Video Game Forums - View Single Post

DRW · 04-19-2008, 12:00 PM

Alright, time for talking about certain things in videogames that come to one's mind. I post this in the Retro Nintendo forum because my points will probably always be about old Nintendo games, not about new ones and not about other consoles.

Before I start, let me tell you in advance: There is a difference between something being unrealistic and something being illogical. It may happen that sometimes I use the latter word while referring to certain things in videogames. Whenever I say something is illogical, it doesn't simply mean unrealistic, it means that there is an inconsistence inside the fictitious universe of the game. Something that doesn't even make sense inside this fantasy world. So, if for example I say something like "It's illogical that in "Super Mario Bros." Mario can fall into water and be dead, but in other levels he swims in the water", it doesn't fit if you answer: "The whole game is illogical because humanoid mushrooms or flowers that make you shoot fire don't exist." Things like these are not illogical, just unrealistic: They don't exist in reality, but they are absolutely consistent inside the "Mario" universe. But my own example is not only unrealistic but illogical (at least as long as you don't find an explanation): There is an internal contradiction inside the fiction that doesn't even make sense there.
Unrealistic just means: It doesn't exist in reality and is just fiction.
Illogical means: It shouldn't even exist inside the fiction because it violates its established rules and creates a contradiction.
Works of fiction can be unrealistic, but they should never be illogical according to this definition.
Please always keep in mind the difference between unrealistic and illogical when you read my posts.

O.k., now to the first thing I want to talk about with you. It's about sequels: Did you ever notice that many sequels are illogical according to their predecessor? Let me give you some examples:

"Zelda II":
As a stand-alone game it would make sense and there would be no problem, but as the sequel to the first "Zelda" game there are some things that just shouldn't be there, like. Just take the map: The lower part of the world of "Zelda II" is supposed to be the land of "Zelda I". But it doesn't fit. Look at this image:
img143.imageshack.us/img143/865/hyrulelr4.jpg
Although I know that "Zelda II" has a symbolic map view while "Zelda I" has the actual view and thus, not all details have to fit, it's still a problem: The cemetery isn't grey anymore. The lake on the right has moved up a bit. The mountains above the "double lake" aren't there anymore and the position of Death Mountain is different.
So, how can "Zelda I" and "Zelda II" play in the same universe? That would mean that Link first went through the world as it looked in "Zelda I" and some years later this same world looked completely different. This doesn't make sense at all, and so it is illogical. You can play each game as a single game and there is no problem. But if you put them together as a series, they are incompatible.

"Super Metroid":
In "Metroid" Samus collected many items. But in "Super Metroid" she doesn't have them anymore. Instead, she has to collect them again and some (for example the Maru Mari) are even at the same spot as in the first game. If you see the "Metroid" games as a series, how do you explain that Samus has to collect the items again?
Also, there's the same problem like in "Zelda II": You visit Zebes again and you even get to the same places as before, but suddenly there are other doors and ways.
Because of these things "Super Metroid" actually can not play in the same universe as "Metroid" for the NES because in the universe of the NES game the adventure of "Super Metroid" could have never happened like that.
If they had wanted to make a consistent sequel, they should have done the following: Samus keeps her items (Maru Mari, Screw Attack, Ice Beam etc.) and in the new game she collects new ones that maybe replace the old weapons. And the whole game plays in a new area. Then it would have been logic.

"Castlevania II":
The day and night rythm doesn't work for such a game. It may be possible for games like "Harvest Moon" that play in a completely isolated fantasy world, but the whole "Castlevania" series is supposed to be set on our earth, in a real country (Transylvania), just that in this version demons exist. And since the days pass in real time and there's nothing like a map view where you could say that Simon walks around for hours while the map view moves him from one spot to another in a second, this whole day/night-system is illogical for the game, especially if you consider that in the first part he walked around in the castle for at least half an hour and it didn't become the next morning.

A positive example of games actually being quite consistent to each other are the three "Super Mario Bros." games. I didn't find anything in the sequels where you can say that this doesn't fit and contradicts a previous parts. Did you find anything?

Alright, that was the first part about illogical parts in videogames. Please tell me what you think about it and if you have an explanation for these inconsistencies.

04-19-2008, 12:00 PM	#1
DRW Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Gender: Posts: 68 Thanks: 16 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Points: 4,370.01 Bank: 0.00 Total Points: 4,370.01 Donate	Videogame theories Alright, time for talking about certain things in videogames that come to one's mind. I post this in the Retro Nintendo forum because my points will probably always be about old Nintendo games, not about new ones and not about other consoles. Before I start, let me tell you in advance: There is a difference between something being unrealistic and something being illogical. It may happen that sometimes I use the latter word while referring to certain things in videogames. Whenever I say something is illogical, it doesn't simply mean unrealistic, it means that there is an inconsistence inside the fictitious universe of the game. Something that doesn't even make sense inside this fantasy world. So, if for example I say something like "It's illogical that in "Super Mario Bros." Mario can fall into water and be dead, but in other levels he swims in the water", it doesn't fit if you answer: "The whole game is illogical because humanoid mushrooms or flowers that make you shoot fire don't exist." Things like these are not illogical, just unrealistic: They don't exist in reality, but they are absolutely consistent inside the "Mario" universe. But my own example is not only unrealistic but illogical (at least as long as you don't find an explanation): There is an internal contradiction inside the fiction that doesn't even make sense there. Unrealistic just means: It doesn't exist in reality and is just fiction. Illogical means: It shouldn't even exist inside the fiction because it violates its established rules and creates a contradiction. Works of fiction can be unrealistic, but they should never be illogical according to this definition. Please always keep in mind the difference between unrealistic and illogical when you read my posts. O.k., now to the first thing I want to talk about with you. It's about sequels: Did you ever notice that many sequels are illogical according to their predecessor? Let me give you some examples: "Zelda II": As a stand-alone game it would make sense and there would be no problem, but as the sequel to the first "Zelda" game there are some things that just shouldn't be there, like. Just take the map: The lower part of the world of "Zelda II" is supposed to be the land of "Zelda I". But it doesn't fit. Look at this image: img143.imageshack.us/img143/865/hyrulelr4.jpg Although I know that "Zelda II" has a symbolic map view while "Zelda I" has the actual view and thus, not all details have to fit, it's still a problem: The cemetery isn't grey anymore. The lake on the right has moved up a bit. The mountains above the "double lake" aren't there anymore and the position of Death Mountain is different. So, how can "Zelda I" and "Zelda II" play in the same universe? That would mean that Link first went through the world as it looked in "Zelda I" and some years later this same world looked completely different. This doesn't make sense at all, and so it is illogical. You can play each game as a single game and there is no problem. But if you put them together as a series, they are incompatible. "Super Metroid": In "Metroid" Samus collected many items. But in "Super Metroid" she doesn't have them anymore. Instead, she has to collect them again and some (for example the Maru Mari) are even at the same spot as in the first game. If you see the "Metroid" games as a series, how do you explain that Samus has to collect the items again? Also, there's the same problem like in "Zelda II": You visit Zebes again and you even get to the same places as before, but suddenly there are other doors and ways. Because of these things "Super Metroid" actually can not play in the same universe as "Metroid" for the NES because in the universe of the NES game the adventure of "Super Metroid" could have never happened like that. If they had wanted to make a consistent sequel, they should have done the following: Samus keeps her items (Maru Mari, Screw Attack, Ice Beam etc.) and in the new game she collects new ones that maybe replace the old weapons. And the whole game plays in a new area. Then it would have been logic. "Castlevania II": The day and night rythm doesn't work for such a game. It may be possible for games like "Harvest Moon" that play in a completely isolated fantasy world, but the whole "Castlevania" series is supposed to be set on our earth, in a real country (Transylvania), just that in this version demons exist. And since the days pass in real time and there's nothing like a map view where you could say that Simon walks around for hours while the map view moves him from one spot to another in a second, this whole day/night-system is illogical for the game, especially if you consider that in the first part he walked around in the castle for at least half an hour and it didn't become the next morning. A positive example of games actually being quite consistent to each other are the three "Super Mario Bros." games. I didn't find anything in the sequels where you can say that this doesn't fit and contradicts a previous parts. Did you find anything? Alright, that was the first part about illogical parts in videogames. Please tell me what you think about it and if you have an explanation for these inconsistencies.