Modern Gamers Unimpressed by Miyamoto

[pure.Wasted]

Mario not innovative?

Spoiler

In comparison with the old 2D mario
-Nice looking visuals
-Different plot (Seriously the princess isn't even "kidnapped")
-Different game mechanics (combat is completely different)
-Great story

How can you compare these innovations to COD?
-New gun
-New Perk
-New map

I'm not going to add story or visuals into this COD list because it's a shooter game for crying out loud the story is going to be pretty predictable and generic (Not their fault just inevitable) and the visuals for the latest COD actually had some complaints for being worse than a previous title.

Let me get this straight: you're saying that between Call of Duty 1 and Black Ops 2, the only differences in the series are "new gun" "new perk" and "new map"?

Every single thing you noted for SuperStar Saga is true of CoD a hundredfold.

Visuals: here's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ANl-yjtFBo&t=6m00s] some CoD1, and here's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXLnCxZ0Xnw&t=4m00s] some MW3. Look like the same game to you? You're comparing black and white 1920s train robbery flicks to Transformers. And you can hate Transformers, Michael Bay isn't my idol or anything, but to say that it isn't a fundamental improvement in a thousand different ways is simply ignorant.

Plot: to the degree that game 1 has a plot, it's basically placing Sgt. Player in the middle of an actual historic conflict. Just 'cause that's fun. That's the story. Modern Warfare is hardly going to win awards for its writing, but it embarrasses Mario. MW2 has the secret bad guy general of the US army send you, the player, into an undercover mission to help a Russian terrorist massacre civilians, and then tips this terrorist off that you're an American spy, at which point the terrorist kills you, your American army corpse is discovered by Russian authorities, and this gives Russia cause to go to war with America. Which is what the general wanted. It's absolutely preposterous and ridiculous and unbelievable. It's also a plot with genuine twists and characters who have different, competing agendas and motivations. You know, some of those things that stories actually need. And that was one mission.

Game mechanics: in CoD1 you control a guy with a rifle. Period. MW2 alone has the following gameplay: climbing up cliffs, driving snowmobiles, breaching enemy defenses, taking out enemies silently without alerting patrols, controlling air strikes, painting targets for artillery strikes, chasing a bad guy on a boat, and massacring defenseless civilians (or not, if you're ballsy enough to dare failing the mission). The last wasn't just gameplay, it was a statement. If you're playing the role of (a guy playing the role of) a bad guy in a video game, sometimes you actually have to do monstrous things. Say what you will about the integrity of the franchise, but this was an artistic statement with enough power behind it to stir up genuine feelings in players (just look at the Games That Make You Angry thread to see how many people hated this mission because of what it made them feel/do). Oh, and you can snipe from a moving helicopter! Pretty nifty.

-Story... yeah, covered that already. But to throw some new things in, MW actually kills off the character you control. Repeatedly. To the point where it's become a trope, but used to be something that simply did not happen in games. MW1 has your player character attempt to escape a nuke's radiation blast. MW2 has you observe/try to escape a missile heading for a space satellite where your character is presently situated, or die for nothing after massacring a bunch of innocent people. The franchise plays with and destroys so many gaming tropes the existence of which other FPSes (and in some cases other games, period) simply take for granted, it's not even funny.

And this is a franchise that did not exist 10 years ago. Mario has done less in nearly 30. The fact that "he doesn't even save a princess this time" might count as innovation after 20 years is pathetic.

And I don't even like Call of Duty. I've purchased precisely one of their games, and believe me, it wasn't for the story or all the gameplay innovations, it was for the multiplayer. Which is really fun, in a forgettable sort of way.

 

[pure.Wasted]

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.

Modern engineers unimpressed by Ugg, inventor of the Wheel. The last time he did anything original was like, what, 14,000 b.c.? And despite the fact that so many modern inventions use this early effort as a jumping-off point, it is totally okay to bash what he did because we're so much further along now.

The funny thing is, if Mr. Ugg was criticizing modern items, he would be grunting out his ass because indeed, the last thing he did was millennia (why the hell doesn't Google dictionary recognize this word?) ago and his input would be laughed at as he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about in this day and age.

Absolutely this. I respect what Ugg did for his time. But his opinion hasn't been relevant in thousands of years, and all of these modern-day Ugg-enthusiasts who believe we should give up technology and go live in the forests where we can raise farm animals and be closer to nature as we were meant to be can all go take a hike. Into a forest.

In Australia.

captcha: finger lickin good. My thoughts exactly.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

His characters may stay the same but the difference between Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Bros is VAST, me thinks this troll is searching for Nintendo fanboys *backs out of the room slowly*

 

[Something Amyss]

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?

 

[Keoul]

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.

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

 

[pure.Wasted]

His characters may stay the same but the difference between Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Bros is VAST, me thinks this troll is searching for Nintendo fanboys *backs out of the room slowly*

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.

I said this before: fun, addicting gameplay>all is exactly the policy that gave us all World of Warcraft. Except Nintendo is apparently showing us how things ought to be, while Blizzard is greedy and soulless.

 

[V8 Ninja]

While I'm not sure of the podcast number, Jim Sterling did say something interesting on Destructoid's Podtoid podcast somewhat recently on the subject of Nintendo; he basically said that right now, anybody could prove or disprove anything about Nintendo. And in a way I think that's completely true; for every argument that anybody has against/for Nintendo, there is at least one solid counterargument. It's almost amazing that Nintendo has gotten itself into a position where anyone can think anything about them and not be "Wrong". In a way, it's admirable.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[JediMB]

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.

 

[pure.Wasted]

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!

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.

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.

 

[Awexsome]

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.

 

[Nazulu]

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.

 

[Mcupobob]

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.

 

[jollybarracuda]

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?

 

[Kouen]

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

 

[Guffe]

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.