Slashdot Mirror
Miyamoto Speaks, Nintendo Ditching the Hardcore?
After Nintendo's very ... different ... press conference, you may be wondering what's going on. In a roundtable discussion with Nintendo, folks like Eiji Aonuma and Shigeru Miyamoto discussed Zelda, Mario Galaxy and WiiFit , giving some context to the message the company had on Wednesday. The balance board begged the question from the people there, is Nintendo ditching the hardcore? According to the Nintendo folks, not at all: "Aonuma believes that control can be pick-up-and-play, but that doesn't necessarily mean a game overall has to be easier. But he still states that his 'goal was always to appeal to...a vast audience.' One attendee pushed the issue further, asking if all Zelda games from now on are going to cater to the more casual crowd--will we ever again need a strategy guide to complete a Zelda game? Aonuma says that judging by Japanese sales so far, accessible 'stream-lined play has been effective,' but he wants to see how Western audiences react to the new Zelda before making a final decision on future games' difficulty levels. Aunoma also hopes to venture into new territory and create a wholly original game at some point in his career." For a lengthy treat, check out Kotaku's series of interview clips with Mr. Miyamoto.
With the power of the Opera Browser on the Wii, Nintendo has ensured that hardcore will exist forever. Porn on your TV, powered by your console. How is that ditching hardcore?
OHHHHHH, hardcore GAMERS... My bad.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Of course every game on the Wii is not going to be easy.
For example: I've been playing Gradius III (SNES) very casually lately: about 7-15 minutes every few days. It's hard as hell, so I die within that time period and look forward to the next time I play when my skills will hopefully be a little better.
Even if all the Wii games are "casual" games, they won't necessarily be easy.
will we ever again need a strategy guide to complete a Zelda game?
Why would anyone want a game that requires a strategy guide to complete? That's normally a sign that the game has failed for me.
That is like a movie studio executive deciding if he wants to make a thoughtful independent film or another CGI movie with talking hamsters.
Of course they are abandoning the hardcore gamers; there is simply so much more money to be had in blasé games and infinite sequels.
Nintendo was never geared to truly "hard core" players. Sure, you had the occasional games, like Zelda which required a fair bit of tinkering, but truly hard core? Nope, I don't think so.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
The solution has been around: "Easy to play, hard to master."
You don't have to be a pro to enjoy a sport, an instrument, or a game and yet pros can keep engrossed so long as there's room for growth.
It seems to be that recently everybody seems to be associating games with a decent length to "hardcore." While I don't entirely agree with this, it serves my purpose for this post.
If we look at what happened at E3 and where the anticipation seems to be, I note that Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3. Looking at the past, these games predecessors have typically been quite lengthy affairs. Thus, it would seem that these games appeal more to the "hardcore" crowd.
We also see games like Wii Fit and Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Wii Fit, which seems to resemble the mechanics used in Wii Sports and Wii play, will sport short games. SSBB is often seen as a quick, pick-up-and-play-a-round style game as well. These games appear to appeal more to the casual gamer who don't have as much time to play.
I guess what I'm saying is, whether you're "hardcore" or casual, you have some really great games to look forward to this year and next.
"Now I'm seriously serious!" - Serious Sam
It seems Nintendo thinks that by releasing a new Zelda game every few years, they are catering towards the "hardcore" crowd. I don't consider myself a hardcore gamer, but I have been a Nintendo fan my entire life. I bought a Wii on release date along with Zelda and quickly beat it. Then I sold the Wii to my brother-in-law as at the time there was still a huge shortage and I told myself I'd pick up a Wii as soon as I could find one. However, I am simply not interested in picking up another Wii until at least Super Smash Bros. comes out. Absolutely no games have interested me. I haven't seen a single game that I would buy if I still owned the system and still, the only thing I'm looking forward to is Super Smash Bros. And now I'm hearing rumors that SSB might not include online multiplayer, which for me, is a deal breaker. I played hundreds of hours of SSBM for the Gamecube during high school and college, but I don't live near any of my old friends anymore, there's simply no way for me to get the full experience out of SSB without online.
I'm personally feeling alienated, but I'm not really Nintendo's primary focus anymore, I don't think. I enjoy games like Okami, God of War, Guitar Hero, Grand Theft Auto, 2D Castlevanias, and RPGs. I still enjoy my DS, but I can't see myself picking up a Wii again until it's cheaper. I haven't considered myself a "hardcore gamer" for years, but yet I feel like Nintendo has moved on with the Wii. But I can live with that, the DS and PS2 still provide me tons of games I'm interested in.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
I wonder what's going on with Japanese gaming demographics such that 'stream-lined play has been effective'.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Nintendo wants to tap into the casual market for the same reason nVidia and AMD (ATI) make all those low and mid range video cards. You make a heckuva lot more money and get your product into more people's hand.
They're trying to appeal to old people now, as well as children? Us young adults won't care either way.
Is this necessarily a bad thing? Even if they attempt simplified Zeldas and Metroids its not going to mean that traditional ones dissapear forever. For the established gamer Zelda and Metroid are franchises to the casual audience its just another game to choose from. If the game doesnt sell to the usual crowd it will either have to stand on its own as enjoyable title or they will no doubt go back to drawing board and try to recapure the audience they already had. Mario is in a different league, its recognized by non-gamers just like Pokemon and Sonic, so thats not a concern with those titles.
The Wii could very well be a gateway console for gaming leading people to the harder stuff down the road. I really cant see Nintendo totally abandoning their established fan base, but I can see an extra emphasis being put on grabbing new gamers. There are still plenty of "hardcore" titles in the pipe. Don't worry about it, no need to be elitish about it, the more people gaming the better.
I used to define myself as a 'hardcore' gamer. In college, all night-lan parties every weekend were the norm. Games had to have ludicrous depth and complexity before we'd consider including them.
Times change. I'm married. 2 kids. 9-6 job in a cube. I now love the fact that so many games that are available are simple 'pick-up-and-play-in-the-evening'. In a way, Nintendo's game console has evolved to match my needs just as my needs changed. I imagine I'm not alone.
Indignant explanation of the correct usage of "begging the question" coming in 3, 2, 1...
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Nintendo is going right on ahead with its current strategy of attracting non gamers. Doing so has worked pretty decently for them, and like any large company, they like money. They are not going to abandon the core demographic. They are still going ahead with Metroid and Smash Bros: Brawl. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that they are not focusing on the core either.
My biggest concern for the platform is that that instead of being known as the "Kid Console", they may become known as a non game console.
I am convinced that it is the 2nd and 3rd generation of Wii titles that will ultimately define the Wii. The first year has, as expected, suffered from a lack of big name titles. The launch was strong, but Metroid, Mario, and Brawl got pushed back too far. And because no one expected the Wii to do as well as it has, no one was developing 'core' games for the platform outside of the launch window. Of course, everyone scrambled to find a place on the bandwagon.
The casual titles are easy to develop. Core titles take alot more time. Until the first batch of 3rd party core titles come on stream, you will get pretty much what we already have. Kid games, Ports, some 1st party Nintendo titles, and casual games.
If Nintendo does manage to completely alienate the core gamer demographic, than that kind of title spread is what will dominate the platform. Certaintly entertaining, but that means that those seeking a more 'traditional' gaming experience will have to stick to the Xbox 360 or the PS3.
END COMMUNICATION
And who are they? Isn't the engine for GTA4 used in a ping pong game? So is Sony ping pong hardcore and Nintendo ping pong casual? Or are hardcore gamers easily fooled? If games are created using placeholders, what does it say about someone who proclaims themselves a hardcore gamer based on the artwork of a chainsaw and blood spatter compared to a spatula and omelet? Are people proclaiming themselves to be hardcore the casual, just not smart enough to know?
The Wii Fit is a technological advancement of the game pad. A huge detriment of the game pad is that it is only focused on pressing the 4 button set. In order to interactively control a character there needed to be more control. By measuring things like weight and center of gravity, the Wii Fit is much more capable of controlling interactive action than we have seen. When combined with the Wii mote an amazing amount of control can be created. I have a feeling that we have been kept in the dark as a marketing move by Nintendo to release the content slowly but that internally at many developers levels of control in games is far ahead of what we are seeing from the other 2.
To me, the hardcore/casual designation is more about who the game is targeted to, not the difficulty level. Example: I consider Guitar Hero a casual game, but the difficulty level is very high on the harder levels. Easy to learn, very hard to master. A typical FPS like Halo is a hard game to learn (for someone new to FPSs), but very easy to master (the single player).
I define a hardcore game as a game targeted to the age 14-35 male demographic (approximately), and a casual game as targeted to the 6-65 male/female demographic. Nintendo is focused on games for the larger demographic. If you are a 14-35 male, you are not being targeted by Nintendo anymore, so the odds are that you will enjoy games from the consoles that are targeting *you*. Personally, I do not like the "general audience" type of games, and do not feel a need to buy a Wii. That does not imply that it is not a good console for the average Joe, it is just not the optimum console for the average Joe in the 14-35 male demographic. It also doesn't imply that some of the "general audience" type of games will not be extremely good and attract mass attention from the hardcore audience.
For the life of me I cannot imagine why Nintendo would want to ditch their hardcore audience. They were the most important audience for the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube, practically the ones who kept the consoles afloat. I don't understand why they would want to cast aside that audience in favor of the casual gamers. Sure, casual gamers are a much bigger audience, but hardcore gamers are dedicated and faithful. Casual gamers will move from system to system; mark my words, once Microsoft and Sony drop the prices of their consoles to $300, and they get more party games, Nintendo will lose a lot of casual gamers to them.
As for me, I was really disappointed by Twilight Princess. Yes, it was enjoyable, but it lacked a lot of what made the Zelda series special. For instance, the design of the world was made so you could go from point A to point B: there's only one or two paths to get to a designated objective, and all the extra things are easily distinguished by their deviation from this A to B criteria. Link to the Past will always be my favorite because despite the fact that it forced you to go into the dungeons in a particular order, it was about as free-roaming as the original Zelda game for the NES, and it had the most complex, intriguing puzzles I have ever seen. Those were frustrating enough to make you break your controller, nothing like what we're seeing today. Also, the items in A Link to the Past are much cooler. You could explore and find things beneficial to your journey that couldn't be found in dungeons or whatnot, like the magic cape or the gloves or the flippers. Stuff like that makes the game so intense and awesome!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's a pretty shameful statement on the current state of the 'art' in videogames. I suppose it's a natural result of the big-business nature of videogame and movie making, but the number of 'safe' sequels being churned out is frankly embarassing. Show some guts people and take a chance or two. Our culture will thank you for it.
Agreed. I believe that 3rd party games will heavily cater to the so called hardcore crowd.
That said, I'd rather get my parents interested in playing games than have Really Cool Hardcore Games to play.
When was Nintendo ever hardcore? What games are hardcore?
The Wii focuses on an innovative controller. It's about having controls that are intuitive and easy to pick up and learn.
I don't think "learning how to control the damn thing" should be part of what makes a game hardcore, which several "hardcore" games are. That is one reason to started getting less and less interested in console gaming when suddenly you had to remember which commands mapped to which of the 8-12 buttons plus D-pad on the controller. That much complexity? I'll just take a keyboard and play on my PC.
As for if the Wii has some hard to master games to it, go play the SSX game for the Wii for a while. Let me know what you think.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
I am not sure what the definition of a "hardcore gamer" is. Can someone define it for me?
I have never been what people would call "hardcore" about games, but for the right content, I'll work on a game long enough to finish it, and found a couple things about playing non-casual games as a casual gamer.
I don't like having a clock against finishing every level. MAYBE on one part of one level, a short time limit to achieve a small, obvious goal. If I'm under the gun to finish every level, I just get turned off. Yet, the opposite is true too: I don't want to play if I can't save for the next hour. Lego Star Wars II has unlockable bonus rounds where you play through a whole episode, with a par time of one hour. I could hit Pause and turn off the TV, but for these bonus rounds, I can't save to turn off the game machine and resume later.
I don't like having no clue about what the objective is. If I can't even figure out what the weak spot on a boss IS, nevermind how to hurt it, without googling for a walkthrough guide, it's a big turnoff. I know it's very formulaic to find out "oh, this game requires collecting the 8 scattered dinguses, one in each world, and then beating the big boss," but it's even worse for games that just add on more and more quests without an obvious end in mind.
I really hate it when there's no way to get through an area without dying many times, or when the controls are taken away from you every three seconds. I don't want the game to be trivial or easy, but I want it to be survivable if I am doing the right thing. Some of the bosses in Zelda were not just difficult for me, they were extremely frustrating to the point it was souring me on the game. Every few seconds, the boss would pick me up or lock me down or shock/burn me out so I can't see a thing or move a muscle. In the brief intervals, I'd have to aim a crosshairs using a cruddy dpad or stick to hit some tiny little target, and of course I'd have to do this a dozen times. In one Lego scene, you walk into stormtrooper headquarters, and no matter your technique, you were going to explode and lose points at least ten times. I have to turn off the machine and wait until later, lest I teach my daughter how to ruin expensive electronics in a fit of pique.
Make it fun, make it possible to succeed, make it clear how to succeed, make it so there's some challenge but not overwhelming, make it so I can save every 15min at worst, and I'll probably play all the way through. Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time.
[
Pornograhpy and video games ... I'd have high score on clam lappers by now!
Well said!
I'm not yet sure that all the whining about Nintendo "abandoning" the hardcore is any different from the whining about the GC being too "kiddy".
Play the games you want to play, on the systems that they're available. I don't understand what sense of entitlement moves people to argue that Nintendo should be loyal to them as individuals, all the while claiming that what they really want is a conventional controller and long RPG games, which are already available, and the hardcore probably already own, in a 360 or PS3.
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
you comment is SOOOO hardcore!!
I'm replying to this because I mistakenly modded it down. I really think you're right on the money here. The Wii is becoming very appealing as its base of titles grows, allowing Nintendo to recover from their N64/GameCube mistakes.
If you saw their E3 presentation and where companies like EA are putting resources in to then you would know the answer is yes.
Nintendo doesn't give a rats ass about "Hard Core". They don't even care about "Medium Core".
Bring in the casual games and mini games! We need a good 20 or 30 Mario Puzzle Battle Party games.
Oh an Electronic Arts, you get it great to. You can produce a bunch of crappy games and not have to pay your developers anything, then sell it for a full price game! Then you can take the same game and change it slightly and sell it next year and the year after for the price of a new game!
(Note this is almost exactly what the CEO of Electronic Arts said at E3).
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Custer's Revenge.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Ask 3rd parties why they don't want to make games for what will be the most popular and accessible console this generation. I guess they don't like money?
Twinstiq, game news
What's going on is that you witnessed an actual press conference, aimed at the main stream media, as opposed to an enthusiast-oriented hypefest. Nintendo saw the retooling of E3 as an opportunity to return to its intended roots, put on a show, and got their message out to those who needed to hear it. The point of the press event is to build up hype among retailers and the major press, which means communicating your vision, supporting your position, and giving them something to remember. This wasn't about abandoning gamers, hardcore, traditional, or otherwise.
Nintendo knows that the hardcore gamers get their news from Kotaku, NeoGAF, IGN, or other websites and internet fora. The diehards are the ones who are checking Smash Brothers Dojo daily to keep up with the new updates. The fanboys already check obsessively to keep up with breaking news on what is going to be available. They don't need to be the only ones attended to. Right after the conference concluded, Nintendo's E3 site went active, with new trailers for all the major upcoming releases and with lists of upcoming releases. The fans knew where to find it all, and didn't need for it to be shown on stage. And if they had any lingering questions, the round table session was devoted to fielding questions for and from the hardcore crowd.
That's not to say the enthusiasts were ignored. The first thirty to forty minutes of the event was dedicated to showing off the upcoming AAA titles for the benefit of the fans. They revealed that three major releases (Metroid Prime 3, Mario Galaxy, and Smash Brothers Brawl) are all coming out this year, with Mario Kart soon to follow. The announced that EA's entire sports lineup will be online, and that Medal of Honor will support 32 player online matches. They showed that they were specifically working with third-parties on accessory support to enhance gameplay options.
Nintendo then shifted focus and aimed straight for the USA Todays and WSJs out there with the last twenty minutes or so. They brought out the new IP with the broad appeal that is in line with their market strategy, becaues that was the ideal moment to make it known to the world. And they succeeded spectacularly in that the major newpapers were talking about Wii Fit instead of Killzone 2 or Halo 3.
Nintendo isn't abandoning the enthusiast market. What they are doing is making a conscious effort not to abandon the people who might become gaming enthusiasts, given the right gateway.
The difference between Casual Play games and hardcore games are not that different except one for people who Like to play games to have Fun, vs. People who play games as a life choice. It is more like a studio deciding to make a continueing story soap opera vs. a half hour show where at the end of the day all the characters are back were they started. They both have there pluses and minuses the Soap Opera caters to a loyal fan base who will alter their lives to watch the show, thus getting consistant ratings. Vs. the Sitcom which may have ratings fluctuating more but if it goes down then it will go back up because people don't feel lost if they miss one or two shows. It is not like Soap Opera are more intelegent or have better acting then the Sitcoms. It is just a different fan base.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
In fact, do you remember the Sega Master System, the NES's "flop" competitor as far as U.S. and Japanese markets were concerned? Well, believe it or not, the NES was outsold by the Master System in the UK, (partly due to better marketing).
However, this obscures the bigger point- that unlike the US, the UK/European games market during the second half of the 1980s was not mainly console-driven, but still based around home computers. Sure, some people had the SMS and NES, but far more people were still using computers (8-bit ZX Spectrum and Commodore 64 still going at the low end, 16-bit Amiga and Atari ST coming in at the high end). Now that I think of it, I this probably applies to the 2600 era as well. Although I remember some people having Atari VCSs, the ZX Spectrum computer is the poster boy for early-80s nostalgia in Britain.
Anyway, this situation changed in the early 1990s, with the dawning of the 16-bit Mega Drive (AKA Genesis) and SNES era. They did very well, and from there on, the low-end/mass gaming market was dominated by consoles. (The PC took over the high end, and the once-cool but now aging Amiga 500 suffered from being stuck in the middle).
But basically, ask a nostalgic European games player what they had during the 1980s, and it's far less likely to be Nintendo and more likely some flavour of computer. Different markets, different games...
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Well, the "hardcore" I see most going for means "something that will offend my parents" because mostly teenagers seem interested in it. After all, Nintendo used to censor religion and politics from games almost entirely (Bionic Commando was supposed to be about killing a Hitler clone, the holy spell became "White" and there's a whole article out there about Maniac Mansion).
Only teenagers or people who like games because they're controversial care about this. Me? I don't try to make games into a political statement and I don't have any parents around to offend, even if I wanted to.
Now, there's also WoW-addict/Evercrack versions of "hardcore" where you lose your job/wife/dog/money while playing it 24/7, but you don't see that kind of addiction outside of games played with other people. And it pretty much has to be something where the game has no actual end to it (i.e. an RPG) or you'd come to a stopping place often enough that you might have some hope of doing anything other than gaming. When there's no raid schedule to keep, it's not as demanding that you stay up another three hours. Not that that stops some people, but still.
So remind me, other than to be seen as "cool", why would anyone care about being "hardcore"?
When I was a kid I had lots and lots of spare time but hardly any spare money. I could not afford many games, so if I bought a game I would try to get the most out of it. Having very long games which are fairly difficult suits kids who have time but not money. Now that I'm in my 40s, I have lots of spare money but hardly any spare time. What I tend to do is to buy a lot of games but not really play any of them through. Looking at my pile of PS2 games I would say that I have completed only about 5 per cent. I get immensely frustrated when I can't make progress in games even on the easiest setting. I'd guess that on average I get about 30% of the way through before concluding that I'll get more interest out of the first 30% of a new game than I will from trying to get past some problem in the current game. In my current job I tend to need to play lots of different types of game anyway, so it's not really a big problem for me. However, it is a bit annoying that I don't see the majority of the content in most of the games I buy and I suspect that people who don't need to play lots of games would pretty soon get sick of paying £35 for games if they're only going to see £10 worth of content. Do people like this eventually stop buying games?
I think that it's not just "casual" games that can support an audience of people like me (assuming I'm not the only one who feels this way). I believe that it should be possible to switch difficulties on the fly inside games and I also think that developers should include a stupidly easy mode so that people like me can see more of what the game has to offer. Of course I can go and look at cheats etc, but if the developers know that people are going to do that anyway, why not just make the facility part of the package? This way, even more traditional games can be played in a more "casual" manner if the player feels like it.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Any game that generally required a strategy guide to complete is a flawed game. A game that's too difficult to complete without cheating is as bad as a game that provides no challenge.
### Super Mario Brothers. Metroid. Zelda. Later, Super Smash Brothers, Paper Mario...
There was a time where Nintendo was not about endless sequels. All those games Nintendo has for the Wii are the same stuff they already had for the Gamecube, not even the graphics are all that different. If Nintendos games would have a continuous story line that might not be that bad, but Zelda is the same thing over and over again and it gets tiring.
Whatever happened to games like Pikmin, Starfox, YoshisIsland, StuntRaceFX, Waverace, PaperMario and stuff? I don't mean sequels to them, I mean fresh ideas with new characters, gameplay elements and stuff like those had back when they where originally released. There is absolutely nothing in the Nintendo line up that provides the same feeling that I had when watching the first seconds of Starfox, Mario64, PaperMario, Pikmin and friends. Today all Nintendo games feel like been there, done that.
I didn't buy a SNES to get a NES-redux, I didn't buy a N64 to buy a SNES-redux and I didn't buy a Gamecube to get a N64-redux. With the Wii however it totally feels like Gamecube-redux, hardware specs are way closer then they should be and so is the provided gameplay. Nintendo has that revolutionary controller at hand and the best they can come up with is adding waggle to Gamecube Zelda... not stuff that gets me excited.
That Nintendo has, yet again, this time more successful then ever, alienated all third parties makes the Wii of course not exactly look more interesting either.
PS: Yes, I am purposely ignoring all that Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Nintendogs stuff, since "hardcore" games are the topic, and those just don't fit.
Actually, anytime a company focuses on a "New Demographic" they, by necessity abandon the old. The Wii isn't going to cater to "hardcore" gamers because it's not designed to do that. Nintendo's selling a lot of them to seniors and parents and you're going to mostly see software that caters to the most common owners of the system.
Everyone's been crowing about how the Wii is expanding the market, but in doing so they had to choose to abandon the current market. Why? Because what they were producing for the current market wasn't expanding the market. The Wii doesn't appeal to me at all, and not that much to my friends either. That's ok, we're not the target demographic for the Wii. We already have consoles. The Wii was never designed to appeal to us, and the only way it will ever appeal to us is if the games we want become exclusive to it. That's unlikely to happen, both the 360 and PS3 are designed to appeal to us by carrying the games we like to play and offering an experience that appeals to us.
So, yes, Nintendo abandonned the hardcore gamers years ago, but that's ok, we don't expect everyone to cater to our tastes. I don't expect the hardcore games to go to the Wii no matter how well it performs in the marketplace. Even if they try to sell them for the Wii at some point the developers of hardcore games will realize that the casual players who own a Wii won't buy their games because they're not looking for those games, they're looking for easy, casual games.
This is nothing new, it's been an obvious consequence of Nintendo's "new direction" since the Wii was released.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Oh wait, by "young adult" you may have meant "single male under 35 who still survives on pizza and ramen and spends all weekend blowing shit up while connected online to his single male friends," forgetting that some of us, despite still being young adults, have careers and relationships to maintain.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
### I am convinced that it is the 2nd and 3rd generation of Wii titles that will ultimately define the Wii.
I kind of doubt that there will be any larger change in the games that will be available for the Wii. Third parties are starting Wii development, but they are starting mini/puzzle/cartoon and whatever kind of games, they are not doing the AssassinsCreeds and BioShocks. It just wouldn't make sense to produce that kind of games for a market that is buying the console for a completly different set of games today. It also doesn't make sense because the PS3/XBox360 offer a larger market share if they do multiplatform development, simply porting to the Wii doesn't work either, since the underlying engines just won't be practical on the Wii. So I don't really see where any other kind of game should be coming from, there really is nothing announced that would move away from the current casual gamer trend, quite the opposite, Wii Fit is securing that niche even more.
My console history (Atari 2600, Original Sega, NES, Genesis, SNES(emulated on a PC), N64, Dreamcast, Gamecube, Playstaion2, XBOX, PS3(recently sold off),XBOX360 and now the Wii)
The Wii is catering to the hardcore gamer because it is the only system that is actually bringing in new types of games and new ways to play games as opposed to just upping the ante on graphics/sound/length. If you don't believe me, look at the PS3. Every title on the PS3 has a game that is basically the same as a game on the PS2 but with better graphics. Thats why it was easy to get rid of my PS3 and just keep playing the same kinds of games on my PS2.
At the same time look at the Wii, it has the same graphics as the N64 and I use the thing daily because Nintendo is smart and stuck to the basics of actually coming up with new games as opposed to just stepping on tried and true ideas with cosmetic updates(I don't mean titles but game styles. Like the difference between tetris and mario cart).
For clarification, I saw people in this thread referance "final phantsy" and other RPGs as "hardcore games". Don't get me wrong, I have played and loved RPG's because they please my OCD qualities, but these are not "games". You can't loose, RPG's like final phantasy are interactive movies and nothing more. Which is fun but far from the definiton of a game. Find me two people who play RPG's and prove too me which one is better at it? it's only a matter of time till you beat this kind of game, not a matter of skill.
I'm really tired of this argument. If people want to complain about the lack of hardcore games now and that Nintendo has abandoned the core, where were they last generation? As far as I can tell, we're getting the same Zelda, Mario, and Metroid that were were last generation. These may have slightly different appeals, but they're still great games for gamers. If you don't think these games are hardcore, then what would you define as hardcore? If these games don't fit that bill, then Nintendo didn't have anything for you last generation for the most part and abandoned you long ago.
I think once Super Smash Bros. and a Monkey Ball game manage to come out they'll be fine in my eyes. Both of these games could be considered fairly casual, but my friends and I played them relentlessly when we were back in high school. We'd have ten hour Monkey Ball or Smash Bros. sessions down in my friends basement, trading off the controller for single player aspects of the game or going heads up in multiplayer, trying to break each others records or square off for bragging rights. You can even play Wii Sports pretty hardcore as a few of my friends and I found out over last Thanksgiving when I brought my new Wii home and we ended up playing Wii boxing for almost four hours straight. Even my friend's dad got involved and had a hell of a time.
They reason they spent so much time on Wii Fit is because it's completely new and hasn't really be done before. They want to make sure that it gets good press coverage and that people are aware of it. They want to give something new to the casual gamers who really haven't had much since Wii Sports. You can't build up this great system for the more casual gamers and then leave them out in the cold. With Mario Kart, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime: Corruption, and Super Smash Bros. all coming out within the next six months or so, I'd say they've got their core pretty well covered.
If for whatever reason you consider hardcore gaming to by violent or mature rated games (in which case I think you're an idiot) then there's plenty of fun to be had with The Godfather: Blackhand Edition, Resident Evil 4, and Manhunt 2 as well as the new Resident Evil game when they come out. I'm pretty sure that there will eventually be plenty of shooters and other such games on the console as well. It's only been out for abouth eight months now, give it some time.
I think the problem is that most people tend to think of themselves as hardcore gamers when it's convenient for them to say so. I'd wager that a majority of the people who claim that they are, really aren't. Just remember that because you play a lot of video games doesn't necessarily make you hardcore. Did you explore Twilight Princess without a guide to get all of the extra items? Do you do speed runs through the original Super Mario Bros. in order to see who could get the best time? Have you played a game competitively at a tournament? If you don't answer yes to questions like that, I don't consider you hardcore. You just spend too much time playing video games. Get over yourself.
So until someone can come up with a legitimate reason to suggest that Nintendo has abandoned their core or stopped caring about hardcore gamers, I think you're all just a bunch of whiny bitches looking for something to piss and moan about. Either Nintendo never was hardcore and stopped catering to their core ages ago or you're completely off base and full of crap. Maybe some of you are under the delusion that you're in Nintendo's core when you really aren't. I just think it's a load of crap no matter how you slice it.
They just cater to a different market. From a business point of view it's brilliant. Look who has money? The people who work their asses off so they dont have time to go on 10hour game-a-thons, but do have a little cash and the Wii fits that void. Then look at the PS3, it's catered toward HS/college kids who are probably broke and spend all their time gaming. See the problem? System is 2-3x expensive for a market that has less money to blow.
Just an observation, the reality is probably a lot more complex but that's my watered down perception of it all.
What's funny is that you consider casual gaming (the demographic that built the PS2, mind you) to be a niche, ignoring the fact that "hardcore" gaming is much more of a niche.
But, you're right. I'll use the case of the DS to prove your point for you. No strong, deep titles will ever reach the DS. Developers will be designing more complex, engaging and cinematic games for the PSP, like FF Crisis Core, Metal Gear Acid/Solid, and Daxter. The DS is a platform built solely to pull in casuals. It was nothing but mini-game games for the first 6-8 months, from Nintendo (Mario 64 + minigames as their only launch? WarioWare shortly thereafter?) and third parties looking to cash in on Nintendo's success (Feel the Magic?). It doesn't have the graphical prowess, nor the storage capability, to make something deep, long, and immersing.
But, wait, isn't Dragon Quest IX, the latest from one of the most "hardcore" Japanese franchises, coming exclusively to the DS? Looks like we were wrong!
Sounds like you need to play older console games via emulator (there are good emulators for everything up to and including the N64 and first Playstation these days) and make liberal use of the "save state" function. It's what I do, and it's letting me get through games that I would never have taken the time to finish without it.
- left, etc.) and which ruins the gaming experience.
That, or play PC games which almost always support save-any(where/time) and/or quicksave/quickload. They also usually have cheats, which I'm not ashamed to say I break out if I start really getting frustrated with a game, but want to see the next part of the story or explore the next area or whatever enough not to just stop. Flip a switch, get past the nastiness, turn it back off, keep having fun. I consider PC games that don't include at least a couple basic cheat codes (they're rare, but they exist) to be broken, since the developers apparently think that the player will never, ever manage to get themselves into a situation that was not intended to happen (glitch and now I'm stuck in a wall, oops-I-saved-over-my-last-good-save-with-1-health
Look, I've been gaming for 20 years, primarily on Nintendo systems, but with some other consoles and PC games in there too. I have a Wii. Wii Sports was SORT OF fun for a week. I bought Rayman. It was SORT OF fun to play with my girlfriend for a week. I bought Zelda. It was an OK (NOT great) game and it lasted a while. I borrowed my friend's Super Paper Mario. It pretty much sucked and I was done with it in no time.
And... well... that's it! There aren't any other games for the Wii that I am interested in buying right now. The only game I could say I particularly liked at all was Zelda, and I didn't even need a Wii to get that one! Yeah, SSBB and Metroid will be out eventually... I'm not sure I'll still be interested.
Bottom line: Many long time gamers are seriously disappointed with the offerings available for the Wii. There just aren't enough decent games. And when I say "not enough," I mean "there pretty much aren't any."
Oh, also... It's a little weird that you said "once a Monkey Ball comes out"... there's already one available. From launch I believe.
Thank you for that. I have grown incredibly weary of "I'm a hardcore gamer and I'm bored with my Wii. They better come out with some good stuff soon, or I'll go back to my launch day PS3 I camped out for six days to buy!"
Diffrn't strokes for diffrn't folks.
Cheers.
This sig was generated randomly by one million monkeys with Speak 'n Spells. . .
So what's changed in the last twenty years to make Nintendo "not hardcore" all of a sudden? They had Mario, Zelda, and Metroid back on the NES and they've still got Mario, Zelda, and Metroid on the Wii. Anything that Nintendo didn't make was a third party game and Nintendo doesn't have a lot of control over what third parties want to make on the Wii. Maybe it's not Nintendo that has gotten less hardcore, but all of the third parties that have.
It's pretty obvious that Nintendo is catering to their core with new showings from all the favorite franchises established over the years. However, either Nintendo was never hardcore and it's ridiculous to assume they should be now, or Nintendo has been and still is hardcore and everyone just needs to stop whining about it.
If the Wii doesn't interest you, don't buy any games for it. My only question to you is, what kinds of games are you actually interested in playing? I think Nintendo has done a pretty good job covering most areas at the present and in the coming months.
Thanks for the Monkey Ball tip, though. I haven't seen it in stores so either it's been sold out and I just assumed it wasn't out yet or the stores haven't been carrying it, which seems odd. Then again I haven't looked for any new Wii games for a few months now since I've been getting a lot of old games from the VC.
If I'm a company selling hardware and games, I can either appeal to the few million hard core gamers, or to the other few billion people. I like $250 times a few billion, especially when I am making a profit on each machine.
As an owner of a Wii, I don't see any reason they cannot make hard games. "Hard" has nothing to do with the number of colors that can be drawn or how many buttons are required.
$100Billion in sales. Works for me. Oh yeah, and then there's the DS.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In your parents basement spending hours playing some video game is to gaming what masturbation is to sex.
There were hardcore gamers before there were video games and the Wii is actually very attractive to those same people. A hardcore gamer will play almost anything, any time, any place, as long as he gets a chance to beat you at something.
BTW: Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz
This sig was generated randomly by one million monkeys with Speak 'n Spells. . .
Over the past ten years with the death/buying out of companies like Black Isle, Troika, Microprose, Clover, and about a hundred more that I'm forgetting... the hardcore lost their games long ago. Here's why: What company would cater to a very small audience like the hardcore (Especially, noting that the hardcore gamers ESPECIALLY pc gamers are also very savvy to getting their software for free) when they could market to millions of little kids?
Endless Sequals?
You mean like Final Fantasy 1 - 13, Halo 1 - 3, GTA 1 - whatever it is now, all 400 versions of unreal tournament, and 65 different but similar FPS games?
That is your idea of "hardcore" that is somehow superior to what Nintendo is doing?
Also, your argument is VERY inconsistent. You dismiss Wii Sports, Wii Play, Nintendogs stuff because it isn't hardcore but you previously rail on the lack off innovative hardcore games like...Yoshi's Island?!?!
Dude, WTF? Please, get a consistent argument and try again.
Anyway, frankly speaking "Hardcore Gamer" is a tag fit for underaged immature brats with more free time than motivation. Don't believe me? Take a survey and see how many people who are financially, emotionally, or academically successful would describe themselves as hardcore gamers. The answer is a very very very small percentage of the over all total.
People who are engaged in their life and successful do not have TIME to be "hardcore gamers". That pretty much leaves kids without jobs and losers living in their mom's basement in the "hardcore" pool. If you need proof of this log in to XBox live, or any other online service, sometime and listen to the stream of garbage being tossed around by the majority of the other players...who all sound like they 12 years old or consistently talk about how fucking high they are.
Face it, today's hardcore gamers are either sub 22 year old punks with nothing better to do then game or super 22 year old losers who don't WANT to do anything other than game.
Okay from now on when I'm bitching and moaning I will qualify my requests for innovation with a request the innovative games actually be fun. Now Mario Bros., that shit was hard. What do I get now, Wii bowling?
Also models that look like a drawing by a retarded 4th grader are not innovation.
Has anyone noticed that nearly everyone has an HDTV now? Don't bullshit me with statistics either -- I know the kind of people who buy games and I have been to they and their parents' houses.
On topic though, Nintendo left the hard core behind when chose to make a GameCube console with a new controller. Nintendo has not made a good console since the Super Nintendo. Good luck selling games to my Grandpa, douchebags.
I like (some parts of) Monkey Ball, though -- especially golf.
You do realize that there probably aren't a billion people in the the world that could afford this machine.
Also, at the rate they're going, Nintendo will produce it's billionth Wii about the time the Xbox 1080 comes out.
Jump -> Fierce punch, Backhand, Standing Uppercut, Fierce Dragon Punch Ah, the quadruple uppercut combo.
This might be too obvious and I might get modded to hell...
Regarding the issue of games being either too hard or too easy... How about a selector screen at the beginning of the game where you pick Easy/Medium/Hard? I was playing Halo 2 the other day, I suck and played and had a good challenge at Easy, my friend was playing at the hardest level ("Legendary") and had an equally challenging time. Bam, two different skill levels appeased by the same game.
Is this a bad solution? Sounds like a good one to me.
The Wii and it's games completely and utterly caters to the lowest common denominator of gamer, it's well 'party' and kiddy stuff only with a few good but extremely rare exceptions.
The Wii controller turned out to be the gimmick some speculated it might be and disapointed the optomistic.
Instead of improving your average games or rather revoloutionising them, it simply dumbed them down or made them awkward, meanwhile it made more simpler games much easier and arguably 'more fun'
I have no problem with party games or kiddy games, I do have a problem with a distinct lack of other games though, a Zelda here and a Metroid Prime there doesn't make a real system to me.
(I for one am a single player gamer, I look my story, I like depth and I enjoy it)
On top of this, the unit has multiplayer capability yet it doesn't use it for anything, although I hear ONE game might use it next year.
You've got your ho-hum graphics which I can let slide if it makes up for it or has a huge library of awesome games (like the PS2) but sadly, it doesn't.
I know several gamers (not hardcore) who purchased it and have since basically let it sit there and gather dust because another selection of mini games doesn't interest them.
The Wii might be selling but I have this underlying thought that perhaps you'll find a lot of these impulse Wii purchases by non gamers will end up simply letting it gather dust in 12 months too or it'll be that one trick Wii sports wonder for each christmas but these gamers won't purchase many more.
Honestly the system reminds me of one of those little Atari joystick with 24 games IN the controller jobs - and to think I was nearly hyped to buy one.
Nights: Journey of Dreams. It kind of helps that Nintendo seems to get the best Sega games nowadays.
... that the "hardcore" gamer is only a niche in the overall gaming market. So what does it matter if Nintendo is not focusing their efforts on games for that niche?
/. would consider hardcore. Many hardcore gamers are becoming casual as they grow up, myself included. As someone else pointed out, having kids and a 8-5/9-6 job cuts into the gaming time, and most "hardcore" games are rated M for very good reason. These titles aren't kid friendly, and they're not family friendly. They're typically longer and more in depth, moreso than most people have time for.
Statistically speaking, most people who buy video games, for all platforms, are not what people on
Hell, I don't have time to even play Zelda Twilight Princess on my Wii, and I *LOVE* that game.
Really, Nintendo hasn't been providing games for the hardcore crown for a while. I think that last console they did appeal to hardcore gamers was the N64.
Though Nintendo never developed these titles internally I can think of a few genres that Nintendo has been neglecting to actively seek licenses for. Sure there are plenty of platformers, party games, movie licenses and sports games but where are all the fighting games, strategy games (turn based and RT), adventure games, rpgs (both normal and jRPG variety)? They should be going out and trying to get those games on their platform.
People are really just complaining because Nintendo will release their big-franchise titles a year into the life of the system instead of at launch.
Also, Zelda: Twilight Princess really is too easy compared to older Zelda games.
Wii is the worst console ever. There is not a single one game with great atmosphere - which is what games are about. If you want to have fun for about 5 minutes each game, then yes wii is for you. if you want to have atmospheric cinematic game experiences, then obviously not. i wouldn't buy the wii even it was just 40 $.
You could RUN in that game???
What is "hard core"? What could that possibly mean?
Take Nintendo's example. They've always been family-oriented. Their games appeal to people of all ages, and their consoles were all common household items. Their success was made by hitting the general audience--that never changed for them.
I never heard the word "hardcore" until people started spending ridiculous amounts of money on things like computer hardware, multiple consoles, etc. Long gone were the days when a 486 and a VGA adapter had you set for a few great years of gaming (if you had a 586 you were really kicking butt). These days you have to be hardcore to keep up with the cost of all the latest hardware, and because of the diminishing returns (the games don't get that much better), you really had to be on the fringe.
Also, I think terms like "hardcore" rose to prominence when games increasingly became networked and multiplayer on a large scale. I theorize that socialization in the gaming community helped reinforce the creation and use of social identifiers within the group.
### You mean like Final Fantasy 1 - 13, Halo 1 - 3,
Final Fantasy is each time a completly new game, same or similar game mechanics sure, but new characters, new worlds, story and all that stuff. Halo has a continuous story line. With GTA I might agree, there has been quite a bit of milking going on, but then GTAIV seems to have some variation is the setting and not just another SanAndreas.
### That is your idea of "hardcore" that is somehow superior to what Nintendo is doing?
Yes, because it doesn't end with FF and GTA, the other consoles also have Bioshock, AssassinsCreed, Alan Wake, HeavenlySword, Gears of War, Little Big Planet, Echochrome and all that completly new and innovative stuff.
### Also, your argument is VERY inconsistent. You dismiss Wii Sports, Wii Play, Nintendogs stuff because it isn't hardcore
I dismiss them because they are extremely simplistic and predictable games.
### but you previously rail on the lack off innovative hardcore games like...Yoshi's Island?!?!
Hardcore has nothing to do with how much blood a game has, Yoshis Island was full of brilliant level design and fresh ideas, in fact I consider it the best 2D jump'n run to date (closely followed by MarioBros3). It is that spark of brilliance that I miss a lot in Nintedo games lately.
### People who are engaged in their life and successful do not have TIME to be "hardcore gamers".
So just because you don't have the time everybody shall go play super simplistic games that get boring after half an hour? Next you suggest we should get to make good movies and instead settle with soup operas, since they are so much more accessible...
A game - any game - shouldn't need a strategy guide to complete. Besides, what's so hardcore about using strategy guides in first place? Real Men and Women complete the games without doing any of that crud =)
And Zeldas have not needed a whole lot of hints to complete. (Well, the NES ones were probably exceptions.) Nor do really a whole lot of other Nintendo titles. I've usually reached GameFAQs only to get hints on occasion on how to heck to get all of the junk that you can collect...
But citing the original games as harder is not really fair. The reason the original NES Zelda shipped with a strategy guide right there in the box is that an awful lot of puzzles hinged on burning the exact right bush in a screen of about eighty identical bushes, or planting a bomb on exactly the right spot in a vast expanse of undifferentiated cliff. If your idea of a fulfilling time is to keep on stocking up on bombs and trying every single square of cliff in turn, go to, but if that's hardcore gaming then I'll stick to the casual stuff that's actually fun.
Back in the day playing Zelda 2, I got stuck and needed outside help at one point only: finding Hidden Kasuto. This time around playing Twilight Princess, I also got stuck at one point only: beating Zant's first form (kicked myself when I found out: I mean, it's Zelda Gaming Rule #1, when stuck, try every single item in turn! I'd forgotten the boomerang existed, I hadn't used it in so long!)
Nowadays sheer survival is less of an issue - I die much, much less frequently on contemporary Zeldas than I used to on the NES - but is that because the games are easier, or because after twenty years of experience I've got really, really good at this?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
You make an excellent point about being annoyed spending X money on a game but only seeing just a part of it. And to illustrate your point further consider World of Warcraft.
You need about 10 full days (240 hours, even that is quite speedy, considerable greater time for a fresh gamer) just to level a character to lvl70 (and actually start the game) and then you have to grind/farm for weeks to get some poor gear.
Lets take an extreme (but realistic nevertheless) position now:
To even see the PvE end-game (funny though, that kind of game doesn't have an ending) you have to be in the best guild on the server (or even pay real money to transfer to another server and another guild) have best available equipment (months of farming in top guilds) etc. All that, just to see the endgame dungeon, boss, quest/storyline, weapon/whatever, you actually can't have a proper real life job. Even if you are spending whole days playing wow in your parent's basement it is very probable you won't see the the newest dungeon for a long time (couple of months at least).
Blizzard (creator of the game, or Vivendi, I don't care) collects monthly subscription from every gamer without regard how much time (if at all) he plays the game. Those are truckloads of money. One problem is this: I think big majority of gamers take WoW world to be very similar to real world (which is completely absurd considering it is created after all) so any new creative or otherwise additions are generally disregarded.
So what is my point then?
I always asked myself why Blizzard couldn't add some specific casual player content. Ideas like:
Instant max level characters with best gear available.
Some kind of extremely easy, 1-player "tourist mode" through every dungeon in the game etc.
No travel time between cities. No, or very few in-game money requirement etc.
What is the motivation for more special casual content?
Multi player games like Unreal Tournament etc. Start game, log on to UT network, find suitable server, play where starting conditions are the same for *everyone*. When you have to go or get bored, exit game. Repeat.
How would that be implemented?
They pretty much only have to open some "special" servers/realms (there are hundreds of "normal" ones) and let people play there.
Of course, quite a few hardcore gamers would complain with: "wtfzomg,i farmed instance X for months to get tis ultimate $sword_of_whatever, its not fair!11". But these are different servers, different "worlds".
To make things even more simple, those "special" servers are called test realms when new patch is coming out. You used to get a max geared, top-leveled character, and off you went playing on equal terms.
Those kind of suggestions were suggested quite a few times on official forums, but nobody bothered to even reply. Likewise, I won't be playing any mmo which hasn't those casual, quick game (but full blown) modes.
Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
The tag says it all.
There's a reason Nintendo is looking toward the wider, uninitiated market to make their fortunes selling video games and consoles. These people will buy them. Hardcore gamers - mostly jobless kids who want increasingly elaborate, sophisticated, and engaging interactive cut-scenes to brutally scrutinize and waste their seemingly infinite leisure time on - might scoff at the Wii, but look who's selling consoles the fastest worldwide. Look which company is growing their consumer base the most rapidly. They've certainly done something right, and if the Wii actually gets a good library here in the next year for the market it's attracted, Nintendo will likely continue to dominate.
Hardcore gamers are an increasingly unprofitable niche in the market who've run their own favorite class of 'hardcore' games into the ground. Their demands are too overbearing, resulting in increasingly high production costs for game developers with ever diminishing returns in profit and quality, while their tastes are too discriminating, meaning they'll typically nitpick their way through shelves of games only to take home one or two a year. Meanwhile, they're usually doing this on someone else's dollar, since most people who fall into the market's 'hardcore' category are dependent teenagers. (Which is the only way they can afford to waste so much of their time gaming; they have no lives and no jobs, and therefore little to no money of their own.) This decreases the amount of money they can lavish on their gaming habits. (This is especially true for savvy PC gamers, who can be expected to spend hundreds of dollars of their allowances on upgrades alone each year while pirating every game they possibly can.) Meanwhile, making games for the average dope - young or old - can score you a lot of cash. As with any product, the wider the market you appeal to is, the more units you're going to sell. (Nevermind that the eighteen-and-below demographic is a minority now compared to the rest of the gaming world. According to recent research the median age for a gamer now is 23.)
Assuming my sweeping generalization of the 'hardcore' gamer is correct - that they're a bunch of picky, stuck up, jobless good-for-nothings who would rather die than spend a penny of their own money, all while expecting more and more from the games they have bought for them or shamelessly steal - then it makes no sense to continue focusing solely on their sweaty, lard-laden, pizza-faced niche in the first place. Who cares about whiny teenagers whose gaming hobbies rule their lives? They're broke, discriminating to a fault, and very much inclined to just rip the games off through the internet. Children and uninitiated or casual gamers are much more profitable, have wider, less super-focused laser-like tastes, and the simpler, dumber games made for them cost less to produce and less to buy. It's that kind of crap the Wii was designed for, and it'll likely see little more than that. The parents can easily afford to buy them for their children, while said parents might pick up a game or two for themselves this time around. Let's not forget the average college-aged Joe who just wants something simple and fun to play in his limited spare time, maybe with a couple friends. Shitty party games and mini-game packs? They gobble this stuff up, because they enjoy it and aren't nearly as difficult to entertain as your typical 'hardcore' fatass. Nintendo will make a killing by initiating a new and massive wave of casual gamers while hooking another generation of our kids on the digital crack of Pokemon, while the crying penniless nerds of the hardcore niche drop out of high-school to play World of Warcraft.
Go ahead and mod me down. You all know it's true. Don't give me a bunch of bull over 'hardcore' gamers having jobs either, because among the 'hardcore' nerd bunch they're the exception, not the rule. The market is shifting dramatically now away from the unemployed white male teenager, and developers are finally realizing now what should've been obviou
Clever signature text goes here.
If they abandoned the hardcore gamers, what's with titles like Zelda, Metroid, Super Smash Bros, etc.? Even Super Mario Galaxy.
Clever signature text goes here.
What the crap?! Why is this now modded troll? It was +5 interesting a day ago. You don't agree with me... fine. But that's not what troll means... F$#%$&!!
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Hi,
I read this whole comments and stuff. I think you guys didn't even watch the whole of E3 from Nintendo. They only spent like 10 mins on the Wiifit.
Games I'm looking forward are Time Crisis clones for the wii, with the new Zapper. Can't wait for A remake of Duck Hunt, and Hooligan's Ali, and there is a new squaresoft title going for the wii too.
All in all, exciting stuff.
I agree. Somewhere along the line, nintendo begain to rely too much on a core set of gameplay or characters and seemd afaird to create anything wholey new. The wii has thusfar been about short pick up and play games that don't really stay with you once they are done.