I think this is a great description of the difference between hardcore & casual gamer. I give a lot of my free time to games but like to complete them 100% I do not need HD graphics though and I like a range of game types.

As for the game Annalise I think what you say makes great sense. I am yet to play Galaxies but Zelda is not casual friendly, not that I'm saying it should be but if company's what to maximize sales to the wii players this 2 ways to play approach could be hard to better.

As for the what should the reward for 100% completion be if not an in game item that is over powered, I am happy with a great cut scene that gives a great bit of story or some kind of mini game that could be based on what you have collected and played when ever you want after that.

Well, Im going to agree with you, but I will also add that SMG was built for the Wii from the ground up, while Zelda was built for the GC and switched to the Wii.

Now what I mean about that is simple, when Nintendo first started twilight princess, it had in mine it's gamers on the GC, which really appealed to regular nintendo fans most, did it not? While the Wii appeals to Nintendo fans, and "casuals" and a mix of others as well. I would say it became difficult for Nintendo to take twilight princess from an end of life GC game to a release title on a new console, and therefore made it too easy to satisfy some people, and too hard to satisfy others.

I liked twilight princess, and im sure Nintendo will refine the process with a new game specifically for the Wii in the not too distant future.

what about pokemon?

Great post, Grey Acumen, and one that makes a lot of sense. The issue of how to design games that can be enjoyed by all, while still providing challenge for experts is one that everyone faces. Twilight Princess attempted to solve this problem by making everything about the game easy enough for newcomers to enjoy - which is fine, but left me, personally, feeling unsatisfied. Galaxy's approach of making some stars ridiculously easy, but others very challenging worked much better.

One thing I'd like to see is more games building in multiple difficulty levels; some do, but not nearly enough. The Civilization games (which I worked on briefly) offer many, many difficulty levels ranging from the pathethic to the impossible. Sure, 80-90% of gamers will never touch anything beyond the easiest setting, but for those who want to push themselves, it's there. For another example, I played Super Paper Mario earlier this year, and while it was fun, it was also very simple to complete. After beating it once, I never touched the game again. Imagine if there was a "Hard" mode, where your attacks did half damage and enemy attacks did double damage - that would make the platforming/RPG combo a lot more interesting! Considering how easy that would be to code, it's a shame it didn't happen.

At least my Fire Emblem games always include an Expert setting for the masochistic.

But it's easy with Galaxy.

The way it's set up, with the different galaxies and stars, it's easy to do the "easy to beat the game, impossible to collect the stars" thing. With Zelda it's a linear adventure, and a lot harder to do.

TP is the best selling Zelda since OoT anyway, so they did SOMETHING right.

I like being challenged, but I also hate getting 100% status unless i've played through it and absolutely loved it.

I think the minute they started adding completion percentages it was just an excuse to cut out core gameplay and story for eaiser to implement lazy fetch tasks and side quests. This is less of a problem in Mario games, where the story is basically non existant, but it still bugs me from RPGs and other story driven games.

I mean, what's easier for a game company, making a nice 30 hour action game, or a 10 hour action game that has flags, or orbs or skulls or what have you littered all over the place behind crates, that will take you an estimated extra 20 hours to find.

Both will have their playtimes listed at 30 hours... but which is better?

That and the fact that I have to break out of the story for long periods of time while I search for these things or go through whatever pointless fetch quest is given.

That's just my rant on it though.

Like yahtzee i prefer calling link: Fagballs

SMG really is a textbook lesson in how to please everybody via a single game. Just take a look at the various level types and who they appeal to...

Normal levels: Everybody. The difficulty ramps up slowly enough that even a beginner can beat the game with a minimum amount of stars, and I can't imagine even the most hardcore gamer not enjoying them.

The last 3-4 galaxies and the prankster comet levels: More skilled players who like an extra bit of challenge.

The secret stars: Exploration fanatics.

The purple coin levels: Hard-core platformer enthusiasts who actually like collectathons.

Thus, Miyamoto and Nintendo created a game with core content for everyone, and with enough extra content to please a wide range of different groups. It's a lesson that other game developers should learn from - including Nintendo themselves, if they want to keep toeing the line between casual and core.

I'm a bit surprised that we're using Twlight Princess as a qualifier to "demonstrate the philosophies inherent to the Wii console" considering that TP was a Gamecube game.

The issue with Zelda TP, other than it was hard?, is that not only was it designed for the Gamecube but it was designed after the horrible attempt with Wind Waker to make a Zelda game for everyone. As I recall Zelda TP was purposely designed to be a Zelda game for hardcore Zelda fans and not necessarily a game for everyone which I think is what a Zelda game should be.

Mario on the other hand is a game for everyone and should be. Mario Galaxy also follows a prequel that struck me as a game for hardcore Mario platforming lovers. It seems to me Nintendo got it right this time, Mario for everyone and Zelda for Zelda fans, which looking at the sales of the GCN/Wii games looks like is the right way business wise.