Topic: First Place

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
You're assuming those devs will make games hardcores like.  What if things change so much that most existing devs switch to making "non-games" because that's where the money is?  It would probably be like you suggest but if Nintendo really changes the industry like they want to gaming period might change into something hardcore gamers don't like and one of both of the competitors are the only options.

We still get 2D games on 3D platforms. Why would "hardcore" games evaporate when 2D is generations old and still explored regularly?

Even then, "hardcore" isn't a genre so much as a mindset. The PS2 has games which were "non-games" like Katamari or whatever it's called but it also had the mainstay of RPGs, FPSs, sports games, etc.

If the Rev was in 1st place, gamers who wouldn't buy most of todays games would buy it to play the "non-games", then take a look at other titles as they come out, effectively acting as the gateway drug of gaming. If not for the cube, I never would have found my love of Animal Crossing, Resident Evil, MGS and a number of other games which I wouldn't have touched if not for games like SSBM luring me in at first.

The DS continues to do this. I'm now a fan of Castlevania, Phoenix Wright, Puyo Pop and a number of other franchises I never would have touched without it being my gateway.

If the Rev was in the lead, genres old and new alike would congregate on it because they want the sales numbers that come with the highest-selling console.

[MaryJane]

I don't completely agree with ian but his worries are justified.

There are a countless number of posts suggesting that if the rev is succesful sony and ms will probably release copies. (I myself have written a few of those). So why wouldn't that translate to games also? If mp3 sells 2million copies, and the cooking game sells 6million i think its safe to say that big developers and producers are going to want to make more games along the lines of the cooking game than mp3. sales talk. however while there would be a flood of these types of games because of higher sales, we'll still more traditional games with their sales being still good. there are non-gamers who will never pick up anything that is for "hard-core" gamers, or even mario games. that's just they way it is. however there are many people like the ones on this forum who will be strongly supporting the traditional games. whether nintendo is in first or second place, this is going to be the case. i'm hoping they reach first place as i do believe it will affect the entire video game community. and we'd have less rehashes and other such crap.  

[Ian Sane]

My concern is based on two previous revolutions in gaming, both of which Nintendo played a big part in.

Prior to the release of Super Mario Bros and the NES gaming was about high scores.  Most games played in a loop that continued until you died.  The goal was to get a high score.  These are games like Pac-Man, Defender, Bezerk, Space Invaders, Donkey Kong, etc.  When Super Mario Bros came out things changed.  SMB had a finite end to it and multiple stages.  The goal of the game was to get from the beginning to the end.  Gaming changed to reflect this new idea and point-based games pretty much disappeared.  The goal wasn't to see how long you survived or how high of a score you could get anymore.  The goal was to beat the game.  If you liked the old method of gaming you were sh!t out of luck.  Games like that became obscure.

In the mid-90s the Playstation and N64 were released and gaming went 3D.  2D gaming is now more or less dead.  Yes 2D games are still made but they're niche title or relegated to portables or they have their sprites replaced with 3D models to attract higher sales.  If you're a fan of 2D gaming you're an outsider now.  Devs just don't give you much attention anymore.  Even Nintendo with the Gameboy has neglected 2D gamers.  The GBA didn't get a 2D Mario platformer.  Finally we're getting one and it's being presented in polygons.  When was the last time Miyamoto made a 2D game?  They still make games the "old way" but they're not as common and they're not given the same amount of attention they used to get.  Did Nintendo even make any 2D N64 games?  Yoshi's Story, maybe?

So if Nintendo succeeds and creates a gaming revolution the same thing could happen.  Gaming as we know it now could become niche just like high-score point games and 2D games did.

[RiskyChris]

Wow.

The difference between 2D and 3D gaming is much much more significant and realistic than going from "normal" games to a baker's dozen of cooking games.

Let's say there are X units of demand for "normal" games (appealing to the hardcore).  These people will not switch parties to play non-games.

Now let's imagine 10X units of demand for non-games (cooking, pets, brain training, etc...).  Your inclination is all developers will start to produce those games.

This is *not* true.  Some companies will not want to compete in the growing market for cooking games, and will find themselves in a good position to develop for the X demand for hardcore games (after all, a lot of competition left, resulting in more profit).

[jasonditz]

I'll go you one better: sometime in our lifetimes gaming as we know it now will become niche. And that's a good thing:

Would it be better if all the games were still 2D looping shooters where high score is the only goal? Would it be better if Mario 64 had never existed? Even "hardcore" gamers are going to get bored if they're being presented with incremental improvements on the same old formula for three solid decades. Change is necessary, and it's probably going to be for the better.

Things will change, and we're going to change with them. I'm a fan of 2D games too... but not to the exclusion of 3D games. The legions of gamers who bought Street Fighter 2 when it first came out aren't just SOL here, the vast majority of them moved on to Virtua Fighter, or Soul Calibur, or SSBM. He might get all excited when a new Capcom vs SNK game comes out and makes him feel all nostalgic, but he's not sitting there weeping and gnashing his teeth because DOA4 isn't a 2D sprite-based fighter.

I think there's a difference between approachability and lack of complexity. Nintendo's trying to make games more approachable to the uninitiated, that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to lack complexity.

[MaryJane]

I think both 3d gaming and gaming with a finite ending were just natural progressions.
both stem from advancement in video games.

the games that never ended and were based on high scores had a lot of limitations graphically they couldn't create worlds to explore, how do u hav a never ending platformer, or rpg?

3d games also come from graphical advancements. the point of video games has for long time now, been to imitate life, even if within a fantasy setting. having them in 3d allows this more than 2d does.  

if the revolution were to change gaming in anyway it wouldn't be that non-games would be the only thing available. the advancements in technology have opened up new genres of gaming not closed off any. 2d and never ending games aren't a genre. they are a way to play. maybe after this generation non-motion sensing gaming will disappear and you'll be forced to play every game using motion. oh no, not exercise, our fat butts don't need more excercise do they? Non-games may become common place, but they aren't going to erase our favorite genres.  

[slacker]

I'm tired of the non-games vs real games debate. Its stupid. The following is my observation over the course of my life.

Non-games are games that get people who don't play games to play games. If they play a game long enough and often enough, don't that make them a hardcore gamer? Its a natural progression.  A regular person tries out a non-game and thinks its fun. This person continues to play it for long hours and at every spare moment. As days progressed, the person is obsessed. Finally, the game doesn't offer enough stimulation for the person anymore and the individual becomes bored and restless.  This prompts the person to seek out something to fill the void. In the course of the search, this person finds a new game that came highly recommended and plays. The cycle repeats multiple times and then...the regular person has now went from ordinary, to casual gamer, to obsessed gamer, to hardcore gamer. By this time, the person has an acquired taste for a specific type of game and will almost always play those types and reject all others.  Gaming is like a drug addiction. The road to becoming hardcore isn't obvious until its too late.

What's my point? We all were once non-gamers, who played some games, got addicted, and eventually developed a taste for a specific type of game. I don't think hardcore gamers won't gravitate towards the Rev. They will. Its just that the Rev will create new hardcore gamers.  In the end, is not having a lot of hardcore gamers for the rev all that bad? I don't like games that are too free roaming and overly complicated in the control mechanism. These are games that hardcore gamers will appreciate, but a casual gamer or new comer might now appreciate it. I refuse to play a game that requires you to memorize a whole lot of button combinations to enjoy it no matter how good it is.  I remember a time when I thought the original metroid suck because I didn't know what the heck I was doing...but I was young and stupid then.  

[Kairon]

Is DDR a non-game? Is Sims? Heck...wasn't Tetris a "non"game when it came out?

~Carmine M. Red

[jasonditz]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Is DDR a non-game? Is Sims? Heck...wasn't Tetris a "non"game when it came out?

~Carmine M. Red

Lets not forget Sim City... the manual for it specifically says its not a game, its a toy.

[Mario]

Quote
So if Nintendo succeeds and creates a gaming revolution the same thing could happen. Gaming as we know it now could become niche just like high-score point games and 2D games did.

So basically if Revolution succeeds gaming is doomed, and if it doesn't Nintendo is doomed. What a wonderful world you live in!

[BigJim]

The cycle of the gamer that slacker describes also sounds eerily similar to Nintendo's fall from the top. N stuck to a formula, and when the audience "grew up" they stopped playing or graduated to PlayStation for more stimuli, rather than Nintendo evolving with them. Only this time Nintendo is starting over in an effort to change the demographic from the traditionally strong male demo to a flatter male/female split.

I can see Ian's concern, only my reasons are more recent. When Zelda/Rev comes out, it'll be almost 2 years since the last GameCube game came out that I wanted (Star Fox Assault.) In all that time, Mario Parties, infinite Mario sports games, Nintendogs, etc. get top billing while I sat back and watched. I guess you could call me one of those "dormant" players they're trying to attract with the Rev, but I was never dormant by choice. I always had cash in hand to buy the next Zelda, real Mario, Mario Kart, Star Fox, F-Zero, Wave Race, or a new deep IP they could come up with. Instead their goals for the second half of the system’s life were mostly cheap development/quick buck/Mario infinity titles that I can't get into. If Nintendo's strategy is remotely similar to their Cube strategy of the last 2 years, it's fair to me to say that there is room for some concerns as far as core gaming/hardcore/whatever goes. I'll simply end up becoming another one of the majority that "graduated" to another system for more stimuli. Heck, Nintendo's already given us license to do it.

Secondly, they've already discussed that the "hardcore" audience is only about 20%. Targeting the outside audience statistically shrinks that percentage. Those new players might become hardcores, but it's a process that doesn't happen quickly and there's no telling exactly what TYPE of hardcore they'll be... My Mom's a hardcore Pogo.com player, on there every night for hours (playing until the fully charged laptop battery dies) before going to bed. But I sure wouldn't want a console stuffed with Poppit, Fortune Bingo and Phlinx games any more than fishing or cooking games. If my types of games aren't there, then I won't play. "Don't worry they'll still make those games" doesn't squelch the concern because half of GameCube's life shows something different.  

[Ian Sane]

"If they play a game long enough and often enough, don't that make them a hardcore gamer?"

I drive my car every day but no one would consider me a hardcore car enthusiast.  I consider a hardcore gamer based on their tastes in gaming, not how much they play.  My definition of a hardcore gamer is someone who recognizes what's crap and what's gold.  When they discovered gaming a hardcore gamer seeks out games from the past that they missed and tries to expand his interest beyond the few titles he was introduced to.  Most people don't do that.  They just play a few games they like and they don't care about older games or try out other genres or make any effort to go beyond the initial games they started with.  They're not hardcore even if they spend lots of money and play lots of games.

My gateway was Super Mario World.  That's a hardcore game.  It's a game that hardcore gamers love and still love today.  If you ask someone who knows a lot about gaming to name the best games of all time that title would be mentioned.  It's a fantastic first game for someone because it starts them off with a classic.  Often when someone gets into gaming the thrill of just playing a game is what draws them in and they don't realize that in fact the game they're playing sucks and anyone who knows better would hate it.  They're wowed because the guy on the screen moves when they push a button.

Non-gamers only become hardcore gamers if they're initially brought in with a game hardcore gamers like.  A lot of people today were first introduced to gaming by substandard Playstation games and they don't have good taste in games so they don't play good games.  So if the Rev brings people in with games hardcore gamers aren't interested in most of those people won't become hardcore gamers.  They'll stick with titles like the ones that brought them in and not look beyond that.

[jasonditz]

If all you want is Star Fox, Zelda, and Mario platformers, I don't think you should be too surprised that you're only getting a handful of games per generation. In the time since Star Fox got released, we've gotten Fire Emblem, Batalion Wars, Pokemon XD, Geist, Jungle Beat, and Chibi Robo... maybe those aren't your type of games but they're not exactly cashin titles or non-games either.

[jasonditz]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane

Non-gamers only become hardcore gamers if they're initially brought in with a game hardcore gamers like.  

Bull... I got brought in with Combat on the Atari 2600... not exactly an artistic masterpiece (admittedly I was 3 years old at the time). Tastes develop over time... what you're saying is like saying if your first drink was a bottle of Wild Turkey you can never be a wine conniseur.

I've been in it a quarter of a century now: I even learned Japanese so I could import games that don't make it over here... I own somewhere in the vacinity of 1,000 games right now... but it all started with Combat. And Combat sucks... it had zero AI... you had to play it two player... if they came out with a GBA port today and said it was only $0.50... I'd probably walk right past it.

[BigJim]

Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
If all you want is Star Fox, Zelda, and Mario platformers, I don't think you should be too surprised that you're only getting a handful of games per generation. In the time since Star Fox got released, we've gotten Fire Emblem, Batalion Wars, Pokemon XD, Geist, Jungle Beat, and Chibi Robo... maybe those aren't your type of games but they're not exactly cashin titles or non-games either.

2 or 3 of those games are interesting, but 3 games in 2 years wouldn't blow my skirt up either. I think I've owned probably a little over 2 dozen Cube games. It's the smallest library I've had for any console. I have easily twice as many N64 games, and I couldn't count the SNES and NES games. The Cube was just a miss. There's some reason why they weren't able to hold my attention (or the millions of others) this gen. Whatever it is, it is.  And if that strategy resembles the last few years of Cube's strategy, then it'd just be another lame duck. We'll see. But the concerns aren't going away until they prove otherwise.  

[MaryJane]

I dont think good selling non-games will hurt the rev. Developers would want to get these non-gamers to play more traditional games. I mean after all there are only so many cooking games you can make before people stop buying them.

I think we'll actually see a strong return to old school gaming. after all the next best thing to bring in non-gamers is old school, simpler gaming. the old kiss strategy. (keep it simple stupid, for those who don't know).  

I'm hoping that if nintendo were to return to the number one position, the split between traditional and non-games would be fairly equal, forcing game development to be the same. I'm always up for new things, I'd play a tennis table game, or a bug killing game, as long as the price was right and i was in the "right mood" (like i am now) to play these games i would. I wouldn't play them as often as my favs but hey just cuz i'm "older" now doesn't mean the child inside me has died. He just hides when guest come over cuz he's shy.  

[jasonditz]

Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim

Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
If all you want is Star Fox, Zelda, and Mario platformers, I don't think you should be too surprised that you're only getting a handful of games per generation. In the time since Star Fox got released, we've gotten Fire Emblem, Batalion Wars, Pokemon XD, Geist, Jungle Beat, and Chibi Robo... maybe those aren't your type of games but they're not exactly cashin titles or non-games either.

2 or 3 of those games are interesting, but 3 games in 2 years wouldn't blow my skirt up either. I think I've owned probably a little over 2 dozen Cube games. It's the smallest library I've had for any console. I have easily twice as many N64 games, and I couldn't count the SNES and NES games. The Cube was just a miss. There's some reason why they weren't able to hold my attention (or the millions of others) this gen. Whatever it is, it is.  And if that strategy resembles the last few years of Cube's strategy, then it'd just be another lame duck. We'll see. But the concerns aren't going away until they prove otherwise.

Near as I can tell we got exactly as many of the games you mentioned for the Cube as we did for the N64 (with the exception of the second Zelda title, which launched at the very end of the N64 and will launch at the very end of the Cube)... what were you buying then that you're not buying now?

[norebonomis]

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee