Viewing Thread:
"Game Stereotypes - Look what they've done to our industry."

Remember the 16bit days of the Snes and Megadrive.
Some people argued over which one was better but I don't think that there was any name calling.

Now, the 3 major systems all have their own stereotypes.
Xbox - a bug filled, mini PC for geeks.
Gamecube - A colourful toy for kids.
PS2 - Nothing new. Just a sequel to the machine of sequels.

And apart from being funny, it also messes up the industry.

Why?

Because most devellopers try to live up to them!!

Devellopers release anything on the PS2 because they think that the owners are idiots who'll buy anything.
So many people owned a PS1 after 3 years that this was the case - that anything sold on it!
Because of this, billions of poor quality 3rd party releases have appeared on the PS2 (backed by some decent games too) and these idiots who released them have learned the hard way that only hardcore PS2 fans wanted to pay £300 for the new machine.

Look what Stereotyping did to Nintendo.
Before the N64, no one ever thought of the Snes as babyish.

Then some adult games appeared on the Playstation and most people thought they'd grown out of platformers.
Hence the N64 got it's kiddie image.

NOM went by this stereotype and aimed it's magazine at 9 year olds (I think that everyone can agree with me here)

In an early issue, they previewed Mortal Kombat Trillogy with the comment:
"You'd better hide this from you mama..."

Sheesh!

But then there's always some who like to laugh at, and ridicule these stereotypes. Take Rare.

They decided to produce a cute cartoony platformer about little kids who go around and shoot giant Ant's.
Giant Ant's that burst with limbs, heads, guts and blood flying everywhere.
Jet Force Gemini was it's name.

Nintendo didn't let them release a game with little kids commiting violence and demanded that Rare make the characters more grown up. Rare did what they said... this time.

But they weren't done yet. They decided to take the peak of the kiddie image - a little cute squirrel with big bubbly eyes.
And turned him into a a foul mouthed obnoxious character who did all the things that a platformer did but added in violence and explicit humour.


Gameplay wise, it was no more mature than say Mario 64.

Yes everyone called it an adult game. A "grown up" platformer.

Rare must be laughing at their shallow audiences!

Nintendo are in the business of making money. They have a character base which is instantly recognisable as being a Nintendo character and/or game. They use this to make money and sell consoles. When the N64 was flopping about like a beached fish, what did Nintendo do to try to get it back in the water?? they released a Pokemon styled system. The games are merely sequels, made special by the work of Miyamoto, but none the less they are designed to make money through recognisability and ofering something new to existing gamers.

Gaming is a business, not just entertainment, and you are being played ny Nintendo very well indeed.

I give up trying to explain.
Some one else tell him please...

The idea is brilliant and the franchise is phenominal, but it is no more than a money spinning franchise.

And every new Pokemon game is original (except Gold and Silver, but that's only ONE sequel)

And before you say that:

"Pokemon Red, Blue and Yellow are all the same game..."

Anyone could've told you you're not meant to buy all 3. Simply buy one and your friend gets the other version so you can trade.

That idea in itself was a genius.

The Pokemon RPG's on the Gameboy are brilliant and addictive.

But many people have ignored them because they have a reputation for being childish - another STEREOTYPE which backs my topic further!

Strafex wrote:
> Put it this way, as much as a Final Fantasy Games gameplay might
> change, it doesn't change as nearly much a Nintendo one
> does.



That is the biggest load of tosh I've ever heard, I am clearly accepting that Miyamoto is a genius, and he would never make a series such as Tomb Raider, because it goes against his talent as a games designer. He does incorporate brillinace and innovation into his games, but there is one simple franchise which you are overlooking. Can you just remind me which company makes Pokemon??

Bonus wrote:
> All sequels are simply chash ins, all games are simply cash ins, if
> games didn't make money, no one would make games, don't be so
> niave.


You have completely missed the point...

I'll explain in YOUR topic.

Put it this way, as much as a Final Fantasy Games gameplay might change, it doesn't change as nearly much a Nintendo one does.

That is why people say Nintendo are MORE innoative.

Anyway can you please stop turning this topic into a console wars. We'll continue this bickering in your new topic about sequels.

Created for this very argument if I'm not mistaken :-D

All sequels are simply chash ins, all games are simply cash ins, if games didn't make money, no one would make games, don't be so niave.

Yeah, technically it's a sequel.

But if you put the Gameboy screen and the N64 screen next to each other then you'd see that there's a gigantic difference between them.

Only experts/anoraks would be able to point out the differences between gran tourismo and other generic driving sims.

Surely Bonus, you can tell what sort of sequel is a welcome follow up or what sort is a simple cash in!

Strafex wrote:

Final Fantasy might use different characters, settings and storylines everytime
> but the gameplay is identical.
There's nothing wrong with this as
> they're still great games but it does stop them from being
> revolutionary.



The gameplay in the Final Fantasy series goes through major changes between each game, I would go into all the detail here, but I would hurt your little head. Each main Mario game can be construed as no more than a platform game. I have no problem in accepting that Final Fantasy is a sequel, because it is, but so is Mario, Zelda, Mario Tennis, Mario Kart and so on.