The dreaded word “kiddy” is often used as an insult to certain type of games; mostly games made by Nintendo. I question the people who have a need to express their distaste for anything “kiddy.” Should we insult these “kiddy” games? Why don’t we embrace them? Are they always as innocent as they seem?
Many people call Earthbound
the first art game. This is a game that many people will call “kiddy” because of its art-style, a game where you fight hippies and birds wearing sunglasses, a game where the protagonist gets home sick. But this game, unlike the majority of games, aims to hit your mind and heart with its story. Earthbound
remains the only game, that I know of, that has gotten essays regarding its ending.
We’re in love with an industry that embraces violence and that is fine. But maybe we can have more games like Earthbound
. What if we have a game that deals with childhood adolescence or creation of a hero amid adversity. We can have games that discuss the family structure and dynamics, class and economics, intimacy and knowledge, adolescence and growth.
Nintendo seems to be the only company that are making games like this, but maybe we have to take it further than just pretty colors (which are fine). Maybe I’m thinking too much on this topic, but what I know is that I want to see these type of games be embraced by gamers of all ages.
Let's try not to ignore something simply because it's "kiddy." I was at the Dtoid chat a couple of days ago and recommend some of the books I read from my class to a user, but he expressed his detest for "simple writing" and wanted something more "complicated." This type of attitude is simply heartbreaking, and I hope I'm not the only who wishes for more creative "kiddy" games.
LOOK WHO CAME: