Where do the Third Party/Nintendo fan issues come from?

[bdbdbd]

Dante9 said:

M-rating is not a value in and of itself to gamers, they simply want adult themes and stories and more "realistic" and gritty presentation. To put it bluntly, unicorns shooting rainbows just doesn't appeal to them. I wish you would appreciate that fact instead of making value judgments based on your own preferences. I enjoy Game Of Thrones more than I do Dragonball Z, if you can see what I'm getting at.

Ninty fans always talk about gameplay and how it's the most important aspect, but every game out there has gameplay. Sure, different games and genres have different gameplay and there's good GP and crappy GP in every genre (duh) but that only goes to highlight the fact that it's impossible to make direct comparisons between them. It's apples and oranges. People want different things. One could say that Tetris has great gameplay, it's simple, it's smooth, it's addictive, but in the end, Tetris will just be Tetris, no matter how polished.

You talk about substance, as if only Nintendo games have that. What is substance to you? To me, the most popular Nintendo games are the very antithesis of substance. No story worth mentioning, no moral decisions, no difficult themes, just light-hearted fun and pick-up-and-go distraction. Platforming. Fluffy stuff. I agree with you, though, that collectibles of all kind are just a cheap way of lenghtening a game and offer no substance to speak of.

How do you measure content and value? Some measure the time it takes to finish a game, but what about things like MMO games that don't really have an end, they just go on in an infinite loop? I think the best measure is to look at what the game offers with respect to what you are looking for.

What I'm really trying to say is that I wish we could have these discussions without feeling the need to take potshots at each other, regardless of the platforms we have chosen. But then again, would any of this be any fun, if it was all about the facts and there was no emotion or speculation..

The age rating thing isn't quite true. Firstly because of all the kids wanting to play games they aren't allowed to, and secondly by looking at the videogames forums where gamers bitch and whine about the lack of M-rated games.

 

By looking at only one aspect is just missing the big picture. Games in the end are products and if you want a successful product, the whole product needs to be "good enough". Nobody can call (of course you CAN...) Excite Truck a good game, it's mediocre at best, but (the content of the game) driving off-road pedal to the metal was so awesome, that the game was huge fun even with the mediocre gameplay and not even having a feel of racing.

 

Let's think bottled water as an example of a product, is it because of the water it sells? In that case you only need to sell water. Or is it the bottle because it's selling? In that case you only need bottles. In either case, it makes absolutely no sense to sell water in bottles. Why? Because people only need water or bottles. 

 

One big part in the modern game industry products is the hype preceeding the launch. If you don't live the hype, get the games years after the launch - or the game doesn't live up to the hype, the game lacks the substance.

You wait for Final Call of Solid for two years jerking in a ring in the message boards, and when it comes out, the game is nothing like you expected it to be. People end up not buying it (aside from preorders) and the developers are blaming the gamers being stupid for not buying their genious game.

 

 

Content of the game is what the game is giving out to you, or how you perceive the game. Value is what else could you be doing than play videogames and what would it give out to you.

 

 

Back to third parties with the above in mind; they've been pretty consistent in making games with the mentality the games do not need "X" bacause they sell on "Y" anyway. They make 30hrs of walking simulators, when people want 30 minutes of action.