Support NeoGAF

[Y2Kev]

Also, Y2K, what about efficiency? What about the gaming company making more profits? The company growing/becoming more efficient still leaves the same or more room for "regular" games.

I'll reference, again, what I said earlier.

I don't care about non-games as long as regular games continue to be made. I simply presented an unlikely, hypothetical situation.

 

[chadums90]

A fad comes along, a fad dies...And the same basic core of the medium still remains. I think you could make a comparison to movements in art. How many me-too people were doing the same thing as Monet, but not nearly on his genius level? How about Mozart? Shakespeare?

EDIT: Well, then I'll except it, but I think it is nigh impossible. And if it did, the video game would come back after the crash as it did before with the NES.

 

[drohne]

games carry platforms with them. when everyone in the world bought two copies of the davinci code, philip roth wasn't suddenly restricted to dan brown's linguistic range. and books aren't all written by a few dozen highly imitative corporations.

not that i think brain training will replace videogames -- my fears are a bit otherwise, and i'm saying "bad for me" rather than "bad for the industry." but this is all getting a bit silly. i suppose arguing from analogies can only go so far.

 

[cartman414]

So you're talking about Blu-ray included in the PS3? First of all, I'm talking about HD gaming...not movies. Secondly, XBOX360 offers HD gaming as well. I demand HD resolutions out of my game consoles and feel that resolution alone will not damage the industry. I'm not willing to deal with 480p any longer just to have a machine that costs $200 instead of $400 or $600.

I'm certainly not going to complain about the inclusion of BR, though.

* face faults *

Read my above posts again. I didn't say a damn thing about HD movie formats. You brought it up just now, not me. And it's not just the additional console costs that are of concern here. It's also the extra hundreds one would have to spend for a decent HD capable set. It all adds up.

I can tell that you're good to go in the HD set department, and have no qualms with dropping some extra cash for the luxury of HD. More power to you. But just don't expect the same out of others who either can't afford or aren't interested just yet for whatever reason.

 

[dark10x]

I can tell that you're good to go in the HD set department, and have no qualms with dropping some extra cash for the luxury of HD. More power to you. But just don't expect the same out of others who either can't afford or aren't interested just yet for whatever reason.

My entire point is that I do NOT expect the same out of others and, quite frankly, don't care whether they do or not. That's their issue, not mine. I do not want my experience limited by those people.

The XBOX360 core system is no more expensive than the PS2 was back in 2000 or the XBOX in 2001. You aren't paying more solely for HD, you know.

The PS3 is a bit different, but hey, it's a premium product at a premium price. The early adopters will likely have the hardware to take advantage of it and the casual consumers will buy it when the price has fallen.

I mentioned Blu-ray simply because you stated that consumers shouldn't pay more for a feature they can't use...and that has been used in reference to BR more than once. With XBOX360, you are NOT paying more for HD.

 

[Count Chocula]

i'm not arguing that wii tennis and brain training are "bad for the industry" and should be extirpated. i'm arguing that they're total pap, and that more of us ought to say so.

people will often conflate what nintendo are doing -- rendering games down to some ideal level of accessibility -- and any number of more romantic things which they are not doing: broadening the subject matter of games, challenging received notions of what games are, producing artistic provocations as if they were french symbolist poets and not the world's safest videogame makers. surely brain training has brought games to new audiences, but in no sense other than the purely mercantile is it like maus in comparison to the superhero comics that most games admittedly are. it's like family circus or cathy in comparison to superhero comics.

That's how I feel I dont understand why people, especially on this board, are so proud to be able to play the same games designed for grandma to enjoy.

I look at Wii baseball and I see a game where you swing the controller and hold a button to run nothing more or less. I'm just not seeing the romantic change in gaming ideology that people are alluding to.

 

[dark10x]

That's how I feel I dont understand why people, especially on this board, are so proud to be able to play the same games designed for grandma to enjoy.

I look at Wii baseball and I see a game where you swing the controller and hold a button to run nothing more or less. I'm just not seeing the romantic change in gaming ideology that people are alluding to.

People then argue that simple controls are a good thing...

Guess what? They certainly aren't wrong. The difference is how the game itself puts those controls to use. There are some amazing shooters out there sporting just two buttons and a stick...but those games are hard f*cking core and demand a lot of skill out of the player. Mastering those games is a whole lot of fun, despite their simplistic controls.

Simplistic controls are one thing but simplistic game design is another entirely...and Nintendo seems to be adopting both.

 

[Magicpaint]

It's getting really annoying to see people come in constantly and complain about the Wii. It doesn't appeal to you? DON'T GET IT THEN. It's that simple.

There are two options out there, you know. Nintendo is business, sorry if they don't think you guys are the only gamers (or potential gamer) worth catering too.

Nothing wrong with more options, the industry does NOT revolve around you lot, and thank God it does not. You know, I actually like Nintendo's new philosphy and all myself. Go to where your interests are.

 

[cartman414]

I mentioned Blu-ray simply because you stated that consumers shouldn't pay more for a feature they can't use...and that has been used in reference to BR more than once. With XBOX360, you are NOT paying more for HD.

I see. But HD resolutions also fall under the bracket of features not yet at mass market saturation.

The XBox 360 core package is there for the abject purpose of MS being able to lay claim to the $299 price point. Even if you won't be paying a whole lot more for HD in that case, 1) the core package is a rip compared to the premium, and more importantly 2) you'll have to shell out extra for a decent HD capable set. Like I said, it all adds up.

And just because Nintendo's most recent successes were non-games, or because a few of their next games will employ simpler controls doesn't mean that Nintendo is suddenly going for simplistic game design. If Super Paper Mario or Zelda: Twilight Princess are simplistic, then feel free to complain.

 

[Doc Holliday]

People then argue that simple controls are a good thing...

Guess what? They certainly aren't wrong. The difference is how the game itself puts those controls to use. There are some amazing shooters out there sporting just two buttons and a stick...but those games are hard f*cking core and demand a lot of skill out of the player. Mastering those games is a whole lot of fun, despite their simplistic controls.

Simplistic controls are one thing but simplistic game design is another entirely...and Nintendo seems to be adopting both.

Funny.. at E3 I could have sworn I saw Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Metroid Prime 3, and other games which I hardly consider Simple in game design or controls.

I'ts like saying every game Namco makes will be simplistic in control and design because of katamari.

 

[Magicpaint]

Funny.. at E3 I could have sworn I saw Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Metroid Prime 3, and other games which I hardly consider Simple in game design or controls.

They use the 'waggle wand' so they must be simple designs! Lolz.

 

[dark10x]

I see. But HD resolutions also fall under the bracket of features not yet at mass market saturation.

The XBox 360 core package is there for the abject purpose of MS being able to lay claim to the $299 price point. Even if you won't be paying a whole lot more for HD in that case, 1) the core package is a rip compared to the premium, and more importantly 2) you'll have to shell out extra for a decent HD capable set. Like I said, it all adds up.

The $299 XBOX360 package offers everything the PS2 did back in 2000. The additional cost of a memory card is no different than it was back then. It certainly isn't a good value, should you later purchase the HDD and component cables...but if you are one of those users you speak of, that shouldn't be a huge issue. You are NOT paying more for HD resolutions. The XBOX360 is a natural hardware evolution and resolution is just a part of that (as it was last gen).

Funny.. at E3 I could have sworn I saw Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Metroid Prime 3, and other games which I hardly consider Simple in game design or controls.

I'ts like saying every game Namco makes will be simplistic in control and design because of katamari.

Can you pull anything out that IS NOT a member of the typical Nintendo mainstay? I like Mario as much as the next guy, but I'm looking for more. A great system is made up of well known franchises AND loads of original titles.

I'm not suggesting that Wii will only consist of simple games either, don't make that assumption. I have enjoyed a great number of DS titles...but at the same time, a large portion of the titles considered great are games I have no interest in. The overall library is slim pickings from my perspective.

Nothing wrong with more options, the industry does NOT revolve around you lot, and thank God it does not. You know, I actually like Nintendo's new philosphy and all myself. Go to where your interests are.

Of course it does not revolve around an individual. I fear these options, though, as there is only so much money and a successful Wii platform could deprive me of what I want. How could I go where my interests are if they no longer exist?

 

[etiolate]

there was a time when jazz, rock and roll, and more recently rap were considered music for people who hate music, or not music at all

This, along with tre accidently backing it up, should have been the end of drohne's dumb argument.


Oh god no! Somebody, SOMEBODY! Stop this... this impressionist art movement.....befo...Oooooooooooooh NOooooooooooo

 

[Magicpaint]

Of course it does not revolve around an individual. I fear these options, though, as there is only so much money and a successful Wii platform could deprive me of what I want. How could I go where my interests are if they no longer exist?

There is NO WAY the Wii will replace the PS3 or the 360, at best it'll match the PS3. The hardcore gaming market is still huge and is growing year on year iirc, Nintendo is simply choosing to go beyond just that, I think your fears are unfounded as the Wii at best, will most likely expand the industry rather than replace the current industry trends.

The DS is still being blessed with the games I loved and enjoyed on the GBA, and I also enjoy the new offerings too, so I don't see what's the big problem or how it'll be any different with the Wii. When the DS library is filled with only training-like games, then I'd start to get concerned. Right now, I couldn't be happier with their approach.

 

[Flo_Evans]

people comparing what nintendo is doing in the videogame industry to what impressionist painters did for art need to be taken outside and shot.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I'm not suggesting that Wii will only consist of simple games either, don't make that assumption.

Simplistic controls are one thing but simplistic game design is another entirely...and Nintendo seems to be adopting both.

Thats the only reason I mentioned mario, zelda and metroid.

 

[Doc Holliday]

people comparing what nintendo is doing in the videogame industry to what impressionist painters did for art need to be taken outside and shot.

Actually whats happening now in the industry is very similar to what happened during the time of impressionism. People were getting sick of photorealism, or didnt see the point. I think Nintendo along with many others in the industry are sorta bored with whats happening now. Should I get shot now?

 

[cartman414]

The $299 XBOX360 package offers everything the PS2 did back in 2000. The additional cost of a memory card is no different than it was back then. It certainly isn't a good value, should you later purchase the HDD and component cables...but if you are one of those users you speak of, that shouldn't be a huge issue. You are NOT paying more for HD resolutions. The XBOX360 is a natural hardware evolution and resolution is just a part of that (as it was last gen).

On the other hand, even with its extra power it will still be a challenge wrangling both higher resolution details AND smoother framerates for most developers, be it related to time, money, and/or talent, at higher resolutions. Speaking of development, unless it's a factor of publishers suddenly thinking they can get away with charging more all of a sudden, the $59 game prices seem to be a telltale sign of more costly game development, much of which I think can be attributed to developing around HD resolutions.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I'll be your huckelberry

you say people are bored with photorealism as if that is all that is available or if it has even been achieved. If anything by limiting developers ability to create their vision the wii is holding back experimental graphic styles more than anything.

 

[drohne]

my cat's name is mittens

 

[Jokeropia]

The absurd elitism in this thread is hilarious. I guess when the Nintendo trolls realized that their "Nintendo is DOOMED" claims were getting more and more hollow they had to come up with something new, which was to wail about how Nintendo is destoying the market for TRUE GAMERS OMG!

Wii is a great idea for people worried that gradma can play too when she comes over to your house. That doesn't mean she's going to go out and buy one.

At the same time you've cheated yourself out of a system that will provide any semblance of deep gameplay.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're either not serious or just didn't think before speaking.

you say people are bored with photorealism as if that is all that is available or if it has even been achieved. If anything by limiting developers ability to create their vision the wii is holding back experimental graphic styles more than anything.

I really want to give this quote the same benefit as the above, but I just can't restrain myself because this point is so silly I almost don't know what to say. How many developers have you heard complain about how their creativity is stifled by the Wii? How many developers have you heard praise it because it allows them to work in completely new ways? (Hint: the latter outweighs the former.) Developers who always has to work on top of the line hardware are better off on the PC, anyway.

 

[Trident]

why are "videogames for people who hate videogames" considered a good thing when "books for people who hate reading" or "music for people who hate music" are such obviously bad things?

Having skipped pages 2-4, I can only hope this discussion is still going on:

"Music for people who hate music" ISN'T a bad thing. All this would mean is that labels would start releasing albums for people outside the normal demographic, rather than continuing to only sign bands who fall within the normal genres. I didn't like music until my friend started sending me songs by indie bands.

"Books for people who hate reading" is tricky because it's easy to equivocate "people who hate reading" with "people who hate thinking." But that's only if you assume serious literature to be the default book. Imagine it the other way. If trashy romance novels were the only books that existed, I would hate reading too.

And most videogames have no intellectual gap between them. There's nothing more intellectually impressive about playing Castlevania than playing Wii Sports. Neither makes you think. Both are there for a base-level fun. I don't see how you can claim some superiority in either.

Broadening the scope of what videogames are and what you can do with them is not a bad thing. No one is arguing that Wii Sports are the only games that should exist, but allowing for the variety is in no way a bad thing. Just because jam bands make much more complex, longer songs than hip hop artists doesn't make their music genre "better" in any objective way.

 

[Warm Machine]

I just want to say that whoever wrote the original article makes me want to kill.

 

[drohne]

And most videogames have no intellectual gap between them. There's nothing more intellectually impressive about playing Castlevania than playing Wii Sports. Neither makes you think. Both are there for a base-level fun. I don't see how you can claim some superiority in either.

i agree that the difference between a good videogame and a bad videogame isn't an intellectual difference, and i find it completely ridiculous when people imply that one's taste in games is a sign of one's intelligence. (though yes, i suppose i do go around calling nintendo fans dumb :lol)

i don't think the difference between good music or bad music is intellectual either, by the way, and the difference between good fiction and bad fiction isn't primarily intellectual.

but if you're saying that games can only be judged by whether they provide some "base-level fun" and that there's little ground to call any game better than another -- and that would be an interesting argument -- i certainly don't agree.

 

[Polari]

Actually (here comes a mini rant) this whole games for people who hate games thing, to me anyway, is more of a backlash to over 20 years of derivation(did i use that word right). It happens in art all the time, movements come and they challenge what we think is good. Wether or not you like it, these things are necessary to move forward. If the next 20 years is nothing but what were doing now except with better graphics, animation, physics then what good is gaming? Now i know okay okay, this is a really narrow view. Its about creating new gameplay ideas. We dont really need wii to do that. We dont need a weird controller to have new and inventive gameplay.

However, I think we DO need a wacky controller to expand gaming. Put gaming into the hands of more and more creative people. There are games out there that people would like if they would just try them, but they just wont because of the current nature of gaming. Nintendo is doing us gamers a service by bowing out of the console arms race (god i think i read that in a pr somewhere im sorry) and taking a chance to get gaming out of nerdtown or manlymancity or kidopolis and into normal peopleville.

Nintendo is trying with games that arent about demons and sparda or world war 2. Nintendo, I would say, is trying to get back to the essence of video games. It isnt about replicating your favorite movie with some punching and kicking and shooting inbetween. Videogames at their core are just games. They are a person competing against something. The philosophy behind the wii and stuff like tennis (yes before you go BUT THERE ARE NORMAL GAMES TOO!!!) is that hey, we dont need the superfluous stuff, why dont we cut out the crap and let them have fun?

These games arent for us, were too hardcore, we digest games like a fat guy at a buffet and were never satisfied. We are essentially galactus. But hey, I'm going to buy it. If I have fun, great. If its short lived, eh, maybe next time right?

The thread might have since gone to shit, but this is an excellent post with an excellent point.

 

[Trident]

but if you're saying that games can only be judged by whether they provide some "base-level fun" and that there's little ground to call any game better than another -- and that would be an interesting argument -- i certainly don't agree.

No, I agree with you. Every game has its own set of merits. I had just assumed you were claiming some intellectual superiority because of the book example. My bad.

Anyway, my main point was that creating new works within a certain medium is not necessarily a bad thing, even if they're made to appeal to people who don't currently enjoy works of that medium. For instance, new genres of music for people who don't like the current styles, etc.

Spoiler

nintendo fans are dumb... but not as dumb as jrpg fans

 

[Warm Machine]

Fact of the matter is that there have always been games for people who don't like/play games. Nintendo is just the first company with any power and clout to make a point of it.

Also, I HATE that people are still propogating the myth that games are a teen and lonely guy thing. Game players who were introduced to gaming and it sticking in their consciousness are, on the outside, entering their 40s. In 20 more years it'll be very hard to find someone who isn't steeped in video gaming in one form or another.

It is much like people who say computers are for nerds. Who the **** doens't use a computer now-a-days?

 

[Cloudy]

why are "videogames for people who hate videogames" considered a good thing

....

 

[Teknopathetic]

"GT arguably does it better than anyone. "


No.

 

[AdmiralViscen]

Of course it does not revolve around an individual. I fear these options, though, as there is only so much money and a successful Wii platform could deprive me of what I want. How could I go where my interests are if they no longer exist?

lol, I remember when DS fans used to say this (about a successful PSP destroying their last outlet for simple 2D games) and were called shortsighted fanboys who needed to understand that variety was the spice of life.


Even if the Wii was mind-bogglingly successful, it would not tear down the PlayStation and XBox brands. What a ridiculous post.

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

The unfortunate fact is that the consciousness of most of the "gaming press" and even many of the players is dominated by publisher and hardware-maker PR. If game companies promote certain hardware or software features, or advertise their products in a way that presupposes a certain value system, the "press" and many of the players will internalize those values/criteria and apply them in their own reviews, coverage, evaluation, voluntary "word-of-mouth" viral marketing, etc.

In a perfect world, if developers could cheaply make games for Wii, they should just as well be able to cheaply make games with "Wii-level" graphics etc. for PS3 or for high-spec Linux PCs, etc. After all, the stronger hardware can do everything the weaker can, and in fact allows them to not worry about optimizing their code so much which leaves them more time to spend on the gameplay, story, visual and musical style and also may allow them to write higher-level code that gives them more creative flexibility during development.

However, in the real world, this won't fly because so many players, especially the (mostly gullible and stupid) "early adopters", evaluate software above all else for how well and how flashily it showcases their hardware, basically because the hardware manufacturers and their lackeys in the "press" tell them they should.

So now Nintendo is trying to associate different qualities with its new hardware --- accessibility, simple fun, etc. --- and is aggressively promoting those qualities as the true criteria for evaluating games. Gamers and "game journalists", being mindless zombies, will start to internalize this new aesthetic. It's equally bullshit, of course, but at least it's a different flavor of bullshit, and developers now have their choice of two bogus value systems to work around. Most truly visionary designs won't fit into either, of course, but one might well be a better fit than the other; they can at least pick their poison, and when different victims are susceptible to different poisons to a different degree, I don't see how that's not a good thing.

 

[Ghengis Cohen]

What I find interesting is how some people see spirited debate on the direction Nintendo is moving as completely anethema to how we should discuss videogames because of course new=better. Just because Nintendo (who are not one designer or a developer, but one of three console makers) are changing the vocabulary of gaming in a fairly profound way, and it might not be the best thing to happen, or it might be good, but simply accepting by saying "WOW" and parroting the execs new-gen line is showing an unwillingness to think critically about your hobby.

 

[RevenantKioku]

no -- i'm not proposing a world where all books are good. i only mean to say that good readers should and indeed do look down on something like the lovely bones. whether that "looking down" takes the form of scorn or condescension or indifference, there's an underlying recognition that alice sebold is not of the same species as w.g. sebald. why can't game enthusiasts do the same?

Who's to say what's good though? Frankly drohne, almost all of your posts could be boiled down to "Why can't all you people just be more like me?"

 

[beelzebozo]

Who's to say what's good though? Frankly drohne, almost all of your posts could be boiled down to "Why can't all you people just be more like me?"

yeah.. the fallacy in talking about "good readers" is the underlying presumption that you're one of them.

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

but simply accepting by saying "WOW" and parroting the execs new-gen line is showing an unwillingness to think critically about your hobby.

Gamers have always parroted execs' new-gen lines and have never been willing to think critically about their hobby (or anything else). This will never change, at least not within the next 11,630 days.

 

[ironichaos]

Well, I would just look at the movie industry where a lot of artistic films don't do well or are never even made because of the pap hollywood churns out now. That's why you can't let creative industries be driven by supply and demand.

This is why the movie industry is in for a wake-up call once digital distribution kicks in. It's about giving consumers better access to more choices. There's a reason theaters aren't doing well these days. We've been creating the same old shit for the same old audiences. Look to the Passion of the Christ for an example of what happens when you try something different.

 

[Ghengis Cohen]

Gamers have always parroted execs' new-gen lines and have never been willing to think critically about their hobby (or anything else). This will never change, at least not within the next 11,630 days.

Well some people actually do think critically about the hobby. It doesn't have to be some academic nonsense, but why can't some people say the Wii and Nintendo's new philosophy of bringing in non-gamers is perhaps bad for gaming? (my view is still inchoate, so don't take this as an attack) And why can't it be debated without someone accusing someone of trolling. And as for the literary analysis, there is a reason nobody gives a**** about Horatio Alger anymore except as a historical footnote yet you can still find lively debates on Henry James going on. Somethings are, in fact, better than others.

 

[Oblivion]

You know, I could also say that something like GTA would be a far greater threat to the industry than a game like Brain Training could ever be. Which one requires more resources, more effort, and more money?

Now, am I saying something like GTA is killing the industry? Well, I'll leave that up to you guys.

But the point of this was to show how people can easily spin shit. But yes, carry on with the irrational fear.

 

[Fuzzy]

"I hate computer games and would much rather go out and get some fresh air," she said. "But I have to say this was rather good. I could see me playing this at a party."

Translation: "I'm never spending my own money on this or any other game."

 

[beelzebozo]

You know, I could also say that something like GTA would be a far greater threat to the industry than a game like Brain Training could ever be. Which one requires more resources, more effort, and more money?

Now, am I saying something like GTA is killing the industry? Well, I'll leave that up to you guys.

But the point of this was to show how people can easily spin shit. But yes, carry on with the irrational fear.

it certainly doesn't fit into my vision for the industry. i envision a world in which games do a limited number of things extremely well, rather than do many things unimpressively. this sort of "kitchen sink" mentality exacerbates poor gameplay mechanics in even more poorly designed games.

in short, yuck.

 

[Fantasmo]

This is the first time I've ever seen intelligence, elitism, and insecurities, combine to form such a heinous, insulting, pathetic argument. The way you're all attacking each other... man I can't even describe it!

This thread probably encompasses why the masses hate "smart" people.

This has to be the worst thread I've ever read in my life. I was going to stay in for the night, but **** it... I'm going outside.

 

[Terrell]

I think the point of the article was the fact it came from the Daily Telegraph, and the writer had never even heard about PRAISE for video games in the mainstream public, not by any stretch of the imagination. She might not buy it, this woman with the comment... but get this... at least she's willing to TOUCH A VIDEO GAME. That in itself is enough to say that the whole path Nintendo is going on isn't half-bad. NES games in their heyday weren't terribly over-complicated either, which is the era when many of us picked them up. We got the benefit of natural progression. Most people didn't, or couldn't keep up with it.

To say that hardcore games are going by the wayside is the ultimate fallacy. All that this means is that there are finally games that have the CAPACITY to bridge the gap in ways that are blatantly obvious to the average consumer. We all know that there are games like that out there that can bridge the gap with simple designs and controls, but they are never promoted as such, and by using a traditional 8-to-10-button controller, the illusion that even the simplest game is complicated is still there. Is it right? No. But is anyone else even bothering to try and dissolve the illusion? Not even in the slightest.

Nintendo's just making the ease of gameplay totally blatant, as well as bringing about a control method with the ability to offer the same gradual learning curve we enjoyed when we watched the NES mature into the SNES and beyond.


But more to the point, who honestly gives a damn about anyone or anything beyond themselves in this thread? Nintendo seems to be the only company that's even actively and relentlessly trying to do something about the exclusionary nature of the industry, and you guys piss all over it saying it's not good enough. You might think that, but until another company actively pursues another alternative, there's no sense in pissing all over the ONLY genuine attempt to destroy the illusions that are carried around by the average Joe consumer.

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

dammit you can't expect positive solutions from a message board crank. i'm just here to criticize other people's solutions.

With all this talk of artistic movements, I think the solution is clear. You, Drinky, and a few other like-minded critics need to officially form a new elitist gaming movement, with a dedicated website and forum for your polemics and broadsides. Once you've established (even more) widespread notoreity as critics you can start developing games yourselves, using your fame and rhetorical prowess to browbeat patrons and customers into funding/buying them.. Be the next Francois Truffaut!

 

[Juice]

i concede that brain training is probably very 'good for the industry.'

I suddenly disagree with you way less.

Before I thought it was just an irrational hatred of everything being done to open up gaming to the mainstream by Nintendo.

Now I just see that what you really have is a fear that your current ideal concept of gaming risks being marginalized as publishers find that there's a lot more money to be made by making appeals (and compromises of depth) to normies.

I can understand that fear completely. I don't share it, because I've found big-budget, hardcore games less and less appealing in recent years. However, I would ask you, why don't you cry out over the same tragedies that have been taking place in terms of the milked-to-death EA and Activision franchises?

If you're able to simply ignore those, why not ignore Nintendo's line of non-games as well? Or is it just that you perceive them as a greater threat to your preferred paradigm, inviting a more outspoken resistance?

 

[Juice]

Actually (here comes a mini rant) this whole games for people who hate games thing, to me anyway, is more of a backlash to over 20 years of derivation(did i use that word right). It happens in art all the time, movements come and they challenge what we think is good. Wether or not you like it, these things are necessary to move forward. If the next 20 years is nothing but what were doing now except with better graphics, animation, physics then what good is gaming? Now i know okay okay, this is a really narrow view. Its about creating new gameplay ideas. We dont really need wii to do that. We dont need a weird controller to have new and inventive gameplay.

However, I think we DO need a wacky controller to expand gaming. Put gaming into the hands of more and more creative people. There are games out there that people would like if they would just try them, but they just wont because of the current nature of gaming. Nintendo is doing us gamers a service by bowing out of the console arms race (god i think i read that in a pr somewhere im sorry) and taking a chance to get gaming out of nerdtown or manlymancity or kidopolis and into normal peopleville.

Nintendo is trying with games that arent about demons and sparda or world war 2. Nintendo, I would say, is trying to get back to the essence of video games. It isnt about replicating your favorite movie with some punching and kicking and shooting inbetween. Videogames at their core are just games. They are a person competing against something. The philosophy behind the wii and stuff like tennis (yes before you go BUT THERE ARE NORMAL GAMES TOO!!!) is that hey, we dont need the superfluous stuff, why dont we cut out the crap and let them have fun?

These games arent for us, were too hardcore, we digest games like a fat guy at a buffet and were never satisfied. We are essentially galactus. But hey, I'm going to buy it. If I have fun, great. If its short lived, eh, maybe next time right?

You had me at "Actually." I agree with everything but your lack of proper apostrophes.

 

[sprsk]

You had me at "Actually." I agree with everything but your lack of proper apostrophes.

I have to press shift 7 to do apostrophes, youll only get me to use em if im getting a grade or money or something.

 

[MoxManiac]

it's like family circus or cathy in comparison to superhero comics.

:lol

 

[Flo_Evans]

How many developers have you heard praise it because it allows them to work in completely new ways? (Hint: the latter outweighs the former.) Developers who always has to work on top of the line hardware are better off on the PC, anyway.

you are silly if you don't think weaker hardware doesn't impose limits on developers. work in completely new ways how? gamecube devkits are old news buddy

I can agree that expanding gaming is never a bad thing, and it has to expand to evolve. I just don't buy that these new 'simple' gamers are going to save the industry. (mostly because I don't believe its in any real danger). I don't think that people that dismiss games as childish diversions are going to embrace them if they are made more simply.

 

[Monk]

people will often conflate what nintendo are doing -- rendering games down to some ideal level of accessibility -- and any number of more romantic things which they are not doing: broadening the subject matter of games, challenging received notions of what games are, producing artistic provocations as if they were french symbolist poets and not the world's safest videogame makers. surely brain training has brought games to new audiences, but in no sense other than the purely mercantile is it like maus in comparison to the superhero comics that most games admittedly are. it's like family circus or cathy in comparison to superhero comics.

I got to say you are completely wrong in this. Accessibility is KEY to broaden the market and advancing the industry. People seem to cofuse accessibility to "dumbing down", which is not the same. Currently video games are in a form that is like morse code to many people. Some people "get it" others have no idea and refuse to even bother with it. People dont see video games as what it really is, a medium. Until we get to a point where the interface is accessible enough for people to see gaming as it clearly is, people will avoid gaming like those people who avoid tv because of the negative stuff on it.

Did that make sense?

 

[Pellham]

why are "videogames for people who hate videogames" considered a good thing when "books for people who hate reading" or "music for people who hate music" are such obviously bad things?

Because everyone reads books and everyone listens to music but not everyone plays video games. The "video games for people who hate video games" would eliminate that and make it so that everyone plays video games.

If that doesn't make sense, i'm not sure how else to explain it.