The truth about Nintendo

[Final-Fan]

Zod95 said:

Final-Fan said:

I was just going to passively read the thread, not responding until after reading it all (if then), but I snapped on page 3 (@50) when I noticed a passage from the OP I'd overlooked:

Same thing happened in the Fighting genre, where Nintendo came up with Super Smash Bros to compete with the complex and somehow realistic Tekken, Dead Or Alive and Soul Calibur.
YOU SON OF A BITCH! After that huge fight in the other thread over "photo realism" you dare to call Tekken and Soul Calibur "realistic"? I guess Jigglypuff is too much of a balloon for you.

The fact is that you are still mistaking your personal views for universal truth. (This isn't directly talking about Tekken anymore, but in general how rock music and human characters are supposed to be objectively superior in games to orchestral music and Pokemon.)

Nice to see you Final-Fan.

LOL, I understand your anger, but let me explain then. First of all, I called them "somehow realistic", not "realistic". And I did so because they comprise fighters with real techniques and real moves. You can actually learn a lot about martial arts playing those games (in a way that you can't on books or videos, because on videogames you do it yourself and you apply each move when you feel the need to do so). On top of that, the characters are humans (maybe not all of them) and the arenas seem real.

And this is universal truth. Super Smash Bros doesn't comprise real martial arts. Other games do. Super Smash Bros isn't mainly about humans. Other games are. This is not my opinion. These are facts.

In regards to music, one can perceive an evolution along the time. And there was a time in history when music in videogames began to shift from instrumental-only to sang music. For example, 8 bit music is not as evolved as the music we have nowadays on games. Is it better or worse? That's about tastes. But it's not as evolved, that's a fact too.

As for the human characters vs Pokémon, I didn't get it. What are you talking about?

The lines are a lot blurrier than you seem to be claiming here.  Consider Soul Calibur.  Sure, there are relatively realistic-looking moves going on there, but on the other hand, you have ridiculous crap like Ivy's chain-sword and Voldo in general.  Additionally, people routinely get stabbed and have things done to them that would cripple or kill real humans, and they get up none the worse for wear, aside from a lower health bar.  Super Smash Bros. doesn't pretend to be realistic, but how much less realistic is it actually?—aside from at-a-glance appearance? 

The arenas in Soul Calibur are just platforms with cosmetic features and backgrounds that sometimes look sort of real, like the cave dock/shipyard area, and sometimes are pretty fantastical.  Yes, it's more "realistic" than SSB but it's just a matter of degrees.  The biggest difference is the fact that you have more interaction and variation with the level in SSB.  More stuff to jump around and play with, versus a small blank area for pure one-on-one combat in Soul Calibur. 

"the characters are humans (maybe not all of them)"
There are also more human characters in SSB than non-human, although some of them are "cartoony". 

As for music, my thought is that there came a time when the technology in video games made it possible to have pleasing-sounding music with vocals, and then some games included that.  But I wouldn't say there's a large scale trend of phasing out instrumental music in favor of vocal, and I wouldn't say that music with vocals is more "evolved" in terms of video games.  So no, I dispute your "facts". 

Humans vs. Pokemon:  I thought you had said or implied somewhere that a game with human characters would, all else being equal, be intrinsically superior to a game with made-up fantasy creatures done in a non-"realistic" style.  Similar to the instrumental vs. vocal/rock music.  Pokemon was just an example, I didn't mean that you specifically said humans>Pokemon.