Is Nintendo finally getting the message?

[Batman's Biggest Fan]

I mean Nintendo was losing marketshare since they "don't appeal to an older audience." (A nice way of saying they have a kiddy reputation.) But with the new Zelda and Metroid Prime 2 and Resident Evil 4 it looks as though Nintendo is trying to show off to Sony and Microsoft they can be "mature" too. And with Sony announcing the PSP, Nintendo came out with the DS (which actually looks pretty cool.)

It's funny. I could've sworn Miyamoto said the next Zelda game would feature cel-shaded graphics.

[Mystic Shadow]

I never thought Nintendo was kid-friendly. Mario and Link were just good selling devices. They happened to be a bit more kid-friendly than something like Jack and Daxter, but that doesn't make the Game Cube kid-friendly.

[RAINMAN]

Sence when was N loseing market share when they are the top publisher in japan and the US. And do I even have to bring up the GBA?


Only mainstreme fans called N kiddly because N don`t make games they want.

[Behonkiss]

I never thought Nintendo was kid-friendly. Mario and Link were just good selling devices. They happened to be a bit more kid-friendly than something like Jack and Daxter, but that doesn't make the Game Cube kid-friendly.Like it or not, Nintendo is the most kid-centric major game company. That's why they have Pokémon and Mario.

[Mystic Shadow]

Like it or not, Nintendo is the most kid-centric major game company. That's why they have Pokémon and Mario.They don't have Mario because they're kid friendly, it's the other way around. Shigaru Miamoto worked for Nintendo, he created Mario. That's why the Game Cube has it, not because it's kid friendly. Granted because they have Mario it is slightly more kid-friendly.But, kid-friendly is not the reason for Mario, Mario is the reason for kid-friendly.

[EroSennin]

They don't have Mario because they're kid friendly, it's the other way around. Shigaru Miamoto worked for Nintendo, he created Mario. That's why the Game Cube has it, not because it's kid friendly. Granted because they have Mario it is slightly more kid-friendly.But, kid-friendly is not the reason for Mario, Mario is the reason for kid-friendly.
Yes but Mario was made to be kid-friendly.

[Bird Boy]

Yes but Mario was made to be kid-friendly.

When the NES came out, everything was kid-friendly. I fail to see how Mario was created to be kid-friendly, when essentially everything on the market when he was created WAS kid-friendly.

It's not till Mario 64 did he really become the "kiddie" image. Mario 64 kicked ass though, so I don't really know what I'm talking about anymore.

-BB

[ClockStomper]

I've just hated the focus on the GBA. I'm sick of the Gamecube version of various games being cancelled...while Nintendo churns out more crap for the GBA (it's not like you can see the screen anyway.)

[Artemis]

When the NES came out, everything was kid-friendly. I fail to see how Mario was created to be kid-friendly, when essentially everything on the market when he was created WAS kid-friendly.

Exactly. Mario was kid-friendly, Mega Man was kid-friendly, Sonic was kid-friendly, Donkey Kong was kid-friendly, Zelda was kid-friendly, Final Fantasy was kid-friendly, Street Fighter was kid-friendly, pretty much all gaming icons from that period were created to be kid-friendly since video games largely focused on kiddies for the 80s and early 90s.

So it ain't Mario's fault for being kid-friendly. Though admittedly, some franchises had an easier time growing up than others.

I blame Pokemon for solidifying Nintendo's "kiddie-image." But I really don't think the "kiddie-image" is as strong as it was during the N64 era. Is anyone actually embarassed to say they own a Gamecube?

[Andrew T. Hingson]

Nintendo is gonna keep doing what they do no matter how the market changes. They went with a mature look for Zelda this time but who knows what the next one will look like. It's all expermentiation. They've pretty much proved they can make a good solid action/adventure game out of Zelda so it was nice when they tried it a little different, of course coming "home" is always nice especially when there was a big difference last time. I'm hoping the next Super Mario 3D title for console will be more like Mario 64. Sunshine just didn't rub me right... I like the "classic" platforming advetnure of Mario 64 much better. No gimicks is always nice but a gimick can be a good thing from time to time. If they did nothing different with their franchises then things would get boring and tedious. It's good for them to push the envelope.

Nintendo is no where NEAR the most kid-friendly publisher around. THQ wins that title that's to all it's lame kiddy shovel ware on the GBA, PS2, and GCN. They make kid friendly games based on kid franchises and all for a quick buck. Very few of their titles that are kid-friendly have much depth to them. Nintendo may make simple games but they still have a lot of value to them. Then there's Atari (though they probably like to pride themselves in the though that they are all about the teenage fanbase because they have hipper material like DBZ, Yu Yu Hakusho, and Transformers... and Beyblade). Nintendo's games may be kid friendly but they put effort into them. Konami is guilty of such crimes as well with YGO, Ninja Turltes (the the sequel looks good and the GBA game was fun), Shaman King, and all those AWFUL Disney sports games. Capcom's been caught read handed before as well... with their own Disney games (the NES and SNES ones were great but the new stuff... is bleh).

There is nothing wrong with making games that are suitable for child to play. I wish more companies would do that the way Nintendo does because not only can kids enjoy them but adults and teenagers can as well where as the kid friendly offerings from most other companies are just shovelware... even Sega may be doing this with Astroboy, but I'm hopeful.

[Vyse]

Nintendo is gonna keep doing what they do no matter how the market changes. They went with a mature look for Zelda this time but who knows what the next one will look like. It's all expermentiation. They've pretty much proved they can make a good solid action/adventure game out of Zelda so it was nice when they tried it a little different, of course coming "home" is always nice especially when there was a big difference last time. I'm hoping the next Super Mario 3D title for console will be more like Mario 64. Sunshine just didn't rub me right... I like the "classic" platforming advetnure of Mario 64 much better. No gimicks is always nice but a gimick can be a good thing from time to time. If they did nothing different with their franchises then things would get boring and tedious. It's good for them to push the envelope.

Nintendo is no where NEAR the most kid-friendly publisher around. THQ wins that title that's to all it's lame kiddy shovel ware on the GBA, PS2, and GCN. They make kid friendly games based on kid franchises and all for a quick buck. Very few of their titles that are kid-friendly have much depth to them. Nintendo may make simple games but they still have a lot of value to them. Then there's Atari (though they probably like to pride themselves in the though that they are all about the teenage fanbase because they have hipper material like DBZ, Yu Yu Hakusho, and Transformers... and Beyblade). Nintendo's games may be kid friendly but they put effort into them. Konami is guilty of such crimes as well with YGO, Ninja Turltes (the the sequel looks good and the GBA game was fun), Shaman King, and all those AWFUL Disney sports games. Capcom's been caught read handed before as well... with their own Disney games (the NES and SNES ones were great but the new stuff... is bleh).

There is nothing wrong with making games that are suitable for child to play. I wish more companies would do that the way Nintendo does because not only can kids enjoy them but adults and teenagers can as well where as the kid friendly offerings from most other companies are just shovelware... even Sega may be doing this with Astroboy, but I'm hopeful. Hyper Luigi is right. The reason why Nintendo is dubded "kid-friendly" is because most of their titles fall within the "E for Everyone" rating, a rating more associated with kid-friendly and cute platformers. What mainstream auds fail to realize is that over half of all games released from year-to-year are rated E and include sports titles and hyper-realistic racers like Gran Tourismo. In short the mainstream thought is: E=kid-friendly; T&M=adult.

Plus Nintendo is nowhere near the kid-friendly crap THQ, Atari, and Acclaim put out on a daily basis. THQ produces various forms of garbage with their Nickelodeon, Hot Wheels, and Disney/Pixar liscences; although recently, THQ is shaping up since Spongebob Squarepants: Battle for Bikini Bottom, which garnered very good praise from OPM. Atari produces games geared for "tweens," but is the home to the very kid-friendly Backyard Sports franchise. And Acclaim is/was the home of the Olsen Twins. 'nuff said.

[SSJPabs]

There is nothing wrong with making games that are suitable for child to play.
Yes there is: they make less money that way. If you are a business, that must be your overarching goal.

[Andrew T. Hingson]

What if said games are still enjoyable to teenagers and adults? They are just acceptable for kids to play? That's usually what Nintendo does... usually...

[randomguy]

I genuinely believe the whole "Nintendo is a kiddie company" view is a hugely erroneous perception which isn't even held by that many actual gamers. Most people I talk to don't seem to hold that view... if anything, I think the only reason it's a huge issues is because the mainstream media (and to a lesser extent, the videogame media) just won't stop harping on it.

Don't get me wrong, there was a time when Nintendo definitely deserved that label. And in comparison to the Xbox and the PS2, the Gamecube is most definitely the most kid-friendly system. But it's not like it's had a dearth of quality, more adult-oriented games this generation. Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, the Resident Evil games, etc. I think Nintendo's "kiddie image" is just an irrelevant ghost at this point. As far as I'm concerned, they've been making a genuine effort to appeal to an older demographic since the Cube's earliest days.

[RAINMAN]

Yes there is: they make less money that way. If you are a business, that must be your overarching goal.


Then explain to me why every game N makes is in the top 10 for months? Explain to me why Malee, WW,MP and MKDD has sold over a million copies? Please got your facts stright before posting something dumb.:rolleyes:

[James]

Then explain to me why every game N makes is in the top 10 for months? Explain to me why Malee, WW,MP and MKDD has sold over a million copies? Please got your facts stright before posting something dumb.:rolleyes:
He didn't offer a fact but an opinion - please keep the tone of your posts less antagonistic please - and that goes to any replies directed at Rainman also.

[Nin-Nin69]

When the NES came out, everything was kid-friendly. I fail to see how Mario was created to be kid-friendly, when essentially everything on the market when he was created WAS kid-friendly.

-BB
This is what I keep telling people. Back in the day, Contra, Gaunlet, Final Fantasy, Castlevania, and Bionic Commando looked kid-friendly. Were they targeted at kids? No.

Let me remind the people here that there is a big difference between the E rating and the EC rating by the ESRB.

E stands for Everyone. You can be 2, you can be 22, you can be 102. Everyone can play this game. This is a game that everyone will enjoy no matter how old you are.

EC is for ages 3-7. This is the true kids game. Most of these titles are learning games, but others should fall under the same rating if the ESRB was more strict about their rating system. Mickey Mouse's Hide and Seek rated E? EC for you buddy.

[SSJPabs]

There is a distinction between E and EC, however (and I'm not sure how clear my point is going to come across on this) is that not many adults play the E games because there aren't as many adults who play video games.

I think the distinction between E and EC will be much easier to see in 10 years when there are a lot more visable adult gamers than now.

EDIT in Re: RAINMAN's post below, Aw c'mon RAINMAN, don't be dense :shrug:

[RAINMAN]

Adult games? That don`t sound good at all.

[Bartman3010]

Yes but Mario was made to be kid-friendly.

Why do you people churn out inbred quotes like this? I think they just make Mario games because they want to create something that would appeal to everyone. are you people afraid of FLUDD? Or his water jet-pack?

Well, would you feel the same if they went and made

SUPER MARIO - DIE HARDER

Oh no! Super Mario is pissed off now! Bowser stole his *****, Princess Peach, and needs the help from E. Gadd, he gives him his latest invention:

B.@.$.%.H.S.L.A.P.

This new gadget, in which Mario dons features many ass-kicking features like...

Bazooka Toes
Fires not 2, but 10 homing missles that slices and dices his enemies into tiny bits and pieces

Omega Punch
A really kickass giant fist thats even too heavy for Mario to keep ahold, but when used, smashes his enemies into a lovely puddle of red blood

Machine Gun Jet Pack
Its machine guns that lift him into the air and shoots bullets, whats more to say.

and lets not forget the secret weapon:

C.U.P.
A leather metal ding dong that Mario wears to regain health from Mushroom prostitutes. Includes energy sucking radiation device that helps quickly gather energy.



Now seriously, if you wanted to see THAT in a Mario game, you shouldnt even be playing video games at all.

[RAINMAN]

by: Shawn Smith (shawn@gcadvanced.com)

Over these past couple weeks, we’ve seen a lot of changes in Nintendo. Silicon Knights has left 2nd party status along with Factor 5, and lots of message boards have flared up with rumors and talk. One of the things I’m seeing most is along the lines of, “With Silicon Knights gone, who is going to make the mature titles for Gamecube?” Now, for the longest time, I’ve heard talk of ‘Mature titles’ this and ‘Nintendo is kiddie’ that, but this has been the straw to break this camel’s back. Games don’t have to be mature to be fun, people.

Now, I suppose to begin this discussion, let me first clarify the term ‘Mature,’ as it can relate to two different things. First, we have the ESRB rating ‘M’ for Mature, which represents any game that is graphically violent, portrays drug use, sex, or adult themes. Then, we have ‘Mature’ in the sense that games are more oriented to adults in terms of storyline, control schematics, and design. We can discuss both of these terms in detail because, quite frankly, Nintendo does lack both type of game. However, I’m rather skeptical as to the importance of these kinds of games.

The first type is the one that I’d like to address first, because quite frankly, it infuriates me when people back games simply for their adult content. Typically, these are the people who are thirteen years old and think that spilling the blood of anything that moves in digital fashion will make them grow hair on their palms. If you are one of these poor, mislead souls, it’s time that you wake up and smell the coffee. Sure, blood adds realism and adult themes make these games amusing, but they don’t make or break the game. There are many games on all systems that prove that an ‘M’ rating doesn’t mean it’s going to be a good game. a perfect example is BMX XXX. A close runner up: State of Emergency. Both of these games were based on the concept that an ‘M’ on the box makes a great game, and both were total flops when it came to the reviews. You know what’s scary? State of Emergency still sold nearly 650,000 copies. To put that in perspective, it outsold SSX and sold about as much as the GCN version of Sonic Adventure 2. Now what is irionic about this? Gamecube did not get any props for having the guts to release the unedited version of BMX XXX, despite the game and its image being anything but ‘kiddie.’

Now, the other type is by far the most referred to when it comes to this topic, and is the only type that has any real valid points to it. Nintendo, when it comes to video games as a developer, does take a less mature approach than most other publishers. Nintendo has always relied on strong characters and simplistic controls to make games fun and interesting, and it’s a formula that works in most cases. This formula may not be the most mature, but it’s produced blockbuster after blockbuster hit. However, the real question is how long can it possibly last? Does this formula need to change? Should Nintendo stop focusing on designing games that can be played by everyone, and instead focus on games that take experience to play? Personally, I vehemently say no.


I like to consider myself a pretty hardcore gamer. I own every console and play a wide variety of games. I’ve played games as hard as Viewtiful Joe (Note: Published by Capcom, not Nintendo) and Ninja Gaiden, and I’ve played games as simple as Billy Hatcher and the Giant Egg and every Kirby game that’s been released. After playing so many games, I’ve come to the conclusion that some of the very best games out there are games that aren’t necessarily focused on the adult market. Viewtiful Joe and Ninja Gaiden are two very excellent games but are also two very difficult games that could be considered focused on the adult market. They are not easy to pick up, and most casual gamers would give up within the first two levels. These games are two of the best I’ve ever played. Now, two other games that are the best I’ve ever played are Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and Super Mario Sunshine. Both are extremely fun and entertaing, and both are simplistic, with easy gameplay design and easy controls. Are either of these titles necessarily better than Ninja Gaiden and Viewtiful Joe? No. Are they any worse? No.

So, can Nintendo really hope to hold on to their current formula with the current market trend? I honestly can’t say I know the answer to that question, but they are holding pretty firm to their current strategy.

Unfortunately, too many people have the opinion that games should be harder and more adult oriented, that Nintendo may be forced to up the level a tad, but in reality, that isn’t Nintendo’s biggest problem. Let’s face facts: Nintendo, as a publisher, has one of the biggest fanboy followings of any system or any company. I’m willing to bet that 80-90% of Nintendo’s game sales come from die hard Nintendo men and women who know that Nintendo’s formula works to make good titles, and that 80-90% probably isn’t going to fizzle anytime soon. Nintendo, as a publisher, is awesome. Nintendo as a company that owns the Gamecube and makes poor decisions with it is a completely different editorial. Can and will Nintendo, as a publisher, survive? Absolutely. If you check www.gamerankings.com, it is clear that Nintendo has about as many games at the top of the “highest rankings of all time” list as any other console combined. Maybe the best answer to the question posed is that Nintendo does not need to be more mature with their games, but they should carry a larger library with more mature titles available to gamers should they want them.

I love video games. I love mature video games. I love silly, simple video games as well. I will play a game featuring a young boy wearing a chicken suit and rolling a big egg around just as fast as I’ll play a game featuring a drug addicted cop with too many torturous, bloody memories. Some companies provide me with one type of game; others provide me with another type of game. Nintendo is indeed one of the last publishers that focus their games on simple play mechanics, but they are also one of the best. The point here is not that Nintendo itself needs to develop more mature games, but rather than Nintendo should try and offer a more mature lineup on its gaming systems. Nintendo is one of my favorite developers, and I can only pray that Nintendo will hold firm on their game developing standards, because without them, they’ll just be like all the rest.

[Tapout]

I blame Nintendo's kid-friendly image on the debacle that occured when the original Mortal Kombat was released for the SNES.

[randomguy]

Man... that's going way back. But you might be on to something.

[RAINMAN]

I don`t know why so many think N has finally made a mature zelda game? Zelda has always ben a mature series. How can you make a series mature when it ben that way for years.

[randomguy]

They're just talking about the art style... not the gameplay and storyline. When one calls the new Zelda "mature", they're specifically referring to the game's darker and more realistic look, which is generally viewed as a more mature approach than the Disney-esque graphics of the Wind Waker.

You can't really blame them. If you put Ghost In the Shell and The Triplets of Belleville side-by-side, the more realistic animation of GITS will lead most peoplet to view it as more mature. It wouldn't be accurate, but it's an understandable reaction to have. Same deal with the new Zelda and Wind Waker.

[EinBebop]

I blame Nintendo's kid-friendly image on the debacle that occured when the original Mortal Kombat was released for the SNES.Genesis was always considered the 'edgier' system, more popular with the older kids. Even if the sanitized MK had never happened, Nintendo probably would have been hurt for a long time to come. But I have no doubt MK was the single most defining moment for Nintendo for all of us over the age of 20. :)

[Killtacular]

No, Nintendo is not mature.

Mature is having good, powerful storylines. Not having curse words, and not having blood, and not having adult situations.

Mature is having strong characterization. Mature is relying on more than just gameplay to sell the game.

Nintendo is not mature because almost none of their games have remotely intelligent stories. Or stories at all. Story is just an afterthought that's tacked on to Zelda and Metroid games without any effort. All their games are are games at their purest form. That's fine for some people but I grew out of just playing games for a cheap thrill.

[SirLemming]

The ESRB rating system is an idiotic, incoherent mess. They need a PG equivalent. Why do games jump straight from "Everyone" to "Teen"? A PG-type rating will push up the requirements for the T rating and make it cover less territory.
But more importantly, the M rating seriously needs to be pushed up as well (a more meaningful T rating could help that). If it's supposed to be the equivalent of an R rating, as certain pending legislation would have it, games like Mortal Kombat and Unreal Tournament do NOT deserve it. It's gratuitous, over-the-top, unrealistic violence. But then, for a game like Soldier of Fortune, which has extremely realistic violence, the M rating's ineffectiveness shows through as they feel the need to put a special sticker warning on it, basically saying, "Unreal Tournament is M-rated, but Soldier of Fortune is really M-rated." It's silly.

[EinBebop]

But more importantly, the M rating seriously needs to be pushed up as well (a more meaningful T rating could help that). If it's supposed to be the equivalent of an R rating...I believe it is and it isn't. Notice how the MPAA designates specific ages and directions (Parental Guidance-13... R is for 18 and over only...) whereas the video game industry uses the more generic labels.

M for mature. That means a variety of things to different people, and I think that's intentional. It could even be mistaken for a difficulty level. "Teen? My nine-year-old's really bright. He'll figure it out."

I believe the system is designed to satisfy the critics of the industry while revealing as little as possible. ;)

[Juu-kuchi]

Nintendo is not mature because almost none of their games have remotely intelligent stories. Or stories at all. Story is just an afterthought that's tacked on to Zelda and Metroid games without any effort. All their games are are games at their purest form. That's fine for some people but I grew out of just playing games for a cheap thrill.
I thought the Wind Waker had a good story. I mean sure it was simple at it's core and not as deep and refining, but the characters, the revelations, and of course the expressions each character has.

But you're right Nintendo does not like to make much of stories. Hopefully with this new Zelda they do so.

[Volt]

<------RAINMAN------------->
That article/post you wrote was simply awsome. I read the entire thing and completely agree. Nintendo at E3 announced that when their next console comes out it'll revolutionize the gaming industry, not with graphics, but with gameplay.

So simply said, nintendo is here to stay, they've grown up with and along side us.

<---------To everyone else-------------------->
Nintendo's NOT child-like, but rather OLD-SCHOOL

Then again, the insentives they put in two years have now paid off. The result is amazing. Those games that have been in developement in the past few years are now on their way to our homes. And when it comes to Nintendo and E3

I'd say I'm looking forward to the GameCube Games the most.

Pikmin 2
RE4
... ... ... the other ones.

[Andrew T. Hingson]

No, Nintendo is not mature.

Mature is having good, powerful storylines. Not having curse words, and not having blood, and not having adult situations.

Mature is having strong characterization. Mature is relying on more than just gameplay to sell the game.

Nintendo is not mature because almost none of their games have remotely intelligent stories. Or stories at all. Story is just an afterthought that's tacked on to Zelda and Metroid games without any effort. All their games are are games at their purest form. That's fine for some people but I grew out of just playing games for a cheap thrill.
Fire Emblem had not only good gameplay but an interesting story as did Mario & Luigi: Super Star Saga. The Wind Waker, OoT, and Link to the Past all had good storylines albeit simple ones they were still good. What does have a good plot these days? Not many games IMO. I haven't been happy with Square's games since FF7 though FF9 wasn't bad.

[Killtacular]

Fire Emblem had not only good gameplay but an interesting story as did Mario & Luigi: Super Star Saga. The Wind Waker, OoT, and Link to the Past all had good storylines albeit simple ones they were still good.
Mario & Luigi had humor but its storyline was ridiculously vapid. It was the Family Guy of RPGs. You weren't playing Mario & Luigi for the STORY, that's for sure. The jokes, maybe. It was too disjointed. I feel kind of the same way about the original Super Mario RPG too.

Also I said console games, not handheld games.


There is no such thing as a Zelda game with a good, mature plot. The Wind Waker had inklings, in that it had actual interesting plot twists, but the story didn't exactly build anywhere. In fact when I reached the final level I was like "..wha... this is the final level..? So soon..?!" I do feel that it was a more mature game than OOT, though. OOT was just wasted potential. There were so many areas that could've made for a great story. But all it really excelled at was visual storytelling. Link to the Past?! Link to the Past had maybe 5 paragraphs worth of dialogue for the entire game. The plot doesn't move with the game. And the characters suffer the most. Link always being silent is ridiculous. The thing about silent protagonists is that YOU CAN learn things about their character through OTHER characters. Wild Arms and Chrono Trigger handled this nicely. Zelda never has. So I highly disagree on that.

[SNS]

That's fine for some people but I grew out of just playing games for a cheap thrill.So if people realize the importance of gameplay they are immature & they play for "cheap thrills"?

Yeah, that makes sense :rolleyes:

[Andrew T. Hingson]

Heh heh I guess it is the Family Guy of RPG's or at least the Invaider Zim (no really crude humor but zany nonesense).

Chrono Trigger has the best story ever, it can't be topped I tell you it can't be topped! I didn't think OoT was wasted potential but to each his own. I guess once again we will just agree to dissagree.

[Killtacular]

So if people realize the importance of gameplay they are immature & they play for "cheap thrills"?

Yeah, that makes sense :rolleyes:
Sure, because OBVIOUSLY I was going for a generalization of people who play games, instead of criticizing the games themselves for not taking characterization and story into consideration. WAY to SEE through my defense and construct that oh-so-logical bridge from one intent to another! I applaud you good sir.

Obvious sarcasm aside, if you play an immature game it doesn't make you immature, much like playing a "kiddy" game like Parappa the Rapper (yes, people called it "Kiddy") doesn't make you kiddy. And yes, you do play for cheap thrills. You want something you can easily pick up, play, stop, forget about, bring back later and repeat the cycle. That's a cheap thrill. That may be all you want out of a game. But I don't. And though both types of games can co-exist, Nintendo only produces the one type of game, and that's a PROBLEM.

[SNS]

And yes, you do play for cheap thrills.
No, I don't. Like most Nintendo fans, I play the games because I enjoy the quality of the gameplay not because it gives me "cheap thrills".

[Andrew T. Hingson]

Bingo

I hate games that are nothing but cheap thrills. Nintendos games have great gameplay even when they don't have a plot and most of all they are almost always fun. That's why I like them.

[randomguy]

I'm wondering if maybe the entire idea of a "mature videogame" isn't a massive logistical error in the first place. Sure, it's possible for a mature videogame to exist... your GTA: Vice Cities of the world, but I believe maturity and videogaming might be, by and large, fundamentally incompatible. Before you scoff too much, hear me out.

To whit: what makes a book or a movie mature? Generally speaking, the things Matt rattled off earlier: characterization, solid plot progression, powerful storylines, and strong themes. In other words, substance. There needs to be some meat on the bones. You could make, fundamentally, the same claim for visual art (painting and sculpture), and music. Obviously, albums can't have plot progression, but the best records do tend to have cohesive sounds and recurring themes.

Viewed in that light, maturity is a very desirable thing for art to have. The best examples of art, in any category, can almost universally be deemed mature. Exceptions exist, but generally speaking, maturity is an unquestionable asset. It's something you want out of your movies, music, paintings, scupltures, etc. It enriches the work.

But videogaming, as a medium, is wholly unique. Videogaming is a peculiar art form because it's the only art form that must entertain. Movies and books don't have to entertain... in fact, they very often don't. I don't know how many people who would deem "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" very entertaining, but I know quite a few who would complement its artistic merit. Same thing for "Schindler's List". "The Persistence of Memory". But that's not the case for videogaming. Nobody would give a damn about Metal Gear Solid's discussion of nuclear proliferation if it wasn't really freaking fun to play.

In other words, maturity is all about making a point. But videogames can't exist to make a point. That's betraying what they are. Granted, it's not an either/or situation. They can do both. But the reason games exist is to entertain, a function made possible by gameplay. Good stories can substantially add to a game's entertainment value, but they can't comprise it entirely.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that videogames are an entertainment medium, and should be judged as such. That means focusing primarily on the gameplay, which is the core of the videogame experience. Of course, stories factor in too, but I think that, for a medium where quality doesn't require storytelling in the first place, the focus on them these days might be entirely too strong. Since maturity is tied solely to the storyline, that, at least in my mind, renders the maturity question more-or-less irrelevant. Basically, I don't care. Maturity is great in other mediums, but it's a secondary function in games, so I don't see why people focus so much on it. I play a game because it's fun, not for intense characterization. I want that, I'll look to a medium which can address such qualities better. To mandate that games should heavily focus on characterization and story is a betrayal of what games are.


Link always being silent is ridiculous
One could argue that it makes Link more effective as an avatar for the player.


No, Nintendo is not mature.

Mature is having good, powerful storylines. Not having curse words, and not having blood, and not having adult situations.

Mature is having strong characterization. Mature is relying on more than just gameplay to sell the game.

Nintendo is not mature because almost none of their games have remotely intelligent stories. Or stories at all. Story is just an afterthought that's tacked on to Zelda and Metroid games without any effort. All their games are are games at their purest form. That's fine for some people but I grew out of just playing games for a cheap thrill.
I was gonna argue that storyline wasn't the only qualifier for a game's maturity, but on further reflection, I guess it is.

I actually thought Metroid Prime's storyline was one of the most mature and innovative plots I had seen in this generation. Mainly because of the unique way it unfolded. Very immersive. And the pacing was excellent.

I'm sorry, but I'm not really understanding your "Cheap Thrills" argument. To say that people play Nintendo titles for "cheap thrills" seems erroneous to me, because the gameplay has significant depth and replay value. Yeah, the storyline's cheap, but that doesn't immediately qualify the whole game as such. Depth isn't defined only by storyline. Gameplay factors into it too.

Besides, videogaming is a "cheap thrills" medium. I can't help but get the impression that if you want signifcant storyline depth than you're looking in the wrong place.

[Lucky Bob]

Boy howdy. It's amazing how people can get fired up about something like this, and then we wonder if political discussion is a good thing for the Cafe. Crazy.

Look, people, can we put this all in perspective? Look, Matt, I appreciate your taste in games and such, and I generally find your insights educational and interesting. (Not to mention, highly entertaining and poignant.) But this is not helping matters, any. Everyone's getting hyped up, excited, and combative about a bunch of games.

Games.

Games are meant to be fun. And really, that's the only requirement a game should ever have to reach for a mainstream audience. Now, granted, some people find stuff more fun than others. Matt, for instance, likes "mature" games with involved storylines and such only. Me? I'm "cheap thrills" and proud of it. I don't mind a storyline and such, but it's not on my priority list. I only care if a game is an enjoyable experience for me, as does Matt.

(Not to keep singling the guy out, mind, it's just that he's so handy. ;) )

But in the end, there is never going to be one genre, brand, characteristic, or quality to rule them all. That's why we have a wide range of games expanding across different genres in the first place. People have different tastes. If we didn't, we'd all be playing Pong 24/7 like a bunch of mindless drones. Some people just don't demand as much as others, and I don't think any game or company should have to make apologies for what they are.

For example, going back to the storyline equation, you're not going to get one in every case or genre. As far as I've seen, and this is just opinion talking, storylines for fighting games...suck. They really do. All of them are contrived "choose your own adventure" type deals with an obligatory cutscene at the end that leaves you with more questions than answers, if you actually take those things seriously. (See also, Tekken Umpteen: Just Die, Already, Heihachi!) But that doesn't mean that fighting games in general are bad because they have little or no storyline. Shoot, I'm a proud fighting game player no matter what I think of the story. And many other players are, as well. (Some even think the storylines are actually well-thought-out. Whatever. Maybe I'm just not cool enough to understand.) And don't even get me started on FPSes and strategy games.

The point is, there is not going to be a quick fix or an end-all action that will create TEH BESTEST GAEM COPANY EVAR!!!!111 Shoot, the best company ever will never even exist. There will be good ones and bad ones as long as games are made, and they will switch places often. Nintendo's just had some lucky breaks and some good games in the past, as have the other companies. N's done exceptionally well in the past, beating out the far superior (on paper, anyway) Game Gear in the handheld market. (I speak as a disillusioned Game Gear owner.) Sony's done exceptionally well in outselling...well...everybody. There's going to be a lot of competition, this year, and for years to come. My advice is to just get used to it. Buy the stuff you want to buy, diss the stuff you want to diss, Save the cheerleading and whining for the stuff that really matters. *cough*Like getting the WBA Silver Age cartoons on DVD.*cough*

If you're looking for perfection from any one corner, you're just going to be disappointed. If you expect the same standards from all games, you're DEFINATELY going to be disappointed. Just get the stuff you like, tell the companies when their games suck, and stop bashing/defending the companies amongst yourselves every time they do something new. I mean, this all was of legitimate concern when we first discussed the future of Nintendo a year or so back, but now, we have a thread every time someone at Nintendo passes gas. (MORE STINKY NEWS FROM NINTENDO'S QUARTERS!) I think we just need to chill a bit, and stop getting so into it. It's okay to take a breather now and then and talk about the positives.

But I'm probably just spitting in the ocean. :(

[Skiptastic]

Man, I wish I could go into my Star Wars analogy about my dream for video games right now, but it wouldn't make any sense in this context. So there. Conversation interrupted. Continue.

[Conan-san]

You know, the practical upshot of this is that you will all be sceaming for "Kiddy" games once every game is a casual gamer teneding piece of rubbish in the mold of GTA.

[SSJPabs]

Remember Mat Wilson can't be nice online. Cut him some slack. He can't help the way he is. Anyhow let's take this baby one at a time.


Boy howdy. It's amazing how people can get fired up about something like this, and then we wonder if political discussion is a good thing for the Cafe. Crazy.Good one.

Games are meant to be fun. And really, that's the only requirement a game should ever have to reach for a mainstream audience. Now, granted, some people find stuff more fun than others. Matt, for instance, likes "mature" games with involved storylines and such only. Me? I'm "cheap thrills" and proud of it. I don't mind a storyline and such, but it's not on my priority list. I only care if a game is an enjoyable experience for me, as does Matt. We have a fundamental difference here, as I look at games as entertainment. Not all entertainment is "fun" as you say. You can watch a movie or play a game and be entertained without saying you had a fun experience. If you saw Schindler's List would you say you had "fun?" Would you say you were "entertained?" Calling them cheap thrills is I think inaccurate because on a literal level, video games aren't that cheap and also it's impossible to be able to label the value someone gets out of an experience. I can be entraced by a deep story game, and I can be incredibly stunned as I was when playing Prince of Persia by the gameplay. I marveled constantly at the artistry in control in that game. I certainly don't consider the sense of wonder I got with PoP's (or ICO's movements for that matter) a cheap thrill.


But in the end, there is never going to be one genre, brand, characteristic, or quality to rule them all. That's why we have a wide range of games expanding across different genres in the first place. People have different tastes. If we didn't, we'd all be playing Pong 24/7 like a bunch of mindless drones. Some people just don't demand as much as others, and I don't think any game or company should have to make apologies for what they are. In actuality there is a genre I think, that is slowly becoming more dominant in the industry. I'm not saying there will ever be 1, but the majority of games are mixing action with story-telling in a kind of action RPG, something like Rachet or Clank and Prince of Persia or Thief 3 type games.

As to apologies, no they shouldn't. My problem with Nintendo lies elsewhere. They seem content to not be the tops in their industry and I see that as a flaw in their business philosophy. Always strive to be the best as long as you don't violate laws. Taking their series in a perhaps darker direction might get them to that position. Personally it's difficult for me to say a game is deficient in story because my mind always fills in gaps with elaborate plots and characterization so I don't notice it as much.

Anyhow, less inflamatory rhetoric please. Although I will be honest and say it nauseates me when people hold up Nintendo as this pure icon of gaming.

[James]

All remaining pretty sensible. Just remember all to respect each other's opinion and keep it cool etc etc yadda yadda. You know the drill. ;)

Anyway! So far, so good.

[Lucky Bob]

Remember Mat Wilson can't be nice online. Cut him some slack. He can't help the way he is. Anyhow let's take this baby one at a time.Oh, definately understood. It's just that he's so visible. :D


We have a fundamental difference here, as I look at games as entertainment. Not all entertainment is "fun" as you say. You can watch a movie or play a game and be entertained without saying you had a fun experience. If you saw Schindler's List would you say you had "fun?" Would you say you were "entertained?" Calling them cheap thrills is I think inaccurate because on a literal level, video games aren't that cheap and also it's impossible to be able to label the value someone gets out of an experience.Okay, first off, I think we can all agree that Schindler's List: The Video Game is a bad idea. And now that I've planted that disturbing image into y'all's heads...

Well, maybe "fun" was the wrong word. "Enjoyment" is better. One can "enjoy" List without having "fun". It's all about what you get out of it. I'm not saying that all games are about cheap thrills, but I am saying that these so-called "cheap thrills" are a legitimate basis for enjoying a game. As are deep storylines, playability, etc. Whatever works.


I can be entraced by a deep story game, and I can be incredibly stunned as I was when playing Prince of Persia by the gameplay. I marveled constantly at the artistry in control in that game. I certainly don't consider the sense of wonder I got with PoP's (or ICO's movements for that matter) a cheap thrill.Good for you, and I will admit, I like good gameplay and control and whatever, myself. But I don't have my standards set too high, either. If a game is enjoyable or marginally entertaining, I like it. Some would call those "cheap thrills", sobeit. I'm not saying that cheap thrills are the only thing to enjoy about gaming. You've misunderstood my main point, which is that I don't think that any particular gaming formula based on any one person's tastes is going to bring immortal glory to a game producer. One man's "cheap thrills" is another man's Citizen Kane, and vice versa. (Bad comparison? Maybe. But ah well. :))


In actuality there is a genre I think, that is slowly becoming more dominant in the industry. I'm not saying there will ever be 1, but the majority of games are mixing action with story-telling in a kind of action RPG, something like Rachet or Clank and Prince of Persia or Thief 3 type games.That's true, but there are also equally important entries into the gaming world in other genres at present. Sega GT and Gran Turismo...Soul Calibur II...most EA Sports titles...Command and Conquer Generals...Dance Dance Revolution...and the list goes on and on. To ignore what they bring to the table is rather nearsighted. They all fill their niches, but they're not the end-all titles that define gaming.


As to apologies, no they shouldn't. My problem with Nintendo lies elsewhere. They seem content to not be the tops in their industry and I see that as a flaw in their business philosophy. Always strive to be the best as long as you don't violate laws. Taking their series in a perhaps darker direction might get them to that position. Personally it's difficult for me to say a game is deficient in story because my mind always fills in gaps with elaborate plots and characterization so I don't notice it as much.Oh, I don't know. As long as they are making money, I'm sure they're not that concerned. And really, I wouldn't be concerned unless they were about to go in the hole completely. Ambition is nice, but it's gone awry for companies like Atari and Sega. I am not a big believer in history repeating itself, but, as long as you're turning in a profit, I think playing safe is a good idea, as long as the cashflow is coming in. But that's just me.



Anyhow, less inflamatory rhetoric please. Although I will be honest and say it nauseates me when people hold up Nintendo as this pure icon of gaming.
Whatever. Didn't mean to be inflammatory, so, if you saw it in there, sorry for ya. ;)

Anyway, my entire beef comes down to this. I think we're all guilty of a bit of overreacting (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=90531), here. I know I, personally, had some concerns for Nintendo in the past, but lately, I think we've all taken it too far. Every time Nintendo makes a move, we start the hand-wringing, and it's just gotten a bit silly. I think we should just step back and see how things progress, myself. Ultimately, it's up to us, the consumers, to make or break Nintendo, so if you like what they do, buy their stuff. If not, don't. And we'll see how things play out. 'sall

Oh, crap. Now I'm making a big deal out of making a big deal. :(

;)

[RAINMAN]

No, Nintendo is not mature.

Mature is having good, powerful storylines. Not having curse words, and not having blood, and not having adult situations.

Mature is having strong characterization. Mature is relying on more than just gameplay to sell the game.

Nintendo is not mature because almost none of their games have remotely intelligent stories. Or stories at all. Story is just an afterthought that's tacked on to Zelda and Metroid games without any effort. All their games are are games at their purest form. That's fine for some people but I grew out of just playing games for a cheap thrill.

You have N games confuse whit stuff like GTA. There your cheap thrill.

[SSJPabs]

Whatever. Didn't mean to be inflammatory, so, if you saw it in there, sorry for ya. ;) Whoops, that last part is a general comment and the holding up of Nintendo was directed at posts like those of RAINMAN and a few HL's. Not much to do with you at all. Oops. :p

Well when I played Fatal Frame I certainly wasn't having fun, I was really scared (cause it was 3am and I was alone in the dark) but I was being entertained. My time was being used in a way that I ascribed more value to than say, sitting around in the dark at 3am alone and NOT playing it for an obvious reference. But I could easily say that I was enjoying being scared. I don't think cheap thrills are wrong either, I get my cheap thrills from Dead or Alive and Guilty Gear. I'm just saying I don't think there is anything you can classify as a cheap thrill with any kind of regularity so I guess we're in agreement here.

My holding up of the Adventure-RPGs was more of a point as to where the midpoit of gaming is, the star that all the other niche titles circulate around and I think best representative of what gaming is in and of itself so that if you had to choose one "center" of gaming it would be that.