First and foremost, you MUST define the terms "realism" and "darkness" before you even think about injecting those terms into Zelda. For the sake of not having to make an entirely different thread about the interpretation of those terms, let's assume that "realism" is this: You see a tree, and it looks like a real tree, or is strikingly similar. You see water, and it looks convincingly like real water. You see a building, and it looks like a building you can see by walking downtown.
Now that you have that out of the way, you can start the discussion for why "realism" should, or shouldn't, be in the video game medium as a whole. Yes, you have to address what "realism" means to video games in general before you go to the sub-topic of Zelda.
People love their realism these days. In Elder Scrolls: Skyrim, everything looks so real and believable. In Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, all of the lush, green forest environments comes to life, and even the spooky Vampire's lair looks like it could be a legitimate place. There's so many more examples I could give. But "realism" in these games make the world so believable and real, it really helps the game become a true experience to those who love being immersed in what the game has created. And to top it off, making everything hyper-realistic is a good indicator to developers as to how well they've accomplished their task graphically. The more real it looks, the more cutting-edge your game is. That's just how it is to so many game franchises these days. Hell, even Final Fantasy has fallen into it as late. The character designs aren't so far off that you wouldn't believe that real people looked like that, and FFXIII, for all its MANY shortcomings, didn't come up short on the beautifully real graphics mark.
So "realism" in games sell. And it's possible to create a much more "adult" and "mature" atmosphere with it. Now, don't get me wrong here; realism = mature is NOT always true at all. However..... A vast majority of mature rated games employ this type of realism to their environments in order for them to appear more acceptable to the adult/mature crowd. Of course, tons of profanity and blood can be the opposite of that, like MadWorld which hardly displays and type of realism in any sense of the word. But, most often, that's how realism is applied in very high-calibur games that sell insane amounts of copies. And you know what? These games can be GOOD. My two examples above, Skyrim and Lords of Shadow, were amazing games to me. Not because of the blood, and definitely not because of the huge "M" slapped on the back, but because the atmosphere and mood of those games is so STRONG because of the presentation. It's a very REAL world that I can get engrossed in. Realism is truly one of the ways that video games can help break their conventional ties of just mindless entertainment, and enter the realm of an unforgettable experience.
Now, let's apply this to Zelda, still using my interpretation of "realism".
In Twilight Princess, a tree delectably looks like a real tree. In Majora's Mask, the buildings in Clock Town look like they could be real buildings.
In Wind Waker, there's no way that water could be real by any stretch of the imagination. In Skyward Sword, yeah, clothes aren't anything remotely like that.
So yes, games like Oot/MM/TP utilized "realism" much more than WW/SS. (Note: I don't think I could fit any of the old-school or handheld titles into this conversation..... 2D was never supposed to be "realistic" by any means, so we'll stick with 3D games for now.) Now, was there a HUGE difference in how well the games functioned as far as engrossment was concerned? I hate to say it, but just as the Zelda series finally makes its way into the conversation, that's where all the uncomfortable gray areas kick in. Here's what I think are all of the viewpoints involved summed up:
1.) Zelda has always functioned without realism, and that the quality of "engrossment" was always a non-factor anyway; it's always been about the fun gameplay, nothing less, nothing more.
2.) "Engrossment" is a relative term, and the more "cartoony" and "fantasy" Zelda graphical styles have been able to create a very interesting and "real" world to you without the type of "realism" we have now.
3.) Zelda hits its stride when it attempts to become more "realist", with OoT/MM/TP being your favorites because of what it does for those games' atmosphere and moods.
Again, these are just my thoughts. If you think you fall into some other category, I'd love to hear about it, since this is something I've always thought long and hard about. Personally, I've found that Zelda, for me, has now fallen into the 1st category. There was a time when I would fight tooth and nail to get the style of MM or TP back, but as I truly got to see the past of the series, and I've had tons of time to think about it, I've concluded that Zelda simply isn't the series for complete engrossment as far as an environment is concerned. I understand that tons of other people love the worlds of Zelda and how they look, but this has become something that I don't really prioritize. If I want to get an "experience" out of something, I'll simply play something else, because the "realism" of other games is what makes that happen for me. Zelda, and Nintendo is general, is all about innovation and phenomenal progress from a gameplay perspective. That's good enough for me to enjoy their games.
tl;dr Realism isn't "bad" for Zelda. But at the point where it polarizes the fanbase, it's probably best to take a step back and realize that it's a non-issue, and that Zelda is all about sword-fighting and puzzles. That's what it is to me, anyway.
EDIT:
I know it doesn't really pertain to why realism is good/bad for Zelda, but I just thought I'd like to bring up something this made me think about. I do believe that, at some point, graphics of video games in general will reach a point to where it's very difficult to see any major differences between last-gen's games and this gen. In this current age, where the jump to 3D is relatively new, and where the jump to HD is especially new, yeah, it's REALLY easy to see how aged some graphical styles are. But from here on to the future? I would guess that things will start looking less and less outdated and time goes by.
Now that you have that out of the way, you can start the discussion for why "realism" should, or shouldn't, be in the video game medium as a whole. Yes, you have to address what "realism" means to video games in general before you go to the sub-topic of Zelda.
People love their realism these days. In Elder Scrolls: Skyrim, everything looks so real and believable. In Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, all of the lush, green forest environments comes to life, and even the spooky Vampire's lair looks like it could be a legitimate place. There's so many more examples I could give. But "realism" in these games make the world so believable and real, it really helps the game become a true experience to those who love being immersed in what the game has created. And to top it off, making everything hyper-realistic is a good indicator to developers as to how well they've accomplished their task graphically. The more real it looks, the more cutting-edge your game is. That's just how it is to so many game franchises these days. Hell, even Final Fantasy has fallen into it as late. The character designs aren't so far off that you wouldn't believe that real people looked like that, and FFXIII, for all its MANY shortcomings, didn't come up short on the beautifully real graphics mark.
So "realism" in games sell. And it's possible to create a much more "adult" and "mature" atmosphere with it. Now, don't get me wrong here; realism = mature is NOT always true at all. However..... A vast majority of mature rated games employ this type of realism to their environments in order for them to appear more acceptable to the adult/mature crowd. Of course, tons of profanity and blood can be the opposite of that, like MadWorld which hardly displays and type of realism in any sense of the word. But, most often, that's how realism is applied in very high-calibur games that sell insane amounts of copies. And you know what? These games can be GOOD. My two examples above, Skyrim and Lords of Shadow, were amazing games to me. Not because of the blood, and definitely not because of the huge "M" slapped on the back, but because the atmosphere and mood of those games is so STRONG because of the presentation. It's a very REAL world that I can get engrossed in. Realism is truly one of the ways that video games can help break their conventional ties of just mindless entertainment, and enter the realm of an unforgettable experience.
Now, let's apply this to Zelda, still using my interpretation of "realism".
In Twilight Princess, a tree delectably looks like a real tree. In Majora's Mask, the buildings in Clock Town look like they could be real buildings.
In Wind Waker, there's no way that water could be real by any stretch of the imagination. In Skyward Sword, yeah, clothes aren't anything remotely like that.
So yes, games like Oot/MM/TP utilized "realism" much more than WW/SS. (Note: I don't think I could fit any of the old-school or handheld titles into this conversation..... 2D was never supposed to be "realistic" by any means, so we'll stick with 3D games for now.) Now, was there a HUGE difference in how well the games functioned as far as engrossment was concerned? I hate to say it, but just as the Zelda series finally makes its way into the conversation, that's where all the uncomfortable gray areas kick in. Here's what I think are all of the viewpoints involved summed up:
1.) Zelda has always functioned without realism, and that the quality of "engrossment" was always a non-factor anyway; it's always been about the fun gameplay, nothing less, nothing more.
2.) "Engrossment" is a relative term, and the more "cartoony" and "fantasy" Zelda graphical styles have been able to create a very interesting and "real" world to you without the type of "realism" we have now.
3.) Zelda hits its stride when it attempts to become more "realist", with OoT/MM/TP being your favorites because of what it does for those games' atmosphere and moods.
Again, these are just my thoughts. If you think you fall into some other category, I'd love to hear about it, since this is something I've always thought long and hard about. Personally, I've found that Zelda, for me, has now fallen into the 1st category. There was a time when I would fight tooth and nail to get the style of MM or TP back, but as I truly got to see the past of the series, and I've had tons of time to think about it, I've concluded that Zelda simply isn't the series for complete engrossment as far as an environment is concerned. I understand that tons of other people love the worlds of Zelda and how they look, but this has become something that I don't really prioritize. If I want to get an "experience" out of something, I'll simply play something else, because the "realism" of other games is what makes that happen for me. Zelda, and Nintendo is general, is all about innovation and phenomenal progress from a gameplay perspective. That's good enough for me to enjoy their games.
tl;dr Realism isn't "bad" for Zelda. But at the point where it polarizes the fanbase, it's probably best to take a step back and realize that it's a non-issue, and that Zelda is all about sword-fighting and puzzles. That's what it is to me, anyway.
EDIT:
I know it doesn't really pertain to why realism is good/bad for Zelda, but I just thought I'd like to bring up something this made me think about. I do believe that, at some point, graphics of video games in general will reach a point to where it's very difficult to see any major differences between last-gen's games and this gen. In this current age, where the jump to 3D is relatively new, and where the jump to HD is especially new, yeah, it's REALLY easy to see how aged some graphical styles are. But from here on to the future? I would guess that things will start looking less and less outdated and time goes by.
Last edited:
