Network now...MAGAZINE
Nintendon’t Care About Hardcore?
By Edge Staff
August 29, 2008
See also:
Related Articles:
"Nintendo has never lost its passion for core gamers. We have never neglected our core gamers. We still have developers working on popular core gaming franchises but we need longer to complete these games."
You can tell a lot about a company by the way it chooses to talk to its customers. In 1985, all Nintendo needed to say to conjure up the exciting world of home videogaming was the boyishly simple ‘Now you’re playing with power!’ By 2006, one of the taglines chosen to introduce the company’s latest multimillion seller was the catchy ‘Can you remember what you had for lunch the day before yesterday?’ It’s the kind of approach you might expect from a dentist or a dietician more than the legends who rule the house of Mario. It’s just one indicator among many. Nintendo has changed, and it has the bank balance to prove it.
But, as with all transformations, this rebirth has come at a price. There may have been glowing write-ups in tabloid newspapers and lifestyle magazines, but there have also been rumblings of discontent from deep within Nintendo’s traditional heartland. Many lifelong videogamers are not pleased by the firm’s new success – they’re feeling forgotten.
A look back at a little history proves just how unexpected Nintendo’s new success has been. The company’s recent, dramatic upswing in fortunes is the result of a strategy that may have been percolating deep behind the serene white façade of the firm’s Kyoto offices for some time, but the first observable signs that the name behind hardware such as the Power Glove and Virtual Boy was feeling revolutionary again came with the release of DS, the handheld that became a cultural phenomenon. Looking back, the success of the console seems inevitable, but the simple truth is that few outside of Nintendo thought it was going to make quite such an impact. Most industry pundits thought the sleeker PSP was going to flatten this underpowered oddity with its strange mish-mash of features and bulky casing. Sony’s hardware has turned out to be far from a failure, of course – it’s just that the astonishing success of DS sometimes makes it look that way.
Observers were cannier by the time Nintendo fully revealed its Wii strategy at E3 2006, but only slightly so. The odd choice of name was still provoking suggestions that the company had gone quietly insane, and Microsoft was so certain of the device’s inability to compete with Xbox 360 that it took the unprecedented move of suggesting that its userbase might like to buy a Wii alongside its own console. Microsoft is not suggesting that any more. As Wii hardware shortages continue, Nintendo’s sales figures have sailed past Microsoft’s own, while Xbox 360’s interface is undergoing surgery to bring it more in line with Nintendo’s vision. Not bad for a console that once struggled to shift its perception as a GameCube in a different-shaped box.
But, as long-time fans might grumble, at least the company was still showing games back then. Come 2008, despite an outing for Shaun White Snowboarding and a new Animal Crossing, Nintendo’s E3 press conference painted a picture of a company on the brink of becoming a fully fledged lifestyle company, each new reveal almost as likely to be a new kind of lawnmower or innovative smoothie-maker as a videogame. That the climax of the event was not a new Mario, a Zelda or even – as some more optimistic types had dared to hope – some new incarnation of Kid Icarus, but Wii Music, a digital toy with little, besides the format, to tie it to the world of games at all, spoke volumes.
The content of the conference was perfectly acceptable – it was just directed at the wrong audience. These were messages for the mass market rather than an increasingly jaded videogaming community. It became clear that Nintendo had manoeuvred itself into a position where E3 no longer puts it in touch with the audience it is truly trying to reach.
For over two decades, Nintendo has been synonymous with the best in videogames. But now that it’s back on top, it seems unable to please the very people who once cheered for it when it was being written off. With mainstream consumers forming lines around the block, why is Nintendo now struggling to satisfy hardcore gamers? Here, we look at ten factors that lie at the heart of the issue.
As a long-time admirer of Nintendo as a genuine video games innovator and a console owner up until the Game Cube, I'm pleased that they're enjoying this success at the moment. Zachary, Kenology et al make some excellent arguments in support of the Wii and no-one can argue that Nintendo's recent business strategy has been fairly masterful. But, guys, what do you actually enjoy playing on it? I haven't read any of your posts that site examples besides the retro virtual console. You can admire an intelligent piece of re-branding but we're not marketing consultants, we're people who enjoy games. There seem to be so many intelligent adults defending the Wii to the hilt but I can see only a handful of games on the Wii that would actually entertain an intelligent adult over a long period of time. That's not supposed to be an insult, just an observation that Nintendo no longer cater for my demographic (25 year old male, 15 years of casual gaming) at all and it does sometimes sound like determined thinking from some to try and deny that. The industry needs complex Nintendo games but it looks as though we'll see them less and less.
It is an interesting point that someone made regarding artistry in gaming in an earlier post. I completely agree that developers should be working on improving gaming as an art form and that the standard of narratives and design on the majority of 360 and PS3 games can be extremely weak. However, I think that there are far more examples of games that attempt to push artistic boundaries within the higher spec market than with the new breed of Nintendo games. Remember also that gaming as an art form is still in its infant stage in terms of overall development. I refuse to believe that after only ~30 years since the first arcade machines that it is already time to start making things simpler and reigning in the technology. That seems like a backward step. Sure Bioshock & GTA4 (to take two examples) had their faults but there was a determined effort to create a gaming experience with artistry in mind.
Why does Nintendo need to cater to you? Why not 3rd party game developers? Why should all the demographic support come directly from Nintendo?
As for your question about what I love to play on the Wii, answer: I don't own one. I want one, but can't spare the cash or time needed to get one. I don't own any consoles from the current generation. The Wii is actually the only console that actually appeals to me (28 year-old wiht wife and three kids, old hardcore RPG/RTS/Adventure gamer, with very little time to play now that I have a job and a family) It is something that I can play with my family and by myself.
AS for games that I want to play, I have played both Mario Cart and Smash Bros. And love them and want to get those. Metroid Prime 3 is one that comes highly recommended from friends who own Wiis. Strong Bad, Zak and Wiki, World of Goo, The Conduit, Mario Galaxy.
Not all the good games are from Nintendo. The only reason the Wii does not appeal to "hardcore" gamers is because they have this unrealistic expectation that Nintendo and only Nintendo should cater to their needs. They do not have that expectation from Sony or Microsoft, so why have it for Nintendo?
They DO have that expectation that Sony and Microsoft cater to them....and Sony and Microsoft DO cater to them. But that's not enough, apparently they need all 3 companies catering to them....and if anyone wants a gaming experience other then what THEY like best.........well, too bad for them, I guess. They're "hardcore" fans so they should get everything they want, grannies and soccor moms be damned
I'm sorry, but Sony and Microsoft fans don't have the same expectation that these so called Nintendo hard cores do of Nintendo. With the PS3 and 360, most of their fans know that the majority of great games for the hardcore come from 3rd parties. For every great game coming from 1st party that they drool over, they are drooling over 3 3rd party games just as much.
But when it comes to the Wii the hardcore expect Nintendo to provide for all their hardcore needs. They aren't asking 3rd parties to develop more hardcore games. They aren't drooling over 3rd party hardcore games and apparently, they aren't buying 3rd party hardcore games. They are in the process of a self fulfilling prophecy. Why would Nintendo make more hardcore games, when the current listing is not selling well? Why would 3rd party developers develop more hardcore games, if they aren't being bought by the people who claim to want them?
The fact is, even though the traditional hardcore game spends more on gaming per year, that is not true on the Wii. Despite its current well developed hardcore listing, people aren't buying them even though they claim to want them. So why develop for them when every soccer mom is more than willing to buy the next party game that rolls off the presses?
I think I fit the bill as a 360 hardcore and you're right, a lot of the games I get excited about tend to be 3rd party's. Not because I don't like MS's first party offerings, but just because they don't release very many 1st or 2nd party games. Mass Effect, Gears, Halo...umm, Fable. That's about it. But the 3rd party offerings are so strong and high in quality (and quantity) that I don't NEED MS to constantly release games that cater to me.
I think you nailed it on the head Zach, 3rd party offerings on the Wii that are more along the line of traditional games (non party/mini game) don't sell very well at all. So they have to rely on imitating what does sell well, and that's mini/party game shovel ware fodder.
But with the 360 3rd parties do very well with the type of game that seems to cater to the "hardcore". And the 360 has a software and especially 3rd party software market share OVER the Wii (not to mention the best software attach rate) that seemes to say something about the spending habbits of Wii owners considering there are more Wiis than 360s out there.
Sorry, it seems you misunderstood my comment. I wasn't speaking of Nintendo the software designer and the games they make, I was talking about Nintendo, the overseer of the whole Wii platform.
They want Nintendo to make the Wii for them and their gaming preferences, just like the Xbox and PS3 already do. Something different that other people might like has no place in "their" market.
Oh, I agree completely with this and your comments below.
But again, that is a completely unreasonable expectation. Why should A company pigeon hole itself into a small niche market when they are fully capable of making money elsewhere? The fact that "hardcore" gamers are complaining about the Wii is proof that they don't like being reminded that times are changing and they are not the only target anymore.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're referring to Nintendo's hardcore fans, right? As a self-prolcaimed hardcore 360 gamer, I'm more than happy with the games my xbox offers whether Nintendo is trying to cater to me or not.
My question is this; who buys more games? The "hardcore" or the non-traditional gamers? I think some "games" like Wii fit, or Wii-play sell lots of copies to the non-traditional gamers. But I wonder how games that are more geared toward the traditional audience (Nintendo's audience that didn't just show up recently) like Mario Galaxy, Smash bros, Metroid, Zelda, etc sell on the system? I'm sure they sell stronly, but there's also garbage on the system that sells just as well. I think the Wii has a split demographic. The loyal fans that have stuck by Nintendo's side through thick and thin and the new "fans" who buy Wii play and Wii fit in droves. How many people who bought Wii fit also finished twilight? Or played through Metroid? I think you Nintendo fans are just as hardcore as we Xbox and PS3 fans are, but you're buying the games that are actually games (in the traditional sense), long games with higher difficulty, games that aren't just mini game gimmick wand waving crap. Those aren't the games that people are complaining about. The Wii I'm sure has its share of "hardcore" gamer fans (I'd be willing to argue that Nintendo has some of the most loyal fans), but it just happens to have millions of non-traditional gaming consumers who are buying into some of the stuff Nintendo offers that most Nintendo loyalists who have been around for 15-20 years scoff at. Those consumers will jump to the next hot thing and leave Nintendo behind faster than you can say, "Itsa me aMario!!!". I don't think the Wii doesn't have games for the Hardcore, not at all, but the non-traditional gaming consumers who just recently showed up happen to be a more lucrative audience so Nintendo has been recently (mainly with E3) gearing their offerings to that particular segment of their market. It’s obvious that a market as lucrative as that is worth the effort tapping into as MS and Sony both (MS more I think) is trying to tap into that as well. But it seems that Nintendo in an effort to court this new demographic has somewhat lost sight of what their fans have always loved about them, and that's just making fun games. Unfortunately focusing the R&D on their fans of old doesn't increase their bottom line quite like this new demographic that is eating up the casual fair like it’s the Holidays and ELMO isn't out of style. But can you blame Nintendo after the beating they took with the GCN at the hands of newcomer MS and (then) King Sony? They had to take a different approach. I think as long as they don't forget their roots, their (true) fans will stick around.
"who buys more games? The "hardcore" or the non-traditional gamers?"
a think the "hardcore" buys more games per capita, but the "non-traditional" buys more as a demographic, due to it's vastly larger size. Of course, I have no proof of this other then my own opinion and observations
"Those aren't the games that people are complaining about:".
Acutally, "hardcore" gamers are complainging about those games too. As an example, look at the rant littlewilly91 wrote a few days about Super Mario Galaxy, on this very article? There are other cases as well, this is just a recent one.
"Those consumers will jump to the next hot thing and leave Nintendo behind faster than you can say, "Itsa me aMario!!!"
Unless, of course, Nintendo continues to make games that appeal to what got them there in the first place. And, to also have variety so that, if these "non-traditional gamers" want something different, they will have that available as well.
"But it seems that Nintendo in an effort to court this new demographic has somewhat lost sight of what their fans have always loved about them, and that's just making fun games"
I couldn't disagree more. Nintendo continues to rehash the same franchises that fans have loved for years, with little tweaks and changes here and there to try and make them "different" or "fresh." If they were so good back then, why are they not now? The reason? "hardcore" gamers tastes have changed. They want to play and chat online with their friends, they wants achievemnts or trophies or whatever, they want top-of-the-line graphics, and anything other then that is viewed as "last-Gen" or "kiddie". If anything, I would say that Nintendo continues to put out the same fun games they always have, but the "Hardcore" gamer now wants something different then that. Nintendo hasn't changed, the "harccore" audience has changed.
"They had to take a different approach. I think as long as they don't forget their roots, their (true) fans will stick around."
Based on the comments routinely found in this, and many other gaming forums, obviously many won't stick around.
1. Agreed, therein lies a problem for the Wii's hardcore fans.
2. Agreed, but generally speaking, I think most people are complaining about other games more than they are Mario/Zelda/Metroid/Mario Kart/Smash Bros etc.
3. Agreed, therein lies another problem for the Wii's hardcore fans.
4. Agreed, maybe it isn't as easy as categorizing Nintendo fans as I had previously thought. People have been buying every iteration of Mario Party since its inception...and that was before the explosion that was the Wii.
5. Hmm, maybe I underestimated the hardcore NIntendo fans. I figured they'd trudge through garbage as long as they had to to get their hands on the the latest Mario or Zelda title.
"But, guys, what do you actually enjoy playing on it?"
As someone who is in a similar demographic (29 year old male, 17 years casual gaming, except for a few years during the N64/PS1 era), i agree that Nintendo no longer caters to us, but that in no way affects my ability to enjoy their products. I play Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros. Brawl online at least once a week each. I had a lot of fun playing Guitar Hero 3 and Zelda:Twilight Princess and am currently enjoying working on DBZ: Budochi: Tenchaici 3. When friends come over, we have a good time playing Wii Sports and Mario Party 8 against each other. My girlfriend and I enjoy playing Deca-Sports and Wii Fit when we are both home and in the mood for games. As you requested, there is a list of some of the games myself, and my friends around me who are in the similar demographic, enjoy playing regularily. It covers my online, single, and multi-player needs. I'm sure other people have other preferences, but these are mine.
"The industry needs complex Nintendo games, but it looks as though we'll see them less and less. "
Every console should have a strong diviersity of games, of course, however how do you know for sure we'll see less and less of them? Are you privy to Nintendo game development boardroom meetings? Or is this just your personal opinion. As an avid Nintendo consumer, complex games are my least favorite and I would be least likely to buy them, other then the occasional one for the winter months. Nor do the vast majority of my friends. Whether that is typical of other Wii users, I cannot say. I can only comment on myself and my circle of friends.
"However, I think that there are far more examples of games that attempt to push artistic boundaries within the higher spec market than with the new breed of Nintendo games....That seems like a backward step."
Quite possible, but purely your preference. Personally, I couldn't care less about games as "art" or "pushing the boundaries." I care about games being fun to play. If it does push the boundary or appear as an artform, all the better, but I don't think that is in any way a necessity. I still get just as much fun playing old games on my NES as I do playing Halo 3 on my friends' 360. Of course, there are probably lots of people that do think it's important, but I am not one of them. And i'd wager i'm not alone. The simple solution is, if you want artful, boundary pushing games, why not go to Microsoft or Sony? For those whom that is less important, they have Nintendo.
The only problem with the "games as art" debate is that they are focusing on the wrong parts of the game. The Games as art debate currently is focused on the graphics and art style as well as narrative. But the real area the art debate should concern itself with the gameplay. That is what sets it apart from other media.
That's kind of what I thought - there's just a huge gulf between the average Wii owner and a 'hardcore' gamer in terms of what they expect from the industry. I do expect some level of ambition and artistry in the games I buy. My hopes are a lot higher than Nintendo are currently willing aspire to. And thats a shame because they used to regularly exceed my expectations. Or maybe I just got old.
But seriously Mario Party? I speak from experience that that makes for a long drawn out evening. No offense, but check that your friends aren't being polite because I have made that mistake when I should have gone to the pub. Id rather hear someone suggest everyone putting their car keys in the fruit bowl.
People give Nintendo too much credit. They struck gold with the Wii because of an innovation that proved to be wildy popular - but that's where the story begins and ends. Nintendo spent so much time looking at the bottom line on their SKU that they forgot to ask 3rd party studios what THEY were prepared to do - and most didn't see the appeal of a woefully underpowered machine that didn't even take advantage of current technology such as High Definition. Nintendo has lodged itself between a rock and a hard place with a unit that pleases grannies with token tennis games - but isn't capable of much else within the will of game developers.
That's all changed now they've seen how many have been sold though hasn't it. The initial lack of third party support was a legacy from the gamecube, and developers expectin the wii to be a dead duck, nothing to do with developers not seeing the appeal of a "woefully underpowered machine". Look at the DS (and no "it's a portable so it's different" arguments don't wash).
Alright, Ozz, I'm going to beat this dead horse, just not with a novel.
@Tycalibre
The only thing wrong with your logic (and the reason why 3rd party support ENDED up so bad on the GCN) is that 3rd parties with very few exceptions do poorly on the Wii. Even games that I have read were great, and got great reviews (that zak and wiki game) sold poorly. The Gamecube had great 3rd party support with most multiplatform games coming to it along with the other two then-gen systems until 3rd parties continued to see the GCN's version consistently selling less than its counterparts. There were the rare exception, but the overwhelming majority of 3rd party's multiplatform games sold the least copies on the gamecube, so they stopped making their games for the gamecube toward the last couple years or so. Now they're jumping on the Wii bandwagon and the results have been similar. The only difference now is 3rd parties can't do standard multiplatform "porting" since the Wii is at best half as capable graphics-wise. So it puts them in a position where they have to do a completely different port with new code (more money) and to have it do poorly. And from what I've ready 3rd parties usually use their 2nd-3rd string teams to do Wii games, which mean lower quality. Any way, I'm done.
No worries Nick. I think I saw this horse still twitching a bit. Better put a stop to that, eh?
And it's not just the graphics, pro evo had to be pretty much rebuilt from the ground up to deal with the new controllers. Basically you can't do a standard port to the wii. Not necessarily a bad hing.
Yeah, I guess it wouldn't be a bad thing if the game sold well...^^
Overall my thoughts are these.
Nintendo is a business. It can make more money from making gaming fluff and selling it to Sun readers. Fine. Have fun looking over your accounts Nintendo. I'll be having fun wherever the fantastic gaming experiences arise, and unfortunately it looks like you are too busy counting your money to join me there.
I am in a niche? So be it. It wasn't my idea to bring video games to the masses anyhow.
Sure, Nintendo is struggling with how to position itself on this silly harcore/casual seesaw one thing needs to be said: it takes time to make great games, PERIOD. true nintendo fans KNOW this and don't mind the ridiculous "omigawdtheyahvenohardocregames!!!" fanaticism that pops up all too often, especially concerning the Wii. sure, they could shovel out a new Mario/Zelda/Whatever sequel to rake in some cash (see Yoshi's Safari on the SNES), but I find it hard to believe that the legion of so-called fanboys (and too many journalist-types) who are frothing at the mouth over the lack of "A" titles at E3 and other shows STILL can't understand that the company isn't going to be raining out the games on demand. Last time I checked, the Virtual Console has enough appealing titles for "hardcore" gamers (although it could use more import releases) and there are some intriguing third-party Wii games that aren't geared to the "kiddy/family" crowd, so I'd gather folks who complain should do a bit more research into these underhyped titles.
Yes, Nintendo really underestimated the success of the Wii (despite what, every media outlet in the free world going bananas over the system) and perhaps, this had led to in-house development moving at a slower pace. This may be due to the fact that Nintendo doesn't want the Wii to be a one-trick pony with every game playing the same (which would piss off the hardcore more than the causal core). On the other hand, given the near constant hype machine Microsoft and Sony have going, it occasionally looks as if Nintendo is ignoring part of its base when they really aren't.
Hell, I play my DS more than my Wii, but I don't see this as an issue - great Nintendo games are great Nintendo games be they first or third party on the DS, GBA or Wii. Hmmm... maybe a Wii redesign is in order with a DS/GBA slot or somesuch.... that MAY calm some folks down (right before they complain about having to buy an upgrade)... =^P
The virtual console covers hardcore gamers needs? What by making them pay again for games they have probably already played?
This hardcore argument needs analysing. Hardcore. it's kind of just a word that journalists like to use a lot, meaning whatever they think they mean. I think it should mean people who play games a lot, one game a lot usually, and get involved in the community and everything. People who are dedicated. In that respect guitar hero is pretty damn hardcore. But the journalists like to use it to imply games that have a steep learning curve, and, lately, aren't appealing to non-gamers. So COD4, not good for noobs really is it? Hardcore seems to imply people who take some punishing for their games, so that in the end their hobby may not really be for the best. More of an addiction that keeps them away from direct sunlight and socialising lol. TF2 is my vice.
But still it doesn't fit. To really be happy to read the word Hardcore and not worry about it's meanings, we have to take a big fat chronological look at the industry:
Sonic was pretty punishing wasn't it? I mean, you die a lot in that. That was the hardcore of that age, whilst i suppose the casual of the day was pinball and columns. Just a relaxing make fun stuff happen when i press buttons type game. Not a massive single player story telling extravaganza. Everything is kind of appealing to the casual gamer at this stage apart from the big RPGs. But they remain casual. It's like watching the odd episode of star trek.
Then after the sonic and mario age came the FPS age. Where everything is made gritty and real with lots of gore and adult content, for all the people who are in denial of their games being toys. "It's not a toy, look, i shot his arm off!". Maybe some games aren't so toylike. A movie isn't a toy is it. It's entertainment. It's engangement and suspense. Sim City 3000 really struggles to come into the category of toy for me. It's just a simulation. And a challenge. The FPS age also brought in NBA, Soul Calibur and Pro evo etc. Basically this age brought a load of non nerds into play. The cool kats.
After a couple of years to let journalists catch up with their shiny new vocabularies, incomes the wii. Supporting the somewhat forgotten mega-man loving nerds, and a load of casual gamers with it's fun-to-use controller. They don't really fall into the same bracket. (The motion sensing isn't just a casual gimmick by the way, although some games certainly just use it like one. Motion sensing, far more accurate than the Wii's, is coming and will be a neat part of the control scheme for proper games too. Google the Darwin controller if you don't believe me.)
So hardcore seems to constitute whoever is sinking a load of their time into their favourite game each week, and has skills it takes noobs ages to learn. The proffesionals, you might say. The dedicated people who buy the extortionately priced magazines. The Hard Core.
And FPS,s with their massive learning curves and the scary lengths of time players commit to repetitive online play, seem to be the most hardcore around. Rather than a rather difficult side scrolling blue hedgehog adventure. So journalists mean a mish mash of things when they say hardcore nowadays. They're talking about whatever genre is most hardcore at the moment. Not Peggle. (Although it is undenyably the best game ever.)
Is that the whole definition of Hardcore issue solved guys?
P.S.
I'm not sure where Heavy Rain and Little Big Planet fit in. They seem to encompass everyone. They seem to just be awesome.
Actually i was wrong about the Columns being casual. I think you got some dedicated gamers there too. And yeah hardcore is just a stereotype. And it naturally leans towards genres where the majority of players are dedicated. Or atleast thought to be. Strange thing gaming terminology. Very fast moving.
I recommend GameOverThinker on youtube to anyone who's properly interested in games. He's good. Although his patriotism and war favouring attitudes that pop up in one of his pieces are off putting to liberalist hippies such as myself
Solved.
exactly....what on earth does hardcore mean anymore? I sure as hell don;t know what I am
- I started gaming in 2001 agd 17 (casual), my first console was an Xbox (hardcore)
- I loved fps like Halo (casual or hardcore?) and loves sports games (casual)
- I couldn't afford/see the point in spending £300 ont the new Xbox 360 and didn't care about HD (casual)
- I saw the 2006 E3 conference online (hardcore) and got excited about Wii (hardcore)
- I sold my Xbox and all its awesome games (half life, halo, ESPN 2k5, XIII, conflict etc) and bought a Wii for Xmas, loved Wii sports with the family (casual) and generally got bored to tears by Zelda (casual!)
- Loved Mario Galaxy, especially cos it's easy (casual)
- Loved Metroid 3 cos it was hard and had great FPS controls (hardcore)
- I'm writing this (hardcore), excited about De Blob, HOD5 and Call of Duty because they all fit nicely (and cheaply ) into the 10 hours max that i game a week nowadays (causal)
So what on earth am I?
If I'm being honest, I think Nintendo should scrap the core/non core audience and make blockbuster titles again. I miss my Xbox EXACTLY because of easy-to-get into shooters and sports games: even my non-gamer friends loved halo et al which pretty makes them 'casual' in that it had some sort of universal appeal.
In ditching the hardware battle, Nintendo is missing out on creating the innovations that only power really allows. I've had fun with my wii, but the imprecise controls, the endless hardware addons frsutrate even my non-gaming friends. I find it interesting that a mate of mine, who knew nothing about gaming decided to pick up an old Xbox console instead of a wii or ds. I mean NOTHING on the console, not even swooshing that tennis racket for the first time beats the intelligence of the AI developed by Bungie, or the physics in Half Life. For all that the Conduit and Call of Duty might try to attract FPS gamers, they'll all likely be boring corridor shoot outs.
I think the causuals will get bored of all these lifestyle games, and by Wii 2, what will Nintendo provide that Sony and Microsoft (already jumping on the 'expanded' bandwagon) won't offer on their own in the next generation consoles?
Thus Nintendo will need new IPs with blockbuster appeals: a Killer FPS (timesplitters anyone?), a killer version of Pro-Evo (not 'all play') , a brand new RPG adventure that isn't turn or Zelda-based. Currently, I cant see it coming...So i guess I'm saving up for Xbox 720 from here on in....
You have played games before, therefore you are a core gamer by Nintendo's definition. The reason the non core is called the expanded audience is because it is a term for people or are not currently interested in the games industry and represent an opportunity to grow the industry.
You are not interested in the Wii because it was not designed for you. It was created for mothers, grandparents and a whole bunch of other people who have no idea that a site like this even exists. Nintendo is making some core games now to tap into the core market and gain a tiny overall percentage of it because it may as well get a little extra income from it, but it sure as hell doesn't need to. The fact its taken so long shows how important it is to Nintendo.
The concept that people will eventually get bored of the Wii is an interesting one. Until now, the games industry has been selling new consoles to a market that craves the new. Gamers constantly desire more powerful hardware with better graphics and more features but who's to say that this is the model the new expanded audience will follow. Nintendo's new (non nerdy) audience were quite happy to take a backwards step with the wii, because they couldn't give a shit about graphics. They probably aren't even aware that the xbox 360 and ps3 are more powerful. Therefore, it is entirely possible that they will be very happy with their wiis and their lifestyle games for some considerable time yet.
Nintendo will need new IPs with blockbuster appeal eventually, but they won't be a killer FPS or a new RPG, they're more likely to be a shopping channel or some kind of cooking game. Nintendo won't go back to competing with Sony and Microsoft on their terms because what's the point. It certainly didn't work with the gamecube.
Finally, there is no chance that Microsoft and Sony will attract the majority of Wii users next generation. Microsoft and Sony will never leave their hardcore audience completely. It would be far too much of a risk to take on the now widely established Nintendo brand in the market that Nintendo themselves created. And while Sony and Microsoft still retain their hardcore audience, they will never be an attractive proposition for someone who has never played games before apart from a few sessions on Wii fit. Instead they will copy a few of the Wii's features in an attempt to steal market share from Nintendo, but without ever really realising what made the Wii popular with the casual audience in the first place.
Edge's most popular articles seem to be the ones where readers can argue with one another in the comments page.
No lol. Edge's articles where the readers argue with one another in the comments page are Edge's articles where the readers argue with one another in the comments page. Who knows about popularity. They don't have a star rating and they don't tell you how many people read it. I've loved loads of articles where i haven't had anything to say. So you're wrong Andy. And mine is bigger than yours i bet
Yeah - it's called 'provoking thought' - it's what good articles do.
What would be the point of discussing something everyone already agreed with? That wouldn't be very interesting. It'd be a bunch of, "I agree." "Me, too." "Me three." Yeah, very interesting for everyone.
I would argue that statement.
so would i
I always love these discussions on "Hardcore" gaming but I always come back to the same thing. Given I've been playing computer/console games for over 20 years now at some point I must have stopped paying attention, when exactly did some smug elitist git decide Mario, Zelda , Sonic etc games weren't "Hardcore" anymore ? I seem to remember when those games were the industry. When did the 3d maze derivatives become all that mattered ?
3D maze derivatives? I've heard that phrase before lol. And they aren't all that matter! There, there, my sonic loving son. It's just a terminology change. I think most people on this thread understand now. And the smug eletist git has not decided something everyone accepts. The truth is still out there. But the answer is suppose, is 'recently'
The defintion of "hardcore" seems to have changed over the years. It now seems to means "killing people with as lifelike graphics as possible." One need only look at recent hardcore hits like: Grand Theft Auto 4, Metal Gear Solid 4, Call of Duty 4, Rainbow Six Vegas 2, Halo 3, Bio Shock, Killzone, Resistance, Gears of War,etc.....do you sense a theme developing here?
Yeah, I do see a trend. Almost all the games you mention offer the ability for a huge community of gamers (what putting PS3 and 360 together would make that atleast 20 million online gamers) to play TOGETHER...ONLINE, you know, from different houses. You can even voice chat, send messages, send invites. In this community you have a NAME that YOU selected, and you can have friends with names too that you can communicate with via video, text, or (gasp!) voice! You can play against each other or coop its a fascinating idea. Even non hardcore games like guitar hero or rock band you can play online, its great what 10 y/o technology can do for a community. Thanks for pointing that out for everyone.
Ok I'm lost then, unless we take Ozzman's definition of hardcore as realistic shooters I'm struggling to see what is hardcore. Online multiplayer ? Ok anyone up for some hardcore Animal Crossing ? :) All those FF / MGS players are going to be shocked to find out after 80+ hours that they are casual now. My point is that articles like this one (and many others) all seem to arbitrarily decide what hardcore is, consider it to be something that family friendly Nintendo (or Sega for that matter) has never done, then jump up and down on Nintendo for not caring about hardcore any more. Hardcore seems to be whatever I decide it is in order to prove you don't do it (or at least not as well as I do).
Cab,
I hate to be replying to such an old article, but here we go.
Your piont has one problem, games like MGS or FF don't exsist on the Wii. There are a handful of games that can be considered "hardcore" you know, games with epic stories, some kind of character developement, some type of complictated gameplay mechanism beyond waving a wand, games that take longer than 5 hours to beat. I think the whole point of the article is that the only games NIntendo showed at E3 were games that soccer mom's would get excited about. If you're getting excited about that music game, then more power to you.
Yeah EDGE. This is your fault for adopting this appalling terminology. Look how many people you have offended!
Anyway, even if we take hardcore to encompass games that are still appealing to casual gamers, such as fun looking platformers with a hardcore depth, Sonic - unlike the distinctly hardcore erm, Garry' s mod?- then the Wii is abandoning a lot of it's audience. There are far too many Wii Sports copiers. All that was needed was a better original Wii Sports supporting optional fully fledged control schemes, more sports, online and tournaments, with downloadable content or retail disks from third parties that fits into the same Sports menu. So that you can cultivate a massive ball of stats and understand what is best for your money easier. Or something like that.
There arguably isn't even that much Yoshi's island type content on the Wii. I think that's what EDGE is getting at. Alongside the glaring fact that they have totally left behind the gore loving serious man crowd. Who really do tend toward FPSes and erm, 3PSs.
But then when you look at it another way they have released a fair amount of titles. At any rate it seems that the Wii has disenfranchised many of it's conventional gamer customers.
Well put Willy. Couldn't agree more.
"Almost all the games you mention offer the ability.... "
Almost all of them? Well, that's ALMOST a trend, but not quite. No sorry, that's not the answer we were looking for. Thanks for playing though.
Haha, ok, ONE of them doesn't offer multiplayer geesh. You're implications are obvious, that hardcore games all have something to do with Killing. I guess when you're the one making the list that's an easy conclusion to come up with. I just would have knocked Bioshock off my list. But, killing in games has been a staple of gaming since, well, it always has. Name a console generation even dating back to the Atari 2600 that didn't include some kind of killing. Hell, technically even NIntendo's own first party offerings involve killing or shooting. Killing can be jumping on a mushroom shaped enemy or shooting them with your chick-with-a-cannon-for-an-arm gun. In games, unless its a puzzle game, music game, sports game, or some kind of educational game, there is some kind of villain/enemy you have to deal with, a conflict so to speak, what better way to do that then killing??? I don't know how fun resolving conflict in games peacefully by talking your differences out would be. At least in Mass Effect (not on your list of hyperviolent hardcore games) you have some kind of emotional investment in the characters where you CARE about them, especially if they die. When's the last time you cared about a character (not yourself) dying?
Dude, not all conflict involves fighting/killing. Look at movies and books. Very few of them have violence/killing as the main source of conflict.
The reason the majority of games have fighting/killing as the main source of conflict is down to nothing more than laziness. Fighting and killing is easy to translate to gaming. It requires very limited thought in the design process. It is easy to roll out to a finished product. It is easy to pitch to a publisher. It is easy and lazy.
How much of your life do you spend fighting and/or killing? Very little if any. That is if you do not consider bugs and bacteria as part of that. So why is fighting and killing the staple of gaming?
As for multiplayer, I can think of many games that are fun multiplayer and don't involve fighting/killing. Unfortunately very few of those exist in video games. Most are board, card, and outside games. All of which can translate to gaming rather well.
Also, puzzles are not just about lining up colored shapes. Puzzles are a part of human life. Everything you do is a puzzle. Think about it.
You're right, but how well do non-violent conflict resolving translate to video games? I love non-violent movies, but I don't know how fun Beautiful MInd would be as a video game. I know there's some games that the character you control does not directly involve him/herself in violence, or that violence is what is being avoided, but a game without some kind of physical way of getting through situations would get boring I assume. I played the hell out of Braid, and although there is dying, the game isn't focused on it, and I would def consider that game hardcore as far as puzzle games are concerned. Well lets hear some good examples of non-violent confilict resolve that would translate to a fun video game then if laziness is the only reason why we don't see that already. There are multiplayer games that don't include killing, I was just saying that according to Mr. Ozzman, violent games tend to be the successful "hardcore" games, but I was pointing out what makes them hardcore is the ability to play with your friends, not that fact that they are violent. Project Gotham Racing is def hardcore (for those of us who play online any way) and other than people's hyper violent trash talk, that game has no violence/killing. Ozzman didn't mention non-violent "hardcore" games because that wasn't the point he was trying to make.
Yes, I consider fighting and sometimes killing bacteria on my body as killing...
I can think of multiplayer games as well, I play the hell out of Guitar Hero 3 (not violent). Wasn't my point. Outside multiplayer games? Hell, board and card translate very well the xbox live arcade, there's a ton of those on there.
I agree with most of your points, you're preaching to the choir bro.
While I hate to seem like i'm picking on you, you mention " but I was pointing out what makes them hardcore is the ability to play with your friends, not that fact that they are violent." But isn't that the beef most people have with Nintendo? That all they put out is "party pack software full of mini-games"? I'm not sure how many times i've read of video game sites (rarely on this one, thank goodness), comments such as "Wii is good for when you have friends over, but other then that, it just collects dust." If hardcore gamers like playing with friends, shouldn't they be flocking to Nintendo then? Or is it only online playing against them they prefer?
And while I agree with you there plenty of non-violent hardcore games that sell well, you have to admit the ones that get the most attention/marketing and sell the most copies are the most violent ones. I'm not saying, as you pointed out, that many many other games DON'T contain violence, nor am I saying hardcore gamers are gun-toting psychopaths. Just making an observation, based on the media and word-of-mouth info I've seen and heard over the past few years since I got back into video games.
I think its the fact that you can play online specifically. I have a family, my friends have families, and it is actually pretty tough to get 3 of my closes friends over to my house, let alone 7 (most online games you can play up to 16 players, or 4v4 on Halo. Plus, I don't know who is fans of split screen either. If my friends come over, we're networking our xboxs cause I'm not playing split screen, and with gamertags that's no fun either cause your character/account is linked to your hard drive, you'd have to load your gamertags all on one hard drive. So online is really where its at. Wii offers either 4 people take turns, or 4 people all on one screen, that's a different kind of multiplayer than what the xbox offers. And in a lot of games its you, your 3 buddies, against 4 strangers so you work as a team. I wouldn't have 4 strangers come to my house, link of 8 xboxs and 8 tvs just to play some team slayer on Halo. See where I'm going?
I think the reason for the violent games is these games target demographics. Just like certain movies are marketed to a certain age group, rated R violent movies or nudity/drugs/sex whatever are targeted at the 18-35 year old male, the traditional and most common age of xbox players. Developers see that these types of games sell for the most part to that demographic, so they make what sells. I think the only way to buck that trend is for people to stop buying those kinds of games on xbox, but we all know that's not going to happen. But yes, that is a trend, and an obvious one. I do think they'd be less popular though if they didn't bring that large xbox community together for being able to play together. That's sorta the xboxs motto is community, and playing together.
Mystery is one genre that is very underutilized in the game industry. I think that Beyond Good and Evil caught this pretty well, although the lack of publisher support in advertising killed the game financially. Mystery is all about solving a conflict through deductive reasoning and clue finding. This type of game was extremely popular during the adventure years of gaming. But as soon as the home console arose, it was killed off for more violent and action packed games.
Romance is another genre with litte representation in the game industry. It is left to wallow in the cesspools of date sims or as a romantic interest for the fighting protagonist. It could really do well as the central theme of a game.
What I am getting at is that games do not have to be fast paced or action oriented to be fun.
agreed, but romance is a theme. Like crime is a theme in books. Action and fast paced games make a type of game. And strategy in Civilisation or the Total War series is another way to play. Mystery is a theme that extends to the gameplay by making you search for clues. But Romance? I'm not sure that should ever qualify as a type of game. In books it's just another type of novel, working on the same mechanics. What would be a romantic mechanic in a game? A mystery mechanic is finding clues but hell, what typifies a romance mechanic? Solve the mystery, shoot stuff in an intense skill touting sport, tell a story, these are all things games can do. But surely to make romance work interactively you'd need, i don't know, some kind of real person and life??
Do you mean you want romance to just play a bigger part in the plot lines of games? Like Half Life with Alyx? Or are you saying more people should get married in World Of Warcraft?