Nintendo, more than "casual"

[Grygor]

and accounting for bullet drop.

I thought CoD used hitscan weapons and therefore had no bullet drop?

That's one that I honestly couldn't tell you. I've watched him, but I've never really played the games myself. There probably isn't bullet drop.

Technically, it doesn't really matter either way, because at the close engagement distance typical of modern military shooters, bullet drop is effectively insignificant.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Give me a break. If you're old enough to manipulate a controller, you've long outgrown this

Speak for yourself mate.I'm in my mid 30's and have absolutely no problems with bright,colourful,cute graphics like the images you posted.In fact I would prefer to look at those graphics rather than another "realistic" military shooter any day.

Fair enough, my point is they make games for very young babies where they used to make games for children and it's apparent from their art style. I also think you're establishing a false choice by bringing up shitty looking 'realistic' shooters. There are lots of great looking games that aren't 'realistic' shooters or baby stuff.

 

[Something Amyss]

Nintendo catering to another audience isnt a bad thing (its even good)

To some extent, yes, but it's also kind of a problem.

Indeed, this is sort of the problem the 3DS had at launch

 

[octafish]

I challenge anyone to

#1 Define casual and hardcore gamers
#2 Say how you can make a game for them

The only definition I have gotten is "varying interest in gaming" which means you cannot make a game for a "hardcore audience" thus making the terms void of meaning.

That is soooooo easy.

Hardcore Gamers play Flight Sims that require $1500 accessories and comprehesive checklists before you get off the ground, or online racing sims that require you to get license to compete...everything else is casual.

 

[Darknacht]

I challenge anyone to

#1 Define casual and hardcore gamers
#2 Say how you can make a game for them

The only definition I have gotten is "varying interest in gaming" which means you cannot make a game for a "hardcore audience" thus making the terms void of meaning.

I sure can't define gamers but I could give a shot at defining casual and hardcore games. Core games are the focal point of an experience, it is a dedicated product for gaming whether it's a pass time or event. A casual game is something that requires no prior interest or setup, you can play angry birds in 2 minute bursts on the bus or while you walk, a hardcore game requires sone set up. ...Yeah it doesn't really work but it's the best I can do.

So it's accessibility? How does that make casual bad?

I can get into a game in CS:GO very fast yet it would be universally seen as hardcore.

I always laugh at the 'universal' acceptance of FPS games as hardcore because when I was growing up FPS games where considered 'casual' by everyone I knew, and 'hardcore' gamers played 'real' games like RPGs or strategy games. Hardcore and casual are mostly meaningless terms used to say that your games are better than other peoples. The really funny thing is that I know people who think all video games are 'casual' and 'real' gamers play everything PnP.

 

[Launcelot111]

You can't tell me shit hasn't changed since I played Ocarina of Time.

We obviously differ in opinion about this, but I think you're ignoring a lot of the older Nintendo games and their weirdness. Ocarina of time had talking owls and demonic drum players and that weird thing in the well with all the hands and that section on the skeletal pirate ship in the spirit temple and a whole level inside a giant fish. And let's not forget the abundance of weirdness in Majora's Mask. Super Mario 64 had penguin racing and the giant talking snowman and all sorts of goofy enemies. Nintendo is doing new things of questionable value, but let's not pretend that all the random stuff they throw in is unprecedented.

If anything you just listed is at all weird, it's not even approaching the scale of the weirdness in the Wii titles. You're missing my point. I am definitely not ignoring talking owls and shit. I think you're ignoring the glaring difference between cutesy fun like every single thing you listed and bizarre mindfucks like the picture I posted. The former is good, the latter is bad.

And really all of that is just distracting from the point that the central gameplay mechanics have really either held steady or improved for Zelda and Mario.

Who was talking about the central gameplay mechanics? If you must, I would say it's one step forward, one step back. Zelda lost all it's atmosphere in Twilight Princess. No point examining it further really. Did anyone give one fuck about anything in that game? I just don't have the heart to try Skyward Sword. Gameplay hasn't improved in any significant way and the controls are even shittier if anyone can believe that. What I can say nice about Twilight Princess is it had some new stuff that was fun. Mounted combat jumps to mind.

As for Mario, I can only speak about Mario: Galaxy. Admittedly, it was kind of like someone polished up Mario 64 with modern flow and trappings, and to that extent I approve. But the artwork was in a contest with the controls to be the most unbearable and running around spheres was unwieldy and tedious. It completely negated the above-mentioned 'flow'. Pacing was terrible. The whole game was extremely easy except for exactly one part. My favorite parts of the game were when it finally let me do some proper platforming. It was almost like I was playing Mario again and I started to have fun.

I'm not saying I like old shit because it's old. I just don't think 'almost as good as an N64 game' is good enough any more.

I don't understand what you're saying. Everything you've shown from Mario Galaxy is cutesy fun, which you're alright with apparently. Nothing from Twilight Princess compares to the bizarreness of Majora's Mask (except those creepy as hell ooccoos). Your comment about the atmosphere of Twilight Princess not being as good is completely valid, but I don't blame that on the twilight creatures, who didn't strike me as that odd at all.

However, in your first post, you suggest that the imagery of modern Nintendo games are not what adults should be into, yet you now suggest that they are bizarre (and by extrapolation too weird for children). Many games that are beloved by adults capitalize on weird imagery (eg Psychonauts or the Persona games). Why should Nintendo be trashed for this?

Personally, I find Super Mario Galaxy 2 to be much better than Super Mario 64 in terms of gameplay and visual style. The cutesy characters you chide are little more than background characters to add flavor to bright and creatively designed levels. For the Zelda series, Nintendo has improved by leaps and bounds in designing temples, and the combat much more involved and interesting than the N64 iterations. That said, they miss out on creating the wonderful atmosphere of OoT, and they've never matched the awesomeness of OoT's ocarina songs, but modern Zeldas are very good games that compare unfavorably against the truly exceptional Ocarina of Time.

My problem with Nintendo these days is that while they're very capable of delivering outstanding entries for their marquee franchises, these games come years apart from each other, and they haven't been generating the support from lesser franchises or 3rd party developers to pick up the slack. You may disparage their style, which clearly can appeal to a younger audience, but I don't see it as kiddy but instead as a welcome breath of fresh air and an acceptance that their games are inherently absurd and thus don't have to be shown as serious at all.

 

[Innegativeion]

I challenge anyone to

#1 Define casual and hardcore gamers
#2 Say how you can make a game for them

The only definition I have gotten is "varying interest in gaming" which means you cannot make a game for a "hardcore audience" thus making the terms void of meaning.

I have this debilitating disability.

I'm core-blind! Hard core? Soft core? Medium core? casual? No idea. Really.

Like with blind samurais, I've made up for this with a heightened sense. I can judge games now instead based on "fun" and "not fun. It's kind of cool, actually.

League of Legends ranked matches? Pretty damn fun.

Half Life series? Real fun.

Persona? Quite fun.

Mass Effect? Very fun.

Mario Galaxy 2? Definitely fun.

Despite my disability, somehow I've managed to live my life in relative happiness. I'm thinking of novelizing my story.

 

[DeimosMasque]

-SNIP-
I always laugh at the 'universal' acceptance of FPS games as hardcore because when I was growing up FPS games where considered 'casual' by everyone I knew, and 'hardcore' gamers played 'real' games like RPGs or strategy games. Hardcore and casual are mostly meaningless terms used to say that your games are better than other peoples. The really funny thing is that I know people who think all video games are 'casual' and 'real' gamers play everything PnP.

I remember those days, "Hey lets go home and play Wolfenstien.. we have some time to kill." "Let's go play Doom 2, we've got nothing to do for an hour."

Yeah, those were fun days. We all looked to Star Control 2, Sierra Games, Command and Conquer and Eye of the Beholder as our real games. Mario 2, Adventures of Link and Ultima 4 were our back ups.

Now those games are all 'easy' and 'lame.' Hell no one even remembers Star Control 2. A open world, epic, space opera with resource hunting and a time limit that wasn't judged by what story missions you had figured out.

Yet those of us who cling to Nintendo and PS2s looking for the IPs we know, and buy Xboxes and PS3s looking for that same magic we had as kids. We're the casuals now, because we hate FPSs (not really we just remember when they were good time killers,) we miss Sierra's IPs and remember when Solid Snake was just called Snake.

Yet we are the casuals of this generation...

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I challenge anyone to

#1 Define casual and hardcore gamers
#2 Say how you can make a game for them

The only definition I have gotten is "varying interest in gaming" which means you cannot make a game for a "hardcore audience" thus making the terms void of meaning.

My definition of a casual gamer is one that plays games because they are bored and have nothing else to do. A hardcore gamer will find time for games because they prefer gaming over other activities.
Nintendo makes my definition of casual games because they make games that I only see people play when they have nothing else to do (Wii sports and the like). Consoles like xbox make games that I see people play when they have other things they could or should be doing (Things like CoD or Skyrim). Nintendo majority of games fit under my idea of casual.

This is of course by no means a real definition. That is just how I see it.

 

[Aprilgold]

I challenge anyone to

#1 Define casual and hardcore gamers
#2 Say how you can make a game for them

The only definition I have gotten is "varying interest in gaming" which means you cannot make a game for a "hardcore audience" thus making the terms void of meaning.

Casual = People who play games for enjoyment. They play games for the sheer fun that comes with it.

Hardcore = People who play games for competition, games that are like these games or genres fit these people.

MOBA, Starcraft, Street Fighter or Tekken and any game that requires any remote amount of skill that has depth.

How do you make games for these people?

Casual gamers will play a game for fun, therefore you make a fun or interesting game for them.

Hardcore gamers want a game that will challenge them or requires some amount of finesse and skill. Simply make a game with a deep meta game or one that revolves around some type of skill game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nintendo is not Casual or Hardcore because those two are terribly generic terms.

 

[Beautiful End]

Well, a GAME by default cannot be taken seriously. I mean, here we are pretending to be space marines and calling each other hardcore and stuff. That's just silly if you think about it. And yes, I've always said that we are the ones who grew up and Nintendo was just left behind. Like our old toys from when we were kids. Like Toy Story illustrates.

Having said that, I'll try to define casual vs. hardcore and ways to make them better.

-Casual vs. Hardcore gamers: Casual gamers just pick up a fun game and play every now and then. They don't really care about finishing it most of the time. They don't care about unlocking stuff or finishing special challenges. They just wanna kill some time. They could even do without the game. Hardcore gamers care about a specific game a lot. They unlock every secret, collect every item, even get DLC for it, they are competitive, they need the game in order to have. Hardcore gamers always have time to play. And when they play, they mean business.

-How to make a game for both: Casual gamers love games that are fun but repetitive. it's like playing Checkers or Solitaire. It's the same concept over and over again but it's fun because you don't play it all the time and you can stop at any point without missing anything. Hardcore gamers love challenges, variety and longevity when it comes to games. So give them a fun game that challenges their skills and motivates them to keep playing and they'll be happy.

Now, it's clear that Nintedo aims its games at casual gamers/kids/families because of what I described above. There are some exceptions, of course. Some Mario games, Zelda, DK and so on can be both casual and hardcore, which is what makes them awesome. But aside from that, just go to your local game retail store and look at the Wii library. Now go look at Sony and MS's side. Way more variety.

It's fine that Nintendo has one specific consumer in mind. I mean, we need them. But they should stop attempting to half copy their neighbor and focus on what they do best.

(By the way, I'm not against the kiddie graphics or anything. I focus more on gameplay and fun...ratio than graphics. What bothers me about most Wii games is the fact that they assume every player is either 5 or 60 years old and has never held a controller in their life. That's fine if you fall under that category. But if you're not, you're gonna feel alienated or just plain bored.)

 

[Hattingston]

I think of Nintendo as thematically casual. I like it when games I play mean something, or challenge me to think or feel. An excellent example is in The Witcher 2 where

Spoiler

You're forced to decide whether to side with the terrorist-freedom fighter Iorveth or the peace-keeping tyranny-enforcing Roache.

I had to think about what I was doing there. In Mario, there is never any moral consideration whatsoever. Even in games like Assassin's Creed, when the victims pleaded for their lives and explained their actions, I felt conflicted as to whether I was in the right. I've never felt anything when I was playing Mario. In Bastion, hearing about what happened to Zulf almost put me in tears. In short, because games like Mario are mindless fun, I don't care for them. They just don't stimulate me.

 

[MetalDooley]

Fair enough, my point is they make games for very young babies where they used to make games for children and it's apparent from their art style. I also think you're establishing a false choice by bringing up shitty looking 'realistic' shooters. There are lots of great looking games that aren't 'realistic' shooters or baby stuff.

So if those games are made for very young babies then how come millions of adults like myself enjoy them?Because they're not that's why.They're supposed to be enjoyed by all ages and there's a difference between that and stuff that actually is designed for babies.But you know what if you can't see past the graphics to see that then that's your problem.

Also stop putting words in my mouth.I never said realistic looking shooters were "shitty looking".I simply said that I prefer the bright colourful graphics and I picked military shooters as a comparison because they are far and away the most popular genre right now.And yes you're right there are plenty of good looking "realistic" games.I know because I play a lot of them.But you know what realistic graphics tend to age quite badly.Just look at some of the earlier realistic looking games on 360 and PS3 and they haven't aged well at all whereas the colourful cartoony stuff still holds up nicely

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Chopping up your post helps me organize my thoughts. Please don't interpret it as condescension. That would be bad.

I don't understand what you're saying. Everything you've shown from Mario Galaxy is cutesy fun, which you're alright with apparently. Nothing from Twilight Princess compares to the bizarreness of Majora's Mask (except those creepy as hell ooccoos). Your comment about the atmosphere of Twilight Princess not being as good is completely valid, but I don't blame that on the twilight creatures, who didn't strike me as that odd at all.

However, in your first post, you suggest that the imagery of modern Nintendo games are not what adults should be into, yet you now suggest that they are bizarre (and by extrapolation too weird for children). Many games that are beloved by adults capitalize on weird imagery (eg Psychonauts or the Persona games). Why should Nintendo be trashed for this?

Personally, I find Super Mario Galaxy 2 to be much better than Super Mario 64 in terms of gameplay and visual style. The cutesy characters you chide are little more than background characters to add flavor to bright and creatively designed levels. For the Zelda series, Nintendo has improved by leaps and bounds in designing temples, and the combat much more involved and interesting than the N64 iterations. That said, they miss out on creating the wonderful atmosphere of OoT, and they've never matched the awesomeness of OoT's ocarina songs, but modern Zeldas are very good games that compare unfavorably against the truly exceptional Ocarina of Time.

My problem with Nintendo these days is that while they're very capable of delivering outstanding entries for their marquee franchises, these games come years apart from each other, and they haven't been generating the support from lesser franchises or 3rd party developers to pick up the slack. You may disparage their style, which clearly can appeal to a younger audience, but I don't see it as kiddy but instead as a welcome breath of fresh air and an acceptance that their games are inherently absurd and thus don't have to be shown as serious at all.

There's nothing wrong with baby stuff or science fiction, it's all about where and how.

Sorry about the confusion. I actually have different complaints about recent Mario titles than I do about Twilight Princess. I think Mario looks terrible. Also, the art is clearly designed for very young babies. I think this is very different from the older Mario titles. They're all for kids, but there's a big difference between five years and five weeks.

As for Zelda, let me try another approach. Weird imagery is great and encouraged in games like Psychonauts because it's consistent with the tone of that game. But Zelda's tone is classic high adventure, and it has always been extremely consistent about this across all the titles I've played, including the original. So into this series, which is pretty committed to the whole high adventure thing at this point, enters an androgynous anthropomorphic cat / space alien with no genitalia who has a giant alien arm on it's head. It's riding a wolf and fighting the alien from Alien who had his face flattened by a frying pan and just left it. Both look influenced by anime, which is not consistent with this series so far or classic high adventure generally, and both look like they're from outer space, or the distant future, even to the point of having glowing neon lines they stole from Tron. The look of this series has definitely changed since the N64 titles and the new futuristic-space-alien-acid-trip-anime-Tron stuff really stands out when placed next to more classic Zelda visuals. It's jarring. It's even shocking. I don't see how anyone could possibly overlook it. It's like Link has been beamed up to the Enterprise and you're acting like nothing unusual has happened. Hey, they had a dungeon in a fish, so why not?

I haven't played Super Mario Galaxy 2, only the first title. Sorry if I led you to believe otherwise. In the first Mario Galaxy, there are lots and lots of examples like those stars and that bee. It's pretty consistently baby-oriented. You're obviously giving a very honest appraisal, and I appreciate that a lot. In both Mario and Zelda, I did notice improvements and I tried to at least allude to them. But in both cases I felt like I was losing as much or more than I had gained and the 'soul' just wasn't there. Neither game 'felt' right, and it was a combination of factors which caused this, not least of them the art. Obviously I think the art was terrible in both for different reasons.

Their games are undeniably kiddy. That's fine. Great, even. That's not what I'm here to criticize. All the old Mario and Zelda games were kiddy, and I love that shit. My nitpicks are derper than that.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Fair enough, my point is they make games for very young babies where they used to make games for children and it's apparent from their art style. I also think you're establishing a false choice by bringing up shitty looking 'realistic' shooters. There are lots of great looking games that aren't 'realistic' shooters or baby stuff.

So if those games are made for very young babies then how come millions of adults like myself enjoy them?Because they're not that's why.They're supposed to be enjoyed by all ages and there's a difference between that and stuff that actually is designed for babies.But you know what if you can't see past the graphics to see that then that's your problem.

Also stop putting words in my mouth.I never said realistic looking shooters were "shitty looking".I simply said that I prefer the bright colourful graphics and I picked military shooters as a comparison because they are far and away the most popular genre right now.And yes you're right there are plenty of good looking "realistic" games.I know because I play a lot of them.But you know what realistic graphics tend to age quite badly.Just look at some of the earlier realistic looking games on 360 and PS3 and they haven't aged well at all whereas the colourful cartoony stuff still holds up nicely

You enjoy these games because you like (or at least tolerate) baby stuff. That's fine, I'm not knocking that. I think this particular iteration of baby stuff is both out of place and horrendous looking, but whatevs. I'm here to criticize games, not you. Different strokes and all. I enjoy a ton of stuff that's clearly designed below my age range. I'm trying to say two things:

1) This artwork is apparently designed for an even younger audience than previous Mario titles, as difficult as that may be to believe, and it is noticeably different from the art in those titles. Whether or not adults also enjoy it is beside the point. And separately:

2) It looks terrible.

What I'm not trying to do is say you shouldn't like it because it's designed for a younger audience (the reason you shouldn't like it is because it's terrible).

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I'm the one who was calling realistic military shooters shitty looking. And I like bright, colorful, cartoony graphics just fine. My point is you can have stylized and unrealistic and even kiddy games that don't look as terrible as Mario Galaxy and appeal to an audience over two years old. Most of the previous Mario games would be good examples.

If you don't think Mario Galaxy looks bad, maybe you can tell me whether you think it looks different from previous entries, as I do.

 

[Launcelot111]

Chopping up your post helps me organize my thoughts. Please don't interpret it as condescension. That would be bad.

I don't understand what you're saying. Everything you've shown from Mario Galaxy is cutesy fun, which you're alright with apparently. Nothing from Twilight Princess compares to the bizarreness of Majora's Mask (except those creepy as hell ooccoos). Your comment about the atmosphere of Twilight Princess not being as good is completely valid, but I don't blame that on the twilight creatures, who didn't strike me as that odd at all.

However, in your first post, you suggest that the imagery of modern Nintendo games are not what adults should be into, yet you now suggest that they are bizarre (and by extrapolation too weird for children). Many games that are beloved by adults capitalize on weird imagery (eg Psychonauts or the Persona games). Why should Nintendo be trashed for this?

Personally, I find Super Mario Galaxy 2 to be much better than Super Mario 64 in terms of gameplay and visual style. The cutesy characters you chide are little more than background characters to add flavor to bright and creatively designed levels. For the Zelda series, Nintendo has improved by leaps and bounds in designing temples, and the combat much more involved and interesting than the N64 iterations. That said, they miss out on creating the wonderful atmosphere of OoT, and they've never matched the awesomeness of OoT's ocarina songs, but modern Zeldas are very good games that compare unfavorably against the truly exceptional Ocarina of Time.

My problem with Nintendo these days is that while they're very capable of delivering outstanding entries for their marquee franchises, these games come years apart from each other, and they haven't been generating the support from lesser franchises or 3rd party developers to pick up the slack. You may disparage their style, which clearly can appeal to a younger audience, but I don't see it as kiddy but instead as a welcome breath of fresh air and an acceptance that their games are inherently absurd and thus don't have to be shown as serious at all.

There's nothing wrong with baby stuff or science fiction, it's all about where and how.

Sorry about the confusion. I actually have different complaints about recent Mario titles than I do about Twilight Princess. I think Mario looks terrible. Also, the art is clearly designed for very young babies. I think this is very different from the older Mario titles. They're all for kids, but there's a big difference between five years and five weeks.

As for Zelda, let me try another approach. Weird imagery is great and encouraged in games like Psychonauts because it's consistent with the tone of that game. But Zelda's tone is classic high adventure, and it has always been extremely consistent about this across all the titles I've played, including the original. So into this series, which is pretty committed to the whole high adventure thing at this point, enters an androgynous anthropomorphic cat / space alien with no genitalia who has a giant alien arm on it's head. It's riding a wolf and fighting the alien from Alien who had his face flattened by a frying pan and just left it. Both look influenced by anime, which is not consistent with this series so far or classic high adventure generally, and both look like they're from outer space, or the distant future, even to the point of having glowing neon lines they stole from Tron. The look of this series has definitely changed since the N64 titles and the new futuristic-space-alien-acid-trip-anime-Tron stuff really stands out when placed next to more classic Zelda visuals. It's jarring. It's even shocking. I don't see how anyone could possibly overlook it. It's like Link has been beamed up to the Enterprise and you're acting like nothing unusual has happened. Hey, they had a dungeon in a fish, so why not?

I haven't played Super Mario Galaxy 2, only the first title. Sorry if I led you to believe otherwise. In the first Mario Galaxy, there are lots and lots of examples like those stars and that bee. It's pretty consistently baby-oriented. You're obviously giving a very honest appraisal, and I appreciate that a lot. In both Mario and Zelda, I did notice improvements and I tried to at least allude to them. But in both cases I felt like I was losing as much or more than I had gained and the 'soul' just wasn't there. Neither game 'felt' right, and it was a combination of factors which caused this, not least of them the art. Obviously I think the art was terrible in both for different reasons.

Their games are undeniably kiddy. That's fine. Great, even. That's not what I'm here to criticize. All the old Mario and Zelda games were kiddy, and I love that shit. My nitpicks are derper than that.

You're not wrong in your criticisms, but I just question how much they affect the game and how I enjoy it. You focus on a few characters whose designs are not what an adult gravitates to, and that's a fair point, but they are stationary points that you run and jump by in a second. You never really talk with them or anything. Beyond that, the levels are interesting looking and well made, and minor control quirks aside, the space elements made for interesting levels. I'd forgotten the background people were there until you reminded me, and their presence doesn't detract from the fact that I think Mario Galaxy 2 is the best 3D platformer.

I'd never really reflected on how different the twilight part was from the rest of the series in Twilight Princess. Their presence was supposed to be foreign and nightmarish, and their design corresponds to that view, but their design is also very different from anything the series has ever done. At the same time, I wonder if Midna is that much weirder than a deku scrub or a goron but that Midna just doesn't have nostalgia on her side. However, I don't look at the twilight people for Twilight Princess's shortcomings. I look at the big map with so much dead space, the characters who are flat or annoying rather than endearingly weird, and the dull side quests.

I don't want to repeat myself, but Mario Galaxy is an excellent game in slightly to moderately age inappropriate trappings. I'm not sure what to do with your criticisms past accepting them then playing the game and enjoying it. The Zelda complaint is a more prominent part of the experience, but that one's much more of a "to each his own" situation. If things bother you, then they bother you, but I typically have no problem looking past certain aspects of presentation (for any game I play, not just Nintendo) if the game is fun to play

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

You're not wrong in your criticisms, but I just question how much they affect the game and how I enjoy it. You focus on a few characters whose designs are not what an adult gravitates to, and that's a fair point, but they are stationary points that you run and jump by in a second. You never really talk with them or anything. Beyond that, the levels are interesting looking and well made, and minor control quirks aside, the space elements made for interesting levels. I'd forgotten the background people were there until you reminded me, and their presence doesn't detract from the fact that I think Mario Galaxy 2 is the best 3D platformer.

I'd never really reflected on how different the twilight part was from the rest of the series in Twilight Princess. Their presence was supposed to be foreign and nightmarish, and their design corresponds to that view, but their design is also very different from anything the series has ever done. At the same time, I wonder if Midna is that much weirder than a deku scrub or a goron but that Midna just doesn't have nostalgia on her side. However, I don't look at the twilight people for Twilight Princess's shortcomings. I look at the big map with so much dead space, the characters who are flat or annoying rather than endearingly weird, and the dull side quests.

I don't want to repeat myself, but Mario Galaxy is an excellent game in slightly to moderately age inappropriate trappings. I'm not sure what to do with your criticisms past accepting them then playing the game and enjoying it. The Zelda complaint is a more prominent part of the experience, but that one's much more of a "to each his own" situation. If things bother you, then they bother you, but I typically have no problem looking past certain aspects of presentation (for any game I play, not just Nintendo) if the game is fun to play

In Mario Galaxy, you run into a ton of baby characters. It's usually for short moments at a time but it's pretty consistent throughout. If nothing else, you are constantly having your aesthetic sensibilities assaulted by the star people. They impact the overall look of the game. A platformer lives and dies by it's controls. They should be tight and responsive, not unwieldy, unpredictable and sluggish. A minor control quirk is a death blow. I haven't played Mario Galaxy 2.

Ah, yes, the inevitable ad hominim. This time it's the old 'argument from nostalgia' ploy I see. Deku scrubs and gorons? Come on. Please stop listing things, I get the point. I get what you're trying to do, but it doesn't matter how many fantasy creatures and locations you list. Just because Zelda has unrealistic characters doesn't mean anything and everything is consistent with it's style and themes. Lord of the Rings has trolls and goblins but don't tell me it wouldn't be weird if the Terminator showed up and machine gunned Saruman. You wouldn't be saying "oh, but Frodo could turn invisible with a ring, and that's the same as having Schwarzenegger show up to drop one liners". You wouldn't be listing every single fantasy element from LoTR to explain the presence of an android where it just doesn't belong. The twilight stuff could have been designed in a way that was foreign, nightmarish, and otherworldly without looking:

A) terrible and

B) totally outside the boundaries of themes established in the series so far.

In fact, in a well thought out fantasy world, everything will look otherworldly while contributing to the overall theme. See Morrowind for a conspicuous example.

The N64 Zelda games were great not only for their gameplay but also for their story, characters, art, presentation, and so on. I can overlook terrible art, terrible looking enemies and terrible atmosphere in lots of games but not in Zelda. I agree Twilight Princess has other problems. It just happens I was talking about the art in Nintendo games already and the change it represents.

 

[Launcelot111]

You're not wrong in your criticisms, but I just question how much they affect the game and how I enjoy it. You focus on a few characters whose designs are not what an adult gravitates to, and that's a fair point, but they are stationary points that you run and jump by in a second. You never really talk with them or anything. Beyond that, the levels are interesting looking and well made, and minor control quirks aside, the space elements made for interesting levels. I'd forgotten the background people were there until you reminded me, and their presence doesn't detract from the fact that I think Mario Galaxy 2 is the best 3D platformer.

I'd never really reflected on how different the twilight part was from the rest of the series in Twilight Princess. Their presence was supposed to be foreign and nightmarish, and their design corresponds to that view, but their design is also very different from anything the series has ever done. At the same time, I wonder if Midna is that much weirder than a deku scrub or a goron but that Midna just doesn't have nostalgia on her side. However, I don't look at the twilight people for Twilight Princess's shortcomings. I look at the big map with so much dead space, the characters who are flat or annoying rather than endearingly weird, and the dull side quests.

I don't want to repeat myself, but Mario Galaxy is an excellent game in slightly to moderately age inappropriate trappings. I'm not sure what to do with your criticisms past accepting them then playing the game and enjoying it. The Zelda complaint is a more prominent part of the experience, but that one's much more of a "to each his own" situation. If things bother you, then they bother you, but I typically have no problem looking past certain aspects of presentation (for any game I play, not just Nintendo) if the game is fun to play

In Mario Galaxy, you run into a ton of baby characters. It's usually for short moments at a time but it's pretty consistent throughout. If nothing else, you are constantly having your aesthetic sensibilities assaulted by the star people. They impact the overall look of the game. A platformer lives and dies by it's controls. They should be tight and responsive, not unwieldy, unpredictable and sluggish. A minor control quirk is a death blow. I haven't played Mario Galaxy 2.

Ah, yes, the inevitable ad hominim. This time it's the old 'argument from nostalgia' ploy I see. Deku scrubs and gorons? Come on. Please stop listing things, I get the point. I get what you're trying to do, but it doesn't matter how many fantasy creatures and locations you list. Just because Zelda has unrealistic characters doesn't mean anything and everything is consistent with it's style and themes. Lord of the Rings has trolls and goblins but don't tell me it wouldn't be weird if the Terminator showed up and machine gunned Saruman. You wouldn't be saying "oh, but Frodo could turn invisible with a ring, and that's the same as having Schwarzenegger show up to drop one liners". You wouldn't be listing every single fantasy element from LoTR to explain the presence of an android where it just doesn't belong. The twilight stuff could have been designed in a way that was foreign, nightmarish, and otherworldly without looking:

A) terrible and

B) totally outside the boundaries of themes established in the series so far.

In fact, in a well thought out fantasy world, everything will look otherworldly while contributing to the overall theme. See Morrowind for a conspicuous example.

The N64 Zelda games were great not only for their gameplay but also for their story, characters, art, presentation, and so on. I can overlook terrible art, terrible looking enemies and terrible atmosphere in lots of games but not in Zelda. I agree Twilight Princess has other problems. It just happens I was talking about the art in Nintendo games already and the change it represents.

I'm sorry, but I've forgotten what we're arguing about. You say that a platformer should be judged on its controls, and I think Mario Galaxy controls very well. In a thread in which we're judging Nintendo's merits these days, I think Mario Galaxy is a great game, and I don't think your gripes about the visual style are enough to say otherwise.

As for Twilight Princess, you can call ad hominem on my view of the twilight people all you want (not an ad hominem by the way), but I didn't feel their presence was more unusual than the giants of Majora's Mask. Their role in the story was crap, and the story as a whole was weak. Nonetheless, I feel that Nintendo has made several strides forward with Twilight Princess compared to OoT compared to only a couple steps back. Again, I feel Twilight Princess to be a successful game, and I don't judge the twilight people as enough to say otherwise. They're a reasonably sized part of the game, so you can focus on them all you want, but I can only speak for myself.

Again, we discuss Nintendo's merits. You clearly have your criticisms, but what do they mean for Nintendo at large, and how should we respond to them?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I'm sorry, but I've forgotten what we're arguing about. You say that a platformer should be judged on its controls, and I think Mario Galaxy controls very well. In a thread in which we're judging Nintendo's merits these days, I think Mario Galaxy is a great game, and I don't think your gripes about the visual style are enough to say otherwise.

As for Twilight Princess, you can call ad hominem on my view of the twilight people all you want (not an ad hominem by the way), but I didn't feel their presence was more unusual than the giants of Majora's Mask. Their role in the story was crap, and the story as a whole was weak. Nonetheless, I feel that Nintendo has made several strides forward with Twilight Princess compared to OoT compared to only a couple steps back. Again, I feel Twilight Princess to be a successful game, and I don't judge the twilight people as enough to say otherwise. They're a reasonably sized part of the game, so you can focus on them all you want, but I can only speak for myself.

Again, we discuss Nintendo's merits. You clearly have your criticisms, but what do they mean for Nintendo at large, and how should we respond to them?

We started talking about the change in art styles in Nintendo games over time, then you broadened the discussion to include gameplay.

The ad hominim I was referring to is here:

At the same time, I wonder if Midna is that much weirder than a deku scrub or a goron but that Midna just doesn't have nostalgia on her side.

This says nothing about the strength of my argument, only my suitability to make it. I can read between the lines, you know. I'm not offended, though.

For Mario, I'd say at this point each of our opinions are not only clear but well explored, so I propose we agree to disagree about that game. As for Zelda, the giants are pretty weird and out there but they still adhere pretty well to the established visual themes. I'm gonna try one more time. Would you say that this is a good visual to put in a Zelda game, or do you think it would be a bad idea?

[EDIT: There was supposed to be an image here of a Terminator from Terminator without skin and flesh.]

It's not just that the Twilight guys are weird, it's that their visual design is totally discordant with the series (and awful as all get out). It's getting very tiring trying to demonstrate the obvious like this.

 

[Launcelot111]

I'm sorry, but I've forgotten what we're arguing about. You say that a platformer should be judged on its controls, and I think Mario Galaxy controls very well. In a thread in which we're judging Nintendo's merits these days, I think Mario Galaxy is a great game, and I don't think your gripes about the visual style are enough to say otherwise.

As for Twilight Princess, you can call ad hominem on my view of the twilight people all you want (not an ad hominem by the way), but I didn't feel their presence was more unusual than the giants of Majora's Mask. Their role in the story was crap, and the story as a whole was weak. Nonetheless, I feel that Nintendo has made several strides forward with Twilight Princess compared to OoT compared to only a couple steps back. Again, I feel Twilight Princess to be a successful game, and I don't judge the twilight people as enough to say otherwise. They're a reasonably sized part of the game, so you can focus on them all you want, but I can only speak for myself.

Again, we discuss Nintendo's merits. You clearly have your criticisms, but what do they mean for Nintendo at large, and how should we respond to them?

We started talking about the change in art styles in Nintendo games over time, then you broadened the discussion to include gameplay.

The ad hominim I was referring to is here:

At the same time, I wonder if Midna is that much weirder than a deku scrub or a goron but that Midna just doesn't have nostalgia on her side.

This says nothing about the strength of my argument, only my suitability to make it. I can read between the lines, you know. I'm not offended, though.

For Mario, I'd say at this point each of our opinions are not only clear but well explored, so I propose we agree to disagree about that game. As for Zelda, the giants are pretty weird and out there but they still adhere pretty well to the established visual themes. I'm gonna try one more time. Would you say that this is a good visual to put in a Zelda game, or do you think it would be a bad idea?

Legend of Zelda: Judgement Day

It's not just that the Twilight guys are weird, it's that their visual design is totally discordant with the series (and awful as all get out). It's getting very tiring trying to demonstrate the obvious like this.

The Tron architecture is somewhat discordant with the rest of the series but not particularly with the non-twilight visual themes of Twilight Princess. The creatures themselves don't strike me as out of place. All in all, I don't see it as the incongruous mashup of styles you see. I know what you're trying to say, but I don't agree with you on that point. Again, agree to disagree.

My point about nostalgia is made because I came fairly late to the Zelda series, and all I knew coming in to OoT was that there was a kid with a sword and a castle (I played Smash Bros before I played a Zelda). The Gorons came out of left field for me, and I had about the same reaction with the twilight things. Not meant to be an attack on your ability to argue as much as a call for perspective.

Anyway, I concede that Nintendo's presentation is not perfect. I bring in gameplay because I feel that Nintendo games are typically judged mainly on that point as well as that Nintendo games have done nothing but improve on that front. Your argument in the first post I responded to was that no adult should be interested in the art of Mario Galaxy. I suppose I inferred that you felt no adult should play Mario Galaxy (I don't quite believe you feel that way now). I just don't understand how my relationship with Nintendo games is supposed to change if their art direction is declining but their games still play well