By: Mike Martin-Banks AKA Groxx

The happy hill giant of video game land came out of their cave again with some of the biggest game news we've seen this year. Mr. Miyamoto introduced and featured at Space World, a popular Japanese gaming convention, a few second movie displaying his latest project with the second biggest title attributed to his name: The Legend of Zelda. The look of the game has changed 360 degrees from what was seen last year, an interpretation of very realistic characters sword dueling, into the now common "cell shading" (ala Jet Grind Radio for Dreamcast) along with a much younger, cartoon-ish Link image. When questioned with why the sudden change, Nintendo replied that the company wanted to portray their image as a family company associated with pre-teens and the younger crowd. This remark has ruffled quite a few feathers from Nintendo die-hards, complaining that once again Nintendo becomes "kiddier", an issue that has floated up numerous times with the N64. But has Nintendo really changed anything about their image throughout the years? You be the judge of that, but please listen to what I think before making anymore rash commentary.

The games that carried Nintendo as the greatest in the mainstream, when the NES graced us, were Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros., and The Legend of Zelda. And none of those have been or should be considered "kiddy", but I think why this never came up was due to the lack of the system's possibilities, the NES had simple graphics. So to truly take on the subject of kid games fairly is to look away from the images and to observe their plots, characters, and such gameplay.

I will focus on Nintendo's most successful game titles of the company's life: Super Mario Bros. Shooting games were much the hit at the time, but Siyeru Miyatomo did not choose to make a spectacular shooter as the console's boxed-in game, instead he went on to bring one of the most innovative AND non-violent titles in a long time. A plumber went around worlds jumping on blocks, traveling through pipes, and stomping on enemies. Nothing in this entire game even came close to a "realistic" or "mature" game.

Let's even go as far as to think if a developer made SMB right at this moment for a current system with the best graphics around today, would it still be a hit even though with its included "E" rating and "non-mature" themes? This is the type of thinking one most have if trying to fully understand Nintendo's main plan.

I remember talking at a GameCube (which I can't wait for) message board about the whole notion of Nintendo being too "kiddy." I mentioned a great non-Nintendo game example that had included features both innovative and amazingly fun. You played a non-limbed lovable character as you travel through new worlds and interact with the Disney-esque environments and NPCs (Non Playable Characters), similar to Nintendo adventure games. Well, so it received rave reviews and became a hot seller to match, and deserved every bit of it. But what it also got were such comments, as featured in the Official Dreamcast Magazine, as: "you may be ashamed to play this around other people" or other descriptions stating that you should feel bad about playing such a fun, what they call, "children's" game. These were some of the most idiotic and ignorant thoughts I've read on a national-er- international piece of paper for quite sometime. A game is too "child-oriented" so then you feel "wrong" to play it? Does this make much sense? To me, the only thing that matters is that the fact that I'm enjoying playing it. And not once did I have such feelings because I can say honestly I loved every moment of it. (By the way, the game was Rayman 2.)

This one example tells about good games that may be more innovative than "mature" but that still get the slack. Back to the issue at hand, though: Has Nintendo ever changed along the years? People would take defense if NES or SNES games were labeled as "too kiddy" but, at the same time, these same people rant about how N64 ones are so. While comparing the Nintendo games throughout my past and present experiences, it's hard for me to spot a major difference (eye candy aside). They're still fun to play and have many great ideas attributed.

Which brings me to the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR DETERMINED BY THESE IGNORANT GAMERS, which is graphics. Just simply graphics, you know, how it looks on the screen. Mario got "too kiddy" because he looked different than before and made use of digital voice technology to finally have speech and so he deserves to be shot off as the infamous title. The same goes with the two 64-bit Zelda titles and many others of what Nintendo have currently created. Nintendo is not slipping, quite the opposite actually, they are credited with the enormously popular Pokemon craze, which I happened to own the first version and greatly enjoyed it. And what do they get as a response? Greetings of many "kiddiness" shouts. I agree Nintendo is milking this Pokemon cash cow, but that's just smart buisness. It's like the once Sony mascot Crash Bandicoot. There's been two sequels, a kart racer, and a Crash party game. If people like it, then give the people what they want. And the majority of these people are in fact kids.

But we must also ask ourselves if we are calling Nintendo's latest attempts so, why not call their past attempts too? Super Mario World, Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Yoshi's Island, and many other SNES games can all be considered "kiddy" but are not because of the lacking of such stellar visuals, that we see so often today, that act as the final grading of wheater a game is childish.

I now come to my finalizing points of this rambling with just one thing to ask from everyone reading this: if you want to call names to things that you do not understand or try not to do so, please do not bother. I believe Nintendo has never changed as a company ONCE since its initial release to North America in 1985. I believe that the only thing that has changed is us.