I think the GB Zeldas were produced by another group of people than the ones who did the original NES and SNES versions.
I know the Final Fantasies are on GB
-=Lohrno
New Zelda ?
It''s not that I think the new Zelda looks bad... It looks really good for what it is actually... It''s just that Zelda fans were expecting a lot more from the first Zelda on Gamecube, especially with the amazing trailer they showed at the Gamecube''s first E3. The zelda they are making is going to be great, but it was a really bad move for Nintendo to show that trailer of link fighting Ganon (you can find it on www.ign.com), then announce a cartoon-style Zelda game. I think it would have been much better received if they had made the more serious Zelda first, or if they hadn''t built up fans expectations.
Smurfwow: "...this new one looks like garbage :/"
To me, the game looks like its going to be a lot like the N64 Zelda''s. The graphics look different (obviously), and there are probably a few more intricacies to gameplay, but overall it seems like a pretty standard Nintendo platform adventure Zelda game. Not to say its going to be a run of the mill game, mind you. It is Zelda after all. But the camera, gameplay, controls, combat, etc. all seem pretty similar (to the N64 games). So I ask you, Smurfwow, why is this game so much worse than all the other Zelda games that this will be the first that you don''t buy?
On a totally unrelated subject... Why is it that so many people now a days can''t stand anything but bestest, most realistic looking graphics? I''m pretty sure that a lot of these people have only been gaming for, at most, 7 years. About the time that the PSX came out. So many people now a days are so used to getting realism, they don''t enjoy anything unless its similar. And so many games are coming out with little to no gameplay (let alone original, compelling gameplay) because thats what the public is asking for. And when a game comes out that doesn''t look the way they want, they scoff at it saying that it can''t be any good because it looks like garbage. They can''t get over the fact that it isn''t the graphics that make a game fun, but the gameplay.
I have a friend who swears that he is a hardcore Final Fantasy fan. He played all the way through FF7. When I showed him 6, he couldn''t believe that this game could be even comparable to the glory of FF7. It was so pixelly and ugly. This is the kind of attitude I''m talking about. (IMO FF6 is a better game than 7, and looks just as good, in a very different way).
Back to Zelda. It looks great, and I think it''ll be so much fun that I''m gonna have to buy a GameCube for it. I love cel-shading too.
--Buzzy
(formerly buzzy_b)
To me, the game looks like its going to be a lot like the N64 Zelda''s. The graphics look different (obviously), and there are probably a few more intricacies to gameplay, but overall it seems like a pretty standard Nintendo platform adventure Zelda game. Not to say its going to be a run of the mill game, mind you. It is Zelda after all. But the camera, gameplay, controls, combat, etc. all seem pretty similar (to the N64 games). So I ask you, Smurfwow, why is this game so much worse than all the other Zelda games that this will be the first that you don''t buy?
On a totally unrelated subject... Why is it that so many people now a days can''t stand anything but bestest, most realistic looking graphics? I''m pretty sure that a lot of these people have only been gaming for, at most, 7 years. About the time that the PSX came out. So many people now a days are so used to getting realism, they don''t enjoy anything unless its similar. And so many games are coming out with little to no gameplay (let alone original, compelling gameplay) because thats what the public is asking for. And when a game comes out that doesn''t look the way they want, they scoff at it saying that it can''t be any good because it looks like garbage. They can''t get over the fact that it isn''t the graphics that make a game fun, but the gameplay.
I have a friend who swears that he is a hardcore Final Fantasy fan. He played all the way through FF7. When I showed him 6, he couldn''t believe that this game could be even comparable to the glory of FF7. It was so pixelly and ugly. This is the kind of attitude I''m talking about. (IMO FF6 is a better game than 7, and looks just as good, in a very different way).
Back to Zelda. It looks great, and I think it''ll be so much fun that I''m gonna have to buy a GameCube for it. I love cel-shading too.
--Buzzy
(formerly buzzy_b)
quote:Original post by Buzzy
Back to Zelda. It looks great, and I think it''ll be so much fun that I''m gonna have to buy a GameCube for it.
Me too.
I play all games. Whether or not they look realistic. In fact I''m more anti-realistic than anything else. I think games should be bright, colourful, vivid, but not ugly. 
(FF6 looked good, btw. FF4 is a better example)
So you increase the head size so you can see detail, wow that''s an amazing idea! Perhaps if there were some detail to show, it would work! The n64 zeldas had a much more detailed face which was not bloated at all, I fail to see you''re point.
I don''t agree with the idea that if it''s made in Japan it''s anime. When an american draws a comic influenced by anime, it will be called anime. Because that''s the style. If a Japanese artist is influenced by western cartoons, depending on the result I might call it a western style. That has happenned here, imho.
As for the effects, yes they are very pretty. Most of the enemies are very pretty too. I simply have some trouble figuring out why they chose the character that you play with the entire game to be the one who is not pretty.
The gameboy links do NOT look like GCN link. The only similarities being the level of detail and colouring. And you would expect a gameboy character to look a little shabby, he''s only a few pixels high!
I will, of course, still play the game (if I get a GCN, probably will). And I''ll love the experience of a game which does cel-shading well, but I won''t like Link. Ever
------------
aud.vze.com - The Audacious Engine <-- It''s not much, yet. But it''s mine... my own... my preciousssss...
MSN: nmaster42@hotmail.com, AIM: LockePick42, ICQ: 74128155
(FF6 looked good, btw. FF4 is a better example)
So you increase the head size so you can see detail, wow that''s an amazing idea! Perhaps if there were some detail to show, it would work!
The n64 zeldas had a much more detailed face which was not bloated at all, I fail to see you''re point.I don''t agree with the idea that if it''s made in Japan it''s anime. When an american draws a comic influenced by anime, it will be called anime. Because that''s the style. If a Japanese artist is influenced by western cartoons, depending on the result I might call it a western style. That has happenned here, imho.
As for the effects, yes they are very pretty. Most of the enemies are very pretty too. I simply have some trouble figuring out why they chose the character that you play with the entire game to be the one who is not pretty.
The gameboy links do NOT look like GCN link. The only similarities being the level of detail and colouring. And you would expect a gameboy character to look a little shabby, he''s only a few pixels high!
I will, of course, still play the game (if I get a GCN, probably will). And I''ll love the experience of a game which does cel-shading well, but I won''t like Link. Ever
------------
aud.vze.com - The Audacious Engine <-- It''s not much, yet. But it''s mine... my own... my preciousssss...
MSN: nmaster42@hotmail.com, AIM: LockePick42, ICQ: 74128155
LockePick, you miss everything. the whole point of cell shaded artwork is that you sacrafice detail that is not needed. this improves overall image clarity as well as ensures you eyes pay attention to the deatils that are present. you dont seem to understand that youngere ppl when drawn ussually have larger heads proprotional then an adult. this is REALITY, in most japanese games this is exggerated, like most anime.
i find it amazingly ironic that you use ff4 and ff6 as examples of good graphics, yet dont even comprehend that the many of the principles that guided square to use a super deformed style is the same reason nintendo is.
please tell me what detail is missing that would help the face look better? in the n64 zeldas, the face was blurry and hard to see its features. especically if the character was not taking up most of the camera shot. with the new zelda, its much easier to see the expressiveness of the new link. as well as it being closer to the original proportions in the original nes and snes games.
i have played the n64 zeldas, and have not seen any expressiveness out of link during the gameplay. sometimes during a cutscene there is some facial animation, but most of the time it is too blurred and small to tell due to the more "realistic" look you desire for link. maybe you just dont understand art in general, and cant understand why someone would purposly exgerrate something, and drop useless details for a better overall look.
try this as a test. take a "realistic" image of link and the more exggerated and simpler look of the new link. now down szie them to approx 64x32 (basically so that the image would be approx the size you see on the screen). which is clearer to see the facial features? which would be easier to animate to show exppresive animations during gameplay, and not just zoomed in cinemas? maybe you will begin to understand, but i have a feeling its the fact that you never had to deal with such issues in the games you have created that you fail to understand why its being done.
i suggest taking an art course or two to understand how are is created, and learn things about the limitations of the resolution and screen size of modern consoles must deal with.
also, i guess i forgot to mention he was a fun and cartoony guy in his weekly cartoon show. he would be quite comical, especially when trying to kiss princesses zelda. though i guess you may have missed that small tidbit of history. this was before snes, and n64. if nintendo would endorse such a show, i am sure it was pretty close to how nintendo wanted to portray link.
i prefer the clean "new" oldschool look of link to the gritty grainy n64 look.
i find it amazingly ironic that you use ff4 and ff6 as examples of good graphics, yet dont even comprehend that the many of the principles that guided square to use a super deformed style is the same reason nintendo is.
please tell me what detail is missing that would help the face look better? in the n64 zeldas, the face was blurry and hard to see its features. especically if the character was not taking up most of the camera shot. with the new zelda, its much easier to see the expressiveness of the new link. as well as it being closer to the original proportions in the original nes and snes games.
i have played the n64 zeldas, and have not seen any expressiveness out of link during the gameplay. sometimes during a cutscene there is some facial animation, but most of the time it is too blurred and small to tell due to the more "realistic" look you desire for link. maybe you just dont understand art in general, and cant understand why someone would purposly exgerrate something, and drop useless details for a better overall look.
try this as a test. take a "realistic" image of link and the more exggerated and simpler look of the new link. now down szie them to approx 64x32 (basically so that the image would be approx the size you see on the screen). which is clearer to see the facial features? which would be easier to animate to show exppresive animations during gameplay, and not just zoomed in cinemas? maybe you will begin to understand, but i have a feeling its the fact that you never had to deal with such issues in the games you have created that you fail to understand why its being done.
i suggest taking an art course or two to understand how are is created, and learn things about the limitations of the resolution and screen size of modern consoles must deal with.
also, i guess i forgot to mention he was a fun and cartoony guy in his weekly cartoon show. he would be quite comical, especially when trying to kiss princesses zelda. though i guess you may have missed that small tidbit of history. this was before snes, and n64. if nintendo would endorse such a show, i am sure it was pretty close to how nintendo wanted to portray link.
i prefer the clean "new" oldschool look of link to the gritty grainy n64 look.
Author
also the gameboy link looks actuly like the GCN link!!!
when you take pictures in Zelda DX and look at the pictures in the camera hut, he looks just like him!
this is the look that they wanted!!
they couldnt do this with n64 because cell shading wasnet posible , and he would take up to many polys to look smooth like a cartoon
when you take pictures in Zelda DX and look at the pictures in the camera hut, he looks just like him!
this is the look that they wanted!!
they couldnt do this with n64 because cell shading wasnet posible , and he would take up to many polys to look smooth like a cartoon
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
