Miyamoto Speaks, Nintendo Ditching the Hardcore?

After Nintendo's very ... different ... press conference, you may be wondering what's going on. In a roundtable discussion with Nintendo, folks like Eiji Aonuma and Shigeru Miyamoto discussed Zelda, Mario Galaxy and WiiFit , giving some context to the message the company had on Wednesday. The balance board begged the question from the people there, is Nintendo ditching the hardcore? According to the Nintendo folks, not at all: "Aonuma believes that control can be pick-up-and-play, but that doesn't necessarily mean a game overall has to be easier. But he still states that his 'goal was always to appeal to...a vast audience.' One attendee pushed the issue further, asking if all Zelda games from now on are going to cater to the more casual crowd--will we ever again need a strategy guide to complete a Zelda game? Aonuma says that judging by Japanese sales so far, accessible 'stream-lined play has been effective,' but he wants to see how Western audiences react to the new Zelda before making a final decision on future games' difficulty levels. Aunoma also hopes to venture into new territory and create a wholly original game at some point in his career." For a lengthy treat, check out Kotaku's series of interview clips with Mr. Miyamoto.

No way

[cromar]

Of course every game on the Wii is not going to be easy.

For example: I've been playing Gradius III (SNES) very casually lately: about 7-15 minutes every few days. It's hard as hell, so I die within that time period and look forward to the next time I play when my skills will hopefully be a little better.

Even if all the Wii games are "casual" games, they won't necessarily be easy.

Strategy guide?

[Zelos]

will we ever again need a strategy guide to complete a Zelda game?
Why would anyone want a game that requires a strategy guide to complete? That's normally a sign that the game has failed for me.

You can appeal to casual and hardcore audiences

[Kelbear]

The solution has been around: "Easy to play, hard to master."

You don't have to be a pro to enjoy a sport, an instrument, or a game and yet pros can keep engrossed so long as there's room for growth.

Re:Never wholly geared to hardcore

[Winckle]

Excuse me? For a long time in the 80s to early 90s "Nintendo" was "Video Games".

What do you interpret hardcore as meaning?

Why can't they do both?

[p4rri11iz3r]

It seems to be that recently everybody seems to be associating games with a decent length to "hardcore." While I don't entirely agree with this, it serves my purpose for this post.

If we look at what happened at E3 and where the anticipation seems to be, I note that Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3. Looking at the past, these games predecessors have typically been quite lengthy affairs. Thus, it would seem that these games appeal more to the "hardcore" crowd.

We also see games like Wii Fit and Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Wii Fit, which seems to resemble the mechanics used in Wii Sports and Wii play, will sport short games. SSBB is often seen as a quick, pick-up-and-play-a-round style game as well. These games appear to appeal more to the casual gamer who don't have as much time to play.

I guess what I'm saying is, whether you're "hardcore" or casual, you have some really great games to look forward to this year and next.

Re:Softcore

[tomstdenis]

there is simply so much more money to be had in blasé games and infinite sequels.

I can't wait to buy Halo 3 and GTA IV ...

Oh snap, that's the sound of your point flying out the window.

Re:Softcore

[Chr0me]

Of course they are abandoning the hardcore gamers; there is simply so much more money to be had in blasé games and infinite sequels.

Yeah like Madden, Final Fantasy, Halo, any WWII shooter, DooM, Quake, UT, etc...

Oh wait, you meant that games "hardcore gamers" play *aren't* blasé, infinite sequels. Sorry, I was confused by your contradictory point.

Re:Strategy guide?

[Anonymous Coward]

You still shouldn't need a strategy guide for the side quests. If a puzzle is so unintuitive that you need someone to tell you how to solve it, then it's not a good puzzle.

Re:No way

[ifrag]

Hehe, just wait till you get to the high speed level. It's probably the shortest playtime level in the game, but likely one of the most difficult to master. Of course, unless you are using save states, that level might not be reachable in your playtime.

Hardcore

[GWLlosa]

I used to define myself as a 'hardcore' gamer. In college, all night-lan parties every weekend were the norm. Games had to have ludicrous depth and complexity before we'd consider including them.

Times change. I'm married. 2 kids. 9-6 job in a cube. I now love the fact that so many games that are available are simple 'pick-up-and-play-in-the-evening'. In a way, Nintendo's game console has evolved to match my needs just as my needs changed. I imagine I'm not alone.

Not abandoning, but certaintly not focusing either

[LordZardoz]

Nintendo is going right on ahead with its current strategy of attracting non gamers. Doing so has worked pretty decently for them, and like any large company, they like money. They are not going to abandon the core demographic. They are still going ahead with Metroid and Smash Bros: Brawl. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that they are not focusing on the core either.

My biggest concern for the platform is that that instead of being known as the "Kid Console", they may become known as a non game console.

I am convinced that it is the 2nd and 3rd generation of Wii titles that will ultimately define the Wii. The first year has, as expected, suffered from a lack of big name titles. The launch was strong, but Metroid, Mario, and Brawl got pushed back too far. And because no one expected the Wii to do as well as it has, no one was developing 'core' games for the platform outside of the launch window. Of course, everyone scrambled to find a place on the bandwagon.

The casual titles are easy to develop. Core titles take alot more time. Until the first batch of 3rd party core titles come on stream, you will get pretty much what we already have. Kid games, Ports, some 1st party Nintendo titles, and casual games.

If Nintendo does manage to completely alienate the core gamer demographic, than that kind of title spread is what will dominate the platform. Certaintly entertaining, but that means that those seeking a more 'traditional' gaming experience will have to stick to the Xbox 360 or the PS3.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:Strategy guide?

[Anonymous Coward]

As an example of something so redonkulously unintuitive that it makes someone wonder what the hell the game makers were thinking, just look at a game like Final Fantasy 12.

Obtaining the best weapons in FF12 is literally IMPOSSIBLE without a strategy guide/faq. Hell to get the "best" weapon, The Zodiac Spear, a player has to refrain from opening 4 specific chests throughout the course of the game. If one does not open these 4 chests, a chest in an optimal dungeon near the end of the game will contain the Spear (otherwise it will be empty). The 4 chests you can't open are not distinguished in ANY way and are in plain sight, making the entire process retardedly obscure.

I enjoyed FF12, but stuff like that made me wonder what the fuck Square was thinking. If Nintendo can make games that don't resort to that kind of bullshit just to sell a $20 game guide, them I'm all for it.

Re:Softcore

[Gogl]

Ummm, are you comparing "hardcore games" to "thoughtful independent films"? Cause seriously, if that's your insight, you need to go back to the drawing board.

Videogames are meant to be fun - Nintendo is actually being innovative in finding new ways to be fun (as opposed to the "another CGI movie with talking hamsters" dig). It's Sony/Microsoft that are releasing yet another FPS/Madden game, again and again and again.

Hardcore != difficulty level

[Alexpkeaton1010]

To me, the hardcore/casual designation is more about who the game is targeted to, not the difficulty level. Example: I consider Guitar Hero a casual game, but the difficulty level is very high on the harder levels. Easy to learn, very hard to master. A typical FPS like Halo is a hard game to learn (for someone new to FPSs), but very easy to master (the single player).

I define a hardcore game as a game targeted to the age 14-35 male demographic (approximately), and a casual game as targeted to the 6-65 male/female demographic. Nintendo is focused on games for the larger demographic. If you are a 14-35 male, you are not being targeted by Nintendo anymore, so the odds are that you will enjoy games from the consoles that are targeting *you*. Personally, I do not like the "general audience" type of games, and do not feel a need to buy a Wii. That does not imply that it is not a good console for the average Joe, it is just not the optimum console for the average Joe in the 14-35 male demographic. It also doesn't imply that some of the "general audience" type of games will not be extremely good and attract mass attention from the hardcore audience.

Re:Softcore

[7Prime]

I'd consider most of those casual games, except for maybe Final Fantasy, which REQUIRES hours and hours of dedication in order to really enjoy it (not sure if that's actually the qualification for hardcore, but it's in there). Halo is one of the most casual games I've ever played, you can just pick it up and play it for 5 minutes and you'll have fun with it. Same (supposedly) with WWII shooters (although I find them boring no matter how much time you sink into them), Doom, Quake, UT, etc. Madden, actually is probably along side Final Fantasy, neither might be super-popular, but it still requires a lot of time to really get anything out of it (from what I've heard).

Pretty much any RPG or adventure game, these days, could be classified as "hardcore" simply because of the amount of time it takes to complete them... there are no "stages" to judge your progress like with Halo or Mario. Battlefield 2142? That's starting to get more hardcore, since there are A LOT of long-term goals defined in the game if you play it for long enough.

But I would call most FPSs casual games... well, maybe not quite that, but not hardcore, anyway, they're way too big of mass appeal, and they take no time to just pick up and put down. To me that qualifies as "casual".

This is wrong

[solar_blitz]

For the life of me I cannot imagine why Nintendo would want to ditch their hardcore audience. They were the most important audience for the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube, practically the ones who kept the consoles afloat. I don't understand why they would want to cast aside that audience in favor of the casual gamers. Sure, casual gamers are a much bigger audience, but hardcore gamers are dedicated and faithful. Casual gamers will move from system to system; mark my words, once Microsoft and Sony drop the prices of their consoles to $300, and they get more party games, Nintendo will lose a lot of casual gamers to them.

As for me, I was really disappointed by Twilight Princess. Yes, it was enjoyable, but it lacked a lot of what made the Zelda series special. For instance, the design of the world was made so you could go from point A to point B: there's only one or two paths to get to a designated objective, and all the extra things are easily distinguished by their deviation from this A to B criteria. Link to the Past will always be my favorite because despite the fact that it forced you to go into the dungeons in a particular order, it was about as free-roaming as the original Zelda game for the NES, and it had the most complex, intriguing puzzles I have ever seen. Those were frustrating enough to make you break your controller, nothing like what we're seeing today. Also, the items in A Link to the Past are much cooler. You could explore and find things beneficial to your journey that couldn't be found in dungeons or whatnot, like the magic cape or the gloves or the flippers. Stuff like that makes the game so intense and awesome!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Softcore

[tomstdenis]

Final Fantasy and Megaman both outgrew the NES/SNES.

Point is, no platform is immune from sequels. But who cares if they have new elements/stories/etc. Mario 1-3 are all basically the same story [well except USA #2], but they're still fun. So were the SNES and N64 versions of "the same game."

Nothing wrong with a fresh sequel. It's when they re-use story/graphics/maps/levels/etc wholesale that it becomes a ripoff [e.g. bomberman 1 vs. 2].

Re:Never wholly geared to hardcore

[religious freak]

Oh yeah, I don't disagree with you there. "Nintendo" definitely was equivalent to video games, for the most part.

But were the games TRULY hard core back then? I suppose something like Sim City came a little close, but comparing Sim City to WoW shows just how hard core things were back then.

Video games have gotten much more hard core over the years, I don't think that's even debatable.

Re:Never wholly geared to hardcore

[Sciros]

Not at all, bro. I grew up on Nintendo and believe me there was more than enough to make someone hardcore. And certainly more hardcore than even current "hardcore" gamers consider themselves. Ninja Gaiden 1 and 2 for SNES, Gradius and Life Force -- these are OLD, and they are HARD but awesome and lots of people played the heck out of them and got very good.

SNES had plenty of challenging games that kept you playing for months because they were that good -- FFVI, Killer Instinct, etc. I still don't know a single person who has beaten Captain America and the Avengers for SNES (Genesis, yeah, but not SNES because in Genesis Captain could at least block with his shield...)

I don't think games have gotten more hardcore at all. In fact I think they've gotten *less* so in terms of challenge. How many people whined and moaned about how difficult the Ninja Gaiden for Xbox was? Those people were all spoiled by the fact that every game that's released nowadays is beatable by even remotely dedicated players. Ninja Gaiden 2 eats Xbox's NG alive in terms of difficulty on every level except Master Ninja (which was added later just for kicks, and isn't really relevant because one could have always slid the difficulty meter all the way to max in Baldur's Gate making that game impossible but who cares).

Contrast between older gamers and younger gamers

[ctid]

When I was a kid I had lots and lots of spare time but hardly any spare money. I could not afford many games, so if I bought a game I would try to get the most out of it. Having very long games which are fairly difficult suits kids who have time but not money. Now that I'm in my 40s, I have lots of spare money but hardly any spare time. What I tend to do is to buy a lot of games but not really play any of them through. Looking at my pile of PS2 games I would say that I have completed only about 5 per cent. I get immensely frustrated when I can't make progress in games even on the easiest setting. I'd guess that on average I get about 30% of the way through before concluding that I'll get more interest out of the first 30% of a new game than I will from trying to get past some problem in the current game. In my current job I tend to need to play lots of different types of game anyway, so it's not really a big problem for me. However, it is a bit annoying that I don't see the majority of the content in most of the games I buy and I suspect that people who don't need to play lots of games would pretty soon get sick of paying £35 for games if they're only going to see £10 worth of content. Do people like this eventually stop buying games?

I think that it's not just "casual" games that can support an audience of people like me (assuming I'm not the only one who feels this way). I believe that it should be possible to switch difficulties on the fly inside games and I also think that developers should include a stupidly easy mode so that people like me can see more of what the game has to offer. Of course I can go and look at cheats etc, but if the developers know that people are going to do that anyway, why not just make the facility part of the package? This way, even more traditional games can be played in a more "casual" manner if the player feels like it.

Re:Not abandoning, but certaintly not focusing eit

[tbannist]

Actually, anytime a company focuses on a "New Demographic" they, by necessity abandon the old. The Wii isn't going to cater to "hardcore" gamers because it's not designed to do that. Nintendo's selling a lot of them to seniors and parents and you're going to mostly see software that caters to the most common owners of the system.

Everyone's been crowing about how the Wii is expanding the market, but in doing so they had to choose to abandon the current market. Why? Because what they were producing for the current market wasn't expanding the market. The Wii doesn't appeal to me at all, and not that much to my friends either. That's ok, we're not the target demographic for the Wii. We already have consoles. The Wii was never designed to appeal to us, and the only way it will ever appeal to us is if the games we want become exclusive to it. That's unlikely to happen, both the 360 and PS3 are designed to appeal to us by carrying the games we like to play and offering an experience that appeals to us.

So, yes, Nintendo abandonned the hardcore gamers years ago, but that's ok, we don't expect everyone to cater to our tastes. I don't expect the hardcore games to go to the Wii no matter how well it performs in the marketplace. Even if they try to sell them for the Wii at some point the developers of hardcore games will realize that the casual players who own a Wii won't buy their games because they're not looking for those games, they're looking for easy, casual games.

This is nothing new, it's been an obvious consequence of Nintendo's "new direction" since the Wii was released.

Re:Strategy guide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gaming is a lot more interesting without something to hold your hand.

funny, I got a wii so I could play games with my daughter, and I was just thinking the opposite of that.

Re:If you watched their E3 press conference...

[alvinrod]

I'm really tired of this argument. If people want to complain about the lack of hardcore games now and that Nintendo has abandoned the core, where were they last generation? As far as I can tell, we're getting the same Zelda, Mario, and Metroid that were were last generation. These may have slightly different appeals, but they're still great games for gamers. If you don't think these games are hardcore, then what would you define as hardcore? If these games don't fit that bill, then Nintendo didn't have anything for you last generation for the most part and abandoned you long ago.

I think once Super Smash Bros. and a Monkey Ball game manage to come out they'll be fine in my eyes. Both of these games could be considered fairly casual, but my friends and I played them relentlessly when we were back in high school. We'd have ten hour Monkey Ball or Smash Bros. sessions down in my friends basement, trading off the controller for single player aspects of the game or going heads up in multiplayer, trying to break each others records or square off for bragging rights. You can even play Wii Sports pretty hardcore as a few of my friends and I found out over last Thanksgiving when I brought my new Wii home and we ended up playing Wii boxing for almost four hours straight. Even my friend's dad got involved and had a hell of a time.

They reason they spent so much time on Wii Fit is because it's completely new and hasn't really be done before. They want to make sure that it gets good press coverage and that people are aware of it. They want to give something new to the casual gamers who really haven't had much since Wii Sports. You can't build up this great system for the more casual gamers and then leave them out in the cold. With Mario Kart, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime: Corruption, and Super Smash Bros. all coming out within the next six months or so, I'd say they've got their core pretty well covered.

If for whatever reason you consider hardcore gaming to by violent or mature rated games (in which case I think you're an idiot) then there's plenty of fun to be had with The Godfather: Blackhand Edition, Resident Evil 4, and Manhunt 2 as well as the new Resident Evil game when they come out. I'm pretty sure that there will eventually be plenty of shooters and other such games on the console as well. It's only been out for abouth eight months now, give it some time.

I think the problem is that most people tend to think of themselves as hardcore gamers when it's convenient for them to say so. I'd wager that a majority of the people who claim that they are, really aren't. Just remember that because you play a lot of video games doesn't necessarily make you hardcore. Did you explore Twilight Princess without a guide to get all of the extra items? Do you do speed runs through the original Super Mario Bros. in order to see who could get the best time? Have you played a game competitively at a tournament? If you don't answer yes to questions like that, I don't consider you hardcore. You just spend too much time playing video games. Get over yourself.

So until someone can come up with a legitimate reason to suggest that Nintendo has abandoned their core or stopped caring about hardcore gamers, I think you're all just a bunch of whiny bitches looking for something to piss and moan about. Either Nintendo never was hardcore and stopped catering to their core ages ago or you're completely off base and full of crap. Maybe some of you are under the delusion that you're in Nintendo's core when you really aren't. I just think it's a load of crap no matter how you slice it.

Re:You can appeal to casual and hardcore audiences

[FiloEleven]

I like the (2D) Metroid philosophy even more: make it possible (but tricky!) to avoid getting the upgrades and equipment that toughens you up. For those who want a real challenge in boss fights, there's the option of a 2% run, speed run, etc. For those who want a challenge in exploration, there's the 100% run. And for those like me who seldom have an interest in , there's a damn fine game in between all that that I can enjoy at my own pace.

Re:Nintendo Hasn't Moved (Much)

[Buelldozer]

Endless Sequals?

You mean like Final Fantasy 1 - 13, Halo 1 - 3, GTA 1 - whatever it is now, all 400 versions of unreal tournament, and 65 different but similar FPS games?

That is your idea of "hardcore" that is somehow superior to what Nintendo is doing?

Also, your argument is VERY inconsistent. You dismiss Wii Sports, Wii Play, Nintendogs stuff because it isn't hardcore but you previously rail on the lack off innovative hardcore games like...Yoshi's Island?!?!

Dude, WTF? Please, get a consistent argument and try again.

Anyway, frankly speaking "Hardcore Gamer" is a tag fit for underaged immature brats with more free time than motivation. Don't believe me? Take a survey and see how many people who are financially, emotionally, or academically successful would describe themselves as hardcore gamers. The answer is a very very very small percentage of the over all total.

People who are engaged in their life and successful do not have TIME to be "hardcore gamers". That pretty much leaves kids without jobs and losers living in their mom's basement in the "hardcore" pool. If you need proof of this log in to XBox live, or any other online service, sometime and listen to the stream of garbage being tossed around by the majority of the other players...who all sound like they 12 years old or consistently talk about how fucking high they are.

Face it, today's hardcore gamers are either sub 22 year old punks with nothing better to do then game or super 22 year old losers who don't WANT to do anything other than game.

Re:Ragging on the Wii for a moment

[alvinrod]

"Okay from now on when I'm bitching and moaning I will qualify my requests for innovation with a request the innovative games actually be fun. Now Mario Bros., that shit was hard. What do I get now, Wii bowling?"

I suppose if you don't enjoy bowling then Wii bowling isn't very fun. There are several other games in Wii Sports that you might enjoy though. I've found Wii Boxing to be incredibly fun when played with friends. To say Wii Bowling isn't difficult doesn't sound right. I'd say that it has a low learning curve because people like my mother and father were able to pick it up and easily play and enjoy it. However, I've never seen anyone bowl a perfect game yet. Easy to learn, difficult to master; perhaps more games should be that way so they're accessable to everyone but still contain a challenge.

"Also models that look like a drawing by a retarded 4th grader are not innovation."

No one said the graphics of Wii Sports were innovative in any way. It's the control that makes the game innovative. You're missing the point.

"Has anyone noticed that nearly everyone has an HDTV now? Don't bullshit me with statistics either -- I know the kind of people who buy games and I have been to they and their parents' houses."

I play games and I can't afford an HDTV. I'd like one, but it's not something I can swing right now. Some of the older folks who buy a Wii probably don't have an HDTV either. Not everyone has one and it's not really necessary for innovative game play. Go ahead and name something innovative that's been done on the Xbox 360 or the PS3. Odds are that anything you suggest was already being done on the PC, especially in terms of graphics or AI. The Wii has created a new way to play games that really hasn't been tried before in many cases.

"Good luck selling games to my Grandpa, douchebags."

Funny that Nintendo has made a few hundred dollars in revenue off of my mother, whereas Sony and Microsoft haven't made a cent.

Don't be a hater.