Finally King again, now what?

[rickthestick2]

steven787 said:

RolStoppable said:

@rickthestick2 and others who have missed this particular thread:

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=4223

Just read through the list of games and decide for yourself whether Nintendo is replacing the core with the casuals or if they are trying to add the casuals into the equation.

Shhh, don't disturb the peace of the people who want to ignore the fact that Nintendo has been making casual games for decades. That isn't nice.

The line between casual and hardcore doesn't exist. Games (even non-games) are all part of the same industry.

Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros, Pokemon, Halo, Final Fantasy, Madden (all sports games?), GTA, Brain Age all got popular because they appeal to more than just the "core" gamer. Whoever that is.

What separates a Core gamer from a Casual Gamer to the publishers? How many games they buy. I buy 20 games a year (that's $1000-1200), most will buy one to three: maybe a sports game, one triple A title, and one more triple A title in the bargain bin. I only mean this for the business side of casual gamers to core gamers, not the social side. I was "hardcore" back when I could only afford one new game a year.

 Don't misunderstand me. I know Nintendo has been making casual games since the begining of NES, but that's not the point that i am making. And when i say hardcore games, i say it because i thought that because we are on a gaming forum that to you guys it would mean a game with depth in many aspects of play. I am not talking to publishers i'm talking to people who post of video game forums. When i say Hardcore/Traditional gamers i mean gamers who don't just settle with games like Mario Party 8 and such. I don't care about popular games, i'm talking about your "Traditional" games. So fine, from here on out i won't use hardcore i'll simply use traditional.

Now there is a very fine line between traditional and casual games, and they don't cross each other much. This is the difference between games with depth from games without depth, whether it be depth in story, gameplay, meaning, music, graphics, art etc. There is also a section of Traditional gaming called Hardcore, which could either mean "Mature-like" titles or "Fanboy" titles. Though for the purpose of my post i won't use this. So to conclude, Casual games are pick up and play, easy, intuitive, less of a challenge (in a certain sense), simple games. Traditional games are games with depth like i said earlier, ranging from Pikmin to Metroid to Final Fantasy, from Halo to Madden to Mario and so on.

Ok so now on to my point. What is Nintendo focusing on? The traditional games or the casual games? And i mean focus. They've made so many casual games before i know that, but have they ever focused on them like they do now? What new IP's do we have to look forward to? What classics do we look to now? 

Maybe i am a little too worried. I mean, Nintendo has never truly failed me/us in any regard. I used to always argue with people making arguments like i am now, so i guess i understand now what they are thinking. But don't attack me like i'm some kind of idiot. I know what i'm saying and i'm not bashing Nintendo blindly. If Nintendo truly is changing thier focus, that will spell trouble for us. It would of course, be great for the industry i guess. But it would be good for us and the industry if Nintendo focuses on both. 

The whole industry is in the hands of the Wii. It's future depends on whether or not the Wii is a big success, and if it is a success, it depends on how it succeeds. As gamers we should all hope that Nintendo succeeds with traditionals as well as casuals as thier focus, and not have an extreme favor on either of the two. If they can do that and succeed, then i'm sure the next generation will be great. Man i'm filled with alot of talk...