"The Great Hardcore Lie Exposed: Wii Did Not Lose Core Gamers"

[Walkthrublazer3]

pokoko said:
Strange article in a lot of ways.

First of all, why is it comparing the Wii to the GameCube and N64? They aren't the Wii's competition. Besides, they were consoles that were largely unsuccessful when compared to their rivals. Trumpeting the Wii having better numbers is a bit silly.

And why does the writer not seem to understand that "core" and "hardcore" are not the same thing? Does he think that all hats are necessarily hardhats?

It's also odd to me that the writer seems to think that all "core" games were bought by people who previously owned consoles, when I think it's safe to say that, with a console as popular and family-friendly as the Wii, many of those core titles were for kids for whom the Wii was their first real video-game console experience. There can be little doubt that the Wii had far more new recruits than the GameCube or N64.

This is like a peek at someone's rationalizations and justifications. I can't take this seriously.

 

1. The Author clearly states the following: "This idea that Wii lost core gamers while focusing too much on casuals is pretty widespread…but it’s also totally false! The fact of the matter is that Wii had a stronger core gamer audience than any other Nintendo console in history – and I’ve got the data to prove it."

The author's goal was to prove that Wii had the strongest core audience in Nintendo's console history. What would be the point in comparing them to Sony or Microsoft? The article is disproving the lie that the "core" audience ignored the Wii, when in fact the Wii had the largest "core" audience in Nintendo's console history.

2. The author defines "core" as the type of game

"To be fair to all platforms under consideration, I’m taking the broadest possible definition of “core games.” That means anything that’s part of a major “traditional” Nintendo franchise will make the list"

But the Hardcore Gamer will deny this, too. New Super Mario Bros. isn’t a core game; it’s a casual game. And while there’s an extent to which I can agree – there’s a clear distinction between Super Mario Bros. and the other so-called “core” games in terms of appeal – we must never forget that using this broader appeal to discard Super Mario Bros. as a part of Nintendo’s core lineup is sheer propagandizing. People would have laughed in your face if you told them that Super Mario Bros. is not a game for gamers back in the ’80s. Though I can agree that the newer games aren’t as special for their time as the older games, that’s no reason to claim them as exceptions.

 and refers to "hardcore" for the nay saying gamers.

3. The author cleary stated the following: "

There’s no evidence to suggest that Wii “lost core gamers,” as many seem to believe. That’s a patent lie, invented by the Hardcore Gamer to solicit Nintendo to create fewer games for other audiences – which the Industry refuses to recognize as “core” (even though they are more critical to Nintendo’s success!) – and more games to satisfy the Hardcore (even though they are the pioneers on the path to Nintendo’s decline).

The fact of the matter is that the data demonstrates that, if anything, Wii actually created core gamers. Not only that, it demonstrates that the Wii Revolution, which began with Wii Sports, was not merely the beginning of a new era of “casuals” but the “expansion of the gaming population,” just as Nintendo intended it to be."

Can you not read or comprehend what the writer wrote in the article? The author never claims that "only "core" games were bought by people who previously owned consoles", He blatantly claims the opposite. The fact that Nintendo increased it's core fanbase is evident in the sales figures. It doesn't matter whether the increase in the core base was more from young kids new to gaming or old veteren gamers. The fact remains that the Wii was a more successful "core" gaming system then the N64 or Gamecube.