Jim Sterling (The Jimquisition)

If anything, EA is more like Disney given their shared outright predatory business practices.

Nintendo is the Classic Disney of Japan, and EA is the Modern Disney of video games.

As for the competition idea, I remember seeing one of the big PlayStation people saying that Sony doesn't think of Nintendo as a competitor, either. Since PlayStation games heavily skew to 12+ ratings, Sony actually feels like Nintendo helps them by getting younger kids into gaming, who will later go on to play Sony's games when they're older.

Sony used to consider Nintendo a competitor back in the uglier days of the (ugh) console wars. Nintendo, Sony, Sega (back when they made consoles)...I don't miss those times. Oh yeah, there was also Atari and their dumbass Jaguar. Can you believe anybody gave a shit about "bits" back in those days? Course nowadays we care about resolution and fps.

Edited by M84 on Nov 21st 2018 at 3:55:06 AM

Yeah, back in the old days when it felt like companies(besides Nintendo which is still weird) were actively engaging in war with another, nowadays it feels like console war thing has died down besides teens and older adults who still reinforce it

Sometimes you had other game companies doing their own thing on the side (from the admittedly fun Turbografx AKA PC Engine to the Amiga CD 32 which baically ruined Commodore)

I wish we could bring that back at least, just have a random company having a game console to the side as the hipster choice.

I know if I had a Turbografx I'd import the fuck out of Castlevania Rondo of Blood.

UK Gambling Condition says Child Gambling has quadrupled in 2 years. Points to Lootboxes as one of the causes.

I agree with the sentiment at the end about fucking their golf courses. I'd do it myself but I've already been arrested a couple of times for indecent exposure.

Just means you weren't decent enough.

@SpookyMask: Yes, all companies have a brand image to maintain - but Nintendo has a very specific brand image that invokes a certain idea.

There is an anecdote that back in the 1960s, Walt Disney was watching a private screening of the then newly released To Kill A Mockingbird and privately vented to his family and friends "That was the movie I wish I could make", because Walt Disney had branded his company into the hole that was light, family friendly affair which shut him out of being able to make the kind of high dramas that dealt with difficult subject matter that were changing at the Hollywood.

Because those movies weren't Disney movies.

Nintendo has a similar specific brand image. An image that no other company really shares.

Ubisoft can bring out a Rayman Game, an Assassins Creed game, a title like Grow Home or Rainbow Six Siege quite easily without it being seen as particularly noteworthy or weird. As could Actiblizz, EA, Konami etc etc.

Nintendo can only really put out "family friendly affair" when it comes to their first party games, with the most "mature" they're willing to go being with Fire Emblem and Zelda aka teen oriented games. Nintendo bringing out a game anything approaching God of War or Witcher would cause monocles to pop.

It's telling when they made their first shooter franchise, it was a colourful cartoony game with very little serious violence in it. And why (in part) Nintendo adopting the Bayonetta franchise as an honorary 1st party was seen as a big/weird thing.

(And yeah, Nintendo is probably very happy with just producing their light fare and didn't have the frustrations Walt did after watching Mockingbird, but the point stands about having a brand image so integral to the company that it affects and dictates the kind of products they put out)

And yeah. I'd say the assertion that Nintendo as sort of the "Traditional Disney under Walt/Disney Animation" of the Gaming industry while EA is the Disney Hydra of the 21st century with all it's shoddy business practises and acquisitions is very correct.

Edited by PippingFool on Nov 22nd 2018 at 3:38:16 AM

Umm, but there is really no reason why Nintendo couldn't actually do 18+ game, they just don't seem to have interest in it. They did have love hotels back in the starting days after all

Like, having strong brand image isn't really exclusive to Nintendo and Disney, so i can't really buy that comparison fully anyway as Disney is more than just "that"

(that said I can also buy the "nintendo is like traditional disney of gaming while EA is like modern disney of gaming" comparison)

Edited by SpookyMask on Nov 21st 2018 at 6:39:30 PM

We're taking about the hydra from Hercules or the idea of a MegaCorp with a vertical monopoly?

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Nov 21st 2018 at 8:41:22 AM

Nintendo also make Eternal Darkness through Silicon Knights at a time when they were trying to branch out into more adult territory. While that game didn't do spectacularly, that entire era is what brought Nintendo to their current strategy of making family-friendly games and encouraging third-party developers to bring the adult games. Some of the Metroid games deal with some weighty subjects, albeit no more severely than Gargoyles, and I suspect they bought out Monolith mostly to get into that demographic in a way that appeals to Japan.

Regarding brand image, I remember when Disney first bought out Marvel, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth from comics fans about how Disney was totally goig to turn their favourite superheroes into cheerful, fluffy cartoon characters, such is the strength of Disney's brand. Of course, we now know the exact opposite happened, with Disney trying to shed their image of just being for kids and expand the brand to also encompass action and scifi. Prior to that, they did make more mature films under the Touchstone label in order to get adult demographic money without tarnishing their core image.

That said, I really feel it's wrong to compare Disney to the Hydra. They're really more like Scylla.

I'm using "Hydra" as the Mythical monster with multiple heads. As many large multinational corporations are.

I mean. Nintendo's legacy as the "kiddy console" has been part of the reason why they've had wavering 3rd support since the 64 but era (but more pointed from PS2/Xbox/GameCube era onwards). A lot of the games that ended up defining the last few generations didn't want to be assiociated with the "kids toy" console, in conjunction with it using different proprieties than its competitors and less sheer horsepower.

Them acquiring Monolith, adopting the Bayonetta series and leaving the mature games to be handled by folks outside their first and primary second party games is sort of the "Touchstone" approach in action. Being able to have a cut of that audience without tarnishing the reputation of the "core brand"

It's only now in the Switch era we're seeing serious worldwide 3rd party interest in developing for the home console with the ports of LA Noire, Skyrim, Dark Souls, Doom, Wolfenstein and so on.

Edited by PippingFool on Nov 23rd 2018 at 7:47:04 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt_6r1Ya-Ug - Battlefield V - Battlefield Fine (Jimpressions)

The way I see it, Nintendo is lukewarm when it comes to making dark or gritty games themselves (Zelda and Metroid being the common examples), but they're perfectly fine with hosting mature games made by others.

Pipping: I get that, but Scylla not only has multiple heads, but also tentacles, which are another metaphor for one entity having its proverbial fingers in multiple metaphorical pies. Plus, in the version of the story I first came across, Scylla could absorb her victims, much like Disney absorbs other companies and entities.

I would say that the GameCube era was when Nintendo was the most interested in mature games, an approach which waned in the motion control era and only really came back in the HD era when they invested in Project Zero. Not only did they produce, develop, and publish Eternal Darkness, they also courted Capcom to bring a ream of adult games to the console. There was the entire Resident Evil series to date, including the remake of the original plus 0 and 4, as well as Killer7 - all initially exclusive until it became clear that the GameCube wasn't going to sell particularly well. I would add Viewtiful Joe to that list as well - sure, it was only rated 12, but even that was higher than Nintendo was normally comfortable with, and it had some risqué character designs and humour.

After all the controversy, SJW doomsaying and political correctness, it turns out that Battlefield V it's just another battlefield. Ok then

So much for those evil SJW ruining everything

this is the song that doesn't end, and it goes on and on my friend...

Embed version:

Battlefield V is a fine and competent, if somewhat generic, entry in a long running franchise of which that has been the standard MO.

I feel like Battlefield 1 was way more impactful than other Battlefield entries because of the WWI setting. WWI is rather underexplored as a game topic/shooter topic, mainly due to the nature of Trench Warfare being presumably really hard to make compelling gameplay out of. So it had the benefit of novelty

While setting the sequel to 1 in WWII... yeah it makes sense, but it's also trite since before COD 4 WWII was the standard setting for a military shooter. You don't stand out by doing more of what's standard.

Without the veneer of novelty, there was no way BF 5 was going to be anything but just okay.

(I also get the feeling that people are exhausted on Military shooters like they were for platformers at the tail end of the 90s and early 2000s)

Edited by PippingFool on Nov 23rd 2018 at 5:27:41 AM

If it means much, I really liked the old PS 1 and PS 2 Medal of Honor games, especially the original and Frontline. I just liked the general bombastic old-timey WW 2 movie atmosphere and how arcadey and classic they felt. No cover-shooting malarkey, no Regenerating Health making difficulty a non-issue, you had to hunt down medikits for one.

And then they mutilated that series into a generic modern military shooter anyway :/

Hah, in before V!

Yup, it's lootboxes again, this time with a particularly poignant story at the very end.

The three Gatcha/Lootbox games I have any long experience with are Team Fortress 2 , Fate/Grand Order and Cookie Run. Two of which I still play on the regular (TF 2 and Cookie Run)

Even in the most... benign of them (TF 2) there is a very real impact on gameplay even if all the purchases are primarily "just cosmetic" due to the psychological landscape of that game. Cosmetics are so intristically tied to the culture of the game that if you don't have at least a few of non achievement-related cosmetics (like the infamous gibus and Pyrovision goggles) people can and will kick you or treat you like shit for being an "f2p" even if you have 2000 hrs in the game. Being skilled and not wearing any cosmetics for whatever reason will give you accusations of being a bot, a script kiddie or a pretentious smurfer.

And I gotta say. That tug is so real and so hard to shave off. Even for a game that is otherwise really fun I still find myself on Backpack.tf checking out prices for stupidly priced pixels that are coveted because they glow different and planning on purchases because in multiplayer games you want to be cool and unique! Especially when that games community incentivises the cosmetic shops.

FGO is honestly one of the most sickeningly exploitative gatcha games I've seen. Pretty much every new and/or popular character is either in the 3% pool or 1% pool and the draw pool for both the characters and the stat booster cards is the same! Buying enough for just one x10 draw is like 30 bucks, and combine that with some banner season characters who can only be drawn/unlocked during that time period and no other time and you've got one of the most insidious gatcha systems I've seen.

There was a meme image going around about 1 guy who sold his car so he could have enough money to roll for one single anime girl jpg. That wasn't funny that was sad. I'm glad I got out of the game when I did because I could have easily bankrupted myself when the characters of Nitocris and Ramses II were released, as those are two of my faves in the Fate series and are a 3% and 1% respectively.

Edited by PippingFool on Nov 27th 2018 at 2:03:56 AM

That wouldn't be the same bozo that not only blew all his money but took out a loan from the Yakuza just on the chance he could roll Scathach, was it? (scathach's not even worth it she's entry level crush)

Speaking of gacha games, Sega Heroes came out not too long ago. Anyone playing it? I can't help but be addicted but its heavily skewed toward pay to win.

x2 and : Damn, and to think I was seriously considering trying out F/GO because of all that waifu-bait... Mash/Shielder, Scáthach, Altria Pendragon - Lancer, Shuten-douji, Raikou, Astolfo... (Ditto with Love Live! School Idol Festival or other similar anime-related mobile games. Hell, even Kantai Collection—had DMM/Kadokawa decided to make a "global" version and/or a mobile port long before the rise of Azur Lane—but now, it's too late for that. "Tee-hee!" )

Thank God I hate mobile games and don't use a smartphone... Even though I play low-spec games like Diablo II nowadays on a potato computer without an actual graphics card, I still have my pride belonging to the "Glorious PC Gaming Master Race," damn it!

Anyway... *sighs* Loot boxes in "Triple-AYYY" (and that Running Gag gets a lot of mileage in this episode) games... Games that decrease in value while asking for more money is an absolutely dreadful trend. And sometimes this is the feeling I get whenever I see current or upcoming Total War games where the base games themselves lose more value as each new DLC is made. And that's just from a "Triple-AYYY" publisher that currently only uses DLC as its main means of monetization. What more with other "Triple-AYYY" publishers that use MTX, loot box sales and forcefully locking base game content just to coerce people to buy the expansion(s) or DLC?

It's like the problem with Battlefield V in Jim's earlier "Jimpressions" video, where EA's satisfied with a So Okay, It's Average, by-the-numbers game as long as it sold lots. And I know EA's still raking in dough despite announcing that there will be no loot boxes in Battlefield V. It's a good bet that as soon as the initial sales peak dies down, those fucking little loot boxes or some other MTX will be reintroduced in a future patch with little to no fanfare—albeit with "cosmetic-only" items after the Battlefront II (2017) brouhaha, but with the "Triple-AYYY" video-game industry, you never know.

Perhaps it's nostalgia speaking, but I miss the days when most base games that were released guaranteed hours upon hours of enjoyment, challenge, and replayability. And then that base game gets a huge expansion that improves on it and also guaranteed a similar, if not better, experience. I fear today's video game industry is in no hurry to bring back those good old days and is content to make low-effort addictive dreck that still ensures maximum returns to the shareholders.

Edited by IncognitoNinja on Nov 27th 2018 at 1:01:17 AM