[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

While reading your post i actually agreed with you.

yeah the games are childish.

and maybe not for everybody, but do that makes them worse than, let say...

the elder scrolls games?

no, not really.

it makes them different.

AvIdGaMeR444

No, the lack of certain elements detracts from the net value of the games.   Adult context adds an additional layer of intellectual, conceptual, and qualatative depth -- directly -- to almost any form of entertainment.  While these works may not provide the highest amounts of immediate pleasure, the over-all value of adult games is substantially greater than that of childish games.  Again, reduce a game down to its most bare intellectual warrants and justification -- I think you'll be able to see why someone might be able to call a game like TES "greater" than a game like Pokemon: the quality, depth, and scope of the mythology -- as well as it the factors it takes into account and designs around -- obliterates a world like Pokemon.  Contrast these two ideas -- one is a children's book, the other one is a medicore fantasy novel (at best, TES games have plenty of flaws).  Does this sound harsh?

Can you honestly tell me that a film like Clifford the Big Red Dog or Rainbow Bright has as much value as Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind?

We use these intellectual standards in all other entertainment ideas, but forsake them in gaming for strictly commercial and demand-related reasons.  This is why people call gaming childish and look down on it with such discrimination and distaste.

Childish games lack the very VALUE that makes them appear "fun" to users with lower value.  For individual held to a higher intellectual standard, people who are not children, it seems strange in the eyes of an outside observer to watch an adult take pleasure and find entertainment in a game like Pokemon -- the ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place.

But, as I said, we shouldn't insult or look down on such people... for reasons why, read posts above.

 

 

You can't measure value.  Value of objects varies from person to person.  A child may hold the same amount of value for Sesame Street as an adult would for Citizen Kane. 

Intellectual standards have nothing to do with value.  I value my expensive stereo.  This has absolutely no basis for intellect.

You spelled "qualitative" wrong.  Depth is only measured by the individual.  What you or I may find to have depth, another person may find lacking in depth.  It is all perceived.  If I say the movie "Pi" had depth, that is my perception.  It is not necessarily the truth.  Depth is perceived by each individual in different ways. 

Pokemon games and TES games are completely different from each other.  TES games for some people are boring, while for others are fascinating.  Same with Pokemon.  They both have a perceived amount of depth to them based on what is in the game environment.  The world of Oblivion IMO was vast but empty for the most part.  The same 3 or 4 dungeon designs repeated themselves over and over....and there were over 200 dungeons.  The "mythology" you speak of is a made-up one for the games. 

Pokemon is great for what it is, and most of TES games are great for what they are IMO. 

Once again...You can't define "lower" value and "higher" value.  Like I said, value cannot be measured by any means.  My grandfather gave me an old, dinky looking pocket watch just before he died.  I value that watch.  Someone else could see the same watch and think it was junk.  Value is non-measurable.  However, you have the audacity to call people who play Pokemon "lower value" folk anyway.  You use the word "childish".  You even say "appear fun" instead of just "fun".  Are you saying that people aren't really having fun, but just think they are with these "childish" games? 

Also, you seem to think it is impossible for an individual with a high intellect to enjoy a "childish" type game.  You don't have a clue what you're talking about.   A person can have a high intellectual standard and still enjoy simplistic, child-like games.  

A lot of adults own a Wii and play Wii Sports.  This is a simplistic sports package.  Are you saying that there are no intellectual people who play this?

You say the ideas in Pokemon are so simple that they don't deserve to be valued.  You can't tell people what they choose to value.  It is up to the individual.  

Tetris had simple ideas that became a game.  It is one of the most popular games in the world.  Those "simplistic" ideas were conceived by what many people deem as a genius. 

Many items you take for granted were "simplistic" ideas made into a reality that many people find useful now.  Post-its are "simplistic".  Tic Tac Toe is "simplistic" in nature.  Hop scotch is "simplistic" in its use.  Jumping Jacks. 

Everything I listed was popular at one time or another.  People still use post-its all the time.  Do all these things therefore have a "lower value" in your opinion because of the "simplicity".  That is what you imply in your Pokemon statment. 

You said...."The ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place". 

You display a lot of "intellectual" babble in your words, and obviously think of yourself as a "highly intellectual" individual.  The problem is that the intellectual mish-mash of your words doesn't amount to anything except non-sensical ramblings of someone who believes what he is saying is intelligent, but in reality has no clue what he is talking about. 

Ah, gotta love the anti-panda flames.  Try to burn me.  My thick coat is fire resistant.  I suppose when you say more than, "I like X," or "I do not like X," you become subject to all sorts of terrible insults and such.  Go ahead.  The coat is thick.

Ah yes, the one logical counter to my arguement, I knew it was coming --

Absolute qualitative relativity. 

Of course.  We could very well admit that all things have relative value and are subject to vague constructs.  It's logically valid and escapes my critcism quite well.

But, unfortunately, most forms of entertainment and artistic expression can be graded and evaluated within a relatively accurate context.  Hell -- that's the supposed function of this website, and I bet you right now that most gamers can spot a universally bad game (anyone care to make the serious arguement of Big Mother Truckers II as GOTY)?  The vast, overwhelming, majority of people practice the relative (but fairly accurate and standard) ordering of value daily.

I can respect your stance, but observation, common practice, and the vast sum of human opinion argue the contrary.  It is only used in this context because it provides the only reasonable objection to my critcism (which must be made to reject the notion that a game like Pokemon IS of lesser value and childish in its nature), and its utility is generally limited to such.

You know, I love when people directly flame me on threads, but do to the TOS, I'm not allowed to fully fire back with appropriate responses.  Pandas at least try to play by the rules.

Know this.  I'm simply articulating the intellectual justification for the contempt that most adult consumers, like myself, in society have for games like Pokemon and the people who inflate their value.  

This thread resembles "Panda vs. The World" simply because most adult consumers don't care enough to take the time to post on gaming forums, or hold the very concept of gaming in contempt.

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

Pokemon is a book, but it is a book designed around the demands of children and entirely juvenile in conception. If Pokemon was reduced to ANY other entertainment medium, how would you regard it? Can you honestly tell me, "darn it Panda, that first Pokemon movie was some hardcore adult stuff that I viewed right after Kill Bill 2."

NECR0CHILD313

But Kill Bill 2 sucked Panda, especially after seeing the first one.

If games were like Movies, the Gaming Media would actually be reviewing them correctly, but thus, games are not movies, nor books, they are games, and would make horrible shows and movies (Super Mario Bros anyone?) while still being fun to play. Would the Mona Lisa make a good movie? The Raven - a good daytime television series? Would a Documentary done in the surreal-art style work well?

The standards for one media =/= the standards for another, and drawing lines that don't exist isn't helping you're argument any. 

It seems like someone took a quote well out of context.  Physically?  Absolutely.  Conceptually?  They're all the same.  Each is an outlet for the expression of ideas that greatly vary in depth, meaning, and quality.  The inspiration behind these ideas can vary, but the ideas and their free expression remains intact (at least in its most ideal and pure form).  

People create artifical barriers concerning the function and applicability of gaming to strictly support an industry that has aggressively biased, conditioned, and influenced consumers to evaluate games by the most narrow, cost-effective, and lowest standards concievable. 

People construct the artifical standard of "gameplay as fun ONLY" when they value things like a good story and setting in a game; yet, they refuse to critically consider the value and importance of non-gameplay oriented aspects -- as if they were some sort of foriegn idea that gaming has no relevance to.  Mediocrity and childish products come revered as the height of quality when such a value system comes to dominate an industry.

"The story and ideas within the game lack depth and meaning -- it amounts to little more than a child's play thing.  Why are you entertained by this."

"GAMES R NOT ABOUT STORY.  ITZ GAMEPLAY& FUN."

"But doesn't the setting, stories, ideas, or characters contextualize, justify, and explain the gameplay and have a direct relationship with the gameplay and fun?"

Unless you're willing to take my ideas with a grain of salt, you're left with one response:

"NO, PRESSING BUTTONS ARE FUN."

If so, enjoy pressing buttons.  We might as well strip the game of its shallow and terrible mythos and let gamers play with variables and gemoetric shapes. 

This might explain what the OP feels somewhat offended when people call the object of his intrests childish. 

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

PS: i don't think it's fairto compare movies like Citizen kane and Gone with the Wind with video games

cause obviosly video games in general aren't in that level.

hell i bet we both can agree on thatmushroomscout89

I would disagree with the statement that places a game like Pokemon on the same tier as Spirited Away or the Lion King. The games simply lack the depth, character development, and strong presentation.

And a response to the portion you quoted,

This is what troubles me about video games. Like every other entertainment medium, games should exist, function, and be motivated solely within themselves. But games are very much the product of consumer demand that dictates that games can't physically be a great work on a higher level (which is entirely not true). The fact that gamers can't make arbitrary distinctions on the most basic levels of intellectual quality of ideas in the game is one of the many reasons that we have not, and will most likely never, see video games evolve into something better.

Kay wait, hold up.

Go back.

WAY BACK.

Why do human being play "games" in general?

Answer: For the simulation. Competition. FUN.

Now, why would a person read a novel? 

Answer: For the story.

You are comparing two very different things, in a very close minded way.  

Once again, I hate to bring this sick and fundamentally disturbing question up to the light -- "What makes gaming origionally different than any other entertament medium?" 

The answer?  Nothing.

Why do you posit exclusive values on a medium of entertainment -- when its true function is simply providing entertainment, in some form?  Can games NOT create entertainment through complex and witty stories? 

Yet, when you admit that games can, why do you give pause and deny the importance of a story as a tool -- and attempt to debunk and devalue some of the most basic and universal standards used to gauge the quality of ideas that inspire a story, film, or game in the context of gaming?

PS: i don't think it's fairto compare movies like Citizen kane and Gone with the Wind with video games

cause obviosly video games in general aren't in that level.

hell i bet we both can agree on that

I would disagree with the statement that places a game like Pokemon on the same tier as Spirited Away or the Lion King.  The games simply lack the depth, character development, and strong presentation.

And a response to the portion you quoted,

This is what troubles me about video games.  Like every other entertainment medium, games should exist, function, and be motivated solely within themselves.  But games are very much the product of consumer demand that dictates that games can't physically be a great work on a higher level (which is entirely not true).  The fact that gamers can't make arbitrary distinctions on the most basic levels of intellectual quality of ideas in the game is one of the many reasons that we have not, and will most likely never, see video games evolve into something better.

While reading your post i actually agreed with you.

yeah the games are childish.

and maybe not for everybody, but do that makes them worse than, let say...

the elder scrolls games?

no, not really.

it makes them different.

No, the lack of certain elements detracts from the net value of the games.   Adult context adds an additional layer of intellectual, conceptual, and qualatative depth -- directly -- to almost any form of entertainment.  While these works may not provide the highest amounts of immediate pleasure, the over-all value of adult games is substantially greater than that of childish games.  Again, reduce a game down to its most bare intellectual warrants and justification -- I think you'll be able to see why someone might be able to call a game like TES "greater" than a game like Pokemon: the quality, depth, and scope of the mythology -- as well as it the factors it takes into account and designs around -- obliterates a world like Pokemon.  Contrast these two ideas -- one is a children's book, the other one is a medicore fantasy novel (at best, TES games have plenty of flaws).  Does this sound harsh?

Can you honestly tell me that a film like Clifford the Big Red Dog or Rainbow Bright has as much value as Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind?

We use these intellectual standards in all other entertainment ideas, but forsake them in gaming for strictly commercial and demand-related reasons.  This is why people call gaming childish and look down on it with such discrimination and distaste.

Childish games lack the very VALUE that makes them appear "fun" to users with lower value.  For individual held to a higher intellectual standard, people who are not children, it seems strange in the eyes of an outside observer to watch an adult take pleasure and find entertainment in a game like Pokemon -- the ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place.

But, as I said, we shouldn't insult or look down on such people... for reasons why, read posts above.

You want something intellectually stimulating? Read a book. Not saying video games should or should not be, but you will always work that brain of yours more by reading a book. Read in an EGM article that there isn't much brain activity going on while playing video games. 

You know this is quite an interesting response. "Read a book?"  Why?  I love video games -- I love actively participating in a form of entertainment.   I never knew there was something about a medium of entertainment that origionally made it inclined to cater to only a specific range of emotions and entertainment levels.  If you posit such a value you on gaming, I feel obligated to feel a slight bit of sympathy for you.  I think games have proven that they can be so much greater than childish toys.  I doubt that your assumptions on brain activity are true in most cases -- I can't begin to wager how many thoughts race through my mind when I'm playing a game that encourages both active thought and reflective interpretation of text.

The industry is conditioning us to think solely as "gaming as toy" for this very reason -- producing shallow games is cheap and they typically sell well once your main demographic's standards have been lowered.

I would actually argue that Pokemon, past its childish conception, actually contains gameplay elements that are fairly complex and demanding in nature.  If you're telling me to "read a book," you might as well tell Pokemon fans to "read a book."

Pokemon is a book, but it is a book designed around the demands of children and entirely juvenile in conception.  If Pokemon was reduced to ANY other entertainment medium, how would you regard it?  Can you honestly tell me, "darn it Panda, that first Pokemon movie was some hardcore adult stuff that I viewed right after Kill Bill 2."

The-very-best, I'm as confused as you are. Since Pokemon Diamond and Pearl have been released I've seen numerous threads entitled "Who would play Pokemon?" or something like that. Fun games never go out of style because that's why we play games in the first place!

It's their loss though, not my problem. :)

dracula_16

And you still seem to wonder why they call it childish?  Let me try to explain again:

These people could not care less about the quality of the gameplay.  They're looking at the premise and ideas that warrant that gameplay.  The source of Pokemon's gameplay is rooted in a painfully childish and shallow mythos that is explicitly marketed around the demands of children and younger consumers. 

The ideas that warrant Pokemon function on such a low and simple level that the game provides no value in terms of entertainment.  It lacks the simplicity of something like "knock the ball across the screen," but at the same time is constructed upon ideas that are simply not interesting or appealing to older consumers. 

Calling Pokemon childish is quite fair, but we should not go as far as to insult others for it.  Many people enjoy childish things, but it is important for adult consumers to know that there are vastly superior forms of entertainment media out there.  We should also not structure our values or standards around a game like Pokemon; it's a poor example of the highest benchmark this industry can set.

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"][QUOTE="majadamus"][QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

People who call Pokemon childish do not mean to offend or belittle other people half of the time. They're simply describing the nature and intended audience for the product in question. They contrast the themes of the game against other forms of media, specifically those targeted for adults and notice vast differences: pokemon's shallow and consequence-free world, the existence of hypermarketing aimed at young consumers, a childish protagonist embarking on a simplistic quest, etc.

I don't play Pokemon, not because I'm embarassed to play it because it is "kiddie or childish," but because I no longer value -- or recieve entertainment -- from forms of media on the level of Pokemon. Most people my age, 22, have moved beyond that depth of entertainment and demand bigger and better things.

Unfortunately, Nintendo is perpetuating the myth of "gaming as child's toy" to an extent that it has broken out of its intended context (child consumers) and has come to be embraced by a larger population. They've recently shifted to "gaming as simple entertainment" in order to counter the exclusively kiddie image of Nintendo. I've posted hoards on this, check my profile for more info if you want it.

Oscar-Wilde

Umm...Pokemon definetly isn't the most shallow game I've ever played. I have the newest Pokemon and it's great. Yes, it's not the most complicated game out there, but it is still enjoyable even by hardcore gaming nutjobs such as myself. Being able to battle and trade online are enough reasons to buy Pokemon Diamond/Pearl. Btw, I'm the same age as you.

Do not examine the gameplay when I say shallow. Examine the ideas that contextualize and warrant the gameplay.

And that's where you fail.

handheld games don't need overly complicated stories or orchestrated music they need to be fun, accesible. The fact that they are well crafted with awesome gameplay just sweeten the deal.

And that is where you misunderstand the topic of this thread and rush to judge me.

The topic of this thread does not have to deal with what a game needs to be "fun."  Most people would call a game that does little more than depict a ball being bounced around by two bars "fun."  We're concerned over the validity of these games being called childish and shallow.

If you examine the ideas behind Pokemon, the game is explicitly childish.  It would be like calling Barney the Dinosaur a form of adult entertainment.  The ideas that warrant Pokemon are so hollow, meaningless, and childish that the game appears childish in all but the most bias and free-hearted eyes. 

It's perfectly fair to call a game like Pokemon childish.  We should stop worshipping gameplay to the point that it blinds us to the ideas and true quality of a game.  Developers mass-produce games with very, very, little intellectual quality -- that's why so many people shun gaming all together or only come to see it as a toy.

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

People who call Pokemon childish do not mean to offend or belittle other people half of the time. They're simply describing the nature and intended audience for the product in question. They contrast the themes of the game against other forms of media, specifically those targeted for adults and notice vast differences: pokemon's shallow and consequence-free world, the existence of hypermarketing aimed at young consumers, a childish protagonist embarking on a simplistic quest, etc.

I don't play Pokemon, not because I'm embarassed to play it because it is "kiddie or childish," but because I no longer value -- or recieve entertainment -- from forms of media on the level of Pokemon. Most people my age, 22, have moved beyond that depth of entertainment and demand bigger and better things.

Unfortunately, Nintendo is perpetuating the myth of "gaming as child's toy" to an extent that it has broken out of its intended context (child consumers) and has come to be embraced by a larger population. They've recently shifted to "gaming as simple entertainment" in order to counter the exclusively kiddie image of Nintendo. I've posted hoards on this, check my profile for more info if you want it.

majadamus

Umm...Pokemon definetly isn't the most shallow game I've ever played. I have the newest Pokemon and it's great. Yes, it's not the most complicated game out there, but it is still enjoyable even by hardcore gaming nutjobs such as myself. Being able to battle and trade online are enough reasons to buy Pokemon Diamond/Pearl. Btw, I'm the same age as you. 

Do not examine the gameplay when I say shallow and childish .  Examine the ideas that contextualize and warrant the gameplay.  What ideas, settings, and characters make the gameplay possible and perceivable in the first place?