Topic: Dogz 2008/Imagine: Party Babyz - Awesome new exclusives from Ubisoft!

[animecyberrat]

I don't think so, to be honest I didn't read your post, sorry.

[Kairon]

No, I agree Mario games do have a hard core goal to them, but the truth is to most people beating the game is the goal and that is not hard at all, sure gettign all the stars is, but not every gamer is going to do that.


It is the same with Mario Bros. or Mario World, you can zip right through the games and get to the end in under a half an hour to beat the game, even if you aren't the best at it you just need to know the shorcuts. but if you want to beat the entire game and unlock all the secrets, then you do have to be good at it.

The thing is Mario is and always has been universally accepted as a casual game, not casual in the sense like Wii Sports is, but casual in the sens that any one can  pick it up and play, it has always been that way before they came alogn with Sunshine and complicated things up.

On the subject of Wii Sports, and Wii Play for that matter, the game is as casual as it gets, but like Mario has goals and unlockables deep enough for the hard cores, yet simple and easy enough for the casuals to pick it up and enjoy also. (and Wii Sports is the best selling game by default not just cuz it is packed in but also because it *is* the cause of the craze in the first place)

Nintendo's always done this.

And perhaps we have to ditch the hardcore and casual monikers. The more and more we apply them, the more it becomes apparent just how inaccurate they are.

I'd rather we use "traditional" or "core" versus... umm... "blue ocean?" "Expanded market?"

Wii Fit, for example, is an expanded market game. So is Nintendogs. Meanwhile, Mario Galaxy is obviously traditional, and Mario Kart as well. Screw hardcore-casual.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

it's either FIST or it's weak.

[animecyberrat]

but that is not the case Kairon, there have always been and always will be hard core gamers and casual gamers, this is not knew to Wii, it is not knew to gaming in general, it is just more apparent with Wii because that is now the *focus* instead of the alternative.


Super Mario Bros. and Duck Hunt combined together to catapult the NES into the massive overnight success that revived the dieing gaming industry, by doing he same thing Wii is, ditching the "hard core" crowd and reaching new audiences.


My mom, grandma, and aunts all picked up, and enjoyed Super Mario Bros. and I know many grandparents to this day that still do. NES continued to have these same dominating types of games, it was Tetris, one of the most casual games ever made, that made the GameBoy line the phenomenon it is today.


The reason these systems have such mass appeal is because they break the barrier down and make it simple enough that people who can't program a VCR can still enjoy these new games, and trust me both of my parents fall into that category. The same gamers who started out playing Pac-Man, Asteroids, and Pong, considered Traditional by todays standards but very much casual in the sense that they were games anyone could pick up and play and still have the same audiences to day.


Things started to change when the arcade games needed to become more complicated to keep the aging gamers from moving onto knew things and reach out to a generation who had grown up on the simple games and wanted something to challenge them, this naturally forced Nintendo and Sega to make more complicated games for the home market to reach those same gamers. Because the young pup where started playing NES at age 5 was now 10 years old and had become an expert gamer Nitnendo/Sega needed to make games that would continue to challenge him and keep his interest.


The early "casual" games were usually games that were simple, and could appeal to people with short attention spans or could be played in a single sitting but also offered just enough extras to keep the devoted gamer coming back for more. Those early Mario games were hard for us when we were kids, but I see adults and teenagers brisk through them in a matter of minutes like they do a single round of Wii Bowling. As we grew up we wanted deeper experiences and games continued to get more complicated, but the casual games persisted.

[Kairon]

I enjoyed reading your post Animecyberrat, but I fail to see its relevance. You agree with me that Nintendo's always made games that appeal to many people on many layers, like Duck Hunt (see Wii Play's hardcore shooter fans) or Super Mario Bros. (Which I've never beaten, mind you).

Nintendo's just doing what they've always done. It's the rest of the industry that somehow wants to alienate an entire market of people who played Duck Hunt and Mario bros. on the NES, or were the people who played pong.

Nintendo isn't the one forcing this decision on us. Nintendo's the ONLY one who's not changing. Everyone else is forcing us to cut and run from the wider experience of gaming.

[animecyberrat]

And perhaps we have to ditch the hardcore and casual monikers. The more and more we apply them, the more it becomes apparent just how inaccurate they are.

The point was, yes they have always made casual games and they have always made hard core games, so why all of a sudden stop labeling them as such and try to do away with a distinction that has existed for years?

[Kairon]

And perhaps we have to ditch the hardcore and casual monikers. The more and more we apply them, the more it becomes apparent just how inaccurate they are.

The point was, yes they have always made casual games and they have always made hard core games, so why all of a sudden stop labeling them as such and try to do away with a distinction that has existed for years?

Because they bleed too much. They simply don't work well because plenty of people love both hardcore and casual games together, and therefore they are pretty ineffectual for measuring audience utility.

The point behind the labelling is to draw a distinct line between the games that the traditionalist game audience expect, and games that make the traditionalists scratch their heads. Traditionalists aren't confused by Mario kart Wii, many even like it. Yet that may be classified by some as a casual game, and it's certainly intended as a bridge game. But if you call it hardcore, it's hard to put it in the same category as Mass Effect.

Therefore, hardcore and casual may have always existed, but for our purposes they're less than useful. Traditional and expanded-audience games, however, draws a more distinct line between the two, I allege.

[animecyberrat]

Well to be fair I never liked the terms either, as far as I am concerned a video game is a video game, but since Nintendo has gone out of their way to over use the terms, then they are hear to stay.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Hardcore is not the game, hardcore is the player.

Games are: Accessible (relative)

or: Inaccessible (relative)

One can play an accessible game so much that one becomes a hardcore player.  The original game becomes hardcore in hindsight, after the new hardcore player discovers the Internet and forums/blogging/journalism.

Nintendo doesn't go out of its way to use "casual" and "hardcore", that's a fault of game journalism always formulating press/questions revolving around those words.

[animecyberrat]

even in that light, which makes sense, the fault still falls on Nintendo, in response to the topic at hand. Because in the end the Wii *is* Nintendo's responsibility and not Ubisofts. Nintendo has an obligation to do whatever it takes to make their hardware successful (profitable) to ensure their continued existence. Ubisoft is only obligated to put out a product that will ensure their shareholders get paid on time.

[Luigi Dude]

even in that light, which makes sense, the fault still falls on Nintendo, in response to the topic at hand. Because in the end the Wii *is* Nintendo's responsibility and not Ubisofts. Nintendo has an obligation to do whatever it takes to make their hardware successful (profitable) to ensure their continued existence. Ubisoft is only obligated to put out a product that will ensure their shareholders get paid on time.

Oh give me a break.  It's not Nintendo fault Ubisoft is giving the system nothing but shovelware bullsh!t that is only aimed at casuals under the age of 5.  Espiecally when Red Steel was a million seller as a launch game which showed Ubisoft way back in early 2007 that traditional, hardcore or whatever the hell their called now games DO sell on the Wii.  Ubisoft just choose to ignore that and release crap of the worst kind of the system.

The only fault Nintendo has is the fact they're actually allowing Ubisoft to release this sh!t on the Wii.  But considering all the money Nintendo is making off of titles like Mario Galaxy, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, and Zelda, that all appeal to traditional gamers, I'm sure they could care less what Ubisoft is doing.

If Ubisoft wants to continue to be stupid and only make 10% of their yearly revenue off the market leader because all they release is shovelware crap, that's their decision and their's alone.

[animecyberrat]

Exactly, it is THEIR descision but it is Nintendo's fault, they used to have a standard of quality control that they have let go. You contradicted yourself.

[Bill Aurion]

Hahaha!  Do you REALLY think 3rd parties are going to magically start producing good games if Nintendo shuts the faucet off? 

"Oh no, Mr. Ubisoft CEO!  Nintendo canceled our application for Dogz 3000!  What do we do!?"
"We have no choice.  I guess we have to cancel BG&E2 and Prince of Persia for next-gen systems and put them on the Wii..."

No way, they'll just not develop for the system at all!

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Define "quality control":

Is it:

1) charging high licensing fees to produce games on a proprietary format
2) rejecting game projects based on matoor themes/content
3) promoting 1st party titles extensively to overshadow 3rd party release efforts
4) i.e. everything they used to do that would make 3rd parties retreat?

That wasn't quality control, that was doing poor business in a divided industry.

[animecyberrat]

No but I do know this, saying Mario games selling well on a Nintendo System are proof that non-Nintendo games will sell well on the said system.


If Wii only accounts for 10% of Ubisoft's total sales, why should they bother with increasing production for the system, if their "non-nongamer games" don't sell well why would they keep making those games on the system? If Red Steel, No More Heroes, or Prince of Persia sold as good as Mario Galaxies, then they would have an excuse to keep making those types of games for the system.


Sales data proves that these types of games do better than Prince of Persia/Assassin's Creed type games.

[Bill Aurion]

If Wii only accounts for 10% of Ubisoft's total sales, why should they bother with increasing production for the system, if their "non-nongamer games" don't sell well why would they keep making those games on the system?

Hello!  This is exactly the point we've been trying to make!  The Logic train left 3rd parties a looooooong time ago!

If Red Steel, No More Heroes, or Prince of Persia sold as good as Mario Galaxies, then they would have an excuse to keep making those types of games for the system.

Red Steel was garbage...
No More Heroes was a niche game and was still the best selling Suda 51 game...This includes his PS2 works...PS2...
Prince of Persia SOLD THE MOST on GAMECUBE last generation...So uh, yeah...

And no, "sales data" proves that Nintendo's attempts at casual games sell a crapload, while 3rd party garbage that was concocted over an afternoon pizza sells just crap...Again, THE FACTS you are completely ignoring: Ubisoft only gained 10% of their sales off the Wii...

Come back when you find better examples, except, uh, you can't and won't...

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

What people are missing is that 10% might be a GOOD 10%, as in HIGH returns for A LOT LESS work (considering what they've put out on Wii, it may very well be the case) -- sales/revenue info don't indicate profit -- so there's NO WONDER why they're expanding their Crap Quality(TM) line-up.  Ubi is being an opportunist, and marks a notable shift in their development focus, meaning their typical high budget blockbuster crap is slowly being faded out.  A few more high budget flops get pushed out, then things will be set, and EA will be ready to gobble them up.  Great direction our industry is heading.

[animecyberrat]

I wasn't the one who tried to turn this into an argument, maybe you misread my comments, I don't know but I kinda assumed it was common knowledge Ubisoft made crap.

[animecyberrat]

Ok so maybe some of my posts weren't very well thought out, but you know what I was attacked for agreeing with everyone so I kinda had no choice but to go on the defensive, yet again. Karion pointed it out, we're all agreeing with each other so why are we still arguing?

[GoldenPhoenix]

As far as I'm concerned, now days hardcore and casual are terms used to defend what someone likes, not what the gamer is like. Some think the Mario series is hardcore while others say Halo or GTAIV are hardcore. That is why I prefer traditional games with a beginning, middle and end vs pick up and play games which can also be called casual.

[animecyberrat]

maybe I am just not as into games period? I am going to have to think about that some more. I used to like long games that took forever to beat, now I just want something to kill the time for a half hour or so till my parents goto sleep. I meant to say sleep not work.

[Bill Aurion]

Back on the subject of Ubisoft making more crappy games, they've announced a new "Prince of Persia spinoff" for the Wii...Yeah, they actually use the word "spinoff"...Not a very good sign...

[animecyberrat]

I forgot what I was going to say, damn it.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Prince of Persia TV

[mantidor]

oh god...

At least it has made me laugh a lot. I guess we'll just wait for the next awesome Nintendo game, while we see all these devs sinking to their doom, but I certainly don't care anymore.