Zelda for Wii U Wishlist

[Frogger]

VanceIX said:

spemanig said:

1. I didn't. Still, sales of launch titles have no baring on their popularity with a game like Zelda.

2. No it isn't. Nintendo didn't tease anything. They showed a tech demo that reused assets from a prior game and then expicitely said that that wasn't how the game would look like at the same event.

3. No. It's his job to make a good game. It's the marketing teams job to make it sell well. No. "Rioting," because the game isn't the artstyle you want makes you a non-fan. I have nothing to "get over."

4. No they weren't. Perfect Dark and Goldeneye where "realistic by the standards available during that period of time." When you where a kid, you didn't know what you were looking at because every single peice of promoart for that game was explicitely cartoony. Just because a game isn't filled with primary colors doesn't mean it's suddenly realistic. It's not even a little bit.

5. Just because a game isn't "realistically dark and adult," doesn't mean it's a copy of WW. ALBW isn't WW. OoT isn't WW. MM isn't WW. ALttP isn't WW. SS isn't WW. LoZ NES isn't WW.

Who cares if there's no guarantee that the voice acting will be good. Do you seriously think someone would put "bad voice acting" on a wish list. Zelda isn't iconic because of it's silent characters. Link is iconic as a silent character. It doesn't allow the player to imagine anything better. Get good voice acting and you won't have to imagine. This isn't a book, it's a video game. They wouldn't be changing it for no reason. They'd be changing it because reading through text in a 2014+ AAA game is completely unacceptable. Zelda's dialog as it is now is antiquated.

"I doubt any VA could ever get Ganondorf's voice spot on."

That's retarded. No voice actor on the face of the Earth can portray the industried most cliche villian? Give me a break. You're never going to get 100% fan approval from something like that. No game with voice acting has 100% approval. People would need to just get over it, because the alternative is antequated.

It's impossible to even bother arguing with you. Your past arguments with people on here have shown you don't care about what others think at all, so I'm just gonna answer you one more time, and then take the high road and leave this topic.

1. "Wii had it's sales inflated because it was a launch title". You already disproved yourself. TP's userbase was fragmented and it still took off, that isn't something you can pretend never happened.

2. The amount of emphasis they put on that one tech demo is essentially teasing. Fans went bonkers over that demo, I was (and still am) a member of a Zelda community, and the sheer hype they had over that tech demo was astounding. Nintendo dosen't have to come out with a game like that, but doing so guarantees them much better sales.

3. It's up to the marketing team? Now that's just plain wrong. Nintendo is known for making great games that practically market themselves. You don't go into game development with a mentality like that, you have to make a game that will appeal to people at its very core, so it sells over a lifetime, and not just in the first week where ads are abundant. And fans expressing disappointment over a game instantly makes them non-fans? What? I hated Skyward Sword, and I was vocal about it, does that make me a non-fan of the entire franchise? Things only change when a community is vocal, and that's what would happen if Nintendo did a cartoon-esque artstyle. A big portion of the community is waiting for the next realistic Zelda (it's been, what, seven years?), and after seeing what the Wii U is capable of from the tech demo, it would be a major let down for some of them to not have something similar. I have no qualms against a cartoon-esque Zelda, Wind Waker is my all-time favorite easily, but a lot of fans love the realistic ones just as much as the cartoony ones, and they will be let down to have to miss out on a realistic one for perhaps an entire generation.

4. Nintendo had to balance realistic art with technical feasibility. Of course OoT couldn't be a visual masterpiece in terms of realism due to the sheer scale of the game and the limit of the storage format, but they still managed to make a world that was much darker and more realistic than any of their other titles up to that point. Most Zelda fans consider OoT to be "realistic", and I agree with them, especially considering the era in which it was made. In terms of Nintendo games, OoT and MM were their most realistic graphical styles during the N64 era.

5. Comparing 2D games to 3D defeats your argument right there and then.

You know what? Some people love role playing, OK? Not all of us want the entire game spoon-fed to us. A lot of us like to use a thing called imagination, and imagine the way we like our characters to be. Just because you don't dosen't mean you have the right to try and force it on the other countless Zelda fans that have had their own image of the character's personalities ever since they were kids. 

Anyway, I'm done here. You can call me a non-fan, and say that my opinions are "retarded" or whatever childish insults you want to throw at me, I don't really care. It's obvious you just don't care about what other people like, and if you disagree with them you call them "non-fans". I'm going to take the high road and leave, and just hope for the best for the next Zelda.

Goodbye and goodnight. 

If you can't take critisism and someone arguing your points, that's your issue. If I didn't care about your opinions, I wouldn't bother arguing them.