Topic: Shiggy speaks about Casual and Hardcore games

[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!

[Kairon]

And unfortunately, sometimes not even that.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
And unfortunately, sometimes not even that.

True, very true. Two words: Alien SYndrome

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
And unfortunately, sometimes not even that.

True, very true. Two words: Alien SYndrome

I hate you.

[Ian Sane]

"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."

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.

[that Baby guy]

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.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy

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.

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.

[Kairon]

Ian's point is that Nintendo's streamlining actually cuts out functionality, unlike previous efforts which merely superceded functionality.

[KDR_11k]

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?

[GoldenPhoenix]

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.  

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Modern casual games are intentionally cheap thrills.  I'm not using "cheap" in a negative context here.

Happy?  WE CAN LOCK THIS THREAD NOW

[GoldenPhoenix]

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?

[GoldenPhoenix]

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

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

[GoldenPhoenix]

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.

[Strell]

I'd like to propose that all games are cheap thrills if you look at it purely from the POV of "you are only pushing buttons."

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.  

[GoldenPhoenix]

Ok Strell posted his 3rd brilliant post, thread can be closed now.

[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.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Sure, but THESE DAYS marketing and consumer "audiences" come into play which in turn have a direct influence on gameplay design and projects, especially when you look at the EA's and Ubisoft's of the world actively catering to specific audiences to optimize dev dollars and returns.

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  

[GoldenPhoenix]

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!