As many may recall a year or two ago, Nathanial Rumphol-Janc was consistently arguing that Zelda U needed to go the direction of the tech demo, or something similar, in order to achieve mass success and a ton of sales. He still thinks that, if that style is used, that would in fact happen. However, as many pointed out back then sales shouldn’t really be his sole barometer in this type of debate. Other factors matter too correct? Personally I like the tech demo style, but every time Nathanial goes back and plays old Zelda games only one of them consistently draws him in with it’s timeless style. Yes folks, hes talking about The Wind Waker.
30°
40°
80°
130°
Ad 
190°
30°
40°
10°
30°
40°
What are you talking about? Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker looked beautiful on the Gamecube and Mario Galaxy and Skyward Sword were among the best looking games on the Wii.
Nintendo doesn't cut corners on software graphics.
@Theyellowflash30
That's a better point, actually. This idiotic sentiment that graphics take priority over gameplay is ludicrous for any gamer. A game can look prettier than a diamond, but it means nothing if there's no gameplay and substance beneath it to carry the experience.
WHY THE F*CK IS THAT UNFORTUNATE?
I want games to be more about gameplay than graphics. Go get a decked out PC and Medal of Honor Warfighter if Graphics are more important than gameplay.
Wind Waker's artstyle has made it timeless. It still looks awesome, even in standard definition
Edit@mamotte
I agree, give me cartoony "childish" looking games over some pimped up Crysis 2 on PC anyday.
Journey is another good example
I think it should be both.
Though they don't need to have good graphics in the traditional sense (high res textures, realistic looking), but games should focus as much on art style as they do on gameplay.
Design your game with a great art style and your game becomes timeless and unforgettable. If it's just some generic high res crap, it's going to be forgotten (unless it raises the graphical bar like Crysis).
It's a good thing most Nintendo games have both good graphics and gameplay.
AESTHETICS is how the game looks. GRAPHICS are the rendering techniques (resolution, depth of field, tessellation, etc.) used to achieve that "look".
The only difference between something like Gears of War (aka "realistic") and Skyward Sword (aka "fantasy") is TEXTURES and LIGHTING. Maybe a smidge of DoF.
That's it.
Personally I prefer pretty aesthetics over cutting-edge graphics, but when I feel the need to be a graphics whore, I can always fire up Battlefield 3 or Crysis 3 on my PC.
I know. It was a response to a guy saying that, basically, Wind Waker graphics are bad. Wich make me assume he's a "graphics whore". And, that said, I also prefer aesthetics over reality... and said it loud.
We're not getting technical here, you know ;)
What the F...
Sony and MS fans are litteraly using Xbox 360 launch ports as some kind of graphical benchmark for the wiiu. In that case I will use Ridge racer 6 running at 600p as an xbox 360 graphical benchmark , even though I can think of countless better looking Xbox and Gamecube games.
Like Seriously , were people expecting devs to max out a console prior to launch whilst Nintendo was still swapping parts and changing dev kits ? Nope.
And the fact that The wiiu runs AC3 at native 720p and mass effect 3 the same with NO texture pop in like on other consoles , proves that it's at bare minmimum the same power of those consoles.
And then you have the fact that AC3 was not made on wiiu architecture it's made on 360 architecture. If it was built from the ground up for wiiu , god knows how good it could look.
WindWaker's was good aswell mind you
Plus others like Left 4 Dead 2, and numerous other games.
Seems as though people hate the PC just cos they think their console is better when it's not, it's not all about graphics.. we also get silky smooth framerates.
i hope i'm proven wrong but i don't think we'll ever see anything on the wii u as impressive as this;
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
please prove me wrong nintendo!
Cause Skyward Sword was an advanced Wind Waker style.
Or maybe each dungeon played like a different Zelda game.
And on top of this I would want a completely new-style and a games worth of content in that style.
That tech demo they showed looked cool, but the anime inspired eyes Link had looked awkward with realistic graphics.
For one would be highly disappointed if they went the wind waked route again. I'd much rather prefer the E3 demo.
And your brother. I was highly pissed off when they did that. They showcased an awesome OoT next gen demo and then we got a cel shaded pipsqueak instead.
I do fear the same will happen here. And that alone leaves me anticipating disappointment.
After SS Zelda doesn't really have much hype for it anymore any way. Nintendo needs to bring back Zelda's prestige. And stop farting around with useless gimmicks like art style and an overbearing storyline/sidekick.
Play ALttP and count how long it takes you to get your sword and start kicking ass.
If anything a graphically realistic Zelda on the Wii U would put socks into the naysayers mouths about Nintendo's attitude and the Wii U's capabilities and legitimacy as a proper next gen console, not just a cop out with Skyward sword.
Push the boundaries this time Nintendo.
It's mind-boggling to imagine Hyrule looking like that, and it makes sense when considering Zelda's history of changing up its style. Just differentiate the scenery a bit instead of looking like it's melting into one and I think it could beat Wind Waker as the best looking Zelda.
I'd be down.
i recently played it again and it still looks great
Related image(s)
Each episode brings a unique graphical touch and we should let Nintendo decide about the future of Zelda.