Modern Gamers Unimpressed by Miyamoto

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

While I don't think Miyamoto is nearly as relevant today as he was a couple console generations ago, he still holds my respect.

OP,this man was once all but a god. Yes he might be losing some steam, but to call him a talentless hack insults not only him, but the history of our medium. Shame on you.

Keoul:

pure.Wasted:

snip

It's nice to see someone actually argue with valid points instead of just raging out.
I actually agree with most of your point, never realized the story was so in-depth.

:D

But about the game mechanics, Battlefield did the whole vehicle dealio a year before MW2 (BF:BC was released 2008 CoD MW2 was released 2009) so does that really count as them being innovative or copy-cat? Now you could say that Mario was just copying other rpgs and that's a fair argument, But the way they did it was very different, sure it was turn based but not to the degree of final fantasy, you actually needed to press the right buttons and make the right combos to do the most damage. It was a breath of fresh air to the turn-based rpg genre. If you don't really get what I mean just watch the video I posted before and skip to the middle of the video. It looks pretty simple but later in the game attacks grew much more complicated (example of good difficulty scaling).

I've just been trying to show that although nintendo games are pretty much copy&paste, there are worse offenders out there

For me it's not so much about being the first to get somewhere, but simply realizing that the gaming medium is moving ahead, whether we like it or not. So we might as well help speed that process along, instead of getting in the way.

So even if MW isn't the first to do all these vehicle things - and you're absolutely right that it's not - what I appreciate is simply the fact that it's willing to admit that an FPS game no longer has to be just about a guy running around with a rifle. In fact it shouldn't be just that. There should be other things in it. And it can have a story. And it can have characters. And it can have Hollywood-like spectacle, and interesting ideas that throw gaming conventions out the window. And 10 years from now, they'll have tacked on other stuff to that list, as well.

The SuperStar Saga... y'know, it's nice to see Mario branching out, but at the same time this isn't really Nintendo saying "we understand that people expect more out of their games these days." They can make SuperStar Saga, and then go right back to making another Zelda title that is basically the same Zelda game they've been making for ten years.

What surprises me isn't that they keep doing this (why not? People keep giving them money), or that they can be hypocrites (everyone is), but that people keep giving them money. And I really wonder how much of that has to do with the games being that fun vs. simply the attachment our generation of gamers has for the earlier titles in these series, and their iconic characters. Many's the time I'll keep watching a TV show well past its expiration date simply because the earlier seasons were so good and I can't just stop now, I need to know what happens to these characters, regardless of how bad the writing has gotten, regardless of how formulaic the plots have become, etc.

Last I read, Miyamoto is only just now about to get back into some actual development, after having been mostly in supervising roles since the early Gamecube days.

Now, as for rehashing... with the exceptions of the occasional games like Super Mario Galaxy 2 and... well... the Pokémon series, Nintendo's franchise games tend to try to strike a balance between doing as many new things as possible while maintaining the recognizable worlds, characters and themes.

Take Super Mario Sunshine and compare it to the earlier games. Could you imagine a modern war game being relocated to a paradise island with a high-pressure water cannon as your primary weapon? These kinds of curveball changes simply don't happen in most modern franchises, because they're too tightly thematically bound to things we recognize from the real world.

But no matter. Different games for different tastes. I just wish they'd spend more time on games like Call of Duty, rather than pumping out one game every year. Provide their fans with some service and actually provide proper updates. (I also think the Pokémon series could use an overhaul, but the developers seem to insist on just sticking a new part or two on the same old game systems for every iteration... which is why I stopped playing after getting bored with the 3rd generation.)

EDIT:
Oh, as for the 3D Zelda games... each game since Ocarina of Time has had rather big improvements made to the battle systems, fairly radical changes to the art styles, wildly different settings, a variety of new weapons... and actual differing stories that haven't revolved around rescuing Zelda from imprisonment. The importance of the numbers 3 and 7 for temples and treasures and such are old fairytale tropes and part of the Zelda series' identity, along with the recurring (but frequently re-imagined) cast members.

EDIT2:
And really, OP? You thought you needed a "TL;DR" after four measly lines of text? That's... wow. I don't know what to say.

TL;DR:
Go back and read what I typed, you lazy bum.

TizzytheTormentor:

Zachary Amaranth:

TizzytheTormentor:
I don't hate Miyamoto, he merely offers input on what he thinks on the industry, even if he rehashs old titles, they sell very well and so, don't fix what ain't broke, no ones telling you to listen to him or play Nintendo.

Isn't it kinda hypocritical to endorse Miyamoto's rehashes as "don't fix what's not broke" when the argument that spurred this thing was a lack of innovation in modern games?

The rehash arguement has always confused me, It's like the people who say "Skyrim s too similar to Oblivion" What the hell do you people think a sequel is?!

It sells, so they keep making games like it, if you don't like it, go buy something else. I loved Kirby's Epic Yarn and that was innovative, despite everyone thinking otherwise, like Paper Mario!

JediMB:
Take Super Mario Sunshine and compare it to the earlier games. Could you imagine a modern war game being relocated to a paradise island with a high-pressure water cannon as your primary weapon? These kinds of curveball changes simply don't happen in most modern franchises, because they're too tightly thematically bound to things we recognize from the real world.

I think it's tough to imagine because modern war games don't really have iconic characters. You could plop Mario down anywhere and he'll still be Mario, because the concept of Mario is so ridiculous to begin with that it's equally ridiculous no matter where he is.

But plenty of games have done very successful genre shifts. Warcraft 2 was a pure RTS, whereas Warcraft 3 has a lot of RPG elements built right into the RTS gameplay, and it was still a straight sequel. The RPG elements aren't good in and of themselves, what makes them a good addition is that they allowed an actual story to emerge in the game. So apart from the "fun" of RTS (compared with "the fun" of platforming, etc), they're pushing the genre to be more than it's ever been. Not just better at the things it's already good at, the way Zelda gameplay mechanics are always tuned from game to game, but do things that previous games never could have done. Then the universe expanded with WoW, which progressed the story in a wholly new way. Or take Starcraft, the original is pure RTS, whereas SC2's gameplay is pure RTS with entirely RPG intermission segments. SC:Ghost was going to be a stealth FPS, and there's a chance that Titan is a SC MMOFPS. These last two aren't true sequels, but they're still taking advantage of new technology to tell new stories about their world.

You know what I'd love to play? Elder Scrolls: Pokemon. A Pokemon game with state-of-the-line graphics, visceral realtime combat, lots of characters to talk to and interact with in genuinely dramatic fashion, a narrative more interesting than "Blue beat the Gym Leader! Again!" but still has all those Pokemon I knew and loved. I'd buy that in a heartbeat. But they keep making the same game that I've already played. I don't want that Pokemon experience. I want a brand new Pokemon experience. And I would pay through the nose for it. And it could still be fun.

DragonStorm247:
While I don't think Miyamoto is nearly as relevant today as he was a couple console generations ago, he still holds my respect.

OP,this man was once all but a god. Yes he might be losing some steam, but to call him a talentless hack insults not only him, but the history of our medium. Shame on you.

I have to agree, that's a little harsh.

Everyone else's sequels to series I don't care for are stagnant and repetitive while the ones I like innovate with each iteration and receive criticism unfairly!

Seriously guys, fun is fun. Fun in the same vein as fun before is also fun.

Mario is Mario, CoD is CoD, Half life is Half life, Assassins Creed is Assassins creed, Halo is Halo and so on forever.

Each one I could levy the accusation of being too much the same and I would never be wrong if I choose to opinionate my standards to that level.

pure.Wasted:

You know what I'd love to play? Elder Scrolls: Pokemon. A Pokemon game with state-of-the-line graphics, visceral realtime combat, lots of characters to talk to and interact with in genuinely dramatic fashion, a narrative more interesting than "Blue beat the Gym Leader! Again!" but still has all those Pokemon I knew and loved. I'd buy that in a heartbeat. But they keep making the same game that I've already played. I don't want that Pokemon experience. I want a brand new Pokemon experience. And I would pay through the nose for it. And it could still be fun.

On a positive note, now that the WiiU is getting a (Somewhat) proper controller and actually taking advantage of modern technology instead of sitting in the past and pretending to be a modern system there is a good chance that we could well see such a game in the next generation.

I have to admit, I am a nintendo hater (probably pretty obvious with my posting history) but I promise, if they announced such a game I would drive down to the store, throw my money at the nearest clerk with enough force that it would be considered assault with a deadly weapon, and grab a WiiU with glee.

I'm unimpressed by all the developers these days, Miyamoto and the rest have just lost the plot. In terms of quality, they have been going backwards for awhile now, but I will never forget how amazing he was in the 90's and early 2000's.

He might as well keep making the sequels though. The fans have something to look forward to I guess, and it wouldn't get any better if he left altogether.

Meh, I don't particular care for Nintendo that much, I don't actively hate them either. I mean, its not like getting upset at whatever Miyamoto says, is gonna stop the money making Juggernaut that is Nintendo. Plus I kinda of agree with him I just haven't been to impressed or excited about gaming for about 2-3 years.

Nobody can stay innovative forever. Before Steve Jobbs passed away, everyone kept complaining that he just kept rehashing the iPhone over and over again; funny how that all changes when someone passes, isn't it? Honestly, throughout Miyamoto's career, he's still managed to be one of the most innovate minds in gaming, even if it has been a while since he had his last breakthrough success. While im really not that big of a Nintendo fan, it's a bit sad to see all the flack the guy gets after all he's done for the gaming community in his past. It sounds like a Vietnman war vet story, strangely.

But i guess it just comes down to how you judge someone's value. Do you base it off how much they contribute now, or how much they once contributed before?

I Can see the points of both sides so im in no mans land about this :P

Batou667:

zachusaman:
theres a big difference here.
look at the last 4 call of duty games, then look at the last 4 zelda games. notice anything?
tell me which one is a rehash.

One of these series relies on innovation and an iterative raising of stakes and expectations between each instalment. The other series relies on motion control gimmicks, flip-flopping art direction and handheld ports of more-successful games from the late 90s to maintain a thin facade of relevance.

Can you guess which is which?

Sort of getting in here guys...
One of you clearly is CoD fan and the other a Zelda fan. Personally I like the Zelda games better than CoD but aren't both games doing the same thing?
If you grind it down CoD = shoot enemy and get job done while Zelda = Become a hero and save princess/friend/world. Both games are changing enough in each installment to make them new even if they rely on the same basic things what they started out from.

Raika:
The last time this talentless hack made anything that was in any way new or original was in the early 2000s. He's been coasting on nostalgia ever since there were video games old enough to be nostalgic about. It makes sense that he'd shit on newer titles that have much more to say for themselves than his constant rehashes of old titles, especially given how obsessed he is with himself, but I figured I'd just take the opportunity to point out that the Michael Jackson of video games is about as relevant in this day and age as a corded rotary telephone.

tl;dr: Miyamoto shitting on modern games is pretty obvious compensation for how little anybody cares about him. It's Donkey Kong Country all over again.

Are you serious? Please tell me you are doing the-thing-that-I-can't-say-but-it's-writing-things-to-purposefully-annoy-people. You can't seriously believe that Miyamoto is a talentless hack. He is an old man and it is understandable that he has lost his creative drive. That doesn't justify you shitting on him from a great height in this way.

There are a million things wrong with this industry right now, and Miyamoto's lack of creativity hardly registers on the scale.

well nintendos been dead to me for a while..in fact I never really liked it in the first place

pure.Wasted:

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that he mentored Satoshi Tajiri who went on to create Pokemon. Pokemon's been doing "that Activision thing" since 1996. They make Activision look like newbies. Literally their first outing was creating three nearly identical games! And although the expressed aim was for the "Reds to trade with the Blues," we all know how many Reds ended up convincing their parents to just buy the Blues, too. Cha-ching. Then Yellow came out, which featured fewer improvements than is typical for a CoD title. Then Gold and Silver, which again did the Red/Blue thing, and were basically the equivalent of CoD3 jumping to CoD4. In some ways more changed (more new Pokemon than new guns), in other ways less changed (completely new engine for CoD4, same old sprites for Pokemon). And so on and so forth; it's been almost 20 years and the games have evolved less than CoD in half that time.

You have never played Pokemon, did ya? It goes through a shitton of changes with every installment (most mentionworthy the changes in storing mechanics through wich natures and abilities were added and because of that you could not transfer your old Pokes).

Pokemon develops on the technical side of all things. It is not "just new engine", it changed and improved mechanics with every generation.

I'm unimpressed by you... Do you think you have more imagination than him? Maybe you should be working in Nintendo instead...

Now seriously, the guy created some of the most playable and fun games ever. Even if he never makes a game again, he's part of gaming history.

Clive Howlitzer:
Japanese developers are still relevant? What?

More than US :) Some of us don't think their country is the centre of universe.
Look at the most sold games, most of them are from Japan.

Vivi22:

pure.Wasted:
I think he means technological innovation. As in, CoD is necessarily going to keep changing and getting better as access to new technology becomes more mainstream.

I don't think that's what he meant at all, but even if it was, COD has been using the exact same engine with only the most minor tweaks since COD4 at least. Maybe longer, but I'm not as familiar with the older games. It's tech is years behind the cutting edge in the industry at this point.

As to the discussion of Miyamoto, I completely agree that he's been coasting on a wave of nostalgia for years. I don't want to take anything away from what that man did for modern gaming and game design. He not only invented more genres than other developers can shake a stick at, he also made sure that when he did come up with something new he did it right. But he's spent the last decade at least riding that wave of success with no progress to show for it. In fact, many of the rehashes of his most successful and loved games take some very major steps backwards in terms of quality and good design from their predecessors. Which is absolutely not to say that he perfected these the first time around and there's nothing to be improved. It's that he and the people at Nintendo working on his classic franchises stopped having the necessary spark of creativity to improve on their work, or to see how others have improved on it and build from there, years ago.

Disagree, Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 are some of the best games ever and they are from 2007 and 2010. Zelda Skyward Sword may have disapointed some people due to the controls, but is still one of the best games of 2011, for me it was the best.

Anoni Mus:

Clive Howlitzer:
Japanese developers are still relevant? What?

More than US :) Some of us don't think their country is the centre of universe.
Look at the most sold games, most of them are from Japan.

Vivi22:

pure.Wasted:
I think he means technological innovation. As in, CoD is necessarily going to keep changing and getting better as access to new technology becomes more mainstream.

I don't think that's what he meant at all, but even if it was, COD has been using the exact same engine with only the most minor tweaks since COD4 at least. Maybe longer, but I'm not as familiar with the older games. It's tech is years behind the cutting edge in the industry at this point.

As to the discussion of Miyamoto, I completely agree that he's been coasting on a wave of nostalgia for years. I don't want to take anything away from what that man did for modern gaming and game design. He not only invented more genres than other developers can shake a stick at, he also made sure that when he did come up with something new he did it right. But he's spent the last decade at least riding that wave of success with no progress to show for it. In fact, many of the rehashes of his most successful and loved games take some very major steps backwards in terms of quality and good design from their predecessors. Which is absolutely not to say that he perfected these the first time around and there's nothing to be improved. It's that he and the people at Nintendo working on his classic franchises stopped having the necessary spark of creativity to improve on their work, or to see how others have improved on it and build from there, years ago.

Disagree, Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 are some of the best games ever and they are from 2007 and 2010. Zelda Skyward Sword may have disapointed some people due to the controls, but is still one of the best games of 2011, for me it was the best.

I don't think my country is the center of the universe, I just haven't bought a Japanese developed game in forever. Partly because I am a PC gamer exclusively now and they don't send a lot of releases my way.
Anyway, I wasn't being entirely serious although I'll admit I can't play a Mario game anymore. It just doesn't hold my attention like it did when I was a little kid. I guess I am also not a big fan of beating franchises into the ground. I like when a game is a new IP.

TheKasp:
You have never played Pokemon, did ya? It goes through a shitton of changes with every installment (most mentionworthy the changes in storing mechanics through wich natures and abilities were added and because of that you could not transfer your old Pokes).

Pokemon develops on the technical side of all things. It is not "just new engine", it changed and improved mechanics with every generation.

I have in fact played Pokemon Blue and Pokemon Black, and "beaten" Yellow and Gold, insofar as any Pokemon game can be beaten at all. So I might not be an expert, but I think it's fair to say I'm more than qualified to judge whether the game has actually changed over the years.

Honestly, the technical improvements you're talking about are next to meaningless. The only people who are going to really notice them and care are Pokemon fans to begin with, and if you ask around, I'm sure a Call of Duty fan will be able to match your list of improvements tit-for-tat. As only a casual observer of CoD, I know that perks didn't always exist, unlockable weapons in multiplayer didn't always exist, weapon attachments didn't always exist, killstreaks didn't always exist, deathstreaks didn't always exist, there was a time when vehicles actually played a role in the multiplayer.

At the end of the day, Pokemon is still basically the same game it was 20 years ago. It looks a tiny bit better (not that much), some Pokemon only show up at night or on Mondays, but there's been no attempts to turn it into a world, there's been no attempts to give it amazing graphics that would blow everybody away, there's been no attempts to create a great story with believable and compelling characters, or imbue the game with deeply resonating ideas and themes it never had in the past.

In 16 years of gaming FPS games have gone from

image

to

image

In that same timeframe, Pokemon games have gone from

image

to

image

You're really going to sit there, with a straight face, and tell me that's not only a fair comparison, but Pokemon actually pulls out in the lead? Really?

(and no, graphics aren't the only important thing out there, but they're pretty damn important. Besides, I've already gone into lots of detail about the innumerable ways in which Call of Duty has redefined FPS storytelling (and to a smaller extent all gaming storytelling), and continues to do so game-in, game-out. Pokemon? I'd love to hear that argument.)

Isn't it pretty clear Miyamoto hates the "hardcore" crowd by now? I mean, he knows videogames are toys and shouldn't be taken seriously. Him "shitting on modern games" just means he wants people to stop taking games so goddamn seriously all the damn time.

pure.Wasted:

In 16 years of gaming FPS games have gone from

image

to

image

Unfortunately :p

But I do agree with you that pokemon has been pretty static - I mean, seriously, my 10-year-old self had much better ideas to change the game (dynamic monster ecologies, dynamic trainer behavior, better a.i., and so on) than the direction development seems to have taken. Just think about what could be done in those games with procedural level generation alone.

pure.Wasted:
snippedisnip

Heh, funny comparison of pictures. Also funny that you compare a whole GENRE to one single line of games.

I'd like to point out that Pokemon had 5 stages of improvements in the game series. Unlike CoD they don't release each game with promises of "improvements" but always a bunch of games (3-5) which are one generation.

Now lets compare something that does fit in better:

Yeah, looks way more similiar. Actually, for a cynical asshole like me both look nearly identical because MW3 actually looks like shit. You come up with perks (a MP only thing), I counter with abilities which have not existed in GEN 1 and 2 and 3 and are mostly a MP thing. Weapon attachments? How about items like choice scarf, band, specs or life orb, leftovers etc which can change the same Poke (aka same IV and EV) so drastically that it plays completely different?

The changes of Pokemon are more subtle... Unless you go into GEN V which was also a huge graphics improvement. 3d environments, moving sprites, I would put it on the same level as the engine change of CoD.

The other changes win in my eyes because they don't force themselfs on the casual player. The casual does play through Pokemon, has his fun and does not have to find out how to EV train his Poke, what items it should hold with what moveset and in what team it does work best.

Yes, I sit here with a straight face and say it: Pokemon has developed in those years as far as FPS did. In the 5 gens Pokemon developed more in terms of aesthetics than CoD did. It developed at least as much in terms of mechanics as CoD did. But since I am not comparing just graphics like you do I see this "discussion" as a lost cause.

PS: CoD redefined storytelling? For their own series maybe, call me when they finally can let the NPCs look into my DIRECTION when they're talking to me and not to the spot where the developers think I'd stand. Call me then they achieve the same level of facial animation and subtle storytelling like HL2. Because this three things are the stuff an FPS from 2004 did better than your praised series.

Vault101:
well nintendos been dead to me for a while..in fact I never really liked it in the first place

What... D=
I loved Nintendo, especially as a kid...

You're dead to me T__T

Okay not really, but I wanted to say that.

Elmoth:

wooty:

Elmoth:

Hah, if Zelda rules supreme something like the Witcher must be the fucking emperor of the multiverse. If you can't tell I've never found a Nintendo game worth playing.

Then you've neve played a Nintendo gme then. I'm not even a nitendo fan per se, but fun is fun and their games are fun.
Screw the witcher, I guess? Was it good? I honestly dont know. If you think its wort playing then I might pick it up.

The Witcher 1 is my favorite rpg of all time. Heck it's my favorite game of all time.

Ok, now that I'm more sober I guess I will try out the Witcher at some point. I remember hearing some hoo-ha about the second one but not a lot about the first, aside from Yahtzees review of it, but we all know a pinch of salt should be applied to them.

Anoni Mus:
Disagree, Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 are some of the best games ever and they are from 2007 and 2010. Zelda Skyward Sword may have disapointed some people due to the controls, but is still one of the best games of 2011, for me it was the best.

It's all fairly subjective, but I hated Mario Galaxy. Mario Galaxy 2 was a bit better than it since it did away with a lot of the tacked on motion control elements, had better level variety, and tended more towards larger levels some of the time, but both still had similar problems. Too many levels are extremely small, and almost every level is extremely linear. Often you couldn't get stars out of order if you wanted to as many simply aren't available unless you choose them when selecting the level, effectively killing any exploration, which was one of the best parts about Mario 64 and even some of the earlier 2D games like Mario 3 and World.

I haven't played Skyward Sword yet, but the last console Zelda I did play, Twilight Princess, was utterly horrible. It wasn't too bad when you're actually exploring the overworld on horseback or working your way through dungeons, even if all of that was almost a carbon copy of the gameplay from OoT, but the fact that they made you suffer through an hour or more of tutorial boredom before you get to the real game and included some stupid wolf form fetch questing made the game an absolute pain to get into let alone continue playing. I didn't even finish it actually. I think I quit a few dungeons in because I was sick of playing a bad OoT rehash. If they're going to keep rehashing a 3D Zelda, they could at least do everyone a favour and make it a Majora's Mask clone.

Clive Howlitzer:

Anoni Mus:

Clive Howlitzer:
Japanese developers are still relevant? What?

More than US :) Some of us don't think their country is the centre of universe.
Look at the most sold games, most of them are from Japan.

Vivi22:

I don't think that's what he meant at all, but even if it was, COD has been using the exact same engine with only the most minor tweaks since COD4 at least. Maybe longer, but I'm not as familiar with the older games. It's tech is years behind the cutting edge in the industry at this point.

As to the discussion of Miyamoto, I completely agree that he's been coasting on a wave of nostalgia for years. I don't want to take anything away from what that man did for modern gaming and game design. He not only invented more genres than other developers can shake a stick at, he also made sure that when he did come up with something new he did it right. But he's spent the last decade at least riding that wave of success with no progress to show for it. In fact, many of the rehashes of his most successful and loved games take some very major steps backwards in terms of quality and good design from their predecessors. Which is absolutely not to say that he perfected these the first time around and there's nothing to be improved. It's that he and the people at Nintendo working on his classic franchises stopped having the necessary spark of creativity to improve on their work, or to see how others have improved on it and build from there, years ago.

Disagree, Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 are some of the best games ever and they are from 2007 and 2010. Zelda Skyward Sword may have disapointed some people due to the controls, but is still one of the best games of 2011, for me it was the best.

I don't think my country is the center of the universe, I just haven't bought a Japanese developed game in forever. Partly because I am a PC gamer exclusively now and they don't send a lot of releases my way.
Anyway, I wasn't being entirely serious although I'll admit I can't play a Mario game anymore. It just doesn't hold my attention like it did when I was a little kid. I guess I am also not a big fan of beating franchises into the ground. I like when a game is a new IP.

Good for you, keep playing non Japanese games, I keep playing great games, no matter where they're from.

TheKasp:
Heh, funny comparison of pictures. Also funny that you compare a whole GENRE to one single line of games.

Why not? I'm talking about the big picture, video game making philosophy. Specific examples are only there to illustrate the point. If CoD existed 15 years ago, that's exactly what it would have looked like. Because that's how every single FPS looked. That is the leap they have made, because for all their faults (and there are many, just as there are many faults with platformers, action-adventure games, and everything else) they understand that technology marches on, and it's silly not to take advantage of that.

Yeah, looks way more similiar. Actually, for a cynical asshole like me both look nearly identical because MW3 actually looks like shit.

I'm not talking about aesthetics, and I'm not saying that CoD is a better game. If we were going to argue which visual style is prettier or which game was better we'd be here all day, every day, forever. I'm saying that CoD has more ambition and it's always pushing itself to try harder and harder, and I appreciate the fact that by doing this it's pushing many other game makers to try harder and harder, to match it, too. I'm talking about the fact that the graphics engine (and game engine) for CoD titles has become fundamentally more complicated to take advantage of new technologies as they emerge, whether you appreciate this technology is more or less irrelevant. Complex lighting, complex physics, incredibly high-polygon models, fluid animations, water physics and reflections, complex environmental effects like fog or dust or sunlight. You might not like CoD, you might not think it makes great use of all these technologies, but the fact is it's trying, and it's pushing the industry forward by saying that there's no reason games shouldn't look as real as real life, there's no reason any game, no matter how simplistic its core gameplay, shouldn't try to pack a visceral adventure or have an actual plot with actual characters with actual personalities.

You come up with perks (a MP only thing), I counter with abilities which have not existed in GEN 1 and 2 and 3 and are mostly a MP thing. Weapon attachments? How about items like choice scarf, band, specs or life orb, leftovers etc which can change the same Poke (aka same IV and EV) so drastically that it plays completely different?

The changes of Pokemon are more subtle... Unless you go into GEN V which was also a huge graphics improvement. 3d environments, moving sprites, I would put it on the same level as the engine change of CoD.

The other changes win in my eyes because they don't force themselfs on the casual player. The casual does play through Pokemon, has his fun and does not have to find out how to EV train his Poke, what items it should hold with what moveset and in what team it does work best.

You said that Pokemon has all these subtle "technical" (I think you meant mechanical) changes. The implication, if I understood you right, was that CoD has not had such changes. I merely set out to prove this suggestion false by listing a couple of examples.

Giving me counter-examples serves no purpose, because I never said that Pokemon has had no changes, and from my own experience with the franchise I know plenty. I merely said that they have been minor ones, and CoD has also had many minor changes, so discussing minor changes is pointless. We'll never settle on which one has more. What we can settle on is which one has had more major changes, and that's without a doubt CoD.

Yes, I sit here with a straight face and say it: Pokemon has developed in those years as far as FPS did. In the 5 gens Pokemon developed more in terms of aesthetics than CoD did. It developed at least as much in terms of mechanics as CoD did. But since I am not comparing just graphics like you do I see this "discussion" as a lost cause.

PS: CoD redefined storytelling? For their own series maybe, call me when they finally can let the NPCs look into my DIRECTION when they're talking to me and not to the spot where the developers think I'd stand. Call me then they achieve the same level of facial animation and subtle storytelling like HL2. Because this three things are the stuff an FPS from 2004 did better than your praised series.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think Call of Duty is some amazing, revolutionary game. It's not. Pokemon is simply that much worse.

I've also specifically said that graphics are NOT my only concern. I addressed this EXTENSIVELY in post #63, going on and on and on about how CoD storytelling has improved in meaningful ways over time.

Go read the plot of Doom 2. Guy lands on a planet where everybody is dead. He picks up a gun. He fights monsters. That's the plot. The end. 10 years later, go read the plot of Modern Warfare 1.

Or here, better yet, go to wikipedia and read the Plot subheading for Modern Warfare 2, and then read the Plot subheading for Pokemon Black/White. Compare them! Do they both sound like plot synopses to you? Here is an excerpt from MW, about 1/6 of the total written up:

"Allen is later sent on an undercover mission in Russia for the CIA under the alias "Alexei Borodin", joining Makarov in a massacre of civilians at the Zakhaev International Airport in Moscow. However, Makarov has been aware of Allen's identity and kills him during extraction, leaving his body behind to spark a war between Russia and the United States. Enraged by what was believed to be an American terrorist attack, Russia declares war on the United States by lanching a massive surprise invasion on the East Coast of the United States after bypassing its early warning system, revealing that the ACS module had already been compromised before its retrieval."

That is a plot. Here is an excerpt from Pokemon, about 1/4 of what is written up:

"Like previous Pokémon games, Black and White's gameplay is linear; the main events occur in a fixed order. The protagonist of Pokémon Black and White is a teenager who sets out on a journey through Unova to become the Pokémon master. At the beginning of the games, the player chooses either Snivy, Tepig, or Oshawott as their starter Pokémon as a gift from Professor Juniper. The protagonist's friends, Cheren and Bianca, are also rival Pokémon Trainers who occasionally battle the player. The player's primary goal is to obtain the eight Gym Badges of Unova and ultimately challenge the Elite Four of the Pokémon League, and its Champion, to win the game."

That is not a plot. It is a premise, and it is gameplay mechanics. The following paragraph talks a little about a slew of encouters you'll have with the mysterious N (which is only a slight improvement over the "couple of encounters with Team Rocket" they already had in Yellow, 10 years ago), but apart from that, there is no story. There is merely you catching Pokemon and battling trainers. That's not a story.

That's graphics and story, now, where CoD has shown more innovation. Even so, those aren't the only things a game can be ambitious about. There's immersion, creating a believable, atmospheric world full of details that make it come alive. Like... Bioshock, for example, or Red Dead Redemption or LA Noire. They could try this, but they don't want this either, they're content with a simplistic and superficial world that could not take itself less seriously if it tried. I'm not focusing on any one thing. I'm saying that they fail in everything. It is complete and utter stagnation. Look at Bioshock Infinite, a straight sequel to Bioshock... with a completely different world, with a completely different plot, with completely different, compelling characters, with a completely different atmosphere. Never mind all its gameplay differences and the completely new engine it uses.

Meanwhile, Pokemon is coming out with Black and White... 2.

Anoni Mus:

Clive Howlitzer:

Anoni Mus:
More than US :) Some of us don't think their country is the centre of universe.
Look at the most sold games, most of them are from Japan.

Disagree, Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 are some of the best games ever and they are from 2007 and 2010. Zelda Skyward Sword may have disapointed some people due to the controls, but is still one of the best games of 2011, for me it was the best.

I don't think my country is the center of the universe, I just haven't bought a Japanese developed game in forever. Partly because I am a PC gamer exclusively now and they don't send a lot of releases my way.
Anyway, I wasn't being entirely serious although I'll admit I can't play a Mario game anymore. It just doesn't hold my attention like it did when I was a little kid. I guess I am also not a big fan of beating franchises into the ground. I like when a game is a new IP.

Good for you, keep playing non Japanese games, I keep playing great games, no matter where they're from.

I do play great games no matter where they come from. I don't pre judge a game because it is from a Japanese developer. I am just stating the trend in my gaming purchases lately based on games I have believed to have been of quality. This is amplified by the fact I mostly just play on PC now, which limits my exposure to Japanese games even further.
Where a game is made has no bearing on my decision to purchase it, though.

pure.Wasted:

I'm guessing I'm the troll? (if not, disregard...)

If you'll note, the guy I was responding to didn't use Mario Galaxy as his example. I don't know why in the world not, because I happen to agree with you that it's by far the most innovative title in the series (in many Nintendo series, in fact) in recent years.

But gameplay is just one area to improve in. Others are story, characters, graphics, physics, the depth and believability of the world in which you're being immersed, spectacle, themes and ideas. Would you really go so far as to say that Mario Galaxy is leading a gaming revolution on any of these fronts? I'd say that by today's standards it's not even competent on most.

The troll comment was aimed at OP

OK well i'll tackle the area's one by one and explain why I think Mario has gone the route he has
We know the gameplay is greatly improved so skip to

Story, The problem with adding in a complex story is that EVERY gamer is accustomed to the franchise and knows the route story is always Save the princess (except certain titles), I think the problem lies with the franchise having been an 8 bit game originally, where most games' story was as complex as Save the Princess, Rescue the kingdom etc and any change to that lore can end in repeat customers being turned off
Characters suffers from the same as above

Graphics, no need to argue that these have improved, Mario has never looked better than in Galaxy and has been a progression along with the hardware since SMB1

Physics, the varying ways mario can interact in Galaxy was a lot more varied compared to older titles the gravity effects alone were groundbreaking for the series

Depth/believability of the world, This is always going to be an issue with a game as surreal as mario, however everything inside the world is cohesive and doesn't break the settings pre-established themes.

I think i've covered the rest of the points within those categories. I believe the Mario franchise is pushing the industry forward because if you can list ONE 3D platformer that is up to the same quality I will concede my point

Vivi22:

Anoni Mus:
Disagree, Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 are some of the best games ever and they are from 2007 and 2010. Zelda Skyward Sword may have disapointed some people due to the controls, but is still one of the best games of 2011, for me it was the best.

It's all fairly subjective, but I hated Mario Galaxy. Mario Galaxy 2 was a bit better than it since it did away with a lot of the tacked on motion control elements, had better level variety, and tended more towards larger levels some of the time, but both still had similar problems. Too many levels are extremely small, and almost every level is extremely linear. Often you couldn't get stars out of order if you wanted to as many simply aren't available unless you choose them when selecting the level, effectively killing any exploration, which was one of the best parts about Mario 64 and even some of the earlier 2D games like Mario 3 and World.

I haven't played Skyward Sword yet, but the last console Zelda I did play, Twilight Princess, was utterly horrible. It wasn't too bad when you're actually exploring the overworld on horseback or working your way through dungeons, even if all of that was almost a carbon copy of the gameplay from OoT, but the fact that they made you suffer through an hour or more of tutorial boredom before you get to the real game and included some stupid wolf form fetch questing made the game an absolute pain to get into let alone continue playing. I didn't even finish it actually. I think I quit a few dungeons in because I was sick of playing a bad OoT rehash. If they're going to keep rehashing a 3D Zelda, they could at least do everyone a favour and make it a Majora's Mask clone.

Of course it's subjective, but I don't mind people saying they don't like Mario or Zelda, veryone has their own tastes, I do mind when they call them shit or bad games, because they aren't.
On Gameranking and Metacritic both Mario galaxy are on top10, that has to mean something.

Miyamoto has provided more joy and happiness in my life than I can possibly quantify.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to collect as many stars and save as many princesses as I want, thank you very much.

image

pure.Wasted:

In 16 years of gaming FPS games have gone from

image

to

image

In that same timeframe, Pokemon games have gone from

image

to

image

You're really going to sit there, with a straight face, and tell me that's not only a fair comparison, but Pokemon actually pulls out in the lead? Really?

Considering the capability gap between something like the DS, which fits in your hand, and at least an Xbox 360 and your graphics whinge sort of falls on its arse: thats like complaining that a Honda Civic isn't as good as a Ferrari F430 by virtue of both having engines, four wheels and a steering system.

Now, I would have liked to see a greater graphical improvement in my Pokemon games, but if they chose to stay a generation behind so they could fit a larger world in, which in Black and White I'd say they have, then I'm cool with that. However this one way I find Pokemon and Call of Duty are actually similar: both have refined the basic gameplay of their respective genre to a fine art.

As for Myiomoto, well, I've played the man's games and they have brought me great joy. He's made his mark and paid his dues. And as a man in the industry, he probably knows more on the subject than you or I.

Anoni Mus:
Of course it's subjective, but I don't mind people saying they don't like Mario or Zelda, veryone has their own tastes, I do mind when they call them shit or bad games, because they aren't.
On Gameranking and Metacritic both Mario galaxy are on top10, that has to mean something.

No, I would go so far as to say that some of the design choices they made in those games were objectively bad. Case in point, tiny planets in Mario Galaxy leading to the controls being a little confusing at best, bringing back the fire flower but making it so it can only fire in 8 directions if you haven't locked on to something despite the game being 3D, not to mention pairing it with an auto-lock feature that had terrible target priority. And of course there's the tacked on motion controls, and the removal of almost all camera control, even in the larger worlds where it's desperately needed at times. As for Zelda, we've had to suffer through such nonsense as increasingly long and boring introductory sections (whatever happened to handing me a sword and telling me to get going?), the god awful sailing in Wind Waker, and Wolf form in Twilight Princess.

But when it comes right down to it, no one is saying these games are absolute shit. What is being said though is that Nintendo hasn't made any real progress with these titles since the N64, which is a damn shame since they basically defined these genres in 3D when they did them the first time around. But since then, everything they've tried to tack on has not only largely failed to add to the experience, in many cases they actively take away from it. At their best the modern Nintendo franchises can still be enjoyable, but those good parts are largely still rehashes of 14-16 year old games. There's no creativity or innovation left in them.

As for review scores, I have next to no faith in them. Mainstream reviewers are rarely qualified to do their jobs assuming they did them right and weren't subject to editorial mandate and the whims of the marketing department who takes money from these companies to pay their pay cheques. There's a huge conflict of interest there, and to simply ignore it and assume that reviewers don't lie ever is silly. Especially when advertising is now their only source of revenue (whereas they at least used to have subscriptions in the days of magazines). Now sure, not all reviewers are corporate shills, but the number willing to say what they actually think about a game is pretty few and far between. Hell, it's one of the reasons I still enjoy Zero Punctuation. Sure Yahtzee hams it up a bit because his show is funnier when he hates on everything, but you can still generally count on him to be honest about what he didn't like, even if he is hyperbolic about it.

Batou667:

zachusaman:
theres a big difference here.
look at the last 4 call of duty games, then look at the last 4 zelda games. notice anything?
tell me which one is a rehash.

One of these series relies on innovation and an iterative raising of stakes and expectations between each instalment. The other series relies on motion control gimmicks, flip-flopping art direction and handheld ports of more-successful games from the late 90s to maintain a thin facade of relevance.

Can you guess which is which?

Okay, I'll let "innovation" slide, because it's highly debatable how much content or how drastic said content is in ANY new game, so it's pretty natural for any sequel to feel like a rehash(the same reason I'm not even going to bring Mario into the argument.) But constantly raising expectations? If I had a penny for every time I heard "CoD4 for was way better than MW2!" "MW2 is sooo much better than BlOps!" "MW3 Sucks! Black Ops is where it's at!" and variations there upon, I'd be a millionaire. And my country's government has basically all but made pennies worthless. If anything, it seems like CoD runs on a series of constantly lowering expectations, then hoping for the best in the next one causing it to sell millions on opening day.

EDIT: Hah hah, whoops. Quoted the wrong dude. Herp derp. Fixed.

Cheesepower5:

Batou667:

zachusaman:
theres a big difference here.
look at the last 4 call of duty games, then look at the last 4 zelda games. notice anything?
tell me which one is a rehash.

One of these series relies on innovation and an iterative raising of stakes and expectations between each instalment. The other series relies on motion control gimmicks, flip-flopping art direction and handheld ports of more-successful games from the late 90s to maintain a thin facade of relevance.

Can you guess which is which?

Okay, I'll let "innovation" slide, because it's highly debatable how much content or how drastic said content is in ANY new game, so it's pretty natural for any sequel to feel like a rehash(the same reason I'm not even going to bring Mario into the argument.) But constantly raising expectations? If I had a penny for every time I heard "CoD4 for was way better than MW2!" "MW2 is sooo much better than BlOps!" "MW3 Sucks! Black Ops is where it's at!" and variations there upon, I'd be a millionaire. And my country's government has basically all but made pennies worthless. If anything, it seems like CoD runs on a series of constantly lowering expectations, then hoping for the best in the next one causing it to sell millions on opening day.

EDIT: Hah hah, whoops. Quoted the wrong dude. Herp derp. Fixed.

It's raising expectations, because after nuking a player character in MW, killing civilians in MW2, and dropping a building on a little girl in MW3, the expectations for the moment of shock in these games is building higher and higher. Along with the expectations for the number of player characters who fail the mission if they get killed during it, but upon success, get killed anyway because the plot demands it. And maybe some expectations on how much the single-player campaign will be cut down and neglected in favor of the multi-player.

flaming_squirrel:

Worst argument I've ever read, honestly.
You're claiming that those sprite graphics are some form of improvement over the original, really? They're still godamn sprites.

So you are saying this that by virtue of being made up of sprites, that it is impossible to innovate from that? And that by virtue of being sprites, that they cannot evolve beyond what they already are? I'm sorry, but people who judge graphics simply because they are not rendered, high polygon count 3D models piss me off.

You know Rayman Origins, a game highly acclaimed to be one of the best looking games released last year? Technically speaking, everything in that game is made up from sprites.

flaming_squirrel:

Different game mechanics, from what that video shows these hardly seem to be a big selling point.

So you are saying gameplay mechanics in a game are not a big selling point? Then what is a big selling point? They are new gameplay mechanics and they're there, what else is important? This comes off as a dismissive way to ignore someone's point.

flaming_squirrel:

Great story, ahahah. It's mario.

Innovative gameplay? Ahaha, it's COD.

Wow, I really sounded like an asshole right? Because of how I judge CoD games by the series reputation rather then the individual game in question? Yeah, don't you hate those guys?

flaming_squirrel:

Also MW3 used the exact same engine as MW2, they look identical. Anyone claiming one looks worse is an idiot.

Does the game share the same locations, weapon models, Ui, character models etc as MW2? I could subjectively prefer the assets of the very first game. That, and the graphics do age over time and would not look as good by today's standards as it did when it was first released.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked