Quantcast
Miyamoto: games nowadays look so realistic that they all look the same

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Miyamoto: games nowadays look so realistic that they all look the same

deskpro2k3 said:
Miyamoto just needs to freaking retire. Let him take his Mario and friends to retirement also.


This i agree with, I sent them at least 10 messages throughout the years about making a damn achievement system out of The coins and every 100 coins, you get a damn star. How damn hard is this. I'm pissed off at nintendo. Achievement system was a wonderful Idea and Sony at least seen this imediately and followed a great idea. Nintendo was like, People love this Achievement system on the other systems,  Miyamoto: "Fuck achievements!" LOL



Around the Network

It's true that most developers try to make their games look as realitic as possible. But even then, there are a lot of approaches to that style.

And more and more game try to push artsy graphics styles.

And really, there is nothing wrong with a realistic graphics style. As long as it fits with the tone and mood of the game, what's the problem?

If you want colors, there are plenty of games, even realitic ones, that have colors. Uncharted being one of them.

Anyway... I don't see what's Miyamoto's problem with this. One could say that there are too many cutsy and cartoony Nintendo games and not enough realistic ones...



  • PSN: Hynad
  • NN: 3519-6016-4122
  • XBL: Hynad
  • Steam: Hynad81

yeah I'm not on either extreme, the extreme that thinks the rest of the industry is complete garbage and there's only "boring realistic high-graphic games" or the other half that think Miyamoto is dumb and Nintendo just does dumb cartoony/kid stuff

 

neither is really accurate in mind

 

I saw this comment though and I think Miyamoto is too old-fashioned and stuck in his ways and fails to actually see the value in a lot of things such as great graphics and online play. he cares a lot about "gimmicks" and making things "unique" but a lot of the time you don't actually need that. he's legendary and has a lot of great ideas and I respect him but I'm definitely not going to agree with everything he says.

 

Some of my most anticipated games and my favorite ones in general have great graphics. Star Fox Zero might be fun but some of the textures look so bland that I honestly can't be that hyped for it, it doesn't feel like a $59.99 game--there are way better looking games, even on the Wii U. I hope the graphics get better because otherwise maybe I'll cancel my pre-order and get when it's cheaper.

Also, games can both look more realistic while still retaining a high sense of artistic style of creativity. Super Smash Bros. for Wii U looks way better than Melee, for instance, but it's not a realistic game style. Yoshi's Woolly World looks great, and the artistic style is awesome, but it wouldn't work as well if the quality of the yarn theme wasn't good. Same for Kirby and the Rainbow Curse. You see, if you really want a game to impress visually (which is just one of many elements that make a good game; graphics isn't everything, but it's definitely SOMETHING), IMO you should make it look both realistic and set a cool, fitting style for it, or you need to settle for something that's considered "timeless" by people, such as pixel art. Some art doesn't need to be high-quality to still look great.

 

But in a game like Star Fox, it seriously needs some work.

 

And yeah, if I want a truly impressive looking game like Horizon: New Dawn or some of the other stuff I've seen at E3 for PS4/Xbox one, well, I'm not going to get anything quite like that on Nintendo consoles, which is why I don't just play on Nintendo consoles. I like how creative Nintendo is and how much of a variety they sometimies have because admittedly there were like 10-15 shooters shown at E3 and it got really boring, but at the same Nintendo didn't impress me with any AAA games this year (Zelda didn't show up after all, I already have Xenoblade X, and Star Fox didn't actually *look* like great IMO), and I was kind of disappointed to see all the Mario and amiibo stuff, so they've got plenty of their own problems.

 

For me, as much as I dislike games with a visually dull style, as boring as realistic graphics get--they get old pretty freaking fast, and they don't age well because video game graphics are always getting better--I was still kind of more impressed by what I saw at the Sony conference. So, I think Miyamoto's trying to be all "hipster" what with gameplay rules but he's going to the opposite extreme.

 

Visuals don't make a good gmae

But they can make it a great game

And gameplay alone often isn't enough to make a great game either

 

after all, if you were just pressing buttons on your controller without any visual feedback and such, how boring would that be? and it's hard to get excited and immersed when a game that's *supposed* to be modern looks like it's 5 years old

I cut old games slack  because I know they're old, but I can't cut new games slack, sorry. put in a little more effort, Miyamoto, and maybe be a little less stubborn and reassess your priorities. You've got a lot going good for you, but you're also kind of disconnected from a lot of gamers and I think that's causing some hurt

 

/rant



Mummelmann said:
JEMC said:
I get what he's trying to say, and he has a point, but for the most part he is wrong.

Realistic games don't look the same, and many of you have already post examples of that, and just because a game is made to look cartoony doesn't mean that it will be different and stand out from the rest. Besides, people that complained about the game didn't do it because of the art style but because the game simply doesn't look up to the usual Nintendo standarts.


Not to mention the fact that Nintendo titles look very, very similar to one another.

Super Mario Galaxy:

*pic*

Super Mario Galaxy 2:

*pic*

Super Mario 3D World:

*pic*

Not exactly mindblowing variety in the look of most of their core franchises. Their games look quite different from others' games but their own games look extremely similar to one another in many cases so his point is still lost in the sea of irony.

I'm not going to debate with you on this because it is a very subjective topic, and therefore none of us will be right or wrong, but to use the games of a single franchise to try to prove your point is a very bad move.

Of course all Super Mario games look the same, just like all God of War, Gran Turismo, Halo, Assassins Creed, etc. look the same from game to game. It doesn't prove anything.

C'mon, Mummelmann, we both know that you can come up with arguments than that.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

JRPGfan said:
S.Peelman said:
Star Fox doesn't really look stellar, but a lot of games do look alike these days. Ubisoft's conference was like it was one big trailer of the same thing.


new southpark game (looks like a cartoon episode of soutpark, made into a rpg game, with super heros)

for Honor (castles and woods, and battlefields, swords and shields)

The division (dead city with virus outbreak, and fps)

Anno 2025 (space city building tatical game)

Just dance game

Rainbow six - seige (fps where you invade houses/buildings and gun down people) (looks very differnt from the division)

Trackmania (raceing car game, not a sim, but more like mario kart is a racer)

Assasins creed game (looks like non of the games above)

Tomclansys ghost recon (okay this looks abit like some other shooter fps type games).

 

 

Im writeing this to point out how silly your post actually is.

These games did not look like each other.

Meh. Would have been funnier for me if one of the people that were ranting about Nintendo games looking the same and then show pictures of Xenoblade, Mario and Zelda had replied.

Obviously any monkey can see the difference between South Park and Assassin's Creed or Anno 2205. Miyamoto can to, which is why he said "A lot of games" instead of "all games" and was talking about the technicality and art direction instead of the differences in setting and assets. People here just jump on the stupid click-bait title of this thread that's inaccurate and then proceed to show two different realistic games where one is set in a forest and the other at the beach. Like no shit that's different. Soundwave's post a couple pages back is what Miyamoto is talking about and that is a stance I can only agree with. For the record though, For Honor only looked 'different' because you didn't have a gun (and that guy with his manic laugh that brought it as if it was the most epic thing ever), so a difference in setting and assets, if there would have been a car there it would have looked like any other car, and had I looked down a second I wouldn't have known which Tom Clancy game was which. I probably still wouldn't now if you showed me three random screens. But okay, same franchise.



Around the Network
JEMC said:
Mummelmann said:


Not to mention the fact that Nintendo titles look very, very similar to one another.

Super Mario Galaxy:

*pic*

Super Mario Galaxy 2:

*pic*

Super Mario 3D World:

*pic*

Not exactly mindblowing variety in the look of most of their core franchises. Their games look quite different from others' games but their own games look extremely similar to one another in many cases so his point is still lost in the sea of irony.

I'm not going to debate with you on this because it is a very subjective topic, and therefore none of us will be right or wrong, but to use the games of a single franchise to try to prove your point is a very bad move.

Of course all Super Mario games look the same, just like all God of War, Gran Turismo, Halo, Assassins Creed, etc. look the same from game to game. It doesn't prove anything.

C'mon, Mummelmann, we both know that you can come up with arguments than that.


Probably, but I can't be arsed.



End of 2016 hardware sales:

Wii U: 15 million. PS4: 54 million. One: 30 million. 3DS: 64.8 million. PSVita: 15.2 million.

last92 said:
This just proves his ignorance about some 90% of the games out there.

Just came to post this, so thanks for saving me the effort.

I honestly can't believe he said it.



 

The PS5 Exists. 


That is why he is losing and the trend will continue in the future. Get used to the wii u failure because ironically your future is looking so similar that I can't tell the difference



Without order nothing can exist - without chaos nothing can evolve.

"I don't debate, I just give you that work"- Ji99saw

AbbathTheGrim said:
You got to leave it to this guy to fail at spinning technical achievements by creating realism into something negative.

If other companies, developers mostly make the same realistic games, then Nintendo mostly make cartoon style games.

But people here won't point the above because that is what they like.

This is the best post of this thread. Sums up both Miyamoto and most of the people posting here.



chakkra said:

Well, that's like saying that all movies look the same because they all look realistic. Or are they really gonna tell me that The Division, Horizon Zero Dawn, Star Wars Battlefront, Uncharted, Ryse, The Order, Destiny, FarCry 4, Infamous, Batman, Witcher 3, etc, they all look same? come on.

And my apologies to the Nintendo fans but I'll have to call him out on this one. For someone who loves to wave around the "Diversity and originality" flag so much, he does like to put way too many 2D platformers out. And yes, I know there are other genres available on the Wii U, but I think five 2D platformers in less than three years is going overboard. Especially when you have only one game that could be called FPS, only one Open-World and only one action adventure game.

And yes, I know some different genres are coming out later on, but that doesnt change the fact that FIVE 2D platformers got the attention first.

Yes I feel the same about my Wii U. People here say it has variety which somehow I just don't get.