The truth about Nintendo

[Zod95]

Final-Fan said:

Zod95 said:

Final-Fan said:

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. 

I don't know how can you ignore my comments (Tekken/DOA/SC have indeed realistic characters, arenas and moves) and I don't know how can you ignore my notes (they are only somewhat realistic, not fully realistic). Do they have non-humans? Yes, they have. Do they have surreal arenas? Sure. Do they have a gameplay system that comprises damage? No, they don't. Then, what? They still are far more realistic than Super Smash Bros...and no, cartoony characters don't seem real.

Regarding music, no, games don't need to (and they didn't) phase out instrumental music. They (can) have both. And of course vocal music is more evolved. Games began to have only instrumental music and then adopted vocal music when they became more evolved. Even the music itself began to be instrumental-only and then evolved too. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean vocal music is better. A perfect comparison would be 2D and 3D games. Games began to be 2D and then most of them evolved to 3D. Does this mean 2D games are worse? Of course not. But they are not as evolved, that's for sure.

In regards to non-realistic style, I never something like that. Maybe you're talking about when I was explaining that it's easier to perceive remarkable achievements on realistic games (once we can compare them with reality) than on non-realistic games (the analysis is far more difficult).

(Paragraph) 1:  How did I ignore your points?  I specifically addressed what you said about SC, Tekken, etc. having "realistic" characters etc.  If anything, you ingored mine.  When I asked, "how much more realistic are they really?", the answer "much more" is entirely unacceptable for this discussion unless you admit it's just an expression of your opinion.  On the one side are games with mostly human-looking characters (but some fantasy-looking characters) beating each other up non-realistically in ways that more often than not imitate real fighting moves, but also in many ways that don't.  On the other side are games with some human-looking characters and some fantasy-looking characters beating each other up non-realistically in ways that mostly do not imitate real fighting moves, but also in some ways that do.  Is one of these sides more realistic?  Yes.  Is it a huge difference that proves something about the philosophies about who created them?  No. 

(Paragraph) 2:  Other people have pointed out that your timeline is wrong, and I thank them for their contribution.  Also, what EXACTLY do you mean by "evolved"?  Is it nothing more than "this one came after that one"? 

(Paragraph) 3:  Have you ever considered the possibility that you are underestimating many of Nintendo's games because of this difficulty in discerning achievements in those games? 

I told you why I called those games "somewhat realistic", pointing out what was realistic and admitting that many other things wouldn't. The 1st paragraph of your reply was about insting on the non-realistic aspects and ignoring the realistic ones (thus ignoring the difference between those games and Super Smash Bros). That's how you ignored my points. Whether the difference is big, small, huge or tiny, that's already a subjective statement (which I try to avoid here since people have been very picky with anything I say). It is what it is. Does that prove there were different purposes from each developer? Absolutely. Nintendo sought an arcade game in which their already existing characters would punch each other. Team Ninja, for example, sought a more simulating style of game (Dead Or Alive) in which brand new characters would fight with realistic techniques in realistic environments. Does it sound like the same thing?

You should wait and thank those people only after their real contribution: evidence of what they claim. Until then, I will say they are going against common sense.

Evolution is not only about time. Vocal music is instrumental + voice. Instrumental-only is...well, I think it's obvious.

Regarding your last question: yes, many times. But then other variables correlate with this (Nintendo's profits, policies, greedy behavior, etc.), pointing always to the same conclusion: Nintendo isn't willing to do much, only what is necessary to obtain the sale.