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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Does Nintendo suck at making "Core gamer" consoles?

JackHandy said:
Chrkeller said:

Sega?  The same sega that has been irrelevant for decades meanwhile Nintendo actually matters in the world of gaming?  I'm pretty sure sega define 1 hit wonder.  Outside the genesis sega has crashed and burned on everything.

Yes, we all know about their spectacular collapse. But that has little bearing on what SOA managed to do during the 16-bit wars. They practically invented core vs. kiddy, and as subjective as those terms are, they would persist for decades. Even today they exist, as evident by this thread. 

Accurate. SEGA and Sony's marketing in the 90s made sure people hated Nintendo for not being cool like them. From Genesis does what Nintendon't or Blast Processing mocking Mario Kart to Sony's Crash at Nintendo HQ mocking Mario or FF7 ads mocking N64 cartridges. 90s marketing was cutthroat trashing the other guys. Nintendo didn't fully go for it. They did have some hey we're edgy and cool too in NOA marketing but an uphill battle when trying to make Yoshi edgy in gross-out commercials and magazine ads.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network

What is a 'Core' Gamer? Is it defined by how much time you spend playing? How much money is spend on this hobby? Is it determined by what types of games are played?

I see speedrunners spend hours a day playing Mario, Metroid, Zelda and the like. If there is such a thing as 'Core' Gamer, I think speed runners can be counted as 'Core' Gamers more then anyone.



Spindel said:
zeldaring said:

 

Naw I wouldn't include the switch unless you really a huge fan of Nintendo and the hardware is just really bad for a home console. To many AAA games not om switch. 

What goes as AAA games today is the epitome of ”casual”. 

Nintendo games are for casuals as well lol. it's just if you are a core gamer you are giving up way to many AAA games along with very dated tech vs only giving up Nintendo games. 



zeldaring said:
Spindel said:

What goes as AAA games today is the epitome of ”casual”. 

Nintendo games are for casuals as well lol. it's just if you are a core gamer you are giving up way to many AAA games along with very dated tech vs only giving up Nintendo games. 

As usual you argue in bad faith, where in my post you quoted did I mention Nintendo?



Spindel said:
zeldaring said:

Nintendo games are for casuals as well lol. it's just if you are a core gamer you are giving up way to many AAA games along with very dated tech vs only giving up Nintendo games. 

As usual you argue in bad faith, where in my post you quoted did I mention Nintendo?

Then what's the argument about. if you are a core gamr i doubt you wanna miss out on games like sikero, resident evil 4 remake, elden ring, dead space, final fantasy, street fighter 6, and tekken. it's just too many sacrifices to only own a switch imo.  

Last edited by zeldaring - on 19 December 2023

Around the Network
Tober said:

What is a 'Core' Gamer? Is it defined by how much time you spend playing? How much money is spend on this hobby? Is it determined by what types of games are played?

I see speedrunners spend hours a day playing Mario, Metroid, Zelda and the like. If there is such a thing as 'Core' Gamer, I think speed runners can be counted as 'Core' Gamers more then anyone.

I define core anything that isn't casual, I.E. grandma playing Wii Sports once a month for a year and then never playing another game again. That would be casual. If you're a "gamer", like all of us, you are core in my opinion. 



JackHandy said:
Tober said:

What is a 'Core' Gamer? Is it defined by how much time you spend playing? How much money is spend on this hobby? Is it determined by what types of games are played?

I see speedrunners spend hours a day playing Mario, Metroid, Zelda and the like. If there is such a thing as 'Core' Gamer, I think speed runners can be counted as 'Core' Gamers more then anyone.

I define core anything that isn't casual, I.E. grandma playing Wii Sports once a month for a year and then never playing another game again. That would be casual. If you're a "gamer", like all of us, you are core in my opinion. 

Which as a result means Nintendo is actually quite adept in appealing to core gamers, they did it with Wii, DS and Switch.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Mnementh said:
JackHandy said:

I define core anything that isn't casual, I.E. grandma playing Wii Sports once a month for a year and then never playing another game again. That would be casual. If you're a "gamer", like all of us, you are core in my opinion. 

Which as a result means Nintendo is actually quite adept in appealing to core gamers, they did it with Wii, DS and Switch.

In my definition of core, yes. There has never been a non-core Nintendo console. Wii had a slew of non-core gamers playing it, sure. As did the DS. But people like us were playing them too and doing so for hundreds of hours. 



On the related “casual game” topic. To some gamers it’s a dirty word, but it shouldn’t be.

I think a good definition of “casual games” as games designed for casual play as opposed to more long-term/binge play.
While party games and certain puzzle games fall into this category, I think they’re a separate thing. I think the gameplay style that best fits this style are games like Animal Crossing, Clash of Clans, and Brain Age - essentially, games that are designed for short spurts because of task limitations, but when you log out and come back later, there’s new stuff to do. This is usually on a 24 hour clock, but some games (AC and Clash of Clans included) have smaller tasks that arrive and can be completed by logging back on after a few hours: Animal Crossing has schedule changes and various timed events and resource availability based on the time of day, other games use tasks/jobs that complete in a few minutes to a few hours, and still others will have updates caused by other players (like attacks).

In short, casual games are games that are always going, most often live service, but players are only expected to be on a few minutes at a time, usually 1-4 times a day.

On AAA, this is more of a term like “blockbuster” - but I think of it as more of a development philosophy. Think the sort of games where they build a trunk and each sequel/update is a branch. The branch may be a small update, or it may be a full blown sequel: think EA Sports titles, certain wrestling franchises, and games like Assassin’s Creed. Even GTA 3, VC, and SA were all branched from the same trunk project. Add in the giant sized production teams and budgets, metadata driven design, and little wiggle room for untested creativity. I’ve heard many theories about the term “AAA” most recently something related to money bonds, but I don’t think anyone was thinking that in gaming fandom. The first time I heard the term was for major RPGs like FF7 or FF8 on Squaresoft.com (later rebranded to RPGamer) and TheGIA, and it was used as an acronym “A lot of money, A lot of resources, and A lot of time.”

Last edited by Jumpin - on 19 December 2023

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Chrkeller said:
JackHandy said:

Yes, we all know about their spectacular collapse. But that has little bearing on what SOA managed to do during the 16-bit wars. They practically invented core vs. kiddy, and as subjective as those terms are, they would persist for decades. Even today they exist, as evident by this thread. 

I think they invented trivial marketing BS, nothing more.  Core existed well before the genesis.  

Core never existed. It's just an elitist gamerTM buzzword.