To me nothing suggests more than this that this whole "people aren't playing games anymore" crisis that Nintendo talks about to justify their non-gamer strategy is entirely localized in Japan, if it exists at all. More people are buying games then ever. I'd say that this has been an incredibly weak year for videogames yet it's a record year financially. Now I guess one could say that because portables dominated that Nintendo's strategy does make sense because the DS is a major part of it. But the sales here are for the GBA which isn't a "non-gamer" system. Despite Nintendo more or less killing off the GBA prematurely for the DS the "old way" of gaming still sold better. The traditional portable that's being phased out and has virtually no new games in the pipeline is beating the "non-gamer" portable.

The non-gamer strategy seems to be working well for the DS in Japan but in North America there is really no sign that such a strategy is needed or that it would even work. The general public seems to be pretty content with how things work now.

The term "non-gamer" is to vague to be used in such a fashion so it fits your argumentation. Hell, if bended a bit i can perfectly say the GBA is a non-gamer system, it has dated graphics and is all those games that are based to be played in periods of less of an hour, sounds non-gamer enough to me.

The US market is the only exception, in Europe, DS has replaced the GBA also. so it's more like 65% of the gaming market has accepted it as the new GBA, not the out of context ripped assumptions you're making.

"The term 'non-gamer' is to vague to be used in such a fashion so it fits your argumentation. Hell, if bended a bit i can perfectly say the GBA is a non-gamer system, it has dated graphics and is all those games that are based to be played in periods of less of an hour, sounds non-gamer enough to me."

I use it in the sense that Nintendo uses it: non-gamers are people who don't play games. They had never used the term when the GBA launched so it's a "gamer" system because it was designed primarily with gamers in mind. The DS is a "non-gamer" system because from the very beginning Nintendo designed the DS with the idea of attracting people who currently don't play games. The unique features were all added and designed to appeal to this group. Entire games have been designed specifically to attract these people. The Rev is also a "non-gamer" console because Nintendo has designed it with non-gamers in mind.

"The US market is the only exception, in Europe, DS has replaced the GBA also. so it's more like 65% of the gaming market has accepted it as the new GBA, not the out of context ripped assumptions you're making."

The US market is the most important gaming market in the world. To design a global strategy that works everywhere but there would be foolish.

Ian, over 4 million people bought Madden '06.

Who really cares if Nintendo isn't catering to them? blah.

Quote

---

They had never used the term when the GBA launched so it's a "gamer" system because it was designed primarily with gamers in mind. The DS is a "non-gamer" system because from the very beginning Nintendo designed the DS with the idea of attracting people who currently don't play games.

---

Ian, you're taking a word and building your entire philosophy regarding games around solely that. It's just a word. Nintendo has made about two games so far that resemble that definition (Nintendogs and AC), and both of them have sold spectacularly.
Also, Nintendo isn't saying that people don't play games, they're saying that they're trying to expand the market and let all people enjoy them. They also suggest that the market might collapse in on itself if it becomes too niche and hackneyed, but that's too unpredictable to guage properly.

"I think you're falling into a trap. Developing for 'non-gamers' is now a public, official stance. However, casual, 2-minute gaming has been a goal for Nitnendo's handheld products for years. They're putting more effort behind their 'non-gamer' strategy now, but that doesn't mean it is a brand new strategy."

I see what you mean. I personally still see a difference. Although the Gameboy has had short quirky games to me they always felt like they were still for gamers. Like people who don't play games don't play Gameboy either. I always saw those games as a quick fix for the gamer on the go. The DS, to me, seems different. The goal is less to provide gaming on the go but more to get people who don't play games playing games.

Anyway the justification for this whole non-gamer strategy is that supposedly people are getting tired of gaming, yet this figure contridicts that claim. Thus I question the overall strategy because, at least in North America, the "problem" doesn't exist. I think there's a lot of risk in a strategy that offers a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the biggest game market in the world.

Nintendo's assumption is largely wrong and here's proof of that. That's scary because they're risking so much on something we can practically prove is factually incorrect. How well can the non-gamer strategy work in North America when the issue that made Nintendo think of the plan in the first place doesn't exist?

Personally, I think the terms "non-game" and its derivatives are getting way too overused. You describe something that's a game, just with looser goals or whatever, and you say it's not a game. Someone's bound to ask, "well, what is it then?"

Isn't Nintendogs essentially a Tamagotchi? Take away stylus control, realism of the puppies, and that's what you have. But you wouldn't call it a toy. Would you? Couldn't it be a less common or new genre, like the "virtual pet" genre? "Animal simulation"? Something like that.

I guess you could call Animal Crossing an RPG - because you're playing a role that is your own persona. If we take the words as a clear-cut definition then it actually is more of an RPG than, say, the Final Fantasy games, which have predetermined personas. Or, hey, create a new genre - "life simulation". They have dating sims, so why not living sims?

Just because Nintendogs and Animal Crossing don't have goals is a lame reason to call them non-games. Actually, they do - maybe it's just that they're still fun to play even if you don't have Obedience Trial trophies or a complete exhibits, etc. But because a game is fun even when you're not "accomplishing" anything doesn't make it any less of a game...I thought the point of a game is to have fun, so you'd think it'd be more of a game than any other if you're enjoying it whether you are able to "win" or not? If you play soccer and everyone forgets to keep score are you suddenly playing a non-game? Okay, maybe that's not a good example...whatever. Maybe I just don't like the term so easily slapped onto unusual or uncommon genres.

And I've mentioned this before...I don't know how many non-gamers are actually scooping up all these DS games. You still usually hear the PSP mentioned in casual conversation a heck of a lot more than the DS. I'd guess that what's actually happening is that DS gamers are buying a lot of DS games. I already have as many DS games as Game Boy (including GBC/GBA) games in much less time. And there are a number I've meant to try and haven't even picked up!

Ian Sane:

The more I read your replies the more I come to understand that you're just looking for any reason, even if you have to twist it out of something that really doesn't mean anything, to pick on Nintendo for.

You can only go so far with "constructive criticism" before it becomes simple bad mouthing.

Do you even play video games anymore or are you only here because the Nintengo ate your baby?

You know, I don't think I've ever read a single post by you where you say anything nice about Nintendo. The closest you seem to be able to come is "well at least they didn't screw THAT up!" If that's the only way that you can see them, then why the hell are you even here? Nintendo already has enough descenters for the most idiotic of reasons. Why don't you just go join the others and sing the praises of Sony and/or MS while the industry goes down the toilet because you certainly don't seem to have any for Nintendo.

Now I'm going to go play some games and have fun.

F-U-N

Remember that? That's what we're all here for... supposedly. Not image or graphics or "cool" or even marketing strategies, but because the games are fun.

"Why don't you just go join the others and sing the praises of Sony and/or MS while the industry goes down the toilet because you certainly don't seem to have any for Nintendo."

So if I criticize Nintendo then I automatically must praise Sony or MS? I don't praise them very often. They have some good business ideas but for the most part I think they're severely hurting the industry and their all-in-media approach to consoles is pretty stupid. I like Nintendo a lot. They make some of my favourite games and they seem to be the only console maker that actually cares about gaming.

As a fan I'm just frustrated that Nintendo is currently stuck in a hole that they themselves largely dug due to some really odd decisions. And I think that their plan for getting out of the hole is just going to dig themselves further. I don't like this non-gamer plan. I don't think it's going to work. And if it does work I'm screwed anyway because I don't really like Nintendo's non-gaming efforts. I just don't find them that enjoyable. I'm concerned that Nintendo's not going to pay attention to the existing fanbase if a new group of gamers brings them new success. Or that they still will but their focus will be greatly reduced.

Nintendo has changed a fair bit in the last few years and I don't really relate to the newer Nintendo as I did to the Nintendo I first became a fan of. But I don't relate to Sony or MS much at all. So I'm concerned about the possible outcomes of Nintendo's strategy. If they fail I relate to no console maker but if they succeed by changing into a different type of company altogether then I'm in the same boat.

It is because I am a Nintendo fan that I'm critical of decisions they make that I think are a mistake. It's just unfortunate that they've been making a lot of them lately and the current wasteland of the Cube library puts me into a particularly surly mood. If I didn't like Nintendo I wouldn't care if I thought they were risking their future on a plan that is not designed with the North American market in mind. What do I care if companies I don't give two sh!ts about screw up?

"The DS is a "non-gamer" system because from the very beginning Nintendo designed the DS with the idea of attracting people who currently don't play games. The unique features were all added and designed to appeal to this group. Entire games have been designed specifically to attract these people. The Rev is also a "non-gamer" console because Nintendo has designed it with non-gamers in mind."

You're misrepresenting these systems. The DS is not a 'non-gamer' system. It is a system designed to appeal to both gamers and non-gamers. The point is that the new features will take current style games to new levels, while also having new quasi-games like Nintendogs and Brain Training for those who previously weren't into video games. The main launch title was Mario 64 DS. I wouldn't consider that a non-gamer game. Clearly it is an 'everyone' system (or as close to one as has ever existed).

The revolution isn't a non-gamer system either. If it were, then there'd be no point for the Classic Download service. Again, there will be apps that appeal to traditional gamers, apps that appeal to non-gamers, and apps that'll appeal to both groups. Another 'everyone' system.

I thought 05 was a transition year and game sales would be down overall ^_^

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Pale
Ian, over 4 million people bought Madden '06.

Who really cares if Nintendo isn't catering to them? blah.

---

I am torn here, I am with Ian and others on that i am terribly afriad of the non gamer strategy cuz frankly it sucks as a gamer.

Again I do not call Nintendogs a NON game and have stated this many times, its a pet simulator, or SIM, to not call it a game cuz its a sim you would have to say Sim City, Roller Coaster Tycoon, THE SIMS, and many others, arent real games, and thats a laod of #&*^ and your a EFFING FOOL if you beleive that, period!

Nintendo DS sells so well becasue of the GAMES! Mario 64 and Mario Kart DS and Castlevania DS are some of the better selling DS games, and guess what tehy are TRADITIONAL games. Animal Crossing for GC was still called a game when it came out, so why all of a sudden is its sequel NOT a game!? Explain that.

Nintendo needs to spend more time trying to make more traditional games, mostly to set an example for 3rd party developers AND to give thier fans the games that nobody else will.

Revolution however is different, I do see how they need to focus more on the US market and I think they are taking the right steps for that, so I disgree there that tehy dont care about US, otherwise they wouldnt be so focused on ONline or teh 1st person shooters which greatly appeal to US gamers.

The 1 area US gamers also eat up more than Japanese gamers is Sports games, specificaly Football, and Nintendo hasnt made any steps to make thier system good for sports games, PS2 had many advantages there, partly online because playing Madden online agaist a full size team of real people is far more appealing than four people. Also teh Ps2 versions also had the Multitaps which allowed up to 8 and some games more players, Nintendo didnt do anything for that, not that I personaly care but I know way to many sports fans who are also hard core gamers who said that was a big reasosn they chose ps over GC.


Rev has potenial i suppose with the controller and such, but they also need to desgin the games to be functional and fun, also sports games need to be online since rev will only support 4 players unless they make sports games that can be LANed or whatever to add more players, wich with them including the local netwroking of multiple systems with 1 game disk taht will appeal to many people if exploited.

I think Nintendo is on the right track with the REV but I still fear if they put to much emphasis on non gamers they will lose the gamers and then they will shrink even more in public eye and market share. after while they will eventualy start losing too many fans and thier profits will decrease with that.

The DS is a "non-gamer" system because from the very beginning Nintendo designed the DS with the idea of attracting people who currently don't play games. The unique features were all added and designed to appeal to this group. Entire games have been designed specifically to attract these people.

If after all this time you still believe that the DS is catering too much to the non-gamer, then you're a lost cause. As I said before, nearly every franchise that sold GBAs (that's not a non-system, is it?) has been translated successfully to the DS. And they're better games at that! Castlevania, Advance Wars, Mario Kart, Sonic, Kirby.. Mario Kart DS wasn't even a port! The only major franchise left is Pokemon. Well, and a 2D Metroid, but we should be getting both of those soon enough. And remember the new IPs too..

Can someone give me an example of a non game that they dislike.

By the way I have Brain Training in my DS right now (demo version), I think it's fantastic. It still contains the thrill of playing a normal videogame (you compete for high scores), yet you're using your brain to solve puzzles that you might actually encounter in the real world! I've memorized my entire times tables so I can get higher times in the maths "quick quiz".

Quote

---

Nintendo cannot survive on Japans market alone. Europe is almost negligable(i think). Its needs the US, since we are the highest consumers of video game software.

---

This one time my bus driver wouldn't let me on unless I could tell him what 6 x 9 was. I really wish I had played brain training, I had to walk home

Haha, silly KN

"The non-gamer approach is fine if Nintendo had a strangle hold on the console market like it does in the handheld arena. Its a way to increase market share. But when Nintendo does not have the console market on lock, which is blatantly obvious, this is not a smart move. Nintendo needed to get the Console market back in its pocket before trying to expand. And to do this they need to focus on the gamers here in the US."

This makes a lot of sense. The non-gamer market is risky. There's no guarantee that those that don't play games now will ever be interested. With "real" gamers Nintendo is on thin ice. They've screwed up enough times that the average gamer really doesn't trust them. Focusing on non-gamers means that their focus on existing gamers is going to shrink. That's just a fact. Before they were putting 100% of their resources towards gamers so now, even if they put in a lot of effort to support both groups, they're not going to be putting in as much effort as they did before. It's impossible. The problem is that right now they can't even please existing gamers. So how can they please both groups when they've been struggling to support one? Nintendo is risking losing parts of the traditional market to go after a new one that may not care at all. They can't afford to have that plan fail. They have no safety net.

The DS has improved greatly in providing games for existing gamers. But at first it SUCKED at it. Nintendo fortunately has enough presence in the portable market that people were willing to cut them some slack and get their act together. That luxury doesn't exist on the Rev. A safe assumption is that if Nintendo gives anyone the slightlest excuse to not care they won't. Why wait for Nintendo to get their act together when they never did on the N64 or Cube? If the Rev started slow like the DS did people would assume that it was going to be another flop. If Nintendo actually delivers on a traditional console first and ends a generation on a high note then people would be more willing to cut them some slack if they tried something different. People initially gave the N64 a chance despite the cartridges because Nintendo delivered so well on the SNES. The PS2 had a horrible lineup for the first couple months but people gave it a chance because they had faith in Sony.

Deep down though I think Nintendo is going after the non-gamers because they think they can't compete anymore so they have to make up their own market. I strongly disagree with that as I think Nintendo would do much better if they just stopped doing stupid sh!t. But they're both very stubborn and very out-of-touch. To successfully compete against Sony and MS they would have to admit they screwed up and would have to realize what they're doing wrong in the first place. Nintendo is so delusional these days that they probably can't do that. Though that still doesn't make their plan a good one. It just explains their actions.

Before they were putting 100% of their resources towards gamers

I see reasons to dispute this claim. Nintendo's philosophy has always been "games for EVERYONE" and resulted in games being much simpler and easier than what you'd expect. Sometimes they overshoot their goal in terms of complexity and take a step back in the next iteration of the series (There were too many items in SMB3 => SMW is back to three plus Yoshi, there were too many moves in SM64 => SMS has only a few of them, Zelda 2 had too many RPG elements => Zelda 3 is back to being an action-adventure). Nintendo has ALWAYS kept complexity very low which is part of the appeal of Nintendo games. Nintendo makes a fighting game? Well, there's no big button sequences to remember, all attacks are direction + A or B. If they were targeting those at gamers, don't you think they'd make more complicated games?

Targeting non-gamers merely means they're not going to assume the user is proficient with current control schemes or conventions (example: My mom plays CSI, finds a roulette board where card suits appear at the bottom each time you click a number. She thinks she has to figure it out, I tell her she's supposed to get all four hint notes (she was surprised that I knew there were four) and combine it that way). My first Zelda game was Link's Awakening, I got stuck at the very first puzzle because I didn't know you can move those black blocks around. Now I just blow through Zelda games because I know all their conventions. Someone who doesn't know all these gaming conventions would be utterly confused by puzzles like that.

I don't see how this is bad news for Nintendo, if the portable market is doing so well (especially DS) that indicates that their casual or "non-gamer" strategy is working. Let's face it, portable gaming is more pick up and play for a short while, it isn't a "hardcore" gamer system. With that said, I do think people are overreacting a bit about Nintendo's "non-gamer" strategy, since I think the DS is a perfect example of it in use since the DS is all about simplicity in controls and a wide variety games for everyone. Games like Mario Kart DS, Animal Crossing, Wario Ware Touched, Nintendogs, are all for those that don't like the complex button scheme and who may not play games otherwise (I know my mom loves Mario Kart). THose that complain or worry about Nintendo's strategy should not worry! NDS is obviously a first glimpse into Nintendo's revolution strategy (innovative, wide variety of games for all types of gamers), and it has been a sucess worldwide due to the wide range of games. I see no reason why Revolution will not follow suit!

"I see reasons to dispute this claim. Nintendo's philosophy has always been 'games for EVERYONE' and resulted in games being much simpler and easier than what you'd expect."

I've always seen it not as literally everyone but just everyone who plays games. Nintendo talks about targeting people like our grandmas and stuff, people who have never played games before. Nintendo talks about how the current controller is intimidating. The Rev controller is more or less an NES pad with motion control shaped like a remote. Nintendo has never simplified that far before. I find Nintendo games in the past at the very least always expected you to "get" gaming. Gaming is something that some people just can't wrap their head around. Nintendo games always assumed that you at least know enough to not jump into an endless pit without being explicitly told to or not touch things that look dangerous or know that when you get stuck you should try all the different moves or items at your disposal. So thus they were putting 100% of their effort towards gamers because you had to at least be at the level where you had that understanding of how to play games.

Now Nintendo wants to go after people that don't "get" gaming. That's a different group entirely. No one really has every gone after people that aren't interested. It's somewhat of an oxymoron. How do you make games for people who don't like games? How do those "games" stay as games if the very fact that it is a game is why those people aren't interested in the first place? How do you make games that satisfies people who don't like games and people who do like games without either group feeling their experience is compromised?

Beforehand you had to like games to enjoy Nintendo games. Thus they were serving gamers 100%. Now they have a group that likes games and one that doesn't and they're trying to please both. Thus they are no longer serving gamers 100%.

The thing I don't get, Ian, is how you went from "Nintendo needs more options!" to your current tirade.

The DS clearly shows Nintendo is interested in expanding to get everyone, not switching focus to get everyone. For every Brain Training (which takes like NO resources to make) there's about 10 'gamer' games.

There isn't an argument against that. Ian, you lose! NO GAMES FOR YOU.

"The thing I don't get, Ian, is how you went from 'Nintendo needs more options!' to your current tirade."

Well when I say Nintendo needs to provide more options I mean within the current market. When I started talking about that the idea of targeting people who don't play games at all never even remotely entered my brain. Why would it? It's such an odd idea.

I don't really the see the DS as providing more options. If anything I think it provides less. There's still the "every game for everyone" approach only now not every game is even for gamers. Now there's "every gamer could like this" games and "every person period could like this" games. Nintendo has long had the problem where their library seems diluted because with every game they're trying to cast their net so wide. It's hard to find those more specific games that seem designed just for you. Everything is very mass market. Now the net is even wider so things get even more diluted. Now Nintendo isn't just making "every person period could like this" games and I think it's great that they do still make stuff that clearly is for people who are already interested in games. But the options still really aren't there. It's the same diluted "everybody" lineup only now there are also some games that are even more diluted because they're made for non-gamers as well. Anyone who found Nintendo didn't offer enough variety before is going to find they're offering even less now.

Now on the DS there is pretty healthy support which helps things A LOT. The Rev won't have that. Nintendo still hasn't learned that to truly have an "everybody" lineup they have to have different games that interest different people. They're still doing the "every game for everybody" routine.

I find Nintendo games in the past at the very least always expected you to "get" gaming.

Really? I can't seem to find a definition of "to get gaming" that would include all of Nintendo's current games and no non-gamer-only games. Remember, Nintendo made games like Duck Hunt.

Nintendo games always assumed that you at least know enough to not jump into an endless pit without being explicitly told to or not touch things that look dangerous or know that when you get stuck you should try all the different moves or items at your disposal. So thus they were putting 100% of their effort towards gamers because you had to at least be at the level where you had that understanding of how to play games.

Is that "being a gamer" or just "having common sense"? We know from our experience that dropping into deep holes isn't desirable and that spiky things hurt. Some gaming conventions were rather incomprehensible (e.g. "take damage if you touch a mouse or an ant") but most are based on reality to a certain degree and need only a minimum of common sense to see.

Now Nintendo wants to go after people that don't "get" gaming. That's a different group entirely.

I seem to understand Nintendo's definition of "non-gamer" as "someone without gaming experience that is intimidated by the complexity found in most games today". I mean, these days you have games that have two or three meanings for every button on the controller and a manual that doesn't even mention half of them. I'm sure the term "nongamer" refers to what is usually called a casual gamer in the mainstream press (someone who plays Bejewelled or Solitaire) without sounding like "someone who plays Madden and GTA only" to us.

If I'm right we're talking about the tens (or hundreds?) of millions of people that keep companies like Popcap Games profitable. People who appreciate quick, simple videogames, preferrably those that can be controlled with only a mouse (or the rod) and have very simple, self-explainatory interfaces. MS is targeting those too, they're offering a wide range of casual/non gamer games on Live Arcade but the controller is probably enough to scare those away already. The price is another matter.

I'll take my father as an example: My parents used to play videogames on their old Atari VCS and a few times on the C64 but they don't play any modern console games. My father goes for games like Bejewelled, Tetris, Samegame and Solitaire now. The only game on my GC he played himself was Mean Bean Machine from the Sonic Mega Collection. He's confused by all the buttons on modern consoles and the complexity of modern games (plus he doesn't like violent games). My mother as well, she plays mostly point-and-click adventure games, though she only buys them at bargain bin prices. What do all those have in common? Simple interfaces and rules. You don't need more than one directional input (joystick, mouse) and a button.

"I'm sure the term 'nongamer' refers to what is usually called a casual gamer in the mainstream press (someone who plays Bejewelled or Solitaire) without sounding like 'someone who plays Madden and GTA only' to us."

That makes sense. But no one who just plays stuff like that is really considered a "gamer". Not by anyone with any real interest in gaming anyway. To most gamers those kind of games, well, don't count. A console could have 1000 games but if they were all like that gamers wouldn't be interested at all. They're not considered "real" games. You can argue what defines a game all you want but that perception exists. So any effort Nintendo puts towards games like that is not effort being put towards gamers because gamers aren't interested in that stuff. That type of game is in this odd little niche where anyone who actually likes games isn't interested and anyone who is interested isn't interested in anything beyond that.

Plus those games are FREE. To play them you just need a computer and the internet which most people would get anyway for other purposes. Actually spending $100+ for a system to play those types of games on is another matter altogether. Would your dad pay money to buy a system to play those types of games? The people who pay money for specialized videogame systems aren't interested in those types of games and the target demographic for those types of games already has access to similar games for free. I'm worried that Nintendo is trying to sell fridges to eskimos while at the same time diverting some of their resources away from the market that has brought them their success.

In Japan the story's different because Nintendo's theory about people getting bored of gaming is reasonably accurate. Though in my mind a solution to that problem is just innovation which would probably work everywhere as opposed to using innovation to dumb games down for the Bejeweled crowd.

Well, seems like Nintendo is going to try making games that are both simple to pick up and play (which appeals to the non-gamer) and surprisingly deep once you're used to them (which appeals to regular and hardcore gamers). Kinda like what they're doing now. The VCS, NES and SNES eased us long-time gamers into the current complexity, Nintendo wants to offer a new "tutorial" for current beginners. Perhaps they'll buy more complicated games after getting accustomed to the way the system works ("I already know how to use the rod, all I need to learn is this joystick with two buttons. Can't be that hard.").

Those nongamers are willing to spend some cash, remember how well those Atari emulator joysticks sold? They were afforedable and offered games a nongamer could grasp.

Would your dad pay money to buy a system to play those types of games?

Probably not but if I let him play with the Rev* perhaps he'll buy his own games for it? Since almost every household has a videogame system of sorts already it's not that far-fetched to think that most non-gamers would have someone with a Rev living under the same roof. If this catches on, parents won't buy a Rev to silence their kids (or only do so initially) and start using it themselves, generating profit through game sales for Nintendo.

*= Not that I'm willing to share my consoles with my father, he'd hog it all day and mess everything up.

Yep Nintendo is very out of touch and quite stupid to boot, just look at the NDS. What a FAILURE, they should have stuck with the traditional GB because the public will not except a console aimed at innovating handhelds and attracting those who may not otherwise play games.

Dear lord you're annoying me, Ian.

I think KDR has already said this well, but I think it's worth repeating: targeting everybody (and yes, that's who Nintendo is targeting here. Let's get off this 'non-gamer' buzzword Nintendo has started using for a second.) is not a risky strategy. In fact, it's the only strategy that has ever been truly successful in the marketplace. Everyone played Donkey Kong. Everyone played Nintendo. Everyone plays playstation. Everyone plays GameBoy. ....And no, the "everyone who are gamers" line doesn't fly, because both Sony and especially Nintendo created gamers...they wouldn't have florished if they hadn't.

I'm sorry you feel like, in the past, you were a part of some special group of people who 'got' gaming while the rest of the world was incapable. But Nintendo never made products for a special group. They made games that drew people in who had never been interested in gaming before. They specialised in giving complex experiences through simple and intuitive interfaces that everyone could get into.

The fact is, gaming can be for everybody, just as much as movies can be. I'm sorry you feel that everyone who doesn't game are braindead morons who lack all manner of curiosity and problem-solving skills. Nintendo and I choose to believe that people who don't game might do so for different reasons. Reasons like the fact that modern controllers are about as befuddling to a non-gamer as the controls in the cockpit of an airplane are to a non-pilot.

As Nintendo becomes an increasingly niche company, what would you have them do? 'Try harder' without changing in any signifigant way, I suppose. Personally, I don't think that'll cut it. How do expect Mario and Zelda to compete in the face of Jak and Daxter and Grand Theft Auto? Modern games are huge, violent, expensive. And Nintendo could certainly try to play on that playing field, as you suggest they should. But they aren't interested in that. They're interested in making people interested in the kind of games Nintendo likes. And to to do that, they need to reach out to people in a different way. As other companies make their games more realistic and more complex, Nintendo will blaze a new trail by trying to make their games as fun and accesible as possible. Sorry if you don't want that. Sorry if you want gaming all to yourself.

...Me personally, I want as many people getting interested in Nintendo games as possible.

sorry you feel that everyone who doesn't game are braindead morons who lack all manner of curiosity and problem-solving skills. Nintendo and I choose to believe that people who don't game might do so for different reasons.

I second this, because it's the truth, Ian. My parents don't play games. My dad used to play the NES a bit, but after that, I don't recall him playing much at all. So, I was playing Wind Waker once, and I was stuck on one of the puzzles. I tried everything I could think of, but it didn't work. Then, in came my dad, and he saw me playing for a few seconds. Then he suggested I do something. I did it and the puzzle was solved.. This has happened on many occasions; I seriously believe that if my dad played games he would love adventure games. His brain just works in the way that's perfect for an adventure game. But, he doesn't game, and guess why? Because it's too complicated for him.. Also, the few times he's played my DS, he's LOVED it. I showed him the minigames for SM64DS, and got him hooked. Then, he even was interested to play Kirby and liked it. So wandering's right about this also; Nintendo can make gamers out of non-gamers, and then they will even try traditional games..

The only thing I'm worried about is how Nintendo is going to convince nongamers to pay a substantial amount for a Revolution and games. Why would they care now if they haven't been interested in it for years, or never have been? Even if Nintendo gets a game that would draw them in if they played it, they would still need to market the system to that audience. Which will be extremely tough..

SAME ARGUMENT IN EVERY THREAD LIKE GROUNDHOG'S DAY.

I HOPE YOU'RE INSURED

Nintendogs isn't a non-game.

Brain Training isn't a non-game.

Electroplankton isn't a non-game.

This is a non game

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Ian Sane

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Infernal Monkey

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Ian Sane

---

On this particular point, I agree with Ian.

Seriously, who can argue with that?

"sorry you feel that everyone who doesn't game are braindead morons who lack all manner of curiosity and problem-solving skills. Nintendo and I choose to believe that people who don't game might do so for different reasons."

That's not what I meant though I can see why what I said could interpreted that way. "Getting games" isn't just understanding how to play or having the skills to do well. Part of it is finding it fun. I'm good at math but I don't enjoy it so I don't intentionally do anything involving math for fun. Nintendo thinks that people who don't game don't because they find it complicated or intimidating. I think they don't because they're just not interested in what's available. When you're really interested in something typically you make an effort to get into it.

My brother used to play games a lot and now he doesn't. It isn't because he finds the controller too complicated or intimidating. It's because there just aren't enough games being made that he's interested in. He still likes racing games like Mario Kart and F-Zero. I hand him the Cube controller and he figures it out in ten seconds. Conker's Bad Fur Day had controls that were much more complicated then any NES or SNES game. But he figured them out because he enjoyed the multiplayer so much. He likes visceral action games where he just has to react to what's happening and doesn't have to think about things too much. Contra is pretty much his favourite game. His lack of interest is a result of games like that being less common now. A lot of games focus more on puzzle solving and long stories and long quests. He wants games with no save capabilities, that require reflexes to play, and that are designed to be played though in one sitting but are hard enough that there's no way in hell you'll ever beat it on your first try.

I think the problem is more the complexity of games themselves rather than the controller. The controller is a tool and it's a developer's responsibility to design a games controls to be easy to use. PC games have used the same setup since the beginning. But DOOM is still easier to get into then most current PC games. It's the same amount of buttons but one design is streamlined and simplified while another is overly complex. I don't like games that make thing complicated for no reason. That's why I love Zelda but pretty much hate any other "adventure" game that adds all sorts of RPG stats and stuff to make the game more complicated for no reason.

I don't think touchscreens and motion control are the answer to getting anyone who used to like games back. I think the solution is for Nintendo to make their games streamlined to avoid unnecessary complexity. They already are very good at that. Most other developers suck at it but I think the best way for Nintendo to improve that is with influence and they have more influence if they have more market share. I think the key to improving their market share is to stop nailing their feet to the ground with inane short-sighted decisions and restrictions and to make some more new franchises instead of just milking Mario over and over. People who weren't born in 1988 need their own Nintendo characters to identify with. And that doesn't even require Nintendo to use lots of violence and guns. They just need to expand their palette a bit; work in genres they wouldn't before and use different styles then the super fun happy EAD style they rely on a lot. Making the same Mario spinoffs but with motion control isn't going to do anything.

As for those that just plain aren't interested in games they're never going to be so it's a waste of time to bother. If they were interested in games they would make some effort to get into them. Some people just decide they don't like something and you just can't get them to even try.

Nintendo thinks that people who don't game don't because they find it complicated or intimidating. I think they don't because they're just not interested in what's available. When you're really interested in something typically you make an effort to get into it.

They probably mean "doesn't game" as in "doesn't give money to us".

A lot of games focus more on puzzle solving and long stories and long quests. He wants games with no save capabilities, that require reflexes to play, and that are designed to be played though in one sitting but are hard enough that there's no way in hell you'll ever beat it on your first try.

Yet another reason they should finally hire Kenta Cho and give him the ten million dollars that interviewer mentioned:

Q: If you had the chance to design a 10 million dollar game, what would you do with it, or would you turn it down?

A: I'll try to create a 10 million dollar game that ends within 3 minutes. A simpler and shorter one with the greatest music and greatest graphics.

Q:Mobile technology (PDA's and phones as well as the Nintendo DS and PSP) seem like perfect outlets for your games (short bursts of fun). If given a dev kit for Nintendo or Sony's, would you consider making games for them?

A:I want to get a dev kit especially for Nitendo DS. Dual screen shmup playing with a stylus may be fun.

Quote

---

That's not what I meant though I can see why what I said could interpreted that way. "Getting games" isn't just understanding how to play or having the skills to do well. Part of it is finding it fun. I'm good at math but I don't enjoy it so I don't intentionally do anything involving math for fun. Nintendo thinks that people who don't game don't because they find it complicated or intimidating. I think they don't because they're just not interested in what's available. When you're really interested in something typically you make an effort to get into it.

---

"In my opinion, lowering the barrier for entry for a certain activity by making it easier/more understandable/more affordable/more attention-grabbing almost always leads to more interest, and is generally a good idea."

That makes sense and I think the GUI analogy is perfect. But I don't think motion control is easier. In fact I think it sounds harder. Waving a wand around is going to require more precision then just pushing a digital button. I see the remote more as a novelty to attract attention from people who don't game. In a way it's kind of like R.O.B. only it's about a million times more useful. I just don't see it as making things easier. To me it seems more like those voice activitated phone systems that someone thought would be easier to use then the "to do this push 1" systems. Sounded like a good idea in theory but there's so many variables in what the user can do and how the computer can interpret them that it is actually harder to use. I'm concerned that the remote will have similiar issues because who I think is a vertical sword strike might be interpreted differently by the computer. But if I just have to push B it's pretty much impossible for it to be interpreted incorrectly.

To me the remote seems more like making a GUI and getting rid of the keyboard altogether with the idea being that the mouse is good enough. Nintendo is removing proven technology for a new method that is unproven.

The idea of lowering the barrier is good. I just don't think what Nintendo is doing to lower the barrier is the right thing to do. I think they're either going to compromise their games to make them fit a different standard or make the controls needlessly harder to use in order to fit the new controller to current game design.

I still don't believe Nintendo is going "Lower the barrier" on their games, I think NDS is a good indication of what is to come with Revolution, and we have a mixture of games there. Really I don't think much is going to change from the Nintendo of the past, except for their marketing stance, and the complexity of their controller. They still will be one of the most innovative companies around, coming out with great games that all can enjoy. Not only will the Revolution have games for current Nintendo fans, but they will have games for those who hardly ever touch them. It is a strategy that really isn't new, since there are many games for previous Nintendo systems that did just that, the only change here is that they may market the Revolution as an all inclusive system due to the simple controller.

Waving a wand around is going to require more precision then just pushing a digital button.

Does using an analog stick require more precision than pushing a d-pad? If precision isn't the goal of the game and it's properly implemented, no.

BTW, I asked my father on games he'd play, he said he doesn't want to use a joystick.

Quote

---

That makes sense and I think the GUI analogy is perfect. But I don't think motion control is easier. In fact I think it sounds harder. Waving a wand around is going to require more precision then just pushing a digital button. I see the remote more as a novelty to attract attention from people who don't game.
...
I'm concerned that the remote will have similiar issues because who I think is a vertical sword strike might be interpreted differently by the computer. But if I just have to push B it's pretty much impossible for it to be interpreted incorrectly.
...

---