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.
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.
Excuse me? For a long time in the 80s to early 90s "Nintendo" was "Video Games".
What do you interpret hardcore as meaning?
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
there is simply so much more money to be had in blasé games and infinite sequels.
...
I can't wait to buy Halo 3 and GTA IV
Oh snap, that's the sound of your point flying out the window.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
Oh wait, you meant that games "hardcore gamers" play *aren't* blasé, infinite sequels. Sorry, I was confused by your contradictory point.
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.
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
Ummm, are you comparing "hardcore games" to "thoughtful independent films"? Cause seriously, if that's your insight, you need to go back to the drawing board.
Videogames are meant to be fun - Nintendo is actually being innovative in finding new ways to be fun (as opposed to the "another CGI movie with talking hamsters" dig). It's Sony/Microsoft that are releasing yet another FPS/Madden game, again and again and again.
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.
I'd consider most of those casual games, except for maybe Final Fantasy, which REQUIRES hours and hours of dedication in order to really enjoy it (not sure if that's actually the qualification for hardcore, but it's in there). Halo is one of the most casual games I've ever played, you can just pick it up and play it for 5 minutes and you'll have fun with it. Same (supposedly) with WWII shooters (although I find them boring no matter how much time you sink into them), Doom, Quake, UT, etc. Madden, actually is probably along side Final Fantasy, neither might be super-popular, but it still requires a lot of time to really get anything out of it (from what I've heard).
Pretty much any RPG or adventure game, these days, could be classified as "hardcore" simply because of the amount of time it takes to complete them... there are no "stages" to judge your progress like with Halo or Mario. Battlefield 2142? That's starting to get more hardcore, since there are A LOT of long-term goals defined in the game if you play it for long enough.
But I would call most FPSs casual games... well, maybe not quite that, but not hardcore, anyway, they're way too big of mass appeal, and they take no time to just pick up and put down. To me that qualifies as "casual".
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
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.
Final Fantasy and Megaman both outgrew the NES/SNES.
Point is, no platform is immune from sequels. But who cares if they have new elements/stories/etc. Mario 1-3 are all basically the same story [well except USA #2], but they're still fun. So were the SNES and N64 versions of "the same game."
Nothing wrong with a fresh sequel. It's when they re-use story/graphics/maps/levels/etc wholesale that it becomes a ripoff [e.g. bomberman 1 vs. 2].
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Oh yeah, I don't disagree with you there. "Nintendo" definitely was equivalent to video games, for the most part.
But were the games TRULY hard core back then? I suppose something like Sim City came a little close, but comparing Sim City to WoW shows just how hard core things were back then.
Video games have gotten much more hard core over the years, I don't think that's even debatable.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Not at all, bro. I grew up on Nintendo and believe me there was more than enough to make someone hardcore. And certainly more hardcore than even current "hardcore" gamers consider themselves. Ninja Gaiden 1 and 2 for SNES, Gradius and Life Force -- these are OLD, and they are HARD but awesome and lots of people played the heck out of them and got very good.
SNES had plenty of challenging games that kept you playing for months because they were that good -- FFVI, Killer Instinct, etc. I still don't know a single person who has beaten Captain America and the Avengers for SNES (Genesis, yeah, but not SNES because in Genesis Captain could at least block with his shield...)
I don't think games have gotten more hardcore at all. In fact I think they've gotten *less* so in terms of challenge. How many people whined and moaned about how difficult the Ninja Gaiden for Xbox was? Those people were all spoiled by the fact that every game that's released nowadays is beatable by even remotely dedicated players. Ninja Gaiden 2 eats Xbox's NG alive in terms of difficulty on every level except Master Ninja (which was added later just for kicks, and isn't really relevant because one could have always slid the difficulty meter all the way to max in Baldur's Gate making that game impossible but who cares).
I like basketball!!1!
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.
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
### 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
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.
The problem is semantics. Namely, the definition of "hardcore".
I don't mind playing through a long RPG, as I can pick it up and put it down when I have time. Playing the main story isn't hardcore to me. Playing through the main story, all the side quests, collecting every widget, gizmo and trading card, in an incredibly time consuming desire to finish 100%? That's "hardcore" to me (and tedious, boring, generally worthless, etc.).
Judging by the E3 discussions, most folks seem to think hardcore means an awesome looking 1080p FPS where you "blow stuff up REAL GOOD!" From your description, you think most of those are casual. I call them hardcore lately, roughly translating to "not interesting".
This sig was generated randomly by one million monkeys with Speak 'n Spells. . .
"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?"
I suppose if you don't enjoy bowling then Wii bowling isn't very fun. There are several other games in Wii Sports that you might enjoy though. I've found Wii Boxing to be incredibly fun when played with friends. To say Wii Bowling isn't difficult doesn't sound right. I'd say that it has a low learning curve because people like my mother and father were able to pick it up and easily play and enjoy it. However, I've never seen anyone bowl a perfect game yet. Easy to learn, difficult to master; perhaps more games should be that way so they're accessable to everyone but still contain a challenge.
"Also models that look like a drawing by a retarded 4th grader are not innovation."
No one said the graphics of Wii Sports were innovative in any way. It's the control that makes the game innovative. You're missing the point.
"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."
I play games and I can't afford an HDTV. I'd like one, but it's not something I can swing right now. Some of the older folks who buy a Wii probably don't have an HDTV either. Not everyone has one and it's not really necessary for innovative game play. Go ahead and name something innovative that's been done on the Xbox 360 or the PS3. Odds are that anything you suggest was already being done on the PC, especially in terms of graphics or AI. The Wii has created a new way to play games that really hasn't been tried before in many cases.
"Good luck selling games to my Grandpa, douchebags."
Funny that Nintendo has made a few hundred dollars in revenue off of my mother, whereas Sony and Microsoft haven't made a cent.
Don't be a hater.