By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Would a modern day Gamecube succeed?

 

Would a GCN2 sell?

Yessir 67 50.00%
 
No m'am. 67 50.00%
 
Total:134
S.T.A.G.E. said:
HappySqurriel said:
Just as a note on the "kiddie" and "mature" argument ...

While everyone saw the Gamecube as a "kiddie" console, when shopping for games at stores like Futureshop the people browsing the games were primarily people over the age of 20 who grew up playing Nintendo games. In contrast, while everyone sees the XBox 360 as a mature system, when shopping at similar stores I fear that everyone assumes I'm a peadophile because I'm surrounded by 9 to 13 year old boys.

This isn't to say that these samples are representative of the userbases, but the assumption that "Mature" rated games attract adults while "Everyone" rated games attract children is wrong.

On a side one, I remember reading an article on IGN or Gamespot years ago where they interviewed a former mobster with his son. While it was only a small portion of the interview they showed off Grand Theft Auto and Animal Crossing to the mobster and the former mobster was far more interested in Animal Crossing than Grand Theft Auto (and this embarassed his son).

Kids are always going to try and play every game they can get their hands on. Gamestop workers aren't going to stop the kids from buying the games if their parents give their approval. If parents stopped giving approval, GTA and COD would see their sales plummet. Parents dont care anymore, which is why the kids are so loud and desensitized. They let the games raise their kids which is why people on Youtube always record loud little kids playing these games.When I was a kid I would've never had access to a COD.

I'm not sure but I don't think this really relates to what I was saying ...

Back in the day, when I was in elementary school, "mature" videogames didn't really exist in the way they do today. There was a different medium that was similar enough that I think the behaviour is comparable; action and horror movies. At 8 to 10 years old boys would be bragging about which horror or action movie they were allowed to watch and kids that weren't allowed to watch these kinds of movies would regularly beg their parents to watch them. While many of these movies did have an adult following, the biggest audience for these movies was children and teens even though they often had a "Restricted" rating.

Today, as an adult, I know of lots of adults who love animated movies and they regularly watch Disney/Pixar or Dreamworks movies.

As an adult it is easy to understand this. The bulk of "Restricted" movies have bad acting, writing and direction, and the only thing they've got going for them is that they push the limits; but they do it in such a generic way that once you've seen one of these movies you've seen most of them. Many of the Animated movies are well written, well "acted", and have excellent direction and are exceptional movies even though they're accessable to everyone.

While I wouldn't say they're exactly the same thing, I think there is a similar pattern in videogames. A lot of "Mature" games are generally generic and kids worship them because they're Taboo, and a lot of "Everyone" games are solid games that attract a lot of attention from older gamers because of their quality. With this in mind, the idea that "Mature" games are bought by adults and "Everyone" games are bought by children is not a correct breakdown of the market.



Around the Network






HappySqurriel said:

I'm not sure but I don't think this really relates to what I was saying ...


Back in the day, when I was in elementary school, "mature" videogames didn't really exist in the way they do today. There was a different medium that was similar enough that I think the behaviour is comparable; action and horror movies. At 8 to 10 years old boys would be bragging about which horror or action movie they were allowed to watch and kids that weren't allowed to watch these kinds of movies would regularly beg their parents to watch them. While many of these movies did have an adult following, the biggest audience for these movies was children and teens even though they often had a "Restricted" rating.


Today, as an adult, I know of lots of adults who love animated movies and they regularly watch Disney/Pixar or Dreamworks movies.


As an adult it is easy to understand this. The bulk of "Restricted" movies have bad acting, writing and direction, and the only thing they've got going for them is that they push the limits; but they do it in such a generic way that once you've seen one of these movies you've seen most of them. Many of the Animated movies are well written, well "acted", and have excellent direction and are exceptional movies even though they're accessable to everyone.


While I wouldn't say they're exactly the same thing, I think there is a similar pattern in videogames. A lot of "Mature" games are generally generic and kids worship them because they're Taboo, and a lot of "Everyone" games are solid games that attract a lot of attention from older gamers because of their quality. With this in mind, the idea that "Mature" games are bought by adults and "Everyone" games are bought by children is not a correct breakdown of the market.



Oh the days. Or you just could visit a friend who's parents weren't home and watch a horror movie with him, at an age even MacGyver was too scary. You just had to watch the movie just to show the friend you're not scared even if you were almost scared to death.

Now that you mentioned the animations; the two best movies I've seen in years are Cars and Bionicle: Legend Reborn.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

HappySqurriel said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
HappySqurriel said:
Just as a note on the "kiddie" and "mature" argument ...

While everyone saw the Gamecube as a "kiddie" console, when shopping for games at stores like Futureshop the people browsing the games were primarily people over the age of 20 who grew up playing Nintendo games. In contrast, while everyone sees the XBox 360 as a mature system, when shopping at similar stores I fear that everyone assumes I'm a peadophile because I'm surrounded by 9 to 13 year old boys.

This isn't to say that these samples are representative of the userbases, but the assumption that "Mature" rated games attract adults while "Everyone" rated games attract children is wrong.

On a side one, I remember reading an article on IGN or Gamespot years ago where they interviewed a former mobster with his son. While it was only a small portion of the interview they showed off Grand Theft Auto and Animal Crossing to the mobster and the former mobster was far more interested in Animal Crossing than Grand Theft Auto (and this embarassed his son).

Kids are always going to try and play every game they can get their hands on. Gamestop workers aren't going to stop the kids from buying the games if their parents give their approval. If parents stopped giving approval, GTA and COD would see their sales plummet. Parents dont care anymore, which is why the kids are so loud and desensitized. They let the games raise their kids which is why people on Youtube always record loud little kids playing these games.When I was a kid I would've never had access to a COD.

I'm not sure but I don't think this really relates to what I was saying ...

Back in the day, when I was in elementary school, "mature" videogames didn't really exist in the way they do today. There was a different medium that was similar enough that I think the behaviour is comparable; action and horror movies. At 8 to 10 years old boys would be bragging about which horror or action movie they were allowed to watch and kids that weren't allowed to watch these kinds of movies would regularly beg their parents to watch them. While many of these movies did have an adult following, the biggest audience for these movies was children and teens even though they often had a "Restricted" rating.

Today, as an adult, I know of lots of adults who love animated movies and they regularly watch Disney/Pixar or Dreamworks movies.

As an adult it is easy to understand this. The bulk of "Restricted" movies have bad acting, writing and direction, and the only thing they've got going for them is that they push the limits; but they do it in such a generic way that once you've seen one of these movies you've seen most of them. Many of the Animated movies are well written, well "acted", and have excellent direction and are exceptional movies even though they're accessable to everyone.

While I wouldn't say they're exactly the same thing, I think there is a similar pattern in videogames. A lot of "Mature" games are generally generic and kids worship them because they're Taboo, and a lot of "Everyone" games are solid games that attract a lot of attention from older gamers because of their quality. With this in mind, the idea that "Mature" games are bought by adults and "Everyone" games are bought by children is not a correct breakdown of the market.


Um...what? When I was very young Duke Nukem, Splatter House, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Conker, Doom were all beyond my reach and in those days those were classic games. Once Nintendo Sony lost their third party strangle hold and Sony got it their mature titles were bare bones. I managed to get around my parents to play certain games, but in my house they were off limits. In the 80's and 90's videogames were percieved to be for kids because Sega and Nintendo marketed them to be for children. Adults played by association and with Nintendo and Sega it is still the case. Sony came in and said adults can game too making and acquiring games adults can play as well as children. In the 90's the average age of the gamer had to be from child to teen, today its adults. Segas major association was with arcade gamers with its first party and with Nintendo it was home exclusivity save for games like Street Fighter and Killer Instinct. 

Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper and Ratchet and Clank are Pixar movies in games, Sony has had that covered since th early 2000's and anyone who has played them knows it. Nintendo has games that would be better associated with Disney characters. 

Dramas require the best acting, yes, but Action movies make great amounts of money, especially in the 80's and 90's where building memorable characters was what mattered. Mature movies can span all these genres, they just have the age requirement which is 17+ when you pay for admission in America. The movie depends on the actors, script and director and mature films can be great. This is as far as I will speak about action movies. 300? Natural Born killers? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Hannibal? Saving Private Ryan? The Godfather? Scarface? Kill Bill? Mature does not mean bad acting, if anything you need to be good to be convincing you need to be a very good actor to pull off action/killing/dramatic scenes if they are all included in one movie. 



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


Um...what? When I was very young Duke Nukem, Splatter House, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Conker, Doom were all beyond my reach and in those days those were classic games. Once Nintendo Sony lost their third party strangle hold and Sony got it their mature titles were bare bones. I managed to get around my parents to play certain games, but in my house they were off limits. In the 80's and 90's videogames were percieved to be for kids because Sega and Nintendo marketed them to be for children. Adults played by association and with Nintendo and Sega it is still the case. Sony came in and said adults can game too making and acquiring games adults can play as well as children. In the 90's the average age of the gamer had to be from child to teen, today its adults. Segas major association was with arcade gamers with its first party and with Nintendo it was home exclusivity save for games like Street Fighter and Killer Instinct. 

Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper and Ratchet and Clank are Pixar movies in games, Sony has had that covered since th early 2000's and anyone who has played them knows it. Nintendo has games that would be better associated with Disney characters. 

Dramas require the best acting, yes, but Action movies make great amounts of money, especially in the 80's and 90's where building memorable characters was what mattered. Mature movies can span all these genres, they just have the age requirement which is 17+ when you pay for admission in America. The movie depends on the actors, script and director and mature films can be great. This is as far as I will speak about action movies. 300? Natural Born killers? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Hannibal? Saving Private Ryan? The Godfather? Scarface? Kill Bill? Mature does not mean bad acting, if anything you need to be good to be convincing you need to be a very good actor to pull off action/killing/dramatic scenes if they are all included in one movie. 

I was 12 years old when the SNES launched, and a teenager when all of those games were released ...

Now, I never meant to say that there were no go Mature games or R rated movies; just that there is a different perspective on what accounts for maturity at different ages, and there is a lot of clever marketing happening. A company like Disney knows that adults pay for and go to movies with their children so they actually put a lot of effort into producing content that appeals to adults; and a good example of this is Wreck-it-Ralph. In contrast, the studio behind The Texas Chansaw Massacre 3D knows that the bulk of their audience isn't intelligent, mature adults so they don't bother creating content that appeals to them.

Videogames are both different and the same ... The high end western studios are trying to produce adult content, but many of studios below that are appealing to the lowest common denominator; and using excessive violence and sex to drive sales primarily from teenagers and children.



The Wii U will be a next gamecube (and a next Wii at the same time) so I guess we'll wait and see



     
Games can and should tell stories and share ideas through their mechanics. This is the intrinsic element of the medium and this is how experiences should be crafted in video games. No company does this as well as Nintendo and their echoes from the past.
  Aurum Ring  Delano7  Ocarinahero032

Around the Network

The GC failed mainly because of storage media that was chosen along with the controller design. They actually started off with decent software support but those decisions turned many western developers off of the system along with hurting port chances. It all played into their enemies strategy of claiming Nintendo consoles were for kids and ultimately Nintendo still hasn't completely shaken that stigma with the traditional gamer, outside of their fans.

If they want the Wii U to avoid that fate, they will need to start getting their games released out on the device and provide a unique experience that will be exclusive to the Wii U aside from just party games. The Wii U hasn't come close to reaching what it should be capable of but Nintendo is going to have to be the ones to reach that level to show developers what it is capable of because 3rd parties aren't going to do it for Nintendo just like they didn't with the Wii or even the GC.









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

Um...what? When I was very young Duke Nukem, Splatter House, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Conker, Doom were all beyond my reach and in those days those were classic games. Once Nintendo Sony lost their third party strangle hold and Sony got it their mature titles were bare bones. I managed to get around my parents to play certain games, but in my house they were off limits. In the 80's and 90's videogames were percieved to be for kids because Sega and Nintendo marketed them to be for children. Adults played by association and with Nintendo and Sega it is still the case. Sony came in and said adults can game too making and acquiring games adults can play as well as children. In the 90's the average age of the gamer had to be from child to teen, today its adults. Segas major association was with arcade gamers with its first party and with Nintendo it was home exclusivity save for games like Street Fighter and Killer Instinct.


Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper and Ratchet and Clank are Pixar movies in games, Sony has had that covered since th early 2000's and anyone who has played them knows it. Nintendo has games that would be better associated with Disney characters.


Dramas require the best acting, yes, but Action movies make great amounts of money, especially in the 80's and 90's where building memorable characters was what mattered. Mature movies can span all these genres, they just have the age requirement which is 17+ when you pay for admission in America. The movie depends on the actors, script and director and mature films can be great. This is as far as I will speak about action movies. 300? Natural Born killers? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Hannibal? Saving Private Ryan? The Godfather? Scarface? Kill Bill? Mature does not mean bad acting, if anything you need to be good to be convincing you need to be a very good actor to pull off action/killing/dramatic scenes if they are all included in one movie.



Well, you're younger than me and HappySqurriel. The game rating system got started after Mortal Kombat - prior to that, you could have a game like Custer's Revenge and it didn't have any age rating.

You're completely wrong about marketing; in the 70's and 80's games were marketed towards families, it was in the 90's that games started targeting the kids; first Sega with the "coolness" of Megadrive, and later Sony with the "only for teenagers" -themed Playstation. It was one of the big reasons why Nintendo lost so many customers during the decades; Nintendo abandoned the families to compete in the teenager-market without the "coolness" others were marketing themselves with. Now that Nintendo went back to families with Wii and DS, they shot through the roof.

While the average age of gamers today is higher than it was in the 90's, it's not because of core games, but everything else. You did mention that surveys tells us the average age of gamer is beyond 30, but what you didn't mention, is that the same surveys tell us, that "the primary driver for growth have been Wii and DS, among mobile devices".

When we compare 80's and 90's, the average age of gamers was much higher in the 80's, as videogames reached families, whereas in the 90's it was mainly kids.

Let's say Sony's target in the 90's was teenagers, then why in the hell they'd abandon their established market? And why wouldn't third parties try to this market? After all, it's a company who's consumer electronics have always relied heavily on teenagers, and teenagers have been the key market in every disruption made by Sony, this is what MS knows aswell, and Sony's intention was to use the Playstation (brand) to disrupt Microsoft.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.