-ms.aol.com...
(e)magius
>
> You entirely miss the point about games progressing towards reality. Games
> often let us do things we can't do in real life, and the more they look like
> real life, the more they give us that illusion.
I must say I disagree. I find, say, Transformers: The Movie a far more enjoyable
experience than Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon -- even excluding the relative
qualities of the two movies. It's just so much cooler, in my mind, to see
Optimus ram through a horde of Decepticons, fly up into the air, tranform, and
shoot down a few more baddies than it is to see Chow Yun Fat whacking at Zhang
Ziyi with a sword, despite the greater technical realism of the latter scenario.
> It's perfectly OK to have
> games set in an alternate cartoony reality like the Link demo, but other
> times you want the game to look as close to reality as possible but with
> fantastic things happening. Think of it as the difference between the old
> Lord of the Rings animated film, and the new live action ones they are
> making now.
Live action = crap. I really don't want to see someone like Ian McKellen
pretending to be Gandalf, and I find it highly unlikely that Tolkein would
either (assuming he didn't succumb to greed).
> Both formats can be a valid representation of the books, but
> will have totally different appeal to the people watching. Thanks to
> special effects, the live action films will look very realistic, yet will
> have places, races, creatures, and magic that don't exist in real life.
> Video games are the same way, and just as moviegoers want better and more
> realistic effects in their movies, gamers want to see similar improvements
> in their games.
Speak for yourself. I'd rather see imagination than realism.
> However, you're right in one sense, that realism alone should never be the
> single goal of a game, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with
> attempting to reach it, either.
Realism is for those with small minds. While it's true that the majority of
consumers find realism an attractive prospect, you must remember that these are
the same cretins who believe that 'Nsync, Spears, and the like are great
musicians. Nintendo can go appeal to the tasteless with games like Metroid, but
I'd like it if they released a few creative games that aren't designed solely to
earn $$$, but to be artistic works.
> Oh, and as far as this being Miyamoto's game and not ours to judge, I
> disagree. We judge with our wallets and support. If Nintendo thinks they
> will make more money and sell more consoles with a cartoon Zelda then fine,
> but don't get upset if others disagree.
I doubt that even Nintendo believes they can make a cute Zelda game sell better
than a technically impressive/"realistic" title. Just look at the hordes that
purchased DoA2 and drool over "128-bit" graphics.
> Personally I'm looking forward to
> it and I'll buy it, but I can certainly understand if not everybody feels
> that way.
I also understand that there will always be sheep. In many ways, sheep are vital
to the stability and success of the world -- but I don't want them to ruin
gaming.
Best,
--Imad "(e)magius" Hussain
Jonathan Timar
> pretending to be Gandalf, and I find it highly unlikely that Tolkein would
> either (assuming he didn't succumb to greed).
That's it the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Generalizations like that
are assinine.
terrell gibbs
wrote:
>BAHHH!!!!
>
>Making simplistic sparse graphics does nothing for creativity, it just
>takes away from the immersive experience and believability. If the
>graphics were good how would that make the game bad?
If you insist upon "good = realistic," you have to throw out most of art. I
don't really expect a fantasy game to be "believable" -- especially one derived
from a series of games featuring a little guy with his head as big as his body.
I do think that fantasy games were starting to look a bit generic. The distict,
stylized style of Miyamoto's new Link is certainly one way of getting away from
that.
>Doesn't make
>sense. You can be creative and make it look good too. I suppose you
>don't like movies either because they all have the same "realistic look"
>to them. You only like cartoons?
I like both. I don't feel like everything must have one look or the other. Each
has its strengths. However, I think the recent Final Fantasy flop movie
illustrated the flaws of trying too hard to make computer graphics look
realistic. If anything, I found that its state-of-the-art "realistic"
characters--far beyond what any current console can be expected to
duplicate--merely emphasized the fact that they were *not* real people. When we
see a cartoon, we recognize that it is not trying to be realistic, and we cut it
much more slack than when we see an image that is trying to look "real." The
lesson of the Final Fantasy movie is that if you want your human characters to
look truly real, you still have to use human actors.
Joe Ottoson
terrell gibbs <tgi...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:tgibbs-BA41C6....@news.bu.edu...
> In article <3B87250A...@ix.netcom.com>, DaveC
<dcan...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >BAHHH!!!!
> >
> >Making simplistic sparse graphics does nothing for creativity, it just
> >takes away from the immersive experience and believability. If the
> >graphics were good how would that make the game bad?
>
> If you insist upon "good = realistic," you have to throw out most of art.
Where is this absurd either/or distinction coming from? If you hate Zelda's
new look, you obviously wanted it to look realistic?
That's a hell of a leap. Nintendo could've just as easilly drawn Link in a
cartoony but non gut knotting style without compromising anything (except
Link looking like a Santa special reject) on either side. If it'd looked
like JGR, nobody would be complaining and you'd still be praising Miyamoto's
bold new direction.
Either way, fantasy =! cartoony.
terrell gibbs
"Joe Ottoson" <jaot...@fortlewis.edu> wrote:
>terrell gibbs <tgi...@bu.edu> wrote in message
>news:tgibbs-BA41C6....@news.bu.edu...
>> In article <3B87250A...@ix.netcom.com>, DaveC
><dcan...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >BAHHH!!!!
>> >
>> >Making simplistic sparse graphics does nothing for creativity, it just
>> >takes away from the immersive experience and believability. If the
>> >graphics were good how would that make the game bad?
>>
>> If you insist upon "good = realistic," you have to throw out most of art.
>
>Where is this absurd either/or distinction coming from? If you hate Zelda's
>new look, you obviously wanted it to look realistic?
From the post I was responding to. You need to keep track better. Here's a quote
from that post
reastlack
news:3B880645...@purdue.edu...
> reastlack wrote:
> >
> > You entirely miss the point about games progressing towards reality.
Games
> > often let us do things we can't do in real life, and the more they look
like
> > real life, the more they give us that illusion.
>
> I must say I disagree. I find, say, Transformers: The Movie a far more
enjoyable
> experience than Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon -- even excluding the
relative
> qualities of the two movies. It's just so much cooler, in my mind, to see
> Optimus ram through a horde of Decepticons, fly up into the air, tranform,
and
> shoot down a few more baddies than it is to see Chow Yun Fat whacking at
Zhang
> Ziyi with a sword, despite the greater technical realism of the latter
scenario.
Regardless of which you like better, you're never going to watch a
Transformers cartoon and have your brain fooled into thinking that what you
are watching is real. The point isn't that realism is better than
animation; it is that both are valid and the goal of progressive realism in
movies or games is not intrinsically "wrong."
> > It's perfectly OK to have
> > games set in an alternate cartoony reality like the Link demo, but other
> > times you want the game to look as close to reality as possible but with
> > fantastic things happening. Think of it as the difference between the
old
> > Lord of the Rings animated film, and the new live action ones they are
> > making now.
>
> Live action = crap. I really don't want to see someone like Ian McKellen
> pretending to be Gandalf, and I find it highly unlikely that Tolkein would
> either (assuming he didn't succumb to greed).
Live action is crap? All live action movies are crap? But Tranformers
is... good? I hope you realize that you represent a tiny slice of the
spectrum in your preferences.
Besides, why do you think Tolkein would have a problem with a live action
portrayal of Middle Earth? Do you think he imagined it as animation as he
wrote the books? Not likely, I'm sure that in his mind's eye it looked very
real indeed. It certainly feels that way when you read the books.
> > Both formats can be a valid representation of the books, but
> > will have totally different appeal to the people watching. Thanks to
> > special effects, the live action films will look very realistic, yet
will
> > have places, races, creatures, and magic that don't exist in real life.
> > Video games are the same way, and just as moviegoers want better and
more
> > realistic effects in their movies, gamers want to see similar
improvements
> > in their games.
>
> Speak for yourself. I'd rather see imagination than realism.
Imagination and realism are NOT mutually exclusive.
> > However, you're right in one sense, that realism alone should never be
the
> > single goal of a game, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with
> > attempting to reach it, either.
>
> Realism is for those with small minds. While it's true that the majority
of
> consumers find realism an attractive prospect, you must remember that
these are
> the same cretins who believe that 'Nsync, Spears, and the like are great
> musicians. Nintendo can go appeal to the tasteless with games like
Metroid, but
> I'd like it if they released a few creative games that aren't designed
solely to
> earn $$$, but to be artistic works.
People could say the same thing about guys who like Transformers cartoons,
couldn't they? Open up your mind to the idea that not everybody shares the
same tastes.
> > Oh, and as far as this being Miyamoto's game and not ours to judge, I
> > disagree. We judge with our wallets and support. If Nintendo thinks
they
> > will make more money and sell more consoles with a cartoon Zelda then
fine,
> > but don't get upset if others disagree.
>
> I doubt that even Nintendo believes they can make a cute Zelda game sell
better
> than a technically impressive/"realistic" title. Just look at the hordes
that
> purchased DoA2 and drool over "128-bit" graphics.
They probably DO think they can sell more games with the new style. Why
else would they switch? From what Miyamoto was saying, they wanted to make
sure that Zelda retained the appeal it has for kids, and they were afraid
that an older, more realistic Link might move them too far away from that.
If that isn't a business decision, I don't know what is.
> > Personally I'm looking forward to
> > it and I'll buy it, but I can certainly understand if not everybody
feels
> > that way.
>
> I also understand that there will always be sheep. In many ways, sheep are
vital
> to the stability and success of the world -- but I don't want them to ruin
> gaming.
Your attitude and the one that says that realism is the only right way are
opposite sides of the same coin.
(e)magius
If CTHD fooled you into thinking it was real, I believe you need to get
a better grip on reality.
> > > It's perfectly OK to have
> > > games set in an alternate cartoony reality like the Link demo, but other
> > > times you want the game to look as close to reality as possible but with
> > > fantastic things happening. Think of it as the difference between the
> old
> > > Lord of the Rings animated film, and the new live action ones they are
> > > making now.
> >
> > Live action = crap. I really don't want to see someone like Ian McKellen
> > pretending to be Gandalf, and I find it highly unlikely that Tolkein would
> > either (assuming he didn't succumb to greed).
>
> Live action is crap? All live action movies are crap? But Tranformers
> is... good? I hope you realize that you represent a tiny slice of the
> spectrum in your preferences.
So do all geniuses. ;)
Seriously, I like what I like, and others saying that "everyone" hates
the new Zelda look is simply incorrect.
>
> Besides, why do you think Tolkein would have a problem with a live action
> portrayal of Middle Earth? Do you think he imagined it as animation as he
> wrote the books? Not likely, I'm sure that in his mind's eye it looked very
> real indeed. It certainly feels that way when you read the books.
Do you think he imagined an actor pretending to be Gandalf? As for
reality, I'm quite sure that even Tolkien was aware that his hobbits did
not represent reality.
>
> > > Both formats can be a valid representation of the books, but
> > > will have totally different appeal to the people watching. Thanks to
> > > special effects, the live action films will look very realistic, yet
> will
> > > have places, races, creatures, and magic that don't exist in real life.
> > > Video games are the same way, and just as moviegoers want better and
> more
> > > realistic effects in their movies, gamers want to see similar
> improvements
> > > in their games.
> >
> > Speak for yourself. I'd rather see imagination than realism.
>
> Imagination and realism are NOT mutually exclusive.
They aren't totally exclusive of one another, true. However, by tacking
on "realistic" graphics, you've already removed a great deal of the
"imaginative" feel of the Zelda games.
>
> > > However, you're right in one sense, that realism alone should never be
> the
> > > single goal of a game, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with
> > > attempting to reach it, either.
> >
> > Realism is for those with small minds. While it's true that the majority
> of
> > consumers find realism an attractive prospect, you must remember that
> these are
> > the same cretins who believe that 'Nsync, Spears, and the like are great
> > musicians. Nintendo can go appeal to the tasteless with games like
> Metroid, but
> > I'd like it if they released a few creative games that aren't designed
> solely to
> > earn $$$, but to be artistic works.
>
> People could say the same thing about guys who like Transformers cartoons,
> couldn't they? Open up your mind to the idea that not everybody shares the
> same tastes.
Quite open. It seems that 90%+ of the people who've posted so far have
said that:
a) the new Link design sucks
and
b) that no one in their right mind could possibly like it
I may have gone a bit too far to the left, but it takes ego-centralism
to fight ego-centralism.
>
> > > Oh, and as far as this being Miyamoto's game and not ours to judge, I
> > > disagree. We judge with our wallets and support. If Nintendo thinks
> they
> > > will make more money and sell more consoles with a cartoon Zelda then
> fine,
> > > but don't get upset if others disagree.
> >
> > I doubt that even Nintendo believes they can make a cute Zelda game sell
> better
> > than a technically impressive/"realistic" title. Just look at the hordes
> that
> > purchased DoA2 and drool over "128-bit" graphics.
>
> They probably DO think they can sell more games with the new style. Why
> else would they switch? From what Miyamoto was saying, they wanted to make
> sure that Zelda retained the appeal it has for kids, and they were afraid
> that an older, more realistic Link might move them too far away from that.
> If that isn't a business decision, I don't know what is.
From what Miyamoto-sama was saying, it seems that he felt that the
"high-tech" design was not true to his dream of Zelda. Sounds like
artistic consideration, rather than a business decision, to me.
>
> > > Personally I'm looking forward to
> > > it and I'll buy it, but I can certainly understand if not everybody
> feels
> > > that way.
> >
> > I also understand that there will always be sheep. In many ways, sheep are
> vital
> > to the stability and success of the world -- but I don't want them to ruin
> > gaming.
>
> Your attitude and the one that says that realism is the only right way are
> opposite sides of the same coin.
Correct (to a certain degree, of course). In many ways, that's the point
I was trying to make.
Best,
--Imad "(e)magius" Hussain
_____________________________________________________________________
"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we
cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
--Secretary of State William H. Seward, in response to Lincoln's
_Emancipation Proclamation_
"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my
commission, and offer my sword to the other side." --Ulysses S. Grant
on the Civil War
_____________________________________________________________________
reastlack
Obviously most people watch special effects and logically understand that
what they are seeing is not reality. However, it looks real enough to more
easily allow people to temporarily suspend disbelief and enjoy it for the
moment. You also suspend disbelief with animation, of course, but it isn't
quite the same, and not everybody can do it or will enjoy it as much. For
those who can and do, it's a great experience.
> > > > It's perfectly OK to have
> > > > games set in an alternate cartoony reality like the Link demo, but
other
> > > > times you want the game to look as close to reality as possible but
with
> > > > fantastic things happening. Think of it as the difference between
the
> > old
> > > > Lord of the Rings animated film, and the new live action ones they
are
> > > > making now.
> > >
> > > Live action = crap. I really don't want to see someone like Ian
McKellen
> > > pretending to be Gandalf, and I find it highly unlikely that Tolkein
would
> > > either (assuming he didn't succumb to greed).
> >
> > Live action is crap? All live action movies are crap? But Tranformers
> > is... good? I hope you realize that you represent a tiny slice of the
> > spectrum in your preferences.
>
> So do all geniuses. ;)
>
> Seriously, I like what I like, and others saying that "everyone" hates
> the new Zelda look is simply incorrect.
I don't disagree with that. (The second part.) ;)
> > Besides, why do you think Tolkein would have a problem with a live
action
> > portrayal of Middle Earth? Do you think he imagined it as animation as
he
> > wrote the books? Not likely, I'm sure that in his mind's eye it looked
very
> > real indeed. It certainly feels that way when you read the books.
>
> Do you think he imagined an actor pretending to be Gandalf?
I'm sure he imagined him looking like a real person, and since Gandalf was
human in appearance, an actor portraying him should come pretty close.
Actors are people who try to fool us into thinking of them as somebody or
something else. Some more convincingly than others.
> As for
> reality, I'm quite sure that even Tolkien was aware that his hobbits did
> not represent reality.
We're talking about realism here, not reality. Of course Tolkien knew that
his creations were not real, but he probably pictured them in a realistic
fashion, much as they will be portrayed in the new movies.
> > > > Both formats can be a valid representation of the books, but
> > > > will have totally different appeal to the people watching. Thanks
to
> > > > special effects, the live action films will look very realistic, yet
> > will
> > > > have places, races, creatures, and magic that don't exist in real
life.
> > > > Video games are the same way, and just as moviegoers want better and
> > more
> > > > realistic effects in their movies, gamers want to see similar
> > improvements
> > > > in their games.
> > >
> > > Speak for yourself. I'd rather see imagination than realism.
> >
> > Imagination and realism are NOT mutually exclusive.
>
> They aren't totally exclusive of one another, true. However, by tacking
> on "realistic" graphics, you've already removed a great deal of the
> "imaginative" feel of the Zelda games.
Maybe if you just tacked realistic graphics on a sub par game, you would be
right. However, that isn't what Nintendo did with the N64 Zelda games, and
I wouldn't expect that with the Gamecube, either, regardless of the style.
I don't think the ratio is that bad, and besides, it's always the people
with a gripe who make the most noise. If the whole game looks like what was
in that video, and is up to the usual Zelda standards, then I have little
doubt that it will be popular and there will lots of people who practically
worship it, just as you'd see from others if it was in a more realistic
style.
Well, he said several things, I guess it depends on which one you want to
read the most meaning into. However, the fact that the execs have said that
they would maintain their hold on the younger market "at all costs" makes me
think there is more to this than just Miyamoto wanting to change things up.
He could have concentrated on a younger Link without changing styles so
dramatically.
terrell gibbs
"reastlack" <reas...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Obviously most people watch special effects and logically understand that
>what they are seeing is not reality. However, it looks real enough to more
>easily allow people to temporarily suspend disbelief and enjoy it for the
>moment. You also suspend disbelief with animation, of course, but it isn't
>quite the same, and not everybody can do it or will enjoy it as much. For
>those who can and do, it's a great experience.
I think that most people are able to offer greater suspension of relief to
animation, simply because it is making no pretense of looking "real." Once
things start to look almost real, the eye becomes much more unforgiving.
reastlack
Not really. There is a reason why even high quality animation is a niche
market, why it is marketed primarily towards kids, and why 3D has the
potential to attract a wider audience than traditional animation styles ever
could. Kids don't need to work hard to suspend disbelief - they practically
believe anything they see. (Yet even they are likely to know that Disney's
Alladin is not real while readily believing that the power rangers are very
real indeed.) Suspending belief isn't so easy for most adults. Not that
there aren't exceptions, such as you and myself, but generally speaking most
people "outgrow" "cartoons" when they lose the ability (or desire) to put
aside what their senses are telling them long enough to get involved in the
story. In other words, if they watch Jurassic Park, their eyes and ears
tell them that it is real, even though logically they know it isn't. They
can handle that. But watching an animated feature, their eyes are saying
that it isn't real, they know logically that it isn't real, so there is less
to base their suspension of disbelief on, not much of a "hook" to help them
do it.