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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - "The Great Hardcore Lie Exposed: Wii Did Not Lose Core Gamers"

Player2 said:
RenCutypoison said:
Player2 said:
RenCutypoison said:
Player2 said:
RenCutypoison said:
How come mario kart is said to be a core game ?

Play some Mario Kart Wii races with RolStoppable and you'll find out :P


There are pretty good Melee player, it doesn't make it Street Fighter 2 anyway

There are more gameplay mechanics involved in Mario Kart than in any other racer.


Loads of gameplay mechanics doesn't mean core gameplay mechanics. There are loads of gameplay mechanics in angry birds too.

Plus, if we assume they added one gameplay mechanic per game in the serie, that would make the first game a racer in wich you can ... turn and brake. That's all.

Loads of gameplay mechanics in Angry Birds? In Angry Birds the player doesn't have plenty of room about how to face the challenges the game proposes.

Since we can look at what it's possible to do at Super Mario Kart we can stop using assumptions.

Of course there is only one way to make a perfect in angry birds, but in mario kart also, there is also one trajectory possible to optimize your lap. All the mechanics in mario kart are tought for casuals ( like the fact that the last one in the race will pick up god tier items) except for one, the skid, accessible to a 8 yeas old but wich permit to auto-improve.

In an other registry, look at the customization of the cars in gran turismo 3 (dunno about later ones).  There is still only one good trajectory in this one, but you have a lot of choices to make in a race, one of the most important being "Do I change the tire now or on the next lap ?". For example you can choose to spend a few more laps with used tires, making you slower but making you gain a few seconds, etc. That adds a strategic thinking to the all.

There are core mechanics in gran turismo that you will only master after spending tens or hundreds of hours playing. In mario kart, you've mastered all mechanics after 10 hours. Improving is just grinding by replaying over and over the same races.



Around the Network
leatherhat said:
The list of hardcore games is totally up to opinion (and ignores third parties entirely- who actually put out some great stuff on GC and N64).

This. Considering Mario/Kirby/DK as core games is questionable imho. True, those games do have a core appeal but a lot of their sales come from casuals a well. And besides, how does he explain WiiU's slow start? At 30K a week it's obvious that a lot of people were driven off by Wii's poor last years, and software sales clearly suggest that those people are mostly core gamers.



Wright said:

"If you tell a lie enough times, people eventually come to believe it's actually true. Lots of "hardcore gamers" and industry professionals said that Nintendo left behind core games and core players with Wii, but if you take a look at the actual data, it's clear that's a big fat falsehood.

In April of last year, Satoru Iwata claimed that one of the issues faced by Wii was that the new gamers Wii attracted didn’t translate into profitable customers. Because of this, Nintendo decided to step back from the priority they had placed on these new gamers with Wii when creating Wii U, instead focusing on the more “core” gamer, who he says felt alienated by Wii.

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."

REASONS: (You obviously have to go to the source and read them)

Myth #1: Wii Didn’t Offer Many Core Titles

Myth #2: Wii Attracted Fewer Core Gamers

Myth #3: Wii Was Most Popular With Casuals

 

From Gengame.net

 

Well...what do you think?


Why is it false? Just saying "It's false" does not make it true.

Logically and from what I have seen, the Wii did push away the hardcore gamers.



akuseru said:
They didn't lose any core?
The certainly lost me. I bought a Wii on launch, and was hugely disappointed.
For instance, SSBM is by far my most played game of all time. I did not even buy SSBB, because imo it was the lesser game compared to SSBM. Same story with Mario Kart, and the Zelda series (even though I actually bought Skyward Sword). Gakaxy was excellent, did not buy or like number two.

Instead of investing a lot of money in Nintendo's new system, I also bought a PS3, and have a collection of about 115 games, not counting PSN/digital games, and it will only continue to grow, until I switch to PS4, which will get the same treatment.

To be honest, my girl already bought a WiiU, I have played it, and even though I like the controller concept, Nintendo will never get me to spend money on their system again. Wii was such a big let down, and many of my favourite series were ruined, just because Nintendo wanted to cater to their new crowd. Zelda went from being my favourite franchise, and a must have game, to totally uninteresting this gen.

I am sorry Nintendo, but to me, you failed hard.

I represent the opposite end of the scale; for me, as a core gamer, the Wii was a return to form for Nintendo after the disappointment of the Gamecube, and I never once regretted getting it.

Overall, the numbers suggest Nintendo they gained more than they lost as far as core gamers go.



RenCutypoison said:
Player2 said:
RenCutypoison said:
Player2 said:
 

There are more gameplay mechanics involved in Mario Kart than in any other racer.


Loads of gameplay mechanics doesn't mean core gameplay mechanics. There are loads of gameplay mechanics in angry birds too.

Plus, if we assume they added one gameplay mechanic per game in the serie, that would make the first game a racer in wich you can ... turn and brake. That's all.

Loads of gameplay mechanics in Angry Birds? In Angry Birds the player doesn't have plenty of room about how to face the challenges the game proposes.

Since we can look at what it's possible to do at Super Mario Kart we can stop using assumptions.

Of course there is only one way to make a perfect in angry birds, but in mario kart also, there is also one trajectory possible to optimize your lap. All the mechanics in mario kart are tought for casuals ( like the fact that the last one in the race will pick up god tier items) except for one, the skid, accessible to a 8 yeas old but wich permit to auto-improve.

In an other registry, look at the customization of the cars in gran turismo 3 (dunno about later ones).  There is still only one good trajectory in this one, but you have a lot of choices to make in a race, one of the most important being "Do I change the tire now or on the next lap ?". For example you can choose to spend a few more laps with used tires, making you slower but making you gain a few seconds, etc. That adds a strategic thinking to the all.

There are core mechanics in gran turismo that you will only master after spending tens or hundreds of hours playing. In mario kart, you've mastered all mechanics after 10 hours. Improving is just grinding by replaying over and over the same races.

Only the skid? How about turbo start+wheelie, using inverted drifting to do multiple turbos in a long corner without losing the driving line, mini turbo+ wheelie, jump tricks...

And that would be the case In a world where you race alone, hitting other racers is banned, and item management doesn't exist.

Choices in Gran Turismo doesn't matter because the AI is ridiculously slow, specially since part 3 where you can buy HP upgrades for race cars and the AI doesn't use them, or just use way better cars than the ones the AI use (btw, what happened since GT1? why all the AI-controlled road cars are stock?) but I have to admit that they tried by forcing you to race with a crippled car by not letting you change the oil (GT3) or repair the chassis of your car (GT4) between races in a championship (dat realism).



Around the Network

the real hardcore machines n64 gc and neo geo behind the nes.



ryuzaki57 said:
leatherhat said:
The list of hardcore games is totally up to opinion (and ignores third parties entirely- who actually put out some great stuff on GC and N64).

This. Considering Mario/Kirby/DK as core games is questionable imho. True, those games do have a core appeal but a lot of their sales come from casuals a well. And besides, how does he explain WiiU's slow start? At 30K a week it's obvious that a lot of people were driven off by Wii's poor last years, and software sales clearly suggest that those people are mostly core gamers.

Those games are in the lists of all three platforms, so if you remove them you have to do it from all of them. At the end, the result is the same, the Wii has as many (or more) core games as previous Nintendo systems, which is what the article is about.

I see some people keep getting confused with Wii and Wii U.

 

Edit - Ajimbo! TheJimbo! I mean, 1234 posts!



What are hardcore gamers at all ?
Are they those kind of gamers who only plays M-rated games, with lots of gore, violence, offensive language and sexual references ?
Or are they those who enjoy videogaming in every possibility of gameplay that can be offered, independent of style, cathegory, rating or device, then spending more time and money with several consoles ?

The "myths" here can be verified by these two very different approaches of what a "core" gamer can be .



Fairly pointless article where the premise is flawed from the start. The argument I see most is not that the Wii "lost" core gamers but that better offerings for core gamers could be found elsewhere (PS3, 360 & PC). These consoles don't exist in a vacuum and any analysis needs to take into account the competition.

Also, did no one else notice the absence of Goldeneye in the N64 list? That's just wrong. Look at the attach ratio of Goldeneye; that game made the N64.



Rogerioandrade said:
What are hardcore gamers at all ?
Are they those kind of gamers who only plays M-rated games, with lots of gore, violence, offensive language and sexual references ?
Or are they those who enjoy videogaming in every possibility of gameplay that can be offered, independent of style, cathegory, rating or device, then spending more time and money with several consoles ?

The "myths" here can be verified by these two very different approaches of what a "core" gamer can be .


A hardcore gamer is someone who play games hundreds of hours to master it.

Have no other definition in mind