spemanig said:
VitroBahllee said:
spemanig said:
Dude you don't get it. No one is saying that Wind Waker isn't cartoony. You aren't convincing anything. Ocarina of Time is still cartoony. The Powerpuff Girls is more bright and cartoony than Tom and Jerry. Does that suddenly make Tom and Jerry a realistic live action comedy?
I'll save you the embarassment by answering that for you. No. No it doesn't. Tom and Jerry is still very much a cartoon.
|
spemanig, I'd say it is you who don't get it - you are determined not to take his point. You were what, five when Ocarina came out judging from what you said earlier? You had nothing to compare N64 graphics to. Arguing that Ocarina is cartoony like Yoshi's Island or Wind Waker is just making you look stubborn. Nobody is convinced by your arguments.
EVERYBODY considers Twilight Princess to be the spiritual successor in not only graphics but play style (no giant oceans) to Ocarina and Majora's mask. Remember the cheers from the audience at E3 when the first Twilight Princess trailer was unveiled? Why do you think that was? Admittedly, it sounds like you would have been about ten when it happened, but maybe you remember.
|
No. EVERYBODY doesn't. Internet dwellers do, which is a fraction of all Zelda fans. My age doesn't matter in this. I never said that it was the same cartoony style as Wind Waker or Yoshi's Island, but it is cartoony. That's not an opinion. That's not an argument. That's a fact. Artstyle is not subjective. Something is either objectively a cartoon aimed for kids, or a realistic peice of art aimed towards adults. Ocarina of Time is a rated E game with exadurated faces, a giant talking tree with thick eyebrows and a mustache made of bark, and a character who is very clearly a parody of Mario that you have to wake up with a tiny rooster that fit's into your pocket. Every piece of art, every cleaned up model in Ocarina of Time very clearly is cartoony. Just because the colors it uses aren't primary, doesn't mean that it isn't very clearly a cartoon childs game for children.
And let's be clear, I don't care what EVERYBODY thinks. EVERYBODY used to think that everything revolved around the Earth and EVERYBODY was factually wrong.
There are infinite variations on cartoons. There's only one realism. Ocarina of Time was not and will never be it.
You show running footage of Ocarina of Time to anyone without a bias and they'll tell you that it's a cartoony kids game because it is, and so was every Zelda before it and every Zelda, sans Twilight Princess, after it.
I was 11 when that happened, and the cheer where because people wanted a dark and gritty Zelda. That doesn't make Ocarina of Time any less of a cartoony game.
You can argue all you want, but this:
...will never be realistic. Fact.
There are no exceptions. You're realistic, or you're cartoony. You're not cartoony in realistic or realistic in cartoony.
|
Bold Point 1 - "No. EVERYBODY doesn't. Internet dwellers do, which is a fraction of all Zelda fans."
Looking at sales, looks like the 'fraction of all Zelda fans' are the one who buy Skyward Sword/Wind Waker.
Bold Point 2 - "It is cartoony. That's not an opinion. That's not an argument. That's a fact. "
No, it's an opinion. One almost nobody agrees with you on.
Bold Point 3 - "Every piece of art, every cleaned up model in Ocarina of Time very clearly is cartoony. Just because the colors it uses aren't primary, doesn't mean that it isn't very clearly a cartoon childs game for children."
How would a 'realistic' Link model be different on the N64 from what we see in Ocarina?
Bold Point 4 - "And let's be clear, I don't care what EVERYBODY thinks. EVERYBODY used to think that everything revolved around the Earth and EVERYBODY was factually wrong."
Wow, grandiose, off-topic rant. No offense, but that's a pretty out-of-context fact to apply here. And it isn't a really wise interpretation of what we are discussing here.
Bold Point 5 - "There are infinite variations on cartoons. There's only one realism. Ocarina of Time was not and will never be it."
This is a highly contentious point. The idea that there are an infinite number of ways to be a cartoon, but only one way to be 'realistic,' makes me again question you: 'How would you have changed Link's model on the N64 to make it "realistic?"'
Bold Point 6 - "You show running footage of Ocarina of Time to anyone without a bias and they'll tell you that it's a cartoony kids game because it is, and so was every Zelda before it and every Zelda, sans Twilight Princess, after it."
Wrong on so many levels.
A) Did you just say you didn't care 'what everybody says?' Now you claim to know what people will tell you about the game?
B) You have a really warped perception of how people consider Ocarina because, as you say, you were five when it came out. It was NOT considered a kids game just because it was rated E for everyone. Teenagers played it 'unironically' without feeling like they were playing a kids game. You have the weirdest perspective on Ocarina of anyone I've ever heard discuss the game.
C) The games before it weren't 'cartoony' either. They were as realistic as a games could possibly be. Nobody saw the NES Zelda 1 or 2 and thought 'They went cartoony with it.' This is more of you not having any perspective on the evolution of game technology. The SNES Zelda, though featuring fanciful characters like rabbit heads, didn't seem 'CARTOONY.'
Finally, with your picture, all you've done is highlight the fantastical nature of the Zelda universe. There's fantasy elements in all of the games. That doesn't mean they are all cartoony, though by your logic, if you were being less selective, it would.
Currently Online 
