Post by: Mashiro on August 13, 2007, 07:03:33 PM
Quote
While there are indeed games designed for core and casual markets, core users are also enjoying casual gaming. It is very hard to tune the difficulty just for the core market. Even for us, we would still have difficulty finding the right balance. But I think the future is games that are not difficult and yet very fun to play
Now . . . Kotaku forum goers and even the news reporter are taking this statement a bit far.
If anything this is just Shiggy stating that Nintendo has a hard time finding the balance between too easy and too hard while making the game fun.
I don't think this is the end of the hardcore Nintendo video game world as others are claiming it to be but we will see.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2007, 07:06:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro
Kotaki: Kiss Your Old, Hard Nintendo Games GoodbyeQuote
While there are indeed games designed for core and casual markets, core users are also enjoying casual gaming. It is very hard to tune the difficulty just for the core market. Even for us, we would still have difficulty finding the right balance. But I think the future is games that are not difficult and yet very fun to play
Now . . . Kotaku forum goers and even the news reporter are taking this statement a bit far.
If anything this is just Shiggy stating that Nintendo has a hard time finding the balance between too easy and too hard while making the game fun.
I don't think this is the end of the hardcore Nintendo video game world as others are claiming it to be but we will see.
Wait when were NIntendo games, for the most part, hard?
Post by: Blue Plant on August 13, 2007, 07:13:21 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2007, 07:17:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Blue Plant
For the most part, Mario Sunshine platforming levels!
Mario Sunshine really was not that hard, just for all you wussy people!
Post by: Kairon on August 13, 2007, 07:19:11 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2007, 07:22:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
...uh...no. I suck, and those Sunshine levels were very forgiving and casual friendly. (as in, practically infinite 1-ups.) Is it me or have Nintendo games not been hard ever since the N64?
Nintendo games were hard on N64? I must have been sleeping then too!
Mario 64-Easy to medium
Zelda: OOT- easy to medium
Mario Kart 64-Easy
Star Fox 64-Easy
Paper Mario-Easy to Medium
Post by: Kairon on August 13, 2007, 07:26:05 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2007, 07:28:19 PM
Post by: King of Twitch on August 13, 2007, 07:31:51 PM
Post by: Kairon on August 13, 2007, 07:32:14 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2007, 07:34:53 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on August 13, 2007, 07:44:56 PM
Didn't you say you liked easy games?
Post by: Kairon on August 13, 2007, 07:46:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MJRx9000
I remember some videogames used to have this one thing in the menu, it was great; you could choose Easy, Medium, or Hard, and the game would either be Easy, Medium, or Hard, depending on which one you selected. I wish the Wii could do that.
Wow, that's actually very rare nowadays in all games. I wonder why?
But in the interest of Full Disclousre, I must admit that I'd ALWAYS play it on easy mode. I don't have time to get stuck in a game nowadays.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2007, 07:47:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Didn't you say you liked easy games?
Shyguy is a goober.
Post by: Mario on August 13, 2007, 07:55:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: Blue Plant
For the most part, Mario Sunshine platforming levels!
Mario Sunshine really was not that hard, just for all you wussy people!
Mario Sunshine is pathetically easy for me as an experienced gamer, but Shiggy would call it too hard since its hard to pick up. Controlling Mario and FLUDD and being aware of the environment and the controls all at once is way too intimidating for people. Unlike Wii Sports. But that doesn't mean Wii Sports isn't hard. Who here has all the platinum medals?
Post by: Kairon on August 13, 2007, 08:02:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Mario Sunshine is pathetically easy for me as an experienced gamer, but Shiggy would call it too hard since its hard to pick up. Controlling Mario and FLUDD and being aware of the environment and the controls all at once is way too intimidating for people. Unlike Wii Sports.
That's a good point. Sunshine in regular terms was easy, but the controls were definitely a slight obstacle if someone wasn't a gamer.
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
But that doesn't mean Wii Sports isn't hard. Who here has all the platinum medals?
Shut up!
Post by: SixthAngel on August 13, 2007, 08:52:50 PM
edit: After going to the real article Kotaku took one piece as a quote and even made the their title to sensationalize it, it should be expected from them.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2007, 09:06:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngel
Nintendo never made hard games since the n64. They have always talked about how they want their games to be very accessible to gamers of all ages. They have been using the word non-gamers instead of new and young gamers like they used to, no big deal. A lot of what they do has been very similar but with smart new advertising and catch phrases like non-gamers.
You do have a point, before Nintendo advertised that their games were for everyone of all ages. So really not much has changed when you look at it that way!
Post by: Blue Plant on August 13, 2007, 09:32:25 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on August 13, 2007, 10:07:55 PM
Post by: Michael8983 on August 13, 2007, 10:25:11 PM
Sure Super Mario Sunshine seems MUCH easier to most of us now but we've been gaming with Mario for two decades.
Also a lot of NES games were more difficult for no other reason than because save files weren't common at the time. I don't consider that true difficulty as much as a technical restraint.
As for the hardcore vs casual debate.
I'd say Nintendo is doing an excellent job of balancing them out so far.
We've got titles like Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Big Brain that appeal to the very casual and so called "non-gamers".
Then titles like Twilight Princess and the soon to come Metroid Prime 3, Mario Galaxy, and Brawl for the hardcore.
Then there are titles like Mario Party 8 and Warioware Smooth Moves falling somewhere in between.
People can preach doom and gloom about Nintendo possibly shifting things too much in one direction or the other next year but you have to give them credit for getting it pretty damn right so far.
Post by: Smoke39 on August 13, 2007, 10:25:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: MJRx9000
I remember some videogames used to have this one thing in the menu, it was great; you could choose Easy, Medium, or Hard, and the game would either be Easy, Medium, or Hard, depending on which one you selected. I wish the Wii could do that.
Wow, that's actually very rare nowadays in all games. I wonder why?
But in the interest of Full Disclousre, I must admit that I'd ALWAYS play it on easy mode. I don't have time to get stuck in a game nowadays.
I don't think it's any more rare now than it's ever been. Nearly all of the PC games I play have selectable difficulty. And Nintendo's never had a habbit of providing selectable difficulty settings.
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 13, 2007, 10:27:51 PM
Post by: Kairon on August 13, 2007, 10:34:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
I don't think it's any more rare now than it's ever been. Nearly all of the PC games I play have selectable difficulty. And Nintendo's never had a habbit of providing selectable difficulty settings.
Hmm... maybe I've been playing too many Nintendo games...
Post by: Smoke39 on August 13, 2007, 10:37:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Interesting, concerning it was Miyamoto's idea to make Super Mario Galaxy a more difficult game...
Yeah, Miyamoto doesn't make much sense anymore, does he?
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 13, 2007, 10:39:05 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on August 13, 2007, 10:42:40 PM
Quote
core users are also enjoying casual gaming
lies!
To me, Shiggy is a bizarre example of being able to walk the walk without being able to talk the talk. I think?
Post by: ReverendNoahWhateley on August 14, 2007, 01:12:02 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on August 14, 2007, 03:27:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Michael8983
It's all relative. I guarantee you if you gave someone who never played video games in their life Super Mario Bros and then Super Mario Sunshine they would say the former is easier than the latter.
Sure Super Mario Sunshine seems MUCH easier to most of us now but we've been gaming with Mario for two decades.
Also a lot of NES games were more difficult for no other reason than because save files weren't common at the time. I don't consider that true difficulty as much as a technical restraint.
QFT. All the complaints about infinite lives come back to this: The game has a FRICKING SAVE FEATURE. If you ran out of lives, you'd just have to spend two extra minutes getting right back to the point where you died. And that's not a bad thing - the only difference between Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Bros. is you don't have to slog all the way back to level 8-3 every time you run out of lives trying to get past all the Hammer Bros.
The truth is, "lives" are an outdated concept for most modern games, but Nintendo leaves 1-ups and lives in the Mario games because it knows people expect them.
Post by: Ian Sane on August 14, 2007, 07:09:14 AM
Still this is Miyamoto talking about compromising core games for non-gamers again. I'm getting tired of all the spin doctoring from fans I hear regarding comments like that. This is nothing new. It's just continuing the trend.
I don't know how he can come to any conclusions that "core users are also enjoying casual gaming". When you're attracting a huge group of new customers how the hell would you have any idea what the original group is actually buying? Why can't Nintendo just give the core games games for core gamers and not care if those games appeal to non-gamers? Those games made a profit before and will make one now. Why must every corporation spend so much time looking at who isn't their customer and so little on who is? This "every game is for everyone" bullsh!t helped sink Nintendo in the first place. What do you think that whole "k!ddy" stuff was really about?
Post by: Strell on August 14, 2007, 07:14:25 AM
Post by: UncleBob on August 14, 2007, 07:20:19 AM
Go play to the last level of Pac-Man, then tell me today's games are hard.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 14, 2007, 07:46:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Nintendo hasn't made "hard" games for a long time but their greatest titles aren't cakewalks either. I think they found a good balance on the N64. Those games weren't hard but they weren't really easy either. I died in both N64 Zeldas. I have no clue what the game over screen in Wind Waker looks like. There's a line where a game gets compromised by making it too accessible or too user-friendly and I think Nintendo has crossed that a couple of times. But then you get something like Super Mario Sunshine which is all over the place in difficulty.
Still this is Miyamoto talking about compromising core games for non-gamers again. I'm getting tired of all the spin doctoring from fans I hear regarding comments like that. This is nothing new. It's just continuing the trend.
I don't know how he can come to any conclusions that "core users are also enjoying casual gaming". When you're attracting a huge group of new customers how the hell would you have any idea what the original group is actually buying? Why can't Nintendo just give the core games games for core gamers and not care if those games appeal to non-gamers? Those games made a profit before and will make one now. Why must every corporation spend so much time looking at who isn't their customer and so little on who is? This "every game is for everyone" bullsh!t helped sink Nintendo in the first place. What do you think that whole "k!ddy" stuff was really about?
Summary: Nintendo doesn't know what they are doing and they aren't doing things I would do. The end.
Post by: Spak-Spang on August 14, 2007, 07:50:47 AM
Shiggy has ALWAYS denounced this idea. A fun game is fun to play whether it is difficult or not. It is fun because the basic mechanics the "how to play" are enjoyable by themselves...then the challenge added can enhance the game or lengthen the game...but if the game never gets hard it is still fun.
A good example of this is Super Mario 64. Quite literally the very early levels are instantly accessable with how easy they are...and it is fun to just move Mario around. I have gone and played through Mario 64 several times, because collecting the each of the Stars is fun whether or not that particular Star is a challenge or not.
Another example would be the Wario Ware series...specially Smooth Moves. The game really is not difficult. You simply react to situation as feels natural to the commands and you can succeed. The games difficulty comes from learning what to do when and reacting fast enough when the game speeds up. But, you don't have to worry about the really challenging stuff to beat the game, but the gameplay makes that game fun throughout anyway.
A long list of games like this could be made...and a long list of games that difficulty being too hard makes the games less enjoyable and overall, not fun to play.
The issue Shiggy is bringing up isn't whether or not a game should be hard, but whether or not a game is FUN to broad audience, and how can you make a game more enjoyable to larger numbers of people.
Post by: UERD on August 14, 2007, 08:01:00 AM
Quote
I would rate SMS as anything from trivially easy to frustratingly hard depending on the level. Some were pushovers while others were a real pain to deal with. E.g. one "secret" has you running along a path of decaying blocks, I found it almost impossible to keep Mario on the path because if you make a turn the camera will start turning as well and you have to constantly readjust the direction you move in, if you move too far off even once you fall off the track and have to restart the "secret", if you stop to adjust the camera the block under you decays and you fall, *bzzt* restart.
I can definitely sympathize. However, that would be a design flaw as to how the camera was programmed to behave. The inherent game mechanics weren't at fault (conceivably, you could come up with a way to fix the camera controls to eliminate that problem, but not change the core gameplay in a non-trivial manner).
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 14, 2007, 08:29:32 AM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on August 14, 2007, 08:55:53 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on August 14, 2007, 09:01:27 AM
However, I've also noted that a game doesn't need to be challenging to be entertaining, only satisfying, and I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.
Look at classic turn-based RPGs: they're stupid easy to beat, and that's because the only thing separating you from victory is a certain amount of time spent grinding random encounters.
And yet, there are many people who cite these same RPGs as some of the best gaming experiences they've ever had. Can anyone argue that they're wrong when all they're expressing is their enjoyment and, more importantly, their patronage?
Games can strike a balance in difficulty through a number of means. There's the "difficulty selection" option which generally works well, but in the case of Nintendo games, they usually have situations where facing greater difficulty results in greater reward but isn't required for game completion.
There's getting all the medals in SF64, 120 stars in SM64, finishing the Metroid games in under 2 hours, etc. These add an extra element for the gamers which want more of a challenge while not harming the fun factor for the gamers who want less of a challenge.
Wii Sports is also the same way. The game is ridiculously easy to pick up, but competitive players who have mastered all of its depth can crush lesser players with ease.
I think the balance can be found and can be fun, it's just that developers will need to go that extra mile to ensure their games can appeal to new players while also having ample depth for hardcore gamers to explore.
In the end, the goal is to make sure everyone has fun playing your game.
Post by: UERD on August 14, 2007, 09:02:51 AM
Quote
In the end, the goal is to make sure everyone has fun playing your game.
Games about being fun? What a concept!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 14, 2007, 09:14:26 AM
::raises hand:: Wii sports is awesome!
Post by: Strell on August 14, 2007, 09:16:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Who here likes both the "casual" games and the "hardcore" games? Ian seems to doubt we exist.
::raises hand:: Wii sports is awesome!
Yo, man. Dang 'ole casual gamers talkin' bout dang ole Wii Sports, man.
Post by: vudu on August 14, 2007, 09:19:47 AM
QuoteDepends on who you ask.
Originally posted by: UERDQuote
In the end, the goal is to make sure everyone has fun playing your game.
Games about being fun? What a concept!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 14, 2007, 09:22:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: vuduQuoteDepends on who you ask.
Originally posted by: UERDQuote
In the end, the goal is to make sure everyone has fun playing your game.
Games about being fun? What a concept!
Lol I remember that thread.
Post by: Kairon on August 14, 2007, 11:09:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: vuduQuoteDepends on who you ask.
Originally posted by: UERDQuote
In the end, the goal is to make sure everyone has fun playing your game.
Games about being fun? What a concept!
Wow... I could still use my signature back then...
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Who here likes both the "casual" games and the "hardcore" games? Ian seems to doubt we exist.
::raises hand:: Wii sports is awesome!
Adventure games are, at the same both the most hardcore and the most casual games you could ever imagine. Count me in.
Post by: stevey on August 14, 2007, 02:06:39 PM
Quote
are not difficult and yet very fun to play
Bull, there no fun in a game if all you do is to hit A once and win. Game should be challenging. The fun is trying to beat game and feel like you accomplish something when you win. I feel rip off win a beat a boss on my 1st or 2nd try. The fun is in getting kill 5 times, getting better each time, and finally be able to overcome the boss. It not fun hitting it in it's weak point over and over while it acts brain dead running in circles. Nor is it fun to get near to beating a boss and does a cheap finisher that's unblockable and everyone die no matter how much heath you have or get hit some other over power move instead of fighting intelligently with it's attacks and move. MP2 had the perfect difficulty that wasn't cheap but challenging and should of been the bar for future games difficultly (I love the fact TP used mp2 as it's bar for difficultly). But, "Oh noes I die twice in boss fight with boost gardien, this game is too hard and I want my bottle" bitching from want a be gamer sent the wrong message to Nintendo and now this.......*rant* *rant* *rant* *rant*
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Was that to me? ^_^ Why do you think I feel like the N64 was my personal golden age of gaming? Games were finally easy enough for me to beat! To this day, I am a Mario Kart 64 GOD... while Super Mario Kart on the SNES makes me break out in cold sweats.
But in the interest of Full Disclousre, I must admit that I'd ALWAYS play it on easy mode. I don't have time to get stuck in a game nowadays.
Your joke right? O_o
QuoteQuote
Originally posted by: MJRx9000
I remember some videogames used to have this one thing in the menu, it was great; you could choose Easy, Medium, or Hard, and the game would either be Easy, Medium, or Hard, depending on which one you selected. I wish the Wii could do that.
Wow, that's actually very rare nowadays in all games. I wonder why?
Because it not as easy to make game hard. The few Hard mode game don't make it challenging but just add more baddie or health to boss and don't touch the AI and if you can kill one retarded baddie you can just as easy kill 5. And the rest just make the game frustrating in breaking your character.
Edit: Fixed spelling
Post by: Kairon on August 14, 2007, 02:32:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: steveyQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Was that to me? ^_^ Why do you think I feel like the N64 was my personal golden age of gaming? Games were finally easy enough for me to beat! To this day, I am a Mario Kart 64 GOD... while Super Mario Kart on the SNES makes me break out in cold sweats.
But in the interest of Full Disclousre, I must admit that I'd ALWAYS play it on easy mode. I don't have time to get stuck in a game nowadays.
Your joke right? O_o
About what? SMK for the SNES gave me knots in my stomache, but MK64 is... it's so easy! /ahppy
And yeah, I really do play on easy mode if I can. Unless it's a game I really pride myself in knowing, like Zelda. I'd play that in hard mode if given because I love that game and would really treasure mastering it at that level.
But most games I just don't care anough about their shoe-horned-in difficulty which really makes very little sense and is more arbitrary than not. I'd rather play the game on easy and beat the game than get stuck and be disappointed with it.
Ooh! I have a quote!
Quote
"Exactly. Modern gaming is like strip mining. Beat the main story, extract the achievements and get the hell out."
~Tobor, NeoGAF, Internet
Quote
Originally posted by: steveyQuoteQuote
Originally posted by: MJRx9000
I remember some videogames used to have this one thing in the menu, it was great; you could choose Easy, Medium, or Hard, and the game would either be Easy, Medium, or Hard, depending on which one you selected. I wish the Wii could do that.
Wow, that's actually very rare nowadays in all games. I wonder why?
Because it not as easy to make game hard. The few Hard mode game don't make it challenging but just add more baddie or health to boss and don't touch the AI and if you can kill one retarded baddie you can just as easy kill 5. And the rest just make the game frustrating in breaking your character.
That strikes me as very true. If all "hard mode" is is 5 dumb enemies instead of one, and 4 hearts taken away instead of two, then it DOES strike one as sort of pointless.
Post by: Shecky on August 14, 2007, 02:46:11 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on August 14, 2007, 03:16:53 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on August 14, 2007, 04:20:00 PM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 14, 2007, 04:31:34 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on August 14, 2007, 05:32:20 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on August 14, 2007, 06:25:46 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on August 14, 2007, 06:53:29 PM
Post by: Kairon on August 14, 2007, 06:55:32 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on August 14, 2007, 09:38:13 PM
Another important component is the punishment for minor fuckups, if making one tiny error means you have to replay the last 15-30 minutes of the game (possibly including cutscenes) that's not just hard, that's effing sadistic. It's the reason I stopped playing Final Fantasy X, being stuck at a boss that follows a 15 minute cutscene. I just am not willing to watch a 15 minute cutscene EVERY SINGLE F###ING TIME I fight that guy. Also that boss can wipe my whole party in one round so I don't feel like playing that battle at all.
All this is the reason I hate stealth. In stealth games you don't just lose a few HP when you're found, you lose the whole mission. You don't even see a clear border for when you fail a stealth mission, there's an invisible radius you can be heard in, an invisible area you can be seen in, etc. You get into a place you didn't even know was bad and you fail immediately. That's the reason I kill every enemy in a stealth sequence, to defuse the invisible fail triggers. If that doesn't work I just give up and play another game instead, there's enough choice.
As I said before, make the guards shoot laser cones from their eyes that hurt you when you're in them instead of triggering an alarm and I might play the game.
Post by: Kairon on August 14, 2007, 09:44:18 PM
Post by: tiamat1990 on August 14, 2007, 10:13:48 PM
But anyway, I'm kind of hoping that he doesn't really mean that "hardcore games are pointless" which is what I'm pretty much getting from this. And I don't like his generalization.
Quote
"While there are indeed games designed for core and casual markets," Miyamoto says, "core users are also enjoying casual gaming. It is very hard to tune the difficulty just for the core market. Even for us, we would still have difficulty finding the right balance. But I think the future is games that are not difficult and yet very fun to play."
To some extent yes but if I had a choice (which we're not getting...really, WiiFit?) I'd pass on casual games. But I guess that's just me. Wii Sports was great yes but would I have bought it if it was a separate game? No...see my problem is what is a casual game? Could you call Guitar Hero a casual game? Because to Nintendo casual games are stuff like...Brain Age, Wii Fit, Face Training (?!!)...
Post by: Kairon on August 14, 2007, 10:20:57 PM
God Wii Fit is gonna be AWESOME. But I still want Wii Music more than anything.
Post by: Deguello on August 14, 2007, 10:50:33 PM
Quote
All this is the reason I hate stealth. In stealth games you don't just lose a few HP when you're found, you lose the whole mission. You don't even see a clear border for when you fail a stealth mission, there's an invisible radius you can be heard in, an invisible area you can be seen in, etc. You get into a place you didn't even know was bad and you fail immediately. That's the reason I kill every enemy in a stealth sequence, to defuse the invisible fail triggers. If that doesn't work I just give up and play another game instead, there's enough choice.
the worst stealth segment I have EVER played, was in Hitman 2. It involved a huge snow plain and you sneaking past a slew of Japanese people in all-concealing clothes. That's cool, you can put a guy to sleep and grab one. But somehow the other guards can see that you aren't one of them, even though you are basically in a diving suit with your face concealed. But that's not even the worst part. Several glitches cause some of the guards to run in front of their own trucks, die, get discovered, and raise their own alarms of your presence, all this on a path that you don't even have to take to complete the level. You lose for something that happens on the other side of the damn level. I really regret giving it an 8.
Post by: Mashiro on August 14, 2007, 10:51:44 PM
Quote
To some extent yes but if I had a choice (which we're not getting...really, WiiFit?)
Could you tell me what other games are coming out in 2008? Clearly you must know!
I agree with the philosophy that well THIS philosophy is nothing really new for Nintendo.
Post by: tiamat1990 on August 14, 2007, 11:19:06 PM
Post by: Mashiro on August 14, 2007, 11:22:12 PM
/discuss
Post by: Smoke39 on August 15, 2007, 12:22:18 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on August 15, 2007, 03:18:09 AM
As for Wii Fit and Nintendogs, I respect Miyamoto for coming up with new ways to entertain people. His ability to let go of the action-adventure genre that he has mined so successfully for 25-plus years is just one more example of how he's thinking on a different level than almost anyone else in the industry...and it's what's going to make Wii the #1 console with the best third party support this generation. I will take "casual" Miyamoto games if it means Mega Man, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Castlevania and others will be playable on Wii.
Not to mention a lot of these casual games are a breath of fresh air for the industry. Halo 3 may be awesome, but it's also one in a hundred...Wii Fit is practically the only product of it's kind. DDR and Wii Sports are the only games that compare.
Post by: KDR_11k on August 15, 2007, 04:47:45 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on August 15, 2007, 07:43:00 AM
Post by: Mashiro on August 15, 2007, 09:51:33 AM
Quote
Pikmin is about as hardcore as games get.
/explain?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 15, 2007, 10:22:40 AM
Not only do you start caring about numbers in order to succeed, but you begin caring about multi-tasking and other simultaneous events and information cues going on.
But the game's presentation is easy to digest without trying to overwhelm the player.
Post by: Maverick on August 15, 2007, 10:22:54 AM
/confused
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 15, 2007, 10:26:09 AM
(Mashiro is using it wrong, just ignore him!)
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 15, 2007, 10:40:19 AM
Post by: Mashiro on August 15, 2007, 10:43:11 AM
Quote
Pikmin is a hardcore pill in casually flavored coating.
Not only do you start caring about numbers in order to succeed, but you begin caring about multi-tasking and other simultaneous events and information cues going on.
But the game's presentation is easy to digest without trying to overwhelm the player.
Ah and here is where what is casual begins to become a gray area
Post by: Maverick on August 15, 2007, 11:15:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
So you're not confused anymore?
(Mashiro is using it wrong, just ignore him!)
Yeah, I thought he was trying to start his own thing or somethin'... it was just starting to get to me a little. :-P
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 15, 2007, 11:31:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Pikmin is a hardcore pill in casually flavored coating.
Not only do you start caring about numbers in order to succeed, but you begin caring about multi-tasking and other simultaneous events and information cues going on.
But the game's presentation is easy to digest without trying to overwhelm the player.
So the Sims series must be a hardcore game as well right?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 15, 2007, 11:55:26 AM
But here's the REAL DEAL;
Hardcore is not the game, hardcore is the player.
Post by: Ian Sane on August 15, 2007, 12:11:37 PM
Post by: Mashiro on August 15, 2007, 12:14:45 PM
That's the answer I am looking for.
Post by: UERD on August 15, 2007, 12:49:45 PM
One non-gamer walks past a video game kiosk in a department store, sees someone playing Wii Sports on the demo unit, decides to try it out himself, and purchases a Wii. The controls are simple or intuitive enough that he can easily pick up the game and start playing, even though he's never touched a sports game or any videogame before. After a while, he becomes relatively decent at the game.
The other non-gamer goes to his friend's house where he's playing Starcraft on his computer. He watches Zerglings running around on screen, shrugs, and walks away. Games like Starcraft and Halo are games where previous experience is anywhere from important to necessary in order to appreciate the game and to get better at it. Granted, even hardcore gamers have to start somewhere, but I'd wager that most people who pick up 'hardcore' games like FPSes or RTSes have played other games in the genre before. Of course, there are so-called nongamers who play lots of different types of casual games, so that isn't very helpful, but it's a start as a generalization.
Post by: stevey on August 15, 2007, 01:57:57 PM
Post by: nickmitch on August 15, 2007, 02:13:32 PM
Post by: Mario on August 15, 2007, 04:49:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro
So what REALLY defines a casual game then?
That's the answer I am looking for.
A game you play casually. Which could be any game depending on the person.
Post by: Strell on August 15, 2007, 04:53:32 PM
And yet no one who has played games for a while would call it a casual game.
Conclusion: The whole attempt to call out what is and what isn't is retarded.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 15, 2007, 07:26:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
According to every "casual game" definition I've heard, Madden fits the bill.
And yet no one who has played games for a while would call it a casual game.
Conclusion: The whole attempt to call out what is and what isn't is retarded.
QFT: I think people define them depending on whether or not they want to make themselves feel "better" for playing so called "hardcore" games.
Post by: SixthAngel on August 15, 2007, 07:49:42 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on August 15, 2007, 07:49:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MashiroQuote
Pikmin is about as hardcore as games get.
/explain?
Because it sold badly ahahahaHWHAHAHAUAHUAHUAHUAHUWUHAUHAHUA
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 15, 2007, 09:42:33 PM
I'm not saying that because it's absolutely not, but because if it is casual, then Mario also is and so are most Zeldas. They are all relatively simple to learn the basic controls, and they are all things you can play for short bursts. So do these games get grandfathered in because they've been enjoyed by the hardcore for so long?
There is no real definition for a "casual" game because of the simple fact that different people see them different ways. Most people will agree that Bejeweled is a casual game and Fire Emblem is hardcore, but it's in between where people differ. My feelings are that I don't care either way, as long as I enjoy the experience.
Post by: Mashiro on August 16, 2007, 12:07:39 AM
Nice posts guys and gals.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 16, 2007, 12:44:13 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on August 16, 2007, 04:51:27 AM
My point is...if we were going to try and characterize what makes a casual game, we'd find it's a moving target. Several years ago, a casual game was casual because it had tons of plot and CG movies and it was too easy. Today, a casual game is casual because it DOESN'T have tons of plot and CG movies and it doesn't last for at least 30 hours.
Post by: Ian Sane on August 16, 2007, 05:40:52 AM
Non-games are different. Those are games for people that don't like games and it's a new concept introduced by Nintendo. Nintendo uses the term "casual gamers" to describe non-gamers but I think they're a different group. You've got passionate game lover, Madden/current trend gamer and guy who doesn't really think he likes games but is tricked into it by non-games. Different levels of interest like small, medium and large and the games that fit these are those that are designed for those audiences. Pikmin isn't disposable and it isn't for non-gamers so it's not a casual game or non-game.
Though I might rank hardcore into two groups with speed run type people being at a different level than people who just really like games and make a major effort to play the good ones and avoid the bad ones.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 16, 2007, 07:13:10 AM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 16, 2007, 07:22:06 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 16, 2007, 07:36:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
I think in the term "non-game" I think "game" is implied to mean "traditional-style video game". As in, Brain Age isn't a video game in the traditional sense. When you think of it that way it's a somewhat accurate term.
But where do you draw the line? What is a traditional game really? There are so many different genres out there. Regardless I doubt I'm the only one that likes games like Brain Age, Wii Sports, Nintendogs, and other so called "non-games".
Post by: Kairon on August 16, 2007, 08:21:24 AM
Post by: Strell on August 16, 2007, 08:57:19 AM
The purest and most basic group you can put these in is "games." Period. To sit there and try and drum up a set of arbitrary criteria to further segment them into what we are "supposed" to play versus not is hugely pompous.
I've heard it be the "hardcore versus casual" thing for a long time, but when I try to get further clarification, it falls apart. You can take any of these so-called designations and completely dismantle them. For example, what constitutes hardcore?
"A harsh learning curve." Really. I'd call Ikaruga hardcore and it takes all of 30 seconds to learn the controls. Hell, so does Pacman, Pong, Tempest, Super Mario Bros, Tetris...
"Competition." Again, Madden, by all accounts, is not hardcore. It's just that 8 million people buy it year after year. That kind of mainstream penetration almost guarantees it is not "hardcore." And there are oodles of people playing it off and online in competition. Beyond that, the only games that might also fit here are fighters and shooters. You can't compete in RPGs that directly or easily.
"Has to be difficult." I think the last honest bastion of truly difficult games are bullet hell shooters, and those are appreciated by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the entire population, who also happen to be entirely sadomasochistic. Most games that are hard these days rely on cheating AI - racers with invisible rubber bands, fighters where characters do more damage/move faster/perform moves that are impossible to perform based on the last input, shooters were you just get swarmed by enemies, etc etc. Twitch gaming might be the only "true" games that are difficult because they are based entirely on skill, where other games force players to compete against odds on top of the current situation.
"Takes a long time to play." So does Monopoly. Next.
"Has to have awesome graphics/physics engine/some other piece of graphics whore/eye candy/engine junky bullsh*t." Zork, mofos. Nethack. Again, all the early twitch games. Certain RPGs.
"Has to have a definite end." NONE of the early twitch games did.
"Has to feel like you've accomplished something." It's a game, people. You aren't building a porch.
And so on, so on.
I think the better way to explain it is that gamers are shallow people and want to feel good about themselves, and the way they measure this is to look at the games that look like they forced the developer to work the hardest. So when you hear about the latest 360 game, you get a bunch of nonsense about what resolution it runs at, how many polygons are on screen, what sound codecs are being used, etc. And then you learn about the advanced AI with all these fancy terms. You hear that lots of stuff was motion captured, that developers went the "extra mile" for certain things (such as consulting a general for a military game and truth-to-reality, or modeling tracks in real life for a racing game), etc etc etc.
So when Joe Gamer looks at Gears of War, he thinks the graphics are awesome, the monsters look cool, it's bloody, there are big guns, fancy sounding words to describe everything, bla bla. And he feels good because all of a sudden he starts thinking "Hey, these guys care so much about my entertainment that they went through all this trouble."
Then he looks over at Brain Age and calls it stupid because the graphics look so simple. Truly, it looks like Nintendo copy and pasted stuff from a "55,000 Clip Art Super Deluxe Package" program and then added a scoreboard.
I think that is what it's come down to - production values. Nevermind that no one had envisioned a game like Brain Age before it came out, or a userfriendly interface in Wii Sports that actually worked, because it doesn't matter. The games look like tech demos and that's all this entire industry can latch onto and debate endlessly, instead of seeing it as another method toward entertainment on a console. Suddenly it's bad to want to play things like Bejeweled and Cooking Mama because they are simple looking with simple rules.
I think that is how gamers do it - they try to find what makes them feel like they are special to have groups of people around the world slave away in tiny offices to deliver what is supposedly a great gaming experience. The great thing about this perspective is that it's constantly moving forward, so what is considered "hardcore" today won't be that next year. Gears of War will be forgotten about the moment its sequel hits, or when something even more graphically intense drops along.
So I don't think we can break down the definition, because it's always changing and evolving, and even then it is pretty much bullsh*t anyway. You can be hardcore in Animal Crossing, Picross, and Madden just as much as you can be in Smash Bros, Halo, and Metal Gear Solid. Getting 999,999 bells is just as much fun to certain people as getting a brain age of 20 or slaughtering a bunch of Locusts.
I don't see why it can't just be games anymore, like it used to be.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 16, 2007, 09:11:18 AM
Post by: k_bukie on August 16, 2007, 09:20:37 AM
Post by: Nick DiMola on August 16, 2007, 09:22:03 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 16, 2007, 09:28:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
Props to Strell for that response. Very well thought out and it makes a ton of very interesting and very true points. The whole hardcore vs. casual nonsense is a waste of time, lets just play the games that come out and not worry what they are or what people perceive of them.
Yeah but what will Ian do if you can't differentiate?
Post by: Ian Sane on August 16, 2007, 10:32:22 AM
Well Nintendo started it so get mad at them. It all really relates to the issue of who Nintendo is focusing on now. What type or style or whatever of games are they making now and for what audience are they targetted at? It all relates to concerns over the introduction of a new and very different audience and how much effort Nintendo will continue to make towards the old audience or whether or not classic game series the old audience loves will be compromised for the new audience.
It's really the standard "selling out" arguement where a chunk of the fanbase feels neglected. We need to form categories for our arguement no matter what side we're on. Those concerns need examples of neglect. Those who think things are fine need examples of "gamer games" to prove that things are still okay. The suggestion of Pikmin being a casual game was likely thought of to provide evidence that Nintendo always made "casual games" and thus hasn't changed.
Though I think something like those language teaching "games" that seem more like software than games are clearly "non-games". If they were released on a PC no one would call them a game.
Post by: Mashiro on August 16, 2007, 11:39:32 AM
You just won the internet.
Massive kudos for a great post.
Post by: Kairon on August 16, 2007, 11:43:11 AM
...except that won't ever happen will it? As humans we have a compulsion to divide and describe.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 16, 2007, 11:46:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
So, these ridiculous distinctions only arise out of arguments we wish to endure? If we just stopped arguing about it then we wouldn't need to invent arbitrary and subjective distinctions to suit our needs!
...except that won't ever happen will it? As humans we have a compulsion to divide and describe.
Or you can rephrase as the Ian kind liking to whine and complain, in addition to dividing and describing!
Post by: Ian Sane on August 16, 2007, 11:54:54 AM
You can only just stop arguing if your arguing is arbitrary. I think the issue is important so I discuss it, argue it, debate it, etc. I'd rather this topic didn't have to exist as Nintendo actually doing a good job of appealing to both groups would eliminate it. One side has a problem and the other doesn't think the problem exists. Fix the problem and both sides win.
Post by: Kairon on August 16, 2007, 12:10:32 PM
... and I like labels... strangely enough...
~Nintendo Internet Fanboi and Hardcore Gamer who plays like a Casual
Post by: 31 Flavas on August 16, 2007, 12:19:44 PM
QuoteYea, I think you nailed it in that last part. It comes down to "gamers" wanting to feel special. I think we can apply a real life situation to this.
Originally posted by: Strell
[... snip ...]
I don't see why it can't just be games anymore, like it used to be.
Take for example this: A child is born into a very loving family. They're very proud of their child and lavish it with attention and affection. But then the mother and father decided they want to have another child. Everything will be fine with the existing child until it realizes the new child is going take away from the attention and affection it gets. Hence, sibling rivalry. The first child doesn't want the second child to exist because it means a loss of affection to him. In reality, the mother and father are not denying or giving any less affection to first born child. Their affection is just split between them. But that's not going to stop the first child from throwing temper tantrums and wanting more attention then the second child.
So I'd say our existing "Gamers" are probably feeling quite the same way. All of a sudden now, there are 2 "gamers" in the universe. And the first born "Gamers" are having a hissy fit because the attention, devotion, time, and effort is no longer going to be spent exclusively on them. And just like the first born child are going to very vocally make it clear that _THEY_ want more attention then the second child.
Post by: Kairon on August 16, 2007, 02:23:23 PM
Post by: 31 Flavas on August 16, 2007, 02:49:03 PM
QuoteI think that's painting with a broad brush, but then so did I.
Originally posted by: Kairon
Soo...gamers = little brats confirmed.
I have faith that this bickering will end. And that even Ian will quit his yapping. I mean, video games are like a $10 billion market, aren't they? Do you honestly think video game developers and producers are going to abandon that amount of money? If they produce games for both markets then they get money from BOTH gamers.
Radical concept, eh?
Post by: anubis6789 on August 16, 2007, 03:46:18 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on August 16, 2007, 07:53:15 PM
I'll throw a definition in: A casual game is a game that was designed to appeal to people with little or no experience with or commitment to gaming. This does not necessarily mean that a hardcore gamer cannot play it, in fact a masterful developer will make his games suitable for both (I remember people talking about how they got non-gamers to play Soul Calibur 2 with them).
I think non-game applies to a piece of software that's not quite a game but not quite productive either like Electroplankton or possibly Brain Training. Perhaps IRC, too :P
There is a big difference in how a gamer and a non-gamer will approach a game, a gamer knows common mechanics and logics found in videogames and will often be able to think in the same way the game designer does when approaching a problem while the non-gamer doesn't know what's usually possible or not. E.g. when an enemy flashes when you hit him in a certain place the gamer knows that means the enemy takes damage, the non-gamer wonders WTF is going on. Similarily, when the boss doesn't flash or flinch the regular gamer will know he's not doing damage while the nongamer will be confused. I remember my first run-in with a videogame boss in Katakis Stage 1 (just a huge thing that appears and slowly moves to the left, if you're too slow to kill it you get crushed but if you know what to do he's absolutely no problem), after a few dozen tries (infinite lifes cheat) I gave it the nickname "Game Over" because it seemed invulnerable to me until I figured out the concept of weak spots.
I think that's also a problem with complex controls, the gamer will hear the button names and often know what he needs the button for immediately while the non-gamer doesn't know what to expect from the game and cannot see the use of a crouch or quick turn button. A gamer is also faster to read a HUD. Big bar on the top, possibly green or red, that decreases when you take damage? Definitely your hitpoints. Portrait of your character with a number next to it? Your extra lives. Smaller bar below your hitpoints? Probably mana or some other limited action energy. Also reading game situations: A pedestal with three holders for something and having one thing that fits in there? You probably need to find the other two pieces as well and place them to continue with the game.
Or a more mundane situation, Zelda: Link's Awakening, first dungeon: A series of unmovable black blocks with one being slightly outside the pattern. The veteran gamer pushes the outlier (which by the logic the gamer has seen from the game so far should not be possible) into position to open the door, I just got confused WTF I was supposed to do and got stuck. That wasn't the only sudden change of logic I've encountered in games but I can't recall another one right now.
On the other hand hardcore appeal means that the game doesn't get boring just because you know the ins and outs of regular games and can figure standard situations out pretty quickly while your reflexes are much better than the game expects, making some challenges into boring affairs because they're like "push A to win" to you. Shiggy claimed that a game that gets boring just because you greatly outperform its expectations is bad game design but I'd say that's debateable. A game that's no challenge may still be fun but it won't be as fun as a game that makes you use your abilities, e.g. Twilight Princess was so easy you didn't need to put much effort into anything you did and if Zelda continues like that I'd argue they should just get rid of the health bar and turn it into an adventure game. It's jsut silly when you can neglect half the strategy in a battle, damage avoidance, because your character can take such an insane amount of damage that you can just stand there and wait for an opening. Or e.g. PN03 on easy difficulty where it's feasible to not dodge as you can kill enemies before they manage to attack.
Post by: Mario on August 16, 2007, 07:56:01 PM
Quote
I think non-game applies to a piece of software that's not quite a game but not quite productive either like Electroplankton or possibly Brain Training.
They are both productive
Post by: Ian Sane on August 17, 2007, 05:10:38 AM
Somehow millions of gamers were first introduced to the hobby by being tossed into these supposefly complex and confusing games and we all figured it out. Suddenly a newcomber needs their games dumbed down to get into it? That's just going backwards and it's going to remove complexity and challenge from games because a large chunk of the audience are being trained in a nerf environment. If you don't know chords you can't play guitar. It's a skill and if you can't learn it, tough sh!t, you can't do it. Same with games. If you can't handle really routine gaming concepts like trying out every possibility before giving up or noticing lifebars then that's too bad. Learn to dribble if you want to be on the basketball team. Learn to skate if you want to play ice hockey. Be qualified to get a damn job. Learning fundamentals is life. Games should not be any different.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 17, 2007, 05:44:44 AM
Post by: Nick DiMola on August 17, 2007, 06:08:10 AM
I consider gaming to be like an empire, every new land conquered slightly alters the composition of the empire and diversifies it. By trying to include new people in gaming you will see drastically new gaming concepts, a revamping of our time honored traditions in gaming. To me this is great. Gaming was becoming quite stale, and these new titles and concepts will really define the future of gaming. What if we never progressed passed the simplicities of Super Mario Bros., gaming would suck I assure you.
Do not fear change Luddites, it is only for our better.
Post by: Ian Sane on August 17, 2007, 06:23:51 AM
I don't consider it higher than necessary but rather just equal to what we all went through. Now games can be more complex now but so is life with cellphones and iPods and DVD players and the internet and all sorts of stuff that a young person is thrown into that those of us who are older either learned as we went along are got left behind. Just like how knowing how to use a PC is expected knowledge these days when it wasn't when I was born or my parents were, so is knowing how to use the additions to controllers since the Atari and that includes motion control as well as analog sticks and lots of buttons.
Post by: Kairon on August 17, 2007, 06:24:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I consider gaming to be like an empire, every new land conquered slightly alters the composition of the empire and diversifies it. By trying to include new people in gaming you will see drastically new gaming concepts, a revamping of our time honored traditions in gaming. To me this is great. Gaming was becoming quite stale, and these new titles and concepts will really define the future of gaming. What if we never progressed passed the simplicities of Super Mario Bros., gaming would suck I assure you.
But don't we know the fates of all Empires? To FALL. Is that what we want for gaming?
...AH. You're right. Empire's fall from WITHIN. The real danger for the gaming empire doesn't come from new gamers, but from US, the established gamers.
Post by: Kairon on August 17, 2007, 06:28:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Clearly Ian and others (not to single him out), feel that the barrier of entry must be placed higher than necessary to keep out the people not 'good' enough to be a part of our club."
I don't consider it higher than necessary but rather just equal to what we all went through. Now games can be more complex now but so is life with cellphones and iPods and DVD players and the internet and all sorts of stuff that a young person is thrown into that those of us who are older either learned as we went along are got left behind. Just like how knowing how to use a PC is expected knowledge these days when it wasn't when I was born or my parents were, so is knowing how to use the additions to controllers since the Atari and that includes motion control as well as analog sticks and lots of buttons.
Yet somehow even with the Playstation gaming penetration hasn't increased at all. There are those who'd like to see more people enjoy games, accept them as an art form, explore all their uses to more people, and who would like to elevate games into a more accepted and experienced part of our society.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 17, 2007, 06:32:59 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on August 17, 2007, 07:00:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
I don't see why it can't just be games anymore, like it used to be.
There is a definite distinction between hardcore and casual games and that distinction comes from both the game's reflex difficulty and intimidation factor.
When I think of "gamer" skills, I don't think of the person who can finish a minesweeper game in under 30 seconds. I think of the person who can chain together combos in a fighting game or steer their ship through the asteroid field without getting a scratch on it.
Tests of reflex, timing and analysis are the basis for "hardcore" games and have been since their inception. You can jump over two barrels at once in Donkey Kong if you have excellent timing, you can start climbing a ladder when you finally see one of the barrels take a different route by excellent reflex and it was the analysis of the patterns of the barrels which led you to observe that the barrel will always go down the ladder if you're on it at the time it passes by above.
These are considered "gamer" skills because, odds are, anyone who has them spent years and years honing them to perfection.
The other aspect of hardcore games which makes them hardcore is the perceived difficulty. My father once admitted to me that he took one look at someone playing DDR and immediately said, "I could never do that." even though I know full well that he could, given how easy DDR is. The point is, it LOOKS hard, just like taking down Ganondorf or finding all of the ship pieces in Pikmin appears deceptively difficult.
On the other hand, Wii Sports looks simple enough that anyone will likely look at it and say, "Well, hell, even I can do THAT!". Wii Sports is a low impact, paced game where players play how they want to play. Only Baseball, Tennis and Boxing have the potential to change in difficulty, and that's only because the game becomes as difficult as the people you're playing against. It is a casual game because it moves at your pace and doesn't require the same levels of reflex, timing and analysis that most games do.
I admit that the competitive sports have more of this than bowling and golf (again, it really depends on how good your opponent is at the game), but the intimidation factor is also rock bottom and failure is punished only by a chance to try again and perhaps seeing your Mii hang its head in shame. Compare to a game like RE4 where your punishment for failure results in watching your character die a grisly, painful death.
So yes, I think there's definitely a divide when it comes to hardcore and casual, but the divide comes mainly from the perception of the game in question. I know for a fact that everyone can develop the necessary "gamer skills" to play even the toughest of hardcore titles, but I think Nintendo's goal is to push people into discovering they have these skills which in turn encourages them to try more "hardcore" games, using Wii Sports as the gateway game to bigger and better things. I've heard numerous accounts of people who bought the Wii solely for Wii Sports but then went on to play and love Zelda.
Bottom line, it exists, but it's more in people's heads than reality. I don't think Nintendo did anything to change the market so much as change the PERCEPTION of the market.
Post by: Ian Sane on August 17, 2007, 07:02:49 AM
I want more people to enjoy games but I want them to enjoy good games. If gaming must be dumbed down into mainstream dribble to accomplish this then it's for the worst. What good is being popular if you had to change into a lesser person to accomplish it? I want my favourite bands and TV shows to be more popular because the public has better taste, not because those bands and TV shows to compromised themselves to attract that wider audience.
"Interesting that Ian mentioned technology like the Ipod which has EVOLVED to be easier to use and further adapt itself to the userbase which is constantly changing."
The iPod is a tool. No one is dumbing down the music (well they ARE but that's unrelated to Apple or the iPod). Nintendo is not just changing the machines but the games themselves. The changes you're talking about are like how the SNES had an eject switch but the N64 made things more accessible by just allowing you to pull the cartridge out or how four players becames standard because that was more accessible than having an adapter. Nintendo offering a pack-in game again is making things more accessible without affecting the games themselves.
"Heck it would be like asking one of us to use an abacus instead of evolving to current day calculators."
Not comparible. No one changed the rules of math to make it more accessable. They just created a better tool.
Post by: Kairon on August 17, 2007, 07:10:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"There are those who'd like to see more people enjoy games, accept them as an art form, explore all their uses to more people, and who would like to elevate games into a more accepted and experienced part of our society."
I want more people to enjoy games but I want them to enjoy good games. If gaming must be dumbed down into mainstream dribble to accomplish this then it's for the worst. What good is being popular if you had to change into a lesser person to accomplish it? I want my favourite bands and TV shows to be more popular because the public has better taste, not because those bands and TV shows to compromised themselves to attract that wider audience.
1. Define "good."
2. Since when has the public had "better" taste?
But I agree with you on the tools point. That ultimately places the responsibility on the developers, the people who's job it is to create experiences around the tools, who, as well know, are not exactly stepping up to the plate right now.
Post by: that Baby guy on August 17, 2007, 08:13:42 AM
It's just hard to define what's good and what isn't, though. I picked up Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition at the same time that I got Alien Syndrome, and I've put about equal time into both games, and honestly, I can't tell much of a difference. I'm not kidding. In RE:4, so far, it's been shoot and avoid being killed. The same thing in Alien Syndrome. I'm only up to chapter two in RE4, but it really hasn't seemed nearly as spectacular as I've heard, so much to the extent that I've enjoyed Alien Syndrome a little bit more because of the multi-player. Why is RE4 a good game? Why isn't Alien Syndrome? They both seem nearly as mindless to me. Why is Bioshock good even though it isn't out yet? What has made Halo so special? Why do we play Final Fantasy titles year in and year out? Are they really as good as we think they are, or are they good because we perceive them as good before we play them?
I've played games pretty much all my life, and to be honest, most, but not all, of everything on Xboxes and Playstations has truthfully been more of the same old thing, only with less of the polish on gameplay, emphasis on graphics. Sometimes, it's like that on Nintendo systems, too, but less so. You know what? I'm fine with getting three main Nintendo franchises/new IPs a year. Why? Because their titles offer more polished gameplay nearly every time. The core might be the same, but there are great twists and cirumstances out there in each new title. I loved Super Mario Sunshine. It controlled better than it's predecesor and offered authentic experiences with the straight-forward levels as well as the water gun in the new adventure levels. But why should I get Tekken or Dead or Alive and it's sequels? What's been polished? What's been added? What's been changed?
It's funny to me, that people ridicule gaining a new sports title like Madden every year, when, if you look at the big picture, most hardcore gamers do the same, purchasing sequels and titles so similar, but with different names, so much so that there's more difference in each iteration of Madden than there is between these games. That's pretty hypocritical, to me. Especially since EA is actually adding new things to Madden each year, whereas most FPS games stopped evolving a few years ago. The same has happened to the dungeon crawler. The same happened to the sidescrolling platformer. The sad thing is that it happened because people were satisfied with what was there, not that the genre had grown as far as it could.
Let's be honest, now. The entire industry is a mess. It's always been a mess. Ever since Ralph Baer invented consoles, ever since Nolan Bushnell stole Pong's ideas. Ever since Atari became a pot house, ever since the beginnings, to the crash, to the Nintendos and the Playstations, this entire industry has been a barrel of nonsense and hypocrisy. And let's be honest, now. The company that's lived continuously and reliably in that mess is Nintendo. They brought back the industry after the crash, they've lasted more console generations than any other company has, and they are readily making profits. If there is any particular company to trust to make the right choices in this industry, in the long term, it's Nintendo, hands down.
And that concludes loosely put-together ramble by thatguy. Robble-robble. I just stole your hamburgers.
Post by: Kairon on August 17, 2007, 08:15:56 AM
Post by: Strell on August 17, 2007, 08:52:28 AM
Quote
Well Nintendo started it so get mad at them.
First off, I gotta examine this quote alone, because there's so much wrong with it that I can indeed devote an entire post to it, much like literary critics overly examine "Call me Ishmael" from Moby Dick.
Now, my entire response could be that the burden of proving this falls entirely on you, and that as such, I have no reason to further debate it. That would be a pretty easy thing for me to say, and it would be a pretty difficult thing for you to prove, because that's a wholly subjective comment and it would take a LOT of "proof," the likes of which could be debated literally forever by everyone here. Not to mention that is the rule of an argument - if you make a claim, you better have the stones to pull up some confirmation. So rest assured that you putting up this argument forces you to bring the party, because right now there aint no party, and where there aint no party there aint no party gonna stop, meaning there's nothing for me to say until you give me the details.
But let's put that aside, for a lot of reasons, most of which to be explained below.
I wonder if the board game industry and its client base did the same thing. Like, chess has been around since the 15th century (according to Wikipedia), and it tends be thought of as a game for intellectuals. So when Monopoly and Parcheesi and Scrabble all came around, I wonder if all these elitist chess players sat around and lamented the fact that "Yon boardgame doth go to thine plebians, and they shall make barbarians of us all!" and proceeded to whine within their own forums, pubs, halls, Elks lodge, and wherever the hell else they gathered to play chess. And then to further solidify their own innate superiority, they refused to play games that the public might enjoy, shunned all those who enjoyed them, and talking about "ye good olde dayes" between puffs of smoke and long draughts from their cognac.
Somehow I don't think that happened - I don't think the people designing board games suddenly gave up and only focuses on this new brand of player who didn't want to challenge themselves purely mentally, and wanted a little bit of luck. I say this because we still get board games that challenge you a little more intensely than the pure roll of the die. Settlers of Catan, in all its luck-based glory, still has a very strong element to it that demands a strategic mind, able to look at various factors and determine the best route to achieve victory.
So all this talk about how you are getting left behind and can't enjoy anything is nonsense, and really making a mountain out of a molehill. Now, you could tell me "but the same person didn't design chess and Monopoly and Catan, they were made by completely different people and persons," and you are right. But that sounds like a good parallel to various internal first parties at Nintendo, to say nothing of second parties and third parties all working on their own games.
Another thing to argue? "Nintendo started it." Really. Can you absolutely prove that? I don't think you can, and yes, you can rest assured I have a long winded response with lots of different reasons why you can't. The easiest is that several companies have made non-game/casual/whatever-condescending-label games. It's not hard for me to list several off. What about Anticipation on the NES? What about the piano simulator? What about all the spelling games on computers, long before the Wii? What about spelling games on the Colecovision (and don't tell me they don't exist, I had a few of 'em when I was younger, they were Sesame Street themed)? What about Bejeweled and Popcop games and all the stupid little things kids play on their TI-82 calculators?
Don't even pretend to try and tell me this is something only Nintendo has done, that they started it, that they are the only ones perpetuating it, and that they are the only ones who will do it, because there were lots of developers before them, lots of developers with them, and will be lots of developers after them who are going to tread those footsteps parallel. All they did was note that if 10% of the population plays games, that's 90% we don't get to make money off of. And now they are making games to satisfy both that existing 10% and the 90% that never picked up controllers in their life.
(I know you personally - for some reason I can't understand - think that a game made for the majority can't possibly be understood, accepted, and enjoyed by the minority, and that is an exceedingly pompous thing to say, and projecting it outward to cover that 10% shows incredible short sightedness.)
Finally, and possibly the most egregious errored claim I have with that sentence is that final part - "get mad at them." That's just wrong no matter how I look at it. Why? Because it implies that this is something Nintendo is doing that deserves punishment and disdain. From a business perspective, it's brilliant. From the POV of all these new gamers, it's fun and innovative. From my perspective, it gives me new types of games. But from your persepective - and I want you to take especially close note of the word "your" - it's selling out, it's leaving loyal customers behind in the dust (equally hilarious, because you don't even have a Wii yet, because you are convinced it's going to die any day now), it's refuting the previous 20 years of their business for a short term gain that won't even last them into the next generation.
That's so infuriatingly narrow I can't believe it. To sit there and say "get mad at them" ?? I don't need to get mad at anyone. Getting mad comes solely FROM YOU, because you're letting it bother you and get under YOUR skin, and instead of fessing up that it's a personal thing, you instead project it out onto Nintendo and simultaneously stick them with the blame, as if they deserved it. Cuz hey, it's a lot easier to get the idea some instant credence and acceptance when you start pumping your first AMIRITE, MEN? when you are standing around people who always (or at least usually) agree with you. But take this argument into the homes of people who have never touched a game console before the Wii, and you're going to get a lot of blank stares.
I don't even have to make arguments about how they are still pumping out their franchises at a blistering rate - much faster than ANY of their previous systems, let alone much faster than Microsoft and Sony COMBINED - because I'm too busy focusing on the fact that you've solidified your complaint as something Nintendo forced upon gamers-at-large like a dictactorship.
This whole idea that we are viable to "get mad at them" just further reinforces my claim about gamers being spoiled brats. You're so busy focusing on games like Brain Age and Cooking Mama that you somehow completely ignore the other games that are aimed squarely at you. Note that a discussion about the frequency of these games coming out is another discussion entirely - I'm just pointing out that within a year you've got huge franchises covered with some really nice gameplay, AND we're finally getting some online stuff. I guess I'm more the person who thinks "Hey, we're getting it now, which is better than when we weren't," and can cut them some slack because I'm not complaining how we don't have everything XBL offers.
So stop with the personal-opinion-born-universal-complaint nonsense. I'm tired of it.
I've got further arguments to make in this thread, but thank god I'm done with that sentence.
Geez, only two hours of work left. I better do these next ones quick so I'm simultaneously burning time at work and getting paid to talk about video games....
Post by: UERD on August 17, 2007, 09:07:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
<the voice of truth and reason>
Quote
and all the stupid little things kids play on their TI-82 calculators?
Yeah!!!! Phoenix FTW!!!! And all my friends had Drug Dealer or something, but I never got around to getting it from them. Those were the days.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 17, 2007, 09:13:35 AM
Believe it or not, this is what SMART companies do especially those that want to survive, and in term help the industry survive. That is why the abacus is a good example, it is comparable to the controller trend, and things weren't getting any easier and more accessible but LESS accessible, so Nintendo pulled a calculator on us and gave us a new way to interact with games without needing the knowledge to use something like a controller (abacus).
Regardless I still find it freaking hilarious that someone would complain about Nintendo's new direction and then praise the complexity of classic games which were perhaps the most user accessible and less complex when it comes to a learning curve than the so-called casual or "non" games. BTW Ian, I fail to see what you define as a framework for gameplay mechanics, when I look back on gaming I see a wide variety or games, there is really no traditional gameplay mechanic when you look at things. There has always been diversity in gameplay types depending on the technology being utilized, with the only real standard being ::gasp:: FUN!
Post by: Kairon on August 17, 2007, 09:26:58 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 17, 2007, 09:27:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
And unfortunately, sometimes not even that.
True, very true. Two words: Alien SYndrome
Post by: Kairon on August 17, 2007, 09:44:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
And unfortunately, sometimes not even that.
True, very true. Two words: Alien SYndrome
I hate you.
Post by: Ian Sane on August 17, 2007, 09:53:03 AM
The fact that previous versions of Madden are forgotten about and ignored is more my objection to those. Now there aren't really any series I like where I buy a game every year but stuff I do like, like Zelda, is usually all essential. A new Zelda does not replace an old Zelda. They coexist. A newcomber to the series would want to play both of them. Madden is like instead of a new season of a TV show coming out every year they just reshot the same episodes but altered gags that bombed and tried out new jokes. It's like an annual series of remakes. If I was their target demo for those games they would probably only release a new game every five years or so and then just offer a low cost roster upgrade patch every year. They would have to because I wouldn't pay full price every year.
"I think Ian completely missed my point; evolution of any technology is to expand the user base. If, for example, the PC industry didn't care about expanding we would still have computers that only the most tech savvy can be used. With the Wii, Nintendo is making gaming more accessible and expanding its audience, by making gameplay experiences easier to navigate, not to mention diversifying it."
I see this as dumbing down. PC's are simpler to use but they don't put a big cap on what you CAN do. Nintendo's more like the Mac where the easy interface comes at the cost of losing the flexibility of the PC. And with computers being a tool I see them differently than entertainment. With entertainment simplifying can ruin part of what made it entertaining in the first place. With a tool if what the tool does is not compromised it doesn't matter if it's easier to use. In fact that's GOOD. Now this has happened in game design in some fashion. Later RPGs don't require you to select the "stairs" command to go down the stairs and saving is better than passwords. Or offering multiple difficulty levels. Those are the sorts of things that should be achieved.
Nintendo's attempt to make games more accessible seems to go more into the core gameplay then simply having a streamlined interface. WiiSports doesn't just have a new way to control a sports game. The actual game itself lacks the options and flexibility of other sports titles. WiiTennis is considerably more dumbed-down than Virtua Tennis using the remote would be. That goes beyond streamlining. I am in favour of making games easier to understand or to learn but I don't want the gameplay itself to be affected. Nintendo thinks making things more accessible means not supporting things. A real streamlined interface just makes it easier for someone to do the most common functions but still allows one who knows more to delve deeper.
The correct way to make something accessible to make it easy to get into but hard to explore fully. Ironically Nintendo's best games did exactly this but for some reason they decided that wasn't good enough. Mario Tennis with WiiTennis controls would have more universal appeal than WiiSports does. Or it SHOULD anyway.
Post by: that Baby guy on August 17, 2007, 10:02:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I think Ian completely missed my point; evolution of any technology is to expand the user base. If, for example, the PC industry didn't care about expanding we would still have computers that only the most tech savvy can be used. With the Wii, Nintendo is making gaming more accessible and expanding its audience, by making gameplay experiences easier to navigate, not to mention diversifying it. My main point was that technology has always moved towards being easier for people to get into it, especially those who may have been put off in the past. Whether you want to admit it or not, many people were being put off by perhaps one of the most stagnant forms of control in gaming, mainly more and more buttons. So guess what, Nintendo took that and flipped that on its head to get more people into the gaming family.
Believe it or not, this is what SMART companies do especially those that want to survive, and in term help the industry survive. That is why the abacus is a good example, it is comparable to the controller trend, and things weren't getting any easier and more accessible but LESS accessible, so Nintendo pulled a calculator on us and gave us a new way to interact with games without needing the knowledge to use something like a controller (abacus).
Regardless I still find it freaking hilarious that someone would complain about Nintendo's new direction and then praise the complexity of classic games which were perhaps the most user accessible and less complex when it comes to a learning curve than the so-called casual or "non" games. BTW Ian, I fail to see what you define as a framework for gameplay mechanics, when I look back on gaming I see a wide variety or games, there is really no traditional gameplay mechanic when you look at things. There has always been diversity in gameplay types depending on the technology being utilized, with the only real standard being ::gasp:: FUN!
You're wrong about Computer technology. It has always evolved to earn more money, not to increase the userbase. Look at the High Def DVDs, look at the sharpest video cards out there, the fastest PCs possible. Those don't exist for userbase expansion. They are there to make cash, and one of the more popular methods right now is to sell slightly better tech to the same people day-after-day, month-after-month, and year-after-year.
Though that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand, it's important to note that generally, only the outdated technology becomes widespread, and not the top-of-the-line stuff.
Edit: And Ian, you missed my point. There are more differences between each Zelda and Madden game than there is between several FPSes, other than locations. That's what I'm saying. FPSes, in most cases, are very stagnant in terms of gameplay. While things may look different, they all play the same. However, Madden actually adds in new features every year, like the playmaker feature added this year. That's actually a huge addition, really. When you look into the sports titles, there really are more differences than you realize on the annual basis.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 17, 2007, 10:06:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguyQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I think Ian completely missed my point; evolution of any technology is to expand the user base. If, for example, the PC industry didn't care about expanding we would still have computers that only the most tech savvy can be used. With the Wii, Nintendo is making gaming more accessible and expanding its audience, by making gameplay experiences easier to navigate, not to mention diversifying it. My main point was that technology has always moved towards being easier for people to get into it, especially those who may have been put off in the past. Whether you want to admit it or not, many people were being put off by perhaps one of the most stagnant forms of control in gaming, mainly more and more buttons. So guess what, Nintendo took that and flipped that on its head to get more people into the gaming family.
Believe it or not, this is what SMART companies do especially those that want to survive, and in term help the industry survive. That is why the abacus is a good example, it is comparable to the controller trend, and things weren't getting any easier and more accessible but LESS accessible, so Nintendo pulled a calculator on us and gave us a new way to interact with games without needing the knowledge to use something like a controller (abacus).
Regardless I still find it freaking hilarious that someone would complain about Nintendo's new direction and then praise the complexity of classic games which were perhaps the most user accessible and less complex when it comes to a learning curve than the so-called casual or "non" games. BTW Ian, I fail to see what you define as a framework for gameplay mechanics, when I look back on gaming I see a wide variety or games, there is really no traditional gameplay mechanic when you look at things. There has always been diversity in gameplay types depending on the technology being utilized, with the only real standard being ::gasp:: FUN!
You're wrong about Computer technology. It has always evolved to earn more money, not to increase the userbase. Look at the High Def DVDs, look at the sharpest video cards out there, the fastest PCs possible. Those don't exist for userbase expansion. They are there to make cash, and one of the more popular methods right now is to sell slightly better tech to the same people day-after-day, month-after-month, and year-after-year.
Though that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand, it's important to note that generally, only the outdated technology becomes widespread, and not the top-of-the-line stuff.
Usually when you are aiming for more money you want to make the experience as user friendly as possible to attract more customers, so my point still stands. I was mainly referencing user integration with these devices, the way we interact with our products, whether it be a GUI or something as simple as a menu has become extremely streamlined in order to make things easier for the user to navigate.
Post by: Kairon on August 17, 2007, 10:09:47 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on August 17, 2007, 10:13:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Somehow millions of gamers were first introduced to the hobby by being tossed into these supposefly complex and confusing games and we all figured it out. Suddenly a newcomber needs their games dumbed down to get into it? That's just going backwards and it's going to remove complexity and challenge from games because a large chunk of the audience are being trained in a nerf environment. If you don't know chords you can't play guitar. It's a skill and if you can't learn it, tough sh!t, you can't do it. Same with games. If you can't handle really routine gaming concepts like trying out every possibility before giving up or noticing lifebars then that's too bad. Learn to dribble if you want to be on the basketball team. Learn to skate if you want to play ice hockey. Be qualified to get a damn job. Learning fundamentals is life. Games should not be any different.
1. Many people were introduced to gaming back when controls meant a joystick and a button or possibly even an analog dial. Back then all the screen showed was the number of remaining lives and your score with all the game mechanics explained on a small metal plaque attacheed to the arcade machine. Game complexity increased only gradually with 2, 4, 8, 16 buttons on the controller, 1, 2, 4, 6 axises on the directional input, gravity, hitpoints, saves, levels, 3D, accuracy, cover, .......
2. Not all games need all buttons on a freaking Dualshock.
3. Kids learn faster than adults so dealing with 16 buttons at the same time won't be as hard for a kid to get used to as an adult.
4. Adults often don't have much time and they'd rather spend that on something they can grasp quickly rather than spending days (because they only play an hour a day or so) figuring out where the square button is.
So as a result now you either start learning games as a kid when you have enough time and motivation to learn all the intricacies of the control scheme or you're an adult and would have to learn 12+ buttons, 2 joysticks and a weird cross thingie (how would you know they aren't in use until you know the controls?) just to learn how to use something you're brushing off as kid toys anyway.
Those are the people Nintendo wants, not the kids who grew up gaming or the old gamers who have been gaming when games were as complex as "avoid missing ball for high score" because they have those already (or if not they then Sony or MS). The people Nintendo wants are those who don't know the idiosyncrasies of gaming, who don't understand that games aren't just electronic toys for children, who don't think they could ever understand how all this works.
Quote
Originally posted by: UERD
Yeah!!!! Phoenix FTW!!!! And all my friends had Drug Dealer or something, but I never got around to getting it from them. Those were the days.
I wonder if that's the same game I knew as Phoenix, a wave-based vertical shmup where you encounter weach wave twice and get rapid fire the second time and where you can activate a temporary shield by pushing (actually pulling because we used joysticks) down? And the ship looked kinda like a dog?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 17, 2007, 10:14:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Ian's point is that Nintendo's streamlining actually cuts out functionality, unlike previous efforts which merely superceded functionality.
Couldn't you argue that for about any product innovation? There is always something cut to make it more user friendly, it is just how things are. Not to mention the fact it is a stupid statement, considering the Wii has INCREASED functionality for certain genres and games. The Wiimote could not have revolutionized things like aiming controls, if it had the buttons that other controllers had, the one handed aiming was needed.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 17, 2007, 10:16:58 AM
Happy? WE CAN LOCK THIS THREAD NOW
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 17, 2007, 10:18:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Modern casual games are intentionally cheap thrills. I'm not using "cheap" in a negative context here.
Happy? WE CAN LOCK THIS THREAD NOW
Then what is Pacman? A cheap thrill as well?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 17, 2007, 10:18:31 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 17, 2007, 10:26:11 AM
Modern. Intentional. "Cheap thrill".
WE CAN LOCK THIS THREAD NOW
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 17, 2007, 10:28:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Pacman is not a modern game. It came during a vague period of the industry where just about everything new was exciting and engaging. Don't apply your contemporary perspectives to examples outside of the idea's scope.
Modern. Intentional. "Cheap thrill".
WE CAN LOCK THIS THREAD NOW
Regardless we are talking about gameplay design, whether it is intentional or otherwise. Cheap thrill is quite subjective.
Post by: Strell on August 17, 2007, 10:37:28 AM
Getting excitement out of such mundane exercise could indeed be considered a cheap thrill.
Of course it's more than that, but an outsider-looking-in with no interest in gaming would call it that, and I doubt they'd stick around to hear a rebuttal.
Much like how people who don't do distance running can't understand how running a 10K can be oddly relaxing, according to the runner.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 17, 2007, 10:39:05 AM
Post by: Kairon on August 17, 2007, 10:44:03 AM
Oh, but you're right GP. There'stends to be a little bit of give and take, and oftentimes the rewards are greater than the price, if any. Regardless, future iterations of motion-sensitive interfaces are sure to do a better job of incorporating a full range of functionality compared to the Wiimote/nunchuck combination.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 17, 2007, 10:45:21 AM
Pacman is too classical of an example. It's of an era where concepts were simply realized in hopes of creating an entertaining and profitable product. The casual/hardcore distinctions weren't driving the spectrum of the industry.
"Cheap thrill" may be subjective, but development investments are not the same shots in the dark as they once were.
WE CAN LOCK THIS THREAD NOW
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 17, 2007, 10:45:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
GP is trying to launch a new Megathread. &P
Oh, but you're right GP. There'stends to be a little bit of give and take, and oftentimes the rewards are greater than the price, if any. Regardless, future iterations of motion-sensitive interfaces are sure to do a better job of incorporating a full range of functionality compared to the Wiimote/nunchuck combination.
That I can't wait for, but every innovation takes time to develop.
Also:
IAN STARTED IT!
