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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Do you consider Nintendo gamers core gamers?

 

Do you consider Nintendo gamers core gamers?

yes 232 68.44%
 
no 92 27.14%
 
yes....im afraid of the butt kicking.... 15 4.42%
 
Total:339
noname2200 on 14 March 2013
Michael-5 said:

AAA Games do not have to be mainstream games. Catherine for PS3/360 is definatly AAA, and I would not consider that casual. Same with XenoBlade for Wii. Valkyria Chronicles and Lost Odyssey are also AAA, and I think Lost Odyssey. Mind you I define AAA as games of high quality, not games with high production costs (But I think Lost Odyssey's production costs were pretty high for a Japanese game non the less).

However often times games with large production costs do turn out good, maybe not great, but good.

For the Car analogy, that would be like knowing what a Henessey Venom is, and why it's important. Cars are not the best analogy because most people can't truely afford Ferrarri's, and to a degree, most people can't afford multiple consoles, but you can always pick up a PS3/360 late into its life (now is a pretty good time) or borrow a console off a friend.

The problem here is that we've swapped out one flaw for a more egregious one. Now the defining trait comes down exclusively to subjectivity: "what does Michael-5 think a core game is?" Since that's no more valid than "what does noname2200 think a core game is?", or even "what does Sarah from Omaha think a core game is?" I'm compelled to reject the argument entirely. For a concrete example, I don't consider Catherine to be AAA in any way, and while I like Lost Odyssey just fine, and its budget might qualify it as a AAA title, I would not say its quality lives up to that billing: it's good, not great, and certainly not top-tier (in my opinion).

I don't say these things to be contrarian, or even try to debate the merits of those titles. I say it to illustrate that, if we adopt that definition of AAA, we will be talking past each other on a frequent basis. It becomes extremely difficult to have a coherent conversation when everyone uses the same words to mean entirely different things. Our conversations would start looking like the dialogue between Alice and Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass!



Around the Network
Michael-5 on 14 March 2013
noname2200 said:
Michael-5 said:

AAA Games do not have to be mainstream games. Catherine for PS3/360 is definatly AAA, and I would not consider that casual. Same with XenoBlade for Wii. Valkyria Chronicles and Lost Odyssey are also AAA, and I think Lost Odyssey. Mind you I define AAA as games of high quality, not games with high production costs (But I think Lost Odyssey's production costs were pretty high for a Japanese game non the less).

However often times games with large production costs do turn out good, maybe not great, but good.

For the Car analogy, that would be like knowing what a Henessey Venom is, and why it's important. Cars are not the best analogy because most people can't truely afford Ferrarri's, and to a degree, most people can't afford multiple consoles, but you can always pick up a PS3/360 late into its life (now is a pretty good time) or borrow a console off a friend.

The problem here is that we've swapped out one flaw for a more egregious one. Now the defining trait comes down exclusively to subjectivity: "what does Michael-5 think a core game is?" Since that's no more valid than "what does noname2200 think a core game is?", or even "what does Sarah from Omaha think a core game is?" I'm compelled to reject the argument entirely. For a concrete example, I don't consider Catherine to be AAA in any way, and while I like Lost Odyssey just fine, and its budget might qualify it as a AAA title, I would not say its quality lives up to that billing: it's good, not great, and certainly not top-tier (in my opinion).

I don't say these things to be contrarian, or even try to debate the merits of those titles. I say it to illustrate that, if we adopt that definition of AAA, we will be talking past each other on a frequent basis. It becomes extremely difficult to have a coherent conversation when everyone uses the same words to mean entirely different things. Our conversations would start looking like the dialogue between Alice and Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass!

Blasphamy, Lost Odyssey was the best JRPG this gen IMO.

Either way, I consider anyone who plays Good quality games, which aren't just the ones with mass advertizing, or high sales core gamers. This implies they know something about gaming, and get games they like, not just want's popular.

However, as good as some Wii games are, there aren't many of them. My Wii collection is only 20 games big, whereas my PS3/360 game collection is about 100 games combined, and I'm still acquiring more.

So I can't imagine anyone who exclusively plays Wii games as a core gamer because it means that A. they don't play much, and B. They ignore offerings by other publishers.

If you look at that and compare it to a car buff, most real car buffs, while prefering one make or manufacterer, still look into rival cars, or other types of cars, and probably give them a test drive at the very least. Plus, they don't just leave the car sitting in the garage (unless it's something old and rare like a 1952 Gullwing.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

noname2200 on 14 March 2013
Michael-5 said:
noname2200 said:
Michael-5 said:

AAA Games do not have to be mainstream games. Catherine for PS3/360 is definatly AAA, and I would not consider that casual. Same with XenoBlade for Wii. Valkyria Chronicles and Lost Odyssey are also AAA, and I think Lost Odyssey. Mind you I define AAA as games of high quality, not games with high production costs (But I think Lost Odyssey's production costs were pretty high for a Japanese game non the less).

However often times games with large production costs do turn out good, maybe not great, but good.

For the Car analogy, that would be like knowing what a Henessey Venom is, and why it's important. Cars are not the best analogy because most people can't truely afford Ferrarri's, and to a degree, most people can't afford multiple consoles, but you can always pick up a PS3/360 late into its life (now is a pretty good time) or borrow a console off a friend.

The problem here is that we've swapped out one flaw for a more egregious one. Now the defining trait comes down exclusively to subjectivity: "what does Michael-5 think a core game is?" Since that's no more valid than "what does noname2200 think a core game is?", or even "what does Sarah from Omaha think a core game is?" I'm compelled to reject the argument entirely. For a concrete example, I don't consider Catherine to be AAA in any way, and while I like Lost Odyssey just fine, and its budget might qualify it as a AAA title, I would not say its quality lives up to that billing: it's good, not great, and certainly not top-tier (in my opinion).

I don't say these things to be contrarian, or even try to debate the merits of those titles. I say it to illustrate that, if we adopt that definition of AAA, we will be talking past each other on a frequent basis. It becomes extremely difficult to have a coherent conversation when everyone uses the same words to mean entirely different things. Our conversations would start looking like the dialogue between Alice and Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass!

Blasphamy, Lost Odyssey was the best JRPG this gen IMO.

Either way, I consider anyone who plays Good quality games, which aren't just the ones with mass advertizing, or high sales core gamers. This implies they know something about gaming, and get games they like, not just want's popular.

However, as good as some Wii games are, there aren't many of them. My Wii collection is only 20 games big, whereas my PS3/360 game collection is about 100 games combined, and I'm still acquiring more.

So I can't imagine anyone who exclusively plays Wii games as a core gamer because it means that A. they don't play much, and B. They ignore offerings by other publishers.

If you look at that and compare it to a car buff, most real car buffs, while prefering one make or manufacterer, still look into rival cars, or other types of cars, and probably give them a test drive at the very least. Plus, they don't just leave the car sitting in the garage (unless it's something old and rare like a 1952 Gullwing.

Fair enough. I personally disagree, and I know some members of this site have purchased 80-100+ Wii games (I believe amp, gamerace, and especially mike_intellivision are in that group; my own collection probably stands in the 60-80 range), but at the end of the day the question might be at least partially personal to begin with!



noname2200 on 14 March 2013
RolStoppable said:
bananaking21 said:
depends, the soccer moms who bought the Wii for Wii sports and dance central ? not really no
the nintendo gamers who buy mario,zelda, metriod for example and game a lot on the system? yes

I hope this post contains a deliberate joke and isn't a "Dude, I know what I am talking about." post.


There is: "people actually play games on their Wiis."

I think it's funny.



Suke on 14 March 2013

A game is a game, that's how I see it.



“Don’t follow the hype, follow the games”

— 

Here a little quote I want for those to keep memorize in your head for this coming next gen.                            

 By: Suke
Around the Network
Michael-5 on 15 March 2013
noname2200 said:
Michael-5 said:

Blasphamy, Lost Odyssey was the best JRPG this gen IMO.

Either way, I consider anyone who plays Good quality games, which aren't just the ones with mass advertizing, or high sales core gamers. This implies they know something about gaming, and get games they like, not just want's popular.

However, as good as some Wii games are, there aren't many of them. My Wii collection is only 20 games big, whereas my PS3/360 game collection is about 100 games combined, and I'm still acquiring more.

So I can't imagine anyone who exclusively plays Wii games as a core gamer because it means that A. they don't play much, and B. They ignore offerings by other publishers.

If you look at that and compare it to a car buff, most real car buffs, while prefering one make or manufacterer, still look into rival cars, or other types of cars, and probably give them a test drive at the very least. Plus, they don't just leave the car sitting in the garage (unless it's something old and rare like a 1952 Gullwing.

Fair enough. I personally disagree, and I know some members of this site have purchased 80-100+ Wii games (I believe amp, gamerace, and especially mike_intellivision are in that group; my own collection probably stands in the 60-80 range), but at the end of the day the question might be at least partially personal to begin with!

I think if you own 60-80 Wii games, and play them regularly, you're still a core gamer.

What you bought, I don't know, and why you buy 60 Wii games and 0 PS3/360 games, makes no sense to me, but if you know what you like.

Regardless, I think it's good to diversify your experiences. I played Mass Effect on a recomendation (I thought it looked glitchy and stupid at first, too much like a MMO), and it's now one of my favorite franchises. Same goes with the Tales of series and Pikmin.

Now I give any well reviewed game a shot, unless I know I'm not into it because I've played other games of the franchise. e.g. I won't get another God of War or Ninja Gaiden game because I gave them a shot and I really didn't like them. I'm also skeptical about the show hack and slash genre, but I still picked up Bayonetta, and I loved Vanquish.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Mazty on 15 March 2013

Generally no because they are more focused on continuing a franchise, franchises which are not particularly mature. Core games tend to be mature and not for kids imo.



Veknoid_Outcast on 15 March 2013
Mazty said:
Generally no because they are more focused on continuing a franchise, franchises which are not particularly mature. Core games tend to be mature and not for kids imo.

Respectfully disagree. I've found in my short time on this planet that self-described "core" gamers are among the most immature video game enthusiasts. They are very much preoccupied with demonstrating their maturity and rejecting anything that might be described as childlike, which is a sign of juvenile behavior.



EricFabian on 15 March 2013
Mazty said:
Generally no because they are more focused on continuing a franchise, franchises which are not particularly mature. Core games tend to be mature and not for kids imo.


very mature like play CoD on-line -



Click HERE and be happy 

Mazty on 15 March 2013
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Mazty said:
Generally no because they are more focused on continuing a franchise, franchises which are not particularly mature. Core games tend to be mature and not for kids imo.

Respectfully disagree. I've found in my short time on this planet that self-described "core" gamers are among the most immature video game enthusiasts. They are very much preoccupied with demonstrating their maturity and rejecting anything that might be described as childlike, which is a sign of juvenile behavior.

Anti-social & rude (also known as hormonal) =/= childish.

For example, Disney is childish, but a 15 something year old screaming obscenities is rude, anti-social etc but not childish to the same extent. On the grand schemes of things yes, both are childish, but to different extents. What is appropriate for an 8 year old isn't the same as for a 15 year old.