Defining "kiddy"

[Damian79]

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

Kiddy = Nintendo.

[Salsashark]

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.

[jyoung]

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.

[Diff-chan]

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.

[MechDeus]

Wha..?

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

[NoFace]

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.

[GameHED]

Simple if it's too cutesy, its kiddy.

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)

[Spent]

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.

[Curtis]

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.

[AaronChance]

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.