Defining "kiddy"

"Kiddy" is a term thrown around a lot on the internet, and recently there was some discussion in the Revolution thread about whether Nintendo will continue to make these games the focus of Revolution. Here I'll try to define it.

A kiddy game is one designed to appeal especially to children by including the following characteristics:
1) The main objective is to rescue the princess (or alternatively a friend).
2) The main characters share common features with Mickey Mouse, such as a large round nose, big eyes, stout body, fat feet, and white gloves.
3) The main color scheme has a saturated color palette, such as bright red [i.e., (255, 0, 0)], yellow, blue, and green.
4) Any violence depicted is not more than what is shown in a Roadrunner cartoon.
5) Multiplayer mode is emphasized over single player mode.

Disqualifiers - what I don't see in kiddy games:
A) blood
B) death by firearms
C) sexual innuendo
D) swearing
E) corpses (with rotting flesh)
F) realistic characters

I strongly dissagree with the main objective (see "Pop n' Music", "Chu Chu Rocket", "Wario Ware" etc.) and the multi-player emphasis.

And on the swearing bit, there is a Pop 'n Music cartoon demon that flips you the cartoon bird if you defeat him. :)

People bitching about "kiddy" games are ridiculous, I'm sorry. A "kiddy" game is a game made specifically for kids that doesn't provide enjoyment for an older audience. A lot of the games people bitch about are games perfectly suited for both children and adults, and thus are not kiddy games.

As Cheebs pointed out, we could sit here all day naming games that could fit into this definition of "kiddy" but aren't - I'd also add Parappa, Um Jammer Lammy, Top Shop, Smash Brothers, etc. And hell, let's put 90% of the sports genre in there too - no blood or death or violence, sometimes bright color palettes, so they're kiddy games!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedCoKid

5) Multiplayer mode is emphasized over single player mode.

---

this made me laugh. so is URT2K4 kiddy?

Shidoshi is right... games that can be enjoyed by everybody are not kiddy. Kiddy is a term bred by people on gamefaqs. Using it is like bring a piece of gamefaqs to TNL.

Worst. topic. evar.

Furthermore, there's all sorts of "kiddy" shmups like the Gunbird series that feature "death by firearms" and I think you could make an argument that the Paradious series is "kiddie" and it has scantilly clad women all over the place.

Why even define "kiddy"? Doesn't seem like a definition will accomplish much. Just play what ya wanna' play.

RedCoKid, your definitions are pretty good for a first attempt but I would take out the multiplayer one. I can find too many counterexamples to make it useful.

Now to combat the haters (this is always the fun part):

Quote:

---

this made me laugh. so is URT2K4 kiddy?

---

Dragonmaster, don't be an idiot. UT2004 would violate nearly all of the restrictions.

Shidoshi, he's not bitching. He's providing a definition.

Quote:

---

As Cheebs pointed out, we could sit here all day naming games that could fit into this definition of "kiddy" but aren't - I'd also add Parappa, Um Jammer Lammy, Top Shop, Smash Brothers, etc. And hell, let's put 90% of the sports genre in there too - no blood or death or violence, sometimes bright color palettes, so they're kiddy games!

---

PaRappa, Smash Brothers, and Unjammer are undoubtedly games for kids. Sports games would break rule (f). Backyard Baseball, on the other hand... Anyway, like StriderKyo once said, nobody our age is gonna watch Beauty & The Beast every day because its such a great movie. Sometimes, its spite of the fact that the game would provide enjoyment for us we dont want to play it because of its theme. Gamers like to treat people who feel that way as some sort of pariah, but that is retarded.

As for Nintendo continuing to make games for kids (and let's be real - Pikmin and Super Mario Sunshine are for pre-pubescent children), yes they will, at least for as long as Miyamoto is around. Face it, we're at the point where the dude is holding Nintendo back. His GameCube games have been mediocre and he has shown little to no growth as a game designer over the past 6 years.

Quote:

---

Shidoshi is right... games that can be enjoyed by everybody are not kiddy.

---

I can sit down and enjoy Saturday morning cartoons for hours but Im not gonna delude myself into thinking that they aren't for children.

Quote:

---

Why even define "kiddy"? Doesn't seem like a definition will accomplish much. Just play what ya wanna' play.

---

So we can begin to critically examine the games and the companies that make them. Doing things like this can begin to incite intellectual discussion on videogames, which is something that I feel is absolutely necessary for the continued progression of games as an art and science. I am in favor of scientific frameworks of videogames being built, Stone is in favor of critical theory, and finding definitions like this can help both (albeit, the latter more).

If you're not interested in this, then, just move along. The topic isn't for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Worst. topic. evar.

---

im gonna have to go ahead and agree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

As for Nintendo continuing to make games for kids (and let's be real - Pikmin and Super Mario Sunshine are for pre-pubescent children), yes they will, at least for as long as Miyamoto is around. Face it, we're at the point where the dude is holding Nintendo back. His GameCube games have been mediocre and he has shown little to no growth as a game designer over the past 6 years.

---

his GameCube games are holding Nintendo back? he's only directed one game this whole generation.

what the fuck are you talking about?

Ill use this opportunity to say:

I dont give a shit about anything you say, JohnnyNighttrain, you worthless scammer. So dont respond to my posts because Im not gonna give a crap about anything you say.

doesn't change the fact that you're talking out of your ass when you talk about Nintendo. hey, let's blame all their development decisions on Miyamoto. he's the reason Wind Waker turned out kiddy and looks like a gay cartoon right? let's just go ahead and ignore the fact that he had nothing to do with the game aside from making sure the controls were polished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

So dont respond to my posts because Im not gonna give a crap about anything you say.

---

way to avoid getting called on your shit chump.

I think we can all agree that anything with a Sesame Street license is kiddie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny

I think we can all agree that anything with a Sesame Street license is kiddie.

---

you evidently missed the code where you can strip gina, decapitate elmo, and fight the zombie of mr.hooper

Kiddy? Kiddy?

- The problem with games these days is they're not made for kids. They're made for adolescents. If game designers tried to make games that held the interest of under 8s they'd make nothing but gameplay masterpieces.

(Which has nothing to do with the definition of Kiddy. So useless post by me again.)

OH NOES! BRIGHT COLORS! I AM LESS OF A MAN!

Seriously. That's what you sound like.

And very few games with the Mature label are actually mature.

Quote:

---

Sometimes, its spite of the fact that the game would provide enjoyment for us we dont want to play it because of its theme. Gamers like to treat people who feel that way as some sort of pariah, but that is retarded.

---

But many of those who feel such a way will call a game crap and deride others who do enjoy such for no reason other then the theme, and many of those haven't even played the game in the first place. Or do you feel all who respond as such are retarded?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MechDeus

And very few games with the Mature label are actually mature.But many of those who feel such a way will call a game crap and deride others who do enjoy such for no reason other then the theme, and many of those haven't even played the game in the first place. Or do you feel all who respond as such are retarded?

---

Wha..?

... A kiddie game is a game that's targetted at an audience of kids. I win the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I can sit down and enjoy Saturday morning cartoons for hours but Im not gonna delude myself into thinking that they aren't for children.

---

There are shows that are aimed to adults and children a like. The point is that something like X-Men Evolution is just as aimed towards teenagers as it is to kids, giving it a wide margin.

Not all cartoons are made exclusively for children. Shrek is another example of a movie that is aimed at both because of hidden inneudo and jokes kids don't understand on that level.

Nothing is deluded, I'm saying that the term kiddy is abused far too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedCoKid

There's nothing wrong with liking kiddy games, but I'm getting very bored with everything coming out of EAD molded to fit the Mario universe just to get kids hooked. The main source of creativity in Nintendo games lately has been small changes to gameplay, not scenario or character design. Some of you are going to be okay with this, but I'm getting bored of it. Even if Nintendo invents a new controller for Revolution, I won't care if their 1st party game lineup doesn't have more variety. When I go to the movie theater, I wouldn't be able to stand watching mostly G or PG movies, and for the same reason it's getting difficult to buy anything other than 3rd party games on GCN.

---

Well put.

And the topic is fine. It's good discussion, what a forum was designed for.

For the record your definition is pretty good.

"Family-friendly" fits most games that folks put under the "kiddy" banner, which would account for many games now, and most games released before 1993 or so.

You guys are making things too complicated. I will just rephrase it into something more concise:

Kiddy = Nintendo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

So we can begin to critically examine the games and the companies that make them. Doing things like this can begin to incite intellectual discussion on videogames, which is something that I feel is absolutely necessary for the continued progression of games as an art and science. I am in favor of scientific frameworks of videogames being built, Stone is in favor of critical theory, and finding definitions like this can help both (albeit, the latter more).

If you're not interested in this, then, just move along. The topic isn't for you.

---

It sounds like you're trying way too hard to justify yourself playing videogames. I'm all for talking about and examining the components that make a videogame what it is etc., and one of the reasons why TNL is so good is because it oftentimes has conversations by people who are serious about games to an extent most people are not. This will never change the fact that videogames, all of them, are toys. Yes, there are so many artistic elements that go into them that they could potentially be analyzed in some respects to the same extent that movies are, and the effort put into the great ones shouldn't be overlooked. But you're still an adult playing with toys, like the rest of us. Some of them are aimed at "adults"(ususally really adolescents), but they are interactive play things. Videogames are an entertainment that is widely regarded by the public as "kiddy" in itself (unfairly, as we know), but there is some truth in that.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but the fact is we are all spending much more time than it takes to watch a movie actually interacting with a game. If you attatch a totally brilliant X-rated gangster movie to a game, you will have that, plus a game. If you're more concerned with that than you are having fun, maybe its time to move on to a different medium.

Super Monkey Ball meets all of the kiddy criteria and is one of the most difficult games ever made. RedCoKid's definition is flimsy at best and stupid at worst. Clearly, it’s futile to try and create a blanket definition that covers all video games. Case-by-case studies are the only way to determine whether or not a game is kiddy.

PS: The journalist who created the term “kiddy” needs to be shot.

I dont really play all that many videogames in the first place, and I am approaching it from a purely academic perspective. I made a thread a while back saying why I think game developers should make a sort of "videogame theory", analogous to music theory. So that a consistent framework can be made for common elements that are, lets face it, in most games. I think that videogames could really take off in terms of quality if this were to happen. Stone advocated the development of critical theory to videogames.

If you think videogames are toys and always will be toys, well then Im glad you werent around hundreds of years ago when music was starting to gain an importance and seriousness in society, and Im glad you werent friends with DW Griffith when he was making Birth of a Nation. Because this type of close-minded thinking impedes progress. You know, movies were bullshit until someone decided to take them seriously too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Wha..?

---

What? It was about the flipped version of what you said, which is about as common an occurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I dont really play all that many videogames in the first place, and I am approaching it from a purely academic perspective. I made a thread a while back saying why I think game developers should make a sort of "videogame theory", analogous to music theory. So that a consistent framework can be made for common elements that are, lets face it, in most games. I think that videogames could really take off in terms of quality if this were to happen. Stone advocated the development of critical theory to videogames.

If you think videogames are toys and always will be toys, well then Im glad you werent around hundreds of years ago when music was starting to gain an importance and seriousness in society, and Im glad you werent friends with DW Griffith when he was making Birth of a Nation. Because this type of close-minded thinking impedes progress. You know, movies were bullshit until someone decided to take them seriously too.

---

I'm all for this, so long as you respect that plenty of games to date aren't bullshit, like the pre-illusionistic movies of the early 20th century. There's got to be a long way to go for gaming, but a lot of what's been released so far has been very respectable. I don't think you were saying otherwise... I'm merely throwing in my two cents.

Simple if it's too cutesy, its kiddy. :D

Witness the outrage at Celda's first unveiling to US audiences.

People (older generations in thier 20s upwards) were scared of playing as a 4 yr old kid. They were more drawn to the grown up Link of the more darker n64 games to pay attention to the creative decision to make the game like a cartoon coming to life.

Anything with too much fantasy, (as opposed to realism) furry animals (as opposed to humans people), or bright colours (n64 Zeldas had moody shadows = not bright) automatically qualifies as cutesy to most people.

Think about this: games with furry animals and bright colours seem to always stand out the most: Pikmin, Pokemon, StarFox, Donkey Kong, I would even say sonic, but I reckon he has attitude which makes him more appealing to a slightly older crowd than mario. Nintendo = disney.

Occasionally a neutral game like F-Zero, pilotwings, or metroid is made but imo people don't recognise those because of the lack of 'mascot' to represent the company. Recognisable characters is how nintendo grab instant attention with kids. Seeing as parents buy the kids the games/toys, it is important to make the game instantly recognisable. Parents don't like buying kids violent video games, anything with sexual content or drugs and alcohal so I would say nintendo are purposely defining themselves as kiddy (whether fans want to admit this or not) through the way they use mascots in everything they release and thier avoidance of adult content in thier own games.

You could say celda is kiddy because it looks cutesy (by the average joe's definition) while something like Jet Set Radio isn't kiddy (by the average joe's definition) even though it looks 'cartoonish'. Cutesy-looking games as I said may be combinations of furry animals, bright colours etc while neutral ones are F-Zero and wipeout.

"Perception" of what is kiddy, by the target audience is more important than actual truth. If people THINK something is kiddy then it IS kiddy ..to them. (regardless of whether the person who created it thinks so or not.)

The people who buy the game (parents) for thier kid will automatically use thier own perception of what's safe for kids to play, and think, "well nintendo (disney) is usually family friendly so I'll buy this", and there is instant sale right there.

It's obvious why a game like Rare's conker's bad fur day was made, (in protest of the limited nature of the 'mature' content in nintendo releases by the adult gamers) because people knew nintendo had to have a title to counterbalance the others. Parents do not like games like goldeneye because of the guns. I say nintendo's decision with mascots is strategic.

It's like if they were to make a new aliens movie or something. If they made it R-rated and as scary for fans of the original movie, it might alienate (heh) teens from the "franchise", and lessen profit. So they take out stuff to get lower rating and possibly leave the complete thing in for dvd release. why do they do this? Profit. Nintendo would also do this (there are mature games created by third parties) and people see it is obvious that they are more family-friendly-conscious (or *try to be* on the outside, while secretly wanting to please the adult audience on the inside) than other companies out there.

It has nothing to do with gameplay, but the cutesy content of the games and what people percieve as being cute. (the usual disney formula of furry animal, bright colour, happy atmoshpere, light hearted slapstick humour etc)
Most people keep using the tired argument of: "it's not designed just for kids dummy! Can't you see it's a complex game that adults can ALSO enjoy?"

Sorry that isn't good enough for the mainstream who will automatically look at it, and judge it's look and decide it's just too cutesy for them, and they will buy something else that appeals to thier taste. This is not an attack on nintendo in any way because I love thier games, (I'm labelled as a nintendo fanboy on some other forums I go to, with predominately sony and xbox members who can still give an intelligent debate) I'm merely explaining the truth based on my own experience of observing the reasons people make certain purchases over others in shops, and the general buying habits of others I know.

Keep in mind the internet is not necessarily an accurate indicater of what joe average thinks. Most will see this as an attack and kill the messenger out of anger. It's just that 'kiddy' is a label that adult gamers are justified in giving to companies whose majority of releases composes of mostly to them, kiddy themes, and so it will never go away. Nintendo are mostly out to make profits through the buying habits of parents through thier kids because in reality they seem to want to distance themselves and thier console as mainly being toys aimed for children rather than just another game system competing for the adult gamer market. (sony, ms. You won't see handles on thier machines.)
If nintendo applied a more neutral attitude to their systems (like the GBASP) people who are not normally so discriminative based on image amoungst friends will get interested.

This is not BS because people who buy entertainment equipment do not want a bright purple toy with a handle sticking out in thier living rooms, they want something to blend with thier other stuff. This is one factor as to why sony continue to dominate because one thing they've been able to do is they keep themselves pretty neutral in thier image, not making things look too childish or looking like a toy and this affects buying habits and perceptions of the company. (the new sony handheld looks very sleek for eg. Image is very important to growing amount of people)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GameHED

Sorry that isn't good enough for the mainstream who will automatically look at it, and judge it's look and decide it's just too cutesy for them, and they will buy something else that appeals to thier taste. This is not an attack on nintendo in any way because I love thier games, (I'm labelled as a nintendo fanboy on some other forums I go to, with predominately sony and xbox members who can still give an intelligent debate) I'm merely explaining the truth based on my own experience of observing the reasons people make certain purchases over others in shops, and the general buying habits of others I know.

---

Well, that may be said, and lets face it, Diff, RedCo, Nomi, whoever else wants to call something kiddie. That's fine. We all understand there's gameplay under the hood for the most part when it comes to Nintendo. People who talk shit just because certain games aren't mature [once again, Diff, sorry for picking on you] just seem like jackasses driven by what they're told is cool . Is a game is well built I'll play it. If people want to call it kiddie, great. It shows me the limit of their minds more than the limits of the game. Sometimes it just wont appeal to people and that's fine. It only is really irking when fanboys get off on their kiddy tangents.

The problem I really see is that a game like Wind Waker, in spite of its look and the admitted flaw of sailing being shoved down our throats, is still a top tier game. This is only a problem because it's not treated as such by people of this sect, not many at any rate. If anything WW was a triumph because it proved that such a look could be as immersive as your favorite "Mature" game. Sure, JGR did this before, but I think the only people who played JGR are right here.

The point was already made that a lot of these "Mature" games are "Games for thirteen year-olds and those of like mind" and that's more true than most seem to notice. I'm sorry, but if a gritty background, a gun and blood are all you need... Something's lacking. VC gets points for finally putting an actual plot to it, but it felt like a preview build of GTA3's beta.

This of course doesn't go for all the games that might be listed here as "Mature" but for a decent number of them and that's a shame. You feel free to pass on a game because of its premise, but people are always going to ring in about how much of what you hail isn't much more than just that.

Mature is a rating imposed by the ESRB, not by the game developers. I think it's an important distinction because the devs might really consider their game made and targeted for teenagers, but because there's a little too much blood or whatever, it gets slapped with the Mature label. Games aren't going to be rated Mature for overall complexity or intricate plots... unless said plots contain adult themes.

In the middle of all of this, this must be said - why do people bitch about the games Nintendo makes? They have ALWAYS made those kinds of games. Why are people surprised that the GameCube still has classic Nintendo-style games? If you don't like those kinds of games, why would you buy a GC in the first place? If you don't have one, why do you care what kinds of games it has?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shidoshi

In the middle of all of this, this must be said - why do people bitch about the games Nintendo makes?

---

Because they grew up. The stuff they grew up with is so closely connected to the things they're currently into that it makes them nervous, insecure. It's like getting pissed off at Jim Henson for not updating the muppets for the older crowd. Sorta.

Quite.

Yeah but it's like comic books. You have your violent ones appealing to each niche. And you have your mainstream well known stuff. Punisher is a violent comic book with darker themes. Spidey is more all-ages and can appeal to any person. They both have some maturity about them, but most people who buy stuff for themselves are neutral in thier purchases (ie they love choices) while parents' purchases are selective.

Nintendo, having chosen to favour 1 over the other, means people will go elsewhere for alternatives and that usually means lost userbase with older, more content-neutral gamers. (yes I'm aware of the third party mature-themed stuff, what I'm saying is people are justified in attacking the overabundance of the cutesy mascot syndrome from many first party games)

And yes there are comic book collectors who are adults (and toy collectors) even though society looks at you funny for being an adult who reads comics :D

Movies? Starwars old trilogy seems to be held in higher esteem from the new movies, (by older adult fans mainly - I personally don't think there's much differece) because people perceive the new ones as being more "kiddy". (I think it has to do with the simple stereotypical disney-like cg characters and annoying Jar Jar slapstick humour)

Now compare that to nintendo of today...Nintendo of today to some people is like the new Star Wars movies. Adults (aging fans) hate the fact that the main character was a little kid who accidently saved the day (first ep) or that a disney-like goofy character had to be introduced to make the movie humourous to younger people. Similiarly adult fans have sort of had thier fill of *only* cutesy mascots taking centre stage even if that's been nintendo's style all along.

It's selfish, I know but you see the point. People have thier own perceptions as to what seems "mature" and what is seen as "kiddy".

But my point was that if a majority of people *think* it's kiddy, then it must be. (regardless of official ratings and stuff) It will affect thier attitudes towards the company in future, and yes the label "too kiddy" is justified because thier own perception determines thier future buying purchases. In this flooded videogame market, it's nature for gamers to want to seperate themselves into a new niche. (like how you got rpg-only gamers, FPS-only gamers, RTS-only gamers etc..) You could say that there are 2 generations of nintendo fans.

Another good example is say, in a saturday morning cartoon. If you compare, say transformers to robotech (harmony gold's mixture of stolen anime :D) you'll notice that teens and adults can appreciate the mature themes of the latter because the former targets mainly children and is a little more juvenile. (most adults won't admit that thier love for G1 is really just out of nostalgia for the 80s more than anything. :D )

Technically 1 is aimed at children, the other is aimed at teens with children able to appreciate it.

What poeple generally do is categorise things as "kiddy" or "adult-themed" not merely by official ratings (the original macross tv series is M without censorship anyway) but by thier own standards. It's thier *own* perception of maturity that they invented for themselves and it's very sublte. Compare old ninja turtles cartoons to new ninja turtles cartoons. imo The new one looks far more like a comic book with more dark colours, shading and a movie-like cinematic appearance in general. (this is a nice parrallell to the what the old N64 zelda is like, even though that game is not an 'adult game') While the other 80s ninja turtles is in a more typical lighthearted style that we've all come to expect from the morning cartoons in the past.

It's not easy to explain in a short post. When technology got better, people expected to see in-game characters portrayed in more realistic settings. 8-bit and 16-bit era games didn't need to do this as "realism" wasn't a possibility and gaming was a niche. The market has expanded and more niches were created as gamers split themselves to identify with different tastes. Demand for fleshed out characters in realistic settings got bigger and now you can sense third parties are capitalising on this. (this is one of the reasons why there is so much pressure to make games more like movies)

As I said before, gameplay has nothing to do with it. Mature games and kiddy games can BOTH have the same gameplay ingredients, but adult gamers' buying habits is the thing in question. I continue to believe the image ALSO plays a part in how well something is received as Celda demonstrates. Naturally people distinguish themselves by seperating into smaller and smaller niche groups and what's happened is the next generation (the 'sony generation' gamers onwards :D ) has demanded more diversity and choices. Now, by default they will go to a system more neutral than one that is less neutral because they got in at a time when it was normal for third parties to provide the bulk of thier gaming needs instead of them getting to know and love the first parties.

As a result, Nintendo stick out like a sore thumb as the 'kiddy company' (not by ME, but by mainstream standards) because the younger sony generation never gravitated to nintendo based on "image" (very important) or the range of thier first party games to begin with, unlike the older gen gamers who grew up with it. (first party titles traditionally nurture well-known mascots from the past and sequels to those.) I believe nintendo are conscious of this and use it to appeal to parents as a toy company instead of say, a company who sells home entertainment equipment to any age group and remains neutral enough such that they don't alienate a specific group. It's quite possible for a company to make all-ages stuff that can be apreciated by anyone, but *subliminally* target a specific group. I enjoy all types of games, but subliminally I know cutesy themes are used to appeal to kids, just as much as violence in a cartoon can attract adults, but is done in a way that is immature and harmless enough for little kids to see)

GameHed, what the hell? No one's gonna read that. Yet you did it not once but twice. You've got to be kidding.

And I can positively say most of you are stupid, because you immediately went for the perceived jugular and accused RedCoKid of discriminating against Nintendo or some shit. All he provided was a definition of a word commonly associated with Nintendo. You lose.

Quote:

---

Diff, sorry for picking on you] just seem like jackasses driven by what they're told is cool .

---

Are you gonna watch Little Mermaid all day merely because its good? Sorry but the theme of the product plays a large part in what you enjoy. If you like playing games with doe-eyed anime fags and what not more power to you, but a lot of people don't and lumping them all together as "jackasses driven by what they're told is cool" is like lumping everyone who likes Pearl Jam or The Strokes into that category. It's ridiculous, insulting, and shows a severe lack of thinking on your part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GameHED

Movies? Starwars old trilogy seems to be held in higher esteem from the new movies, (by older adult fans mainly - I personally don't think there's much differece) because people perceive the new ones as being more "kiddy". (I think it has to do with the simple stereotypical disney-like cg characters and annoying Jar Jar slapstick humour)

Now compare that to nintendo of today...Nintendo of today to some people is like the new Star Wars movies. Adults (aging fans) hate the fact that the main character was a little kid who accidently saved the day (first ep) or that a disney-like goofy character had to be introduced to make the movie humourous to younger people. Similiarly adult fans have sort of had thier fill of *only* cutesy mascots taking centre stage even if that's been nintendo's style all along.

---

The original trilogy catered to both adults and children. The storyline had some meat to it and had fans captivated on what was going to happen next. The prequels however, have not really been as story driven and when the storyline did progress, it was rather weak in substance. When people first saw Darth Vader, in "A New Hope". They saw an evil character, who even broke a guys neck, to enforce the idea that he was'nt messing around. It was considered by many, to be more of a space opera. The prequels however, are considered more of a ride in a videogame, than having any real substance to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GameHED

Movies? Starwars old trilogy seems to be held in higher esteem from the new movies, (by older adult fans mainly - I personally don't think there's much differece) because people perceive the new ones as being more "kiddy". (I think it has to do with the simple stereotypical disney-like cg characters and annoying Jar Jar slapstick humour)

---

It comes from the lack of multiple layers. BriscoBold brought up the Muppets, which serves as a great example of comedy which for all intents and purposes seems aimed at children but many references and jokes are there for the older crowd. The "kiddiness" of the recent Star Wars movies is because all the well-written humor was removed and we were left with nothing but slapstick.

And so it is as well with videogames, where while the graphical stylings may seem similar there's a distinct difference between the gameplay appeal of Wind Waker and Kirby's Air Ride. The former can appeal to anyone while the latter obviously aims solely for the young ones.

[edit] Beaten by Gamevet! Damn you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

GameHed, what the hell? No one's gonna read that. Yet you did it not once but twice. You've got to be kidding.

---

I read them.

They were better than everything you have ever posted combined.

Fantastic points, GameHED. I'd like to think that we'll see gaming go through the same natural evolution that feature films did, and that some TV shows continue to do. In some cases, like with Beyond Good and Evil, there's a family-friendly gameplay style woven in well with a well-written, fairly-deep plot, which is certainly a step in the right direction towards gaming evolving as a medium to be taken seriously by the masses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Are you gonna watch Little Mermaid all day merely because its good? Sorry but the theme of the product plays a large part in what you enjoy. If you like playing games with doe-eyed anime fags and what not more power to you, but a lot of people don't and lumping them all together as "jackasses driven by what they're told is cool" is like lumping everyone who likes Pearl Jam or The Strokes into that category. It's ridiculous, insulting, and shows a severe lack of thinking on your part.

---

The difference between The Little Mermaid and a game like Wind Waker is that TLM is ALL theme and aesthetics. Wind Waker has the added dimension of interactivity that's seperate from the theme and aethetics, so people who dislike the theme still have a reason to play, because they might enjoy the actual gameplay. Since that added dimension isn't there in TLM, there's no reason for people who dislike "kiddy" themes to watch it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

And I can positively say most of you are stupid, because you immediately went for the perceived jugular and accused RedCoKid of discriminating against Nintendo or some shit. All he provided was a definition of a word commonly associated with Nintendo.

---

Is Crash bandicoot kiddy? Is Sly Cooper Kiddy?

Nintendo games are much more likely to get stamped the kiddy label despite having almost the same asthetics, gameplay and storytelling.




As for the little mermaid thing, I agree in someways. Asthetics play a large part in what we like and don't like, same for the story and gameplay. Different people put different focus on different parts. But then again refusing to play puzzle games because you think they are too kiddy looking like Super Puzzle Fighter 2 Turbo or Lolo is just plain wrong IMO.

Quote:

---

Is Crash bandicoot kiddy? Is Sly Cooper Kiddy?

---

Yes and yes. Undoubtedly.

and sethsez, aesthetics are something you view throughout the game. From beginning to end. If you are turned off by the look of the game then that's just how it is, and nobody should be arrogant enough to say "DURR ITS ABOUT THE GAMEPLAY YOU ST00P1D!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

If you think videogames are toys and always will be toys, well then Im glad you werent around hundreds of years ago when music was starting to gain an importance and seriousness in society, and Im glad you werent friends with DW Griffith when he was making Birth of a Nation. Because this type of close-minded thinking impedes progress. You know, movies were bullshit until someone decided to take them seriously too.

---

Look, I'm not being closed minded about it. I'm all for the expansion of what videogames are capable of, like every other medium. I didn't mean to imply otherwise, but even look at music and movies. They still are widely used for the same reasons as when they were invented. Entertainment, in their respective ways. Games are to play with, call it what you will, but I call it a toy.

I'm not really disagreeing directly with anything you've said, and I think the potential videogames have in the not-that-distant future is great, when hopefully games will reach as varied an audience as movies do. But the way you're going about it is all wrong, quit bitching about "kiddy" games, and focus on wanting to see more games like you want to see. Games that you find repulsive and kiddy are never going to go away, because at their core, videogames are about having fun, just as movies will always usually be about entertainment, and there will always be a huge market there for kids. You're wasting your time, I'm wasting my time responding to it, and you should be doing something more constructive (taking into consideration this is a videogame message board) than bitching about a kind of game that will always be around and was around to give us the nostalgia that we have for old games today.

EDIT: And about the Little Mermaid thing: yes. I'm not really a fan of the little mermaid itself, but just as in games, there are movies that can be enjoyed by all ages (if primarily kids) and then there is pandering childrens material. I can enjoy a kids movie just as much as say, the godfather, if its as well produced.

Quote:

---

quit bitching about "kiddy" games, and focus on wanting to see more games like you want to see.

---

Im not bitching about kiddy games you idiot, all of you are. Not directly, though, but by crying foul when you claim that RedCoKid or myself or anyone who agrees with RedCoKid. Look, if someone doesnt want to play them, thats it. They wont. But when we, me, him, whoever, say we dont wanna play these games, what are we talking about? RedCoKid wanted to provide a proper definition so we can all be on equal terms when we play them. And for right now his definition is adequate.

If you go back and actually read what I write, too, you wont find me saying "kiddy games are bad" or "kiddy games hold everything else back". I said that defining what kiddy games are is a start to actually producing the sort of scholarly inquiries and writings into videogames that I would like to see. A lot more definitions need to be made but its a good start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Yes and yes. Undoubtedly.

---

I haven't come across anyone who had to go out of the way to say how kiddy those games are on these messageboards. Perhaps it is because people tend to force people to try Nintendo games because of the gameplay etc unlike the games mentioned?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damian79

I haven't come across anyone who had to go out of the way to say how kiddy those games are on these messageboards. Perhaps it is because people tend to force people to try Nintendo games because of the gameplay etc unlike the games mentioned?

---

I dont know, and I dont give a shit. Because Im not those people. Like I said, the lot of you are in a uproar because the word "kiddy" is commonly associated with Nintendo and because you took RedCoKid's post as a diss against Nintendo.

:D Oh Yep, they were whoppas of posts. But I had to get it off my chest. Need break from game forums now. I think my mouse scroll wheel is breaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

and sethsez, aesthetics are something you view throughout the game. From beginning to end. If you are turned off by the look of the game then that's just how it is, and nobody should be arrogant enough to say "DURR ITS ABOUT THE GAMEPLAY YOU ST00P1D!"

---

Agreed. All I'm saying is that, many times, the quality of the gameplay is able to overcome the limits of the aesthetics. Unless you absolutely can't endure bright colors for more than half an hour at a time, it's often worthwhile to try to look past the surface and focus on the game. To use another movie analogy, I'd compare it to a good indie film. The incredibly low production values generally aren't initially appealling, but if you're able to look past that, you could find a really great movie. I'm not a fan of generic D&D style fantasy AT ALL, but I was still able to get into Morrowind because the gameplay was strong enough to overcome the mind-numbingly boring theme.

And obviously, everything I'm saying only applies to games with good gameplay. Games with bad gameplay aren't worth playing no matter what the theme is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Im not bitching about kiddy games you idiot, all of you are. Not directly, though, but by crying foul when you claim that RedCoKid or myself or anyone who agrees with RedCoKid. Look, if someone doesnt want to play them, thats it. They wont. But when we, me, him, whoever, say we dont wanna play these games, what are we talking about? RedCoKid wanted to provide a proper definition so we can all be on equal terms when we play them. And for right now his definition is adequate.

If you go back and actually read what I write, too, you wont find me saying "kiddy games are bad" or "kiddy games hold everything else back". I said that defining what kiddy games are is a start to actually producing the sort of scholarly inquiries and writings into videogames that I would like to see. A lot more definitions need to be made but its a good start.

---

Quit acting so innocent, you have trolled many a threads about this kind of stuff in the past, and enough to make me pissed off whenever you bring it up. And grouping games into a "kiddy" category isn't a progression at all, I don't see where the hell you're getting that from, because it's retarded. If not by the content of the game, then the ESRB rating will probably let you know what kind of game you're dealing with. If you really need to put it in a paper you're writing or something, I don't see why it wouldn't be easy to do.

If you want to be "scholarly" about it, I'd suggest coining a different term, because "kiddy" is a pretty demeaning name to lump so many different kinds of games under.

Quote:

---

And for right now his definition is adequate.

---

I disagree. For one, I don't think that "kiddy" has anything to do with gameplay, simple games aren't necessarily kiddy like Virtua Tennis. etc. Nor are multiplayer focused games like Quake. Though I could be wrong, is "Lost Kingdoms" considered kiddy?

I think that the theme and graphics should be enough to declare if a game is kiddy or not.

Quote:

---

Quit acting so innocent, you have trolled many a threads about this kind of stuff in the past, and enough to make me pissed off whenever you bring it up.

---

LOL. Im sorry I hurt your feelings in the past.

No... wait. Im not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

LOL. Im sorry I hurt your feelings in the past.

No... wait. Im not.

---

You didn't hurt my feelings, you just annoyed me and countless others my interrupting a real thread with your asinine shit. You don't find it even a little contradictory that you act so serious about analyzing games scientifically, and then you say such things as "GameHed, what the hell? No one's gonna read that. Yet you did it not once but twice. You've got to be kidding.", "you people are all stupid", etc? You aren't hurting my feelings, you're just irritatingly polluting a thread with that shit when you claim to be more than a troll.

You're a troll, who sometimes laces his comments with real ideas. It's still just as stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salsashark

You didn't hurt my feelings, you just annoyed me and countless others my interrupting a real thread with your asinine shit. You don't find it even a little contradictory that you act so serious about analyzing games scientifically, and then you say such things as "GameHed, what the hell? No one's gonna read that. Yet you did it not once but twice. You've got to be kidding.", "you people are all stupid", etc? You aren't hurting my feelings, you're just irritatingly polluting a thread with that shit when you claim to be more than a troll.

You're a troll, who sometimes laces his comments with real ideas. It's still just as stupid.

---

LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opaque

I read them.

They were better than everything you have ever posted combined.

---

that made me laugh :lol:

diffx, you and whoever the hell started this thread are attempting to present a "scholarly inquiry" for a concept that's so tired, trite, baseless, and meaninglessly subjective that there's no way it should ever merit its own academic study or whatever.

i'd like to see more academic writing for the topic of videogames also, but this? It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

..this topic is crap.

Thats because all discussions on it have been trite, baseless, and meaningless to date. When you are mainly concerned with pushing your own ideologies on the matter then not much serious thought can be had.

Okay thats my last word on the topic. The defense shields you guys throw up when someone mentions "kid's game" is hilarious and quite frankly its not worth talking about it with the lot of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Thats because all discussions on it have been trite, baseless, and meaningless to date. When you are mainly concerned with pushing your own ideologies on the matter then not much serious thought can be had.

Okay thats my last word on the topic. The defense shields you guys throw up when someone mentions "kid's game" is hilarious and quite frankly its not worth talking about it with the lot of you.

---

based on your previous posts in this thread alone, forgive me if i have a hard time believing that you'd be able to present a serious discussion on it without pushing your own ideologies. :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damian79

I haven't come across anyone who had to go out of the way to say how kiddy those games are on these messageboards. Perhaps it is because people tend to force people to try Nintendo games because of the gameplay etc unlike the games mentioned?

---

If Sly Cooper and Crash Bandicoot were released intact but with "Nintendo" on the case, they'd be called kiddy here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

LOL. Im sorry I hurt your feelings in the past.

No... wait. Im not.

---

lol, seriously dude. At least say "Yeah, I'm a dick, fuck you."

Or cut the swearing and go into politics. Either way.

I haven't read the entire thread (perhaps I should have) but I think that theme, story and the general game world and aesthetics should play a MAJOR role in determining whether a game is kiddy or not.

For example, based on pure gameplay (at least as far as depth) most Nintendo games would not be considered kiddy (yet their accessibility might).

Yet you cannot honestly defend the world of Mario, Pikmin, Kirby, Pokemon or a few other Nintendo mainstays by saying they aren't aimed squarely at kids. Any adult who hasn't played games since the 8-bit era wouldn't think twice between the choice of Halo or Wind Waker. Forget gameplay. Appeal towards a specific demographic has a lot to do with it. Sure, not all games that look kiddie are meant for kids (i.e. Conker), but that games' theme is very mature, obviously.

About always singling out Nintendo, well, no one argues back nearly as hard if other games are called kiddie.

This debate is valid. It always was. The people who say this topic sucks all the time, well, they are wrong. Their argument would be fine if we were arguing the actual quality of said kiddie games, which we aren't. We are only classifying a type of game into a genre, a sub-division. Why the opposition? To make them feel better about their game purchasing decisions? I don't know. I could love all the classic Disney cartoons dearly (as I do); but that doesn't stop the fact that they aren't meant for my age demographic. Saying that something is kiddie and saying only kids are allowed to buy/like/own these things are two entirely different things. So there really is no need to get so defensive about it. It's only a discussion.

Anyway, to RedCoKid, your list is okay, but you can wrap up the first four points into one, like this:

1. Any game that has childish themes and character designs/worlds.

That would disqualify games like Conker, that while they look kiddie, have way too much mature themes in the plot to be meant for kids. Yet is would include games like Mario, which we all know in our heart of hearts is a child's game (which granted has enough depth to satisfy some older players). But the main thing is that the game has to have BOTH to truly qualify, not one or the other. I think we can all agree that Mario has both, while Conker has only one.

Simplified controls is also something that just about all kiddie games have. As well as simpler play mechanics. I don't know if the multiplayer thing needs to be there, as there are just as many if not more games that aren't kiddie in the least that emphasize multi over single player.

I could probably think of more, but I'm drawing blanks right now. Maybe later.

"Kiddy" games exist. Whether you can enjoy them as an adult or not depends on your hang-ups. If you like them, you should play them. If you don't, don't play them, and there's no reason for you to care if they exist or not. Nintendo consoles typically have a lot of "kiddy" games. One's time would be better spent doing something enjoyable or experiencing life then arguing over what makes a "kiddy" game and if you are bothered by their existence or not.

That's pretty much every worthwhile thing to say on this topic.

SMS, Wind Wanker, Pikmin, Luigi's Mansion I guess all of 'em are kiddy but I don't really care, those are some of my favorite games this generation.

I seem to remember this same topic being heatedly debated here about a year ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

I seem to remember this same topic being heatedly debated here about a year ago.

---

You'd be correct. I was in that one, and it got a little bit past name calling in a few spots.

And I still don't understand all the heated backlash anytime someone mentions the "K" word. I could understand if the person was using it in a totally derogatory manner, but this thread was anything but. This thread was made for serious discussion and debate; about trying to decipher what in particular makes a game "Kiddie" or not. There's nothing wrong with that.

Like so many say when they create a thread: if you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all.

Or instead of jumpind down his throat, how about some actual constructive criticism on his list? Maybe even some suggestions?