Am I the only one that thinks Nintendo games look over saturated/cartoonish?

#41xBloodBrotherxPosted 10/14/2013 7:20:39 PM
Gamer99z posted...
Quesker posted...
Gamer99z posted...
The point is, PC and all other console arent locked to one art style...
Like on PS3 for example if I wanted a more "cartoonish" racing game I would play LBP Karting. Then when I wanted a more "realistic" racing game I'd change to Gran Turismo.
Nintendo is kinda limiting themselves by only catering to one demographic. Especially considering their demographic is the minority these days. Most people want AAA gameplay and graphics.

It basically seems like Nintendo is being marketed to kids at this point.


You're talking as if Nintendo is the ONLY developer on their platforms, which is 100% false. There's plenty of other options on their platforms.


Well either it's just terribly ironic that almost every game on Nintendo for God knows how long now has had almost the exact same style or Nintendo has artistic controls on developers.
Which wouldn't be surprising considering Nintendo has literally said they don't consider games art, they're just products.


Really? If that's true I've lost alot of faith in Nintendo. I know a couple of guys that work for indie studios and can say firsthand that game developers are some of the most creative people, period.
---
"It ain't exactly a secret I didn't get these scars from falling over in church." - John Marston (Red Dead Redemption)
#42Gamer99z(Topic Creator)Posted 10/14/2013 7:22:55 PM
xBloodBrotherx posted...
Gamer99z posted...
Quesker posted...
Gamer99z posted...
The point is, PC and all other console arent locked to one art style...
Like on PS3 for example if I wanted a more "cartoonish" racing game I would play LBP Karting. Then when I wanted a more "realistic" racing game I'd change to Gran Turismo.
Nintendo is kinda limiting themselves by only catering to one demographic. Especially considering their demographic is the minority these days. Most people want AAA gameplay and graphics.

It basically seems like Nintendo is being marketed to kids at this point.


You're talking as if Nintendo is the ONLY developer on their platforms, which is 100% false. There's plenty of other options on their platforms.


Well either it's just terribly ironic that almost every game on Nintendo for God knows how long now has had almost the exact same style or Nintendo has artistic controls on developers.
Which wouldn't be surprising considering Nintendo has literally said they don't consider games art, they're just products.


Really? If that's true I've lost alot of faith in Nintendo. I know a couple of guys that work for indie studios and can say firsthand that game developers are some of the most creative people, period.


http://www.gamespot.com/articles/iwata-nintendo-makes-games-not-art/1100-6412419/
---
"No, but I call my favorite spoon that I eat with 'Spooney'. Not out loud of course, that would be freak'n crazy." - vin3d
#43QueskerPosted 10/14/2013 7:26:40 PM
Gamer99z posted...
xBloodBrotherx posted...
Gamer99z posted...
Quesker posted...
Gamer99z posted...
The point is, PC and all other console arent locked to one art style...
Like on PS3 for example if I wanted a more "cartoonish" racing game I would play LBP Karting. Then when I wanted a more "realistic" racing game I'd change to Gran Turismo.
Nintendo is kinda limiting themselves by only catering to one demographic. Especially considering their demographic is the minority these days. Most people want AAA gameplay and graphics.

It basically seems like Nintendo is being marketed to kids at this point.


You're talking as if Nintendo is the ONLY developer on their platforms, which is 100% false. There's plenty of other options on their platforms.


Well either it's just terribly ironic that almost every game on Nintendo for God knows how long now has had almost the exact same style or Nintendo has artistic controls on developers.
Which wouldn't be surprising considering Nintendo has literally said they don't consider games art, they're just products.


Really? If that's true I've lost alot of faith in Nintendo. I know a couple of guys that work for indie studios and can say firsthand that game developers are some of the most creative people, period.


http://www.gamespot.com/articles/iwata-nintendo-makes-games-not-art/1100-6412419/


This raises a question that I think hasn't been asked enough: Can Entertainment itself be considered Art? I think the issue is that people are trying to fit other things to the current definition of Art, as opposed to the other way around.
---
7 is good. I swear the school's 75-100 grading scale has ruined peoples perception of things.
-MillionGunmannn
#44DaLaggaPosted 10/14/2013 7:27:24 PM
Quesker posted...
So you're saying that both Mario and Metroid are unrealistic, but for Half-Life and Portal, one is realistic and another is not? So you're main definition of art style is the sliding scale of realism?


Not at all. But many art styles do tend to blend into one another to the point where it can be hard to draw a line. HL2 and Portal do have different styles, but because they are built on the same engine and share a lot in common, they do tend to be somewhat similar. I mean, wouldn't you agree that these are different styles?

http://www.metzomagic.com/images/2008/portal02.jpg

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/files/2012/05/half-life-21.jpg
#45QueskerPosted 10/14/2013 7:32:04 PM
DaLagga posted...
Quesker posted...
So you're saying that both Mario and Metroid are unrealistic, but for Half-Life and Portal, one is realistic and another is not? So you're main definition of art style is the sliding scale of realism?


Not at all. But many art styles do tend to blend into one another to the point where it can be hard to draw a line. HL2 and Portal do have different styles, but because they are built on the same engine and share a lot in common, they do tend to be somewhat similar. I mean, wouldn't you agree that these are different styles?

http://www.metzomagic.com/images/2008/portal02.jpg

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/files/2012/05/half-life-21.jpg


Yes, but IIRC, you're arguing that Half Life 2 and Portal's Art styles are more different than Mario and Metroid's, which doesn't make much sense.
---
7 is good. I swear the school's 75-100 grading scale has ruined peoples perception of things.
-MillionGunmannn
#46Gamer99z(Topic Creator)Posted 10/14/2013 7:33:50 PM
Quesker posted...
This raises a question that I think hasn't been asked enough: Can Entertainment itself be considered Art? I think the issue is that people are trying to fit other things to the current definition of Art, as opposed to the other way around.


Agreed.
---
"No, but I call my favorite spoon that I eat with 'Spooney'. Not out loud of course, that would be freak'n crazy." - vin3d
#47uberking422Posted 10/14/2013 7:46:53 PM
xBloodBrotherx posted...
Gamer99z posted...
Quesker posted...
Gamer99z posted...
The point is, PC and all other console arent locked to one art style...
Like on PS3 for example if I wanted a more "cartoonish" racing game I would play LBP Karting. Then when I wanted a more "realistic" racing game I'd change to Gran Turismo.
Nintendo is kinda limiting themselves by only catering to one demographic. Especially considering their demographic is the minority these days. Most people want AAA gameplay and graphics.

It basically seems like Nintendo is being marketed to kids at this point.


You're talking as if Nintendo is the ONLY developer on their platforms, which is 100% false. There's plenty of other options on their platforms.


Well either it's just terribly ironic that almost every game on Nintendo for God knows how long now has had almost the exact same style or Nintendo has artistic controls on developers.
Which wouldn't be surprising considering Nintendo has literally said they don't consider games art, they're just products.


Really? If that's true I've lost alot of faith in Nintendo. I know a couple of guys that work for indie studios and can say firsthand that game developers are some of the most creative people, period.


Because I'd rather play a pretentious piece of "art" than an actual game...
#48BiasmaniaPosted 10/14/2013 7:49:57 PM
Maybe Iwata feels that they are a game company first. They make games, and Nintendo seems to focus on fun before anything else. I think Nintendo is more interested in us talking about how fun their games are that are coming out now another twenty years from now, then treating us the way David Cage does.
#49manmousePosted 10/14/2013 7:57:29 PM
Biasmania posted...
Maybe Iwata feels that they are a game company first. They make games, and Nintendo seems to focus on fun before anything else. I think Nintendo is more interested in us talking about how fun their games are that are coming out now another twenty years from now, then treating us the way David Cage does.


Iwata said his main goal is sales. if an idea is not as marketable, they change formulas at whatever expense if it means more sales.
---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b18HMqJW5A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt1-XWiMveY
#50manmousePosted 10/14/2013 8:12:44 PM(edited)
Quesker posted...


This raises a question that I think hasn't been asked enough: Can Entertainment itself be considered Art? I think the issue is that people are trying to fit other things to the current definition of Art, as opposed to the other way around.


well the point is his definition of art, which isn't a bad one.

his point was that art, as he sees it, requires a creative investment that's personal.

for example, if Nirvana's albums didn't sell, they wouldn't change their style to sound like Whitesnake and cater to rowdy post-80's bros and sing about strip clubs. Nirvana was gonna be Nirvana and sound trashy and noisy and sing about vulnerable, sensitive emotions and darker ideas regardless of whether they were popular. they had that artistic intent.

however if Miyamoto comes up with an idea for gameplay in a Mario game that's really special to him and brings forth a vision that is very personal to him, yet it proves to not test popularly, Nintendo will change it to fit the demands of the majority. they have a corporate intent, not artistic.

another example, even when David Lynch contradicts Hollywood at every turn, and makes more dreamlike vivid-yet-horrific films about the human mind and how dreams and reality can so closely resemble eachother, if one doesn't perform well in the box office, he won't look at it as if he failed because it's still his vision even if it didn't outsell Transformers and 4 Fast 5 Furious 9: 2 Fast 4 U2. because it's his art, not his product.

whereas if Aonuma makes a Zelda game with a story relating closely to an event or emotion he experienced in his life that he wanted to express through Link's journey, and it turned out that test groups didn't feel comfortable with it, they'll scrap his personal idea and go with a different theme to please the masses. because it's the corporation's product, not the creator's art.

it's a formula that works, but it's not the most respectable IMO. it's bad for creatives, but good for executives. and on the consumer end, bad for people who want to experience something special and meaningful, but good for larger casual crowds who don't wanna confront other people's creative psyche or their hopes and dreams or emotions.
---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b18HMqJW5A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt1-XWiMveY