S.T.A.G.E. said:
happydolphin said:
^I have to agree with homer. Multiple buttons don't scare young gamers, kids are so intelligent they can pick anything up, honestly. Women and the elderly, that's a different story. But as Homer said with 150M PS2's sold you're bound to have a massive number of kids playing that. So, was it too complicated for them. I'd bet you millions that it was not.
So why did motion controls work in all their simplicity? Because they're just awesome, always have been. Arcades are funner with motion controls, tablets are more awesome for most applications because they're organic, they match our human natural way to do things. So, motion controls worked because they're awesome, and if not yet awesome, the potential surely is. Maybe people bought the Wii believing it would do everything they dreamed of. Maybe some regret their purchases. But motion controls as a technology, with the future in sight, is definitely here to stay. |
Who made the assumption that young gamers couldn't be core? I know multiple buttons dont scare off children, their minds are rapidly growing (especially today) and they are taking in just as much information as you or I did and possibly more, but it in most cases scares off older adults who refuse to use todays growing gamerpad. For instance, tell a casual gamer to play UFC. They will like the game until the complexities and learning curve set in. They will rapidly punch and kick against a seasoned gamer who can quickly understand complex gameplay mechanics and everything down to their movement will make them blood in the water. Games like COD equalize the gameplay to a pick up and play style where one can pick up the controller run and gun, which is why so many people are playing. Motion controls have not been mastered and it will take a while to do so intuitively if they wish to continue, the games are simple and require simple use, so casuals take to it as if a baby learning to crawl before it walks. Take me for instance, If I never had Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong or Metroid I would've never had a smooth progression for Contra, Castlevania, Final Fantasy and other third party titles mentally. Nintendo titles are not only household names, but they are the building blocks of gaming in my eyes preparing gamers for the next level.
|
See, here's the PoV you mentioned that I don't understand. You see Nintendo as the building blocks, but that isn't an objective reality, it's purely subjective. For example, I can tell you that Castlevania is an easier game than Super Mario Bros. I just beat Castlevania the other day, but I struggle at beating Super Mario Bros. Have you ever played the B quest in Zelda? It's really tough!
About kids and complex controls, I brought it up because you said that Nintendo is your building blocks, and that the 2-button layout was simpler and hence as a kid that's where you started off and today as an adult you're on an 8-button, 2 analog + 1 dpad controller on the Playstation. But as I said, the # of buttons doesn't matter, kids can pick them up quickly (as you acknowledged too). I'm just saying that your paradigm is based off a subjective reality and not off an objective one, as I tried to show, the NES had some very difficult games even by today's standards, be they first party or 3rd party. I still to this day struggle at beating Mike Tyson. When we were littler, the game genie and such devices were almost necessary to get through a game.
I see where you're coming from on the building blocks perspective, but I really disagree, and I am mostly a classic gamer personally. To me, the NES was a console for skilled gamers, 1st and 3rd party games included. The 1st level of Kid icarus is really hard. There are lots of other Nintendo 1st party games that were hard. Have you ever played Ice Climbers? The game is tough.
