Have people changed their minds about Satoru Iwata now?

[Drag]

I like Nintendo games because they're not doing the same thing Sony and Microsoft tend to do with their games. Bright and colorfulness aside, Splatoon is a really good FPS. The motion controls in the gamepad allow mouse-like precision in a CONSOLE FPS game (I'm unaware if other games have tried it and succeeded), the game isn't all focused on getting dat killcount high, and there's no way for people to be assholes to you for not playing the way they want you to.

One thing that's a double-edged sword is the conflict resolution; there is none at all. If you splat someone on your game, it doesn't matter what the situation's like on their game, they get splatted and that's the end of it. This gives way to some very unfair situations when the connection is laggy, but meh, it's better than splatting someone only to find out that you didn't "really" splat them.

I don't agree with the notion that something with bright colors, that people can't scream cursewords at you, with a lack of gore is automatically a "childish" game. What makes a game "manly"? Sex appeal, real-life situations, no colors (despite how colorful the real world is), and swearing out the ass? You can go ahead and take that if it means so much to you, but if you seriously sat down and played a few rounds of Splatoon, you'd very quickly figure out that the players aren't children, despite the game's facade.

There you go, Nintendo isn't exclusively for little kiddies. Can we please stop with the assumptions?

[Drew Sebastino]

Well I, personally, don't think it's childish. (Notice how I wrote "childish" instead of childish.) It's ironic though, because most of the people I've personally seen play Call of Duty are younger than those I've seen who've played Splatoon, and Call of Duty is supposedly "manlier". I really don't know how monochrome ever got associated with manliness or whatever.

[Khaz]

Wow, salt levels off the charts!

I think we can do without such jeering from the peanut gallery, thank you very much. I am eagerly looking forward to the day people stop using the word "salt" in this context.

I have no clue how people prefer the looks of something like Call of Duty.

Immersion. A realistic graphical style can help with that. Take Morrowind for example. A game where most of the world is a bleak-looking grey-brown wasteland plagued by ash storms. It was ugly but that "gritty realism", along with the sheer volume of uniquely-detailed towns, dungeons and landscape that never once seemed repetitive, created a world you could really lose yourself in. Perhaps the first game and one of the few ever I can honestly say made me forget I was even playing a game in the first place, much like a good book can make you forget that you're reading words on paper.

Colorful cartoonish styles have a different purpose. They make it easy to highlight different gameplay elements, and for the player to decode what is relevant instinctively. More brainpower can be focused on the actual gameplay, rather than trying to tell what's what. This is good for competitive or fast-paced games. In a game like Morrowind, it would be counter-productive. Processing that rich environment, learning to pick out key features and just plain enjoying the scenery was half the fun. There was no advantage in gameplay to be gained by simplifying things graphically - it would likely have simply made things more boring, given how much of the game was based on walking around and exploring.

Neither approach is superior to the other.

most of the people I've personally seen play Call of Duty are younger than those I've seen who've played Splatoon, and Call of Duty is supposedly "manlier".

Because only boys and really insecure adults care about demonstrating how "manly" they are. Real people know better and buy games because they're worth playing, not because they have something to prove.

I would also suggest that kids and teenagers probably get more of a kick out of endlessly murdering people in the most realistic way possible than adults do. Seems to be a phase.

I really don't know how monochrome ever got associated with manliness or whatever.

Are you sure we're living on the same planet? Colours and cartoons and emotions are unmanly. Dirt and guns and alcohol and killing people are manly. That's not a videogame thing, that's a plague of society in general that we're thankfully just now beginning to unravel.

[Bregalad]

Maybe bring some citations before just flat-out calling me wrong. But you can't, though, because this is another thing that's impossible to prove. All it takes is one single example of a murder in the name of god from that era to prove me right.

You made an advnacevent without any proof, and I refute it, so you are the one in the need of a proof, not me. Did you even look up history of very early Christianity before writing that post? Christians have been persecuted for a couple of hundreds of years after the religion appeared. They certainly weren't oppressors like you intended.

My original point was that, for the last 2000 years or so and almost certainly more than that, atheists have been oppressed and villified by the religious.

Again, wrong. Modern atheism was invented in the mid-1700s and started spreading after the french revolution, in 1789. Before that point in history there was no such thing as atheism and atheists to be oppressed.

[DoNotWant]

Again, wrong. Modern atheism was invented in the mid-1700s and started spreading after the french revolution, in 1789. Before that point in history there was no such thing as atheism and atheists to be oppressed.

Wrong, atheism is not being a theist, it's not some invention.
"Hey, I believe in this god here some dude came up with. *fatfetched, unconfirmable story unfolds*" <- Theist
"Well, I don't believe that ever happend." <- Atheist
The invention would be theism, or the gods/religions that encompasses theism.

No such thing as atheists before the mid-18th century? So everyone up until then were theists in some way? That is highly doubtful.

[Bregalad]

That's why I have edited my post to say "modern" atheism. Before the mid 18th century the vast majority of population were serfs (some kind of slave farmers), illiterate and uneducated, they would not question what they were teach, so yeah they weren't atheists and no, that's not doubtful at all.

[Khaz]

You made an advnacevent without any proof, and I refute it, so you are the one in the need of a proof, not me. Did you even look up history of very early Christianity before writing that post? Christians have been persecuted for a couple of hundreds of years after the religion appeared. They certainly weren't oppressors like you intended.

They may have been oppressed themselves at first, but they rose to dominance rather quickly. It was no doubt a very violent and tumultuous time for everyone involved. Like I said before, you can hardly prove such violence didn't occur, and the fact that Christians themselves were oppressed just helps prove my point! Who were they oppressed by? Other religions! Bingo, violence in the name of a god! Point made.

If you check back on page 3 what my original point was, I never even mentioned Christians specifically. I said, "humanity has collectively spent the last 2000 years enforcing religion on everyone, usually under penalty of death". Which brings me to this:

Again, wrong. Modern atheism was invented in the mid-1700s and started spreading after the french revolution, in 1789. Before that point in history there was no such thing as atheism and atheists to be oppressed.

FALSE. CITATION.

And also: You could not POSSIBLY have proven my point any better. Atheism is not believing in a god. That belief predates the foundation of Christianity, that is a fact (see: citation). The fact that you can say it didn't even exist before the 1700s means that the atheists that did exist were being more oppressed than christians EVER have been - driven completely and totally into hiding, likely under threat of death, forced to pretend to be believers.

You bring up the serfs, which is terrible for your case - people who were deliberately kept uneducated to try to prevent them from even having the capacity to question the beliefs they were fed. They're a perfect example of the persecution I'm talking about. Generations of people, forced to believe in your religion, never given the opportunity to think for themselves or develop their own ideas. That is not atheism "not existing", that is it being forcibly violently suppressed. You think none of those people doubted what they were being told? I bet MOST of them did. They just didn't have the luxury of concerning themselves with it, because they were essentially slaves and had far more important problems.

[Sik]

Only on NESdev could a subject regarding the death of a CEO turn into a religious battle.

You haven't browsed the internet far enough then.

For some reason, I've never been a fan of cell-shading, and I don't think it's very convincing in making 3D graphics appear like 2D graphics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUXpM-ag7c0
There's a reason why the devs were giving talks on the rendering method all over the place =P

[Drew Sebastino]

I think we can do without such jeering from the peanut gallery, thank you very much. I am eagerly looking forward to the day people stop using the word "salt" in this context.

Okay. I'm just not really sure why you're getting so worked up, especially when you start writing in all caps and using exclamation points. Could you possibly continue your argument elsewhere, because I'm sure many people here don't want to hear it.

Are you sure we're living on the same planet? Colours and cartoons and emotions are unmanly. Dirt and guns and alcohol and killing people are manly. That's not a videogame thing, that's a plague of society in general that we're thankfully just now beginning to unravel.

It doesn't change the fact that it still looks awful. I don't see how you can get yourself "immersed" in a game where you die and come back to life a second latter and control you movement with your thumbs, and talk to people by looking at text boxes? I don't know if you mean by "immersed" like you think it's real life, (which I personally don't see how that's possible, but maybe that's just me) or if you're just devoting all your attention to it, because any good game will get me "immersed", childish or not. A game like R-Type gets me immersed, because if I'm not, I'll get hit, and will have to start back at the checkpoint.

Also, I don't know about you, but despite the fact that it's more colorful, but this grabs my attention (or gets me "immersed")



a lot more than this does.



(I swear, not even in real life do things look so washed out.)

I like to believe that I like to believe you can make some pretty "manly" games without resorting to dark gray-brown and light gray-brown, like Doom if that counts as being "manly".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUXpM-ag7c0
There's a reason why the devs were giving talks on the rendering method all over the place =P

Wow. It reminds me of a CPS3 game.

[DoNotWant]

That's why I have edited my post to say "modern" atheism. Before the mid 18th century the vast majority of population were serfs (some kind of slave farmers), illiterate and uneducated, they would not question what they were teach, so yeah they weren't atheists and no, that's not doubtful at all.

Modern atheism is a mumbo-jumbo term, and I don't know where you got it from.
It would be great with a reference, because I want to know if this is just something moronic, like "Atheism+".
It is the rejection of god(s) basically, now and before.

[Khaz]

Okay. I'm just not really sure why you're getting so worked up, especially when you start writing in all caps and using exclamation points. Could you possibly continue your argument elsewhere, because I'm sure many people here don't want to hear it.

You mistake the occasional use of capital letters to emphasize a particular word and punctuation to emphasize a particular sentence with "getting worked up". I'm merely attempting to make my typed words come across the same as if I had spoken the sentence aloud. Unfortunately, people tend to interpret any emphasis as yelling. I am not good at making points while speaking in a bland monotone - people tend to misunderstand what I say.

You're right, my conversation is off-topic and so is yours. If people are done talking about Iwata then technically this thread should be locked. You're the OP so I guess you get to decide; I'm just saying.

It doesn't change the fact that it still looks awful.

Your opinion. Sometimes I WANT things on screen to look awful. Would Halo have had the same impact if the levels inside the giant disgusting flood thing were all rainbows and unicorns? Call of Duty seems to be put through a constant greyscale filter through the entire thing, and that just means they're using the effect wrong. That style particularly shines when it lets you see the contrast. That's something Morrowind did. By having most of the world be a gross unpleasant wasteland, it really made you appreciate the lush, green corners of the world while you were in them. I would almost go so far as to say that your desire to avoid the ash storms and ugliness was itself an element of gameplay that made things more interesting.

I like to believe that I like to believe you can make some pretty "manly" games without resorting to dark gray-brown and light gray-brown, like Doom if that counts as being "manly".

That was the point I was trying to make. The graphical style has little to do with whether things are "manly" or not. Doom definitely counts. In its time, it was basically the epitome of a manly game. Blood and gore and shooting things, demons and hell, even the game interface itself abused you verbally ("You're lucky I don't smack you for thinking about leaving"). When I think about "childish" games, though, immediately the recent Sonic games come to mind: Hand-holding condescending tutorials for every last element of gameplay, inane meaningless plot... Those games would be childish even if it were set in a monochrome industrial wasteland.

I mean, even as a young child, I would have found the recent Sonic games grossly offensive by how they talk down to you. The classic ones just dropped you into Zone 1 and that was IT. If you really needed help, you could read the manual. The game let you enjoy figuring things out yourself, made it feel like a skill rather than just following orders.

Generally speaking, the games I like are neither "manly" nor "childish". Both are stereotypical attitudes aimed at pleasing a specific demographic, which is exactly what I want to avoid in games. I don't want games aimed at kids, I don't want games aimed at adults, I don't want games aimed at gay or straight or transgendered people, I don't want games aimed at black or white people. I want games that aim to be good games, and nothing more than that. If your primary focus in development is on ANYthing other than gameplay, you shouldn't be a game developer, you should go write a book or a movie instead.

[Drew Sebastino]

You mistake the occasional use of capital letters to emphasize a particular word and punctuation to emphasize a particular sentence with "getting worked up".

I guess I'm just thinking of all the people on YouTube that write in all caps to sound annoyed or something and they just end up looking stupid.

You're right, my conversation is off-topic and so is yours. If people are done talking about Iwata then technically this thread should be locked. You're the OP so I guess you get to decide; I'm just saying.

I just don't think that subjects that have no end are even worth starting.

When I think about "childish" games, though, immediately the recent Sonic games come to mind: Hand-holding condescending tutorials for every last element of gameplay, inane meaningless plot...

Sounds just like Call of Duty.

I mean, even as a young child, I would have found the recent Sonic games grossly offensive by how they talk down to you. The classic ones just dropped you into Zone 1 and that was IT. If you really needed help, you could read the manual. The game let you enjoy figuring things out yourself, made it feel like a skill rather than just following orders.

Yup... I always thought figuring things out on your own was half the fun.

Your opinion. Sometimes I WANT things on screen to look awful. Would Halo have had the same impact if the levels inside the giant disgusting flood thing were all rainbows and unicorns? Call of Duty seems to be put through a constant greyscale filter through the entire thing, and that just means they're using the effect wrong.

I agree that it's fine as long as the whole game isn't in greyscale, because it kind of serves as a way to emphasize the parts that are. The outdoor segments in Halo are very colorful. Hell, not even the parts with the flood are as monochromic as the most colorful parts in the Call of Duty games.

I want games that aim to be good games, and nothing more than that. If your primary focus in development is on ANYthing other than gameplay, you shouldn't be a game developer, you should go write a book or a movie instead.

Too bad EA and Activision don't feel the same way. (The second you have a quick time event, you might as well make a movie instead.)

[tepples]

The second you have a quick time event, you might as well make a movie instead.

Case in point: Was was the name of the movie playing framework in classic Mac OS?

[Khaz]

Case in point: Was was the name of the movie playing framework in classic Mac OS?

Oh my god it seriously took me 11 hours to get that joke.

I have never been this ashamed of my brain in my entire life.