Skidonti said:
VanceIX said:
No one said anything about "hyper-realism". A realistic Zelda is something like what they showed at E3 back at the Wii U reveal- You know, the game that had fans drooling for a long time? It wasn't realistic, but the emphasis on the darker tone and amazing realistic lighting gave the vibe that the Wii U was truly a next-gen console worth owning. A Skyward Sword 2.0 artstyle is beautiful, and I love it, but its not going to sell as many copies.
Your opinion is wrong. You know why? Realistic Zeldas have always sold more. OoT and TP sold more than WW or SS. TP itself sold 7 million, compared with the 3.75 million that Skyward Sword sold, and it had a MUCH smaller install base than Skyward Sword when it came out.
Facts are facts. My age has nothing to do with artstyle, so I'd advise you keep it out of this discussion, because it lends you no credibility. I've played every single Zelda (excluding the CDi games), and I've loved almost all of them dearly. Just because I was born in the mid 90s doesn't mean I lose all credibility on the older games.
|
You know, I want to challenge the notion that cartoony Zelda is very poorly recieved and dark Zelda would sell awesome.
There are just too many other factors at play to call that out as the biggest culprit for lagging sales. Now, note, I do think realistic would sell better, but not twice as much or something. More like the difference between 4.5 and 5.1 million, or something. And in the scheme of things if that's the only sacrifice I'd much rather they make it the beautiful way they want.
Let's examine the three worst selling console entries in the series.
Adventure of Link - 4.4 million
Majora's Mask -3.4 million
Skyward Sword - 3.8 million
What do they all have in common? Not art style certainly. They're all on the same consoles as the three top selling games in the entire franchise (LoZ, OoT, TP), but the thing is all three low selling games are the second release on the console, coming late into the life cycle. The earliest release of the three in the console life cycle was AoL, and (surprise surprise) it is the best of the worst. Also, all of the three introduced more complicated gameplay mechanics than the predecessor, and were slightly less critically acclaimed. Additionally, two of them (MM, SS) required additional add ons to your console in order to work (The N64 expansion pack and Wii Motion+). Only 1/3 of these low selling games is cartoonishly bright.
Avoiding this, the ammo people use in this argument is the fact that OoT and TP are realistic and the best sellers. Well, debating OoT art's status is tired, but I still don't think it was that dark or realistic. People as kids might have said so at the time, but I mean how can I ignore the fact that Goldeneye released the year before and Metal Gear Solid came out the same year? On the scale of things real, dark, and gritty OoT falls below TP and those other games on the scale. Look at the dancing Kokiri, and Ingo's eyebrows...
But let's call it realistic. In addition to that, OoT was praised incredibly highly on release and had excellent word of mouth due to highly innovative 3D gameplay. No other Zelda has replicated that quality, and I think it boosted OoT's sales. TP rode the hype of the Wii in addition to being realistic. I don't think being realistic alone could have pushed it to such heights.
Additionally people point out that WInd Waker was a disappointment (Nintendo even said so), and that they said the cel shading was to blame. It really is the sole good example of cartoony Zelda failing for no reasons other than cartoony-ness (one data point does not a trend make). But all things considered it did pretty well on a system as small as the cube. It was the 4th best selling game on the system. It outsold the (equally praised) darker shooter Nintendo IP competitor, Metroid, significantly. And it changed many more things about Zelda than just the look. It also concentrated on child Link entirely, unlike OoT, it was easier, shorter, it took place in a big empty ocean instead of Hyrule, it did not recieve "second coming of god" praise, and there was significant controversy from those who didn't believe Zelda could be cartoony at all. But of course now we love Wind Waker, and I think reception to Zelda U will be a little more warm or at least understanding and less passionately defiant.
When it comes down to it, TP being a dark Zelda isn't what drove Wii units and I'm not sure dark Zelda U would drive all that many WiiUs either. At least, not that many more than this Zelda will. We don't have any evidence that says it would. Do you really think many who wouldn't buy a WiiU for anything else would suddenly drop $250 because it has a realistic Zelda, or that someone who would drop $250 would suddenly decide against it because Zelda isn't dark? Wind Waker shows a cartoony Zelda on a small platform can still sell 4.6 million, so I'm not too concerned about the game flopping. WiiU will never be a great success regardless.
I LIKE the looks of this game. So if it's as good as I hope come 2015 I think I'll go advocate it to friends as worth owning.
(and with comparisons to Princess Mononoke... that movie does looks a lot like this during the first part... but it's well known as one of the darker Ghibli movies. So I wouldn't be so sure this style won't get dark at some point!)
|
