One tiny thing that might help in your analysis: Nintendo accidentally included all the symbol names and locations on the Wind Waker disc in a file called "framework.map".
Doing some basic demangling on the CodeWarriors names gives you C++ classes and methods:
The "sea" animation is controlled by "daSea" -- "da" meaning "dynamic actor" in Nintendo's naming terminology.
It's extremely unlikely they used texture distortion for the sea effect, since the GPU they used didn't have fragment shaders -- the only method of texture warping is INDTEXMTX, which was only used for the heat effects in Dragon Roost Cavern.
They probably modified UVs directly on their triangular sea mesh.
Smoke effects and such use their in-house particle engine, "JPA".
Technically it is the case that the given fragment shader is doing the same thing as direct UV modification. It doesn't really change the fact that it's texture distortion, it's just that the fragment shader is capable of doing it on a per-pixel basi.
It's a common misconception that the Gamecube doesn't have fragment shaders. The GPU (called the TEV) is almost a straight implementation of DirectX's ps1.0, the same as a GeForce3, with a few extras added.
At my old company I wrote an assembler to read text source and assemble the instructions into TEV format.
I was deeply into Nintendo games in the late 90s leading up to Wind Waker's release. I remember after it was announced that so many people were deeply disappointed in these "kiddy" graphics.
Remember that as far as the major releases go it was released in 2002 after Ocarina of Time in 1998 (and a sequel using the same engine in 2000).
People wanted a "real" Zelda game with "real" graphics, like what became Twilight Princess in 2006, whose graphics are a logical follow-up to Ocarina of Time.
It's funny how history turns out, now Wind Waker is widely lauded for its graphics, and it looks much better than the likes of Ocarina of Time or Twilight Princess.
It's a fantastic example of how Nintendo is still a company that dares to experiment, even with their most wildly successful game franchises. That hasn't always worked out, but we've gotten amazing innovative games like Wind Waker as a result.
It is, I think, my favourite Zelda game --- it looks superb, the characters work, the story's interesting (even Ganon actually comes across as a bit sympathetic!), fascinating dungeons, the world is endless fun to explore... I just kinda wish they'd finished it: they way the last part of the game devolves into a series of treasure hunts was disappointing. I gather they ran out of money and there was supposed to be another round of dungeons.
There are also some epic design failures: the biggest one, to me, is that the games give you the boat before it's ready to let you explore. Instead it walls off big chunks of the world to railroad you into going to Dragon Roost Mountain. As soon as I got the boat, of course, I headed straight for the nearest island to see what was there, hit a wall and was turned back. I found that showing me the open world and then not preventing me from going there, and in such a clumsy manner, was very disappointing. I think they'd have done better to have simply moved you to the island outside your control, and only let you take command of the boat once you pick up the baton.
A lot of what gives the game its character was the seamless loading between islands. Twighlight Princess, which was a perfectly decent game, seemed much smaller to me because of the endless constrained environments and loading screens.
Meanwhile, I still haven't finished Skyward Sword.
I remember the backlash, and it was bizarre, especially given this was the first Zelda game that gave us _some_ semblance of continuity. But I also do remember a Dolphin demo reel showing a more realistic Zelda that probably made people think that's where the next game was going, so people were naturally disappointed when their expectations were undermined.
You couldn't be more right. I seem to recall people being really grumpy about Majora's Mask for being "weird" and not very Zelda-y, and now it frequently appears in "best game ever" lists.
I was strongly in the camp which loved the cell-shaded graphics. It's a shame that the complainers "won" because it clearly limited Nintendo's creativity for later games.
Nintendo are at their best when they're unconstrained.
The compensation of the sea motion reminds me of how Zelda Link's Awakening sea intro sequence was done on the Game Boy. It's suprising how two sea-themed games can make use of the same techniques accross vastly different hardware :)
Edit: after reading said post, it's a great explanation of the techniques used in Link's Awakening's intro. That game looked gorgeous on the B/W Gameboy, it's cool to actually understand how they managed to pull it out technically.
Good work. Wind Waker is a very beautiful game. I like that you discovered that using the boat as the origin point for the ocean/waves makes the rest of elevation computation that much easier.
[+] [-] Jasper_|9 years ago|reply
One tiny thing that might help in your analysis: Nintendo accidentally included all the symbol names and locations on the Wind Waker disc in a file called "framework.map".
Doing some basic demangling on the CodeWarriors names gives you C++ classes and methods:
http://funny.computer/cloud/Random/zww_functions.txt
The "sea" animation is controlled by "daSea" -- "da" meaning "dynamic actor" in Nintendo's naming terminology.
It's extremely unlikely they used texture distortion for the sea effect, since the GPU they used didn't have fragment shaders -- the only method of texture warping is INDTEXMTX, which was only used for the heat effects in Dragon Roost Cavern.
They probably modified UVs directly on their triangular sea mesh.
Smoke effects and such use their in-house particle engine, "JPA".
[+] [-] grenoire|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kayamon|9 years ago|reply
At my old company I wrote an assembler to read text source and assemble the instructions into TEV format.
[+] [-] zfedoran|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avar|9 years ago|reply
Remember that as far as the major releases go it was released in 2002 after Ocarina of Time in 1998 (and a sequel using the same engine in 2000).
People wanted a "real" Zelda game with "real" graphics, like what became Twilight Princess in 2006, whose graphics are a logical follow-up to Ocarina of Time.
It's funny how history turns out, now Wind Waker is widely lauded for its graphics, and it looks much better than the likes of Ocarina of Time or Twilight Princess.
It's a fantastic example of how Nintendo is still a company that dares to experiment, even with their most wildly successful game franchises. That hasn't always worked out, but we've gotten amazing innovative games like Wind Waker as a result.
[+] [-] david-given|9 years ago|reply
There are also some epic design failures: the biggest one, to me, is that the games give you the boat before it's ready to let you explore. Instead it walls off big chunks of the world to railroad you into going to Dragon Roost Mountain. As soon as I got the boat, of course, I headed straight for the nearest island to see what was there, hit a wall and was turned back. I found that showing me the open world and then not preventing me from going there, and in such a clumsy manner, was very disappointing. I think they'd have done better to have simply moved you to the island outside your control, and only let you take command of the boat once you pick up the baton.
A lot of what gives the game its character was the seamless loading between islands. Twighlight Princess, which was a perfectly decent game, seemed much smaller to me because of the endless constrained environments and loading screens.
Meanwhile, I still haven't finished Skyward Sword.
[+] [-] dclowd9901|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyre|9 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtAvX4Pkyk
People thought that this would be the next Zelda game.
[+] [-] CobrastanJorji|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] radicalbyte|9 years ago|reply
Nintendo are at their best when they're unconstrained.
[+] [-] Pxtl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mwill|9 years ago|reply
I say 'one of' but I can't actually think of anything better at the moment.
[+] [-] Sakall|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kemenaran|9 years ago|reply
Here with some animated gifs: http://kemenaran.winosx.com/posts/links-awakening-rendering-... (disclaimer: I'm the author).
[+] [-] pygy_|9 years ago|reply
Edit: after reading said post, it's a great explanation of the techniques used in Link's Awakening's intro. That game looked gorgeous on the B/W Gameboy, it's cool to actually understand how they managed to pull it out technically.
[+] [-] qcoh|9 years ago|reply
[0]: https://simonschreibt.de/gat/zelda-wind-waker-hyrule-travel-...
[1]: http://polycount.com/discussion/104415/zelda-wind-waker-tech...
[+] [-] bhauer|9 years ago|reply
In particular, skip ahead to 33:54 to start with the "Dawn" fanfare followed by Wind Waker's fantastic Ocean sailing song.
https://youtu.be/KnJiC8FeI2I?t=33m54s
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sova|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] komali2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KwanEsq|9 years ago|reply
Example: http://zeldawiki.org/File:Zeldawindwaker01.jpg
[+] [-] alpineidyll3|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rolpa|9 years ago|reply
http://polycount.com/discussion/104415/zelda-wind-waker-tech...
[+] [-] mmanfrin|9 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db-7J5OaSag
[+] [-] mrdoob2|9 years ago|reply
GTA V - Graphics Study http://www.adriancourreges.com/blog/2015/11/02/gta-v-graphic...
[+] [-] fulafel|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] korijn|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmrdporcupine|9 years ago|reply
If the designers had followed the trend at the time and gone for "realistic" 3d with textures it would look horribly dated now.
But they did the right thing and it has aged extremely well. And the re-release looks great on the Wii U.
[+] [-] iaw|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] korijn|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]