Shigeru Miyamoto confirmed this. "In New Super Mario Bros. Wii, if a player is experiencing an area of difficulty, this will allow them to clear troubled areas and take over when they're ready," said the famed developer.
This not only broadens the game's appeal towards inexperienced players, it also eliminates the need for cheat codes and strategy guides. Miyamoto also confirmed that this feature will be available in future Wii titles.
A few months back, a patent for a help feature by Nintendo was discovered. It illustrated a help-and-hint feature in which players would be able to skip a difficult part of the game if they weren't able to pass it. This announcement is the official reveal of that feature.
Now for my commentary...
Its very, very, VERY odd that Nintendo chose New Super Mario Bros. Wii to debut this new feature. The DS game was already pretty flexible, forgiving and accessible to players. They gave you a lot of lives to work with.
The only reason I can think of that since NSMB Wii will be 4 player the difficulty has been raised to maintain the challenge core gamers want but not forgetting about the new players who started with NSMB.
I don't know, I just find this weird. I think Galaxy 2 would have been a more fitting game for this feature since 3D Mario is harder to sell towards new players.
http://www.torontothumbs.com/2009/06/16/nintendo-gives-us-demo-play-option-and-this-makes-us-feel-uncomfortable/ (http://www.torontothumbs.com/2009/06/16/nintendo-gives-us-demo-play-option-and-this-makes-us-feel-uncomfortable/)
The ending paragraph made me lawl. Nintendo has never had difficultly settings avalible in a game from the get-go. It's sometimes hidden. (IE Luigi in SMG)
Because if somebody beats the game without it, nobody will believe them?
That's all I can think of...
Now for my commentary...
Its very, very, VERY odd that Nintendo chose New Super Mario Bros. Wii to debut this new feature. The DS game was already pretty flexible, forgiving and accessible to players. They gave you a lot of lives to work with.
The only reason I can think of that since NSMB Wii will be 4 player the difficulty has been raised to maintain the challenge core gamers want but not forgetting about the new players who started with NSMB.
I don't know, I just find this weird. I think Galaxy 2 would have been a more fitting game for this feature since 3D Mario is harder to sell towards new players.
Well, 2D games would also be easier to program such a feature for rather than 3D games. Especially given the get-to-the-end nature rather than the explore/collect nature of the game.
As long as it's not mandatory why does anyone care how other people play the game when it doesn't affect them at all?
As long as it's not mandatory why does anyone care how other people play the game when it doesn't affect them at all?
Because it's a GAME. You should not watch a GAME unless you are spectating a multiplayer match or something. If you watch a GAME it then ceases to be a GAME and becomes a MOVIE.
As long as it's not mandatory why does anyone care how other people play the game when it doesn't affect them at all?
Because it's a GAME. You should not watch a GAME unless you are spectating a multiplayer match or something. If you watch a GAME it then ceases to be a GAME and becomes a MOVIE.
Now that the utility of gamefaq's has been sucked into the game, can we translate the bitching and continual whining about all life in there too? OH DONT GO THERE YOU WILL DIE FASTA. LOOK WHAT YOU DID. YOU DIED. YOU'RE A TERRIBLE NON-GAMER. NON-GAMERS CAN READ.
Bleh, of all the games to introduce this feature on, why this one? It's not like modern Mario games are any challenge whatsoever anyway, and I don't think it's good precedent to make the series any easier with this feature. It's nice to know Nintendo's dedicated to creating a whole new generation of gamers that can't even jump over a goomba without computer assistance.
Bleh, of all the games to introduce this feature on, why this one? It's not like modern Mario games are any challenge whatsoever anyway, and I don't think it's good precedent to make the series any easier with this feature. It's nice to know Nintendo's dedicated to creating a whole new generation of gamers that can't even jump over a goomba without computer assistance.
How do you know the game won't be difficult though? Its comments like this that really bother me, because you obviously don't see the potential that this "Demo Play" feature really has. With it implimented into the game, Nintendo can make a game with the difficulty of Lost Levels but still make it accessible because those that can't pass a certain point simply click the demo play option and get thru it.
Whats wrong with that?
Bleh, of all the games to introduce this feature on, why this one? It's not like modern Mario games are any challenge whatsoever anyway, and I don't think it's good precedent to make the series any easier with this feature. It's nice to know Nintendo's dedicated to creating a whole new generation of gamers that can't even jump over a goomba without computer assistance.
How do you know the game won't be difficult though? Its comments like this that really bother me, because you obviously don't see the potential that this "Demo Play" feature really has. With it implimented into the game, Nintendo can make a game with the difficulty of Lost Levels but still make it accessible because those that can't pass a certain point simply click the demo play option and get thru it.
Whats wrong with that?
I know it won't be difficult because Nintendo hasn't made a difficult game in over a decade. Nintendo won't use this feature as an excuse for making a challenging game. New Super Mario Bros. wasn't particularly difficult, so why should I believe this one will be? That's not part of their "Blue Ocean" Strategy. They'll use it to make an easy game even easier for people incapable of pressing 2 buttons and a control stick.
*slow clap*
This is genius.Bleh, of all the games to introduce this feature on, why this one? It's not like modern Mario games are any challenge whatsoever anyway, and I don't think it's good precedent to make the series any easier with this feature. It's nice to know Nintendo's dedicated to creating a whole new generation of gamers that can't even jump over a goomba without computer assistance.
How do you know the game won't be difficult though? Its comments like this that really bother me, because you obviously don't see the potential that this "Demo Play" feature really has. With it implimented into the game, Nintendo can make a game with the difficulty of Lost Levels but still make it accessible because those that can't pass a certain point simply click the demo play option and get thru it.
Whats wrong with that?
I know it won't be difficult because Nintendo hasn't made a difficult game in over a decade. Nintendo won't use this feature as an excuse for making a challenging game. New Super Mario Bros. wasn't particularly difficult, so why should I believe this one will be? That's not part of their "Blue Ocean" Strategy. They'll use it to make an easy game even easier for people incapable of pressing 2 buttons and a control stick.
Oh and this is even more genius.
You do realize that making a game accessible and making it easy are two entirely different things?
Um....
You seem to not understand the nature of this feature. Let me break it down for you.
Ahem...You first need to realize that this optional, as in it's not mandatory. Secondly, you need to realize that easy games to you may still be hard for others. Thirdly, because of how intuitive this feature is, those who are having trouble can immediately see how to prevail, ie learn.
Now those three points make up our forth. This feature will allow Nintendo to make games much more challenging, while still making them highly accessible. And that is what you seem to not understand.
It should be noted that I'm not against this system entirely, just that the Mario series is probably one of the top Nintendo franchises that doesn't need it. This is something that would be more instructive or necessary used in a game series that's more difficult or intimidating, like the Metroid franchise.
It should be noted that I'm not against this system entirely, just that the Mario series is probably one of the top Nintendo franchises that doesn't need it. This is something that would be more instructive or necessary used in a game series that's more difficult or intimidating, like the Metroid franchise.
As Stogi said just because it may be seen as unnecessary to you or me doesn't mean more casual players can't benefit from it (also Metroid may be quite hard to pull this off with considering how exploration centric it is). Seriously this things falls right in line with companies including cheats in their games, so WHAT?!?!? You don't have to use it and for those that may not be as talented as you may actually be able to get more out of the game then if it wasn't included. Personally I'm for more choice in games if it doesn't ruin the core experience by binging everything down with it. If someone wants the game to get them past a tough jump, or use a cheat to get infinite health. That is their choice, and it is their hard earned money so if it helps garner more enjoyment from a title for people? Why not? There is no need to being a nazi about choice in games, give people the options to play the games how they want.
It should be noted that I'm not against this system entirely, just that the Mario series is probably one of the top Nintendo franchises that doesn't need it. This is something that would be more instructive or necessary used in a game series that's more difficult or intimidating, like the Metroid franchise.
As Stogi said just because it may be seen as unnecessary to you or me doesn't mean more casual players can't benefit from it (also Metroid may be quite hard to pull this off with considering how exploration centric it is). Seriously this things falls right in line with companies including cheats in their games, so WHAT?!?!? You don't have to use it and for those that may not be as talented as you may actually be able to get more out of the game then if it wasn't included. Personally I'm for more choice in games if it doesn't ruin the core experience by binging everything down with it. If someone wants the game to get them past a tough jump, or use a cheat to get infinite health. That is their choice, and it is their hard earned money so if it helps garner more enjoyment from a title for people? Why not? There is no need to being a nazi about choice in games, give people the options to play the games how they want.
This isn't the same as a cheat chode. Cheat codes are there for people who just want to toy with their games and get an extra little bit of enjoyment out of them. Even using cheat codes, the player actually has to do something to proceed. This is the game playing itself. If you're going to just watch a game, you're better off just watching a movie. I find it pretty ironic that a group of people who are always going around going "Gameplay! Gameplay!" are cheerleading a feature designed around players watching their games. I'm all for choice and I'm certainly a proponent for moderation in gaming difficulty, but this feature de-emphasizes the core of what makes a game what it is: that it's interactive.
And by the way, I expect more out of you GoldenPhoenix. Really, using the word "nazi" as part of your argument? Surely you can do better than that.
It should be noted that I'm not against this system entirely, just that the Mario series is probably one of the top Nintendo franchises that doesn't need it. This is something that would be more instructive or necessary used in a game series that's more difficult or intimidating, like the Metroid franchise.
As Stogi said just because it may be seen as unnecessary to you or me doesn't mean more casual players can't benefit from it (also Metroid may be quite hard to pull this off with considering how exploration centric it is). Seriously this things falls right in line with companies including cheats in their games, so WHAT?!?!? You don't have to use it and for those that may not be as talented as you may actually be able to get more out of the game then if it wasn't included. Personally I'm for more choice in games if it doesn't ruin the core experience by binging everything down with it. If someone wants the game to get them past a tough jump, or use a cheat to get infinite health. That is their choice, and it is their hard earned money so if it helps garner more enjoyment from a title for people? Why not? There is no need to being a nazi about choice in games, give people the options to play the games how they want.
This isn't the same as a cheat chode. Cheat codes are there for people who just want to toy with their games and get an extra little bit of enjoyment out of them. Even using cheat codes, the player actually has to do something to proceed. This is the game playing itself. If you're going to just watch a game, you're better off just watching a movie. I find it pretty ironic that a group of people who are always going around going "Gameplay! Gameplay!" are cheerleading a feature designed around players watching their games. I'm all for choice and I'm certainly a proponent for moderation in gaming difficulty, but this feature de-emphasizes the core of what makes a game what it is: that it's interactive.
And by the way, I expect more out of you GoldenPhoenix. Really, using the word "nazi" as part of your argument? Surely you can do better than that.
Your opinion, people get different experiences. Also I LOL at you taking my nazi comment completely out of context (then again I expect no less from you), I'm talking about taking away choice out of games instead of allowing it in there. If a feature can get someone past a tough spot and allow them to enjoy what else it has to offer, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If people want to watch their game play, so what?!?! It doesn't hurt you.
1. It being optional does not make it any less unnecessary.Every aspect of the argument is wrong. I haven't read the rest of this thread because it's so stupid, so I'll just assume that everyone else is explaining why it's wrong. Actually...
2. True enough, but you haven't made the case that the Mario franchise lately has had such things.
3. You learn platforming skills by doing, not seeing. This isn't like a puzzle game where there's some logic trick or whatnot that's simply beyond people. Platforming is running and jumping. You can't learn that just by watching.
4. Once again, exactly what reason do we have to believe Nintendo will actually make their games more challenging to compensate for this feature? They haven't in the past, so why start now? Besides, if Nintendo has competent designers on their projects I dont' see why they couldn't just design their games to handle differences in player skill more efficiently, rather than just relying on the player to flip a switch to make the game play itself to get around situations they can't handle. That's lazy design.
It should be noted that I'm not against this system entirely, just that the Mario series is probably one of the top Nintendo franchises that doesn't need it. This is something that would be more instructive or necessary used in a game series that's more difficult or intimidating, like the Metroid franchise.
As Stogi said just because it may be seen as unnecessary to you or me doesn't mean more casual players can't benefit from it (also Metroid may be quite hard to pull this off with considering how exploration centric it is). Seriously this things falls right in line with companies including cheats in their games, so WHAT?!?!? You don't have to use it and for those that may not be as talented as you may actually be able to get more out of the game then if it wasn't included. Personally I'm for more choice in games if it doesn't ruin the core experience by binging everything down with it. If someone wants the game to get them past a tough jump, or use a cheat to get infinite health. That is their choice, and it is their hard earned money so if it helps garner more enjoyment from a title for people? Why not? There is no need to being a nazi about choice in games, give people the options to play the games how they want.
This isn't the same as a cheat chode. Cheat codes are there for people who just want to toy with their games and get an extra little bit of enjoyment out of them. Even using cheat codes, the player actually has to do something to proceed. This is the game playing itself. If you're going to just watch a game, you're better off just watching a movie. I find it pretty ironic that a group of people who are always going around going "Gameplay! Gameplay!" are cheerleading a feature designed around players watching their games. I'm all for choice and I'm certainly a proponent for moderation in gaming difficulty, but this feature de-emphasizes the core of what makes a game what it is: that it's interactive.
And by the way, I expect more out of you GoldenPhoenix. Really, using the word "nazi" as part of your argument? Surely you can do better than that.
Your opinion, people get different experiences. Also I LOL at you taking my nazi comment completely out of context (then again I expect no less from you), I'm talking about taking away choice out of games instead of allowing it in there. If a feature can get someone past a tough spot and allow them to enjoy what else it has to offer, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If people want to watch their game play, so what?!?! It doesn't hurt you.
If designers are concerned about there being "tough spots" in their games they can simply design their game better so there are multiple ways out of a given scenario. For example, see the adaptive difficulty feature of any of the Sly Cooper games, where the more time you die the more health the game gives you for that section of the game and the less health it gives to the enemy. This feature is a crutch for bad designers.
I wonder if this will be an advertised feature, if they will put a little icon on the cover of games which use this system. Could this be a selling point? Someone might have played a previous Mario game and enjoyed it, but might have reached a tough spot they couldn't get past. If they saw this game and found out about the help system, might they be more interested in trying out another Mario game knowing they could be helped through trouble spots?
I wonder if this will be an advertised feature, if they will put a little icon on the cover of games which use this system. Could this be a selling point? Someone might have played a previous Mario game and enjoyed it, but might have reached a tough spot they couldn't get past. If they saw this game and found out about the help system, might they be more interested in trying out another Mario game knowing they could be helped through trouble spots?
It should be noted that I'm not against this system entirely, just that the Mario series is probably one of the top Nintendo franchises that doesn't need it. This is something that would be more instructive or necessary used in a game series that's more difficult or intimidating, like the Metroid franchise.
As Stogi said just because it may be seen as unnecessary to you or me doesn't mean more casual players can't benefit from it (also Metroid may be quite hard to pull this off with considering how exploration centric it is). Seriously this things falls right in line with companies including cheats in their games, so WHAT?!?!? You don't have to use it and for those that may not be as talented as you may actually be able to get more out of the game then if it wasn't included. Personally I'm for more choice in games if it doesn't ruin the core experience by binging everything down with it. If someone wants the game to get them past a tough jump, or use a cheat to get infinite health. That is their choice, and it is their hard earned money so if it helps garner more enjoyment from a title for people? Why not? There is no need to being a nazi about choice in games, give people the options to play the games how they want.
This isn't the same as a cheat chode. Cheat codes are there for people who just want to toy with their games and get an extra little bit of enjoyment out of them. Even using cheat codes, the player actually has to do something to proceed. This is the game playing itself. If you're going to just watch a game, you're better off just watching a movie. I find it pretty ironic that a group of people who are always going around going "Gameplay! Gameplay!" are cheerleading a feature designed around players watching their games. I'm all for choice and I'm certainly a proponent for moderation in gaming difficulty, but this feature de-emphasizes the core of what makes a game what it is: that it's interactive.
And by the way, I expect more out of you GoldenPhoenix. Really, using the word "nazi" as part of your argument? Surely you can do better than that.
Your opinion, people get different experiences. Also I LOL at you taking my nazi comment completely out of context (then again I expect no less from you), I'm talking about taking away choice out of games instead of allowing it in there. If a feature can get someone past a tough spot and allow them to enjoy what else it has to offer, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If people want to watch their game play, so what?!?! It doesn't hurt you.
If designers are concerned about there being "tough spots" in their games they can simply design their game better so there are multiple ways out of a given scenario. For example, see the adaptive difficulty feature of any of the Sly Cooper games, where the more time you die the more health the game gives you for that section of the game and the less health it gives to the enemy. This feature is a crutch for bad designers.
I'm sorry but some gamers aren't going to be able to get through certain spots, it isn't a "crutch" if utilized correctly to help those who may be pretty new to these types of games. This is especially true for platformers where there it requires more skill. You can't have an adaptive difficulty feature that keeps you from falling in a pit (also what exactly would these multiple ways out of a scenario be in a 2D platformer?). Frankly I trust Miyamoto's ingenuity and brilliance to implement this correctly. If anything it gives them more options as to how to design levels so they are challenging without having to worry about being too hard for some (or perhaps many) to get through.
I wonder if this will be an advertised feature, if they will put a little icon on the cover of games which use this system. Could this be a selling point? Someone might have played a previous Mario game and enjoyed it, but might have reached a tough spot they couldn't get past. If they saw this game and found out about the help system, might they be more interested in trying out another Mario game knowing they could be helped through trouble spots?
Well, we've had some precedence for this in the past. You might remember that Alone in the Dark last year tried to make its Chapter Skip feature a major selling point. I haven't seen sales data on the various versions of the game, but I can't remember it selling too well (of course, every version being buggy as hell didn't help it).
I guess this all boils down to one's faith in Nintendo to cater to the entire market rather than the one that's been buying all the Wiis. You have it, and I don't. Fair enough.
That isn't like this feature though, at all, it looks like you can jump right in whenever you want. It isn't a chapter skip (which has been done for ages via cheat codes), also I'm not sure Alone in the Dark has much mass market appeal, not to mention the game sucked beyond words. There is little comparison to Mario which has a mass market appeal, not to mention I think it is safe to say the game will actually be very good.
Yeah I forgot, they are releasing that Mario Galaxy expansion pack next year, who would have faith in them after that? ;)
Once again, exactly what reason do we have to believe Nintendo will actually make their games more challenging to compensate for this feature?
"Pussification of Video Gaming"
Really? You think games have gotten easier than in the past?
"Pussification of Video Gaming"
Really? You think games have gotten easier than in the past?
Sadistic showcases like Ninja Gaiden and the final area of God of War aside, what makes you think they've gotten harder or stayed the same?
I sorta agree with Lindy, but I'm not sure games have gotten easier over the years so much as we have just gotten really good at games in general.
We've all developed the hand eye coordination that new gamers have yet to perfect. We've also had so much practice with these games as they have evolved over the years that we understand how most of them work and now it seems almost second nature to know hat it takes to beat most of them.
As I said in my first reply, this is simply Nintendo making gaming more accessible to the NEW gamer while not taking anything away from teh experienced gamer.
I just witnessed this in effect and that feature could have really come in handy.
I just watched a little girl enjoying the hell out of Super Princess Peach until she got to some boss. She couldn't beat the boss after many attempts and started to get frustrated. I figured out the first step to beating the boss for her and gave the DS back, but her frustration with trying to beat that boss just sucked all the enjoyment out of that game for her. Now she put the DS down and probably won't pick the game up again for awhile. (I'm gonna beat the boss for her BTW)
If she could have demo played through the boss, she would probably still be enjoying her game.
If you have a problem with Demo Play, then it obviously wasn't made for you, but that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't use it or that someone else doesn't need it.
I understand where you're coming from, but are you really doing that girl any favors? For the most part, bosses are supposed to be a test of the player's skills to see if they're ready to move on to the next set of challenges. I'm not familiar with SPP so I don't know if the game does build upon itself, but won't she just have even more trouble with the next set of stages/bosses?
Of course, some games just decide to be jerks and put completely unfair boss encounters in for the hell of it, so it could just be one of those.
broodwars is an asshole for wanting a seven year old girl to suffer so she can "learn" how to be a "better gamer" or some such nonsense. Nerd elitism at its finest.
I've learned from experience that if you don't learn the skills yourself, it doesn't do you any good to have someone else do it for you because sooner or later you will have to do it yourself and there's not going to be anyone nearby to hold your hand. That's what I was getting at, and that applies to any game. If the girl learned from watching him take on the boss and can apply it to future encounters, good for her and him. If not, what was really accomplished? I consider it more cruel to be kind and possibly throw people into situations they just aren't ready for. Granted, this is Princess Peach we're talking about...
I've learned from experience that if you don't learn the skills yourself, it doesn't do you any good to have someone else do it for you because sooner or later you will have to do it yourself and there's not going to be anyone nearby to hold your hand. That's what I was getting at, and that applies to any game. If the girl learned from watching him take on the boss and can apply it to future encounters, good for her and him. If not, what was really accomplished? I consider it more cruel to be kind and possibly throw people into situations they just aren't ready for. Granted, this is Princess Peach we're talking about...
You are acting like we are prepping people for Real World Combat or something. We aren't giving people a pass at the shooting range and letting them skip the boot camp then throwing them in a War situation. This is video games.
Last time I checked Video Games are meant to be FUN. Whether you end up beating it or not, the whole intent is that you had FUN while you were playing the game.
Lots of gamers have made gaming a competitive sport, and others "gamers" mostly collect games and talk about them online but never really play them, but almost all have forgotten that a "GAME" is supposed to be about the "FUN". You get your fun from the challenge, maybe some people have fun watching others play, and some just like to forget the stress of life by losing themselves in a game just for the fun of it. But the whole point of "Demo Play" is to let those that aren't up to the challenge still have fun with the game.
So you're saying that if she learned how to play the game from watching someone play it, that's a good method to learn how to play the game, but it's not your method of choice, right?
That statement is just a rephrasing of your second paragraph, isn't it?
Then why are you so against this? Essentially you're saying it's good if it works, it's as-of-yet untested in the wide-spread market, and you're quite comfortable to ignore it, blissfully.
Why not let it exist, and see what becomes of it before you go on a crusade against it. It's true, it isn't an instant way to increase skills in gaming, but we all know that part of the problem isn't always direct skill, but rather clues that hint at something. Some people notice some, some don't, but as BNM said, the girl, a part of Demo-play's target audience, just needed to be shown the trick to the boss, she, herself, seemed to learn how to execute it, beyond that. Perhaps the clue was written, and she was just a little too young to comprehend it, even. Regardless, there's nothing wrong with trying, after all, the method you are so steadfastly encouraging is trial-and-error, isn't it? Let Nintendo give that one a shot in game help ;)
Good pathfinding. It's surprising. You'd think that pathfinding's a solved problem, yet even to this day, with incredibly powerful computers and software, pathfinding still ends up being the biggest pain in the a** imaginable. That's where many, many games have the worst bugs and the biggest frustrations. Aside from that, I think general A.I., which is probably even more solvable than pathfinding.
MORE RAMBLING: For me personally (I realize that I'm old-school and look at most things through that lens), most games today don't give me a sense of accomplishment because I feel they're too easy...that anyone can beat them, so doing so is nothing special. This is probably why I gravitate towards first-person shooters, because increasing your skill makes them more fun. If you dominate a particular deathmatch it's because you're probably better than most of the other players there, and that's a good feeling. On the flip side, getting a royal beat-down sucks and it's frustrating, but that makes me focus on getting better. It's this reward/punishment loop that many games are lacking today, in my opinion.
I agree, Lindy. Games are getting longer and they are getting easier. I, however, believe that developers like Nintendo do want to make games difficult and challenging but that it isn't sound business. That would be betting on the few, like broodwars, and not the masses, like the little 7 year old girl.
But that is what I find truly fascinating; first with the patent, and now with its inclusion in NSMB Wii. Is there a way we can have our cake and eat it too?
For me personally (I realize that I'm old-school and look at most things through that lens), most games today don't give me a sense of accomplishment because I feel they're too easy
Remember the Konami code in Contra? It gave you 30 lives. Did that make the game even easier? Of course not.I actually would have never even played that game if it weren't for that code. And even with that I could never beat it solo...
I agree, Lindy. Games are getting longer and they are getting easier. I, however, believe that developers like Nintendo do want to make games difficult and challenging but that it isn't sound business. That would be betting on the few, like broodwars, and not the masses, like the little 7 year old girl.
But that is what I find truly fascinating; first with the patent, and now with its inclusion in NSMB Wii. Is there a way we can have our cake and eat it too?
That's probably the last frontier of gaming: adaptive AI that tailors the game to fit the skills of the player in real-time. Maybe one day we'll have a console powerful enough and programmers capable enough to create such a thing flawlessly.
I agree, Lindy. Games are getting longer and they are getting easier. I, however, believe that developers like Nintendo do want to make games difficult and challenging but that it isn't sound business. That would be betting on the few, like broodwars, and not the masses, like the little 7 year old girl.
But that is what I find truly fascinating; first with the patent, and now with its inclusion in NSMB Wii. Is there a way we can have our cake and eat it too?
That's probably the last frontier of gaming: adaptive AI that tailors the game to fit the skills of the player in real-time. Maybe one day we'll have a console powerful enough and programmers capable enough to create such a thing flawlessly.
I don't like that either, adaptive difficulty tends to mean that when you encounter an obstacle you'll have to train yourself to get past you can't train because the obstacle is lowered with every attempt and will probably end up being a total pushover before you get any real training done.
FFXII had that gambit system that literally sucked the last part of combat interaction out of the series, possibly forever. You know where you would "program" your character to attack automatically and heal when injured. I remember a little kerfuffle about, but nobody said Square Enix was "pussifying" games because of it.
SMB3 not only had warp zones, but also that lovely cloud that you could skip whole levels with.
Can we end this stupid argument? Its painfully obvious that broodwars has the skillz to pay the billz and pitys the fools who don't.
The rest of us that see no problem in giving people WHO NEED IT a leg up can just go on with the rest of our lives, stress free.
1. In the truly-horrible Final Fantasy XII, the gambit system did automatically handle tasks for you during combat. But YOU still had to program them in, meaning YOU had to anticipate situations where certain responses would be needed and anticipate any corrections those responses would require down the road (for example, you could program a hefty healing gambit in so your character cast Curaga every time they got below a certain HP, but if you didn't anticipate that your character would eventually run out of MP during long battles you didn't program it correctly). All it did was take micromanagement of battle and turn it into macro-based pre-battle strategizing, no different than what you'd do in many strategy games. The game played itself for you, but only following your instructions so it was essentially doing things you'd be doing anyway. Hell, it wasn't even all that great a system, since the gambits had to be programmed in exactly the right way and in exactly the right order. Plus, you had to constantly be writing and swapping out and activating/deactivating new gambits to keep up with the current situation. It's a far cry from this.
2. Mario 3 did have warp zones and the cloud, but exactly what benefit were they to you if you couldn't handle what was on the other end of the pipe/level? You could use the warp zones to go to World 8 from as early as World 2, but if you didn't have the skills to handle World 8 you didn't do yourself any favors. If you use a Cloud to skip a level and fail on the next level, you get skipped back to the previous level anyway. So once again, if you don't have the skills anyway, there's little good the Cloud can do you.
Can we end this stupid argument? Its painfully obvious that broodwars has the skillz to pay the billz and pitys the fools who don't.
Can we end this stupid argument? Its painfully obvious that broodwars has the skillz to pay the billz and pitys the fools who don't.
The rest of us that see no problem in giving people WHO NEED IT a leg up can just go on with the rest of our lives, stress free.
I actually stopped arguing the main argument some time ago. And for the record, I've never claimed to be an exceptionally-skilled gamer...just an experienced one who grew up with the NES and respects a fair challenge, and often wonders why that's apparently beneath the new generation of gamers.
Can we end this stupid argument? Its painfully obvious that broodwars has the skillz to pay the billz and pitys the fools who don't.
The rest of us that see no problem in giving people WHO NEED IT a leg up can just go on with the rest of our lives, stress free.
I actually stopped arguing the main argument some time ago. And for the record, I've never claimed to be an exceptionally-skilled gamer...just an experienced one who grew up with the NES and respects a fair challenge, and often wonders why that's apparently beneath the new generation of gamers.
Its not just a new generation of gamers ya know. I grew up with the NES too and remember all too well the Contras and the Ninja Gaiden difficultys but when i look back to that time, i don't know how i had any fun with those games at age 5! Yes i beat them and felt accomplished when i did, but going back today those games aren't as fun as they were when i was a kid and didn't know better (because there wasn't much else). I wouldn't say that a fair challenge is "beneath" me in my eyes, what we get know is much more of a "fair" challenge than what we used to have. Imagine playing Gears of War in a Contra mode with only 3 lives.. I don't see anything fun in smashing my controller on the floor, but hey thats just me.
All i know is I like to enjoy my games, and whether its difficult or not doesn't matter as long as its an enjoyable experience. I see your fears about devs taking the easy way out in creating their games because "demo play" might give people the incentive to just watch the game instead of play it but ya know what? If that day ever comes, you'll see that lazy mindset shine thru reviews of other battle hardened gamers that KNOW they're playing a cheaply designed game with cheap AI and it'll get scored appropriately and you'll know which games NOT to buy. Combine that with the fact that you personally will never ever touch the demo-play button, and you're set!
Really, it just seems like you're making mountains out of molehills with this. Call me optimistic but with this feature implimented in their games, I really do feel like Nintendo can raise the bar on challenge while still making their own games accessible to everyone else. As far as 3rd parties go, we'll see because they're always hit or miss when it comes to doing anything right. Still, i don't see this as a dumbing down of games in general because this is an OPTION not just for you but for the developers. Nintendo might not have to include "demo-play" programming into all their games (ie; you'll never see this in WiiSports 3: Xteme) and surely 3rd parties won't bother putting effort into making a quality wii game, right? ;P So really, there's nothing to fear here.
Can we end this stupid argument? Its painfully obvious that broodwars has the skillz to pay the billz and pitys the fools who don't.
The rest of us that see no problem in giving people WHO NEED IT a leg up can just go on with the rest of our lives, stress free.
I actually stopped arguing the main argument some time ago. And for the record, I've never claimed to be an exceptionally-skilled gamer...just an experienced one who grew up with the NES and respects a fair challenge, and often wonders why that's apparently beneath the new generation of gamers.
As for a future with gamers who only watch their games, remember Nintendo patented it so non-Nintendo games won't have the feature anyway.
QuoteAs for a future with gamers who only watch their games, remember Nintendo patented it so non-Nintendo games won't have the feature anyway.
Yeah but patents are usually very specific. Nintendo can't just say "the game plays itself if you want" and earn a patent. So if it took off other developers could just do something similar but technically different. Case in point my suggestion of making the "instant win" an item of sorts with limited uses is technically different than Nintendo's feature. Somebody could do that and effectively offer the same thing.
Is Nintendo's idea just literally a video or does the game actually play itself? Whatever it is, do the opposite, and you would likely get around the patent and provide similar functionality to the player.
QuoteAs for a future with gamers who only watch their games, remember Nintendo patented it so non-Nintendo games won't have the feature anyway.
Yeah but patents are usually very specific. Nintendo can't just say "the game plays itself if you want" and earn a patent. So if it took off other developers could just do something similar but technically different. Case in point my suggestion of making the "instant win" an item of sorts with limited uses is technically different than Nintendo's feature. Somebody could do that and effectively offer the same thing.
Is Nintendo's idea just literally a video or does the game actually play itself? Whatever it is, do the opposite, and you would likely get around the patent and provide similar functionality to the player.
According to one of the guys on ListenUp it has three degrees, 1st one has a video of what you're supposed to do play in a small window, picture-in-picture kind of thing, 2nd pauses the game and plays the video full screen, 3rd actually plays it for you.
In two years, Sony and Microsoft will bring out their own help systems and say they have been working on them for ages.
