Interesting counterpoint, one I hadn't really considered. Will the number of newcomers who use this feature "properly" outnumber or euqal those who it drives out? I suspect not, since if you're already that interested/dedicated, you would have just called a friend or bought the strategy guide that so many stores push on you when you make a purchase. On the other hand, my co-workers have been gaming since the early PS2 days, and they only found out about things like Gamefaqs when I told them about it, so perhaps (as Jaos truthfully points out) my perspective is pretty skewed.

 Good point, and I'm positive that's exactly what will happen if my fears prove true (despite how that sentence may read, there was no sarcasm intended). I still think it's a bad idea, one that's not going to work, but as you say Nintendo's certain to keep a close eye on the results, and try something else if (when?) this thing doesn't do what it's supposed to. I guess the worst I can say about it is that it's closer to a waste of time than the end of the gaming world. I just wish we could skip that step is all.

I don't know if somebody pointed it out already but this feature has existed in sports games since forever.

You can simulate matches or let the computer control your team anytime you want in a middle of a game,you can literally have a perfect season of 82 Win and 0 Lose and win the Stanley Cup without playing a single game. (for exemple)

....it never stopped me from enjoying sports games.

You can even switch teams in the middle of the game for sports games..... So not only can you have the computer take over your team, but you can purposely **** up the other team. =P

At a first look, this is just about as annoying as autosave function, cheat codes or codes in general, but on a second look, it makes a lot more sense. At this point, all we can do is to guess how the market reacts (keep in mind, none of us is the general market).

I do understand the argument NoName is making, but what value there is for learning how to play videogames? It's not like learning how to write, read, do maths or cooking that you in reality need in order to survive in modern society. If you don't play videogames, you don't need to know how to play them.

Dumbing the games down have been a trend atleast for two decades now, and Nintendo haven't made an exception to the trend (outside the new audience games, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Wii Music, Brain Training games), but i hope this will stop the need to doing it.

Everyone should ask themselves, how many times the function would have been useful to them? Two games come first into my mind: Bloodrayne and RE4. Bloodrayne for sucking so hard, that it really didn't make any sense to spend additional time to beat the parts that required effort, and RE4 for bad controls (and the game wasn't that good to begin with). I would have gladly skipped the parts i wasn't interested in playing or watch the rest of game, as opposed to the games gathering dust at the moment.

Using the feature will only become a problem when the game doesn't have anything to play outside its core gameplay. How many times did anyone beat SMB, or how many people tries to get all unlockables/secrets in the games they play? The reason for the unlockables excistance is the people who like the game and wants to play it more. If you don't like it, you either sell it or put it to gather dust, and that's where the autoplay comes into picture; it propably doesn't make a difference whether you like the game or not (outside of helping you out of the frustrating parts and that way maybe keep your motivation going), but atleast you get to experience the game in some form, making it safer purchase. In the end, most of the modern games are so story heavy with cinematics, that the cinematic part is where you get your enjoyment.