Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Ian Sane on July 23, 2012, 05:27:06 PM
I remember when the Cube was almost out and Nintendo had this "dream team" of second parties: Rare, Retro, SK & Left Field. I remember being all pumped up about those devs and thinking about what games they would make over the system's life and how they would define the Cube's legacy.
Left Field made an NBA game no one cared about and was gone. Rare made a Star Fox game no one liked and was gone. SK made the awesome Eternal Darkness and unnecessary Metal Gear port and was gone. Retro was the only true success story, becoming a first party team, delivering two amazing Metroid games and continuing to be one of Nintendo's greatest assests to this day.
Man did my dreams for this group not turn out well. Of those four companies I would say they only delivered three truly worthwhile Cube titles (the two Metroid Primes and ED; I discount MGS because it wasn't a new game). That's pretty bad since Rare released over ten N64 games alone and you could easily name at least five great ones. In retrospect however that is actually very reflective of the Cube's legacy.
What always bothered me though was the piss-poor effort on Nintendo's part to replace these companies. The whole thing felt like a team letting good players go in free agency and not making any sort of trade or signing to replace them. "Let's just field the same team as before without those stars and hope we make the playoffs."
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 23, 2012, 05:37:40 PM
Nintendo's moved to a different strategy, working closely with third party studios (like Next Level Games or Monster) without actually purchasing them. They've had some good success with that, although not on the same level as some of the games you mentioned.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Kairon on July 23, 2012, 11:34:59 PM
What always bothered me though was the piss-poor effort on Nintendo's part to replace these companies. The whole thing felt like a team letting good players go in free agency and not making any sort of trade or signing to replace them. "Let's just field the same team as before without those stars and hope we make the playoffs."
I would argue that Nintendo made little effort to "replace" these companies via traditional second-party methods precisely because they had such little output out of them. I'm not sure the "dream team" concept that I remember first hearing with the N64 (Angel Studios? What?) actually ever worked. I have always regarded it as a marketing strategy for distracting people from the smaller number of developers working on the systems overall by trying to get people to believe that those developers who actually were on the system were higher quality.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Chozo Ghost on July 24, 2012, 02:50:06 AM
I'm not sure the "dream team" concept that I remember first hearing with the N64 (Angel Studios? What?) actually ever worked.
The "Dream Team" concept helped get O.J. off the hook, so it kinda worked there. ;)
Seriously though, its quite possible that as underperforming as the N64 was, maybe without the "Dream Team" things would have been even worse? The fact the N64 was cartridge based pretty much doomed it to be 2nd or 3rd place in terms of market share no matter what. Even though the N64 was beat out by the PS1, maybe we can thank the Dream Team for at least bringing it ahead of the Saturn?
Maybe the same applies to the Gamecube. Even though it was third place, it was very close to the Xbox and at least it was profitable, so even though the GC could have done better it also could have done a lot worse. Maybe the Dream Team concept should be thanked for that?
Sega didn't have a Dream Team with the Saturn or Dreamcast, and maybe that's the reason those systems didn't just simply underperform, but were outright failures. The Dream Team concept might have spared Nintendo from a similar fate.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Louieturkey on July 24, 2012, 06:40:02 PM
Nintendo's moved to a different strategy, working closely with third party studios (like Next Level Games or Monster) without actually purchasing them. They've had some good success with that, although not on the same level as some of the games you mentioned.
That sounds like a different way of doing money hats. "We'll pay you to make a game exclusive to our system."
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: tendoboy1984 on July 24, 2012, 08:24:19 PM
What always bothered me though was the piss-poor effort on Nintendo's part to replace these companies. The whole thing felt like a team letting good players go in free agency and not making any sort of trade or signing to replace them. "Let's just field the same team as before without those stars and hope we make the playoffs."
I would argue that Nintendo made little effort to "replace" these companies via traditional second-party methods precisely because they had such little output out of them. I'm not sure the "dream team" concept that I remember first hearing with the N64 (Angel Studios? What?) actually ever worked. I have always regarded it as a marketing strategy for distracting people from the smaller number of developers working on the systems overall by trying to get people to believe that those developers who actually were on the system were higher quality.
That's kind of what Sony's philosophy is, but they're 1st-party studios actually make plenty of quality titles.
On the other hand, Nintendo's current-ish trend of working closely with outside (3rd-party) developers is pretty much the same thing that Microsoft does.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Kairon on July 24, 2012, 08:32:05 PM
That's kind of what Sony's philosophy is, but they're 1st-party studios actually make plenty of quality titles.
On the other hand, Nintendo's current-ish trend of working closely with outside (3rd-party) developers is pretty much the same thing that Microsoft does.
I'm confused, are you comparing Sony 1st Parties to Nintendo close 3rd parties?
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: tendoboy1984 on July 24, 2012, 08:49:17 PM
That's kind of what Sony's philosophy is, but they're 1st-party studios actually make plenty of quality titles.
On the other hand, Nintendo's current-ish trend of working closely with outside (3rd-party) developers is pretty much the same thing that Microsoft does.
I'm confused, are you comparing Sony 1st Parties to Nintendo close 3rd parties?
I was stating that Sony's development philosophy is pretty much the opposite of what Nintendo is doing with their partnerships.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 24, 2012, 11:14:48 PM
Sony's going more along the lines of what Nintendo used to do, building up a stable of developers that they own at least a stake in.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Chozo Ghost on July 24, 2012, 11:50:34 PM
Its too bad that's only what Nintendo used to do. They should be doing it still.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 24, 2012, 11:57:05 PM
Satoru Iwata disagrees with you.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Chozo Ghost on July 25, 2012, 12:33:04 AM
And who is right? I think the Wii software drought speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Kairon on July 25, 2012, 12:45:20 AM
I don't believe that the software drought for the Wii, or the GC, or the N64, were primarily caused by whether or not a Dream Team or second-party stable of developers is in effect.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Luigi Dude on July 25, 2012, 12:57:10 AM
And who is right? I think the Wii software drought speaks for itself.
I'm going to side with the guy with a lot of business experience who employs a team of experts over some random crackpot on a Nintendo forum.
The problem isn't with Nintendo's studios. The problem is the complete lack of quality third party software. No one company could support one dying platform singlehandedly while simultaneously developing the vital early software to get two new platforms off the ground. Making Nintendo unnecessarily massive isn't the way to fix the problem.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Chozo Ghost on July 25, 2012, 05:07:28 AM
Making Nintendo unnecessarily massive isn't the way to fix the problem.
Nintendo is already massive in terms of the money they've made over the last several years, so why not do something with it? Having all that money and doing absolutely nothing is stupid. They are massive, but if they want to stay massive they need to solidify their gains so it isn't undone.
Did you know that adult elephants and blue whales have no natural predators? They are the largest animals in their respective environments, and all the other animals leave them alone and for good reason. So there is an advantage to being massive.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: NWR_insanolord on July 25, 2012, 05:13:39 AM
There are also many disadvantages, not the least of which being that Nintendo's losing a lot of money right now and probably shouldn't be going out of their way to spend what they have until they fix that. What you're talking about isn't going to be a real problem again for at least half a decade, so even if they were going to do it they've a lot of time to think about it.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Stogi on July 25, 2012, 07:18:44 AM
Most people think that when Nintendo says "We make games that try to appeal to all people" they mean one game can appeal to all people. That's not what they're saying at all. They're saying that our platformer game will appeal to all people who like platformers. Most people think Nintendo should specialize and gather more resources to develop more types of games. These people haven't been paying attention. Nintendo makes rpgs, adventure games, puzzle games, strategy games, sports games, fighting games, racers, party gamers, shooting games, platformers, rts's, and even horror games. Most people think that pandering to third parties is the only way for Nintendo to be successful. That is obviously false when they are the largest company in Japan. They are seen as unsuccessful but they are the most successful company in the business today.
So why do people continue to complain? It is because Nintendo doesn't make mature games anymore. Why? Because it is not their philosophy anymore. People are waiting for Nintendo to develop a mature FPS. It's never ever going to happen, at least not with the DEVELOPED BY NINTENDO moniker on the front.
And I think people realize that. That is why it is so exciting (or frustrating) to speculate who Nintendo can go to and buy or partner with to make mature games. And I agree with that sentiment, but I don't believe they need to go to a new developer (just yet).
Nintendo first needs to prove to themselves that those markets are viable. Obviously they see the success of COD or GoW, but they also see the cost of all those who have tried; the companies that shut down after one big game didn't sell. Still, they need to prove to themselves that targeting a specific demographic is not only possible, but mass marketable. They need to employ their same philosophy "We make games that appeal to all people" and use it not with genres, but with demographics. Nintendo should make a game that appeals to all 40-60 year old women. They should also make a game that appeals to all 18-35 men.
Make a new company brand to go with this same, but skewed philosophy. Make it the Miramax of Nintendo. Invest in it as much as you would anything else. Start small and work diligently until you can bolster that new side of Nintendo as much as the old side (either through the building of new teams or purchasing companies) and work together to reach every genre and every demographic simultaneously.
That is the way I see Nintendo succeeding in the future. The have the X and Y axis. Now all the need is the Z.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Ian Sane on July 25, 2012, 01:24:51 PM
I'm pretty sure Iwata and I disagree on pretty much everything... except maybe that we both like Kirby. ;)
Nintendo needs good third party support but they never have it. Nintendo shouldn't have to carry their systems all by themselves but they create situations where they have to. They sabotaged the Wii third party themselves by making it glorified last gen hardware. At least in the past with their interest in second parties and such it came across like Nintendo was making some sort of effort to fill the gap. Now they don't seem to care. We get the same games we probably would get from them even if the third party support was good. The N64 had major problems with droughts but it really seemed like Nintendo was busting their ass trying to make sure their fans had something to play. The Wii in comparison was seemingly abandoned by Nintendo almost a full two years before it's successor came out. The whole second party concept came across as "okay, our third party support isn't so hot so we're going to have to carry this thing and we've got these partners to help us do it."
I don't give a **** how rich Iwata has made Nintendo. All I give a damn about is what it's like to own a Nintendo system. It means lots of droughts and Nintendo's attitude towards that these days is "meh".
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Adrock on July 25, 2012, 02:12:25 PM
Nintendo gambled with the Wii rather than sabotaged it. Nintendo hoped 3rd parties would be enticed by the lower production costs and new controller. They weren't. Sabotaging suggests that Nintendo wanted to have crummy 3rd party support which isn't likely in the least. They just bet on the wrong horse in terms of 3rd party support. If the Wii was as powerful as the 360, things would have been different despite the console's other shortcomings. People would have came for the controller and stayed for the games. Hindsight is 20/20. Nintendo didn't even know what they had. For over a year, people were reselling Wii consoles online for like $1000 so the probably could have launched at $400 with power comparable to 360/PS3. Oh well. Nothing to be done.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Ian Sane on July 25, 2012, 04:50:24 PM
Yeah I guess "sabotage" isn't the right word. I don't think they tried to screw up third party support (though they might have realized it was a potential issue and decided that having cheap hardware was more important). The problem is self-inflicted anyway. They created a situation where third party support was doomed from the start and it would be impossible for things to turn around on the same system.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Kairon on July 25, 2012, 04:57:28 PM
Well, it could be said that third-party support was doomed from the start (N64, GC) and they tried to do something to improve the situation that didn't work out to our satisfaction.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Luigi Dude on July 25, 2012, 05:23:29 PM
Yeah I guess "sabotage" isn't the right word. I don't think they tried to screw up third party support (though they might have realized it was a potential issue and decided that having cheap hardware was more important). The problem is self-inflicted anyway. They created a situation where third party support was doomed from the start and it would be impossible for things to turn around on the same system.
Once again though
NES - 62 million
SNES - 49 million
N64 - 33 million
Gamecube - 22 million
Is this hard for some to understand why the Wii was underpowered? If the Wii was as powerful as the 360/PS3 and it sold worse then the Gamecube it would have cost the company billions. The choice was either loss several hundred million if the Wii failed or loss several billion if it failed. After going through three generations in a row of home console decline, it's not hard to see why they chose the much cheaper option.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Ian Sane on July 25, 2012, 07:46:05 PM
So the Wii is underpowered because Nintendo were chickenshits that played to not lose instead of to win? Gotcha. But even that seems odd because without the casuals the underpowered Wii would have been CREAMED. There's no way that would have succeeded with just the old core market. So it's actually an insanely risky move. I don't even know what Nintendo's plan was. Were they thinking they were doomed so they might as well not spend much money on their next console? Surely they didn't plan specifically on the casuals bailing their ass out. Did they think the Wii would do well with the then existing videogame market?
The more I think about the more I think they didn't really know what they were doing and stumbled into it. The company that made the N64 and Gamecube had NO CLUE what the hell they were doing. This is a company that would spend all day pushing on a door clearly marked "pull". They screw up the most obvious utterly avoidable things on a regular basis in such a baffling way. Yet THIS company suddenly turns it all around with the Wii, despite the system having the same sort of annoying avoidable goofs the company has become known for?
Nintendo has no idea why the Gamecube didn't do so well. None. The Wii was like they thought the situation was hopeless so they either went with a cheap system to minimalize the impact of failure OR they specifically went for a new market because the old market were a bunch of meanies that seemingly hated them for no reason. Or both. But the whole thing reaked of giving up ("we're not competing. We're inventing our own sport that we'll be the champions of!") If they knew what they were doing wrong since the N64 days, they would have more confidence in the Cube successor because they would know what needed to be fixed and would fix them. The solution to Nintendo's problems was never any more than "stop doing all this stupid ****". Nintendo was always who beat Nintendo. If they stopped tying their shoelaces together before each race they would do fine.
The Wii is both so conservative and yet so insanely risky. It's a really weird system.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Stogi on July 25, 2012, 07:59:11 PM
The Gamecube didn't fair well because it was too similar to the other consoles. Period.
Now how do you fix that?
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Spak-Spang on July 25, 2012, 08:39:43 PM
Well, Nintendo took a gamble. And business wise it made sense. Look nobody knew if the motion controls would catch on...in fact the controller wasn't even perfect until Motion +....so I completely understand Nintendo creating a cheaper system.
And you know...Nintendo made money...in fact Nintendo made enough money to survive another console generation and begin designing something new and cool again. The Wii U is awesome, and it is something only Nintendo would have thought about creating...
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Louieturkey on July 25, 2012, 08:57:19 PM
Nintendo knew what they were doing. They didn't want to continue this slide of systems that sell less than their predecessors. So they took a gamble and went with a game interface upgrade rather than a power upgrade. It was a purposeful choice that they knew would be controversial. They wanted to try to open up to a new market. They looked at HDTV sales and saw that only about 15% of tv households at the time even had HDTVs so it'd be a slow crawl to gain sales in the HD world with them pretty much being the third wheel. So they created a new market and a new demographic that paid off big time for them. Unfortunately, that new market was not as sustainable as the core gamer market.
I think with the Wii U, they are taking another gamble and trying to meld the casual and the core gamer markets. It'll be tough, but they definitely have the resources to attempt it this time around after the Wii's success.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Chozo Ghost on July 25, 2012, 08:58:39 PM
The Gamecube didn't fair well because it was too similar to the other consoles. Period.
Now how do you fix that?
Considering the Gamecube lacked (for the most part) online support and it used those tiny rinky-dink micro DVDs with like a third the capacity, and of course no hard drive I don't think its accurate to say it was too similar to the other consoles.
The Gamecube set itself apart from the other consoles by being purple and shaped like a lunchbox. So it definitely stood out in that respect, and was ridiculed for it.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: TJ Spyke on July 25, 2012, 09:06:35 PM
The PS2 didn't really have a hard drive either, and the one Sony did release barely had any support (and the PS2 Slim couldn't even use it). Nintendo took the same online approach as Sony in that they left it up to publishers to do whatever they wanted, the only difference is that Sony also released online games while Nintendo didn't.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Ian Sane on July 26, 2012, 01:23:53 PM
The Gamecube died the death of a thousand cuts. If you did a list and compared every feature of the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube the Cube was often the worst and rarely the best. Nintendo went in with everyone having already counted them out with the N64, played down to their detractors' expectations, and screwed up almost everything in some little way. If you want to see how numerous minor avoidable mistakes can add up to a seriously flawed result, look at the Gamecube. At that point Nintendo also couldn't market porno to sex addicts so that certainly didn't help either.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Luigi Dude on July 26, 2012, 04:12:05 PM
The Gamecube died the death of a thousand cuts. If you did a list and compared every feature of the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube the Cube was often the worst and rarely the best. Nintendo went in with everyone having already counted them out with the N64, played down to their detractors' expectations, and screwed up almost everything in some little way. If you want to see how numerous minor avoidable mistakes can add up to a seriously flawed result, look at the Gamecube. At that point Nintendo also couldn't market porno to sex addicts so that certainly didn't help either.
But that's kind of the point with why they did something different with the Wii like they did. Because of all the Gamecubes failures, it hurt Nintendo's home console reputation. Look at the Dreamcast, Sega fixed most of the flaws that killed the Saturn, but because of the damage the Saturn did, most people still ignored the system. Yeah people will say the PS2 was overshadowing it, but that's because the Saturn killed Sega's reputation leading to people not having much interesting in Sega systems anymore which allowed the PS2 to overshadow it, despite how strong the Dreamcast strength in 2000 really were.
This is why Nintendo took a different route to get people attention again because going the previous system done right route doesn't work when you've already lost most of your market and people's attention like Sega learned.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Chozo Ghost on July 26, 2012, 06:30:03 PM
Actually, it was the 32x that killed Sega's reputation. Had the 32x never existed and everything else played out exactly the same as before, the Saturn probably wouldn't have failed. There would still be the issue of the Saturn hardware being expensive and difficult to develop for, but I don't think those issues would have been fatal by themselves.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Ian Sane on July 26, 2012, 07:54:45 PM
I'd argue that post-Wii Nintendo's reputation has never been worse. Yeah the Angry Birds crowd thinks well of them, maybe, if they remember who the "Wii guys" even are, but with the rest of the market they're the casual guys. With the core market they've never faced a tougher battle.
I think the real problem with the Dreamcast was that Sega didn't have the finances to handle any initially slow years as they built momentum. Nintendo was not in the situation and isn't in that situation now. They didn't need the Cube successor to be an overnight success or to become the market leader. They just needed to build and improve and work their way up and try to "win" in the future. The Xbox lost money and the Gamecube didn't and neither of them came within sniffing distance of the PS2. Yet the Cube is seen as a failure but the Xbox is not. That's because the Xbox built momentum. They were a newcomer and they beat an established player in Nintendo and built momentum for the future. They didn't win but the gen ending with the Xbox brand trending upwards.
I'm sure Nintendo could have easily had a gen where they just built up good will and improved for the future. They weren't broke like Sega and unlike Sega they have a successful handheld to help them out. Give Sega those kind of market conditions and I doubt the Dreamcast dies prematurely. That system was just so damn competent. You'll never convince me that making a good product is a bad move.
Besides even if Nintendo keeps the casuals it's just a matter of time before they poison their image with them, too, if they don't address their shortcomings. They've never done the Dreamcast-style "fix all the stupid **** we're doing" routine. They didn't learn anything from the Cube gen, they just found a new market who didn't notice their ****-ups. Well someday that market WILL notice their ****-ups. They can't just "hide" this forever. Someday they have to get their act together or they're dead.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: tendoboy1984 on July 26, 2012, 09:36:40 PM
I'd argue that post-Wii Nintendo's reputation has never been worse. Yeah the Angry Birds crowd thinks well of them, maybe, if they remember who the "Wii guys" even are, but with the rest of the market they're the casual guys. With the core market they've never faced a tougher battle.
I think the real problem with the Dreamcast was that Sega didn't have the finances to handle any initially slow years as they built momentum. Nintendo was not in the situation and isn't in that situation now. They didn't need the Cube successor to be an overnight success or to become the market leader. They just needed to build and improve and work their way up and try to "win" in the future. The Xbox lost money and the Gamecube didn't and neither of them came within sniffing distance of the PS2. Yet the Cube is seen as a failure but the Xbox is not. That's because the Xbox built momentum. They were a newcomer and they beat an established player in Nintendo and built momentum for the future. They didn't win but the gen ending with the Xbox brand trending upwards.
I'm sure Nintendo could have easily had a gen where they just built up good will and improved for the future. They weren't broke like Sega and unlike Sega they have a successful handheld to help them out. Give Sega those kind of market conditions and I doubt the Dreamcast dies prematurely. That system was just so damn competent. You'll never convince me that making a good product is a bad move.
Besides even if Nintendo keeps the casuals it's just a matter of time before they poison their image with them, too, if they don't address their shortcomings. They've never done the Dreamcast-style "fix all the stupid **** we're doing" routine. They didn't learn anything from the Cube gen, they just found a new market who didn't notice their ****-ups. Well someday that market WILL notice their ****-ups. They can't just "hide" this forever. Someday they have to get their act together or they're dead.
Everyone knows who Nintendo is. Nintendo has ALWAYS had a strict philosophy towards game development, and they've catered to the same family-friendly crowd ever since they made Donkey Kong Arcade.
Remember back in the 1980's when they'd ban NES games if they contained violence or religious themes?
Or when they forced Midway to censor Mortal Kombat for the SNES because it contained too much blood?
Or when they'd force NES developers to make only 5 games a year, so the console wouldn't be cluttered with shovelware?
I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Chozo Ghost on July 27, 2012, 12:34:31 AM
Remember back in the 1980's when they'd ban NES games if they contained violence or religious themes?
Link's shield in the original NES Zelda had a Christian Cross on it. I'd also say slashing things with a sword or stomping on Goombas and killing them is pretty violent. NES games were really violent. Where Nintendo drew the line was on blood and gore it seems like... but seriously what NES games didn't have some measure of violence? Tetris is the only one I can immediately think of off hand.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Kairon on July 27, 2012, 01:50:50 AM
Those, poor, poor, tetrominoes. Sent to their deaths, sometimes one line at a time.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Chozo Ghost on July 27, 2012, 04:14:29 AM
Dr. Mario could be considered a violent game because unlike Tetris where you are destroying inanimate objects you are going after living creatures which even have faces. And of course we all know about Pikmin, which involves borderline slavery and genocide.
So is Nintendo really against violence in their games? They are against blood and gore, there's no doubt about that, but killing and death are actually quite common.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Kairon on July 27, 2012, 05:05:40 AM
The viruses in Dr. Mario may have faces, but technically they're not alive. Public humiliation by a seventh grade science teacher has burnt this fact into my mind.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Chozo Ghost on July 27, 2012, 06:22:45 AM
Public humiliation by a seventh grade science teacher
Is your avatar an accurate depiction of your reaction to this public humiliation? :P
7th grade science teachers don't know everything. I had one who told the class that glass is actually a really slow moving liquid and not actually a solid. It wasn't until some time later that I found out that was a myth and was false, but that's what he told the class... so teachers don't know everything.
As for the viruses, I think its debatable whether they count as a life form or not. There are some who will say they are the most simple and primitive form of life, and then there are those who disagree on them being alive at all. Who is right? There is no right or wrong answer there. It just depends on who ask because its very subjective. So I think both you and your teacher were right, and he shouldn't have publicly humiliated you.
But to get this back on topic, I don't think real world arguments should apply in video games. Regardless of what viruses are or aren't in real life, in Dr. Mario they have faces and look like animated creatures... it seems like just the sort of thing PETA would want to throw a fit over.
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: TJ Spyke on July 27, 2012, 08:10:49 AM
Viruses are technically alive (just not sentient), but are not animals (which is the focus of "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals").
Title: Re: Nintendo Development Studios
Post by: Chozo Ghost on July 27, 2012, 08:31:22 AM
If you go on the basis of what is required for something to be alive, then no, viruses are not alive.
That depends actually. It seems most scientific organizations tend to either say "yes" or "maybe they are" and that they are basically in a gray area. Here is a good article on it: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-viruses-alive-2004
