Topic: Help Feature Confirmed for New Super Mario Bros. Wii

[EasyCure]

As long as it's not mandatory why does anyone care how other people play the game when it doesn't affect them at all?

Because it's a GAME. You should not watch a GAME unless you are spectating a multiplayer match or something. If you watch a GAME it then ceases to be a GAME and becomes a MOVIE.

Metal Gear Solid released for PSX, 1998

Guess Nintendo was beaten to the punch turning GAMES into MOVIES that you don't PLAY but sit and WATCH. Lord knows even us hardcore gamers back in '98 couldn't get passed Vulcan Ravens very first attack if it weren't for Konamis brilliant help system that let the game take over the controls from the player and do a black flip of a fucking tank shell.

I normally don't say things like this but with such a stupid argument already heating up, i might as well:

Anyone who gets angry at an optional help system might just be retarded.

[Peachylala]

RAGE!!!11111ONEONE!!!!!

[KDR_11k]

Now that the utility of gamefaq's has been sucked into the game, can we translate the bitching and continual whining about all life in there too? OH DONT GO THERE YOU WILL DIE FASTA. LOOK WHAT YOU DID. YOU DIED. YOU'RE A TERRIBLE NON-GAMER. NON-GAMERS CAN READ.

You mean you want more GLaDOS?

[broodwars]

Bleh, of all the games to introduce this feature on, why this one?  It's not like modern Mario games are any challenge whatsoever anyway, and I don't think it's good precedent to make the series any easier with this feature.  It's nice to know Nintendo's dedicated to creating a whole new generation of gamers that can't even jump over a goomba without computer assistance.

[EasyCure]

Bleh, of all the games to introduce this feature on, why this one?  It's not like modern Mario games are any challenge whatsoever anyway, and I don't think it's good precedent to make the series any easier with this feature.  It's nice to know Nintendo's dedicated to creating a whole new generation of gamers that can't even jump over a goomba without computer assistance.

How do you know the game won't be difficult though? Its comments like this that really bother me, because you obviously don't see the potential that this "Demo Play" feature really has. With it implimented into the game, Nintendo can make a game with the difficulty of Lost Levels but still make it accessible because those that can't pass a certain point simply click the demo play option and get thru it.

Whats wrong with that?

[broodwars]

Bleh, of all the games to introduce this feature on, why this one?  It's not like modern Mario games are any challenge whatsoever anyway, and I don't think it's good precedent to make the series any easier with this feature.  It's nice to know Nintendo's dedicated to creating a whole new generation of gamers that can't even jump over a goomba without computer assistance.

How do you know the game won't be difficult though? Its comments like this that really bother me, because you obviously don't see the potential that this "Demo Play" feature really has. With it implimented into the game, Nintendo can make a game with the difficulty of Lost Levels but still make it accessible because those that can't pass a certain point simply click the demo play option and get thru it.

Whats wrong with that?

I know it won't be difficult because Nintendo hasn't made a difficult game in over a decade.  Nintendo won't use this feature as an excuse for making a challenging game.  New Super Mario Bros. wasn't particularly difficult, so why should I believe this one will be?  That's not part of their "Blue Ocean" Strategy.  They'll use it to make an easy game even easier for people incapable of pressing 2 buttons and a control stick.

[King of Twitch]

The very definition of Nintendumb

[Stogi]

*slow clap*

This is genius.

Bleh, of all the games to introduce this feature on, why this one?  It's not like modern Mario games are any challenge whatsoever anyway, and I don't think it's good precedent to make the series any easier with this feature.  It's nice to know Nintendo's dedicated to creating a whole new generation of gamers that can't even jump over a goomba without computer assistance.

How do you know the game won't be difficult though? Its comments like this that really bother me, because you obviously don't see the potential that this "Demo Play" feature really has. With it implimented into the game, Nintendo can make a game with the difficulty of Lost Levels but still make it accessible because those that can't pass a certain point simply click the demo play option and get thru it.

Whats wrong with that?

I know it won't be difficult because Nintendo hasn't made a difficult game in over a decade.  Nintendo won't use this feature as an excuse for making a challenging game.  New Super Mario Bros. wasn't particularly difficult, so why should I believe this one will be?  That's not part of their "Blue Ocean" Strategy.  They'll use it to make an easy game even easier for people incapable of pressing 2 buttons and a control stick.

Oh and this is even more genius.

You do realize that making a game accessible and making it easy are two entirely different things?

[broodwars]

*slow clap*

This is genius.

Bleh, of all the games to introduce this feature on, why this one?  It's not like modern Mario games are any challenge whatsoever anyway, and I don't think it's good precedent to make the series any easier with this feature.  It's nice to know Nintendo's dedicated to creating a whole new generation of gamers that can't even jump over a goomba without computer assistance.

How do you know the game won't be difficult though? Its comments like this that really bother me, because you obviously don't see the potential that this "Demo Play" feature really has. With it implimented into the game, Nintendo can make a game with the difficulty of Lost Levels but still make it accessible because those that can't pass a certain point simply click the demo play option and get thru it.

Whats wrong with that?

I know it won't be difficult because Nintendo hasn't made a difficult game in over a decade.  Nintendo won't use this feature as an excuse for making a challenging game.  New Super Mario Bros. wasn't particularly difficult, so why should I believe this one will be?  That's not part of their "Blue Ocean" Strategy.  They'll use it to make an easy game even easier for people incapable of pressing 2 buttons and a control stick.

Oh and this is even more genius.

You do realize that making a game accessible and making it easy are two entirely different things?

The Mario games are the epitome of "accessible" as it is, though.  They don't need to be made any more so.  This is a feature that plays the game FOR the player, the very definition of making the game easier.

[Stogi]

Um....

You seem to not understand the nature of this feature. Let me break it down for you.

Ahem...You first need to realize that this optional, as in it's not mandatory. Secondly, you need to realize that easy games to you may still be hard for others. Thirdly, because of how intuitive this feature is, those who are having trouble can immediately see how to prevail, ie learn. (because no one; even casuals who you give no credit to, want to watch a game)

Now those three points make up our forth. This feature will allow Nintendo to make games much more challenging, while still making them highly accessible. And that is what you seem to not understand.

[BlackNMild2k1]

It sounds like the problem isn't really with the Demo Play feature, but with Nintendo not making the game challenging enough for the experienced game player.

Nintendo isn't gonna make the game any easier than it already was gonna be just because they have the Demo Play option, if anything that gives them an excuse to make it a little more challenging (like EC already said).

[broodwars]

Um....

You seem to not understand the nature of this feature. Let me break it down for you.

Ahem...You first need to realize that this optional, as in it's not mandatory. Secondly, you need to realize that easy games to you may still be hard for others. Thirdly, because of how intuitive this feature is, those who are having trouble can immediately see how to prevail, ie learn.

Now those three points make up our forth. This feature will allow Nintendo to make games much more challenging, while still making them highly accessible. And that is what you seem to not understand.

1.  It being optional does not make it any less unnecessary.
2.  True enough, but you haven't made the case that the Mario franchise lately has had such things.
3.  You learn platforming skills by doing, not seeing.  This isn't like a puzzle game where there's some logic trick or whatnot that's simply beyond people.  Platforming is running and jumping.  You can't learn that just by watching.
4.  Once again, exactly what reason do we have to believe Nintendo will actually make their games more challenging to compensate for this feature?  They haven't in the past, so why start now?  Besides, if Nintendo has competent designers on their projects I dont' see why they couldn't just design their games to handle differences in player skill more efficiently, rather than just relying on the player to flip a switch to make the game play itself to get around situations they can't handle.  That's lazy design.

[broodwars]

It should be noted that I'm not against this system entirely, just that the Mario series is probably one of the top Nintendo franchises that doesn't need it.  This is something that would be more instructive or necessary used in a game series that's more difficult or intimidating, like the Metroid franchise.

[Stogi]

1. Unnecessary for you maybe.
2. Yes, but wasn't one of "our" biggest gripes was that NSMB DS was too easy? Is too easy not as bad as too hard?
3. I don't understand this.
4. The reason they haven't made games very challenging is because they wanted to make them accessible, get it? This is the first true way to make a game accessible yet truly challenging.

[Nick DiMola]

I love complaining for the sake of complaining.

Everyone say it along with me, OP-TION-AL. Means you don't have to use it. Also means that those who do, can, like my grandmother, who will be delighted to hear this.

Plus a 2D Mario game is the perfect testing ground for this type of system. Let's them program a smart solution in an easy situation. Given they make it abstract enough, adding in a third dimension shouldn't be too tough.

[GoldenPhoenix]

It should be noted that I'm not against this system entirely, just that the Mario series is probably one of the top Nintendo franchises that doesn't need it.  This is something that would be more instructive or necessary used in a game series that's more difficult or intimidating, like the Metroid franchise.

As Stogi said just because it may be seen as unnecessary to you or me doesn't mean more casual players can't benefit from it (also Metroid may be quite hard to pull this off with considering how exploration centric it is). Seriously this things falls right in line with companies including cheats in their games, so WHAT?!?!? You don't have to use it and for those that may not be as talented as you may actually be able to get more out of the game then if it wasn't included. Personally I'm for more choice in games if it doesn't ruin the core experience by binging everything down with it. If someone wants the game to get them past a tough jump, or use a cheat to get infinite health. That is their choice, and it is their hard earned money so if it helps garner more enjoyment from a title for people? Why not? There is no need to being a nazi about choice in games, give people the options to play the games how they want.

[broodwars]

It should be noted that I'm not against this system entirely, just that the Mario series is probably one of the top Nintendo franchises that doesn't need it.  This is something that would be more instructive or necessary used in a game series that's more difficult or intimidating, like the Metroid franchise.

As Stogi said just because it may be seen as unnecessary to you or me doesn't mean more casual players can't benefit from it (also Metroid may be quite hard to pull this off with considering how exploration centric it is). Seriously this things falls right in line with companies including cheats in their games, so WHAT?!?!? You don't have to use it and for those that may not be as talented as you may actually be able to get more out of the game then if it wasn't included. Personally I'm for more choice in games if it doesn't ruin the core experience by binging everything down with it. If someone wants the game to get them past a tough jump, or use a cheat to get infinite health. That is their choice, and it is their hard earned money so if it helps garner more enjoyment from a title for people? Why not? There is no need to being a nazi about choice in games, give people the options to play the games how they want.

This isn't the same as a cheat chode.  Cheat codes are there for people who just want to toy with their games and get an extra little bit of enjoyment out of them.  Even using cheat codes, the player actually has to do something to proceed.  This is the game playing itself.  If you're going to just watch a game, you're better off just watching a movie.  I find it pretty ironic that a group of people who are always going around going "Gameplay!  Gameplay!" are cheerleading a feature designed around players watching their games.  I'm all for choice and I'm certainly a proponent for moderation in gaming difficulty, but this feature de-emphasizes the core of what makes a game what it is: that it's interactive.

And by the way, I expect more out of you GoldenPhoenix.  Really, using the word "nazi" as part of your argument?  Surely you can do better than that.

[GoldenPhoenix]

It should be noted that I'm not against this system entirely, just that the Mario series is probably one of the top Nintendo franchises that doesn't need it.  This is something that would be more instructive or necessary used in a game series that's more difficult or intimidating, like the Metroid franchise.

As Stogi said just because it may be seen as unnecessary to you or me doesn't mean more casual players can't benefit from it (also Metroid may be quite hard to pull this off with considering how exploration centric it is). Seriously this things falls right in line with companies including cheats in their games, so WHAT?!?!? You don't have to use it and for those that may not be as talented as you may actually be able to get more out of the game then if it wasn't included. Personally I'm for more choice in games if it doesn't ruin the core experience by binging everything down with it. If someone wants the game to get them past a tough jump, or use a cheat to get infinite health. That is their choice, and it is their hard earned money so if it helps garner more enjoyment from a title for people? Why not? There is no need to being a nazi about choice in games, give people the options to play the games how they want.

This isn't the same as a cheat chode.  Cheat codes are there for people who just want to toy with their games and get an extra little bit of enjoyment out of them.  Even using cheat codes, the player actually has to do something to proceed.  This is the game playing itself.  If you're going to just watch a game, you're better off just watching a movie.  I find it pretty ironic that a group of people who are always going around going "Gameplay!  Gameplay!" are cheerleading a feature designed around players watching their games.  I'm all for choice and I'm certainly a proponent for moderation in gaming difficulty, but this feature de-emphasizes the core of what makes a game what it is: that it's interactive.

And by the way, I expect more out of you GoldenPhoenix.  Really, using the word "nazi" as part of your argument?  Surely you can do better than that.

Your opinion, people get different experiences. Also I LOL at you taking my nazi word completely out of context (then again I expect no less from you, you seem to want to start a fight but frankly you aren't worth it with stupid comments like that), I'm talking about taking away choice out of games instead of allowing it in there. It is selfish, it is elitist, either conform to the collective will of the elitist gamer , even when it is OPTIONAL, it it is something horrific! If a feature can get someone past a tough spot and allow them to enjoy what else it has to offer, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  If people want to watch their game play, so what?!?! It doesn't hurt you.

[broodwars]

It should be noted that I'm not against this system entirely, just that the Mario series is probably one of the top Nintendo franchises that doesn't need it.  This is something that would be more instructive or necessary used in a game series that's more difficult or intimidating, like the Metroid franchise.

As Stogi said just because it may be seen as unnecessary to you or me doesn't mean more casual players can't benefit from it (also Metroid may be quite hard to pull this off with considering how exploration centric it is). Seriously this things falls right in line with companies including cheats in their games, so WHAT?!?!? You don't have to use it and for those that may not be as talented as you may actually be able to get more out of the game then if it wasn't included. Personally I'm for more choice in games if it doesn't ruin the core experience by binging everything down with it. If someone wants the game to get them past a tough jump, or use a cheat to get infinite health. That is their choice, and it is their hard earned money so if it helps garner more enjoyment from a title for people? Why not? There is no need to being a nazi about choice in games, give people the options to play the games how they want.

This isn't the same as a cheat chode.  Cheat codes are there for people who just want to toy with their games and get an extra little bit of enjoyment out of them.  Even using cheat codes, the player actually has to do something to proceed.  This is the game playing itself.  If you're going to just watch a game, you're better off just watching a movie.  I find it pretty ironic that a group of people who are always going around going "Gameplay!  Gameplay!" are cheerleading a feature designed around players watching their games.  I'm all for choice and I'm certainly a proponent for moderation in gaming difficulty, but this feature de-emphasizes the core of what makes a game what it is: that it's interactive.

And by the way, I expect more out of you GoldenPhoenix.  Really, using the word "nazi" as part of your argument?  Surely you can do better than that.

Your opinion, people get different experiences. Also I LOL at you taking my nazi comment completely out of context (then again I expect no less from you), I'm talking about taking away choice out of games instead of allowing it in there. If a feature can get someone past a tough spot and allow them to enjoy what else it has to offer, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  If people want to watch their game play, so what?!?! It doesn't hurt you.

If designers are concerned about there being "tough spots" in their games they can simply design their game better so there are multiple ways out of a given scenario.  For example, see the adaptive difficulty feature of any of the Sly Cooper games, where the more time you die the more health the game gives you for that section of the game and the less health it gives to the enemy.  This feature is a crutch for bad designers.

[KnowsNothing]

1.  It being optional does not make it any less unnecessary.
2.  True enough, but you haven't made the case that the Mario franchise lately has had such things.
3.  You learn platforming skills by doing, not seeing.  This isn't like a puzzle game where there's some logic trick or whatnot that's simply beyond people.  Platforming is running and jumping.  You can't learn that just by watching.
4.  Once again, exactly what reason do we have to believe Nintendo will actually make their games more challenging to compensate for this feature?  They haven't in the past, so why start now?  Besides, if Nintendo has competent designers on their projects I dont' see why they couldn't just design their games to handle differences in player skill more efficiently, rather than just relying on the player to flip a switch to make the game play itself to get around situations they can't handle.  That's lazy design.

Every aspect of the argument is wrong.  I haven't read the rest of this thread because it's so stupid, so I'll just assume that everyone else is explaining why it's wrong.  Actually...

1. Yes, it does.
2. The argument was as follows: that which is easy for some may be difficult for others.  Your rebuttal doesn't make sense.
3. You can learn by watching.  Go watch a Mario speedrun and discover how poorly you're been playing all these years.
4. Let me quote:

"Once again, exactly what reason do we have to believe Nintendo will actually make their games more challenging to compensate for this feature?  They haven't in the past, so why start now?"

Can anyone in the class tell me using simple logic why these two sentences just don't make sense next to each other?

I won't even address the second part of that argument.

[Mop it up]

I wonder if this will be an advertised feature, if they will put a little icon on the cover of games which use this system. Could this be a selling point? Someone might have played a previous Mario game and enjoyed it, but might have reached a tough spot they couldn't get past. If they saw this game and found out about the help system, might they be more interested in trying out another Mario game knowing they could be helped through trouble spots?

[GoldenPhoenix]

It should be noted that I'm not against this system entirely, just that the Mario series is probably one of the top Nintendo franchises that doesn't need it.  This is something that would be more instructive or necessary used in a game series that's more difficult or intimidating, like the Metroid franchise.

As Stogi said just because it may be seen as unnecessary to you or me doesn't mean more casual players can't benefit from it (also Metroid may be quite hard to pull this off with considering how exploration centric it is). Seriously this things falls right in line with companies including cheats in their games, so WHAT?!?!? You don't have to use it and for those that may not be as talented as you may actually be able to get more out of the game then if it wasn't included. Personally I'm for more choice in games if it doesn't ruin the core experience by binging everything down with it. If someone wants the game to get them past a tough jump, or use a cheat to get infinite health. That is their choice, and it is their hard earned money so if it helps garner more enjoyment from a title for people? Why not? There is no need to being a nazi about choice in games, give people the options to play the games how they want.

This isn't the same as a cheat chode.  Cheat codes are there for people who just want to toy with their games and get an extra little bit of enjoyment out of them.  Even using cheat codes, the player actually has to do something to proceed.  This is the game playing itself.  If you're going to just watch a game, you're better off just watching a movie.  I find it pretty ironic that a group of people who are always going around going "Gameplay!  Gameplay!" are cheerleading a feature designed around players watching their games.  I'm all for choice and I'm certainly a proponent for moderation in gaming difficulty, but this feature de-emphasizes the core of what makes a game what it is: that it's interactive.

And by the way, I expect more out of you GoldenPhoenix.  Really, using the word "nazi" as part of your argument?  Surely you can do better than that.

Your opinion, people get different experiences. Also I LOL at you taking my nazi comment completely out of context (then again I expect no less from you), I'm talking about taking away choice out of games instead of allowing it in there. If a feature can get someone past a tough spot and allow them to enjoy what else it has to offer, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  If people want to watch their game play, so what?!?! It doesn't hurt you.

If designers are concerned about there being "tough spots" in their games they can simply design their game better so there are multiple ways out of a given scenario.  For example, see the adaptive difficulty feature of any of the Sly Cooper games, where the more time you die the more health the game gives you for that section of the game and the less health it gives to the enemy.  This feature is a crutch for bad designers.

I'm sorry but some gamers aren't going to be able to get through certain spots, it isn't a "crutch" if utilized correctly to help those who may be pretty new to these types of games. This is especially true for platformers where there it requires more skill. You can't have an adaptive difficulty feature that keeps you from falling in a pit (also what exactly would these multiple ways out of a scenario be in a 2D platformer?). Frankly I trust Miyamoto's ingenuity and brilliance to implement this correctly. If anything it gives them more options as to how to design levels so they are challenging without having to worry about being too hard for some (or perhaps many) to get through.

[broodwars]

I wonder if this will be an advertised feature, if they will put a little icon on the cover of games which use this system. Could this be a selling point? Someone might have played a previous Mario game and enjoyed it, but might have reached a tough spot they couldn't get past. If they saw this game and found out about the help system, might they be more interested in trying out another Mario game knowing they could be helped through trouble spots?

Well, we've had some precedence for this in the past.  You might remember that Alone in the Dark last year tried to make its Chapter Skip feature a major selling point.  I haven't seen sales data on the various versions of the game, but I can't remember it selling too well (of course, every version being buggy as hell didn't help it).

[GoldenPhoenix]

I wonder if this will be an advertised feature, if they will put a little icon on the cover of games which use this system. Could this be a selling point? Someone might have played a previous Mario game and enjoyed it, but might have reached a tough spot they couldn't get past. If they saw this game and found out about the help system, might they be more interested in trying out another Mario game knowing they could be helped through trouble spots?

I think it will be, it is a pretty creative feature in itself and with the right spin can be a big selling point.

[broodwars]

It should be noted that I'm not against this system entirely, just that the Mario series is probably one of the top Nintendo franchises that doesn't need it.  This is something that would be more instructive or necessary used in a game series that's more difficult or intimidating, like the Metroid franchise.

As Stogi said just because it may be seen as unnecessary to you or me doesn't mean more casual players can't benefit from it (also Metroid may be quite hard to pull this off with considering how exploration centric it is). Seriously this things falls right in line with companies including cheats in their games, so WHAT?!?!? You don't have to use it and for those that may not be as talented as you may actually be able to get more out of the game then if it wasn't included. Personally I'm for more choice in games if it doesn't ruin the core experience by binging everything down with it. If someone wants the game to get them past a tough jump, or use a cheat to get infinite health. That is their choice, and it is their hard earned money so if it helps garner more enjoyment from a title for people? Why not? There is no need to being a nazi about choice in games, give people the options to play the games how they want.

This isn't the same as a cheat chode.  Cheat codes are there for people who just want to toy with their games and get an extra little bit of enjoyment out of them.  Even using cheat codes, the player actually has to do something to proceed.  This is the game playing itself.  If you're going to just watch a game, you're better off just watching a movie.  I find it pretty ironic that a group of people who are always going around going "Gameplay!  Gameplay!" are cheerleading a feature designed around players watching their games.  I'm all for choice and I'm certainly a proponent for moderation in gaming difficulty, but this feature de-emphasizes the core of what makes a game what it is: that it's interactive.

And by the way, I expect more out of you GoldenPhoenix.  Really, using the word "nazi" as part of your argument?  Surely you can do better than that.

Your opinion, people get different experiences. Also I LOL at you taking my nazi comment completely out of context (then again I expect no less from you), I'm talking about taking away choice out of games instead of allowing it in there. If a feature can get someone past a tough spot and allow them to enjoy what else it has to offer, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  If people want to watch their game play, so what?!?! It doesn't hurt you.

If designers are concerned about there being "tough spots" in their games they can simply design their game better so there are multiple ways out of a given scenario.  For example, see the adaptive difficulty feature of any of the Sly Cooper games, where the more time you die the more health the game gives you for that section of the game and the less health it gives to the enemy.  This feature is a crutch for bad designers.

I'm sorry but some gamers aren't going to be able to get through certain spots, it isn't a "crutch" if utilized correctly to help those who may be pretty new to these types of games. This is especially true for platformers where there it requires more skill. You can't have an adaptive difficulty feature that keeps you from falling in a pit (also what exactly would these multiple ways out of a scenario be in a 2D platformer?). Frankly I trust Miyamoto's ingenuity and brilliance to implement this correctly. If anything it gives them more options as to how to design levels so they are challenging without having to worry about being too hard for some (or perhaps many) to get through.

I guess this all boils down to one's faith in Nintendo to cater to the entire market rather than the one that's been buying all the Wiis.  You have it, and I don't.  Fair enough.