• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Breath of the Wild Why is Realism Bad?

Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Location
Louisiana, USA
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 don't like the realistic look because of how poorly it ages. Look at every "realistic" game made prior to this generation (and even quite a few within this one). By today's standards they look ugly and deformed, and within 10 years or so it'll be really hard for new players to get into them because they keep thinking "...and they thought this garbage looked GOOD?" Whereas the more fantastical styles don't have that problem; WW and SS, for example, have a timeless quality to them, and they'll always look good no matter how many years down the line they go because they eschewed realism for fantasy.

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:

SNOlink

I'm baack. Who missed me?
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Location
United States, Michigan
I don't feel that realism is bad, but I do have two certain problems with it.

First, it doesn't entirely fit with Zelda. Don't get me wrong, it would be cool if it had it, but realism tends to give the game a darker feel, for example Twilight Princess. It's not like that didn't work, but for the most part Zelda is a more whimsical series. Doing realism once in a while, but I don't think it should be regular for Zelda.

Second, realism is kind of clichéd at this point. Most games that you find nowadays, i.e. CoD, Halo, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, have this style. It's not bad, but it's not unique anymore. Zelda is better with a unique style that sets it apart from the competition.
 

CraptainFalcon

Bored to death
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Location
2Fort
Don't even listen to these people Ventus. Only true Nintendrones will stick to their opinions about how realism sucks in games. How any game that has "hyper-realistic" graphics will always suck and that Nintendope will always make better games (which is the biggest, funniest lie I've heard in years).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Location
Indiana, USA
Honestly, realism in Zelda isn't bad at all, and I can easily see many arguments against it falling through. Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, and Twilight Princess - the majority of Zelda's big-budget 3D games - all adopted graphical styles close to realism, and it really wasn't that bad. If anything, I think a lot of Zelda fans have kind of brainwashed themselves into some kind of strange video game hipster. "Voice acting and realistic graphics are mainstream? Not in my Zelda!" They're not bad things in the slightest, but Zelda fans seem to have convinced themselves in recent years that putting anything in Zelda that it hasn't done, that other franchises are regularly employing, will open the gateway to the abyss or something. (Then they'll complain about things like Skyward Sword's graphics or motion controls. Go figure.)

I hear Aonuma (it was Aonuma, right?) when he says Nintendo intends for Zelda to be unique even in graphical style, and it's a good thing to strive for. So many other games tend to try to be as realistic as possible, so Zelda setting itself apart is generally a good thing. Still, has it occurred to no one that Nintendo almost doesn't have any franchises with consistent realism? Mario, Pokemon, Pikmin, Kirby, any "Wii" game (Wii Sports, Wii Fitness, etc.), and even Fire Emblem tend to avoid realism; in contrast, Nintendo's franchises which usually do employ realism (Metroid, F-Zero, perhaps Star Fox) are the ones frequently left behind in the dust. Nintendo has such an overabundance of graphically "unique" franchises that perhaps it's time they puts some realism in the vanguard.

I'm not saying Zelda needs to be totally realistic with every game ("Link, get your rear end to that fort and provide covering fire for Beedle while he takes out that tank!"), but I think it would be good for us and maybe even a good marketing decision for Nintendo to throw some realism into Zelda every now and then. Just because the gaming market at large leans toward realism doesn't mean Nintendo's always been a part of that.
 

Mangachick14

Nerdy and Proud
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Location
Behind My Computer Monitor
Don't even listen to these people Ventus. Only true Nintendrones will stick to their opinions about how realism sucks in games. How any game that has "hyper-realistic" graphics will always suck and that Nintendope will always make better games (which is the biggest, funniest lie I've heard in years).

Ok, I'm sorry but I just can't let this slide. Why the heck do you have to be so freaking rude? Virtually nobody said realism sucks, and nobody said games with realistic all automatically suck either. In fact, most people said they don't mind realism but simply don't want to see it in Zelda. Don't you dare put words into people's mouths. And you know what? If people prefer Nintendo games to other games, that is their opinion. You have absolutely zero right to tell them they're wrong for feeling this way.
 

CraptainFalcon

Bored to death
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Location
2Fort
Ok, I'm sorry but I just can't let this slide. Why the heck do you have to be so freaking rude? Virtually nobody said realism sucks, and nobody said games with realistic all automatically suck either. In fact, most people said they don't mind realism but simply don't want to see it in Zelda. Don't you dare put words into people's mouths. And you know what? If people prefer Nintendo games to other games, that is their opinion. You have absolutely zero right to tell them they're wrong for feeling this way.

Nice... you fell for the bait.
 

Mangachick14

Nerdy and Proud
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Location
Behind My Computer Monitor
Nice... you fell for the bait.


You're one of those creepy masochists, aren't you? You know, the ones who get a weird little thrill from verbal abuse over the internet? Trolls, I believe you're called. I hope you feel accomplished with yourself.

Oh, and congrats. You've made the prestigious honor of being the one and only person on my ignore list. You should be proud.
 
Last edited:

Dio

~ It's me, Dio!~
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Absolute unit
So many times I run around the Zelda community - on Miiverse and here mostly - and all of those times I see comments that just lambaste realism at every turn. Like, what's so bad about realism in your opinion? I really love the stuff, makes everything look amazing (because real life is amazing)...but others don't feel that way.

I figured that it would be the best vein to create ZeldaU in, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

They have not made a game in the style of realism that looks really nice. I want something like FF13 or 15's style. Semi realistic but still pretty.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Location
Indiana, USA
You're one of those creepy masochists, aren't you? You know, the ones who get a weird little thrill from verbal abuse over the internet? Trolls, I believe you're called. I hope you feel accomplished with yourself.

Oh, and congrats. You've made the prestigious honor of being the one and only person on my ignore list. You should be proud.

Well, to be fair, he does label himself Zelda Dungeon's biggest troll. Certainly not saying it's right, but I'm not surprised by it.

They have not made a game in the style of realism that looks really nice. I want something like FF13 or 15's style. Semi realistic but still pretty.

I don't know, I think I have to go with Ver-go-a-go-go on this one. Back during the inception of the 7th gen, the argument that full realism looks too disjointed may have held up, but these days it's improved to realistic, fluid levels. Games like Beyond: Two Souls and Far Cry 3 really put that into perspective, and we're not even into the PS4 and Xbox One yet. (Of course, the Wii U is neither, so its graphics would have to catch up in time for Zelda U, but still.)

However, I do agree that a Final Fantasy style would work incredibly well for Zelda, and it's kind of the look I hope they're going for in Zelda U. Mostly realistic and very fluid, but still very stylized.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Location
California
It seems like no matter what graphical style is chosen for a given Zelda game, it satisfies at best a weak plurality of players and at worst a vocal minority that is confused and upset that the majority doesn't understand Nintendo's vision. This isn't to unnecessarily slight the Zelda fan-base, because criticism can be quite fun and I believe that deep down, the vitriolic arguments about graphical styles comes from a place of love.

So my personal answer is no - there is nothing necessarily wrong with realism. After all, real life is in incredibly HD realism and I think it actually looks pretty nice. I feel like the questions that we should be asking with regard to graphics - instead of "is it cartoony enough?" or "is it realistic enough?" are the following:

1. Is the graphic style consistent throughout the game? A game should use consistent style throughout because sudden breaks in graphic style undermines immersion. If there's a change in style, it should be for a damn good reason (Example: If there is a parallel "dark world" that has a different style, that can make sense). Even so, the style choices should coalesce in a way that creates a consistent universe.

2. Is the graphic style the highest possible quality for what it aims to achieve? If a style is supposed to be realism but is a lower quality and inefficiently uses the power of the console, it is disappointing. Likewise, if a game is dependent on a foggy, surreal, or impressionistic style, but it is not made as beautiful and interesting as possible, it is also disappointing.

3. Does the graphic style match the thematic/story/gameplay elements? A dark and disturbing game with bright, whimsical graphics isn't going to make sense. Likewise, a humorous, light-hearted game would not benefit from a gritty, desaturated look.

I probably haven't said anything that others haven't already taken into consideration, but I think it's worth remembering that there is no one style that is inherently good or that will match the tastes of a large majority of the fanbase, an there have been a range of different styles attempted in Zelda games. If a darker, more realistic graphic style is the best fit for this unannounced game, then I think that's what they should use. If it's not the best fit, they should use something else instead.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Although I do hate incredibly bright and cheerful graphics. Oops.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
I think Adult Link suits the more realistic game and kid Link suits the more cartoony feel game. Understanding this I feel WW and TP did both very well. SS on the other hand was a mix between the two, trying to create the best of both worlds stylistically. And I'm not sure it succeeded. Sure it looks great but from an aesthetic point of view I just am not sure if I like it.

I think ultra realism like what the war games like call of duty etc are trying to achieve is not a good thing for the Zelda series. As it would be a little too much. With a slightly non real aesthetic people can immerse themselves in a world of magic and monsters. But make it too realistic and you'd think it's the real world and then you'd be like huh monsters in the world? And all immersion you had in the game would be lost. In saying this you can go semi-realistic like TP did. And that would work very well.

There is also the argument that realistic games don't age as well. And to some extent this is true. Ocarina is really showing it's age these days but games like Zelda 3 and WW are not so much. I will say I hate the cel shading of WW a lot but it's not looking bad now. I'm running through it for the first time now (GC version) as I've had the game for years but never finished it. I even prefer the GC looks to the HD looks.

But there is another thing. All of the old Zelda games, even Zelda 1 (NES, not the SNES update) are playable today. If people realise they were the best at the time. I think these days people tend to judge a game based on how it looks and not how it plays and how fun it is. Even Ocarina which I previously said is ageing does not look bad today. It's certainly playable and still tons of fun. If people can put fun first and aesthetics first and put graphics second then they'll enjoy the older games a lot more.
 
U

uttfan

Guest
When I think of TLoZ, I think of some land where I can be more than human. Where I can escape and BE link. Live in his magical world. Rationally speaking, there's nothing REAL about the world the game takes place in. The mechanics of life are completely different than that of real life. This being said, I think its important to keep a stark separation between the world of TLoZ, and the world we live in.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Location
I forget sometimes
Personally, I don't mind a bit of realism. I don't know why a lot of people automatically assume that realism only applies in the Call of Duty or Battlefield sense. It is possible to have a blend of realism and fantasy, much like The Witcher 3. On top of this, I think that having a bit of realism would be a nice change of pace for series and would show off the technical prowess of the Wii U, Nintendo's much-awaited step into HD visuals.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom