Now, I do have to say I agree a bit. While I don't mind some serious games, most of my favorites aren't too serious. GTA III, VC, and SA aren't too serious (although SA more than the others), while I felt LCS and VCS took themselves too seriously, and I just didn't enjoy them that much over it. I'm really hesitant to try GTA IV because of how seriously it takes itself, while Saints Row 2 is just as fun as the PS2 GTA games.

http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/war-over-the-soul-of-gaming/

This generation isn’t a “Console War”, it is a war for the soul of gaming. Is gaming going to continue to be the big, bloated “Industry” type games or will it be something else?

This is how the “Game Industry” sees games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8rZWw9HE7o&feature=player_embedded (mods, feel free to edit this to properly embed)

Serious
Strange Shower Scenes
Very Serious
Emphasis on the ’story’
Did I mention serious?

And this is how gaming actually is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih78dz2XyLc&feature=player_embedded (mods, feel free to edit this to properly embed)

Not serious
Funny
Quirky
Crazy
No serious story

Gaming is at its best when it is at parody. Contra parodies Rambo, Super Mario Brothers parodies Alice in Wonderland, Star Fox parodies Star Wars, you get the idea.

“Serious” games suck. So do the “serious” gamers. Give me crazy goofball fun any day.

So going by the movie analogy, Hot Shots is better than Top Gun? Epic Movie is better than 300?

Contra does not parody Rambo -- it takes it over-the-top. There is a major difference.
Parody means playing for humor. Contra is an exaggerated form of Rambo.

Mike from Morgantown

50 Cent Bullet Proof would probably be like 300; serious, with more work on the prerendered visuals than anything else.

No, just that Hot Shots makes a better game.

As for 300, Epic Movie didn't make fun of that. It didn't really make fun of anything. Neither did Meet the Spartans. Those aren't parodies. Those are more like poorly done hacks of games with models and sprites of other games thrown in to say "Look at this!"

 I say he used the wrong word there. "Spoof" would fit better, and that is what Contra does, which still makes it fun.

Really? That would seem to me to be the biggest parody. It's an outlandish take on the rapper's lyrics and lifestyle. 

I really don't get some of these comparisons though. Super Mario Bros. and Alice in Wonderland? Star Fox and Star Wars? Malstrom seems to be taking the most vague similarities and connecting them, which is completely different from the two films excerpts he showed. This begs the question, what games couldn't be considered some sort of parody of a movie franchise?

I don't see how Mario "parodies" Alice in Wonderland.

About the only connection is that Miyamoto mentioned Alice in Wonderland once (and now claims it was a misunderstanding) and that Miyamoto considers the game "magical" and he used mushrooms, while Alice was "magical" and had mushrooms.

I like how he shows 2 movies to illustrate his point, then goes on to say games can only be one... why can't we have both games that are serious and games that are silly...

I say it's not the serious games, but going towards them, while putting the fun as secondary. Thus we often (not always) get railroad stories, gameplay that is either safe or mediocre, and just more money thrown at it.

As for Mario/Wonderland and Star Fox/StarWars, it's a thematic thing, not something you can see immediately.

So Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard is an example of gaming at its best?