Gaming Made Simple: A Look at Nintendo

[John Funk]

Gaming Made Simple: A Look at Nintendo

When MTV Multiplayer has a runthrough [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/88559-Nintendo-Patents-In-Game-Walkthroughs] of some of the other simplifications in game design the company has brought to gaming, from jump-free Zelda to the Gamecube's Big Green Button.

Whether or not anything ever actually comes of the patent - filed last June - honestly doesn't matter in the long run. As the piece by Stephen Totilo shows, it certainly wouldn't be the first time Nintendo has sacrificed complexity for accessibility ... and it probably won't be the last, either.

Totilo's article only covers six specific instances of simplification in gaming, so of course there are plenty other examples of that design philosophy that he doesn't mention - off the top of my head, how about Super Smash Bros' two-button fighting style? Furthermore, I'm pretty sure you all could think of some others without having to wrack your memories too much.

The question, of course, then becomes: is simplifying games good for the industry? There's no question that the ease of accessibility is at least partly responsible for Nintendo's breakaway success with the Wii and DS, and at last report those two systems were reportedly responsible for saving the industry's holiday season [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/88592-How-Nintendo-Saved-Christmas]. Nor do I think that anyone would say that Link's auto-jumping in Ocarina of Time somehow makes it a less-than-stellar title.

If more people can play games - and not just pick them up, but play them to completion - is that good for the industry? Or will dumbing them down hurt us in the long run?

Permalink

 

[mattttherman3]

My question is why the hell would you want an in-game walkthrough? Also Nintendo should stop getting games that only kids will enjoy, i'm afraid old time nintendo fans arn't kids anymore...

 

[Nordstrom]

If you have to look at a walkthrough to complete the game, what difference does it make where you get it? Games shouldn't need walkthroughs, but most games aren't designed that way.

I'm all for the existence of easy games, hard games, and everything in between.

 

[nimrandir]

My question is why the hell would you want an in-game walkthrough?

How does a walkthrough built into the game's interface mix things up more than a laptop and GameFAQs on the sofa next to you? I see no real difference except that the former leaves room for your feet (or your cat, as the case may be). If we are at the point that consulting a walkthrough is no longer a scarlet letter, I fail to see how this is a big deal.

Also, the Multiplayer link goes to nothing on my computer.

Edit: Way to look at the address bar, Phil. This is embarrassing.

 

[Fightgarr]

My question is why the hell would you want an in-game walkthrough? Also Nintendo should stop getting games that only kids will enjoy, i'm afraid old time nintendo fans arn't kids anymore...

I think there are a few million 8 year-olds that prove otherwise (the statistical average age of a Wii owner).

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Nintendo has made plenty of dick moves in its past, but this isn't one of them.

What the "hardcore" fail to recognise is that the game market will never grow if someone doesn't create titles that will draw in new people; appealing only to the existing customer base means that the market will shrink. I've seen this happen in gaming before, with the slow decay of the paper wargame market and the miniatures game market into niches occupied by the old guard. (The exception would be companies that broke with convention and "dumbed down" their rules so that they weren't so agonising to play.)

All this yammering about the Wii comes from a tiny fraction of the market; the Wii is targeted at the rest of the population, and there lies its success. And ultimately that will enrich the industry as a whole as it brings in new blood.

There's a huge streak of clannishness in game fandom these days, and I'm glad that successful companies are ignoring that instead of "giving the market what it wants" until it implodes.

-- Steve

 

[thenumberthirteen]

My question is why the hell would you want an in-game walkthrough?

How does a walkthrough built into the game's interface mix things up more than a laptop and GameFAQs on the sofa next to you? I see no real difference except that the former leaves room for your feet (or your cat, as the case may be). If we are at the point that consulting a walkthrough is no longer a scarlet letter, I fail to see how this is a big deal.

Also, the Multiplayer link goes to nothing on my computer.

The link has a in it (by accident most likely) can you change it?

Here's the working link:
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/01/12/a-brief-history-of-nintendos-controversial-attempts-to-simplify-games/

 

[Cousin_IT]

in-game walkthroughs...[sarcasm] what a shocking [http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/13873571] new concept [http://uk.gamespot.com/gameguides.html] [/sarcasm] . Far as im concerned, all Nintendo are doing are taking an existing concept & finding a new way to exploit it commercially. Kudos to them for thinking of it first.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I'd rather have full button mapping....... but this is better than making a game easy like POP.......

 

[John Funk]

My question is why the hell would you want an in-game walkthrough?

How does a walkthrough built into the game's interface mix things up more than a laptop and GameFAQs on the sofa next to you? I see no real difference except that the former leaves room for your feet (or your cat, as the case may be). If we are at the point that consulting a walkthrough is no longer a scarlet letter, I fail to see how this is a big deal.

Also, the Multiplayer link goes to nothing on my computer.

The link has a in it (by accident most likely) can you change it?

Here's the working link:
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/01/12/a-brief-history-of-nintendos-controversial-attempts-to-simplify-games/

Fixed it thanks for the catch!

 

[blackcherry]

As cousin_IT says, in game walkthroughs in the form of clues or hell, just what to do next have existed for a long time. Nintendo itself always seems to have prided itself of making its games accessible to everyone, long before this generation of consoles, to varying degrees of success.

One more thing for those who care about 'casual' and 'hardcore' gamers. Todays casual players are tomorrows hardcore ones. Thats if you subscribe to such a ridiculous division.

 

[Aardvark Soup]

I really don't think simplification is a bad thing. The mentioned Zelda: Ocarina of Time for example introduced automatic jumping and one context sensitive action button for multiple actions, and it's considered the best game of all time by many and much of its innovations can be still be found in games today. Also, Super Smash Bros. may be simply using two buttons, but the games are incredibly complex (at least Melee and Brawl are) and it will take a lot of time to truly master them. Paper Mario is another example, it's an extremely simplyfied RPG but I find that its battle system works much better than in many of the complex RPG's.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

As cousin_IT says, in game walkthroughs in the form of clues or hell, just what to do next have existed for a long time. Nintendo itself always seems to have prided itself of making its games accessible to everyone, long before this generation of consoles, to varying degrees of success.

One more thing for those who care about 'casual' and 'hardcore' gamers. Todays casual players are tomorrows hardcore ones. Thats if you subscribe to such a ridiculous division.

In a sense its true, those that play some now might be hooked and play more thus raising them to hardcore status.

I think "hardcore" has been co-op'ed by the industry, hardcore equates to those that buy more gaming stuff, while I think we gamers think hardcore means we hold gaming to a higher standard, unfortunately with standards at a all time low we core enthusiasts or better yet game enthusiasts have little sway or power anymore as the swing to full time disposable mass market media is more profitable than making quality products targeted at gamers first and casual media zombies second.

I really don't think simplification is a bad thing. The mentioned Zelda: Ocarina of Time for example introduced automatic jumping and one context sensitive action button for multiple actions, and it's considered the best game of all time by many and much of its innovations can be still be found in games today. Also, Super Smash Bros. may be simply using two buttons, but the games are incredibly complex (at least Melee and Brawl are) and it will take a lot of time to truly master them. Paper Mario is another example, it's an extremely simplyfied RPG but I find that its battle system works much better than in many of the complex RPG's.

And metroid has a simplified control system to make it less of a FPS and more of a adventure game. Altho in the end control options are a must, nothing more do I hate than locked controls that I can not adjust.

 

[dcheppy]

Nintendo's goal. Sell games to everybody, because everybody likes games. They just don't know it yet. Nintendo heard people say, "I'd play games but I just don't have the time/I can't learn the controllers/they're too violent/adolescent/complicated/expensive." Nintendo said "okay, try this"

Can we really fault Nintendo for being responsive to the market.

 

[Jumplion]

I can understand giving in-game hints and glimpses of what you're supposed to do and where you're supposed to go. But from what I read, it can also give you complete videos on what to do exactly when and where.

To me, that's like someone building your bicycle for you and telling you to "now try your own!" You already built me the bicycle, why would I want to build another one?

But I can't really complain, Nintendo does what they do so no point in moaning about it.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Nintendo's goal. Sell games to everybody, because everybody likes games. They just don't know it yet. Nintendo heard people say, "I'd play games but I just don't have the time/I can't learn the controllers/they're too violent/adolescent/complicated/expensive." Nintendo said "okay, try this"

Can we really fault Nintendo for being responsive to the market.

Yes, its like making films just for kids with 1 or 2 PG13 or R films a year if ever. Its that bad.

 

[The Random One]

My question is why the hell would you want an in-game walkthrough? Also Nintendo should stop getting games that only kids will enjoy, i'm afraid old time nintendo fans arn't kids anymore...

I disagree. Hard. You know why? There aren't games for kids. At all. No good games, at least. Ask anyone to name ten famous, good gaming franchises. How many of them are kid-friendly? Probably one, if they happen to mention Mario. Two, if they recently played (and enjoyed) Banjo Kazooie. But the bulk of the videogame industry is GTA, Halo, Call of Duty, Street Fighter, and all those nice games in which you pick up a gun and shoot the guys.

What's the problem with that, you ask? Well, don't children play games, too? They do. And they either have to play uninspired franchise games that are utterly boring and anyone with a child's gaming skill can beat in a few days or throw ratings to hell and boot up Fallout 3. And that just gives ammo to Jack Thompson and their ilk. What the hell happened to Commander Keen?

It's important to make good games for children because:

1. Children who play games grow up to become gamers (or, more specifically, gamers usually were children who played games) and these gamers support the industry when the current-generation softcore gamers get jobs/marriages/drafted into the army and stop playing (hardcore gamers probably keep playing until they die, but their numbers are limited and it's essentially a highly profitable but highly irrational niche). So the more children playing games there are now the more the industry will be stable ten, fifteen years from now. And a good, fun game like a Mario one has way more chances of hooking kids up than Spongebob Squarepants: Murder Every Good Game Design Concept and Disecrate Their Corpses.
2. "Borderline" gamers with children are more likely to buy a latest gen console if it also doubles as a toy for their kid - at least, it's easier for them to justify this expense to themselves or to their significant other. They are also gamers, and therefore know that the above mentioned Spongebob game is bad. They are more likely to pick up a console if there are games that both him and his children can play.

So, I think that the problem with the industry is not that there are too many games that "only" kids would enjoy; it's that there aren't, by far, enough of them.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

My question is why the hell would you want an in-game walkthrough? Also Nintendo should stop getting games that only kids will enjoy, i'm afraid old time nintendo fans arn't kids anymore...

I disagree. Hard. You know why? There aren't games for kids. At all. No good games, at least. Ask anyone to name ten famous, good gaming franchises. How many of them are kid-friendly? Probably one, if they happen to mention Mario. Two, if they recently played (and enjoyed) Banjo Kazooie. But the bulk of the videogame industry is GTA, Halo, Call of Duty, Street Fighter, and all those nice games in which you pick up a gun and shoot the guys.

What's the problem with that, you ask? Well, don't children play games, too? They do. And they either have to play uninspired franchise games that are utterly boring and anyone with a child's gaming skill can beat in a few days or throw ratings to hell and boot up Fallout 3. And that just gives ammo to Jack Thompson and their ilk. What the hell happened to Commander Keen?

It's important to make good games for children because:

1. Children who play games grow up to become gamers (or, more specifically, gamers usually were children who played games) and these gamers support the industry when the current-generation softcore gamers get jobs/marriages/drafted into the army and stop playing (hardcore gamers probably keep playing until they die, but their numbers are limited and it's essentially a highly profitable but highly irrational niche). So the more children playing games there are now the more the industry will be stable ten, fifteen years from now. And a good, fun game like a Mario one has way more chances of hooking kids up than Spongebob Squarepants: Murder Every Good Game Design Concept and Disecrate Their Corpses.
2. "Borderline" gamers with children are more likely to buy a latest gen console if it also doubles as a toy for their kid - at least, it's easier for them to justify this expense to themselves or to their significant other. They are also gamers, and therefore know that the above mentioned Spongebob game is bad. They are more likely to pick up a console if there are games that both him and his children can play.

So, I think that the problem with the industry is not that there are too many games that "only" kids would enjoy; it's that there aren't, by far, enough of them.

I can only disagree alil, while their are only a few real kids franchises game wise you have a ton of casual focused PG range games, as well as the teen and adult casual focused filler the industry so loves now.

My point instead of having more solid quality games of differnting age ranges we have a tsunami of casual games that are whipped out ASAP at X target ranges in the hopes they will bring in more profit than a slower more polished product. And so far its working.....

 

[gmer412]

My question is why the hell would you want an in-game walkthrough? Also Nintendo should stop getting games that only kids will enjoy, i'm afraid old time nintendo fans arn't kids anymore...

I disagree. Hard. You know why? There aren't games for kids. At all. No good games, at least. Ask anyone to name ten famous, good gaming franchises. How many of them are kid-friendly? Probably one, if they happen to mention Mario. Two, if they recently played (and enjoyed) Banjo Kazooie. But the bulk of the videogame industry is GTA, Halo, Call of Duty, Street Fighter, and all those nice games in which you pick up a gun and shoot the guys.

What's the problem with that, you ask? Well, don't children play games, too? They do. And they either have to play uninspired franchise games that are utterly boring and anyone with a child's gaming skill can beat in a few days or throw ratings to hell and boot up Fallout 3. And that just gives ammo to Jack Thompson and their ilk. What the hell happened to Commander Keen?

It's important to make good games for children because:

1. Children who play games grow up to become gamers (or, more specifically, gamers usually were children who played games) and these gamers support the industry when the current-generation softcore gamers get jobs/marriages/drafted into the army and stop playing (hardcore gamers probably keep playing until they die, but their numbers are limited and it's essentially a highly profitable but highly irrational niche). So the more children playing games there are now the more the industry will be stable ten, fifteen years from now. And a good, fun game like a Mario one has way more chances of hooking kids up than Spongebob Squarepants: Murder Every Good Game Design Concept and Desecrate Their Corpses.
2. "Borderline" gamers with children are more likely to buy a latest gen console if it also doubles as a toy for their kid - at least, it's easier for them to justify this expense to themselves or to their significant other. They are also gamers, and therefore know that the above mentioned Spongebob game is bad. They are more likely to pick up a console if there are games that both him and his children can play.

So, I think that the problem with the industry is not that there are too many games that "only" kids would enjoy; it's that there aren't, by far, enough of them.

I can only disagree alil, while their are only a few real kids franchises game wise you have a ton of casual focused PG range games, as well as the teen and adult casual focused filler the industry so loves now.

My point is that instead of having more solid quality games of differing age ranges we have a tsunami of casual games that are whipped out ASAP at X target ranges in the hopes they will bring in more profit than a slower more polished product. And so far its working.....

As TheRandomOne said, most of the market is stuff like EXTREME DEATHZORS 2: MORE KILLING!!!
Where is this "deluge" of casual games? I haven't seen it (shovelware on Wii aside).

 

[Seydaman]

guh i don't play a puzzle game to read a walkthrough i play it to figiure out a puzzle, god nintendo is on crack