This is the thread about the real truth about Nintendo: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=179303&page=1

This thread is a phony.

If this isn't enough proof for you, then I will not bother debating with you about this topic (once 3D is objectively more evolved than 2D):

"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."

Additionally, the OP doesn't say Nintendo games don't have vocal music nowadays but that they got it later than the competitors.

I've also studied a real martial art, so speak for yourself.

I didn't say one could learn a martial art by playing videogames. I said one could learn a lot about martial arts by doing so.

I guess it's not the first time you misread things, then "enter in shock" and then it's facepalm moment.

LMAO!! This is the funniest thing he has posted on this thread. What's even funnier is he actually believes that!!!!

It's just as much a "universal truth" as his entire article.... In another universe of course!

@Bold: Several key words here:  COULD.  Which you also CAN learn things from playing pretty much any video game about SOMETHING.  The THING you would learn about Martial Arts from those fighting games is in no way practical and very limited.  

edit: The other key words are "a lot" (which simply is relative and vague) and your underlined word.

Once again, you are using the word "evolved" terribly wrong.

Also, Instruments were introduced at about the same time vocals were in video games (and it could also be argued that vocals are less evolved than instruments but I will ignore that point). Prior to that it was all digital. Therefore, by using your own logic (which is HIGHLY flawed), instruments in music are equally evolved as lyrics, with both being more evolved than digital music (including digital lyrics). As soon as technology allowed using recorded sounds, both vocals and instruments were utilized.

You certainly aren't backing up your opinions with facts here...I'm not going to bother delving into the 2D vs 3D evolution debate because it is basically a matter of semantics.

Also, once again, you aren't showing how this in any way villifies Nintendo or this should be seen as a negative. You can talk about effort but I think its fairly undeniable that Nintendo does and always has put a lot of effort into their soundtracks...

So basically what I'm saying is that your point is flawed, not based in facts and you have no way of connecting this point to your central thesis statement (Nintendo is evil and whatnot)...

Oh..."about".  Perhaps you didn't read your own post.

That reads far more like you are saying you learn the art...not just learn about the art.  Learning about the art is history, purpose, associations of mind and body, etc...  Learning when to do the "moves" isn't learning about the art.   As someone who claims to have studied an art, you should know this.

Just a note here: Killer Instinct had vocal music in 1994 on Arcade, and the SNES port in 1995 kept it. And in the context of 3rd parties on the platform, Tales of Symphonia Phantasia had a song on its opening. While not common, vocals were possible on the SNES. Star Ocean is also an example of this (using a special compression chip).

EDIT: Mixed the Tales...

I don't understand the point you're trying make by claiming that vocal music is more evolved than instrumental. Does it make vocal music more complex? Superior? More expensive? Harder to make? More evolved or not I fail to see what it would prove.

(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?