In my last entry, I said at the beginning that it was a two-parter. Here's the second part, which i promise will be shorter than the first.
II. The Nintendo Double Standard
For the last year, we've seen a return to form for Nintendo. They're at the top of their game again, after the lackluster Gamecube and, in my opinion, complete abortion that was the Nintendo 64. We all know the story of how the NES generation grew up and Nintendo didn't, and how now instead of playing catch up with the newer kids on block they're bringing everyone to their own ballgame, etc. I'm not going to bore you with recounting that whole thing, but I've noticed something interesting in all this. Now that Nintendo can once again do no wrong, is this a good thing?
Many people have already explored the fact that the Wii is revolutionary. It's prerelease codename was Revolution after all. There have also been great articles exploring the fact that the Wii is also a dumping ground for completely terrible games, like in the October issue of EGM.
One thing I'm finding more and more of though is a double standard that Nintendo can do no wrong, while Microsoft and Sony can do no right. There's a story over at Kotaku right now (www.kotaku.com, great gaming website) about Microsoft still struggling with this new fangled causal market (I've already stated my opinion on that, and it remains intact as "who cares?"), but what really got me thinking was the user comments below the posting.
Microsoft takes a lot of heat from the hardcore gaming crowd for the 360 having way too many variations on the tried and true shooter genre. Even their RPG's have lots of gunplay (Mass Effect). Some of them call it the Halo Box. OK, fine but a side from a waggle wand controller that's quite honestly wearing out it's welcome as far as I'm concerned, Nintendo is doing the same thing. The majority of the games on the Wii are minigame collections that have you flailing around like a mental patient. It's like they innovated up to a point and then got comfortable, and it's not just the third parties. I've found that most of the Nintendo published software is seriously lacking in the depth department, but for some reason no one seems to care. Twilight Princess was great, but I found it to be incredibly simplistic. I felt like I was playing a kid's game.
I don't get that feeling from Halo, or now Assassin's Creed, or Bioshock.
Crucify me if you will gaming community, but I don't think Super Mario Galaxy is all it's cracked up to be either. It's the same Mario gameplay you've had since Mario 64, with new waggle controls. The other thing is that whenever I see people play it, all they seem to talk about is how music, sound effects, enemies and abilities from the classic Mario games are back. It's like going to a concert and the crowd only knowing the band's singles. But the fact that I think Nintendo's aware or this makes it more like going to a concert and everything the band plays is off their first album because they know that'll the crowd likes. And that's innovative?
Microsoft could make Halo 4 exactly like Halo 3 and that would be a tragedy. Sony could make God of War 3 identical to God of War 2 and that would be a catastrophe. Nintendo makes the same game over and over and over again and it's a masterpiece.
I'll use two quotes from actual reviews to close this. It should be noted though that these are user reviews, not actual editors, but that proves my point though doesn't it? This is indicative of the reviews as a whole on IGN:
"While playing Halo 3 I felt like I was playing Halo 2 with HD graphics"-Score: 8.5
"Mario Galaxy is more of the good old Mario gameplay you know and love!"-Score: 10
Kisses
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
""While playing Halo 3 I felt like I was playing Halo 2 with HD graphics"-Score: 8.5
"Mario Galaxy is more of the good old Mario gameplay you know and love!"-Score: 10"
There's a bit of truth in the observation, but there's got to be a distinction between positively rating a game for being a recognizable carrying-on of a franchise legacy that's nearly 30 years old and negatively rating another for being too similar to a prior installment thats only three years ago.
You made a concert analogy, but recall that not all concerts are created equal: If a band is only a few years old and they're ALREADY out of worthy new material, that's not good. But The Rolling Stones can get together and tour on hits because they're the Rolling Stones. ;)
Nice blog you have here man, hope you keep it up with the updates. I agree whole-heartedly on the Wii issue, I hope that it doesn't end up killing games as we know it!
I think it's unfair to simply dismiss Halo 3 as "Halo 2 with HD graphics." That would be like someone in 1991 saying Super Mario World is just Super Mario 3 with a 16-bit makeover. After all, they both use the same "world map" system, the core gameplay still involves running and jumping, and the only major addition to the formula is the ability to ride on a dinosaur. So they replaced the Tanooki Mario with a Caped Mario and added more colors, does that really make a difference?
I'm sure a lot of Nintendo fans would be infuriated by that last couple of sentences, but how many would avoid doing the same to Halo 3?
Good point, you can basically say the same thing about every major franchise out there. The key to a sequel is refinement, not absolute change.
I agree with both of you guys, thank you for your interest. Joesph, I didn't even think of the Mario 3/Mario World comparison, thank you for that. Lupos, refinement is key, and I think Nintendo's biggest offender there is Zelda. It's been the same game since Orcarina of Time over and over again.
Post a Comment