By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 21 May 2014
Edit Thread
spemanig said:
sc94597 said:
spemanig said:

Yes. They are. Twilight Princess is not stylistically similar to OoT. It doesn't matter what it's "supposed to be," because it isn't. Other M was "supposed to be" a good game, but it isn't.

I can do pictures too.

This:

...is not stylistically similar to this:

...or this:

...and especially not this:

...But to use an ingame comparison that's not just environment, because both games are generic in that regard and even still don't look stylistically similar, this:

is not the same art style as these:

...and this:

...is not the same artstyle as this:

This:

...is not dark and realistic. This:

...is dark and realistic.

Twilight Princess may have been "dark" but OoT is definitely not realistic. That's not opinion, that's fact. None are "realistic," but especially not OoT. OoT is the definition of cartoony. That's not a limitation of the hardware, as proven by the graphical fidelity in REvelations, that's a stylistic choice. A stylistic choice that runs in complete contrast with Twilight Princess and complete symetry with Majora's Mask. MM keeps the exact same art style as OoT; it's tone is what shifts. Twilight Princess shares it's tone, for the most part, with OoT. It's artstyle is completely different.

Both Twilight Princess, OoT/Majora's Mask did not have naturalistic art-styles when it came to characters, but with environments both had highly naturalistic styles.  You use concept art, to represent what Nintendo's vision for the games were, but you must also consider that concept art has the graphical limitations of a system in mind. OoT, by default for being on a less powerful system, will have far less detailed concept art. That doesn't mean its style wasn't as naturalistic, nor that TP wasn't as stylized as OoT. Just that it was more limited in achieving the ideal balanced style. But if you want more "cartoonish" twilight princess concept art:

and character models

vs. 

I think this article describes it best. 

http://www.zeldadungeon.net/2012/11/ocarina-of-time-is-considered-realistic/

Anyway, I do not intend to this post to bash any particular artstyle or anyone’s opinions or assumptions. I simply want to put out this argument (which I believe to be irrefutable, if I’m being honest), and emphasize these aspects which I think easily indicate the true intentions of Ocarina of Time’s artstyle. Ocarina of Time did the same thing that Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, and indeed every previous Zelda game did: Take a certain degree of realism and detail, and inject stylization and imagination into it. An anime style. Obviously they all did it in different ways (which one did it the best being, of course, a matter of opinion), but they still have the same underlying principle. The Wind Waker’s style, carried through Four Swords, The Minish Cap, and the DS titles, was the only serious deviation, though that doesn’t make it bad.

 

I would not call them completely different as you do. 


...I don't know what I just read.

"concept art has the graphical limitations of a system in mind."

No. It doesn't. First, that isn't "concept art." It's real game art. It's art that expresses what the developer wants the player to see.

 

This is game art from DK64. If Nintendo cared about scaling back game art to better represent the ingame graphics, this wouldn't exist.

This:

...is still not even close in art direction, and not nearly as "cartoonish" as this:

Who care's if they art both "naturalistic?" Naturalism isn't an art style. It's a principle encompasing many completely different artstyles. Just because both games display grass in a kind of similar way doesn't mean that they share an artstyle or are even artistically similar, or else the Pokemon Colleseum would be considered the same "art style" to OoT and TP. Even colleseum has more stylistically in common with OoT than TP does. If Nintendo wanted OoT to look like TP, then OoT would have looked like TP, but it doesn't, because they didn't. Sheik in Brawl wouldn't look so completely different from sheik in Melee if they shared an artstyle. In fact, Link in Melee wouldn't look so completely different from Link in brawl if they were supposed to share a similar artstyle. They are night and day. The only thing they have in common are Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf.

I'm not even going to requote the ingame comparison you just did, because any human being with eyes can see how completely different those are from each other, and that's on hardware of similar power.

"An anime style. Obviously they all did it in different ways."

Different ways.

AN ANIME STYLE DONE IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

DIFFERENT ART STYLES!!!!!!!

You literally quoted an article that agrees with me. Anime style =/= realistic and anime style =/= same or similar art style. And he lists OoT, Skyward Sword, Twilight Princess, and every other Zelda game that isn't Wind Waker derivitive. Now, unless you are going to try and argue that OoT also shares it's art style with ALttP, the Oracle games, Link's Awakening, ALBW, Zelda 2, and the original Legend of Zelda, this back and forth is over. You've literally proven yourself wrong with links, quotes, and side by side images that you yourself compared.

You are confusing concept art with promotional art (DK picture was an example of promotional art.) A lot of concept art is repurposed as promotional art. Concept art ALWAYS is suppose to represent the final end-product by the nature of brainstorming, and consequently concept artists have the limitations of the media in mind. The Twilight Princess pictures I posted come from Hyrule Historia, and are labeled as concept art in Hyrule Historia. But if game art is suppose to reprsent the goals of the developers, then why did you dismiss that Twiliight Princess was suppose to be more akin to OoT artistically, as repetitively mentioned by Aonuma. Why? Because the end-product is what matters, and the styles of Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess in-game are not completely different. Different, yes, but not completely.  

Also naturalism is a style of art, 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(arts)

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(arts)

"Realism as a style or movement needs to be distinguished from "realism" as a term to describe the very precise, detailed and accurate representation in art of the visual appearance of scenes and objects. Realism in this latter sense is also called naturalism. "

"Realism or naturalism as a style meaning the honest, unidealizing depiction of the subject, can of course be used in depicting any type of subject, without any commitment to treating the typical or everyday. 

"Some writers restrict the terms "Naturalism" and "Realism" for use as labels for period styles of the middle and late nineteenth century in Europe and America, thus making available the terms "naturalism" and "realism," all lowercase, for tendencies of art of any period so long as the works strive for an accurate representation of the visible world. Thus, "Naturalism" is tied to a time and place, whereas "naturalism" is timeless. As well as a major turning point in art."

I never said that the art-styles were the same. I said that they were not completely different, but similar. Both have a mix of stylized and realism in the characters, and naturalism in the environments.