| S.T.A.G.E. said:
I played most that Nintendo offered as a child. Third party titles gave me the real challenges outside of Zelda and Metroid, but Nintendo was pure fun and I'll never forget those moments of joy as a child playing Nintendo. Obviously I don't hold the same position today. Im sure thats understandable. Sorry if I misinterpreted, As per the core miscommunication, the core mostly don't like motion controls because it has not been mastered (outside of first party) and is the reason for cheap games being made across the board. The sea of these games made for Nintendo were flops. Core gamers have graduated knowledge of gaming and require intuitive, deep complex control. That motion controls just aren't ready for yet. Some are just ignorant to the phenomenon that is motion gaming. In terms of cost vs reward the core didn't miss out on much with the Kinect vs Move vs Wii-mote. I played Dance Central and thats the extent of my joy with Kinect. I played the Wii and I would rather play its top games with the retro controller. Great games but a handful compared to the HD consoles. |
I can't disagree with this. I was hoping more people would be like you and acknowledge the handful you mention, especially Metroid Prime, which really was very well suited with the wiimote. I was just kind of taken aback by the backlash of most traditional gamers when it came to the Wiimote especially when it came to the potential it showed for FPS. I was hoping gamers and businesses would consider a better suited input scheme more important than high def graphics, but for some reason it seems that whatever the direction Nintendo decides to take, gamers are not there.
For example, with the Playstation, Nintendo had the better graphics. Gamers chose the playstation. Sure, it had different added values than graphics, and that's understandable. It just baffles me when the same situation occurs for Nintendo, and Playstation gets the more powerful graphics, that people suddenly become graphics buffs. I really have trouble understanding it, but ultimately it must go back to Nintendo's image, its failure at trying to shake its stigma, and catering to a demographic that is at the pole opposite of where traditional gamers stand.
When the Wii first released, they announced the virtual console. I was thinking "Yes, now that gamers have all their classic games in one place, now they'll finally appreciate what Nintendo has to offer." But that didn't convince. Games like Red Steel were released, but for some reason those weren't good enough. I don't know what about Red Steel wasn't to trad gamers' liking, but for some reason they rejected it. The cycle continued throughout the Wii's lifetime, it ultimately makes you think, "Maybe these people never will embrace Nintendo's console." And you begin to wonder "What would really get these people interested", and then you think back and say "Oh, it was already tried but nobody wanted it". And then you wonder "Maybe Reggie's kinda right." Then you think back at how miserable his E3 presentation was and you think "But maybe the gamers are right". So in the end, who's right?
I'd like to think Reggie is mostly right. Because though gamers are right to think his presentation sucked, they being more mature and knowledgeable, should know better than to judge on appearances. It ultimately makes you think there's an a-priori, and there's no way to fix it.
Sure, if Reggie does a better job, maybe that'll help. But why didn't Red Steel work? Will ZombiU work? The game looks fantastic. But it's branded WiiU, and people are already dismissing it.
To be completely honest, it's all really sad in the end. People just rejecting the efforts for nothing other than image and branding. But in the end, what does even matter. The last question I would ask. If Nintendo does offer everything trad gamers wanted, will they ever bite? I would be ready to argue no, until Nintendo fixes its image. Then, and only then, will people begin to bite imho. But then, would that reverse impact the casual and family market? If PS2 is any indicator, it should not.
In my view, Nintendo really needs to engineer its image, and find a way to cater to both core and casual and having a two-image strategy with product lines and different SKUs suited for each market. It seems like a no-brainer to me, but for some reason I don't see Nintendo doing it. It mostly is their fault, but trad gamers are also to blame because they aren't able to go past appearances (in my experience), and that's a shame.
