These are the two faces of media entertainment:
1. Nintendo
2. Not Nintendo
Let's not be educated people, let's sweep the boom of CGI in the 1980's under the rug, relegate it all to "Nintendo Ripoff $tatus".
Good lord what is happening to this forum?
Nintendo as a Genre?
-
ZetaX1
- Posts: 577
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Nintendo as a Genre?
[QUOTE=Segatarious]Except Nintendo continually innovates with Mario game play
[/QUOTE]
I don't see a lot of innovation in Mario games lately. New Super Mario Bros. U is pretty much the same as New Super Mario Bros. 2 (3DS), which was pretty much the same as New Super Mario Bros. Wii, which was pretty much the same as New Super Mario Bros. DS, which was just a reboot of the 2-D Super Mario Bros. from the NES and SNES. Different suits, growing bigger, shrinking smaller...that doesn't seem particularly innovative. I don't consider a new feature or two to be innovative, just an incremental improvement. It's a very Japanese idea, see also: electronics and automobiles.
[QUOTE=Segatarious]...and the games are the best on the market.
[/QUOTE]
But that doesn't mean that they're fun. They're all fun for a while, but the gameplay is repetitive. The series is repetitive.
Just because someone makes "the best" of something, doesn't mean jack. You could carve "the best" block of wood in the world. Perfect dimensions, perfect grain, sanded smooth. Every few years, you make a new, "perfect" block of wood. Sometimes it's a little different shape, sometimes it's stained a different color, maybe even a little different texture. You can get all puffed-up, brag about the consistency and perfection of your blocks of wood. Belittle other people's blocks of wood, sometimes just because they tried to do something different that didn't work out. At the end of the day, it's still just another block of wood. Whoop-de-doo.
Please note, these criticisms aren't only for Nintendo, but for all of gaming. There are too few innovative things, just shinier blocks of wood...
[/QUOTE]
I don't see a lot of innovation in Mario games lately. New Super Mario Bros. U is pretty much the same as New Super Mario Bros. 2 (3DS), which was pretty much the same as New Super Mario Bros. Wii, which was pretty much the same as New Super Mario Bros. DS, which was just a reboot of the 2-D Super Mario Bros. from the NES and SNES. Different suits, growing bigger, shrinking smaller...that doesn't seem particularly innovative. I don't consider a new feature or two to be innovative, just an incremental improvement. It's a very Japanese idea, see also: electronics and automobiles.
[QUOTE=Segatarious]...and the games are the best on the market.
[/QUOTE]
But that doesn't mean that they're fun. They're all fun for a while, but the gameplay is repetitive. The series is repetitive.
Just because someone makes "the best" of something, doesn't mean jack. You could carve "the best" block of wood in the world. Perfect dimensions, perfect grain, sanded smooth. Every few years, you make a new, "perfect" block of wood. Sometimes it's a little different shape, sometimes it's stained a different color, maybe even a little different texture. You can get all puffed-up, brag about the consistency and perfection of your blocks of wood. Belittle other people's blocks of wood, sometimes just because they tried to do something different that didn't work out. At the end of the day, it's still just another block of wood. Whoop-de-doo.
Please note, these criticisms aren't only for Nintendo, but for all of gaming. There are too few innovative things, just shinier blocks of wood...
-
Atarifever1
- Posts: 3892
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Nintendo as a Genre?
[QUOTE=Segatarious]
Look at Pixar, aquired by Disney - Toy Story 1, 2, and 3 are the same movie, told the same way, each time. It is fan service, it is like a video game franchise, milked not to innovate, but to touch the same places at the same times, with each retelling.
[/QUOTE]
I just saw this. No. No, no, no , no, no, no, no. Just no. Toy Story 3 is not the same as Toy Story 1 and 2. Not close. Not even close to dreaming of being nearly close to being close. Toy Story 3 was nominated at the Oscars for Best Picture. Not best animated feature. Best picture. That movie is about impermanence, losing friends, growing up, and letting go. While some of those themes are touched on briefly in the other two movies, those never go in for the knockout on either theme. If you don't see the art in that movie, I am sad for you. That movie is beautiful.
I think it says something about the movie that it is the third movie in a series, is animated, is about living toys, and it got nominated for best picture anyway. Not one thing about that movie made it a likely candidate for that award. Sequels don't usually get nominated. Cartoons don't. Movies about living inanimate objects don't. That movie is the best CGI studio ever at the absolute peak of their collective genius. I could not love that movie more.
Characters don't have to die for scenes to mean something. They don't die in this scene, but if you don't see what is happening here, you're not looking hard enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCNgNkAZqg4
Look at Pixar, aquired by Disney - Toy Story 1, 2, and 3 are the same movie, told the same way, each time. It is fan service, it is like a video game franchise, milked not to innovate, but to touch the same places at the same times, with each retelling.
[/QUOTE]
I just saw this. No. No, no, no , no, no, no, no. Just no. Toy Story 3 is not the same as Toy Story 1 and 2. Not close. Not even close to dreaming of being nearly close to being close. Toy Story 3 was nominated at the Oscars for Best Picture. Not best animated feature. Best picture. That movie is about impermanence, losing friends, growing up, and letting go. While some of those themes are touched on briefly in the other two movies, those never go in for the knockout on either theme. If you don't see the art in that movie, I am sad for you. That movie is beautiful.
I think it says something about the movie that it is the third movie in a series, is animated, is about living toys, and it got nominated for best picture anyway. Not one thing about that movie made it a likely candidate for that award. Sequels don't usually get nominated. Cartoons don't. Movies about living inanimate objects don't. That movie is the best CGI studio ever at the absolute peak of their collective genius. I could not love that movie more.
Characters don't have to die for scenes to mean something. They don't die in this scene, but if you don't see what is happening here, you're not looking hard enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCNgNkAZqg4
-
Segatarious1
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Nintendo as a Genre?
Lol
Beining nominated for acadmey awards does not equal quality, and niether does Metascore.
The movie Borat was nominated for an academy award for BEST SCREEN PLAY!!! Atarifever.
Yeah, they do not die, the aliens uses the 'crane' to pull them out. What a movie!
Beining nominated for acadmey awards does not equal quality, and niether does Metascore.
The movie Borat was nominated for an academy award for BEST SCREEN PLAY!!! Atarifever.
Yeah, they do not die, the aliens uses the 'crane' to pull them out. What a movie!
-
Jon1
- Posts: 378
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Nintendo as a Genre?
I agree totally with ZetaX's brilliant post. There's a lot of people that are just sick of Mario. And if they keep on pumping these games out, they're absolutely a genre. They can't do anything else... Oh, I'm sorry, Zelda.
-
Atarifever1
- Posts: 3892
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Nintendo as a Genre?
[QUOTE=Segatarious]
Yeah, they do not die, the aliens uses the 'crane' to pull them out. What a movie!
[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how being saved changes anything there. They were going to die, together. They realized resisting the end was futile, so they decided to face it together. Not bravely (they all look away, even Woody). Not with anger. They are dying and choose to cling to each other, because that is all that's left. So what that they end up being saved? The scene loses nothing because they are saved in the end. It would gain nothing if they died for real at the end of it. What they decided to do when they thought they were dying was what the scene was about.
As well, and now I'm going super-geek, that's a call back to the opening scene of that movie. When Andy is playing with the toys in the flashback that starts the movie, he has an elaborate setup where monkeys from the Barrel of Monkeys have Buzz, Jesse, and Woody pinned down. Evil Dr. Porkchop and One Eyed Bart are about to shoot them with a giant laser. The three "good guys" look away in the exact same way they do in the furnace scene later on. They're living out a "certain death" scenario the way Andy imagined they would, because so much of who they are has come from him. In the earlier scene they also got saved at the last minute in Andy's imagination. That's a pretty well thought out piece all around.
Yeah, they do not die, the aliens uses the 'crane' to pull them out. What a movie!
[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how being saved changes anything there. They were going to die, together. They realized resisting the end was futile, so they decided to face it together. Not bravely (they all look away, even Woody). Not with anger. They are dying and choose to cling to each other, because that is all that's left. So what that they end up being saved? The scene loses nothing because they are saved in the end. It would gain nothing if they died for real at the end of it. What they decided to do when they thought they were dying was what the scene was about.
As well, and now I'm going super-geek, that's a call back to the opening scene of that movie. When Andy is playing with the toys in the flashback that starts the movie, he has an elaborate setup where monkeys from the Barrel of Monkeys have Buzz, Jesse, and Woody pinned down. Evil Dr. Porkchop and One Eyed Bart are about to shoot them with a giant laser. The three "good guys" look away in the exact same way they do in the furnace scene later on. They're living out a "certain death" scenario the way Andy imagined they would, because so much of who they are has come from him. In the earlier scene they also got saved at the last minute in Andy's imagination. That's a pretty well thought out piece all around.
-
scotland171
- Posts: 816
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Nintendo as a Genre?
[QUOTE=BanjoPickles]There's an interview with Shigeru on ign where he talks about Nintendo as a brand...Then he asks aloud, why can't Nintendo itself be known as a genre?
[/QUOTE]
EDITH: My young man is taking me to a Clark Gable movie.
MCCOY: A who movie?
EDITH: A Clark Gable. Don't you know?
MCCOY: Well, I know what a movie is, but.
EDITH: That's very strange. You get some rest. I'll see you later.
Actors can transcend brand to be a genre, but its a two edged sword at best. The actor may find work, even fame and fortune, but will be opposed to depart expectations and usually ages out after a time. If they do break out its likely to not be accepted, If the actor persists, it may renew a career, but they just begin again in another genre. Being a genre is being cbained, where a brand can explore new genres all the time.
Here is another example. There is a channel called Lifetime (part owned by Disney) whose brand identity is tv for women. Lifetime channel is like a genre, but its both a draw and chains. They air reruns of shows that appeal to a widee audience like How I Met Your Mother or Frasier, but their brand or genre likely hobbles their ability to broaden their audience. In other words, brand/genre trumps actual content.
So when one poster says Nintendo is for kids, and another says they disagree and that Nintendo has lots of things adults enjoy, they are both right. No matter what shows Lifetime creates or airs, its still going to be TV for women, unless it risks alienating its core to recruit. Nintendo is in the same rut.
[/QUOTE]
EDITH: My young man is taking me to a Clark Gable movie.
MCCOY: A who movie?
EDITH: A Clark Gable. Don't you know?
MCCOY: Well, I know what a movie is, but.
EDITH: That's very strange. You get some rest. I'll see you later.
Actors can transcend brand to be a genre, but its a two edged sword at best. The actor may find work, even fame and fortune, but will be opposed to depart expectations and usually ages out after a time. If they do break out its likely to not be accepted, If the actor persists, it may renew a career, but they just begin again in another genre. Being a genre is being cbained, where a brand can explore new genres all the time.
Here is another example. There is a channel called Lifetime (part owned by Disney) whose brand identity is tv for women. Lifetime channel is like a genre, but its both a draw and chains. They air reruns of shows that appeal to a widee audience like How I Met Your Mother or Frasier, but their brand or genre likely hobbles their ability to broaden their audience. In other words, brand/genre trumps actual content.
So when one poster says Nintendo is for kids, and another says they disagree and that Nintendo has lots of things adults enjoy, they are both right. No matter what shows Lifetime creates or airs, its still going to be TV for women, unless it risks alienating its core to recruit. Nintendo is in the same rut.
-
BanjoPickles1
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Nintendo as a Genre?
Thank you, Scotland, for bringing the topic back into focus. I'm getting pretty tired of these topics derailing into "Pixar sucks" and "Nintendo is the greatest company ever" tangents.
I just think that Nintendo-developed games have a specific feel. Take, for instance, Nintendo properties NOT developed in- house. Oracle of Ages/Seasons, as good as they are, felt like Capcom's attempt at impersonating Nintendo. Starfox Assault, developed by Namco, did not feel like any of the Nintendo-developed entries. F-Zero GX, as much as I love it, felt like a Sega game.
I just think that Nintendo-developed games have a specific feel. Take, for instance, Nintendo properties NOT developed in- house. Oracle of Ages/Seasons, as good as they are, felt like Capcom's attempt at impersonating Nintendo. Starfox Assault, developed by Namco, did not feel like any of the Nintendo-developed entries. F-Zero GX, as much as I love it, felt like a Sega game.
-
Dogtanian1
- Posts: 83
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Nintendo as a Genre?
[QUOTE=BanjoPickles]Thank you, Scotland, for bringing the topic back into focus. I'm getting pretty tired of these topics derailing into "Pixar sucks" and "Nintendo is the greatest company ever" tangents. I just think that Nintendo-developed games have a specific feel. Take, for instance, Nintendo properties NOT developed in- house. Oracle of Ages/Seasons, as good as they are, felt like Capcom's attempt at impersonating Nintendo. Starfox Assault, developed by Namco, did not feel like any of the Nintendo-developed entries. F-Zero GX, as much as I love it, felt like a Sega game. [/QUOTE]
Great post, and I would have to agree re: the games you've referenced. I don't necessarily agree with the idea of Nintendo being considered purely a genre within gaming, but would admit that for the vast majority of their games the style has become honed to a point that it is entirely distinct from other developers. To paraphrase the Toy Story praise, I feel sorry for anyone that has a remote interest in gaming and cannot see beauty in a new Mario or Zelda game.
Great post, and I would have to agree re: the games you've referenced. I don't necessarily agree with the idea of Nintendo being considered purely a genre within gaming, but would admit that for the vast majority of their games the style has become honed to a point that it is entirely distinct from other developers. To paraphrase the Toy Story praise, I feel sorry for anyone that has a remote interest in gaming and cannot see beauty in a new Mario or Zelda game.
Return to “Video Games General”