Nintendo, more than "casual"

[Mr. Omega]

Nintendo does have problems. They very blatantly favor their Japanese audience over any other, they seem deathly afraid of the M rating, and if they didn't make something popular, they'll usually be the last one to implement that something.

But those points never get brought up. Maybe the last one every now and then. But almost every other time it's how Nintendo "BETRAYED HARDCORES!" and "STARTED THE CASUAL CRAZE!" and "*Parrot Squawk* GIMMICK GIMMICK GIMMICK *Squawk!*", all of which are total bullshit.

A big problem with gamer in general is that the mentality seems to be "if it doesn't cater to me, it objectively sucks!".

Plus some of the counter-arguments I hear when I try to defend the Wii are utterly retarded.

Hardcore: Nintendo only makes Mario, Zelda and Pokemon!
Me: Well, on the Wii we also had Punch Out, Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn, two Kirby games, Metroid Prime 3, Smash Bros Brawl and Wario Land Shake It, Animal Crossing and such. Plenty of other lesser-used titles got a chance in the spotlight.
Hardcore: Well they aren't as popular or successful so they don't count.

Hardcore: Nintendo doesn't make any new IPs anymore!
Me: Well, since the Gamecube there was Pikmin, Brain Age, Nintendogs, Warioware, and Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem for folks in North America.
Hardcore: Well they didn't make anything for the Wii.
Me: Well they did the Mii games
Hardcore: That kiddy-casual shit doesn't count!

Hardcore: There were no good third-party titles at all for the Wii!
Me: Well there was Sin and Punishment 2, A Boy and his Blob, Zack and Wiki, Lost in Shadow, No More Heroes, Madworld, Muramasa, de Blob, Xenoblade, Klonoa, Tatsunoko vs Capcom...
Hardcore: They don't count! I mean games like Red Dead Redemption, Call of Duty or Arkham Asylum!

Hardcore: Nintendo games are so easy now! I can beat the game so fast!
Me: Well there are some very difficult levels for those who are willing to find and unlock them.
Hardcore: Well those are just for 100%ers, so they don't count!

(Are you noticing a bit of trend here?)

 

[DustyDrB]

There is a certain social stigma that Nintendo does "kiddy games". Kiddy in the sense that blood isn't gushing out everywhere sure. Nintendo games generally appeal to everyone, it's just as kids are also the target it has to look kid-friendly.

Give me a break. If you're old enough to manipulate a controller, you've long outgrown this:

I can handle kiddy, but this is just obnoxious. I wouldn't have liked this as a kid. I guess the Japanese go for it.

It may be that my tastes have changed, but I don't think that is the cause of my current distaste for Nintendo. I can play and enjoy the old Zelda and Mario games. But more recent titles are constantly distracting me with terrible controls and artwork for babies and Japanese people. I don't think Nintendo betrayed their fans exactly. But they definitely aren't what they were when I was a lad.

Nope. I'm a 24 year old guy and that doesn't bother me at all.
Seriously, why can't we have both? Oh wait. We can. I can go from Fallout (the originals or New Vegas) to Super Mario Galaxy to Frozen Synapse and...that's perfectly fine.

I understand not liking a visual style. Hell, there are some games (often Japanese, I admit) that are too "cutesy" even for my liking. But I'm not going to criticize anyone for being childish when I know it's just a matter of preference.

Yeah, I know. The boring old "it's subjective" argument. Everyone is tired of it. But it wouldn't have to be said so much if people didn't keep forgetting it.

 

[Dryk]

(Are you noticing a bit of trend here?)

Ah yes, the "no true hardcore" fallacy

Nintendo does have problems. They very blatantly favor their Japanese audience over any other, they seem deathly afraid of the M rating, and if they didn't make something popular, they'll usually be the last one to implement that something.

They also hand-hold at a level even 5 year old me would be insulted by. Again, not brought up as often.

 

[him over there]

(Are you noticing a bit of trend here?)

Ah yes, the "no true hardcore" fallacy

Nintendo does have problems. They very blatantly favor their Japanese audience over any other, they seem deathly afraid of the M rating, and if they didn't make something popular, they'll usually be the last one to implement that something.

They also hand-hold at a level even 5 year old me would be insulted by. Again, not brought up as often.

The hand holding wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't so obvious. A game like portal is essentially all hand holding, they let you figure it out for yourself but they do it in an environment where it's the only logical solution so you have to sooner or later. A little conveyance would go a long way.

 

[Syzygy23]

I challenge anyone to

#1 Define casual and hardcore gamers
#2 Say how you can make a game for them

The only definition I have gotten is "varying interest in gaming" which means you cannot make a game for a "hardcore audience" thus making the terms void of meaning.

#1: Casual Gamer = Plays games for 8 hours or less per week, owns few if any big titles. Hardcore = exact opposite. The hobbyist gamer, significant chunk of free time is spent with something gaming related.

#2: Casual Game = Mario Party. Anything that takes minimum skill or familiarity, pick up and play stuff, nothing too heavy on a deep story or fierce competition. Hardcore Game = Any MOBA or online first person shooter. High skill ceiling, lots of number crunching, strategizing, etc. Stuff that you can't just pop in your disc drive, have an hour or so of fun, and then move on with.

Obviously these aren't absolutes and there is always some overlap, hardcore and casual are just ways to distinguish between the two extreme ends of the gamer spectrum.

 

[Dryk]

The hand holding wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't so obvious. A game like portal is essentially all hand holding, they let you figure it out for yourself but they do it in an environment where it's the only logical solution so you have to sooner or later. A little conveyance would go a long way.

In my experience that's the best way to teach a person anything. You make a problem that funnels them to the right answer but makes them feel like they're figuring it out themselves.

 

[Signa]

The hand holding wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't so obvious. A game like portal is essentially all hand holding, they let you figure it out for yourself but they do it in an environment where it's the only logical solution so you have to sooner or later. A little conveyance would go a long way.

In my experience that's the best way to teach a person anything. You make a problem that funnels them to the right answer but makes them feel like they're figuring it out themselves.

That's the problem with a lot of "casual" games though, they handhold you fiercely. I couldn't play the newest Zelda because of how much hand holding there was. I've been playing Zelda since the NES, and being told not only what to do, but how to do it grates on me fast. It felt like the target audience wasn't someone like me who was looking for another version of Ocarina of Time, but my mother, who just knows who Link is (and thinks his name is Zelda), and is curious about the most recent release of one of his games.

 

[Jingle Fett]

I challenge anyone to

#1 Define casual and hardcore gamers
#2 Say how you can make a game for them

The only definition I have gotten is "varying interest in gaming" which means you cannot make a game for a "hardcore audience" thus making the terms void of meaning.

#1: Casual Gamer = Plays games for 8 hours or less per week, owns few if any big titles. Hardcore = exact opposite. The hobbyist gamer, significant chunk of free time is spent with something gaming related.

#2: Casual Game = Mario Party. Anything that takes minimum skill or familiarity, pick up and play stuff, nothing too heavy on a deep story or fierce competition. Hardcore Game = Any MOBA or online first person shooter. High skill ceiling, lots of number crunching, strategizing, etc. Stuff that you can't just pop in your disc drive, have an hour or so of fun, and then move on with.

Obviously these aren't absolutes and there is always some overlap, hardcore and casual are just ways to distinguish between the two extreme ends of the gamer spectrum.

Sorry no offense intended but I gotta say, those are pretty terrible definitions of casual gamers and casual games.

By those definitions, me and my college buddies (who have all been playing games for as long as we've been able to hold a controller and have owned most of the major consoles at some point) aren't hardcore gamers. Little time to play games and little money with which to buy them. But we're somehow not hardcore just because we have less time for gaming than we used to? Or because we don't buy all the latest games? (Which half the time are crap anyways or rehashes?)

By that definition too, a game like Call of Duty isn't hardcore because it takes minimum skill/familiarity, is pick up and play, and doesn't have a deep story (it does have fierce competition but I've seen Wii Sports rounds that can be just as competitive). By that definition too, all the old 2D Mario and Sonic games also are casual games....

 

[Don Savik]

By those definitions, me and my college buddies (who have all been playing games for as long as we've been able to hold a controller and have owned most of the major consoles at some point) aren't hardcore gamers. Little time to play games and little money with which to buy them. But we're somehow not hardcore just because we have less time for gaming than we used to? Or because we don't buy all the latest games? (Which half the time are crap anyways or rehashes?)

By that definition too, a game like Call of Duty isn't hardcore because it takes minimum skill/familiarity, is pick up and play, and doesn't have a deep story (it does have fierce competition but I've seen Wii Sports rounds that can be just as competitive). By that definition too, all the old 2D Mario and Sonic games also are casual games....

Yea, it really isn't that skill intensive. Its a game that 11 year old kids can pick up and play, as well as 40 year old adults that have never gamed in their life. Call of Duty is all about who sees who first, partly due to you dying in 1-2 hits, and partly due to the field of view being at a blinding 50 or something stupid.

Also, the old 2d mario and sonic games are the same. Yes, you can get exceptionally good at them, but how hard is it to learn how to jump and go right? Hardcore and casual don't have exact definitions, but games with higher skill ceilings GENERALLY are more hardcore, while pick up and play titles are GENERALLY more casual. It's not black and white, but its not non-existent either.

I think this is derailing the thread though. Its about Nintendo and its lack of transition to anything more than family friendly sequels that don't deviate too much from the previous lest they lose money. Imagine if they made a really really bad Zelda game, it would probably hurt them a LOT in the wallet. Sadly, I think they need to take a risk with their IPs because a lot of people are sick of Mario Kart 190819402, Mario Sports ________, Super Mario Ultra Deluxe Brothers 39102, and maybe another reskin of Zelda or Donkey Kong thrown in for good measure. They aren't bad games, but Nintendo isn't grasping the concept of "diversity". You can't run a system on ONLY E-T rated games. ZombiU could be a good game, but are any more M rated games going to follow it that are exclusive to the console? Remember Nintendo's drought of game's for the Wii? After the launch titles it took them till the end of the Wii's life cycle to release Skyward Sword, DK, Kirby's Epic Yarn, and all that.

They need to be consistent. Not yearly installments of the latest franchises, but just something ELSE. ZombiU and a few third party titles still isn't warranting the sale of another 250 dollar soon-to-be-dated console.

 

[RandV80]

Nintendo never left their fans, they just made some new ones.

Another way of putting it is that their fans have left them; and while they've certainly made new ones, the only good reason for people to have moved on to other venues is simply because their tastes have changed. Nintendo's games are still of exceptionally high quality; and they're meant to be enjoyed by anyone, of any age. This last console generation has taught them that they shouldn't ignore the older audience (or at least it looks that way), but it's still not much reason for them to stop making games for all ages.

The one thing to keep in mind about the teenage and young adult audience is that they are (in general) trying to cast off the image of being "children". While not a bad idea in theory, in practice it often results in quite of a immaturity while (ironically) trying to emulate maturity; going after anything and everything considered adult content (nudity, violence, and so on), but over-indulging in it and reducing it to a warped perception of what it should be. A huge portion of games released in recent years have done this exactly, and it's certainly gained them a significant amount of profit; Nintendo has been one of the few to not cave into this trend, but it hasn't affected the quality of their games in the slightest.

Essentially, the misperception of Nintendo's games being "casual" or "kiddy" are the immature reactions of teenagers (and young adults) trying to come off more mature. The funny thing is that it would be more mature to not give a damn about social stigma and just enjoy the games; or in the cases where there's genuinely no longer any interest, politely say that they're tastes have changed with the times and leave it at that. The only reason for anyone to not enjoy Super Mario Galaxy would be that it isn't their type of game, not because of the perceived target audience.

Besides, who says you can't enjoy both Nintendo's games for all ages and those meant for an older audience?

Very well put. It's not going to be universal as there's always exceptions, but in general this speaks for a good majority of the gamer crowd. This in-between group will scoff at a Mario game and say it's for children under 10, but miss that it's also for adults over 25. Can't remember which one, but I remember one of the Escapists personalities (Jim Sterling maybe) talking about how at one point he stopped playing Kirby games because they were to 'kiddy', and now being a bit older has gone back to loving Kirby again.

In general there usually isn't much that's actually 'mature' in M rated games, as they're usually targeted at a male age 14-24 demography. You just don't realize it until you actually grow out of that phase.

 

[MaxiP62]

You know, you bring up a very interesting point, one which I have considered in the past.

And if I'm honest, I think you are correct. I enjoy Nintendo games to this day, which some people struggle to do for some reason whereas I also enjoy 'Hardcore' games on the Xbox 360 and PS3. I think I will always be a Nintendo fan, it's just some people can't accept that Nintendo don't cater exactly for them anymore.

 

[RandV80]

Yea, it really isn't that skill intensive. Its a game that 11 year old kids can pick up and play, as well as 40 year old adults that have never gamed in their life. Call of Duty is all about who sees who first, partly due to you dying in 1-2 hits, and partly due to the field of view being at a blinding 50 or something stupid.

Also, the old 2d mario and sonic games are the same. Yes, you can get exceptionally good at them, but how hard is it to learn how to jump and go right? Hardcore and casual don't have exact definitions, but games with higher skill ceilings GENERALLY are more hardcore, while pick up and play titles are GENERALLY more casual. It's not black and white, but its not non-existent either.

Actually a key difference between present day Call of Duty and old school Mario/Sonic in terms of ease of pick up & play. The core console crowd may not realize it but it can actually take some time to get a decent handle on aiming with your thumb on an analogue stick. For a FPS using a mouse is very intuitive and easy to use, but on a control pad depending on the person it probably takes a number of hours to get a degree of comfort with it.

 

[JediMB]

"Hardcore" gamers are ones that like to play M rated games with lots of sex and violence, but usually just the violence will do.

So hardcore gamers are dudebros then, I'm glad I don't call myself a hardcore gamer.

I remember when the term (mockingly) used for those people were "mainstream".

Though I guess people using it risk being labeled as "hipsters".

But labels really are useless here. Except for "dudebro", which I've come to love.

 

[Bassik]

There is a certain social stigma that Nintendo does "kiddy games". Kiddy in the sense that blood isn't gushing out everywhere sure. Nintendo games generally appeal to everyone, it's just as kids are also the target it has to look kid-friendly.

Give me a break. If you're old enough to manipulate a controller, you've long outgrown this:

I can handle kiddy, but this is just obnoxious. I wouldn't have liked this as a kid. I guess the Japanese go for it.

It may be that my tastes have changed, but I don't think that is the cause of my current distaste for Nintendo. I can play and enjoy the old Zelda and Mario games. But more recent titles are constantly distracting me with terrible controls and artwork for babies and Japanese people. I don't think Nintendo betrayed their fans exactly. But they definitely aren't what they were when I was a lad.

What, you think that's childish? I think it's funny and colourfull and cute, while people who insist on only playing "mature" games and shy away from things like Mario Galaxy are the real children, trying to act grown up.

 

[Dryk]

Yea, it really isn't that skill intensive. Its a game that 11 year old kids can pick up and play, as well as 40 year old adults that have never gamed in their life. Call of Duty is all about who sees who first, partly due to you dying in 1-2 hits, and partly due to the field of view being at a blinding 50 or something stupid.

That was actually my problem when I trying playing the CoD 4 multiplayer. That sort of situational awareness and map knowledge can be a skill for sure, but I personally don't like not having the opportunity to fight back

 

[ToastiestZombie]

(Are you noticing a bit of trend here?)

Ah yes, the "no true hardcore" fallacy

Nintendo does have problems. They very blatantly favor their Japanese audience over any other, they seem deathly afraid of the M rating, and if they didn't make something popular, they'll usually be the last one to implement that something.

They also hand-hold at a level even 5 year old me would be insulted by. Again, not brought up as often.

I dare you, go play Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario Sunshine, the old Legend of Zeldas and Metroid then come back and tell me Nintendo holds your hands.

Galaxy 2 was basically, "Here's the controls for all the new stuff! Now lets put you in a level with fire traps, duplicating insta death marios that follow you and giant boulders that'll crush you any minute! And you have to collect 300 purple coins whilst avoiding all of these things in only 3 minutes! Good Luck ************!"

 

[Dryk]

I dare you, go play Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario Sunshine, the old Legend of Zeldas and Metroid then come back and tell me Nintendo holds your hands.

Galaxy 2 was basically, "Here's the controls for all the new stuff! Now lets put you in a level with fire traps, duplicating insta death marios that follow you and giant boulders that'll crush you any minute! And you have to collect 300 purple coins whilst avoiding all of these things in only 3 minutes! Good Luck ************!"

I meant recently, sorry I wasn't clear. Those parts of Galaxy 2 were great ^_^

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I dare you, go play Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario Sunshine, the old Legend of Zeldas and Metroid then come back and tell me Nintendo holds your hands.

Galaxy 2 was basically, "Here's the controls for all the new stuff! Now lets put you in a level with fire traps, duplicating insta death marios that follow you and giant boulders that'll crush you any minute! And you have to collect 300 purple coins whilst avoiding all of these things in only 3 minutes! Good Luck ************!"

I meant recently, sorry I wasn't clear. Those parts of Galaxy 2 were great ^_^

Well yeah, recently there's been a load of easy Nintendo games. Haven't played Skyward Sword, so I can't comment. But I have beaten the 3DS Super Mario, and I must say goddamn those EIGHT special worlds were all hard as fuck. It was like "Hey, I saw you beat that bowser castle in word 4 whilst losing about 10 lives! NOW DO IT AGAIN WITH ONLY 30 SECONDS ON THE CLOCK! You want extra time? DO A LONG JUMP OVER THIS FIRE PIT THAT IF YOU MISS BY AN INCH YOU WILL DIE! Oh yeah, we're also going to be throwing endless streams of bullet bills at you. Good luck ************!". But, the amount of content before that is easy and fun enough to make sure the less skilled players still get their moneys worth. So it's rewarding the players who care about games with actually really hard difficulty, whilst letting people who aren't as good or don't care as much still have their 35 pounds worth.

Captcha: Sod's Law, is it just me or does this explain the whole "casual and hardcore" rule?

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I dare you, go play Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario Sunshine, the old Legend of Zeldas and Metroid then come back and tell me Nintendo holds your hands.

Galaxy 2 was basically, "Here's the controls for all the new stuff! Now lets put you in a level with fire traps, duplicating insta death marios that follow you and giant boulders that'll crush you any minute! And you have to collect 300 purple coins whilst avoiding all of these things in only 3 minutes! Good Luck ************!"

I meant recently, sorry I wasn't clear. Those parts of Galaxy 2 were great ^_^

Oh also, you have to do all that stuff I said in my previous post. AND get about 30 special coins per world to even get to the next world! These coins are normally either hidden, or in plain site over a bottomless pit whilst sharks shoot laser beams at you.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I think this is derailing the thread though. Its about Nintendo and its lack of transition to anything more than family friendly sequels that don't deviate too much from the previous lest they lose money. Imagine if they made a really really bad Zelda game, it would probably hurt them a LOT in the wallet. Sadly, I think they need to take a risk with their IPs because a lot of people are sick of Mario Kart 190819402, Mario Sports ________, Super Mario Ultra Deluxe Brothers 39102, and maybe another reskin of Zelda or Donkey Kong thrown in for good measure. They aren't bad games, but Nintendo isn't grasping the concept of "diversity". You can't run a system on ONLY E-T rated games. ZombiU could be a good game, but are any more M rated games going to follow it that are exclusive to the console? Remember Nintendo's drought of game's for the Wii? After the launch titles it took them till the end of the Wii's life cycle to release Skyward Sword, DK, Kirby's Epic Yarn, and all that.

They need to be consistent. Not yearly installments of the latest franchises, but just something ELSE. ZombiU and a few third party titles still isn't warranting the sale of another 250 dollar soon-to-be-dated console.

I kinda take exception to the 're-skins' thing, I can tell the difference on sight between pretty much any Zelda or Mario game from the content not just the graphics, which is more than can be said for CoD or Gears. They have tried branching with the IPs before too, Wind Waker was a risk and while it was STILL awesome they went back to Twilight Princess being more traditional to try and help sales :-/.

Wii did have a serious game-drought but after the rainfall it got a lot better. Also No More Heros.