The truth about Nintendo

[Final-Fan]

Zod95 said:

Final-Fan said:

(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.

1.  I wasn't ignoring the realistic aspects—I was arguing that they were not, in fact, as realistic as you were claiming they were.  As for big/small being subjective and therefore something you're not going to discuss, why don't we just say that no two video games are exactly the same and therefore nothing can be determined?  Also, 'design goal' isn't what I meant by philosophy. 

2.  I think common sense is that human beings have been singing for as long as we have been able to communicate, if not even earlier.  This, in my opinion, probably predates the origin of artificially created instruments, and, in my opinion, when those instruments were created, they were used to accompany singing.  In that case, instrumental + vocal would predate instrumental only.  Where in this line of thinking do you disagree? 

Also, instrumental-only music often, and unsurprisingly, has more complexity in the instrumental music than instrumental + vocal does in only the instrumental portion of that music.  So doesn't this undermine what you are saying about complexity?  And how about the fact that both "I" and "I+V" music have been around for centuries or millennia, "evolving" on their own before being applied to video games?  Doesn't that also make it a bit silly to argue about which one is more evolved than the other? 

3.  There's a pretty big flaw in that, but I don't want to completely derail the conversation, so for that reason I do not want to continue down this road.  (But if you are too curious, then it is regarding the fact that all companies are motivated by profit, and you are just assuming that Nintendo's products aren't high quality because you can't see it vs. the other products you like more or 'can perceive the remarkable achievements of more easily' (<-not an actual quote).)