• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

lancubap
Member
(05-03-2008, 12:03 PM)
Hello guys. I found an interesting article and I think it could be the start for a constructive discussion. An interesting point of view about the importance of Nintendo in this industry.

Originally Posted by ***** - Josh Valone

Many still poke fun at Nintendo's "kiddy" approach to video games, but the company is serving a purpose that many are overlooking.
May 01, 2008 | 10:36 AM PST


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever since the PlayStation legitimized the adult gaming demographic, Nintendo has dealt with a perceived lack of maturity in their development style. The company's colorful, family-friendly titles, despite being of generally high quality, clash wildly with the best efforts of other publishers that tend to center on darker themes. As the industry has skewed further and further toward entertaining adults, Nintendo has remained rooted in their philosophy of delivering fun experiences for all ages. While the criticism has died down a bit of late many still view Nintendo as behind the times and lament that they never seem to debut a "mature" IP. While this is understandable considering the age of many hardcore players it needs to be noted that Nintendo's emphasis on the family actually plays a key role in our industry. In fact, if Nintendo moved toward older players, it would have a crippling effect on the industry as a whole and their contribution would be difficult– if not impossible– to replace.


Much of the criticism thrown at Nintendo throughout the years centers on the idea that they need to "grow up". The audience that bought Super Mario Bros. 3 in droves now craves deep, complex titles in HD with serious online play. A simple feeling of fun is still important, but a broad feature set has become a large part of gaming as well and Nintendo has failed to evolve with their competitors in this regard. The basics of playing a Nintendo title have changed little from 1988 to 2008. Solid gameplay, a simple narrative, familiar settings, and an inviting difficulty curve define the Nintendo experience. Familiarity breeds contempt, so it's easy to see why those that have bought and beaten Nintendo titles for decades have in some cases begun to seek out different approaches. But in their zeal for a bigger and better experience gamers have lost sight of Nintendo's role in our industry because their perspective is centered entirely on themselves. The part Nintendo plays in gaming is just as important today as it was 20 years ago: Nintendo produces gamers.

Franchises such as Mario and Pokémon are unparalleled at reeling in the young and hooking them on our hobby. Zelda and Metroid take them a step further, but remain relatively easy to pick up and enjoy. To put it simply, Nintendo welcomes newcomers into gaming and shows them the ropes. No other developer can produce such deep experiences without intimidating the player. Nintendo has consistently done this throughout the years and that tradition continues today. Parents feel safe when buying Nintendo software, they understand exactly what they're getting and can entertain their children without fear of exposing them to certain themes, imagery or language. While avid gamers might scoff at the importance of that, they're assuming that the entire industry can survive and expand without a way to consistently indoctrinate new generations of players.

Games like Mass Effect and Call of Duty 4 are fantastic titles but they have almost no chance of hooking new players, particularly youngsters. The complexity and depth that seasoned gamers revel in makes them inaccessible to everyone else who doesn't spend hours a day with a controller in their hand. Nintendo allows newcomers to play quality titles without being thrust into an ultra-competitive environment that would immediately stunt interest. You have to start somewhere, and in gaming, there isn't a much better starting point than the house Mario built. Novice players can transition slowly into gaming with titles that don't punish them for their lack of experience but instead build up their skills with a forgiving, yet still challenging, difficulty.

For this reason, Nintendo's contribution to the industry is incredibly important but often overlooked. If they bowed to the pressure and began releasing fantastic titles aimed at older audiences, where would that leave the next generation? How would they enter into the hobby? It's unfair and short-sighted to expect someone to begin gaming with titles that explicitly aim to challenge the experienced. Nintendo's role for the last two decades (whether they realize it or not) has been to raise generations of players. Some of these people will eventually tire of their style and leave them while others will become Nintendo lifers and show their children the classics that made them love gaming. In either case, Nintendo has done the entire community a service. Before demanding that Nintendo "grow up" gamers should consider what that actually would accomplish. Without Nintendo, the industry would be almost incapable of drawing young audiences, or at least certainly would not do so at the rate it does now. So while the company may never mature with its audience, it's probably better that it doesn't.

Industries need entry-level products. Nintendo is exactly that for a huge percentage of gamers. Their legacy of indoctrinating future hardcore players is unparalleled. The fact that many of the company's legendary franchises have changed little over the years helps ensure the steady stream of newcomers continues. Many in our generation started with Super Mario Bros., while children today may look back at Super Mario Galaxy as the beginning of their rabid interest in video games. The timeless aspect of this approach cannot be underestimated. The industry evolves while Nintendo stays the same, and at first glance, this is often marked as a weakness. But when the formula has been so successful in bringing up generation after generation, it seems foolish to ever tamper with what's been proven.


If hardcore gamers began to look at Nintendo as a nurturer as opposed to a company that should be dedicated to pleasing them, it would create an interesting shift in perspective. Hardcore players can enjoy Nintendo games, obviously, but the true value of their titles lies in their ability to raise tomorrow's enthusiasts. Nintendo provides an inviting gateway to gaming and in that respect they cannot be matched by anyone. While the "kiddy" label will probably never go away, it's time to consider whether that is even a bad thing. Nintendo gives to the gaming community in a way no other publisher can, probably unintentionally, by bringing up the future consumers of "mature" titles. Without them it is questionable how many would ever come to the hobby. Some may drift away from Mario as the years go by, but that should not be used as evidence to demand a change in direction. Instead, consider where you started and how others are just now starting. Nintendo's contribution isn't best measured in how many "mature" titles they produce but rather how they help nurture the future of that market.

Link to the article

Voilà ! Discuss !
sprsk
force push the doodoo rock
(05-03-2008, 12:08 PM)
sprsk's Avatar
Pause.

In fact, if Nintendo moved toward older players, it would have a crippling effect on the industry as a whole and their contribution would be difficult– if not impossible– to replace.

Is he trying to say that Nintendo's mature titles would rock the fucking house or that the missing lighter Nintendo games would rock the industry?

Edit: Oh, I see.
lancubap
Member
(05-03-2008, 12:10 PM)

Originally Posted by sp0rsk

Pause.



Is he trying to say that Nintendo's mature titles would rock the fucking house or that the missing lighter Nintendo games would rock the industry?

I think the latter is the right answer, in the sense that Nintendo acts as a catalysator of the industry.
PolyGone
Banned
(05-03-2008, 12:14 PM)
pretty good article, if not overly positive.

at one point, Miyamoto said that games like Mario and Zelda are not popular because of the characters, but because of the gameplay - that ultimately, the games made the characters not the other way around. Unfortunately, Nintendo now regularly pimps games based on its stable of famous/popular characters, and seemingly isn't ready to risk developing new ones. I don't think Nintendo needs an M-rated title, but they definitely need to open the coffers and fund development of new unique IPs that can grab the attention and spurn the imagination of their fans in ways that Mario, Zelda, and the rest simply do not anymore.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
(05-03-2008, 12:15 PM)
DXB-KNIGHT's Avatar
I think People (some Gamers/Developers) moved from calling Nintendo "Kiddy" to "Casual".
Mithos Yggdrasill
Banned
(05-03-2008, 12:18 PM)
Nice reading. Never though at Nintendo from this angle.
PolyGone
Banned
(05-03-2008, 12:20 PM)

Originally Posted by DXB-KNIGHT

I think People (some Gamers/Developers) moved from calling Nintendo "Kiddy" to "Casual".

I often think the people who call Nintendo "kiddy" are the segment of teenagers in that phase where they have outgrown the things they enjoyed as children, and in an attempt to form their new more adult identity they move on to the more mature (and therefore "cool") brand of PlayStation/Xbox games. I myself went through something like that, so I guess its a natural progression, but at some point these people need to realize that Nintendo games try to appeal to everyone in the same way that a Pixar or Miyazaki film do (ie: while kid-friendly, there is still plenty for older gamers / adults to enjoy as well).
AntoneM
Could you please shut up about the child I kidnapped?
Trying to watch Idol here
(05-03-2008, 12:22 PM)
AntoneM's Avatar
umm, no shit. I wonder how long it took the writer to come up with this "totally new idea".
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
(05-03-2008, 12:22 PM)
Anasui Kishibe's Avatar

Originally Posted by PolyGone

I often think the people who call Nintendo "kiddy" are the segment of teenagers in that phase where the things they enjoyed as children are considered uncool, and in an attempt to form their new more adult identity they move on to the more mature (and therefore "cool") brand of PlayStation/Xbox games. I myself went through something like that, so I guess its a natural progression, but at some point these people need to realize that Nintendo games try to appeal to everyone in the same way that a Pixar or Miyazaki film do (ie: while kid-friendly, there is still plenty for older gamers / adults to enjoy as well).

very good, exactly what I was going to write.
Mithos Yggdrasill
Banned
(05-03-2008, 12:23 PM)

Originally Posted by PolyGone

I often think the people who call Nintendo "kiddy" are the segment of teenagers in that phase where the things they enjoyed as children are considered uncool, and in an attempt to form their new more adult identity they move on to the more mature (and therefore "cool") brand of PlayStation/Xbox games. I myself went through something like that, so I guess its a natural progression, but at some point these people need to realize that Nintendo games try to appeal to everyone in the same way that a Pixar or Miyazaki film do (ie: while kid-friendly, there is still plenty for older gamers / adults to enjoy as well).

Interesting comparison between Pixar and Nintendo. In fact, for example, Super Mario Galaxy or Zelda Ocarina of Time are masterpieces that can be enjoyed by everyone, doesn't matter the age.
justchris
I am a n00b
(05-03-2008, 12:38 PM)
justchris's Avatar
I think the idea that Nintendo doesn't realize this is laughable. It's part of their marketing.
Kipe
Member
(05-03-2008, 12:39 PM)

Originally Posted by PolyGone

I myself went through something like that, so I guess its a natural progression, but at some point these people need to realize that Nintendo games try to appeal to everyone in the same way that a Pixar or Miyazaki film do (ie: while kid-friendly, there is still plenty for older gamers / adults to enjoy as well).

Yes it's a natural progression that many gamers went through, but it's not a necessary step. Americans have produced fans of movies without Pixar and Japanese enjoy movies before Miyazaki. If video games were a niche medium like it was in the 80s, or books and comics today then it would be important for entry level works.
Shikamaru Ninja
任天堂 の 忍者
(05-03-2008, 12:42 PM)
Don't see much point in this article circa right now. Nintendo is a pop-culture company right now. Nintendo has the highest and most balanced market-share right now between men, women, children, teens, and adults.

This impertinent kiddy agenda was most relevant during the GameCube design which skewed a much younger audience compared to the SONY and Microsoft campaign. But today's Nintendo with Wii Fit, Brain-Age, English Training, Wii Sports, has the highest adult appeal any console has ever had.
Zer0
Banned
(05-03-2008, 12:45 PM)
wii.*****? ok
Tim the Wiz
Member
(05-03-2008, 12:46 PM)
Tim the Wiz's Avatar
I grew up on Contra, Tetris, Mortal Kombat, top-down shooters and arcades. Nintendo came later, and although there titles were unimaginably amazing for my younger self at that time, it never-the-less was not the hook that got me into gaming. I think this is true for many other people. However, I'm not saying that Nintendo didn't bring in other people, but I do think this article is overstating things a bit and forgetting just how adaptable and skillful young kids are at games.

If Nintendo wasn't there, I really do not doubt that I would still be interested in videogames today. And while I do think they're highly significant, I truly doubt the industry would collapse without them. It would be smaller - definitely smaller - but not gone. (unless you count the industry crash of the 80s, but that's one hypothetical too many)
justchris
I am a n00b
(05-03-2008, 12:49 PM)
justchris's Avatar

Originally Posted by Shikamaru Ninja

Don't see much point in this article circa right now. Nintendo is a pop-culture company right now. Nintendo has the highest and most balanced market-share right now between men, women, children, teens, and adults.

This impertinent kiddy agenda was most relevant during the GameCube design which skewed a much younger audience compared to the SONY and Microsoft campaign. But today's Nintendo with Wii Fit, Brain-Age, English Training, Wii Sports, has the highest adult appeal any console has ever had.

That just means they've expanded into bringing older people in as new gamers. Their stated goal is still to turn people who otherwise wouldn't play games, into dedicated gamers, whether they be children, teens, adults, or grandparents. Seriously, they say this in nearly every presentation.
Jocchan
Ὁ μεμβερος -ου
(05-03-2008, 12:49 PM)
Jocchan's Avatar
Gamers are egocentric manbabies, news at eleven!
MutFox
Member
(05-03-2008, 12:49 PM)
MutFox's Avatar
The writer really repeats themselves WAY too many times.
PolyGone
Banned
(05-03-2008, 12:53 PM)

Originally Posted by Kipe

Yes it's a natural progression that many gamers went through, but it's not a necessary step. Americans have produced fans of movies without Pixar and Japanese enjoy movies before Miyazaki. If video games were a niche medium like it was in the 80s, or books and comics today then it would be important for entry level works.

except that a passive medium like film, and books/comics which only require a user to be literate are a stark contrast (and poor comparison) to a medium that requires constant user interaction via an input device that to most people looks as foreign/complicated as a musical instrument. This is why inviting children into the equation is so important, otherwise as the editorial states, very few adults would have the inclination, let alone the ability, to pick up and play a game like Mass Effect.

Originally Posted by Tim the Wiz

I grew up on Contra, Tetris, Mortal Kombat, top-down shooters and arcades. Nintendo came later, and although there titles were unimaginably amazing for my younger self at that time, it never-the-less was not the hook that got me into gaming. I think this is true for many other people. However, I'm not saying that Nintendo didn't bring in other people, but I do think this article is overstating things a bit and forgetting just how adaptable and skillful young kids are at games.

Except that times have changed, arcades are dead, and the modern equivalent to Contra is Call of Duty or Gears of War, top-down shooters are now bullet-hell curtain fire extravaganzas - games with much more complex controls and/or difficulty - and if those things didn't stop you from playing, the ratings might have.
Last edited by PolyGone; 05-03-2008 at 12:59 PM.
Starchasing
Member
(05-03-2008, 12:57 PM)
Starchasing's Avatar

Originally Posted by PolyGone

very few adults would have the inclination, let alone the ability, to pick up and play a game like Mass Effect.

So? that only means that Mass effect was poorly designed.

games with much more complex controls and/or difficulty

Such games are poorly designed.

Take for example contra 4. Simple controls , hard game.
Last edited by Starchasing; 05-03-2008 at 01:01 PM.
Azelover
Member
(05-03-2008, 01:03 PM)
I think the so-called "kiddy" image has already gone away, people who think that way now are largely in a corner, they're the "hardcore" bunch and not even the mass hardcore at that, they'll continue to call Nintendo "kiddy" more and more. That's expected.

What Nintendo previously had was an image of software just for kids, I've always been keen on the idea that making "mature" titles was not the way to overcome that image, but rather to have older people embrace these "child" games and change the perception into a positive one. And I believe they have overcome that actually.

As our industry grows into greater real cultural relevance(not the fake one Hollywood-esque concept of cultural penetration, which has and will continue to fail greatly. I'm talking about the new Wii Sports/Fit/WOW/GuitarHero/Social Gaming which will not) there are new trends being settled quite slowly but surely. In this new wider paradigm for our industry "geeky" is the new negative term of choice rather than "kiddy". Sure you'll have your nostlagic moments where that reality is subverted momentarily to reflect otherwise, much as Nintendo had some when Sony was changing things, but those moments won't last more than a mere week or month at best.
PolyGone
Banned
(05-03-2008, 01:14 PM)

Originally Posted by Starchasing

So? that only means that Mass effect was poorly designed.



Such games are poorly designed.

Take for example contra 4. Simple controls , hard game.

Contra 4 is only a hard game because it relies on ancient wisdom handed down from the quarter-munching arcade days that one-hit kills are a-ok usa and that all you need to do is run forward, jump, and shoot. To suggest that games that aspire to do more than that (and therefore requiring more complex controls, eg Metal Gear Solid) are poorly designed has led me to believe yours was a joke post.
Starchasing
Member
(05-03-2008, 01:19 PM)
Starchasing's Avatar

Originally Posted by PolyGone

Contra 4 is only a hard game because it relies on ancient wisdom handed down from the quarter-munching arcade days that one-hit kills are a-ok usa and that all you need to do is run forward, jump, and shoot. To suggest that games that aspire to do more than that (and therefore requiring more complex controls, eg Metal Gear Solid) are poorly designed has led me to believe yours was a joke post.

the problem is when having complex controls means "aspire to do more"

Thats why the videogames are not recognised as art, they will never be until they stop putting emphasis on the design aspect of it.

Most of the greatest books didnt try to "aspire to do more" by making it difficult to read


Also, the fact that you mention MGS as a game that aspires to do more is indicative of the situation. As long as games try to mimick the movies they will all fail miserably. Videogames are not movies, they may share some aspects but they should not be interactive movies.

When movies started, they tried to mimick the theater. For a while most movies where basicly frontal continous shots , so it was just like being in the theater. Then people started moving the camera and editing. Thats when movies become art on itself.

Games are just mimicking movies. Its time to move on
Last edited by Starchasing; 05-03-2008 at 01:26 PM.
PolyGone
Banned
(05-03-2008, 01:25 PM)

Originally Posted by Starchasing

the problem is when having complex controls means "aspire to do more"

Thats why the videogames are not recognised as art, they will never be until they stop putting emphasis on the design aspect of it.

Most of the greatest books didnt try to "aspire to do more" by making it difficult to read

Wrong. Many of the world's greatest books do aspire to deeper themes, meanings, messages, ideas, etc that may be missed or misunderstood by an average reader, and contain diction that may be obtuse to the average reader as well.

Secondly, calling complex controls poorly designed is akin to calling a piano poorly designed simply because it was designed to play more than a few notes. The point about Nintendo games is that they allow a user to gradually become familiar with gaming as a hobby, much in the way a music student must practice and finetune their ability to play an instrument before they should even attempt to play a beethoven piece.

Originally Posted by Starchasing

Also, the fact that you mention MGS as a game that aspires to do more is indicative of the situation. As long as games try to mimick the movies they will all fail miserably. Videogames are not movies, they may share some aspects but they should not be interactive movies.

When movies started, they tried to mimick the theater. For a while most movies where basicly frontal continous shots , so it was just like being in the theater. Then people started moving the camera and editing. Thats when movies become art on itself.

Games are just mimicking movies. Its time to move on

the issue of cinematics in games has nothing to do with the article or the argument about MGS aspiring to do more from the perspective of controls or interactivity.
Last edited by PolyGone; 05-03-2008 at 01:31 PM.
Starchasing
Member
(05-03-2008, 01:32 PM)
Starchasing's Avatar

Originally Posted by PolyGone

Wrong. Many of the world's greatest books do aspire to deeper themes, meanings, messages, ideas, etc that may be missed or misunderstood by an average reader.

But as long as you can read, you can read them. Anyone can read El Quixote or Lolita. Anyone can read the most beautiful poems. Will you miss some undertones probably, but you can enjoy it anyhow.

For example, Alice in Wonderland. Anyone can read it, kidds love it. Adults love it too. Are you missing the social comentary underlaying, probably... but you can still enjoy the book

Originally Posted by PolyGone

Secondly, calling complex controls poorly designed is akin to calling a piano poorly designed simply because it was designed to play more than a few notes.

The best design is always the easier to use... i dunno how you can argue with that.

the issue of cinematics in games has nothing to do with the article or the argument about MGS aspiring to do more from the perspective of controls or interactivity

from the perspective of interactivity every second of cinematics is one less second you control.

When you have a game full of cinematics you are taking away interactivity from it, so it has a lot to do.

The point about Nintendo games is that they allow a user to gradually become familiar with gaming as a hobby, much in the way a music student must practice and finetune their ability to play an instrument before they should even attempt to play a beethoven piece

So many bullshit on one post. have you ever been to a piano lesson?
Last edited by Starchasing; 05-03-2008 at 01:36 PM.
besada
Our thoughts compressed, which makes us blessed,and makes for stormy weather.
(05-03-2008, 01:32 PM)
besada's Avatar
Who is it, exactly, that's overlooking Nintendo? It's the biggest selling console of the generation, in every single territory.
Lobster
Banned
(05-03-2008, 01:48 PM)
Nintendo producing future Xbox/Playstation gamers?

Originally Posted by besada

Who is it, exactly, that's overlooking Nintendo? It's the biggest selling console of the generation, in every single territory.

I can't believe you even need to ask that. You an account in the place dude.
joelseph
Member
(05-03-2008, 01:49 PM)
joelseph's Avatar
What are we arguing about in here again? I want to call someone stupid. =/
Lobster
Banned
(05-03-2008, 01:52 PM)

Originally Posted by joelseph

What are we arguing about in here again? I want to call someone stupid. =/

Nintendo is creating new gamers that turn into Xbox and Playstation gamers in the future?
PolyGone
Banned
(05-03-2008, 02:03 PM)

Originally Posted by Starchasing


The best design is always the easier to use... i dunno how you can argue with that.

you're right, I can't argue with you, but it isn't because of that.
titiklabingapat
Member
(05-03-2008, 02:05 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by besada

Who is it, exactly, that's overlooking Nintendo? It's the biggest selling console of the generation, in every single territory.

Maybe it's just Nintendo's way of interacting with developers and publishers at large and the gaming press, but there is still a sense of snarkiness and almost habitual patronizing when the community outside of the known Nintendo sphere is asked to let their opinions known, except for a few exceptional examples.
besada
Our thoughts compressed, which makes us blessed,and makes for stormy weather.
(05-03-2008, 02:08 PM)
besada's Avatar

Originally Posted by Lobster

I can't believe you even need to ask that. You an account in the place dude.

What, individual consumers? Or third-parties? I saw just the other day that third parties are not so dire as people thought.

Seriously, I don't get how you can be the number one console seller and feel overlooked in any respect.

Some developers prefer a different approach to creating games. That doesn't mean they're overlooking Nintendo. It just means they went a different way. If it's okay for Nintendo to pick their own path, it should be the same for devs, yes?
Lobster
Banned
(05-03-2008, 02:17 PM)

Originally Posted by besada

What, individual consumers? Or third-parties? I saw just the other day that third parties are not so dire as people thought.

Seriously, I don't get how you can be the number one console seller and feel overlooked in any respect.

Some developers prefer a different approach to creating games. That doesn't mean they're overlooking Nintendo. It just means they went a different way. If it's okay for Nintendo to pick their own path, it should be the same for devs, yes?

I meant GAF.

GAF overlooks the importance of Nintendo.
Neomoto
Member
(05-03-2008, 02:22 PM)
Interesting read. I agree with it, but then again, this isn't "news" to me. It's true that Nintendo has a enormous impact on the industry, and in more ways than this article is mentioning too. But anyway, they do introduce so incredibly many new players into the industry that it's almost hard to believe. Even if you only look at this latest generation, they have singlehandidly got in millions upon millions upon millions of players who never touched videogames before in to the industry (and this generation is faaar from over). The last 2 years have easily shattered records everywhere in every region and boosted the industry in every way (hardware, software, accessoires, online players, new players, perception of gaming etc). And, even though almost every significant developer has tried their hand at non-games and such, not one game has come even remotely close to a random succesfull Nintendo non-game (and the "best" ones are most likely copy's of Nintendo succes story's).

So yeah.. gaming wouldn't be gaming without Nintendo (not now, not in the past -- also in terms of console / hardware interfaces and such, not just software), doesn't matter if you like the games or not or Nintendo's way of doing things. Even their online service is pretty good in introducing new players into such a competitive area where "hardcore" gamers rule supreme, even though most "hardcore" gamers think it's sucks because it's not aimed exclusively at their needs. It has a much higher impact on getting new consumers into online play and downloadable content / online distribution than Xbox Live ever will.

I for one hope Nintendo indeed doesn't "evolve" in the sense the article is also mentioning. I got into gaming to early to remember what I played at that age but I'm pretty sure it was either the Game Boy or NES (or both) and probably because of games like Mario / Tetris etc (because when I got old enough to remember it at even now, the situation wasn't much different, but there also was a SNES then). About 17 years later I still enjoy Nintendo's masterpieces like Galaxy, Zelda, Brawl etc. I have a lot of respect fot them ant their games, BUT I also think that they could make more new IPs. Even one or two that aim more to experienced gamers, say more stuff like Disaster: Day of Crisis (doesn't seem like a game suited for young players or the whole family). That way, they can keep making the games everyone knows and loves AND keep making games for the expanded audience while in the meantime make just a couple of games suited more for the experienced gamers that perhaps haven't got much interest in games like Metroid, Zelda, Brawl etc. They can even outsource it. An alternative option is, of course, that third party's would step the fuck up and release games that experienced gamers actually want on Nintendo's console also.

Originally Posted by besada

Who is it, exactly, that's overlooking Nintendo? It's the biggest selling console of the generation, in every single territory.

The hardcore gamers, like it says in the article multiple times. ;)
Juice
Member
(05-03-2008, 02:24 PM)
Juice's Avatar
I skimmed it; it's a pretty eloquent retort to what my opinion of Nintendo has been for years. Especially more recently where I almost love my Wii for posterity's sake. If I wasn't married, I don't think I'd ever turn it on, but I know that I'm fostering good habits in my wife, who's getting obsessed with Mario Kart online (I'm planning on introducing her to the blue sparks this weekend).
besada
Our thoughts compressed, which makes us blessed,and makes for stormy weather.
(05-03-2008, 02:26 PM)
besada's Avatar

Originally Posted by Lobster

I meant GAF.

GAF overlooks the importance of Nintendo.

Well, some of GAF does, but mostly they acknowledge the importance of Nintendo while moaning sadly about it. While I'm sure there are a couple of delusional guys who still think the PS3 or the 360 is going to sudddenly pull ahead, they are the crazed minority.

The rest are mostly people who see the Wii's significance to the industry and are saddened by it because it reduces the number of games of the type they would like to play as money shifts towards the Wii.

Nintendo bifurcated the market (or Sony and MS did, depending on your perspective) and most devs are having to choose one direction or the other. The problem cuts both ways. 360/PS3 only owners don't get stuff like Monster Hunter and Dragon Quest, and Wii-only owners don't get GTAIV or Assassin's Creed.

I have a hard time understanding any serious gamer who doesn't own at least two of the three, particularly at this point when prices have come down some.
schild
Member
(05-03-2008, 02:56 PM)

Originally Posted by Juice

I skimmed it; it's a pretty eloquent retort to what my opinion of Nintendo has been for years. Especially more recently where I almost love my Wii for posterity's sake. If I wasn't married, I don't think I'd ever turn it on, but I know that I'm fostering good habits in my wife, who's getting obsessed with Mario Kart online (I'm planning on introducing her to the blue sparks this weekend).

Mines been unplugged for all but 3 days since it launched. Those days were launch day, and the two days following the release of No More Heroes.

I am not married and I like fun. When the Wii came out, this place looked like (and still looks like) a forum-based caricature of hypebeast.com. A blog devoted to people who buy into a fad fulling knowing what that fad is and what it means.
legend166
Member
(05-03-2008, 03:01 PM)
legend166's Avatar

Originally Posted by schild

Mines been unplugged for all but 3 days since it launched. Those days were launch day, and the two days following the release of No More Heroes.

I am not married and I like fun. When the Wii came out, this place looked like (and still looks like) a forum-based caricature of hypebeast.com. A blog devoted to people who buy into a fad fulling knowing what that fad is and what it means.

facepalm.gif
Lobster
Banned
(05-03-2008, 03:04 PM)

Originally Posted by schild

Mines been unplugged for all but 3 days since it launched. Those days were launch day, and the two days following the release of No More Heroes.

I am not married and I like fun. When the Wii came out, this place looked like (and still looks like) a forum-based caricature of hypebeast.com. A blog devoted to people who buy into a fad fulling knowing what that fad is and what it means.

It looks like you would rather post about how you don't play Wii on a message board anyways.
Htown
STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
(05-03-2008, 03:05 PM)
Htown's Avatar

Originally Posted by besada

Well, some of GAF does, but mostly they acknowledge the importance of Nintendo while moaning sadly about it. While I'm sure there are a couple of delusional guys who still think the PS3 or the 360 is going to sudddenly pull ahead, they are the crazed minority.

The rest are mostly people who see the Wii's significance to the industry and are saddened by it because it reduces the number of games of the type they would like to play as money shifts towards the Wii.

But it doesn't reduce that number of games.
VAIL
(05-03-2008, 03:07 PM)
It's good that someone took the time to spell it out, but for alot of us it's a "no shit" article.

For the others, I hope they have the attention span to actually read it.
schild
Member
(05-03-2008, 03:08 PM)

Originally Posted by Lobster

It looks like you would rather post about how you don't play Wii on a message board anyways.

I'm playing Pixeljunk monsters on the screen next to this one, thanks.
Prisen
Member
(05-03-2008, 03:10 PM)

Originally Posted by Starchasing

The best design is always the easier to use... i dunno how you can argue with that.

But easiest for beginner to use is not always the same as for expert to use. Often they are completely different.
Lobster
Banned
(05-03-2008, 03:12 PM)

Originally Posted by schild

I'm playing Pixeljunk monsters on the screen next to this one, thanks.

You must be really hardcore to play Ps3 while also posting how boring the Wii is.
schild
Member
(05-03-2008, 03:13 PM)

Originally Posted by Lobster

You must be really hardcore to play Ps3 while also posting how boring the Wii is.

M3d10n
Member
(05-03-2008, 03:25 PM)
M3d10n's Avatar
The article is directed at adult gamers who often complain that Nintendo didn't grow with them, that they didn't follow their tastes as they matured, even though they loved their SNES when kids.

It's similar to how many males develop a strong distaste for Disney (specially pre-Pixar Disney) because they want more from their animation as they get older, and thus move into anime or simple start disliking animation entirely.

But that doesn't mean Nintendo should adapt to their aging public. That's a bad business strategy if you think about it.

Adults are less likely to get into T or M rated videogames if they didn't have gaming as an important part of their entertainment while young, that just can't be argued.

Most "mature" and "core" games are designed by people who are long time gamers, and for people who already game, so they are often built on top of concepts laid out by previous games in the genre which the audience is expected to know and understand and most attempts to make the game more accessible for people who never played another game in the same genre will be perceived by the existing audience as "dumbing down" and be criticized.

So, for developers and publishers of "core" and "mature" it is desirable to have kids, who are often unable or forbidden to play their games, playing other games and having gaming as a normal part of their entertainment routine so they will still be interested in games when they get older. That's where Nintendo fills in, and article points that gamers need to realize that just because they hate Mario and think it's gay, it doesn't mean Nintendo should stop producing it and start producing AAA realistic multiplayer FPS games.

BTW, there one thing in the article I disagree with:

Games like Mass Effect and Call of Duty 4 are fantastic titles but they have almost no chance of hooking new players, particularly youngsters

He's underestimating kids, specially boys. An energetic 8 years old would be able to play both of those games, and, unlike a non-gamer adult, would be wholly interested in doing so, even if he never gets past the first missions (when I was a kid there were tons of games I was unable to finish, but I kept playing them anyway). But obviously an 8 years old should NOT be playing such games due to their content rating.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
(05-03-2008, 03:31 PM)
Kai Dracon's Avatar
I will say that, over the years as people harped on Nintendo as "kiddie" I often asked myself: just what do these people really want? What do they expect to happen if Nintendo suddenly is just like Electronic Arts or Activision? What could Nintendo contribute in truth by making more games that are just like all the other "adult" titles that capable developers are already making?

I tend to see Nintendo as one of the foundations of the game industry and the gaming community. This does not mean they're for absolutely everyone, but ever since the recovery from the original videogame crash, Nintendo has inserted themselves as one of the pillars that hold gaming up. The article in the OP may be stating what is obvious to many, but some points bear repeating.

One thing to consider about the success of the Wii, for instance, is that the hardcore's flabergasted wailing over it doesn't seem to address the fact that the hardcore gamers aren't going to stop buying Xboxes because of Wii, but Wii is helping gaming's image in the abstract by putting a very popular, friendly face on the whole thing. I honestly think that if Nintendo was not there, did not exist, gaming would be in much more trouble than it is in multiple ways besides just raising up future generations of gamers. It would be much easier to pigeonhole videogames as the dark obsession of shut-in, anti-social geeks and potentially psychotic mouthbreathers. That Nintendo is successful at what they do helps create a balanced ecosystem. I suspect it is easier to make games aimed at adults respected as adult material when there's a broad spectrum of game content to contrast the adult games against. The joke about Nintendo going under or turning "mature" would be, that if the world only had GTA games, then accusations that games with outrageous content were aimed at 10 year olds would have far more weight... because there'd be nothing else to sell the 10 year olds, and you know kids are going to want to play games.
Neo C.
Member
(05-03-2008, 03:31 PM)
Neo C.'s Avatar
Their products might be safe for kids, still it's a long way to make a DS safe for Murasaki:
[IMG]http://i27.************/27xr0pz.jpg[/IMG]
I wonder if there are really kids killing their DS.
eve241
Member
(05-03-2008, 03:37 PM)
Introducing gamers? A lot of people started with games like Tomb Raider or other similarly "complex" games. I don't think simplicity is required in order to grab people's attention.
eve241
Member
(05-03-2008, 03:40 PM)

Originally Posted by Starchasing

So? that only means that Mass effect was poorly designed.



Such games are poorly designed.

Not every game needs to be centered around a fundamentally basic concept in order to be great.

Thread Tools