Topic: Grand Master Billy speaks on the Wii.

[Ian Sane]

"Would it be accurate to say that if you actually end up not liking the Wii, then none of the existing consoles would actually really satisfy you?"

Yeah, that would be pretty accurate.  I've said it countless times that none of the three companies are targeting people that actually like games.  They all want to attract someone else to their console.

[Nick DiMola]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Would it be accurate to say that if you actually end up not liking the Wii, then none of the existing consoles would actually really satisfy you?"

Yeah, that would be pretty accurate.  I've said it countless times that none of the three companies are targeting people that actually like games.  They all want to attract someone else to their console.

Not to come off as a huge Nintendo fanboy who just follows Nintendo no matter what, but doesn't anybody else see this as a breath of fresh air? I know Nintendo maybe isn't looking to directly appeal to it's fanbase but that doesn't mean they won't still make games that are fun and engaging. I feel like the argument, "They don't care about me anymore" is stupid and childish. We have no idea what will come of this idea as of right now. More than anything I am intrigued to see what happens and to see how it affects Nintendo as a company. I say give Nintendo a chance before you cut them down. They are trying something new and are not the same Nintendo we have seen before. Just my $0.02.

[couchmonkey]

From everything I read Microsoft actually seems to sincerely care about games for gamers, or at least the guys on the Xbox team do (I don't think Bill Gates cares).  That being said, the systems focus so heavily on FPSes, with a dash of other Western games, that I can't get that into them.

Edit - Mr. Jack: I'm totally pumped about Wii, really.  I see Nintendo's attempts to get non-gamers involved in gaming as visionary, and I see the Wii itself as a much, much more exciting concept than the competing systems.    

[GoldenPhoenix]

Both good posts from Couch and Ian. Anyway I don't think the graphics will be a problem, we are already seeing that Wii games are looking pretty tight visually with a smooth framerate, not only that but since it doesn't have as much "bells and whistles" (most of which I consider minor upgrades) as Xbox 360 art direction is even more important. Graphically underpowered systems have traditionally did pretty well and I really do not see the Wii gap in graphics anymore wide than the Dreamcast compared to an XBox 360.

[Ian Sane]

"Not to come off as a huge Nintendo fanboy who just follows Nintendo no matter what, but doesn't anybody else see this as a breath of fresh air?"

I don't quite get what you mean by "a breath of fresh air".  I'm saying that none of the current console makers really gives a damn if people who actually like games buy their console or not.

[Nick DiMola]

"I don't quite get what you mean by "a breath of fresh air". I'm saying that none of the current console makers really gives a damn if people who actually like games buy their console or not."

I think the point I am trying to make is that as a result of companies not appealing to people who actually like games, they need to come up with fresh new ideas. Essentially the need to make games that have never been made before. As a result we get a whole new slew of games that very well maybe more exciting and easy to play. It's a breath of fresh air because gaming has been stagnant for the past 5 years. Since the N64 we have just been getting graphical updates of games we have already played. Hope that clears it up a bit.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
From everything I read Microsoft actually seems to sincerely care about games for gamers, or at least the guys on the Xbox team do (I don't think Bill Gates cares).  That being said, the systems focus so heavily on FPSes, with a dash of other Western games, that I can't get that into them.

Yeah, I can't put my finger down on any specific thing that MS is messing up on or being malicious about, but despite believing that the XBox team members and even J. Allard really are trying to do their best for videogames, I fear Bill Gates.

When MS wins videogames, as they eventually will 30 years down the line, they will reveal their true form, corrupt/fire all their internal nice people, screw us all, and I shall be sad.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon

Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
From everything I read Microsoft actually seems to sincerely care about games for gamers, or at least the guys on the Xbox team do (I don't think Bill Gates cares).  That being said, the systems focus so heavily on FPSes, with a dash of other Western games, that I can't get that into them.

Yeah, I can't put my finger down on any specific thing that MS is messing up on or being malicious about, but despite believing that the XBox team members and even J. Allard really are trying to do their best for videogames, I fear Bill Gates.

When MS wins videogames, as they eventually will 30 years down the line, they will reveal their true form, corrupt/fire all their internal nice people, screw us all, and I shall be sad.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Well if my mentor who is lead of franchise development is any indication, they all are really passionate about games and do their best to please the gamer. One pretty big example of this was when I was talking to the project lead of PGR3, they worked their butts off just to include accurate interiors for all the cars. This feature was about to be canned due to the rushed release date, but the team fought like crazy to keep it in for the gamer (even though management was pushing to drop it).  

[Ian Sane]

"I think the point I am trying to make is that as a result of companies not appealing to people who actually like games, they need to come up with fresh new ideas. Essentially the need to make games that have never been made before. As a result we get a whole new slew of games that very well maybe more exciting and easy to play. It's a breath of fresh air because gaming has been stagnant for the past 5 years. Since the N64 we have just been getting graphical updates of games we have already played. Hope that clears it up a bit."

Fair enough but I'm not of the attitude that attracting non-gamers was a requirement for innovation, nor was completely rehauling a working control model.  I relate the stagnant nature of gaming entirely to the rise of non-gaming companies like Sony and MS while Nintendo's influence has shrunk and Sega is no longer making consoles.  If anything attracting the mainstream is the very thing that has caused things to stagnate.  In Nintendo's case it was entirely their choice to stagnate.  A few years into the Cube's life they suddenly decided that their legacy was based on milking franchises.  I don't think it's a coincedence that the Cube pretty much crashed and burned once that "Who are you?" bullsh!t started and virtually nothing resembling an original concept was being churned out of Nintendo's cookie cutter.  "We're not selling as well as we wanted to.  I KNOW!  Let's release some of our most uninspired games ever!  Surely that will fix things!"

Contrary to what Nintendo thinks, traditional gamers aren't just interested in the same damn sequels again and again (funny how every Wii or DS game that people point to as a "traditional" game is a sequel).  And nobody realized they were bored of gaming as is until Nintendo told them they were.  And considering how utterly horrible the last few years of the Cube were if THAT is your only view of what "traditional gaming" has to offer then no WONDER you want someone to completely rehaul everything.

Regarding MS caring, they seem to... for now.  They're MS so I don't trust them worth a damn.  They always do a good job when they're fighting for the number one spot.  Once they get it they turn into the great dictator and use whatever dirty tactics they can to maintain control.  I don't trust any company with interests outside of gaming with the market leader position.  Sony used to be a gamer's best friend at one point themselves.

[GoldenPhoenix]

What exactly is a traditional game? That term has been thrown around alot and I have no idea what that would be. Maybe a 2D platformer?

[IceCold]

Quote
Contrary to what Nintendo thinks, traditional gamers aren't just interested in the same damn sequels again and again (funny how every Wii or DS game that people point to as a "traditional" game is a sequel).

Yet that didn't stop those DS games from selling through the roof.. And also, you're over-exaggerating there; I See plenty of new "traditional" games for both the Wii and the DS. There certainly are more new IPs on the Wii than there were on the GameCube at this point in its life..

[Deguello]

Yeah, that really comes off as half-cocked, arrogant, and condescending, Ian.  I like video games, and I'd say Nintendo is targeting me because I like video games and Nintendo is making video games.  This idea of "non-gamers" and "gamers" is marketing speak and internet crap thrown about by people who don't want to try a game that is obtuse.  Brain Age is a huge success story, but diminished by "gamers" who decry it because it appeals to THEM, the people over the age of 30 who aren't stunted fanfiction-writing manchildren, the actual "mature" gamers.  How dare they enjoy a video game in a different way than we do?  How dare they exist?

And this false dichotomy has GOT to stop.  Nintendo is not abandoning "hardcore gamers" just because Nintendogs and Wii Sports exist.  It's really foolish to even think that.  And it's even harder to actually abandon "hardcore gamers," because a definition for what those actually are remains elusive.  "Non-gamer" is easy; that's somebody who has never played a videogame before.  But hard core gamer appears to be much more difficult to pin down.  IGN Playstation guy says it's a game that doesn't sell well and has strange concept and controls.  Damn, the DS just missed that first one, guess it isn't hardcore, then.  Oh, but here we have Billy saying Twilight Princess is hardcore, and it's a sequel, and it weill undoubtedly sell well, it has no strange concept and has regular controls.  This is really getting tough.

This ever contorting definition is indicative of clique-ish nonsense that should have stayed in high school.  Unless all you "hardcores" can band together and agree on a definition for what that actually is, it's almost safe to say that hardcore gamers actually do not exist.  "Nongamers" do however.  And their numbers are many.  So many in fact, that they always outnumber any one man's definition of hardcore.

For example:

Madden sells about 2-3 milion every year.  Are these people not hardcore?  Are you going to write them a letter saying so?  Will they disagree?  More importantly, will they even care?

Pokemon was similarly accused of being more after little kid "non-gamers" than after the hardcore Game Boy onwers market in 1998 (if you can even fathom that).  And it goes on to destroy other games.  Anybody who claims the FFVII introduced more people to RPGs is lying by omission.  Final Fantasy is small potatoes compared to Pokemon, as evidenced with Ruby/Sapphire being the worldwide best-selling game this current generation, yes that's right, even over Final Fantasy X and GTA.  Are you going to send them memos saying that they are not hardcore?  Again, will they even care?

And speaking of those two, FFVII sold WAY more than previous entries, and unless Final Fantasy fans found a way to clone themselves I'd say they dipped into the non-gamer pool.  GTA is an even greater example.  GTA II sold peanuts compared to GTA III, unless every Pre-GTA III fan bought ten copies of it.  If not, they obviously dipped into the non-gamer pool as well.  Are you going to send them letters as well?  Will they care what you think?

Some of these fans have always said that Nintendo should either be more like themselves from eras past or be more like their direct competition.  Ok, they are doing that.  The Playstation built is empire on the backs of non-gamers, the majority chunk of their userbase's fanbase had never played a video game before, much less a Nintendo one.  Can you guess what else built its kingdom on non-gamers?  That's right, the NES.  All of these "Old-schoolers" had to come from somwhere.  You guys act like appealing to non-gamers is a new thing when it is actually the standard operating procedure.  Just the very fact that things that were not popular before are suddenly popular and vice versa MEANS that there are gamers leaving and non-gamers entering, because in my experience, only two things are bulletproof.  Mario and Pokemon, and I better not jinx either of them by saying that.

I mean seriously, does it make you feel cool to act all jaded and discarded all the time?  I remember this pity party before the DS launched and it seems that the rest of the world left you "hardcores" behind again.  You may have called Nintendo and the Non-gamers raving lunatics before, but now it is you who are on an island, damning the sky for not being more like the sea.

[Nick DiMola]

"What exactly is a traditional game? That term has been thrown around alot and I have no idea what that would be. Maybe a 2D platformer?"

I think traditional game is a term being thrown around here and it means something different to each one of us. I consider a traditional game to be a 2-D platformer because that is what I grew up with during the glory days of the NES. But I guess traditional game could be anything with a standard controller (ie not Wii). I'm not really sure.

"Fair enough but I'm not of the attitude that attracting non-gamers was a requirement for innovation, nor was completely rehauling a working control model"

I agree with what you are saying here Ian, but it also seems that if Nintendo didn't change their mission statement they would be buried very fast by their competitors. Had Nintendo gone into this console war with the same arsenal as the PS3 and 360 it would've looked like last generation only worse. I think Nintendo's change to appeal to a new customer base has refocused the company and that all began with the DS. I think the DS demonstrates how cool new controls can be and how much appealing to non-gamers helps the real gamers. If it weren't for some of the runaway hits such as Nintendogs would so many companies be dying to make games for the DS? I think(hope) the same happens for the Wii.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I was once a Tom Clancy gaming fan.

That, AND I'M HARDCORE.

GRRR.

[Kairon]

Anyone here watched "Fiddler on the Roof?"

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[JonLeung]

All I know about Fiddler On The Roof is that "If I Were A Rich Man" song...badah biddy biddy bum!

[The Omen]

Quote
   Originally posted by: BigJim

   Rick had it correct; Nintendo is not the same company anymore. Their changes are leaving the old-school behind. If you're enamored with the "new Nintendo," of course you have nothing to worry about. But don't dismiss those of us that fell for the old Nintendo and still hold more adoration for that company.

Honestly, i'd say it's more like the "old school" is leaving Nintendo behind. What does "old school" want? Isn't that fun games, games with "gameplay", games with character, etc... And now just because they don't do Hi-Def or DVD you'll pass on the games/system/company? I'd say it's "old-school" that has changed and wants to move on now / wants to dismiss Nintendo.

I want all the new bells and whistles because that means I'm getting rewarded for my singular support of Nintendo.  But I also want them to keep making the games in the style they always have.  The old school NES fans like myself don't consider graphics the number 1 priority, but we do want them to at least be comparable with other consoles on the market.  We want it all, because we used to have it all.  It's hard to accept that Nintendo sees us as the blind loyalists, knows we'll be there to buy everything,  and worries more about appealing to non-gamers when we have basically drove their business for 25 years.  I understand it...but I don't like it.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
We want it all, because we used to have it all.

Ahhh, nostalgia. The seedbed of delusion.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Ian Sane]

"What exactly is a traditional game? That term has been thrown around alot and I have no idea what that would be. Maybe a 2D platformer?"

Until Nintendo started talking about non-gamers the term "traditional game" didn't exist.  Games were games, made for people who like games.  Now that Nintendo has introduced the term "non-gamer" and "non-game" some sort of term had to be made up for everything else.  I would consider a traditional game as one not designed specifically with attracting non-gamers in mind.  It's the sort of game that if Nintendo had never given this non-gamer stuff thought would probably still have been made.

It is true that everyone initially didn't play games and then at some point was introduced to them.  That happens with any interest.  I think the difference here is that there is a very deliberate effort to attract newcombers using products specifically created for them.  In the past it didn't really work that way.  Some games like Tetris attracted tons of people who normally didn't play games but they weren't designed specifically for that purpose.  The idea was to make a fun game that would sell well and in some cases a game had wide appeal and managed to attract a bigger audience.

One thing that makes it seems so different is that Nintendo is changing so much and has talked so much about their "plan".  They talk about making things simpler and less intimidating and redesigning things (like the controller for example) specifically for the purpose of attracting non-gamers.  I'm all for inviting new people to play games but not for CHANGING gaming so that people that never cared will be interested.  No one in the past was suggesting such a massive change specifically to attract people who don't care about gaming in the first place.  This is why some have taken such a defensive stance.  Nintendo has told us that what we like is broken and they're going to fix it.  If someone told you your favourite band or TV show needed retooling how would you respond?

If Nintendo never said anything specifically about this non-gamer stuff and just did it, maybe no one would complain.

To me the whole thing is like a major sports league complety changing the whole design of their sport to attract a wider audience.  Changing a little rule here or there to increase the accessability or excitement of a game isn't that big of a deal.  Removing dribbling from basketball to get more people to play however would be considered an extreme.  To me that's borderline what Nintendo is doing.

[Kairon]

I don't know Iansane. I don't believe that going after non-gamers is unprecedented, what Nintendo is actually doing is consciously going back to the greatest games and trying to figure out what made them tick. I mean, as great as puzzle games are, why EXACTLY did Tetris have the impact it did across as many people as it did? Why does my female cousin play SMB 3 better than me (I am cry) and enjoy it so much more? (And she IS quite feminine)

I mean, the mantra of great gameplay has always been easy to learn, difficult to master. Doesn't the drive to simplify interfaces for non-gamers fit into that? It's definitely easier to learn how to swing a tennis racket, and it is DEFINITELY also harder to master. Doesn't this slide right into traditional oldschool Nintendo philosophy?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Ian Sane]

"I mean, the mantra of great gameplay has always been easy to learn, difficult to master. Doesn't the drive to simplify interfaces for non-gamers fit into that?"

There are lots of games out there that are too complicated for their own damn good.  Nintendo however isn't making these games.  I find that their games have always had simple interfaces for what are really quite complex games.  Fire Emblem is pretty much the only Nintendo game that I think doesn't already have a simple interface.  So if Nintendo thought that the games they were already making were too complicated then what do they think isn't?  They're overcompensating.  Much like how Nintendo makes games that were already easy needlessly easier in re-releases they're making games that were already user-friendly more user-friendly for no reason.  Mario Kart isn't complicated so when Nintendo tried to simplify more we got Kirby Air Ride.  There's the problem.

[Kairon]

Those examples you cite are when Nintendo simplified the depth of the game. If you notice, the mantra only pertains to a game's depth in its second clause.

The Mantra's first clause refers to how easy it is to control/understand/use the game's basic mechanics. It is in this field that Nintendo's advancedments ala touchscreen and Wiimote have contributed.

The Mantra's second clause refers to depth, how much advancement is available for players to play through into once they've learned how to basically play the game. Not much in a game like Kirby's Air Ride, but let's take a look at some games that have simplified interfaces while deepening gameplay at the same time shall we?

The New Tetris (N64): Very simple instructions: rotate and fit pieces to clear solid lines, D-pad and 3 action buttons (easy to learn), but the block-building added a whole new dimension to it (difficult to master)

Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES): simple goal: reach the end without dying. platformer with 2 buttons and a D-pad, (easy to learn) but with brilliant and challenging level design, platformer puzzles, great power-ups and CHOCK FULL OF SECRETS. (hard to master)

DDR (various): extremely simple concept, step on the arrows in time with the beat. (easy to learn) But, with faster songs, freezes, and complicated step patterns that must be executed in specific manners if you want to avoid tripping... (difficult to master) (don't be fooled, this is a hardcore game at higher levels)

Diablo (PC): extremely easy interface: point and click to attack, and play tetris in your inventory (easy to learn). With randomized dungeons, lewt, sockets, and PvP, this game is definitely hardcore (hard to master)

Hmm... Tetris? Mario? DDR? Maybe even Diablo? These games show how a simple interface doesn't preclude deep gameplay, and when combined lead to great success. For a further discussion of this with specific attention to old platformers versus new ones, read this Gamasutra article.

The thing about Kirby's Air Ride is that Nintendo, being stuck to the traditional controller, lost game depth when they tried for Miyamoto's "one-button" game. But now with a game like Wii Sports Boxing, Nintendo has basically revolutionized the interface to create a ZERO-BUTTON game that ANYONE can pick up, yet has a serious amount of depth, especially if you want to take it out of the fast 3 x 1 minute Player vs Player rounds of Wii Sports and build a hardcore Punch-Out out of the same exact gameplay.

Again, we see how the interface was key in allowing Nintendo to break the lower barriers of traditional control in using simpler interfaces, and still retain enough context and input stream (A developer used that term in E32006!) to create meaningful interactions and deep gameplay.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"I mean, the mantra of great gameplay has always been easy to learn, difficult to master. Doesn't the drive to simplify interfaces for non-gamers fit into that?"

There are lots of games out there that are too complicated for their own damn good.  Nintendo however isn't making these games.  I find that their games have always had simple interfaces for what are really quite complex games.  Fire Emblem is pretty much the only Nintendo game that I think doesn't already have a simple interface.  So if Nintendo thought that the games they were already making were too complicated then what do they think isn't?  They're overcompensating.  Much like how Nintendo makes games that were already easy needlessly easier in re-releases they're making games that were already user-friendly more user-friendly for no reason.  Mario Kart isn't complicated so when Nintendo tried to simplify more we got Kirby Air Ride.  There's the problem.

Yeah Ian, but there was also Mario Kart, one did not cancel out the other, both games ended up being released. The same is applying to all these "non-games" and "traditional games" we are ending up getting MORE, not less of both.

[trip1eX]

Ian has selective hearing.  And it skewers dramatically one way (negative or positive?  I'll let you guess.)

He's only hearing the negative part (to him anyway) of Nintendo's message.  He's only hearing the non-gamer part.  The simple controller part.  .....

He doesn't look at the positive.  The positive in this case for him would be that only 1 or 2 NIntendo Wii titles that have been shown or announced are directly targeted at non-gamers and that probably 10 are aimed at core gamers.    The positive would be (for him again) that there's  far more core gamer titles on the DS than non-gamer titles and that there's plenty of titles that use mostly GBA type controls.

He doesn't hear the part where Nintendo says 'we are catering to core gamers' still.  (Nintendo btw has always tried to cater to everyone.)

He doesn't hear that the controller is intended to give the core gamer a new experience.  

He doesn't hear that while the remote itself is simple looking, when combined with the nunchuk, it is actually quite advanced for the core gamer as well.  More advanced, from what I've seen, then a regular controller.

He doesn't see the Wii exclusive Red Steel launch title.  An exclusive 3rd party launch title.  

So imo Ian has selective hearing.

To me the Wii and DS have most of the same types of games we've always had.  I see a new game or two on top of it.  I don't think you argue with this either.  Count 'em yourself.

And I see a new way to play those games, but it's not a new way in the sense that there's no buttons or d-pad or analog stick still.  There is.  Again you can't argue that either.  

I see the wiimote  as the latest evolution of a controller in much the same way that controllers have always evolved.  Perhaps the change is a bit more dramatic than before.   But really all Nintendo is doing here is replacing one analog stick with the wii pointer functionality.  ON top of it they added in gyros with which they've previously experimented with in GBA games.  

I think if you look at it that way then it fits in pretty well with staying traditional and yet being an extension or an evolution of the past.  Something that Nintendo has always done with controls.  And I think if you look more closer at Nintendo's strategy it takes a similar path.  Still quite traditional at it's core and yet branching out into a few new directions well.

 

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"I mean, the mantra of great gameplay has always been easy to learn, difficult to master. Doesn't the drive to simplify interfaces for non-gamers fit into that?"

There are lots of games out there that are too complicated for their own damn good.  Nintendo however isn't making these games.  I find that their games have always had simple interfaces for what are really quite complex games.  Fire Emblem is pretty much the only Nintendo game that I think doesn't already have a simple interface.  So if Nintendo thought that the games they were already making were too complicated then what do they think isn't?  They're overcompensating.  Much like how Nintendo makes games that were already easy needlessly easier in re-releases they're making games that were already user-friendly more user-friendly for no reason.  Mario Kart isn't complicated so when Nintendo tried to simplify more we got Kirby Air Ride.  There's the problem.

But for many non-gamers those games are not user-friendly.  And the thing is, if Nintendo can make games that are easy to control, and yet offer deep and enjoyable gameplay, then I really don't see the problem, MP3 looks to be far more user-friendly than previous incarnations, and yet the gameplay looks fantastic.