Videogame theories

[DRW]

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.

[GRENTLEMEN]

Well, for the most part you're accurate. There isn't any particular in-game explanation for the mini-map of Zelda appearing differently in Zelda II, save that the designers can retcon things all they like.

The difference between layouts in Metroid and Super Metroid can be mostly attributed to the detonation that occured at the end of the first game. Since the tunnels are basically all part of an elaborate adapted underground lair for the Space Pirates, they've restructured the whole place since the detonation. There's no in-game explanation for the loss of items between any of the earlier Metroid games, though, and that's just something you're going to have to attribute to it being a game. They've used the "suit malfunction" deal twice already in the Metroid Prime series, and it's wearing thin.

One of the Mario series' inconsistencies game-to-game is Mario's sudden inability to hold his breath in later games. Never was a problem before.

I'm not really big on picking out differences in games, though, so not much of it affects my enjoyment. There are plenty of other things to do that for me, anyway.

[Ace Mercury]

This "losing all the items you had for some reason" trope is pretty common: Bag Of Spilling - Television Tropes & Idioms

The typical handwaving reasons are: they were lost, they were sold, they were "sealed". Another Metroid-specific possibility is that she submitted them for scientific study (like the Metroid larva). I mean, the Morph Ball was pretty wacky, right?

[DRW]

Originally Posted by McSARS DOUBLE SARS

Well, for the most part you're accurate. There isn't any particular in-game explanation for the mini-map of Zelda appearing differently in Zelda II, save that the designers can retcon things all they like.

Yes retcons. I never accepted them. One cannot say: "Listen. This thing doesn't count anymore. So, when you play the game, keep in mind that this game element isn't really supposed to be there." If something is established, it counts and it cannot be retroactively changed.
The only exception is if the elemtent only appears in secondary sources and the retcon doesn't contradict the actual games. Like Kirby's color which was mentioned in the other thread: Since the first game was for the Game Boy that hasn't any colors, it doesn't contradict the other games. A white Kirby was only shown at the artworks and they are not definite, so there's no inconsistency between "Kirby's Dreamland" and "Kirby's Adventure". Another example would be the idea that Super Mushrooms are the transformed Mushroom Kingdom inhabitants who thank Mario and give him their power, as stated in the manual for "Super Mario Bros." This was retconned in "Super Mario Bros. 2" and "3". Now the Super Mushrooms are just items. But since the former idea isn't recognizable in the first game and the latter idea can be applied to the first game, the retcon is valid and doesn't create a contradiction.
But besides this, no retcons are logically possible. If you want to change something, you have to remake the older games to harmonize everything with each other. Like making a new "The Legend of Zelda 1" where the world looks like in "Zelda 2". But this means you create two distinct universes: The one with the sequel and the adjusted remake. And the one with the original first part that doesn't fit to its sequel. So, if they created a remake of "Zelda 1" that matches with "Zelda 2", I could still stick with the universe where the original game plays in and refuse the second part.

Originally Posted by McSARS DOUBLE SARS

One of the Mario series' inconsistencies game-to-game is Mario's sudden inability to hold his breath in later games. Never was a problem before.

But this only occurs in the newer titles, right? That's why I only mentioned the "Super Mario Bros." series.
They ****ed it up the first time with "Super Mario World" where the Koopalings don't have their real colors anymore. Something like that isn't a problem in NES games due to the four-colors-per-sprite-rule where we have to accept that many things are displayed symbolically or simplified. But on the Super Nintendo the characters should have their real colors. Also, in the former games when you collected a fire flower your clothes became red plus another color (red=fire). Now Luigi's green/blue becomes white/green which was his normal dress in "Super Mario Bros. 1".
And they really ****ed it up with "Yoshi's Island". It may be a good game, but the story is crap. Shall we really assume that Mario, the ordinary plumber from Brooklyn with Italian descents who just happened to get into the Mushroom Kingdom through a pipe, is really a Mushroom Kindom inhabitant himself who lived his childhood in a Smurf-like village and was brought by a stork? (If this is the case in the Mushroom Kingdom, why does the concept of male and female exist there?) And shall we believe that Mario's first adventure, the fight against Donkey Kong, didn't occur in New York, but in Big Ape City (mariowiki.com/Big_Ape_City)? No, I will never accept that. The only true games in the original "Mario" universe consist of "Donkey Kong", "Donkey Kong Jr.", maybe "Donkey Kong 3", "Mario Bros." (the definite versions are the ones from the arcade, not the NES conversions), "Super Mario Bros.", "Super Mario Bros. 2" and "Super Mario Bros. 3" (the NES versions). That's it.

[KING 1-UP SALESMAN]

well, probably the reason about super metroid is after a mission, samus takes off and powers off her suit. then, when it is powered off, all of its former equipped weapons and abilities are gone.that's the only reason i can think of.in the beginning of metroid prime , samus has all her abilities and weapons.but then something goes wrong, and samus loses all her abilities.and plus, why do games need logic? they are video games. they dont have to be logical. and in zelda 1 , it isnt like link explored all of hyrule. they're is so much that isnt explored. and what about all the other zelda games? hyrule is different in the other games. video games dont need to be logical. though, it is kind of fun trying to explain it.

[DRW]

Originally Posted by 1-up salesman

and plus, why do games need logic? they are video games. they dont have to be logical.

Originally Posted by DRW

[...] There is a difference between something being unrealistic and something being illogical. [...] 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. [...]
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.

Originally Posted by 1-up salesman

and in zelda 1 , it isnt like link explored all of hyrule. they're is so much that isnt explored.

Right. But the south of "Zelda 2" is supposed to be the place from "Zelda 1".

Originally Posted by 1-up salesman

and what about all the other zelda games? hyrule is different in the other games.

That not logic either.

[GRENTLEMEN]

I think 1-up-salesman's point was just that it's pointless to be concerned about story in a media that rarely concerns itself with consistency.

It annoys me more when companies do remakes and retcons to make unimportant changes. For example; in Metroid: Zero Mission there is clear and obvious indication that the wrecked ship in Super Metroid is the remains of the Space Pirates' mother ship in ZM. The Super Metroid printed backstory states otherwise repeatedly in various media, and there is no actual reason to change it. One of the biggest flaws in it is how they are attempting to link together two elements that do not need to be linked - the wrecked ship is much more interesting when you know that its origins are 3rd party, IMO.

I agree that the Mario story has been severely mangled, starting with Yoshi's Island. Then again, I haven't seen any evidence that Mario was even supposed to be a plumber from Brooklyn according to Nintendo of Japan. Basically, NoA stepped in and made deals with other companies that came up with a backstory and sold products based on that. Even if Mario was being flown through Dinosaur Land on the way to his first home in the Mushroom Kingdom, he could've easily lived in NY at some point. It's one of those things I've thought over, but we're missing a bunch of pieces to the puzzle.

I don't see the point in caring about the map being slightly off in Zelda II. No one's even said the overworld map in Zelda II was even accurate; I always took it as a simplistic and rough depiction of the landscape. Again, sometimes you have to make a new game, and landscapes change as a result of artistic license. People want a new experience; not repetition.

[DRW]

Originally Posted by McSARS DOUBLE SARS

I think 1-up-salesman's point was just that it's pointless to be concerned about story in a media that rarely concerns itself with consistency.

Yes, production-wise it's pointless, but it's still interesting to think about explanations. Like with the number 42 from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy": There exist numerous theories what the number could mean, although Douglas Adams himself said that it has no meaning.

Originally Posted by McSARS DOUBLE SARS

It annoys me more when companies do remakes and retcons to make unimportant changes. For example; in Metroid: Zero Mission there is clear and obvious indication that the wrecked ship in Super Metroid is the remains of the Space Pirates' mother ship in ZM. The Super Metroid printed backstory states otherwise repeatedly in various media, and there is no actual reason to change it. One of the biggest flaws in it is how they are attempting to link together two elements that do not need to be linked - the wrecked ship is much more interesting when you know that its origins are 3rd party, IMO.

At least with remakes you can say that the first game is the definite one. So, when you plan to play all "Metroid" games in their chronological order, you have to decide if you want to play the remake or the original. (Both together don't work since then you would play the same adventure twice.) And then you can choose the original game and ignore the remake.
But yes, remakes and their changes are annoying as well. (At least if they are supposed to play in the same canon. It may be something different if they establish a completely new, separate canon that plays in another universe.)

Originally Posted by McSARS DOUBLE SARS

I agree that the Mario story has been severely mangled, starting with Yoshi's Island. Then again, I haven't seen any evidence that Mario was even supposed to be a plumber from Brooklyn according to Nintendo of Japan. Basically, NoA stepped in and made deals with other companies that came up with a backstory and sold products based on that. Even if Mario was being flown through Dinosaur Land on the way to his first home in the Mushroom Kingdom, he could've easily lived in NY at some point. It's one of those things I've thought over, but we're missing a bunch of pieces to the puzzle.

I admit that the Brooklyn part was invented by Nintendo of America, but it became a de-facto canon back then. Everybody in the 80s knew that Mario lives in Brooklyn. I think they even accept that today since, if I remember correctly, in one of the "Super Smash Bros." games it is stated about Luigi that he lived in Brooklyn for a certain amount of time. And their Italian accent shows that Nintendo of Japan accepts that Mario and Luigi grew up in Italy.
So, basically there's only the question: Is Mario a guy who went to the Mushroom Kingdom by chance or is he a guy who was "born" in the Mushroom Kingdom, taken to Italy, moved to New York and went back to the Mushroom Kingdom? Well, and since Shigeru Miyamoto created him as the typical ordinary guy, I refuse to accept the story that they thought up in 1995.

[GRENTLEMEN]

Well, I think pretty much anyone will agree that the backstory America established earlier on for Super Mario Bros. is much more likable than the "new" one, if nothing more than for the fact that there is much more character and explanation to it. Nintendo has never made much of an effort to explain the backstory in-game, with Mario. When they do, it's only just enough to eek by on in that game. I don't understand why it's so hard to follow the few ideas set in place by the existing games, in that case. I mean, Bowser Jr? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that one came out of the blue.

[DRW]

Originally Posted by McSARS DOUBLE SARS

Well, I think pretty much anyone will agree that the backstory America established earlier on for Super Mario Bros. is much more likable than the "new" one

That's why for me the whole "Super Mario" stories end with "Super Mario Bros. 3".


Alright, here comes another thing to think about:



Question 1: Why does Dracula have a cross on his casket? He's a vampire and since this is not a "Blade" game, but a game inspired by classic horror movies, we should assume that a cross would hurt him if he touched it, so why is it put on the casket?

Question 2: Why is Dracula that big? As a vampire he was once a human, so he should approximately be as tall as Simon Belmont, but he is more than three meters high.

[Tazy_10]

1. The Zelda One.

This is probably more about Laziness then anything else, except that instead of copy-paste, they adapted it to the game.

It could be entirely possible for Death Moutain to always have been as such, and blame it on either Ganon's Magic, or about 30 Earthquakes happened in those few years that changed everything around.

You can also go with Miyamoto's explanation that "Each story is completly different" (Yeah, have fun with that.)

2. The Super Metroid One.

It is assumed that Samus either gets rid of all her weapons besides the Beam, and Missile. Possibly because the weapons are sellable, or because Samus likes surviving with the Planet's weapons, instead of those she brings from other planets.

The Argument is moot, especially since it's more of a design choice than anything.

3. Castlevania one.

You can easiy assume that since you are in a castle instead of being outside, that you have no idea what time of day it is. Months could pass for all we know, but since in Castlevania 2, you are outside, day and night are much clearer than it is when you are in a very large castle.

You can also assume that the Castlevania games take place in one Night, which isn't entirely unplausable.

Finally, the Castlevania 1.

First, it can just be assumed they chose a generic coffin, and didn't think too much of the cross on it. It could also be that Dracula is stronger than ordinary methods.....but that's stupid.

Secondly, most bosses are larger than the Hero in older games in order to make him look stronger than you. There is also the fact that Dracula would go on to stay that big from then on, so it's not so much a inconsistency as it is kind of weird.

[DRW]

Originally Posted by Tazy Ten

You can easiy assume that since you are in a castle instead of being outside, that you have no idea what time of day it is. Months could pass for all we know, but since in Castlevania 2, you are outside, day and night are much clearer than it is when you are in a very large castle.

You can also assume that the Castlevania games take place in one Night, which isn't entirely unplausable.

Yes, that's the case: All these "Castlevania" games take place in one night. And that's why "Castlevania II", where the day/night-cycle exists and a day is only some minutes long, doesn't fit to the other games.

Originally Posted by Tazy Ten

First, it can just be assumed they chose a generic coffin, and didn't think too much of the cross on it. It could also be that Dracula is stronger than ordinary methods.....but that's stupid.

Secondly, most bosses are larger than the Hero in older games in order to make him look stronger than you. There is also the fact that Dracula would go on to stay that big from then on, so it's not so much a inconsistency as it is kind of weird.

Of course, most of these things can be applied to "Designers who didn't care enough to do it right"/"It was done in most of the games". But I'd rather have some possible in-game-explanations. I mean, o.k., the designers did it for no reason, but still it is possible to retroactively explain it in a way so that it makes sense.

Concerning Dracula's height: No, it's not really an inconsistency between the games, but it doesn't has to since my "Castevania" topic is already a new one, apart from the topic of my first post. So, the theories are not only about inconsistencies between different parts of a series, they can be about anything.
Now my explanation: In "Castlevania III" Alucard is much bigger when fighting him, but he has a normal size after the fight. So, it's realistic that Dracula can change his size as well.

[KING 1-UP SALESMAN]

well, for mario's backstory, since this is getting so complicated , let's just say whatever you think is mario's backstory is his backstory. and video-games don't have to bea realistic or have logic.the reason mario can swim and sometimes when he gets in water he dies is because on the mario games i've played, the water that mario dies in is purple. so it's like swamp water or poison liquid.

[Wonder Wario]

Originally Posted by DRW

They ****ed it up the first time with "Super Mario World" where the Koopalings don't have their real colors anymore. Something like that isn't a problem in NES games due to the four-colors-per-sprite-rule where we have to accept that many things are displayed symbolically or simplified. But on the Super Nintendo the characters should have their real colors. Also, in the former games when you collected a fire flower your clothes became red plus another color (red=fire). Now Luigi's green/blue becomes white/green which was his normal dress in "Super Mario Bros. 1".
And they really ****ed it up with "Yoshi's Island". It may be a good game, but the story is crap. Shall we really assume that Mario, the ordinary plumber from Brooklyn with Italian descents who just happened to get into the Mushroom Kingdom through a pipe, is really a Mushroom Kindom inhabitant himself who lived his childhood in a Smurf-like village and was brought by a stork? (If this is the case in the Mushroom Kingdom, why does the concept of male and female exist there?) And shall we believe that Mario's first adventure, the fight against Donkey Kong, didn't occur in New York, but in Big Ape City (mariowiki.com/Big_Ape_City)? No, I will never accept that. The only true games in the original "Mario" universe consist of "Donkey Kong", "Donkey Kong Jr.", maybe "Donkey Kong 3", "Mario Bros." (the definite versions are the ones from the arcade, not the NES conversions), "Super Mario Bros.", "Super Mario Bros. 2" and "Super Mario Bros. 3" (the NES versions). That's it.

Wow... you're just as bad as a Sonic fan... if you're playing Mario for an ongoing story, then you're playing for all the wrong reasons.

This is especially odd, because the manuals to the games never once referred to Brooklyn, or anything like that.

"One day the kingdom of the peaceful mushroom people was invaded by the
Koopa, a tribe of turtles famous for their black magic. The quiet, peace-loving
Mushroom People were turned into mere stones, bricks and even field horse-
hair plants, and the Mushroom Kingdom fell into ruin.

The only one who can undo the magic spell on the Mushroom People and
returntthem to their normal selves is the Princess Toadstool, the daughter of
the Mushroom King. Unfortunately, she is presently in the hands of the great
Koopa turtle king.

Mario, the hero of this story (maybe) hears about the Mushroom People's
plight and sets out on a quest to free the Mushroom Princess from the evil
Koopa and restore the fallen kingdom of the Mushroom People.
You are Mario! It's up to you to save the Mushroom People from the black
magic of the Koopa!"

The whole Brooklyn thing was most definately just localization on NoA's part. Kind of like SoA's "Mobius" for Sonic, even though in Japan, he was always on Earth.

[DRW]

Originally Posted by Wonder Wario

Wow... you're just as bad as a Sonic fan...

How dare you comparing me to a Sonic fan. :wink:

Originally Posted by Wonder Wario

if you're playing Mario for an ongoing story, then you're playing for all the wrong reasons.

Not an ongoing story, but a consistent story. And I do have a consistent story with "Donkey Kong" till "Super Mario Bros. 3".

Originally Posted by Wonder Wario

This is especially odd, because the manuals to the games never once referred to Brooklyn, or anything like that. [...] The whole Brooklyn thing was most definately just localization on NoA's part. Kind of like SoA's "Mobius" for Sonic, even though in Japan, he was always on Earth.

I know that Brooklyn is not mentioned in the games itself, but it was an established canon back then: Donkey Kong is based on King Kong and him climbing the construction site mirrors King Kong climbing the Empire State Building. And "King Kong" took place in New York, not in a fairy tale world. Furthermore, Mario was created as an ordinary guy: Working clothes and an ordinary job. At first he was a carpenter, then in "Mario Bros." he became a plumber. The employees at Nintendo found that Mario looks like an Italian, so he became one. Mario's and Luigi's name supports that. So, we can assume that when "Super Mario Bros." came out, no-one belived Mario to be a Mushroom Kingdom inhabitant. And since many things were invented by secondary persons (his name and his origin were both added by chance and were not directly defined by Shigeru Miyamoto), we can assume that the Brooklyn thing was accepted canon even in Japan back then.

[LuWEEGEEman]

THEY WERE BORN IN MUSHROOM KINGDOM

THEN SENT TO BROOKLYN

ADOPTED BY ITALIANS

CAME BACK THROUGH A SEWER LINE

LIVED IN MUSHROOM KINGDOM SINCE THEN

END OF STORY

[GRENTLEMEN]

^ fail

[i thot u wer my frend]

I lol'd at story problems in Mario.

[Tad Venture]

I always attributed the Zelda I/II map discrepancy to the fact that Hyrule has very poor mapmakers.

...no, seriously.

Something I've always liked to do with games like Zelda II with an overworld (Final Fantasy, etc.) is to treat it as if it's the characters themselves tracing where they are on a map. Link had an inaccurate map.

I mean, check this out:



If that was the overworld for my RPG, there would be some discrepancies, too.

[Perrin Aybara]

Here's my theory:

"Chrono Break"

It was never made because all of the employees at Squaresoft have their heads up their own asses.

-jay