Why "no" rather than "not" in "Life is no Nintendo game"? [closed]
This is a common idiom that is subtly different from the regular use of no and not. It’s used to make a comparison against an ideal or standard thing, and is often used to compare skills:
He’s no “king of comedy”, but Dane Cook can make people laugh.
Michael Bublé is a pretty good singer, but he’s no Frank Sinatra.
Your example sentence is saying you don’t get another chance because life is not a Nintendo game—though ideally it would be, because everybody wants a second chance at life.
This is also used with negative descriptions to cast someone in a positive light. “She’s no fool” means “she’s actually very wise/savvy”. Occasionally you also see it used in a rhetorical way, to give the reader a negative expectation but “surprise” them with a positive description:
He’s no Nikola Tesla—he’s even smarter than that!
Neither is more correct. They both mean the same thing, however using "no" gives it more intriguing feel, and "not a" gives a cold definite statement.
When a noun has an non-gradable meaning (it is either something or it is not) we cannot use "no" + noun.
A potato is not a fruit.
A potato is no fruit.
When a noun has a gradable meaning, "no" + noun means the same as "not a/an" + noun:
It's no secret that we are interested. (=It's not a secret. A secret is gradable. Something can be more of a secret than something else.)
In the context you have provided I suppose that one can give only an opinion on how a Nintendo game, metaphorically speaking, is, so:
You don't get another chance. Life is not a Nintendo game.
and
You don't get another chance. Life is no Nintendo game.
are both correct.
Reference: English Grammar Today (Cambridge)
He is no Albert Einstein - In this case Albert Einstein becomes a type of person. ( Smart people can be compared to Albert Einstein. He is not among those people)
He is not Albert Einstein - In this case we are talking about Albert Einstein the person. ( He is John Smith, not Albert Einstein )