The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Game stereotyping happens all the time, everyday. Whether it be at home, at school, outside or in our very own chat forums here. It happens. A classic example of game stereotyping is Nintendo and Microsoft. People who seem to think that all Nintendo games are ‘Kiddy’ and Microsoft’s X-Box is ‘All graphics, no gameplay’. It happens all the time in everyday life. But can these accusations be backed up? Usually not.
Take for example the GameCube and it’s future releases. These are known as ‘Kiddy’ to some people but look at the facts. All ages play Nintendo games, whether people like it or not. Look at Luigi’s Mansion. It has the cartooned effect and ‘short ‘n’ sweet’ rule, but does that mean the game is for children? In short, the answer would be no. It may be a cartooned platformer that doesn’t have gore or guts in it, but it’s a fun game to play and that’s why people play it. Maybe kids do play, maybe more kids play it, but does that make that one game ‘Kiddy’? People of all ages could play and have fun, from 8-50 years old, people will be merrily having a laugh with the game.
It might look like a cartoon, which means it is probably aimed at children, but it’s fun for anyone to play. Also the ‘short ‘n’ sweet’ rule may apply to this game, but that may only be for the straight forward part of the game. Because, for us lucky Europeans, we are getting an updated version of ‘Secret Mansion’. This will hopefully mean it will have a huge life span. Games with secrets usually do. But why did Nintendo do this? Is it because of this stereotyping? Maybe it was them trying to give the game a wider audience. For small children, they can complete the straight forward part of the game and feel they’ve done it all. For those of us who are hardcore gamers, the ‘Secret Mansion’ may give the game that little more challenge we’re looking for. So in retrospect to this game, Nintendo’s ‘Kiddy’ image is just a wild accusation that don’t like the thought of cartooned looking platformers actually being enjoyable to an older range of people.
But while this ‘Kiddy’ stereotyping goes on, it gets better. Take Capcom, for example. They make Resident Evil games exclusive to the Nintendo GameCube, but why? Is it because Capcom want to get rid of the ‘Kiddy’ image that Nintendo have strapped to their back or just the simple reason that they want to make money? Personally I think that Capcom are trying to say to people that they believe Nintendo have an older audience or to get Nintendo an older audience. This was proven even more when Shinji Mikami revealed he was to work on yet another GameCube exclusive after Resident Evil, codenamed CAS-Ra. This may appeal to many Resident Evil fans that have a PS2, maybe bringing down this stereotyping even more if dedicated Sony fans started to say “Maybe we were wrong after all.”
Also Microsoft have been getting a lot of un-necessary stereotyping about their first console, the X-Box. Some people seem to say ‘All graphics, no gameplay’, as I’ve already said, but what are they on about?! These people are obviously people who haven’t played any of the titles and are jealous of people who own an X-Box. There are some quality launch titles that are all graphics and gameplay. Take Halo, for instance. It looks like a dream. From the textures and characters to the little details, it looks beautiful, which actually proves half of the stereotyping that is taking place. But, and there’s a very big but, it plays brilliantly. The characters, as well as looking perfect, are as clever as a human, each and every one of them. So a game that plays and looks brilliant is ‘All graphics, no gameplay’? No, which proves, again, that this stereotyping is simply false.
But it’s not only companies being stereotyped, these day genre stereotyping happens all the time. Not all genres are what they’re made out to be. Not all First Person Shooter’s are gory and full of blood. Not all racing games are racing simulations. Not all genres are what they’re made out to be.
Look at First Person Shooter’s, they don’t have to be gory and blood ridden. But FPS’s are made out to be like this because we’re in an age of Golden Eye 007, Doom, Quake, Eck’s Versus Sever and Unreal Tournament. These are all as stereotyping describes them to be, gory (In some way or another). But the game that has taken all GameCube fans by storm will prove this stereotyped image wrong. The game? Star Wars Rogue Leader Rogue Squadron II. Okay, so you might say this is a Third Person Shooter, but there is an option to change to first person view point, for all the FPS fans out there. Plus, if it’s a great success in Britain, we might even see a huge increase in FPS’s like RL. This may stop all the FPS stereotyping that goes on. It may not be a bad thing for people to think that FPS’s are gory and bloody, but RL will show people there are different kinds of FPS’s.
Another type of genre stereotyping that goes on is with a lot of racers. Many times I have heard people saying things like “Mario Kart isn’t a proper racer.” And other remarks about racers that aren’t simulators. It may just be where a bout’s I live, but what do these people mean by ‘Proper racer’? If Mario Kart isn’t a ‘Proper racer’, then why should Gran Turismo be classed as a ‘Proper racer’? Maybe they mean that it isn’t a realistic racer, but really that shouldn’t matter if you want a good racer. Mario Kart has always been fun to play and very competitive, like all racing games should be like. So maybe you don’t get to tune up your car and play the proper role of a car driver, but is it supposed to be an RPR (Role Playing Racer)? So all I’m trying to say is that most of this stereotyping isn’t true. Just look at what I’ve said and you should be able to see what I’m talking about.
Thanks for reading
RiCkOsS
Take for example the GameCube and it’s future releases. These are known as ‘Kiddy’ to some people but look at the facts. All ages play Nintendo games, whether people like it or not. Look at Luigi’s Mansion. It has the cartooned effect and ‘short ‘n’ sweet’ rule, but does that mean the game is for children? In short, the answer would be no. It may be a cartooned platformer that doesn’t have gore or guts in it, but it’s a fun game to play and that’s why people play it. Maybe kids do play, maybe more kids play it, but does that make that one game ‘Kiddy’? People of all ages could play and have fun, from 8-50 years old, people will be merrily having a laugh with the game.
It might look like a cartoon, which means it is probably aimed at children, but it’s fun for anyone to play. Also the ‘short ‘n’ sweet’ rule may apply to this game, but that may only be for the straight forward part of the game. Because, for us lucky Europeans, we are getting an updated version of ‘Secret Mansion’. This will hopefully mean it will have a huge life span. Games with secrets usually do. But why did Nintendo do this? Is it because of this stereotyping? Maybe it was them trying to give the game a wider audience. For small children, they can complete the straight forward part of the game and feel they’ve done it all. For those of us who are hardcore gamers, the ‘Secret Mansion’ may give the game that little more challenge we’re looking for. So in retrospect to this game, Nintendo’s ‘Kiddy’ image is just a wild accusation that don’t like the thought of cartooned looking platformers actually being enjoyable to an older range of people.
But while this ‘Kiddy’ stereotyping goes on, it gets better. Take Capcom, for example. They make Resident Evil games exclusive to the Nintendo GameCube, but why? Is it because Capcom want to get rid of the ‘Kiddy’ image that Nintendo have strapped to their back or just the simple reason that they want to make money? Personally I think that Capcom are trying to say to people that they believe Nintendo have an older audience or to get Nintendo an older audience. This was proven even more when Shinji Mikami revealed he was to work on yet another GameCube exclusive after Resident Evil, codenamed CAS-Ra. This may appeal to many Resident Evil fans that have a PS2, maybe bringing down this stereotyping even more if dedicated Sony fans started to say “Maybe we were wrong after all.”
Also Microsoft have been getting a lot of un-necessary stereotyping about their first console, the X-Box. Some people seem to say ‘All graphics, no gameplay’, as I’ve already said, but what are they on about?! These people are obviously people who haven’t played any of the titles and are jealous of people who own an X-Box. There are some quality launch titles that are all graphics and gameplay. Take Halo, for instance. It looks like a dream. From the textures and characters to the little details, it looks beautiful, which actually proves half of the stereotyping that is taking place. But, and there’s a very big but, it plays brilliantly. The characters, as well as looking perfect, are as clever as a human, each and every one of them. So a game that plays and looks brilliant is ‘All graphics, no gameplay’? No, which proves, again, that this stereotyping is simply false.
But it’s not only companies being stereotyped, these day genre stereotyping happens all the time. Not all genres are what they’re made out to be. Not all First Person Shooter’s are gory and full of blood. Not all racing games are racing simulations. Not all genres are what they’re made out to be.
Look at First Person Shooter’s, they don’t have to be gory and blood ridden. But FPS’s are made out to be like this because we’re in an age of Golden Eye 007, Doom, Quake, Eck’s Versus Sever and Unreal Tournament. These are all as stereotyping describes them to be, gory (In some way or another). But the game that has taken all GameCube fans by storm will prove this stereotyped image wrong. The game? Star Wars Rogue Leader Rogue Squadron II. Okay, so you might say this is a Third Person Shooter, but there is an option to change to first person view point, for all the FPS fans out there. Plus, if it’s a great success in Britain, we might even see a huge increase in FPS’s like RL. This may stop all the FPS stereotyping that goes on. It may not be a bad thing for people to think that FPS’s are gory and bloody, but RL will show people there are different kinds of FPS’s.
Another type of genre stereotyping that goes on is with a lot of racers. Many times I have heard people saying things like “Mario Kart isn’t a proper racer.” And other remarks about racers that aren’t simulators. It may just be where a bout’s I live, but what do these people mean by ‘Proper racer’? If Mario Kart isn’t a ‘Proper racer’, then why should Gran Turismo be classed as a ‘Proper racer’? Maybe they mean that it isn’t a realistic racer, but really that shouldn’t matter if you want a good racer. Mario Kart has always been fun to play and very competitive, like all racing games should be like. So maybe you don’t get to tune up your car and play the proper role of a car driver, but is it supposed to be an RPR (Role Playing Racer)? So all I’m trying to say is that most of this stereotyping isn’t true. Just look at what I’ve said and you should be able to see what I’m talking about.
Thanks for reading
RiCkOsS
Heh.
I rule you now!
I rule you now!
Okay... *RiCkOsS wanders off mumbling "Must obay the Afro..."*
RìÇkø§$ wrote:
> Thanks, although i wouldn't say it's brilliant ;-D
----
Oh, I might.
;-)
> Thanks, although i wouldn't say it's brilliant ;-D
----
Oh, I might.
;-)
Thanks, although i wouldn't say it's brilliant ;-D
Brilliant post!
I know people are saying that the X-Box is all graphics and no gameplay, but I would have to say that it's not the gameplay that puts me off.... it's the games that I'm actually playing. What I mean there, is that we're always going on about one particular games' gameplay and I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with the gameplay, but the thing is, it doesn't impress me.
I mean, Wreckless rules! Crash rules!
They are both games that involve crashing about and all that rubbish, but I find it great! They are games that let you be free, and drive all over casuing chaos, especially Wreckless, and that's why I'm disappointed that it is an X-Box exclusive.
DOA3 doesn't impress me. I don't see why it gets such good ratings in mags and things. Porject Gotham I don't like. Don't ask me why, because, strangely, I don't really know, but it is just a game that didn't seem to be much good. Amped was also a game that I didn't like. The probability of me being like that was probably because I was so used to SSX Tricky, which is a game I still play, and the X-Box controller, controls, courses and characters (the 4 c's. :D) that put me off.
Those are the only things that I was actually disappointed by, but those are the only games I've played as well, so I might like some other games. I'm still dying to play Halo, to really see if it is that killer game or not. But so far, X-Box has disappointed me.
---
The other side of the story. I think that Nintendo's 'kiddie' image has been talked about too much so I'll spare you from having to listen to me drone on about it.
AJ
I know people are saying that the X-Box is all graphics and no gameplay, but I would have to say that it's not the gameplay that puts me off.... it's the games that I'm actually playing. What I mean there, is that we're always going on about one particular games' gameplay and I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with the gameplay, but the thing is, it doesn't impress me.
I mean, Wreckless rules! Crash rules!
They are both games that involve crashing about and all that rubbish, but I find it great! They are games that let you be free, and drive all over casuing chaos, especially Wreckless, and that's why I'm disappointed that it is an X-Box exclusive.
DOA3 doesn't impress me. I don't see why it gets such good ratings in mags and things. Porject Gotham I don't like. Don't ask me why, because, strangely, I don't really know, but it is just a game that didn't seem to be much good. Amped was also a game that I didn't like. The probability of me being like that was probably because I was so used to SSX Tricky, which is a game I still play, and the X-Box controller, controls, courses and characters (the 4 c's. :D) that put me off.
Those are the only things that I was actually disappointed by, but those are the only games I've played as well, so I might like some other games. I'm still dying to play Halo, to really see if it is that killer game or not. But so far, X-Box has disappointed me.
---
The other side of the story. I think that Nintendo's 'kiddie' image has been talked about too much so I'll spare you from having to listen to me drone on about it.
AJ
Game stereotyping happens all the time, everyday. Whether it be at home, at school, outside or in our very own chat forums here. It happens. A classic example of game stereotyping is Nintendo and Microsoft. People who seem to think that all Nintendo games are ‘Kiddy’ and Microsoft’s X-Box is ‘All graphics, no gameplay’. It happens all the time in everyday life. But can these accusations be backed up? Usually not.
Take for example the GameCube and it’s future releases. These are known as ‘Kiddy’ to some people but look at the facts. All ages play Nintendo games, whether people like it or not. Look at Luigi’s Mansion. It has the cartooned effect and ‘short ‘n’ sweet’ rule, but does that mean the game is for children? In short, the answer would be no. It may be a cartooned platformer that doesn’t have gore or guts in it, but it’s a fun game to play and that’s why people play it. Maybe kids do play, maybe more kids play it, but does that make that one game ‘Kiddy’? People of all ages could play and have fun, from 8-50 years old, people will be merrily having a laugh with the game.
It might look like a cartoon, which means it is probably aimed at children, but it’s fun for anyone to play. Also the ‘short ‘n’ sweet’ rule may apply to this game, but that may only be for the straight forward part of the game. Because, for us lucky Europeans, we are getting an updated version of ‘Secret Mansion’. This will hopefully mean it will have a huge life span. Games with secrets usually do. But why did Nintendo do this? Is it because of this stereotyping? Maybe it was them trying to give the game a wider audience. For small children, they can complete the straight forward part of the game and feel they’ve done it all. For those of us who are hardcore gamers, the ‘Secret Mansion’ may give the game that little more challenge we’re looking for. So in retrospect to this game, Nintendo’s ‘Kiddy’ image is just a wild accusation that don’t like the thought of cartooned looking platformers actually being enjoyable to an older range of people.
But while this ‘Kiddy’ stereotyping goes on, it gets better. Take Capcom, for example. They make Resident Evil games exclusive to the Nintendo GameCube, but why? Is it because Capcom want to get rid of the ‘Kiddy’ image that Nintendo have strapped to their back or just the simple reason that they want to make money? Personally I think that Capcom are trying to say to people that they believe Nintendo have an older audience or to get Nintendo an older audience. This was proven even more when Shinji Mikami revealed he was to work on yet another GameCube exclusive after Resident Evil, codenamed CAS-Ra. This may appeal to many Resident Evil fans that have a PS2, maybe bringing down this stereotyping even more if dedicated Sony fans started to say “Maybe we were wrong after all.”
Also Microsoft have been getting a lot of un-necessary stereotyping about their first console, the X-Box. Some people seem to say ‘All graphics, no gameplay’, as I’ve already said, but what are they on about?! These people are obviously people who haven’t played any of the titles and are jealous of people who own an X-Box. There are some quality launch titles that are all graphics and gameplay. Take Halo, for instance. It looks like a dream. From the textures and characters to the little details, it looks beautiful, which actually proves half of the stereotyping that is taking place. But, and there’s a very big but, it plays brilliantly. The characters, as well as looking perfect, are as clever as a human, each and every one of them. So a game that plays and looks brilliant is ‘All graphics, no gameplay’? No, which proves, again, that this stereotyping is simply false.
But it’s not only companies being stereotyped, these day genre stereotyping happens all the time. Not all genres are what they’re made out to be. Not all First Person Shooter’s are gory and full of blood. Not all racing games are racing simulations. Not all genres are what they’re made out to be.
Look at First Person Shooter’s, they don’t have to be gory and blood ridden. But FPS’s are made out to be like this because we’re in an age of Golden Eye 007, Doom, Quake, Eck’s Versus Sever and Unreal Tournament. These are all as stereotyping describes them to be, gory (In some way or another). But the game that has taken all GameCube fans by storm will prove this stereotyped image wrong. The game? Star Wars Rogue Leader Rogue Squadron II. Okay, so you might say this is a Third Person Shooter, but there is an option to change to first person view point, for all the FPS fans out there. Plus, if it’s a great success in Britain, we might even see a huge increase in FPS’s like RL. This may stop all the FPS stereotyping that goes on. It may not be a bad thing for people to think that FPS’s are gory and bloody, but RL will show people there are different kinds of FPS’s.
Another type of genre stereotyping that goes on is with a lot of racers. Many times I have heard people saying things like “Mario Kart isn’t a proper racer.” And other remarks about racers that aren’t simulators. It may just be where a bout’s I live, but what do these people mean by ‘Proper racer’? If Mario Kart isn’t a ‘Proper racer’, then why should Gran Turismo be classed as a ‘Proper racer’? Maybe they mean that it isn’t a realistic racer, but really that shouldn’t matter if you want a good racer. Mario Kart has always been fun to play and very competitive, like all racing games should be like. So maybe you don’t get to tune up your car and play the proper role of a car driver, but is it supposed to be an RPR (Role Playing Racer)? So all I’m trying to say is that most of this stereotyping isn’t true. Just look at what I’ve said and you should be able to see what I’m talking about.
Thanks for reading
RiCkOsS
Take for example the GameCube and it’s future releases. These are known as ‘Kiddy’ to some people but look at the facts. All ages play Nintendo games, whether people like it or not. Look at Luigi’s Mansion. It has the cartooned effect and ‘short ‘n’ sweet’ rule, but does that mean the game is for children? In short, the answer would be no. It may be a cartooned platformer that doesn’t have gore or guts in it, but it’s a fun game to play and that’s why people play it. Maybe kids do play, maybe more kids play it, but does that make that one game ‘Kiddy’? People of all ages could play and have fun, from 8-50 years old, people will be merrily having a laugh with the game.
It might look like a cartoon, which means it is probably aimed at children, but it’s fun for anyone to play. Also the ‘short ‘n’ sweet’ rule may apply to this game, but that may only be for the straight forward part of the game. Because, for us lucky Europeans, we are getting an updated version of ‘Secret Mansion’. This will hopefully mean it will have a huge life span. Games with secrets usually do. But why did Nintendo do this? Is it because of this stereotyping? Maybe it was them trying to give the game a wider audience. For small children, they can complete the straight forward part of the game and feel they’ve done it all. For those of us who are hardcore gamers, the ‘Secret Mansion’ may give the game that little more challenge we’re looking for. So in retrospect to this game, Nintendo’s ‘Kiddy’ image is just a wild accusation that don’t like the thought of cartooned looking platformers actually being enjoyable to an older range of people.
But while this ‘Kiddy’ stereotyping goes on, it gets better. Take Capcom, for example. They make Resident Evil games exclusive to the Nintendo GameCube, but why? Is it because Capcom want to get rid of the ‘Kiddy’ image that Nintendo have strapped to their back or just the simple reason that they want to make money? Personally I think that Capcom are trying to say to people that they believe Nintendo have an older audience or to get Nintendo an older audience. This was proven even more when Shinji Mikami revealed he was to work on yet another GameCube exclusive after Resident Evil, codenamed CAS-Ra. This may appeal to many Resident Evil fans that have a PS2, maybe bringing down this stereotyping even more if dedicated Sony fans started to say “Maybe we were wrong after all.”
Also Microsoft have been getting a lot of un-necessary stereotyping about their first console, the X-Box. Some people seem to say ‘All graphics, no gameplay’, as I’ve already said, but what are they on about?! These people are obviously people who haven’t played any of the titles and are jealous of people who own an X-Box. There are some quality launch titles that are all graphics and gameplay. Take Halo, for instance. It looks like a dream. From the textures and characters to the little details, it looks beautiful, which actually proves half of the stereotyping that is taking place. But, and there’s a very big but, it plays brilliantly. The characters, as well as looking perfect, are as clever as a human, each and every one of them. So a game that plays and looks brilliant is ‘All graphics, no gameplay’? No, which proves, again, that this stereotyping is simply false.
But it’s not only companies being stereotyped, these day genre stereotyping happens all the time. Not all genres are what they’re made out to be. Not all First Person Shooter’s are gory and full of blood. Not all racing games are racing simulations. Not all genres are what they’re made out to be.
Look at First Person Shooter’s, they don’t have to be gory and blood ridden. But FPS’s are made out to be like this because we’re in an age of Golden Eye 007, Doom, Quake, Eck’s Versus Sever and Unreal Tournament. These are all as stereotyping describes them to be, gory (In some way or another). But the game that has taken all GameCube fans by storm will prove this stereotyped image wrong. The game? Star Wars Rogue Leader Rogue Squadron II. Okay, so you might say this is a Third Person Shooter, but there is an option to change to first person view point, for all the FPS fans out there. Plus, if it’s a great success in Britain, we might even see a huge increase in FPS’s like RL. This may stop all the FPS stereotyping that goes on. It may not be a bad thing for people to think that FPS’s are gory and bloody, but RL will show people there are different kinds of FPS’s.
Another type of genre stereotyping that goes on is with a lot of racers. Many times I have heard people saying things like “Mario Kart isn’t a proper racer.” And other remarks about racers that aren’t simulators. It may just be where a bout’s I live, but what do these people mean by ‘Proper racer’? If Mario Kart isn’t a ‘Proper racer’, then why should Gran Turismo be classed as a ‘Proper racer’? Maybe they mean that it isn’t a realistic racer, but really that shouldn’t matter if you want a good racer. Mario Kart has always been fun to play and very competitive, like all racing games should be like. So maybe you don’t get to tune up your car and play the proper role of a car driver, but is it supposed to be an RPR (Role Playing Racer)? So all I’m trying to say is that most of this stereotyping isn’t true. Just look at what I’ve said and you should be able to see what I’m talking about.
Thanks for reading
RiCkOsS