^^^for a game to be kiddy it's difficulty has to be scaled down so that it's easier for a child to beat the game... regardless of any art style, no nintendo games are purposely made to be easier for kids to play on that list except maybe mario party 8...

 Zelda was much easier than FF6. Rugrats is MUCH MUCH MUCH harder than Zelda. So I would say zelda is for infants if we are talking about difficulty.

Super Smash Brothers... Set the AI to easy... and your dog could win.

Mario. Idunno about how hard the new one will be but if it's like Sunshine, it will be too hard for the average gamer, and be aimed at the hardcore gamer specifically. If it is more like Mario 64 it will be quite easy with 2 or 3 hard spots. If it is more like modern nintendo games... It will be easy enough for your dog to beat it.

Kiddie games, by your definition... :P

(ok this is not bashing nintendo. This is saying difficulty does not make a game a kiddy game)

GTA3 is really easy. Is it a kiddie game?
Rugrats... is REALLY REALLY hard. Is it an adult game.

Hi.  I'm new and I've been browsing the forums for a while.  This is my first post.  Now that intros are out of the way...

I think the wii could be a blessing or curse for the "hard core" gamers.  It could be a life support for HD gaming, while the development methods are building.  HD is a HUGE leap in consumer techology (IMO one of my favorites) as far as engineering economics go.  Developers may need to release "cute" games for the wii that they can sell millions for $50 a piece that can be developed at a micro budget.

Or it could be a curse as the lead investors of development studios might be more interested in $$$$$ that can be extracted from development for the Wii, while they see the loss of spending a few million to develop games with best textures, lighting, FPS, etc.

Last Generation I had a Gamecube and a PS2 because I didn't find to many Xbox games that I was interested in.  This generation, I have a PS3 and am definitely getting a X360 before Blue Dragon and Lost Oddyssey come out.

 As far as the Wii, I've played it at my friend's house and I'm really not getting as interested in it as I should be.  I just don't care about the cute party games as much as most people do.  When playing Wii, I'm always dying to go back to my PS3...

 Some of us really tried, I have a long post about how I think that more game genrés is good for the industry. So I haven't seen Kwaad answer any of those posts.

Logical fallacy alert, logical fallacy alert, danger, danger, Will Robinson, that does not compute...

I could go on with computer based error  messages but I think you get the point.

Oh yeah I did have an actual point here.  If you don't like the Wii, ummm, don't buy it.   Since when has this become so difficult to comprehend?  At any rate, all I hear from Sony fanboys is that the PS3 is going to romp the Wii in the end so what are you, Kwaad, and especially Hus (judging by the increasingly crazed desperate tone of his posts) so worried about?

To Kwaad, as mentionned by others, your point is obviously to start a flame war ...

On OP, there are a few flaws in your views :
- Last gens, you make as if games sold on dominant platform were not 90% low rated ones.
- Where are AAA titles on PS3 ? In 2 years, will YOU give a shit on Motorstorm ? You find this game so entertaining not because it is a good game, but because this is the least bad one on the platform ...

I have to say that Zelda will stay in my mind in 2 years as a "top game".

An habit i have noted from f*nboys last gen and now is to re-define common words. It seems you do the exact same thing here.
Please, define "complex", "epic". Once this is done, i will say:
- Your definition is not the same commonly accepted
- Show me a game more "epic" that Zelda this gen and let's discuss about it (Motorstrom Bouaaaaaahah)
More seriously, i don't get where LP or GeOW are more epic or "complex".

On general market : we are not all the market. If Microsoft and Sony totally failed to noticed, Nintendo did. Different markets equates to different offerings (remember this economical law ?)
My wife never gave a shit to gaming in 15 years, now she enjoyed Wii sport and awaits for Wii health ...
Can you imagine my wife with a headset killing people in GeOW ? I can't ...

Can I imagine my ten years old son as a psychopat killer raping wifes ? No, pokemon is better suited to him (In fact, it seems these games are really good ones. I will maybe give it a try next monthes...)

Last segment i want to deal with is auto-called "hardcore" ones. The more i read them, the more i think "little player".
PS3 and Xbox360 are clearly going the "PC path". This is IMO a bad idea, because they won't be able to compete on graphics, physics, AI (and in some cases gameplay) ...
- Many of big titles are awaited on PC too
- If i want hyper graphics, i shall buy a big PC
- Multimedia : i already have semi-pro soundcard, amplifiers and a tuned automated PC (foobar)
- DVD, HD reading : the same ...

There is a major problem with how Kwaad posts on these forums he simply starts these threads knowing a flame war will begin and only answers irrelevant or negative posts in order to create more negativity. I have not seen you start a single NORMAL thread on anything for a long time Kwaad try it some time its not to hard. Zich Heil Kwaad!

OT ALERT! actually, this isn't a logical fallacy (unless you're talking about the false dichtomy of the second sentence, but I assume by the ---'s you're talking about how he likes the PS2)

While saying "I want a powerhouse system" "I like the PS2" is a contradictory statement, it's not actually a logical fallacy.

I agree with you, I just don't like hearing "logical fallacy" being thrown around when it's not true.

Anyway, back on topic:

Kwaad: The simple matter is that games will be made to the market. The basics of Capitalism which we all live with is that while there is a valid market, companies will rise to fill that market, because they can make money. As such, all our needs are met.

What does this have to do with your point? Quite simple. The addition of more "casual" games does not mean that the hard-core gamers are going away. The people who like long, complex RPGs will not suddenly become casual gamers playing warioware, nor will they simply disappear, but they will still be there. So long as there are people who want these things, then they will be made. If companies think they can make more money on cheap casual games they will start making cheap casual games until the market is flooded and it's no longer financially viable to make them. However, the size of the hardcore user base will not shrink by any action of Nintendo (More likely to be the cause of Sony releasing a system at a price no-one wants to pay. Yes, even people who like long RPG's may decide not to spend $1000 on a games console).

If the hardcore market is the same size, then the same number of companies will work there. They may be overshadowed by the much larger new market that Nintendo may create, but that doesn't mean it's smaller, it just looks smaller due to a much larger similar market. What this means, is either the current developer studios get larger, or more studios are created to tap the new market.

So in the end, we have a much larger market, with a niche market of hardcore gamers. Niche markets are still just as profitable, and the shrinking and growing of that niche market will be done by the games companies that make games for that market. If it shrinks, it will not be the fault of Nintendo, or any company that makes small casual games, but the fault of those companies that exploit the market that is falling.

So don't worry about the Wii. So long as there are hardcore gamers there will be hardcore games. Capitalism demands it, and it (mostly) works.