Reply With QuoteLOL.Originally Posted by Salsashark
Rude B'Owl
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.
can't wake up
LOL.
So much ****ing semen.
that made me laugh
what is there to live for
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.
MK2 on XBLA plz - let the unfolding of gameplay begin!!
can't wake up
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.
what is there to live for
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.
If Sly Cooper and Crash Bandicoot were released intact but with "Nintendo" on the case, they'd be called kiddy here.
And I Have Cut My Body
lol, seriously dude. At least say "Yeah, I'm a dick, fuck you."
Or cut the swearing and go into politics. Either way.
So I forced my hands in my pockets and felt with my thumbs and gallantly handed her my very last piece of gum.
Now with more Negro!
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.
is cuter than you
"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.
WARNING: This post may contain violent and disturbing images.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks