Sheikah Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Admit it, though, every damn year people in this specific forum submit movies as movie of the year that were last year's and it's always because "it came out this year over here". Well, I'm on several other forums, and I keep noticing this attitude coming from the british every damn time. Also the Americans... it just comes across as arrogant, is all... it doesn't matter when it came out in your country, what matters is when it initially came out to a widespread audience! Gah.... it's just a matter of suplanting your own identities and projections to that of the product, other cultures don't really indulge as much as you do. But it doesn't matter, you guys are responsible for 60% of the world's talent, you're allowed to be a bit arrogant. So, in other words, vote for a film or game you really liked that you got/watched when it come out in your country. But, because it actually came out last year in its country of origin you should have voted last year. But last year you hadn't seen it, didn't know about it, and certainly wouldn't vote for it. Thus, what may be a splendid film or game is forever barred from being allowed in a British popularity contest.* *Unless you have a time machine.
Oxigen_Waste Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 So, in other words, vote for a film or game you really liked that you got/watched when it come out in your country. But, because it actually came out last year in its country of origin you should have voted last year. But last year you hadn't seen it, didn't know about it, and certainly wouldn't vote for it. Thus, what may be a splendid film or game is forever barred from being allowed in a British popularity contest.* *Unless you have a time machine. People not voting for things they haven't seen always happens. Or do you really think people watch every movie before casting their vote? People just vote for whichever movie they liked the most out of the ones they did watch, thus rendering these useless because some blockbuster always wins over the better smaller films. Last year's Inception was one of those delicious, exceptions, but... by definition, these things never really work because people haven't seen a big enough sample. Based on that single fact, the whole thing is completely irrelevant, isn't it? But that's beside the point, the point is, since when is this a british forum? It's N-Europe, not N-Britain.
Sheikah Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) People not voting for things they haven't seen always happens. Or do you really think people watch every movie before casting their vote? People just vote for whichever movie they liked the most out of the ones they did watch, thus rendering these useless because some blockbuster always wins over the better smaller films. Last year's Inception was one of those delicious, exceptions, but... by definition, these things never really work because people haven't seen a big enough sample. Based on that single fact, the whole thing is completely irrelevant, isn't it? But that's beside the point, the point is, since when is this a british forum? It's N-Europe, not N-Britain. I'm not to say you guys don't matter, just that it's quite dim to suggest that a film/game in which, for 90% of the people on this forum most likely (G. Britain/Ireland), came out this year should be excluded from a poll on this forum on the basis that it came out somewhere else the year before. If this was the case, the game/film would have to be voted for the year before its release in the countries where most people on this forum live. So barely anyone would vote for it, even if it was GOTY, meaning the poll would mean even less than it already does. An example: no one would be allowed to vote for Xenoblade Chronicles as it technically was released first in Japan in June 2010. We would all have had to vote for it in the 2010 poll -when no one had even heard of it! Surely you can see this is an absurd suggestion. But either way, it's all arbitrary and senseless, we're basically asking what is the best film/game released in a 12 month window starting from a specific month and running to the next. December 2010 compared against January 2011? No dice. Edited January 6, 2012 by Sheikah
Cube Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 People just vote for whichever movie they liked the most out of the ones they did watch, thus rendering these useless because some blockbuster always wins over the better smaller films. Last year's Inception was one of those delicious, exceptions, but... by definition, these things never really work because people haven't seen a big enough sample. Based on that single fact, the whole thing is completely irrelevant, isn't it? Surely if these "smaller films" don't appeal to the majority of people, then the majority of people probably wouldn't like them anyway. And how is Inception an exception? That was a blockbuster.
Jonnas Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) Read my reply to Burny, you'll understand what I mean. Right, all I wanted was to hear your position on series (like Resident Evil) that changed significantly over time, having only in common the setting and characters (though I think I went the wrong way about that). Sounds like we're on the same page, then. Though I still disagree in saying IPs belong to a company in those same terms. Sure, Fire Emblem/Metroid/whatever still have much of the same essence, but saying they're Nintendo series in the same way that, say, Crash Bandicoot is a Naughty Dog series is only going to confuse a lot of discussions. Surely if these "smaller films" don't appeal to the majority of people, then the majority of people probably wouldn't like them anyway. What he's saying is that these smaller movies don't have enough exposure/publicity, ergo, a lot of people aren't going to even hear they exist, much less go see them. And how is Inception an exception? That was a blockbuster. Exactly. He's saying Inception is the best film of 2010, despite being a blockbuster, as opposed to a best film that isn't a blockbuster (which is what he believes happens most of the time). Also, I feel like I should make a joke about INception being an EXception... but I got nothin' Edited January 6, 2012 by Jonnas Automerged Doublepost
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Admit it, though, every damn year people in this specific forum submit movies as movie of the year that were last year's and it's always because "it came out this year over here". Well, I'm on several other forums, and I keep noticing this attitude coming from the british every damn time. Also the Americans... it just comes across as arrogant, is all... it doesn't matter when it came out in your country, what matters is when it initially came out to a widespread audience! Gah.... it's just a matter of suplanting your own identities and projections to that of the product, other cultures don't really indulge as much as you do. But it doesn't matter, you guys are responsible for 60% of the world's talent, you're allowed to be a bit arrogant. I was trollin', saw the opportunity and couldn't resist. Although, I do agree with your point/s. Classic Nintendo does have a certain meaning to it.
Burny Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) I just have a completely different approach on what makes something part of something else as you do. If by that you mean that you apply a double standard when you presume to determine whatever is true to a name, then yes. Why is it you consider the true Nintendo the company that made the NES, Gameboy and their successors, rather than the company of the same name, that produced playing cards and all kinds of toys before they entered the videogame market? If you applied you philosophy consequently, than that would be the true Nintendo and today's videogaming behemoth would no longer be true to its roots. So yes, if you thought it through, you'd at least have to change your choice of words, as you're not applying "true" consequently to your "definition", but arbitrarily whatever way suits you. Of course I'm not going to try to refute proven evidence here, I'm not as oblivious as you make me out to be. As long as you keep the esoteric discussion of what is true to a name separat from what is a Nintendo(MS, Sony etc.) game in the sense of "what games did Nintendo produce or have had produced for them", I guess everything is fine. Edited January 7, 2012 by Burny
darksnowman Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 A list lacking in Metroid love? Now these are the kind of people I can relate to.
Oxigen_Waste Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 I'm not to say you guys don't matter, just that it's quite dim to suggest that a film/game in which, for 90% of the people on this forum most likely (G. Britain/Ireland), came out this year should be excluded from a poll on this forum on the basis that it came out somewhere else the year before. If this was the case, the game/film would have to be voted for the year before its release in the countries where most people on this forum live. So barely anyone would vote for it, even if it was GOTY, meaning the poll would mean even less than it already does. An example: no one would be allowed to vote for Xenoblade Chronicles as it technically was released first in Japan in June 2010. We would all have had to vote for it in the 2010 poll -when no one had even heard of it! Surely you can see this is an absurd suggestion. But either way, it's all arbitrary and senseless, we're basically asking what is the best film/game released in a 12 month window starting from a specific month and running to the next. December 2010 compared against January 2011? No dice. Fuck it, when you're right you're right, I guess your way IS more practical, in the end. My point was more about your slightly inflated egos, but fuck that... you're absolutely right. Xenoblade was a bad example of why, though!! Surely if these "smaller films" don't appeal to the majority of people, then the majority of people probably wouldn't like them anyway. And how is Inception an exception? That was a blockbuster. That's a very small minded way of looking at things, no? I'm not exactly talking about very small independent films, here... I'm talking about quite big films that anyone can enjoy (like Drive) getting passed over because people are lazy and preffer to just go see something that won't really require anything of them, like Thor, instead of actively pursuing a quality movie experience. I guess it's the way of the world... but it's very unfair. Don't get me wrong, Thor is quite okay, but c'mon, as soon as it ends, that's it... it's something to chew popcorn at! Where as Inception (which I mentioned, as Jonnas explained, as an exception to the rule, because it is both a huge blockbuster and one hell of a movie), for example, keeps haunting your brain and leaves you beaten, defeated and in awe. And there's so many movies out there that succeed at involving you that it baffles me that people almost universally choose to go and see something that's just okay. Or maybe I'm a drama queen. Right, all I wanted was to hear your position on series (like Resident Evil) that changed significantly over time, having only in common the setting and characters (though I think I went the wrong way about that). Sounds like we're on the same page, then. Though I still disagree in saying IPs belong to a company in those same terms. Sure, Fire Emblem/Metroid/whatever still have much of the same essence, but saying they're Nintendo series in the same way that, say, Crash Bandicoot is a Naughty Dog series is only going to confuse a lot of discussions. That's true... I'm not trying to launch a full scale investigation into what makes a game a "Nintendo" game, I'm just sharing my views here... and I stand by them. That's how I see things. If by that you mean that you apply a double standard when you presume to determine whatever is true to a name, then yes. Why is it you consider the true Nintendo the company that made the NES, Gameboy and their successors, rather than the company of the same name, that produced playing cards and all kinds of toys before they entered the videogame market? If you applied you philosophy consequently, than that would be the true Nintendo and today's videogaming behemoth would no longer be true to its roots. So yes, if you thought it through, you'd at least have to change your choice of words, as you're not applying "true" consequently to your "definition", but arbitrarily whatever way suits you. Because when I say Nintendo in this context it basically just means Miyamoto and Yokoi, like I've already said. It's not arbitrary, brilliance happens whenever it happens, at random... what I define as any given game studio's "true" essence is obviously going to be the point in history when they shone the brightest, in my opinion... which can be at any given poin in time during a studio's existence... So whenever I say "true Square", for example I mean Square's golden years when they created FFIV, FFVI, Chrono Trigger & Sword of Mana. Not their roots, but the moment they shone the brightest, in my opinion. A concept whose whole existence and definition is absurdly subjective and changes from person to person. Which leads me here... you once again seem to be confusing things, you're trying to judge my own subjective set of principles on objective bases, and are resorting to desperate measures to get some sort of validation out of me... I never ever mentioned anything about roots in the context of a company, let's not confuse an intellectual property with real life... I have no idea what that whole roots comment has to do with anything. oO Buddy, here's the thing, I'm telling you what I think, and telling you I know it means absolutely nothing to nobody except me, and you're insisting I limit my own subjective opinions with objective constraints... we're talking about creativity, here... a factor which you seem to be suggesting I think is essentially connected to the moment of any creating entity's inception. That's absolutely mad! Where on earth did you get that from? The discussion started out because I don't think Banjo Tooie and Xenoblade can be called Nintendo games. One of them makes no sense since they don't even own it. The other one they own... which brought us here, because I made a point that I think that owning a game but not developing it, doesn't make it "yours". All that's being said here is that I have a different view than you on what makes a game a Nintendo game, spiritually. And you're trying to argue against a personal feeling of mine on a completely subjective matter with facts (of which I'm well aware). Are you an engineer or an accountant or something? oO It's like I'm asking you what your favourite car is and all you're telling is that a Bugatti's the fastest car in the world... You're allowed to colour outside the margins, y'know? As long as you keep the esoteric discussion of what is true to a name separat from what is a Nintendo(MS, Sony etc.) game in the sense of "what games did Nintendo produce or have had produced for them", I guess everything is fine. What am I, religious, or something? oO Of course I know Xenoblade is a Nintendo game in terms of ownership!!! I'm just saying that doesn't make it a Nintendo game in my eyes. Like I don't think SotC is a Sony game, even if they do own it. Don't confuse cold hard facts with opinion based discussions!
Jonnas Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 So whenever I say "true Square", for example I mean Square's golden years when they created FFIV, FFVI, Chrono Trigger & Sword of Mana. Not their roots, but the moment they shone the brightest, in my opinion. A concept whose whole existence and definition is absurdly subjective and changes from person to person. You mean, Squaresoft? That's one of the few cases where one can actually find a name for a Square before and after "the change". Sure, the merge happened quite some time after FF7's release, but that's pretty much "the changing point", and both events happened relatively close to each other.
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 Whenever we hear the word "Nintendo", we automatically think of 2, maybe 3 franchises in particular. Mario and Zelda. In fact, they are quite different in terms of gameplay and what you get out of them, yet somehow they both contain that Nintendo-zest that you don't find in many other places. Mario is simple, platforming fun. It will always revolve around basic platforming, getting from point A to point B, even if there are some tricky stages and areas thrown in there. Zelda is about adventure, and it's about working through the story, obtaining items and defeating a type of evil. The essence of both games will never change. Many of us have been gaming since we were toddlers. I've had a SNES since the 90s, so we're talking about 20 or so years of gaming there. In that time, whenever I hear Nintendo, these are the franchises that people associate with Nintendo. It's not the only thing they do, but they have other types of games that seem to contain that Nintendo magic. Yet, there are some that we will just automatically relate to Nintendo when we hear them. Mario Kart, Mario Party, Super Smash Bros, F Zero. I think this is what Oxygen waste is saying, although I've only read a bit of all of this. There's two types of Nintendo: Classic Nintendo, and something else. He is saying Xenoblade isn't classic Nintendo, which I guess he is right. This is not technically something that Nintendo have been well known for over the years. The closest think to link to it is Zelda, but they're very different.
Recommended Posts