From A Skeptic: Where Nintendo Should Take The Wii U

[bdbdbd]

Mr Khan said:

It's a chicken-and-egg question. Did it fail to gain mass appeal because it was a bad game, or was its attempts to have broader appeal (more story, simpler controls, more overtly linear gameplay) what made it a "bad" game? (I rather liked the game, tbh)

Metroid is close, however. A game like that would fit the bill; thematically fitting for older teens or young adults, distinctly Nintendo, but something with a gameplay style more in line with what the mainstream-core wants.

How is more story making something more appealing? It's the complete opposite. Different forms of entertainment have different tasks in peoples minds/lives. As the story is told via videos, that's only keeping you away from playing the game.

If there was a videogame that had chapter of a (bad) novel that you'd had to read every time you compele a level, would you be interested in the game? Likely not.

I don't know if the controls are simple, as switching from 2D to 3D isn't that great, and the bigger problem is that the gameplay changes radically with the change from 2D.

The gameplay is way too linear, as you have virtually no control over what you can do, granted, it's a lot easier than finding your way in Metroid.

Basically the game was made with a handful of stereotypes in mind, that eventually resulted in a game that lacked the appeal.

S.T.A.G.E. said:

"Yeah, absolutely. I think that there's a difference in the type of customer that is buying the Wii. When you think about it, there's a difference between trying to be the number one console with nine year old gamers, and being the console that offers the most experiences from 13 to 33.

Oh damn you, didn't we already have our laughs with Greenberg back in 08? The context Greenberg is talking about is Wii being the most popular console in all the age groups except 15-20 (or was it 13-17) yo. Everything under and above was dominated by Wii.

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Super Mario is not intended to be a "hardcore" character. I've studied color theory and Mario was created to attract children on a mainstream level after the arcade days. His cartoon style is created not for adults but to attract children (just like he attracted me and I am sure you as well), and primary colors are also in his outfit which are very attractive pigments to children. Nintendo knew what they were doing when they had Miyamoto create him. Sure you can be a hardcore fan of Mario, but Mario is not a hardcore character he's a light hearted, fat plumber who saves a princess who wont give him any (shhhh dont tell the kids that).

Yes... And everything would change if he was gray and cepia. I don't know if colours were due to appeal, as much as it was because of the black background, where you had to have characters that were clearly visible. The colourscheme of most characters that started on the 70's and 80's hardware, is mostly due to technical limitations than the appeal (ie. the colours needed to be bright).

As an industrial designer, Miyamoto most likely has an idea how different colours and different shapes and surfaces appeal to different people, but that's not the point, as the most hardcore character can't be determined by any other means that what it stands for gameplaywise. When you ask someone for the most hardcore character, the question is answered by this logic: "I'm hardcore, I like this game, the game has a character A, therefore character A is the most hardcore character", when in reality the chacter is secondary to a game he's in.