I believe his point isn't that hardcore Nintendo games should have their scores inflated, but that it's absolutely senseless for a publication to award intentionally low scores, if this is actually happening.

His argument is similar to what some Republicans have been saying recently - the Democrats are bound to win '08, so we need to make sure that their most conservative primary candidate wins the nomination. It's a waste of time and is actually harmful to the cause to continue to attack, say, Hillary, because it might prevent her from being given the nomination. The Wii is an inevitability at this point - there's no fighting against it, and all that's left to opponents of the idea is to try to influence it as best they can.

There are actually only a few Nintendo licenses that could be deemed hardcore. Those games are Mario, Zelda, and Metroid. They take a measure of skill. The other Nintendo licenses are and have for some time been casual fare. Mariokart, Waverace, Mario Party, Starfox, Smash Brothers, Mario sports titles, Animal Crossing, Pilot Wings, and many others have always been geared towards casual players.

This generation was not the birth place of the casual gamer, and Nintendo has supported them for no less then the last decade. Most do not notice this, because the games I have mentioned have been compelling for both audiences. However they are the very definition of casual.

This is a very valid point. Nintendo is not moving away from the hardcore player. They have not really been supporting them in the first place. They have just been making a lot of games with universal appeal. There is nothing wrong with that and frankly Sony and Microsoft could learn from Nintendo in this respect. These titles really shore up a lineup.

That said Nintendo can only go up from this point. They never got to this point with the last two generations. Earlier this year they bought a controlling stake in Monolith by the way there are two Monoliths. I expect them to probably buy another two studios next year. They will have a larger broader consumer base with this console, and that means its funding development, and Nintendo will need to expand development.

The reality is pretty harsh. Nintendo has just been throwing the hardcore gamer a few bones for the past couple generations. That was part of their problem. Now they are in a different position however thanks to bringing new and defunct players to the market. To maintain growth eventually they are going to need to ensure more complex hardcore games on their platform, or watch as the well dries up. They made a good start earlier this year buying a controlling stake in Monolith. They need to buy a couple more studios or expand their in house development.

I think Metroid is more important for judging the hardcore strength of the console. This game will not have universal appeal. Many reviewers will obviously curve their scores up. The first reason is they were starved of AAA complex games since Zelda. So naturally they will be overly excited by the title. Whereas if it faced stiffer competition the reviewing would be much more strict. The reviewers want to see more titles like this. Finally it could finally get the controls right. When you play with rotten play schemes when something better comes along you tend to magnify the improvement in your own mind. The reality is the rest of the lineup only serves to curve the score up. The fact that the reviewers want to play games like this only helps as well.

Metroid seems to me to be a win win situation for hardcore gamers on the console. For instance if does poorly Nintendo can see it as a sign to step up production. That their player base has become far to unbalanced. You want stability in your audience. Now if the game does fantastic sales it could also encourage them to fund similar projects.

I think perceptions of the first party lineup from Nintendo have been a bit off or colored. I also think their are simple reasons why the game could be notched up more rather then ulterior motives. Finally the sales of this game really does not seem to matter. Nintendo knows they need to tend the entire flock regardless, and either way hardcore production is going to increase. For no other reason then to shore up the library on the console.

Dodece said: There are actually only a few Nintendo licenses that could be deemed hardcore. Those games are Mario, Zelda, and Metroid. They take a measure of skill. The other Nintendo licenses are and have for some time been casual fare. Mariokart, Waverace, Mario Party, Starfox, Smash Brothers, Mario sports titles, Animal Crossing, Pilot Wings, and many others have always been geared towards casual players.

Your post was probably a well thought out one, but i had to stop reading in the first paragraph, as I can't understand how (among other borderline titles) you have put smash bros into casual, and implied it doesn't take a measure of skill -- have you played on the difficult settings of smash bros before? It does take a skill, and so does playing online in Mario Kart, the rest though, I either agree with you or haven't had enough experience with the judge

gebx said: Nintendo is moving away from "Action" games (I can't call Zelda, Metroid, and Mario, "hardcore"). They continue to support "action"games in some form or another, but expect all new Nintendo IP's to be aimed at casual players.

I have to disagree with both of you points there. Zelda Metroid and Mario can well be called hardcore as much as the next ultra generic FPSs we see in the market nowadays. Why? You need frickin skill and brain power to even try to complete this games with have a percentage. Especially Metroid. The puzzles in Prime and Prime 2 echoes are mind boggling and Prime 2 is especially unforgiving with the combat.

On your 'New N IP = Casual' it is already confirmed that a new Miyamoto IP is in the works and it is in no way casual.

Skill is a subjective term however you do not need to be particularly skilled to be able to play Smash Brothers. You do not need to be particularly skilled to play Mario Kart either. You can be a good player or a poor player, but regardless of your individual skill you can play these games. Most gamers do not use the highest difficulty in a game as a barometer. Specifically because a player has the option to play it on easy mode. Easy mode exists for challenged or casual players. So they can play through a game without being very good.

Now take a game like Mario, Zelda, or Metroid. Your required to have a degree of skill to play and complete these games. They contain non linear objectives, dynamic puzzle elements, split second timing, and a great degree of hand eye coordination. They require a certain amount of dedicated play. You cannot just pick these games up and play for fifteen minutes.

I hate to say this but Smash Brothers and all games in the genre really are casual by their very nature. That is not going to change. That does not mean it cannot be challenging for you, but anyone can pick up and play this game. Simply due to the fact that it is not hardcore. Try a experiment get a non gamer to play Zelda, and then have them play Smash Brothers.

I guarantee that Zelda will frustrate them, and they will do very poorly. They will not want to play this game. Trust me I have done it after the fiftieth question I start to get frustrated. Stick in Smash Brothers, and watch as they start to get a handle on things. Sure they do not know all the nuances, but they can get into it they can actually play the game. They might actually win a few matches against the system. Thats the thing about Smash Brothers sometimes a player can actually win by dumb luck.

That is why Smash Brothers is a casual game.

Hi shams, you post has some major logical flaws, so lets begin.

shams said: The games industry is at a crossroads, and Nintendo are at the centre of the change in direction. The old focus of games for the "hardcore/old-school" gamer is being overrun by economics - simpler, cheaper games for the casual/non-gamer are making more money, and having less risk. It also opens the industry up to "simpler" development companies - less focus on art, technology, polish - and more on brand names, marketing (etc...).

Here is the first thing i disagree and the first thing i say is "Boogie", I really don't think EA does make money with it. I also think that casual games need a good artwork, brand name means a lot, but is not everything. Look at the movie industry. Successful films have brand names, but there are not a lot of those who have done more than a trilogy.

shams said: I argue this: It should be in the interest of all "old-school" gamers (and related parties, such as review sites) to show Nintendo that not only can "hardcore" titles sell well (and make money) - they can sell better than non-gamer titles (and return a greater profit - after development). I doubt there is a single person here that sincerely wants Nintendo to move completely away from the creation of titles such as Zelda, Galaxy, Brawl & Zelda (and closer to titles such as 'Face Training' & WiiFit). There needs to be a balance - and no doubt Nintendo will continue to support hardcore gamers in some form/ratio. But there is a real chance that the sales of these titles now may determine this development balance in the future. No doubt Ninty will be watching this carefully, and formulating their future plans. Why would Ninty care about Metroid Prime 4 - if Metroid Prime 3 cost 4x to develop what Mario Party 8 did - yet Mario Party 8 sold 4x as many units???

So why should a current greater profit on casual titles lead to less hardcore titles? This argument has a flaw, it basically assumes that development power is static, but as the market growth so can development power. Why not make casual and hardcore title and make more profit than you would do, if you concentrate on one of those? Yes you need more man power, but that shouldn't be that big of a problem, should it? It also lower the risks total, because if one of the two market has a crisis you may have the second to relay on.

There is also a second thing you do not consider. Nintendo took a risk expanding to the casual market (with DS, Wii etc.) and if you take a risk and the thing is successful it gives you good profit, in the beginnings. But where is good profit, there will be others that want a piece of the pie, and also targeting the market. Then the profit/invest ration declines, because there are more players on the same market. This will also happen to the casual market. So high profit now does not mean high profit in the future.

 

shams said: I personally think this is also very relevant to non-Ninty fans as well. If Ninty drop hardcore game development - almost completely - and end up ruling this generation - what do you think the impact would be on Sony & Microsoft (and other developers)? Regardless of what the people in charge at the moment might want/think - there would be strong pressure from shareholders (who simply want to maximise their profit) - for these companies to follow similar strategies.

If that would happen, some third Party developer would make one hard core game, and would make a really big profit, because the market still exist and his game would be the only one satisfying it. The game would sell big big big time. The only reason why the profit on the hardcore market is not as high as in the casual market is because the casual market is still new with not so many company targeting it, while the hardcore market has a healthy business competition. The hardcore market doesn't die just because there is a casual market.

 

shams said: But I just want to get some of you actually thinking about this seriously. The industry is undergoing the most significant change ever - and 'trivial things' like review scores for a game like MP3 - may end up affecting sales, which may affect a companies future direction... and subsequently the direction of the entire industry.

True, it might hurt sales, but basically reviews only matter in the beginning and to new IP's. If you have an established fan base that buy that game in the beginning and the game is good, mouth to mouth has more impact on sales than reviews.

shams said: I can only imagine the reaction of the big-wigs at Ninty if MP3 got straight tens (or close to) & sold 10m units. God forbid, they might have to divert some of their casual dev resources back towards the hardcore gamer. And wouldn't that just be terrible... [sarcasm off]

Or getting more devs and do both?

Really, I never got the "Nintendo/Wii is killing gaming/hardcore market" grab. It does not make sense. As long as you can make money with doing a good FPS/RPG/Plattformer or whatever there is somebody who will do so!

On the other hand, look at Microsoft. I bet my ass of they would have made money on the 360 already if they hadn't designed the RROD in the hardware. The cost for the RROD are real high. You can assume about $200 for every repair. And that is conservative. Just do your calculation what it cost Microsoft already, thats a huge amount of money. The 1 Billion write off was just for the future cost of the third year of warranty. I don't wanna know how much money MS will make with Halo 3 alone. This should show you, there is still a market and it would be stupid not to satisfy it, as long as you can make money on it.

 

 

Dodece said: Skill is a subjective term however you do not need to be particularly skilled to be able to play Smash Brothers. You do not need to be particularly skilled to play Mario Kart either. You can be a good player or a poor player, but regardless of your individual skill you can play these games. Most gamers do not use the highest difficulty in a game as a barometer. Specifically because a player has the option to play it on easy mode. Easy mode exists for challenged or casual players. So they can play through a game without being very good. Now take a game like Mario, Zelda, or Metroid. Your required to have a degree of skill to play and complete these games. They contain non linear objectives, dynamic puzzle elements, split second timing, and a great degree of hand eye coordination. They require a certain amount of dedicated play. You cannot just pick these games up and play for fifteen minutes. I hate to say this but Smash Brothers and all games in the genre really are casual by their very nature. That is not going to change. That does not mean it cannot be challenging for you, but anyone can pick up and play this game. Simply due to the fact that it is not hardcore. Try a experiment get a non gamer to play Zelda, and then have them play Smash Brothers. I guarantee that Zelda will frustrate them, and they will do very poorly. They will not want to play this game. Trust me I have done it after the fiftieth question I start to get frustrated. Stick in Smash Brothers, and watch as they start to get a handle on things. Sure they do not know all the nuances, but they can get into it they can actually play the game. They might actually win a few matches against the system. Thats the thing about Smash Brothers sometimes a player can actually win by dumb luck. That is why Smash Brothers is a casual game.

So by your definition, if a game doesn't chew up and spit out unskilled players, to the point that they can't even play the game, it's not hard enough. Specifically, you [edit:  seem to be saying] that "game with easy mode = casual game". That's a completely ridiculous statement.

And I don't see any how you could call Smash Bros easy (or hard for that matter). The complete focus of the existing games is on multiplayer, which is as hard as your opponents. Computer AI can be set anywhere from "passive meatbag" to "very difficult", which is the same as ANY MULTIPLAYER GAME WITH BOTS. Or is Perfect Dark now casual as well? The only thing too easy about SSBM might be that the AI difficulty doesn't go up high enough for extremely skilled players, but still, you can just set up teams of them against you.

[edit: Oh wait, Perfect Dark has an easy mode so I guess it is casual to you. And Gears of War. And...]

I also didn't really understand his standard. First, I think that we should just discount difficultly entirely when talking about how 'hardcore' a game is - modern games just aren't that difficult. You really don't need to be particularly intelligent or skilled to beat Zelda, and I've seen people who play very, very casually pick up Gears of War for half hour periods. Modern games simply aren't that difficult; most are incredibly forgiving, and they're packed with hints as to what to do next.

What I find really odd about his standard is that I've tried his 'experiment'. My girlfriend and her roommate (and her roommate's non-gaming boyfriend) devoured Zelda: TP. A female friend of mine back home loved to play it on her brother's Wii. Not a single one of them will play Smash Brothers. At one point or another, several have shown interest in the game, but they quickly realize that becoming good enough to play with those of us who game regularly requires more than they're willing to put in.

I'd argue that the opposite standard would be more accurate.  Casual gamers prefer single player games where they don't have to compete against better players.  Casual gamers prefer games that don't rush them, where they can take as long as they like or as many tries as they like to accomplish something.  Casual gamers prefer an open world with nonlinear objectives to a 'go here, do this' setup typical of many modern FPSs and RPGs.  Casual gamers like to play; they don't like to compete.  A game will tend to appeal to a casual audience insofar as it advances elements of play and freedom.  Multiplayer games are inherently less appealing to casuals because they add elements of competition and constrain free action - you're not the boss of a multiplayer game; you're only one player.

Maybe I missed something, but why would reviewers be intentionally scoring MP3 poorly?

I'm not sure that anyone has really argued that they are. There's been some evidence (there was a fantastic thread a while back that I wish I had a link to - it showed how much various publications differed from the gamerankings average for each system) that several publications are farther off of the gamerankings average for Wii games than they are for 360/PS3 games.