Modern Gamers Unimpressed by Miyamoto

[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.

 

[Hazy992]

Oh ok, so when you said 'modern gamers unimpressed by Miyamoto' you actually meant 'I don't like Miyamoto and I now represent all modern gamers because of reasons'. Just so we're clear ^_^

 

[OrpheusTelos]

Oh ok, so when you said 'modern gamers unimpressed by Miyamoto' you actually meant 'I don't like Miyamoto and I now represent all modern gamers because of reasons'. Just so we're clear ^_^

Took the words right out of my mouth.

EDIT: Miyamoto rocks, just saying.

 

[Iwata]

Regardless of phrasing, it's no less true that Myamoto lives on nostalgia, and nostalgia alone. He's EXACTLY what other Japanese developers mean when they talk about how stagnant Japanese games are.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well you are going a bit ranty there mate, but I agree that the man lives in his own world that has fallen behind.
It's not that they don't make great games for what they are, but it's all 10-15 years out of date, and so is their whole platform approach.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

Um while I do agree that he rehashed old stuff over and over, it's always good quality so who cares

 

[Emiscary]

Agreed. The man's made like 3 games over the course of his career, who gives a shit what he thinks about anything?

 

[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.

 

[Batou667]

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?

 

[Andy Shandy]

Sorry, but modern gamers are idiots then. This is the one the guys who has helped gaming become as big at it has today, being involved in some of the biggest franchises of all time - which include Mario, Legend of Zelda, Donkey Kong, Star Fox, F-Zero, Pikmin and the "Wii" series of games. And one of the people he mentored (Satoshi Tajiri) went on to create Pokemon. He also made the Metroid Prime series as well after the original creator died.

Feel free to say that he may not be as innovative as he used to be but as for being unimpressed with him? That's just wrong in my opinion

 

[jizzytissue]

don't fix what ain't broke

i could say the same for cod or transformers but you'll still hate it

 

[gibboss28]

Reading through what he said I find it hard to disagree with him.

Time is precious and to spend a great deal of time playing a game it had better be worth it? Check

Lots of games coming out and there might not be that many you really like the look of? Check

Becoming more difficult to actually give gamers that wow factor than it used to be? Checkarooni.

Now, there are a lot of criticisms to be made against him and Nintendo, but still in this case, the guy has a point, like it or not.

 

[Reynaert]

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?

I'm not going to make a statement about either of those series but I notices something in your text. I'm not trying to be offensive, perhaps I'm just looking at it from the wrong angle.
In the first series you call the changes they make 'innovation', in the second it becomes 'flip-flopping art direction'. Granted, these are not the same thing but can't changing art direction be innovation? The art direction is, after all, very important for the feel of a game and changing it can change, innovate if you will, your experience.

 

[geK0]

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?

I'm sorry, innovative?
[spoiler = Cod4]

[/spoiler]

[spoiler =MW2]

[/spoiler]
[spoiler =Black Ops]

[/spoiler]
[spoiler =MW3]

[/spoiler]

Adding a few guns, perks and game modes is not innovation. As far as expectations go, all I expect from COD is a game where I can find a game quickly and shoot a few people down with relatively little skill or effort. Wtf do you even mean by "raising the stakes"?

 

[Condiments]

don't fix what ain't broke

i could say the same for cod or transformers but you'll still hate it

The phrase applies to incredible game formulas that don't need a amount of change/fixing. Games like Mario, and Zelda often retain very similar frameworks and systems, but these games change enough in terms of surface mechanics to warrant a new game. This phrase is not a reason to release highly derivative products on a yearly basis and somehow remain exempt from criticism. COD sequels have changed little in terms of structure, mechanics, and aesthetic since the release of the original modern warfare(which did change a few things). They've been rightly criticized for it.

 

[pure.Wasted]

don't fix what ain't broke

i could say the same for cod or transformers but you'll still hate it

The phrase applies to incredible game formulas that don't need a amount of change/fixing. Games like Mario, and Zelda often retain very similar frameworks and systems, but these games change enough in terms of surface mechanics to warrant a new game. This phrase is not a reason to release highly derivative products on a yearly basis and somehow remain exempt from criticism. COD sequels have changed little in terms of structure, mechanics, and aesthetic since the release of the original modern warfare(which did change a few things). They've been rightly criticized for it.

Because no one's criticized the Zelda games for changing little in terms of plot, structure, mechanics, and aesthetics, right? Or was that not "rightly" done?

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?

I'm sorry, innovative?

Adding a few guns, perks and game modes is not innovation. As far as expectations go, all I expect from COD is a game where I can find a game quickly and shoot a few people down with relatively little skill or effort. Wtf do you even mean by "raising the stakes"?

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. It sits firmly between what is possible and what is desireable. Nintendo games haven't actually been interested in what is possible in over a decade, with the pooosssible exception of Super Mario Galaxy.

Play Doom, then go play Black Ops 2 online, and compare the two experiences.

Play 2-player Super Mario, then go play 2-player Super Mario Galaxy, and compare the two experiences.

Now compare the two comparisons.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Title should read "modern gamers easily offended by legitimate criticism from people who probably know what they're talking about."