• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

First screen of Wii U Zelda HD [Update: Offscreen Footage]

VisanidethDM said:
Then why was most of your argument about the hardware if now you're confident the hardware can pull this off in a normal game environment and your new main argument is the work that it would require? I mean, people have already said the animation obviously won't be customised for every single step Link takes, but it can be of the same quality and fluidity still, for the most part. That was the first thing people said wouldn't look like that anyway. That doesn't mean the overall visual quality of a game can't be similar enough or appear improved from that. Again, there are clear flaws in this demo so it wasn't a situation of spending a ton of time to perfect it and wow everyone. The spider's textures aren't all that, its hair are shit, there's no real normal mapping to speak of, etc. We never even get any super close ups to know if the rest of the textures are all that either, especially since we don't have any direct feed footage. The most impressive and actually clearly visible thing about the demo is the overall design and the lighting. The 360 could pull that off. I'm confident WiiU will too, if that's the direction they want to take the art and style of the next game. They could always make WW2 instead.
 
Krev said:
The 'you will say wow' quote aside, Nintendo have for a long time been very modest when it comes to selling the graphical abilities of their systems.

I sure hope so because they've been basically a generation and a half behind now for almost 7 years. Nintendo are modest about graphics because they don't deliver on that front (EAD vodoo magic aside, and still, that's hardly technically impressive, and much more representative of inventiveness and great art direction).

I would say being cautious on Nintendo delivering an expensive and powerful console is only sane. I'm sure you've read about their online approach. I'm not gonna tell myself Nintendo has taken a 180° turn only to eat crow and cry over a massive disappointment.

Call me cynical, but I'll be cautious. I'll see this demo more or less in the same light of the Killzone demo (different cases, realtime vs pre rendered, but also some 5 years apart from each other). I'm not doubting Nintendo's capability of delivering a console that can match and surpass the PS360. They're not that crazy. I'm sort of worried that they'll be conservative again, and they'll get butchered (tech wise) by the PS720... again.
 
Uhh, isn't that October mass production date a rumor? I really don't expect this thing to launch until September 2012 at the earliest.
 
wazoo said:
At least the first N64 demo and the first GC demo in 2000 were done by a team commited to produce the next chapter and experimenting and playing with the toolset. This is not even close, considering that Skyward sword has to be finished.

Reggie: We showed what Zelda could look like on the system in a 1080p environment.

Geoff: Was that made by the team in Japan?

Reggie: Of course!
 
SolidSnakex said:
Reggie: We showed what Zelda could look like on the system in a 1080p environment.

Geoff: Was that made by the team in Japan?

Reggie: Of course!

Yet again I have to ask SSX: Who is in your avatar?

...And does she have a black eye?
 
VisanidethDM said:
I sure hope so because they've been basically a generation and a half behind now for almost 7 years. Nintendo are modest about graphics because they don't deliver on that front (EAD vodoo magic aside, and still, that's hardly technically impressive, and much more representative of inventiveness and great art direction).

I would say being cautious on Nintendo delivering an expensive and powerful console is only sane. I'm sure you've read about their online approach. I'm not gonna tell myself Nintendo has taken a 180° turn only to eat crow and cry over a massive disappointment.

Call me cynical, but I'll be cautious. I'll see this demo more or less in the same light of the Killzone demo (different cases, realtime vs pre rendered, but also some 5 years apart from each other). I'm not doubting Nintendo's capability of delivering a console that can match and surpass the PS360. They're not that crazy. I'm sort of worried that they'll be conservative again, and they'll get butchered (tech wise) by the PS720... again.

They really can't though, graphical diminishing returns means theres no way there will be a gap as large as Wii vs xbox360/PS3, the parity in resolution output alone dramatically cuts to gulf between the wiiU and any possible sucessor to the 360/ps3.
 
Mistle said:
Found this on Reddit, seems relevant to this discussion. Sorry if it's been posted.
Does anybody think there's any truth to seeing such a progression from this tech demo to the actual U Zelda?



Click for bigger pic.

That's awesome.
 
Xavien said:
They really can't though, graphical diminishing returns means theres no way there will be a gap as large as Wii vs xbox360/PS3, the parity in resolution output alone dramatically cuts to gulf between the wiiU and any possible sucessor to the 360/ps3.
Eh, we'll see. I'm not sure diminishing returns will set in in this next gen
 
Gravijah said:
Yet again I have to ask SSX: Who is in your avatar?

...And does she have a black eye?
That's his girlfriend. Every time he gets a new girlfriend he updates his avatar. (That's my working assumption).
 
It seems for all those demos in that picture Nintendo was heading into, for them, uncharted territories of hardware capabilities so those early demos weren't nearly as good as they achieved after getting to grips with the new technologies and what not. I think the same applies to the latest Zelda demo considering what I feel are obvious flaws about it and also considering they aren't using shaders much on 3DS either just yet. Be glad Zelda isn't commonly a launch window title, heh.
 
VisanidethDM said:
I sure hope so because they've been basically a generation and a half behind now for almost 7 years. Nintendo are modest about graphics because they don't deliver on that front (EAD vodoo magic aside, and still, that's hardly technically impressive, and much more representative of inventiveness and great art direction).
Back in the Gamecube era they told the truth about their specs. For example, they cited polygon counts you could expect in a normal game environment. Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft skewed the results massively in their favour. The BS spec sheets they put out lead to the widespread misconception that Gamecube was the least powerful console of that generation.
The tech demos they unveiled that system with were also very representative of the games that they got running on it close to launch. They undersold its capabilities, if anything.

Gahiggidy said:
Uhh, isn't that October mass production date a rumor? I really don't expect this thing to launch until September 2012 at the earliest.
AFAIK, it was mentioned by three separate sources, all of which were involved in breaking details of the system that turned out to be completely true (01net, IGN, Kotaku). Seems likely that it's true as well.
 
VisanidethDM said:
It really depends on the hardware. Keep in mind that you're looking at pics generations away in that reddit picture. 10 years in videogame terms are centuries compared to other medias.

Also, the gamecube comparison is between a tech demo and a game that came so late in the console life that it was also a launch game for the console's successor (or even not launch, I can't remember).

It's plenty possible, expecially if Zelda HD comes out something like 2016 instead of being a launch window game. But in that case, it will suffer from the same problem Twilight Princess suffered from: it was amazing compared to the tech demo, but it looked like turd compared to what the rest of the world was playing.


FULL generational leap between consoles. Cube (and a slightly souped up definition of the Cube in the form of the Wii) vs 360/PS3 with new hardware and huge resolutions differences in HD vs SD. Those are the factors you are not including in the equation here. So I don't know what you are trying.. but you really are doing with compassion that's for sure. Backed up by your obvious twisting, turning and downplaying of a REALTIME tech demo.

The HD resolution only is making games looks heaps better than its SD counterparts. The HD remakes proof that already without a doubt. So we get MUCH better hardware in the WiiU than the Wii could ever dream of. We get HD. We get newer tech in the CPU/GPU department. So whenever and with whatever Sony and Microsoft come out with it will be not that big a difference. Diminishing returns and all that. There is not a doubt in ones mind the PS4/720 will be powerhouses, but the differences will not be that big as opposed to jump between the SD and HD consoles. Hell, dolphin emulated games already give us a taste how they look at 1080p not even using new fancy tech the new cpu/gpu will harness.

And looking like a turd? Yeah that's subjective mate and has nothing to do with hardware differences. If we go that route I could say there is NOTHING that comes close to Windwaker or Metroid Prime, imho.
 
Luigiv said:
You don't really know what you're talking about, do you? The major benefits of scripting are:

1. You have control over the camera and therefore have control over the exact polygon and pixel throughput on the screen. As such, things closer to the camera can be higher detailed whilst things further away can be lower detailed without having to wast your ram on procedural LoD scaling and mipmapping. It also allows you to fake some effects by interspersing pre-rendered assets throughout the scene. The point of all of this however is to maintain a steady frame rate, whilst pushing more advance effects, not forget about it (where the fuck did you pull that idea from anyway?).

If you read a few post above, that's what I said when first adressing scripting. When I say you don't have to care about framerates, I mean you don't really need to worry about keeping them consistent while new environments and models are being loaded, while speeding through a level, while the player moves the camera abruptly or rushes from room to room. Heck, you could stop rendering half of the room if you needed the power, as long as it's not onscreen. I'd argue it's not this case, as there's a solid amount of camera panning even before the "player"'s intervention (Nintendo ain't stupid).

You're getting worked up about nothing. I'm just saying that getting a scripted demo running at locked 30 fps is much easier than doing the same with a full blown game.
 
Xavien said:
They really can't though, graphical diminishing returns means theres no way there will be a gap as large as Wii vs xbox360/PS3, the parity in resolution output alone dramatically cuts to gulf between the wiiU and any possible sucessor to the 360/ps3.

The "they can't screw up as bad as the Wii" point is one I can subscribe.

But if by any crazy chance MS manages to pull out a console that runs stuff like the Samaritan demo... well good luck.
 
Krev said:
Back in the Gamecube era they told the truth about their specs. For example, they cited polygon counts you could expect in a normal game environment. Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft skewed the results massively in their favour. The BS spec sheets they put out lead to the widespread misconception that Gamecube was the least powerful console of that generation.
The tech demos they unveiled that system with were also very representative of the games that they got running on it close to launch. They undersold its capabilities, if anything.


I'll just make you notice you didn't touch what they said (or rather didn't, like now) with the Wii.

I'd really love to believe this is Gamecube Nintendo rather than Wii/3DS Nintendo, but I'll be cautious for my own good.
 
Gravijah said:
but why did he hurt her :(
He didn't. She tripped and fell down some stairs. (Also, my working assumption).
 
Gravijah said:
Yet again I have to ask SSX: Who is in your avatar?

...And does she have a black eye?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f0DKR037PA

And no to the black eye question.

I don't really see what's so hard to believe about the Zelda demo graphics. It looks fantastic but nothing about it should be out of reach for the system based on some rumors. People on B3D are even mentioning that it apparently doesn't have any form of AA. So it's not like Nintendo set out to make a moving bullshot.
 
VisanidethDM said:
The "they can't screw up as bad as the Wii" point is one I can subscribe.

But if by any crazy chance MS manages to pull out a console that runs stuff like the Samaritan demo... well good luck.

Good luck with that, the Samaritan demo required 3 GTX 580's (each of which generate enormous heat and require large amounts of power) to just run at 30 fps, the march of technology is fast, but not that fast.
 
VisanidethDM said:
But if by any crazy chance MS manages to pull out a console that runs stuff like the Samaritan demo... well good luck.
If they do that, I still think WiiU would get competent ports. It wouldn't have the super realistic lighting, shadowing, reflections and all that (that I'm confident most people wouldn't even notice in normal game conditions not designed purely to show it off) which would remain to 360 level or so for WiiU but it would essentially be the same game and, from a few feet away, have similar visual quality. I bet you many can't tell the difference between Samaritan and Deus Ex or the more impressive scenes of Crysis 2 (like the night time battles) already. If WiiU is able to get that sort of port-down after having established an install base by being released earlier, getting potentially definitive or at least competitive versions of multiplatform games, alongside exclusive titles and Nintendo's own IP, I don't think it will have much to fear, unlike the Wii that was clearly left in the dust almost regardless of one's ability to tell graphical nuances apart. Of course it will help that not all games will have the budgets needed to look like Samaritan.

In the end, all next gen games will have obscene amounts of HDR, normal maps, real time shadows, polygons, vaseline filters, and so on, all at HD resolutions and hopefully decent frame rates. I don't think the overall visual difference will be so obvious for most. Of course with the added power other systems could potentially pull off additional things like super destructible environments that realistically break apart in little pieces or whatever else, but those could also be toned down much like many of the Samaritan's features without changing the game's core (still destructible, just not little piece by piece, more BC2 than BF3) and without looking ugly, keeping WiiU firmly in the game. Hopefully.
 
Luigiv said:
Killzone is different though. It was pre-recorded at 5fps then sped up (in other words it was pre-rendered).
Just caught this.
I believe that was a lie that was spun when they were looking for any way they could to avoid admitting that the video was not at all running on PS3 hardware.
It was made with Lightwave by Axis Animation. Same guys who made the recent Dead Island promo trailer.
 
VisanidethDM said:
If you read a few post above, that's what I said when first adressing scripting. When I say you don't have to care about framerates, I mean you don't really need to worry about keeping them consistent while new environments and models are being loaded, while speeding through a level, while the player moves the camera abruptly or rushes from room to room. Heck, you could stop rendering half of the room if you needed the power, as long as it's not onscreen. I'd argue it's not this case, as there's a solid amount of camera panning even before the "player"'s intervention (Nintendo ain't stupid).

You're getting worked up about nothing. I'm just saying that getting a scripted demo running at locked 30 fps is much easier than doing the same with a full blown game.
Firstly, whose getting worked up? This is a discussion board is it not? I was merely discussing. Secondly, the "player" has more control then just merely panning the camera a little. They can completely move the view point rapidly and at will. This means that the detail in the set needed to be balanced like it would in an actual game as pretty much every corner of the room can be viewed up close and every scene can be viewed from multiple angles.

Also you have to remember this is a tech demo, not a cutscene. So the goal here is to try and at least approximate what an in game render would look like, not exploit the benefits of scripting to it's fullest like you would see in a MGS or RE cutscene.
 
VisanidethDM said:
I'll just make you notice you didn't touch what they said (or rather didn't, like now) with the Wii.
Because they weren't focusing on graphics then.
Hell, they aren't focusing on graphics now, which is why they don't like being specific about them in interviews.
VisanidethDM said:
I'd really love to believe this is Gamecube Nintendo rather than Wii/3DS Nintendo, but I'll be cautious for my own good.
I don't think this is 'Gamecube Nintendo'.
They know they've got a machine that's going to be significantly weaker than the competition when their consoles are finally released. They'd rather not have specs out that will be directly compared to PS4/Nextbox.

But what they do have is hardware that can render the nature demo and the Zelda demo in real time. So they demonstrated that for people on the show floor.
They don't represent the massive leap that the competition will make, but it's a leap over PS360 nonetheless.
You yourself said
VisanidethDM said:
I'm not doubting Nintendo's capability of delivering a console that can match and surpass the PS360.
So why all the skepticism over this demo?
 
Yeah, if Wii U sits inbetween the 360 and the '720' in terms of power, even if the '720' could run that Samaritan demo (which it won't) then I don't think people would actually care that much.

I know it does look nice, but I don't think people care that much.
 
Kato said:
FULL generational leap between consoles. Cube (and a slightly souped up definition of the Cube in the form of the Wii) vs 360/PS3 with new hardware and huge resolutions differences in HD vs SD. Those are the factors you are not including in the equation here. So I don't know what you are trying.. but you really are doing with compassion that's for sure. Backed up by your obvious twisting, turning and downplaying of a REALTIME tech demo.

Son, I've seen way too many tech demos in my life to fall prey to the hype based on that.


The HD resolution only is making games looks heaps better than its SD counterparts.

It also makes them incredibly more expensive to develop. This is one of the most interesting points here. We have no idea of how Nintendo will approach HD gaming. It's a radical shift for them, and also for 3rd parties. Ubisoft won't be able to put the shit they put on Wii on Cafe, and make money with that.

The HD remakes proof that already without a doubt.

Subjective. Most HD remakes look bleh to me.

So we get MUCH better hardware in the WiiU than the Wii could ever dream of. We get HD. We get newer tech in the CPU/GPU department. So whenever and with whatever Sony and Microsoft come out with it will be not that big a difference. Diminishing returns and all that.

Now you're sounding like advertisement :P.


And looking like a turd? Yeah that's subjective mate and has nothing to do with hardware differences. If we go that route I could say there is NOTHING that comes close to Windwaker or Metroid Prime, imho.

I'm the quintessential art before tech guy. The polar opposite of Dennis. But still, Twilight Princess was embarassing by the industry standards, something Ocarina was not, for example.
 
VisanidethDM said:
But still, Twilight Princess was embarassing by the industry standards, something Ocarina was not, for example.
No. The game's scale, scope and variety easily made people forget about the odd N64 like texture, as much as those were mentioned. Games of that scale weren't common on the other systems and almost everyone agreed TP's art (yes, it has that, even if it's not Wind Waker), content and attention to detail made it stand tall among any HD offering at the time without shame. It was released in 2006 and the PlayStation 3 had only been released a few days earlier after all, while the 360 was in its first year. Really, only Oblivion was a game that one could say surpassed it so much in a next gen way, and Oblivion had its fair share of flaws that took from that. We didn't exactly have RE5, GoW3 and GTAIV as common occurences at the time, most such next gen sequels had yet to be released. Well, Gears of War released in the same month too as one of the first 360 killer apps.
 
VisanidethDM said:
Son, I've seen way too many tech demos in my life to fall prey to the hype based on that.

Don't get all condescending on me VisanidethDM, it does not give your arguments any more power and it can cut our differences in opinion really short. This year I will be celebrating my big 4.0 so the "son" thing is a bit out of place.


It also makes them incredibly more expensive to develop. This is one of the most interesting points here. We have no idea of how Nintendo will approach HD gaming. It's a radical shift for them, and also for 3rd parties. Ubisoft won't be able to put the shit they put on Wii on Cafe, and make money with that.

And yet you bring the Samaritan Demo into the mix. Don't jump from argument to argument. And besides that. We are not the ones who hold the budgets. Working on Skyward Sword for all those years ain't cheap either.



Subjective. Most HD remakes look bleh to me.

It's not about taste here. Its about the difference between their SD counterparts.



Now you're sounding like advertisement :P.

Thanks will put that in my resume. But not really sure what that has to do with the argument :)




I'm the quintessential art before tech guy. The polar opposite of Dennis. But still, Twilight Princess was embarassing by the industry standards, something Ocarina was not, for example.

This I do net get, really. The industry standards you are thinking off is not the one the Wii should be measured against. Technical it looked behind compared to the PS3/360/pc. But the tech was set in the CUBE/PS2/Xbox era so it was only normal it looked like it did. That was the baseline for Wii games. It's like saying Seiken Densetsu (just of the top of my head 'cause till this day I deeply love everything about some of the games in the series) is embarrassing when compared to todays standard like Rayman Origins. Tech and resolutions make a world of difference here.

OoT on the other hand was in a time when Nintendo went for specs just like the next guy and 3D was something relatively new. So were Cube, NES and some can argue SNES, techwise.
 
Kato said:
Don't get all condescending on me VisanidethDM, it does not give your arguments any more power and it can cut our differences in opinion really short. This year I will be celebrating my big 4.0 so the "son" thing is a bit out of place.

I wrote that jokingly. No intention to offend, really. Apologies if I did.
 
This may not be the huge graphical leap you'd expect from a brand new console, but it looked pretty nice to me. Anyone who spends 5 years playing awful looking Wii games has to be thrilled by this improvement.
 
Grinchy said:
This may not be the huge graphical leap you'd expect from a brand new console, but it looked pretty nice to me. Anyone who spends 5 years playing awful looking Wii games has to be thrilled by this improvement.

I have played PS3 for 2 years, and I'm still "thrilled".
 
Yeah, I don't see what's so hard to believe that demo being real time. Sure, I think it looks fantastic, especially compared to TP, but there are definitely some areas that could use some sprucing (there's not even any fur shading, wtf?!). So it's strange to think that Nintendo was trying to trick people by wowing them, if they weren't gonna bother going all the way.
 
I really don't see how you can argue Nintendo will get left behind this gen.
The wii was like having a GPU from 1999 and expecting to play modern PC games. No matter WHAT settings you turn to low or off, it wont run on it. Hence the few ports.
The WII U has a more modern GPU, perhaps a 4850? You can run just about any PC game on a 4850, it wont LOOK as good but it will actually run and you dont need a separate game made for it. Now EVEN IF the PS360's next consoles have something approaching a GTX 580, the difference between a 580 and a 4850 is not so huge as the difference between a 1999 SD Gpu and a 2005 HD one. I'm imagining Wii U games set to medium compared to ps360 next gen games set to high/ultra. It's at least in the same ballpark this time around.
 
Grinchy said:
This may not be the huge graphical leap you'd expect from a brand new console, but it looked pretty nice to me. Anyone who spends 5 years playing awful looking Wii games has to be thrilled by this improvement.

More like, anyone who has played Nintendo games in the past, knows they are the ones that always make the most out of any hardware available.
 
CoffeeJanitor said:
Eh, we'll see. I'm not sure diminishing returns will set in in this next gen

What? It's been that way pretty much since games went 3D! I think you're forgetting how big the jump was from the best of the N64/PS1 to the best of GC/Xbox/PS2
 
I don't want to get excited for this video because Nintendo will almost certainly develop the new Zelda with a different graphical style. I'll take this as the 2011's SW 2000 demo
 
slopeslider said:
I really don't see how you can argue Nintendo will get left behind this gen.
The wii was like having a GPU from 1999 and expecting to play modern PC games. No matter WHAT settings you turn to low or off, it wont run on it. Hence the few ports.
The WII U has a more modern GPU, perhaps a 4850? You can run just about any PC game on a 4850, it wont LOOK as good but it will actually run and you dont need a separate game made for it. Now EVEN IF the PS360's next consoles have something approaching a GTX 580, the difference between a 580 and a 4850 is not so huge as the difference between a 1999 SD Gpu and a 2005 HD one. I'm imagining Wii U games set to medium compared to ps360 next gen games set to high/ultra. It's at least in the same ballpark this time around.
Perhaps.

I don't know a lot about this technical stuff, but I still see the whole thing turning out bad for Nintendo, with a similar scenario to the Wii.

Nintendo (could) have considerable less powerful console than Sony and MS. Anybody who wants to have third party games is gonna flock towards the PS4/Xbox3 because the Wii U version will be gimped. As a result the Wii U version of those games don't sell well, and after a while third parties will wonder why they bother going to the process and costs of downgrading their games to a console-version that doesn't sell well anyway. Result: Wii U support drops like a rock; vicious circle of "less games" --> "less gamers" --> .... happens just like it did with the Wii.

Perhaps I'm underestimating the graphical ability of the Wii U, and/or over-expecting the graphical power of the new Sony/MS consoles, but I still think the gap in graphical power will be problematic for Nintendo.

I think people tend to underestimate how big the generational leap in hardware power usual is, and overstate the idea of "diminishing returns" in graphics. I'm thinking for example of the 3DS. Everyone said that Nintendo finally was back in the game, with a powerful system that won't be a generation behind on the competitors (DS games roughly looked N64 generation, PSP games looked roughly PS2 generation). But here we are now, with the Vita games shown: 3DS games look roughly like Xbox generation, Vita games look roughly like PS3 generation. Still a generation behind. I think the same thing is gonna happen with Wii U and the other next-gen consoles. PS4 and Xbox3 will be powerhouses that will put Nintendo's console in an awkward position.
 
Oblivion said:
Just for fun I wanted to do a size comparison of the all the Gohmas we've seen so far. Forgive the terrible TP Armoghoma shot. That room is pretty dark and hard to get any good shots taken.

gohma.jpg

2ngarno.jpg

untitled-1h886.jpg


Most interesting thing I think here is that the Gohma in Zelda TP was already pretty damn huge. I'm actually kind of impressed, since it's been a while and didn't realize he was that big considering he's running on GC hardware. Gohma is Zelda HD isn't really that much bigger, if at all, surprisingly.

Gohma in OoT is shockingly very lol.

You forgot this bad boy.

And these dudes.

Also this.

And I couldn't find the Four Swords Adventures version.
 
Here's the DF tech analysis of the demo

Or perhaps not. The Zelda demo, or "HD Experience" as Nintendo calls it, is almost certainly running at a native resolution of 720p, with no anti-aliasing and seems to be locked at 30 frames per second with v-sync engaged (subsequently verified with a good look at a 60Hz feed taken from G4's broadcast coverage of the event).

The lack of any kind of hardware AA, combined with the sheer amount of light sources might suggest that this is Nintendo's stab at producing a deferred lighting engine (particularly when factoring in the player-controlled time of day element), but on the other hand, the engineers may simply be showcasing the shading power of their new hardware.

As it is, much of the aliasing is obscured in a depth of field effect, with character shading being rather CG toon-like - similar to what Nintendo use on their Miis, but with better edge silhouette lighting to give it a kind of unearthly glow. The art style is certainly different to the run-of-the-mill Xbox 360 title, with a fast fall-off in lighting around an object: Link is bathed in shadow very quickly once he stops being directly lit.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-e3-nintendo
 
I don't even know why Nintendo bothers with these Zelda tech demos. They always look like shit compared to what the system can really do.
 
SolidSnakex said:
Fuuuu. That's just beautiful.


In general I'm more a fan of heavily stylized games like Rayman Origins, Zelda WW, Loco Roco, Kirby Epic Yarn, Yoshi's Island, Paper Mario, .... But damn that is one awesome art style. It's the Twilight Princess artstyle, but refined to its perfection. It's definitely not realistic, but it's also not in the vain of "let's make everything look like yarn/cardboard cutouts/crayons/... It's smackdown in the middle of it, and it's beautiful.

Until now I never would have said I'd like a new Zelda game with TP art, but the E3 video changed my mind on that.
 
AceBandage said:
I don't even know why Nintendo bothers with these Zelda tech demos. They always look like shit compared to what the system can really do.

Because they show off what they can do with the system right now. Of course, they are going to be able to do better once the real game comes out.
 
AceBandage said:
I don't even know why Nintendo bothers with these Zelda tech demos. They always look like shit compared to what the system can really do.


biut they also look better than the usual underwhelming day one third party bullshit so yes, moar Nintendo tech demos please
 
Willy105 said:
Because they show off what they can do with the system right now. Of course, they are going to be able to do better once the real game comes out.


But it's always embarrassing!

N64
zelda4ign.jpg


GC
zdemo1_640w.jpg



I mean, at least with modern shaders, this newest one is passable, but man...
 
Top Bottom