Topic: U.S. Game Sales Hit $10.5 Billion

[KDR_11k]

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.

[Ian Sane]

"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.

[KDR_11k]

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.

[GoldenPhoenix]

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.

[wandering]

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.  

[IceCold]

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..

[King of Twitch]

SAME ARGUMENT IN EVERY THREAD LIKE GROUNDHOG'S DAY.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I HOPE YOU'RE INSURED

[Mario]

Nintendogs isn't a non-game.

Brain Training isn't a non-game.

Electroplankton isn't a non-game.

This is a non game

 

[Infernal Monkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane

 

[Pryopizm]

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?

[Ian Sane]

"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.

[KDR_11k]

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.

[wandering]

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.

Ah. I'm understanding your position a little better now. But I don't at all agree with it. I bet people said the same kind of thing when graphical operating systems were first introduced. I'm sure there were people who thought people who were interested in computing would take the time to learn the simple textual commands. But, as soon as computers became graphical and intuitive, the computing business exploded.

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.

[Ian Sane]

"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.

[GoldenPhoenix]

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.

[KDR_11k]

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.

[wandering]

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.
...

Again I must disagree. First off, I think you have the wrong idea about how the controller will be utilised. All of the demos that were shown had the on-screen whatever matching the movements of the revmote exactly....different movements weren't really 'interpreted' as different in-game actions in the way that you imply.

Let's take your example of the sword fighting game. Instead of pushing a button, or a button + a direction on the analog stick to take a sword swipe, you have a virtual sword that follows the every movement of your hand instead. Doesn't that sound easier?

...More to the point, let's say a non-gamer walks in on you playing this sword fighting game. Now, if you're playing with a traditional controller, you are, to the non-gamer, in another world. He could no sooner understand how you were controlling the virtual sword than he could understand what 2 people were saying if they were conversing in sign-lanuage (assuming he didn't know sign lanuage.) But, if he walks in on you swiping away with the revmote, he can instantly see how to play. The barrier would be gone, and a once-closed activity would be an open one.