Stealing From the Next Generation

[incal11]

Stealing From the Next Generation

Geeks grow up, but that doesn't mean the things they love should.

Read Full Article

The oposite is also true, new geeks are born everyday, it doesn't mean that the things we love have to keep being mindlessly dumbed down for them.

This even though it ends in failure after failure ; like with Deus ex 2 which was horrible, and now rumors of Deus ex 3 having regenerating health and heavy focus on FPS action.
I'd like to think this is not just a fan's whining, I liked complicated and challenging games, with sometime a deep story, as they were.
"Appealing to a larger audience" is always a doomed effort, I despair at the single mindedness of the developers who keep doing that.

 

[MovieBob]

This is where I disagree with you. Some of the best works of fiction have come about because the writer took a concept beloved of childhood, and looked at it through an adult lense.

I can more-or-less get behind that, though in answer to your question re: DKR, I read through it again a few months back, and it still works for me less and less, and I pretty much lose the ability to take it seriously once the "Superman is a douche because I say so" business kicks in. If you haven't seen it, check out this link to an circa-1980s Alan Moore short making fun of Miller's writing style in "Daredevil": http://xrayspex.blogspot.com/2008/03/alan-moore-spoofs-frank-miller.html What's amusing is, most of these jokes could apply to stuff Miller is writing TODAY.

In any case, I don't so much have a problem with the "dark" stuff until it starts "replacing" the original model. I know it's nerd-blasphemy to say, but for the most part superheroes (just for one example) are a children's-fiction concept down to their core, in as much as they make no sense in an "adult" context. Batman makes PERFECT sense if your a ten year old: Why wear an elaborate, instantly-recognizable costume when your ultimately a stealth guy? "Because it's more awesome." Why keep all your gear in a giant cave UNDER your huge, roomy house where you live almost entirely alone? "Because you keep ALL your best stuff in your clubhouse, duh!" Even his psychology is juvenile: "Someone wronged me and got away with it, so I'm gonna go beat up everyone who's like him until I feel better."

From where I sit, that's why "adult" superheroes really only "work" as parody re: "Watchmen." (By the same token, you probably couldn't make a non-parody "children's version" of, say, "Se7en.") And I've enjoyed a lot of material in that regard, both for humor and for analysis. What I worry about is when those "alternate" dark versions end up supplanting the "original" version. Going back to Alan Moore for a moment, did you know he's flat-out "disowned" his in-continuity "Killing Joke" Batman story for some of the same reasons? He seems to blame himself for a lot of what "went wrong" in 90s comics.

 

[hexFrank202]

I think a lot of you are missing the point with your 'Bob bashing the hardcore again...' accusations. I saw nothing in the article where he said that Hardcore was stupid or whatnot,

Oh, well you might be right. But...

what I got out of it was, in essence: "it sucks that so many established franchises are being redone to be made dark and gritty and more mature, just because the producers are trying to target a specific demographic."

Yes this is closer to what he was really saying, and trust me, he's talked about THAT way too much too.

Look guys, you don't have to waste your time telling Bob how his argument here doesn't apply all of the time, or criticize the examples he used (although I agree that the story in main Mario Games have been generic for so long that it's not funny anymore), the fact-of-the-matter is (the way I see it anyway) that this week, he was so desperate for something to talk about that he threw together his regular "don't be too dark and realistic" presentation and changed-up the words here and there. Unfortunately, this time he didn't put it together as well as he usually did.

You want your disagreeing views to be 100%, completely, utterly destroyed? Watch the holy triforce of Game Overthinker episodes...

Why dickish hardcore gamers are the way they are (and what damage they're doing to themselves)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD2c4aEQ3OU
What dickish hardcore gaming is doing to the industry (and the worst thing that could possibly happen to it)
http://www.youtube.com/user/moviebob#p/u/29/9joAb4XMaUs
And finally, the Overthinker ends the console wars in ten minutes flat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByPcQBveWOA

PS: Bob, have you seen any of the Alice in Wonderland game on the DS? It's like, totally different than the movie, with a gorgeous minimalist cartoon art style that makes it possibly the best looking DS game ever. It has some wonky controls, but after playing it for an hour or two so far, I think you'd really like it.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Well this was a good column and I generally agree with most of it (as I usually do with Bob, sometimes to the point of fanboyism I must admit) but I do have 2 points to raise:

I'm awaiting my copy of Super Mario Galaxy 2 right now. In the broad strokes, Mario hasn't changed much since I first met him in 1986. What if he had? What if his face was just a bit more grim, Bowser just a bit more threatening, Princess Peach a bit more affectionate? I dunno. Might make a nice comic. Or a spinoff, even. Maybe. But as the Mario? No. It would be a betrayal of what he'd meant to me in the first place; and it'd be selfish of me to try and keep him for myself and deprive the next kid who hasn't found him yet. Especially for a stupid reason like "I don't want people looking at me weird when I ask for it at the store."

While I agree with the general sentiment here, I think Mario actually MIGHT benefit just a bit, maybe for just one game, by being just a BIT more like Bob suggests here. OK, there's no real need to make Mario scowl more, but years of constant failure when he only ever has a single simple objective have turned Bowser into a laughable parody of an evil mastermind- he was arguably more threatening back in Super Mario Bros 3. I'm not saying he has to bloodily murder innocent toads to show how "HARDCORE" he is, but what if he was simply rendered with a design slightly closer to the uber-powerful 'Giga-Bowser' from Smash Bros? And likewise, Peach in the main Mario games has become a parody of the "Distressed Damsel" archetype who EVERY game gets kidnapped by Bowser and sits around waiting for Mario to come rescue him so she can bake him a cake or give him a chaste kiss on the cheek at most. Again, I'm not suggesting she needs to get her tits out and start humping Mario's leg in gratitude, but maybe something that actually suggests a bit more of an actual RELATIONSHIP between the 2 would be nice- at least some more dialogue or something. Or possibly she could actually MARRY the poor sclub (making him Royal Consort rather than King, just for the sake of consistancy).

If that sounds like it still might be a bit of a dangerous move, consider that Disney is making Epic Mickey [http://gameinformer.com/mag/mickey.aspx] for the Wii and that's being met with considerable anticipation.

The next time you find yourself looking on some less-than-R-rated vestige of nerdity-past and wishing it could be more mature, ask yourself: In asking something to grow up, are you not also asking it to grow old? And if so, are you not also asking it, implicitly, to eventually die?
And what sort of person, in the end, wishes for their heroes to be dead?

While I get what you're saying here Bob, and I KNOW you didn't mean it this way and almost certainly would have rephrased this if you realized, but doesn't that line of argument sound disturbingly like what Joe Quesada used to justify 'One More Day' [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OneMoreDay] and his total rape of the entire Spider-Man canon? His desire to return Peter Parker "to his roots", make him "young and hip" again? He even accused fans who supported the Spider-marriage of "(wanting) him to grow old and die". The parallels were just so unnerving that I HAD to mention them.

 

[V8 Ninja]

I agree. I'm currently re-watching a TV show that I (sorta) grew up with, which is Digimon Tamers. The whole appeal to me is that it's childish and I can just enjoy its simple and straightforwardness.

 

[Saarai-fan]

I agree with you a lot on this article, Moviebob. I will make one exception though. TMNT, the latest Teenage Mutant Ninga Turtles and obviously more darker than the earlier 80's version, is a lot better than the 80's turtles. Much better storylines, characters, character development, and action. I even recently watched a special "Turtles Forever" TMNT movie where they met their 80's counterparts, and it did a great job of showing how ricidculous the 80's show was.

So yeah, having loveable franchises go darker is usually a bad idea. But I'd perfer the current Turtles show over the 80's one any day.

 

[RTR]

I hear you, man.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I can generally agree with Bob assuming of course that we are using the modern gaming definition of "mature". Violence for the sake of spectacle, cursing playing stand-in for lesser terms like "zounds" and the basic concept that the hero is always right and will almost certainly always triumph are not hallmarks of the mature game. Games that sink to such base diversions seek to do nothing more than present the premise that perhaps, somewhere, there might be a message worth considering in the blood soaked frames. This is not to say that such things cannot be entertaining, simply that the phrase "mature" is less applicable than juvenile (at best) or depraved (at the very worst).

But, given the way I respond to the various stories and worlds I've been presented I would like to see any number of properties be handled in a fashion legitimately considered to be mature. Any thematic value found in Rainbow Six: Vegas regarding terrorism are lost when the terrorists have no agenda save murder, where the plot is the work of a man passed over for a promotion and the game presents nothing more than an endless shooting gallery to blast through. Why would these men routinely be willing to clog the strip with their corpses if they were fighting for nothing more than gold?

When I play games, I tend to approach it from an analytical point of view. What makes the bad guys tick? Why precisely are they the villians? In your average game or indeed comic book, it would seem that the reasoning was little more than they drew the short straw in the asshole lottery. Dr. Doom has no greater reason to be the villian than the Thing afterall. In some cases, I'm forced to consider the absurdity of a particular plot point. Why precisely WOULD a PMC try to invade the United States? Why would Mercanries, people who fight for no cause save financial gain, be so fanitical in their pursuit of the mad scheme? How precisely did terrorists manage to hijack an aircraft carrier, when such a feat would require penetrating the air cover, disabling the entire support fleet and overpowering some 5,000 sailors and marines without the ship being scuttled in the process? In other cases, I find myself idly considering things the game doesn't even tangentially address. How does the ecology actually work in the Pokemon universe? Are Pokemon leveraged for military purposes or simply for sport?

In fact, were there to be a mature look at the Pokemon universe, there would indeed be tough questions to answer, not the least of which is the moral implications of binding an unwilling creature into servitude and placing it in brutal cage matches with other creatures. Truth be told, a society that believes it is utterly acceptable to send children unescourted into the wild in an attempt to capture creatures that can literally think you to death or spit fire or spray enough electrical energy to run a subway so they may capture these monsters and then seek out like minded individuals so they may partake in a sport that is certainly no better than dog-fighting is probably ripe with problems. What sort of social condition would allow for such activity to be so common, so acceptable?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

While I get what you're saying here Bob, and I KNOW you didn't mean it this way and almost certainly would have rephrased this if you realized, but doesn't that line of argument sound disturbingly like what Joe Quesada used to justify 'One More Day' [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OneMoreDay] and his total rape of the entire Spider-Man canon? His desire to return Peter Parker "to his roots", make him "young and hip" again? He even accused fans who supported the Spider-marriage of "(wanting) him to grow old and die". The parallels were just so unnerving that I HAD to mention them.

One More Day raped Spiderman literally, (Yeah, I understand the full implications of that statement) far more than the Batman, Superman, Transformers reboot.

Look at it: Everything you have worked, strived and battled over is torn from you in a moment where you have no real choice. Quesada needs removing from the industry for that.

 

[Chrono180]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think that kids need to be shown the way the world REALLY works, not the way it's portrayed in, say, Pokemon.
In cartoons people who make mistakes are often given second chances, when in the real world most mistakes can land you in jail, or stigmatize you for life, or trap you in a bad marriage, or any one of a thousand other bad fates. In cartoons the bad guys are punished and the good guys win, when in reality the bad guys can frequently emerge with minimal damage while good people find it much harder to get ahead in life. In cartoons people rarely compromise their beliefs, when in reality almost everyone has their price whether it be monetary or otherwise. In cartoons only the bad guys usually hurt people needlessly, while in reality most people are willing to hurt almost anyone for a quick buck.

Put simply, the lies cartoons tell our kids are not only misleading, but dangerous. Lying to kids in ways such as saying that "the world is a just place" or "People are inherently good" does nothing except make them more susceptible to getting hurt later on down the road. Feeding them a sugar coated version of the world is just as bad as letting them play Grand Theft Auto or whatever when they can't tell whats real and what is fiction. Things such as racism, injustice, murder, genocide, rape, etc are part of reality, and kids need to be taught about those things so they know what is real and how to prepare for the bad things in life. Yes, they may wind up scared but that's a acceptable reaction, after all, the world is a scary place.

Trying to maintain a child's "innocence" is basically trying to keep someone naive. The sooner we disillusion the nation's youth and show them the cold hard reality of life, the better.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Trying to maintain a child's "innocence" is basically trying to keep someone naive. The sooner we disillusion the nation's youth and show them the cold hard reality of life, the better.

We did that in the Victorian times. Most of us thought it barbaric at the time.

 

[Boba Frag]

Scooby and Shaggy were always strung out on meth. And the new Battlestar (which is what I assume you're referencing) is only about 10,000 times better than the original. Not joking.


2) You have to recognize what are already kind of adult themes. People assume that comics are inherently for kids, and that's not ENTIRELY wrong. But it's not entirely correct either. Batman, for example, is not an inherently childish concept. It is, when you strip away a lot of our assumptions, about a 10 year old kid who watches his parents die and, again boiling away a lot of stuff, goes completely off the wall crazy, dresses up like a Bat and starts punching criminals. Is it silly? Yes. Are there already adult concepts and stories working their way in? Oh yes.

Just some food for thought.

And delicious food for thought it is too.

I still haven't seen Ponyo, but you're absolutely right about Princess Mononoke. Watching my little brother's response to it, you realise just how grown up a film it really is.

And, eh, Bruce Wayne was 8 when his parents were murdered.... I'm sorry, I just turned into "That Pedantic Guy" lol

Another thing, while I agree that films like the Godfather explore themes that would be more suitable for adults, I don't think that UP in particular was actually restricted. It said some very real, painful things about age, regret, loss and the realisation that you were never able to follow your dreams.
A lot closer to the bone for parents watching that with their kids, I think.

 

[Boba Frag]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think that kids need to be shown the way the world REALLY works, not the way it's portrayed in, say, Pokemon.
..
Trying to maintain a child's "innocence" is basically trying to keep someone naive. The sooner we disillusion the nation's youth and show them the cold hard reality of life, the better.

Well, you're right... but children of eight cannot actually handle a lot of that. But they develop that as they grow older.
It's called adolescence and it's a complete balls of a thing to go through.

Can't say I'd do it all over again, but I can say I's gladly go back to my childhood for a day.

People, in an ideal world, enjoy their childhood, but mostly just survive their teens

 

[Steve the Pocket]

I think C.S. Lewis put it better than I ever could:

"Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."

Or again, The Dark Knight Returns. At the start of the eighties, Batman was a joke. The reason? Because all people thought of when they pictured Batman was the Adam West series and the older, camper-than-Graham-Norton comics. Frank Miller took a character written off by everyone, and showed people that the person they joked about and let their kids watch on the telly is actually a vicious psychopath devoted to vengeance, and who ultimately dresses up as a bat and beats up thugs because he's addicted to violence.

While I can understand what you are saying MovieBob, I can't agree. Things stagnate if they are kept the same. Maybe you can still enjoy Mario, but I sure as hell wouldn't mind seeing him doing something other than rescuing the same goddamn princess over and over again. Iconoclasm isn't a bad thing.

See, that's the thing: there's a difference between deconstruction, parody, iconoclasm as you call it, and turning a franchise grimdark permanently because that's what the audience wants to see. I can't vouch for The Dark Knight Returns since I haven't read it, but Watchmen (which Bob mentions in the article and, I assume, likes) was Alan Moore looking at the superhero genre and, basically, pointing out that it's ridiculous by showing the disturbing way it would play out in reality. VG Cats does the same thing to video games, frequently; even though it's played for laughs it's still deconstruction in a way. Let me go on the record as saying I enjoy both forms.

But here's the thing about deconstruction: after you've deconstructed something, you don't end up with a better thing, you end up with a pile of parts scattered on the floor. Instead of getting Moore's point about superheroes and looking to other genres for new ideas, the comic book industry got the idea that turning all their "heroes" into violent sociopaths was a cool idea, and thus the Dark Age began. And continued through the '90s because readers, apparently, liked it.

And this ties in with my next point...

I would like to watch the things I grew up with grow, and yes I would like to see them eventually die. I would like to see today's kids get their own heroes like Airbender, Xiao Lin Showdown, Pokemon, and others, and they too would like those things to grow with them, as they watch the kids they babysat get their own heroes which in turn grow, evolve, and die.

Currently geek fiction is in a constant state of purgatory, how many times does Lex Luthor have to try to take over the world, how many times does Link have to save Hyrule, how often does James Bond have to escape the overly elaborate and exotic death?

And yeah, I like Iron Man, and yeah I like Spiderman, but since they were never allowed to grow up we see them make the same mistakes they always do, the Marvel Universe will never get better, it will never get more diverse, it will never die, instead it will slowly turn into a complete zombie as the cultural icons like Spiderman pull readers into limbo with them, and no new characters will ever be allowed to find readers, and will never be able to grow and change.

Just as turning dark, gritty and angsty is different from deconstruction, it's also different from "growing up" and maturing. Some franchises lend themselves to gradually maturing, growing up and growing old before finally dying with dignity. Others, stuck too long in their tired old formulas and chained to a target audience equally resistant to change, should maybe just be shot. As in, deconstructed if there's entertainment value to be had from it, and either way discontinued to make room for new stuff. Because there's always room for new ideas in the world.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Young childhood was fun and awesome and I hope the young kids today can enjoy the same experiences... especially SO THAT THEY STAY AWAY FROM THE MATURE GAMES ONLINE.

Lol, I hear ya. If only to avoid the standard Xbox Live conversation of:

"Hey is there a girl on our team?"
"WTF? Who?
"Erm, 1K1LL3VRy1, I think."
"Hey, 1K1LL3VRy1, are you girl?"
"No I'm a boy"
"WTF dude, why do you sound so high pitched?"
"Erm, because I'm 12?"

On the other hand, those conversations usually have me in fits of laughter, but that's just me.

 

[zjspeed]

Rated M for Mature.

 

[zjspeed]

ESRB needs an I for Immature rating. Look at the two latest Game Informer magazine covers. Sheesh!

 

[Darmani]

first off, I like Wallet Chains and there already are hardcore pokemon derivations (heck mon and collecting games) Pokemon works because of its broad appeal and there is usually some dark or hardcore along the game's merchandise for fans who have such a bent.

2nd, I think that yes if Mario wasn't hamstringing itself on the nolstagia things wouldn't be so bad narratively. Mario 2 moved beyond that gotta save the princess and made a participant. MarioKart has included a more frightful and diversely more 'real' but still characterful elements. Moreover I like the idea of them well taken the characters to the next level. Mario incites speculation and awe. It *has* the capacity to do so while STILL being itself. Softballing the story does it a disservice (screw the waterpack when I heard Sunshine was going to be a divergence from Mushroom Kingdom proper to an island I rolled my eyes) Mario 3 advanced the story and elements from Mario 2 as much as Mario 1 from Mario 2. At the least the Princess was captured *later* in the game adding a sort of faux-dynamic environment while Mario acted a personal envoy and hero for the princess for the various kingdoms. Say again nothing of the rpgs which have included all sorts of story elements that can and can't work while, AGAIN still being Mario. Dress aside Toadstool/Peach didn't seem to to be sucked up into the fluffball in presentation and it would be nice to have the Mario 2 team at it again and work out a different dynamic especially if the simultaneous 4-op is to remain. I mean after all If Bowser and his kids can have a family with this weird group dynamic or even his kid with a weird father and son dynamic lets see what the Mario guys can do in the main installment.

Admittedly I'm thinking less bomberman act zero as implied by the cover and more Where the Wild Things Are or maybe Megaman Zero or Legends.

Think About it.

 

[Darmani]

"Bowser in SMB-1 was FUCKING SCARY. He lived in a grey castle with so much fire it looked like he is the ruler of hell himself. He was covered in spikes. And he had so many hammers it was really frightening. He was The Villain. And we, being kids, loved and hated him for that."

This is more of what I am talking about. Grasping at this and making it work. I'm not opposed to Bowser as the Villain. He's a turtle dragon. And the opening to SMG1 was just right scary and cute and exciting (at least we SAW the kidnapping and it looked AWE inspiring)

"And Peach? She also wasn't a dumb inconsiderate ***** that makes people want to kill her every time she opens her mouth to make her "cute" noise. No, she was a Princess, a girl worthy enough to travel through hell and back to save her. We haven't seen her all that much, so all we knew is that "hell, she must be awesome, if Mario wants to save her THAT much". For all we knew, she might've fucked Mario's brains out the very second game ended, Right there, in Bowser's castle, right on his still warm body. And I'm not saying that she did - but she could have. Because she wasn't yet turned into a dumb cake-eating trophy."

Uhm, I don't follow the sentiment Peach is inconsiderate or needs more sexuality. In the sense of a personality and humans with those will have behaviors and cues of romance, affection, and desire fine, but hugging and kissing (as implied with the meeting of them and the hearts way back when) seems perfectly fine and the spinoff series is sort of going there what with most of them being her initiation but like Kasumi Tendo she's being flanderized from nice to air-headed to hopeless. Hell she actually SPOKE and could crack a joke (endings of SMB1 & 3) She started as a trophy stepped from there and got shoved farther back than the start, incidental macguffin. I think it would be better to expand on her than push her back to cake-eating trophy and victim. I mean juggle it up somewhat Marios 1-3 did. Then again Mario for me is more the late Lou Albano and less Charles Martinet's less than entertaining, for me, version back when he was shilling at Club Nintendo stations in Target in the mid-nineties. I know it isn't his fault,I would replace the performer love his take on Wario which is just right so much as give him better to do, but mario could be less squeaky without losing Marioness I mean he's mr. Average. Yeah puton of adulthood is dumb but so is put on of childishness.)

Or as the poster I'm quoting pointed out. Don't just include it. Most spinoff and even the mainseries are getting better. I like the Turtle dragon as big dumb bully, creepy father, or even diabolic Monster Warlord. I how we expand on that while not losing. And with the fairytale adventure quality we have A LONG WAY TO GO, before we risk losing the all ages appeal of Mario if we can come out with Luigi's Mansion.

 

[internetzealot1]

This article is worthy of a brofist.