The truth about Nintendo

[sundin13]

Zod95 said:

sundin13 said:

1. If you would like me to get into the actual definition of the word evolution and all the subtext included in it I will... do you honestly want to get into that debate (turns out I went into a bit of it anyways, oops)? For example, everything that is around today has been "evolving" for the same amount of time and as such, everything as it is today is equally evolved. Therefore, you cannot say that one thing today is more evolved than another thing today because that doesn't actually make any sense. If you start getting into metrics for calculating change, you are getting into some very fuzzy and subjective stuff and thus cannot be argued as fact...

I honestly want that you either criticize something with evidence or that you don't criticize it at all. Just criticizing with vague sentences is not criticizing, it's vilifying.

According to your logic, there are not things more evolved than others unless they are from different ages. If so, then no country is more evolved than any other. I (and I would say 99% of people) don't agree with you.

 

sundin13 said:

2. Its logic...I have no way of looking into a chronological history of video game music and looking into all the games created by everybody, seeing what the first game that used music with recorded vocals is and comparing it to the first music that used recorded instruments. Think about it for a second, both recorded vocals and recorded instruments were not able to be played until the technology allowed it and the technology allowed both of those to occur at the same time (because both are recorded in the same way). See my below statement about digital music.

It's not just about the first game using each kind of music. It's about the whole industry shifting from one to the other. I couldn't care less if the first game to have vocal music was for instance in 1990 and the first to have instrumental-only was in 1991 if 3000 games adopted the latter on 1993 and the former on 1998, and if another 4000 games adopted the latter on 1995 and the former on 2001. With this scenario, I wouldn't say vocal music came first, I would focus on the majority (which is almost 100%) and I would conclude that instrumental-only came first.

The difference between our views is that you are focusing on technology limitations, I'm focusing on budget limitations. Vocal music is, as a rule, more expensive because it demands to hire or sub-contract singers. Games in the 80's and 90's had still very limited budgets. Most of the transition was made on an economic basis rather than tecnological basis.

 

sundin13 said:

3. Digital music is very different than recorded instruments. For one, digital music is created by a computer vs instruments being recorded and played back. I think the difference here is pretty obvious. Additionally, changing from digitally created music to recorded music happened when the technology allowed it to happen.

Yes, but instruments can be a synthesizer and thus it becomes effort-wise comparable to digital music. Try this: listen to the Mario 64 soundtrack (1996), then listen to the Sonic Adventure 1 soundtrack (1998) and finally listen to the Mario Sunshine soundtrack (2002). Disregard tastes, focus on technical matters. And then tell me your findings regarding what you speculate to be the effort/time/money demanded on each one.

 

sundin13 said:

4. For someone who frequently accuses people of misreading their quotes, you tend to do a lot of misreading. I said that the 2D vs 3D evolution debate is a matter of semantics, not that 2D vs 3D is a matter of semantics. This essentially means that the debate is centered around the definition of evolution, which by its actual definition, implies that everything that is around today is equally evolved. Applying that to video games, you would say that every 2D game that is around today is just as evolved as the 3D games that are around today. To say otherwise would be making a value judgement and as such cannot be said to be fact or truth or objective.

Ok sorry. You're making sense then. But I've already told you: you have a very particular view about evolution. I bet that 99% of people think differently.

 

sundin13 said:

5.I would like some examples of the competors that used (non digitized) vocals in songs. I once again have no way of looking into every video game song ever made but on what basis are you making these claims? I can think of Nintendo games that used vocals in the GC era, though I haven't played many N64 games...

Also, Anybody who knows anything about music could tell you that this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNqEfB6IYmE) was no simple feat, and definitely not objectively more "simple" than this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC0hV3dea9g).

Sonic Adventure (1998), NFS Hot Pursuit 2 (2002), Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2 (2000), to name a few. And this is not binary (everything or nothing). If you find a Nintendo game that has 1 (among many) music track that has some limited vocal parts, that is obviously not at the same level as the examples I've mentioned.

As for your comparison, that's why I said "theoretically". Nevertheless, it's funny that you need to pick examples of games that difer more than 10 years to actually show that the example from Nintendo is superior.

a. Definition of Evolution:

I've already told you that the way you are thinking about evolution is wrong and explained myself. You are saying the way that I am thinking about it is "wrong" or "different" but I am thinking about it in the context in which the word was designed to be used (the scientific sense). In this sense, what you are saying is evolution is wrong.

Because of this, you need to present your own definition of "evolution". Gathering from what you have said already, it is not just about time ("Evolution is not only about time. Vocal music is instrumental + voice. Instrumental-only is...well, I think it's obvious."). By this you mean to say that because vocal music has instrumentals, it is more "evolved". However! Vocals are essentially only an instrument. I think most people involved in music would say that vocals are no easier or harder than playing an instrument and holding them at a higher level than instruments is making a value judgement.

By this rule, all instruments (including voice) are equal, so would you not say that the more instruments something has the more "evolved" it is? Would this not match your definition of evolution perfectly and more objectively that assigning a value judgement to vocals? Therefore, symphonic music, which nintendo uses and has used for quite some time, meaning, arguably, using your definition of the word, symphonic music is the most evolved form of video game music and Nintendo evolved faster and further than most video games?

b. Technological Limitation vs the Industry Standard:

Okay, I see what you are saying here. So lets go down to your final point where you show me a few examples of early games featuring music including vocals.

First, I would like to talk about Licenced Soundtracks. Your point here is counterproductive. You speak of the "effort" taken to create something and then you praise when a game company simply buys songs released by musicians elsewhere? This is highly contradictory and from an objective standpoint, it takes infinitely more effort to create a song than it does to pay to use a song someone else has already created. 

I would like to see some more examples featuring original music to prove to me when it became the "industry standard"...

Additionally, I would like to talk about Nintendo for a moment. Between 2002-2003, Nintendo released both F-Zero GX and Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, which both featured original vocal performances (choir in WW, lyrics in F-Zero) around the time where you claimed it was becoming the industry standard...

c. Which took more effort?:

Unfortunately I am unable to listen to these at the moment but I will say that it is impossible to determine effort by listening to something objectively... I will get back to this question later today if you wish me too