Why is this is a problem?

If anything it'll allow Nintendo make their games harder, because they won't have to worry about casual gamers getting stuck and giving up.

Honestly I'm a pretty seasoned gamer, but even I will sometimes give up on a game if it takes too long to figure something out.

No one's going to just sit back and let the entire game play itself, but if you get stuck ... what's the problem?

Of course pro/experienced gamers won't use it.

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the approach - I'm just commenting their is a fine line between making a game fun and winnable with a reasonable level of challenge and removing any sense of challenge and winning at all.

While I never underestimate children (which is the age group I'm thinking of here) both because I was one and have two myself, it has been the case for a while in the West that challenge and risk have been slowly eroded, as we try and 'coddle' our children from anything that could hurt their development.

A different example would the the steady efforts to make playgrounds safer and safer, to the point that they literally became too safe: great from one point of view, reducing any chance of injury, poor from another, removing any sense of risk and learning to avoid danger.

It's my observation, going back many years, that slowly but steadily there has been a trend to make games more and more 'winnable' and ensure that anyone could complete them.  While for some games this makes certain sense, looking at if from a growth and maturity point of view it's not a great learning experience.

Clearly it's intended to only serve as a crutch for certain gamers, either younger or those new to gaming in the first place.  But the principle does concern me - i.e. will it serve as a learning tool, or too much of a crutch that challenge and lose are completely removed from the playing field?

damm im almost heading to bed and this thread continues o.0

the general populous become stupid as time god on, so technology becomes easier to use, but people some how out grow this and become even more stupid, so technology gets even easier to use, but incredibly people become even more stupid....and of course technology strive to become even easier to use, it's a vicious cycle that's has one end....that end will be where the tech does everything before the person even thinks about it, anything but this and these brain dead people create a fuss which companies don't want or need.

This is what I see now happening in society, I mean it was a joke when some one said they couldn't program a VCR, and of course everyone laughed...but it's getting to the point of being ridiculous...I swear how easy can things get before the tech it's self does it for you...

In any case the wording of the article does imply that one could feasible go into this option and let the game play it's self, after all there is no mention of this particular option being either time bound or at least level bound, so until further info is revealed to say otherwise, this option I've suggested is still a possibility.

I think it's just like any tool, has both good and bad sides. I find it odd (amusing perhaps?) that you were considering this for children while I on the other hand was considering it for people like my mother, as I mention in a previous post, gamer of 30+ years and she still has troubles with anything more than a directional pad and one button. I suppose very young children might find this handy, but as most children, they will soon be out-playing their parents and posting comments on forums like this about how anyone who uses the feature should give up gaming . While I agree with you that the world appears to be quickly becoming a nanny state, children will still be children and will get up to mischief and want to challenge themselves even if an easier path is available.

The 'obvious' path isn't necessarily easy, either: in any non-puzzle game with any quality, knowing the path is very different from walking the path. If just knowing what to do takes the challenge out of a game (other than puzzle games, obviously), then something is very wrong with the way the game is designed.

This.

Folks

This is what I was expected to be discussed when Iwata came out and did his Vitality Sensor display at E3.

This has been known for a while. Nintendo has been looking at how to help newer players without ruining it for more experienced players.

Most franchises reach a point of diminishing returns because people feel left out. If they come in on Game 4, they don't know instinctively how to do something that was taught in Game 2.

As long as it is well implemented -- which given Nintendo's track record is probable -- it will be good. Also, since it is patented, competitors will have to license this technology. In other words, it probably in this form will be restricted to Nintendo consoles.

Mike from Morgantown

It is Game Play, nothing about the player there. =P

Option, this is an option.

Why are people so offended by this?

You don't HAVE to use it. You're free to play the game as you always would do, but casual or non-gamers now have an in-game help system. It doesn't play through the game for them-just demonstrates what should be done. You can carry on after the computer has taken control, but won't be able to save any progress.

If people want to beat the game, they still have to do it themselves. The computer will show them the solution, then it's up to the player to learn that particular trick and play through the section themselves.

Stop being frightened Nintendo is going to ruin gaming by making it more accessible. The use of this feature is optional-you only use it if you're stuck and WANT the computer to show you how to do it. If you don't want to use it, you're free to soldier on on your own.

I don't want to use this feature, but I'm all for it's inclusion in the game.