The Sega Master System (hugely popular in Europe, apparently) and PC were a thing in the NES days.
Portable gaming is definitely a good point, although it's worth noting that it's partially because other companies did portable gaming really fucking badly
Portable gaming is definitely a good point, although it's worth noting that it's partially because other companies did portable gaming really fucking badly
I'd also like to add that, at least in the case of Mario, there's a clear distinction between the Games That Matter and the cash-in titles.
It's true that Super Mario Maker is supposed to be considered the former, and some may object to that, but the distinction still remains.
i feel like Nintendo's view of the Games That Matter is not the same as the games that are genuinely good/interesting, or not always
Super Mario Land does not seem to be a 'Game That Matters', nor are the RPG titles or anything involving Donkey Kong or Wario that doesn't have 'Country' or 'Ware' in the title
I'd also like to add that, at least in the case of Mario, there's a clear distinction between the Games That Matter and the cash-in titles.
It's true that Super Mario Maker is supposed to be considered the former, and some may object to that, but the distinction still remains.
i feel like Nintendo's view of the Games That Matter is not the same as the games that are genuinely good/interesting, or not always
Super Mario Land does not seem to be a 'Game That Matters', nor are the RPG titles or anything involving Donkey Kong or Wario that doesn't have 'Country' or 'Ware' in the title
this too
nintendo has a very skewed image of its own best products. either that or they just don't care.
I'd also like to add that, at least in the case of Mario, there's a clear distinction between the Games That Matter and the cash-in titles.
It's true that Super Mario Maker is supposed to be considered the former, and some may object to that, but the distinction still remains.
i feel like Nintendo's view of the Games That Matter is not the same as the games that are genuinely good/interesting, or not always
Super Mario Land does not seem to be a 'Game That Matters', nor are the RPG titles or anything involving Donkey Kong or Wario that doesn't have 'Country' or 'Ware' in the title
I actually agree with that.
I feel like Nintendo's definition of the "Games That Matter" are games that are developed by Nintendo themselves, which is why Super Mario Maker is in but Paper Mario is not.
You'd be better using Mario Kart or Mario Party for that. Olympics hasn't been properly run into the ground yet.
And while the supplementary Mario games are definitely riding on brand recognition rather than actual talent, I think they're considered closer to the Madden series or 2K than anything else. They're not bought because they're good; they're bought because they're the newest incarnation and you need a party game for when friends are over. The only real exception would be Hyrule Warriors, which has a sense of legitimacy behind it that it may or may not deserve.
I'd also like to add that, at least in the case of Mario, there's a clear distinction between the Games That Matter and the cash-in titles.
It's true that Super Mario Maker is supposed to be considered the former, and some may object to that, but the distinction still remains.
i feel like Nintendo's view of the Games That Matter is not the same as the games that are genuinely good/interesting, or not always
Super Mario Land does not seem to be a 'Game That Matters', nor are the RPG titles or anything involving Donkey Kong or Wario that doesn't have 'Country' or 'Ware' in the title
Has there been anything Donkey Kong aside from the (excellent) new Country titles within this decade? Likewise Wario.
I mean I guess you could argue they're "abandoning" those titles or something but to be honest there is nothing even remotely unfair about putting certain series on the backburner. Especially because Nintendo's pretty good about bringing back old, forgotten IPs. I mean, we're getting a new damn Chibi Robo game.
You'd be better using Mario Kart or Mario Party for that. Olympics hasn't been properly run into the ground yet.
And while the supplementary Mario games are definitely riding on brand recognition rather than actual talent, I think they're considered closer to the Madden series or 2K than anything else. They're not bought because they're good; they're bought because they're the newest incarnation and you need a party game for when friends are over. The only real exception would be Hyrule Warriors, which has a sense of legitimacy behind it that it may or may not deserve.
i feel Mario Kart tends to be treated as more legitimate than the other sports/party-game titles, but i'm not sure
Hyrule Warriors is a very addictive game and a solid "Warriors" title, but the Zelda elements are largely superficial
(tbh a lot of the fun of it for me is recognizing all the Zelda elements, so i was slightly disappointed the DLC didn't add more of those)
I'd also like to add that, at least in the case of Mario, there's a clear distinction between the Games That Matter and the cash-in titles.
It's true that Super Mario Maker is supposed to be considered the former, and some may object to that, but the distinction still remains.
i feel like Nintendo's view of the Games That Matter is not the same as the games that are genuinely good/interesting, or not always
Super Mario Land does not seem to be a 'Game That Matters', nor are the RPG titles or anything involving Donkey Kong or Wario that doesn't have 'Country' or 'Ware' in the title
Has there been anything Donkey Kong aside from the (excellent) new Country titles within this decade? Likewise Wario.
I mean I guess you could argue they're "abandoning" those titles or something but to be honest there is nothing even remotely unfair about putting certain series on the backburner. Especially because Nintendo's pretty good about bringing back old, forgotten IPs. I mean, we're getting a new damn Chibi Robo game.
i don't think there has, but that's kinda the point - Nintendo will cheerfully refer back to World or 64 or even Sunshine whenever they feel like it
and actually, barring a few characters like Diddy, the SNES Country games don't get a lot of acknowledgement
Of the Zelda titles developed by people other than Nintendo, it seems like they all are packed with a bunch of superficial "Zelda stuff". Honestly until I played it I was worried that Hyrule Warriors might turn out to be a JJ Abrams-esque wank to the series moreso than a tribute.
Sometimes it's just fun to play as your favourite characters and fight familiar monsters, in scenery from games you liked with music from games you liked.
This is kinda what i mean when i say i don't see what's so bad about "Content Consumption", Hyrule Warriors in no sense plays like a Zelda title, but there are bombchus! And cuccos! You can play as Zelda or Impa, or Zant or Ghirahim! Sometimes that's enough.
That's all setting aside that Hyrule Warriors is also an installment in the Warriors franchise, hence the radically different gameplay.
(i would also apply much the same argument to the Smash Bros series, even the lesser titles.)
Fucking Firefox is putting up a weird "search" thing whenever I highlight and apparently it is not playing nice with the comment boxes. Take a gander at this batshit-ass source code:
I've seen MCU fans claim that Age of Ultron was the movie that Man of Steel should have been. And I find that rather telling, because in terms of actual writing and character's motivations actually making sense, both films were equal offenders. But Age of Ultron had constant wisecracking and a blatant deus ex machina to save the heroes from having to make a truly hard choice in the big ending battle. And in some folks' minds, that makes it the better movie.
That's kind of reductive, though, innit? I seriously doubt anyone thought "this movie is better because it had a deus ex machina, Man of Steel was bad because it didn't have a deus ex machina."
Perhaps I could have worded my point better, because that's not what I meant. AOU fans and MOS detractors focus on the "saving civilians" angle to the exclusion of all else: AOU has an explicit focus on saving civilians, and MOS doesn't, therefore AOU is the better film. Ignoring the fact that saving the population of that East European city depended on the intervention of that SHIELD helicarrier, which wasn't foreshadowed at all in the film. That breaks one of those rules of drama that we've known about since freaking Aristotle, but people are happy to overlook that because the results felt good.
OpAPHID said:Sometimes it's just fun to play as your favourite characters and fight familiar monsters, in scenery from games you liked with music from games you liked.
This is kinda what i mean when i say i don't see what's so bad about "Content Consumption", Hyrule Warriors in no sense plays like a Zelda title, but there are bombchus! And cuccos! You can play as Zelda or Impa, or Zant or Ghirahim! Sometimes that's enough.
That's all setting aside that Hyrule Warriors is also an installment in the Warriors franchise, hence the radically different gameplay.
(i would also apply much the same argument to the Smash Bros series, even the lesser titles.)
I'm willing to be more forgiving of Smash Bros because, 1, it's very, very much a party game, 2, it basically invented its own genre of wacky mascot fighter and, 3, it came up with its own unique gameplay. Whether or not it's good is up to question, but it's its own.
I've tried Hyrule Warriors. And as much fun as I got out of goofing about with Zant, it does have a sort of hollowness to it. But eh, maybe that's just the Dynasty Warriors under the Hyrule.
In the movie, the Maximoff twins start off working for Neo-Nazis, despite the fact that, in the comics, they are of mixed Jewish/Romani heritage and are the children of a holocaust survivor. They work for this group to get their revenge on the billionaire developer of weapons who was responsible for a bomb that killed their parents and trapped them under rubble for days. At the end of the movie, they have to learn to work with the man who developed these weapons, and who has only shown remorse over the fact that the weapons were used on Americans. Then one of them sacrifices his own life to save an agent of the American government working for an NSA analogue.
Like, this is fucked up right? Like, really, really fucked up?
No it doesn't, unexpected things can bring interesting dramatic beats. There's an adage that unexpected things should never save people, just put them in more danger, but provided it's justified emotionally it will work.
Very few rules of what a narrative "has" to do are true. And even then, most rules are *highly* contextual. "No deus ex machinae" (dei ex machinae?) is probably a decent rule of thumb for, say, a mystery, but it's not very applicable to superhero movies.
In the movie, the Maximoff twins start off working for Neo-Nazis, despite the fact that, in the comics, they are of mixed Jewish/Romani heritage and are the children of a holocaust survivor. They work for this group to get their revenge on the billionaire developer of weapons who was responsible for a bomb that killed their parents and trapped them under rubble for days. At the end of the movie, they have to learn to work with the man who developed these weapons, and who has only shown remorse over the fact that the weapons were used on Americans. Then one of them sacrifices his own life to save an agent of the American government working for an NSA analogue.
Like, this is fucked up right? Like, really, really fucked up?
Yes.
But not all of that was obvious to me, watching the film but not knowing the comics.
In the movie, the Maximoff twins start off working for Neo-Nazis, despite the fact that, in the comics, they are of mixed Jewish/Romani heritage and are the children of a holocaust survivor. They work for this group to get their revenge on the billionaire developer of weapons who was responsible for a bomb that killed their parents and trapped them under rubble for days. At the end of the movie, they have to learn to work with the man who developed these weapons, and who has only shown remorse over the fact that the weapons were used on Americans. Then one of them sacrifices his own life to save an agent of the American government working for an NSA analogue.
Like, this is fucked up right? Like, really, really fucked up?
I agree it's a problem, but weren't you the one who complained about people disliking things for moral reasons?
Tachyon: The Master System did OK here, though not as well as the NES (which had a one or two-year head start and Nintendo's strong-arm tactics to help it along). It wasn't until the Genesis/Mega Drive came out in 1989 that people started taking Sega seriously here.
Disney in general also tends to lean conservative, i think
relative to the politics of the time, at any rate
Haha you know it! In hindsight I like One Saturday Morning's creative direction and find Pepper Ann and Teacher's Pet hidden gems, but the Walt Disney Company always felt very tight-assed compared to Nick, H-B/CN (though Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera honestly seemed to have kind of vanilla tastes), or WB.
Disney is one of a few companies whose very existence makes me uncomfortable.
Like, people still stand up for it? As though it's something that needs defending and is somehow an underdog in....any situation?
Like there are Disney fans. Hardcore Disney fans, and I don't understand how.
Their properties have next to nothing in common, it's just a random selection of stuff. Some of it good, some of it bad, and people look at this and go "yeah this is something that is worth my time arguing for on the internet."
people do it with Nintendo too idgi.
It's possible to like Disney and still have a complicated view of the Walt Disney Company.
Walt Disney Animation Studios - for most, the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of Disney - has a long association with a high standard of storytelling and craft. This of course varies by the movie, but the craft appeals nonetheless.
Disney does have a long history of sticking their name on crap that exists solely to pay the bills, and a seeming attraction to mediocrity and dullness that permeates much of the company (this manifests itself most obviously through - I'm serious - ABC). It's part of why I've come to detest Bob Iger's Disney. There's WDAS, there's Pixar, there's Disney Television Animation, there's the Muppets Studio, but most of Disney has this vibe of repression about it.
Also, about Marvel in specific, you have to remember that before Disney it was owned by a former corporate raider, Ike Perlmutter, and that in the years before the MCU, Marvel's properties were subject to a lot of devaluing hackiness (e.g. those chintzy old cartoons that couldn't hold a candle to the DCAU - those predate Perlmutter, but still adhere somewhat to his apparent way of thinking). There is still some of that bland/soulless corporate attitude there (I have heard little good about the Marvel cartoons populating Disney XD - Ultimate Spider-Man is said to be awful but it seems like the best of them), and I don't know how that will change as Disney forces out Perlmutter and instills their own ethos into Marvel. Marvel kind of feels like an odd fit within Disney anyway besides the "highly marketable characters" aspect.
I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
also, Disney's properties aren't a random selection of "stuff". They might seem like a hodgepodge to an outsider, but they're there due to a plan (unless it's something they inherited from a corporate predecessor like Schoolhouse Rock! or Eek! The Cat in which case pff).
Comments
which i think makes perfect sense of you happen to be fanatically into superhero flicks
Portable gaming is definitely a good point, although it's worth noting that it's partially because other companies did portable gaming really fucking badly
It's true that Super Mario Maker is supposed to be considered the former, and some may object to that, but the distinction still remains.
Super Mario Land does not seem to be a 'Game That Matters', nor are the RPG titles or anything involving Donkey Kong or Wario that doesn't have 'Country' or 'Ware' in the title
I feel like Nintendo's definition of the "Games That Matter" are games that are developed by Nintendo themselves, which is why Super Mario Maker is in but Paper Mario is not.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
still irritating, though
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
I mean I guess you could argue they're "abandoning" those titles or something but to be honest there is nothing even remotely unfair about putting certain series on the backburner. Especially because Nintendo's pretty good about bringing back old, forgotten IPs. I mean, we're getting a new damn Chibi Robo game.
Hyrule Warriors is a very addictive game and a solid "Warriors" title, but the Zelda elements are largely superficial
(tbh a lot of the fun of it for me is recognizing all the Zelda elements, so i was slightly disappointed the DLC didn't add more of those)
It looks kinda cool, but it seems to miss the point of Zelda to me.
and actually, barring a few characters like Diddy, the SNES Country games don't get a lot of acknowledgement
like what happened to K. Rool anyway
it's a spin off, like that crossbow training thing
except it's a much bigger and more elaborate game than crossbow training
This is kinda what i mean when i say i don't see what's so bad about "Content Consumption", Hyrule Warriors in no sense plays like a Zelda title, but there are bombchus! And cuccos! You can play as Zelda or Impa, or Zant or Ghirahim! Sometimes that's enough.
That's all setting aside that Hyrule Warriors is also an installment in the Warriors franchise, hence the radically different gameplay.
(i would also apply much the same argument to the Smash Bros series, even the lesser titles.)
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
This is kinda what i mean when i say i don't see what's so bad about "Content Consumption", Hyrule Warriors in no sense plays like a Zelda title, but there are bombchus! And cuccos! You can play as Zelda or Impa, or Zant or Ghirahim! Sometimes that's enough.
That's all setting aside that Hyrule Warriors is also an installment in the Warriors franchise, hence the radically different gameplay.
(i would also apply much the same argument to the Smash Bros series, even the lesser titles.)
I'm willing to be more forgiving of Smash Bros because, 1, it's very, very much a party game, 2, it basically invented its own genre of wacky mascot fighter and, 3, it came up with its own unique gameplay. Whether or not it's good is up to question, but it's its own.
Very few rules of what a narrative "has" to do are true. And even then, most rules are *highly* contextual. "No deus ex machinae" (dei ex machinae?) is probably a decent rule of thumb for, say, a mystery, but it's not very applicable to superhero movies.
But not all of that was obvious to me, watching the film but not knowing the comics.