next »

[Rumrusher]

Wii U is like a console DS so let's hope Capcom makes another phoenix wright Apollo Justice game for this console.

[William Broom]

Let's suppose Wii U bombs hard. Virtual Boy levels of bad. Do you see Nintendo becoming a handheld-only gaming company?

No, this is just silly. Whatever the serious gamers' opinions are, the Wii U is going to sell many, many copies to women, old people and small children.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think gamers will go soon extinct anyway (just like all other forms of computer nerd) as computers and videogames become more approachable, so that's not really a big issue. the fact that you can make games and consoles entirely for normal people now and still as much or more money shows that gamers are on their way out; and that's probably a good thing, they hold innovation in games back more than any other group besides big AAA publishers

casual games aren't exactly known for their creativity either but of the new genres that have been created in recent years most of those new genres are casual genres (hidden object, time management, tower defense, etc.)

[[RM8]]

I'll be kind of safe because platformers and kart racers are equally loved by "casuals". But I'd really miss fighters and RPGs 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

rpgs are not a particularly hardcore genre to me, especially jrpgs -- those are pretty casual. but there are all kinds: dungeon crawlers and roguelikes and most srpgs are hardcore, most modern jrpgs are casual, with stuff like fallout 3 falling in between

[s0]

But JRPGs are usually not played by "casual gamers" (at least in the West). People who mainly play Facebook games and Popcap stuff aren't the same people who play Final Fantasy XIII, broadly speaking.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i don't think that's true; most of the people i know who are only casually into videogames (such as my two sisters and my cousin) mainly play jrpgs exclusively. also, jrpgs tend to get more casual and easier each year; ff13 is a good example, but even ff7 was very casual compared to ff6 (which is also probably why ff7 was the game that made jrpgs popular in the west)

i'm not sure about the crossover with popcap and facebook games but i don't consider facebook games to be primarily casual games -- they're social games (some casual, some not). and popcap mainly makes casual puzzle games, and those might not be the same audience as people who play casual rpgs, but there's some overlap

but there are multiple casual audiences, just like there are multiple hardcore audiences. just because the people who play halo games aren't the same people who play contra games doesn't mean that both are not hardcore; if hardcore games can have multiple audiences that are somewhat isolated from each other, so can casual games

[s0]

All of the people I know who play JRPGs are what I would consider "hardcore" gamers. Now it's your anecdotal evidence against my anecdotal evidence. 

[cynicalsandel]

The only rpgs I have heard of casual gamers playing are Kindgom Hearts and sometimes Pokemon. Both the hardcore and casual gamers that I know of dislike jrpgs.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

@c.a. sinclair - i guess, although another factor is that i'm older so i've more anecdotal evidence due to greater experience, so it might be more accurate for that reason. but you're treating this like an argument again, i'm not attempting to prove that jrpgs are casual, if i were i'd gather evidence and make an argument for it. all i'm saying is that i think jrpgs are casual. they're easy (it's almost impossible to die in a modern jrpg unless you try), and they're mostly passive (you watch them rather than play them a lot of the time, even during the interactive parts the choices are very minimal and obvious), so i think that in a hypothetical 'casual future' where hardcore games diminish and most big-budget games become casual jrpgs will still be around

[[RM8]]

There are tons of not-really-gamers Final Fantasy fangirls on J-Pop forums. So I guess those games do appeal to casual gamers, but exclusively because of the characters, relationships, story, graphics, etc. - not because of the battle system, experience system and pure gameplay mechanics in general.

And definitely not the case with 'similar' series like Dragon Quest. Let alone roguelikes or SRPGs.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

yeah by jrpgs i mean 'modern jrpgs' rather than 'classic jrpgs' -- there are still a few classic jrpgs being made, like dragon quest and the persona series, where the difficulty is more in line with the nes and snes days of jrpgs, but most jrpgs being released today are in the style of final fantasy 7+ rather than dragon quest

anyway my wider point is that gradually, over time, games will become more casual. most genres have casual/easy games and hardcore/obscure/difficult games, and i think that gamers will soon be in the minority of people who play games, if they aren't already, and for that reason in 10-20 years we won't really see any more big-budget hardcore games, they'll mostly be niche. even gamer genres which are extremely popular today, such as first-person shooters with multiplayer, will probably be niche in 20 years, made exclusively by indies

[filosofiamanga]

I would like to ask a thing...
Paul, Do you consider "casual" games easier than "hardcore" games?
For me a casual game it's one that has very easy and straightforward controls or doesn't need high requeriments from the player (dexterity, metagaming), while a harcore game is one where you can overcome others players performance (score, vs, speedrun, etc.)

So, from my point of view:
- Roguelikes, a hardcore genre, mainly because of the extensive button mapping.
- Console roguelikes like Chocobo Dungeons, are casual games compared to traditional roguelikes.
- Contra, a hardcore game because you need higher rates of "skill" (reflexes) but also it's a casual game because it's a very simple control scheme.
- Minecraft, a both casual and hardcore game (needs high metagame knowledge).
- Halo, another casual and hardcore game.
- PC FPS, a hardcore genre, you need combine at fast speed rate the keystrokes with aiming with the mouse.
- Street Fighter IV, a hardcore game, need "stick movements" that are a high requeriment for casuals players, also skills like metagaming (zoning).
- Smash Brothers, a hardcore and casual game.
- danmaku Shrumps, a hardcore genre because of the high dexterity you need when playing one.
- Super Mario Brothers (NES) a casual (easy button mapping, no high pre-skill needed) and a hardcore game (speedruns, score).

I don't see becoming casual as beign something bad, a game can be casual and harcore from my point of view.
So, I don't see hardcore games or gamers becoming extinct, because allways you'll find gamers that just want to play games with friends or to spend some time and relieve stress like Facebook gamers, and the others gamers that play videogames as a way of life and who becoming the number one is really important.
In one example, fighting games are a HUGE niche game (except Smash Brothers, is really popular, mainly because it doesn't have the "execution wall" others fighters have) but eventually won't become extinct because It has a defined market of very dedicated players (Evo, shoryuken forum).

[SirNiko]

Regarding casual versus hardcore, there is also a matter of time input. Some players enjoy games that have low difficulty but are very long and involved, others prefer games that provide quick bursts of on-demand amusement. MMOs often fall into this category. You have a class of players who dislike difficult games, but crave games that consume tremendous amounts of time to play. They're not hardcore by definition of difficulty (a distinction on which I agree with Filo) but they're certainly not comparable to your standard fair-weather gamer.

[:^)]

Casual, hardcore... As long as it's indie.

 

... I think the Wii U looks pointless. Is it that big of a deal? Who cares? I won't be buying one.
Games are dumb. Im serious.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I would like to ask a thing...
Paul, Do you consider "casual" games easier than "hardcore" games?
For me a casual game it's one that has very easy and straightforward controls or doesn't need high requeriments from the player (dexterity, metagaming), while a harcore game is one where you can overcome others players performance (score, vs, speedrun, etc.)
I don't see becoming casual as beign something bad, a game can be casual and harcore from my point of view.
So, I don't see hardcore games or gamers becoming extinct, because allways you'll find gamers that just want to play games with friends or to spend some time and relieve stress like Facebook gamers, and the others gamers that play videogames as a way of life and who becoming the number one is really important.
In one example, fighting games are a HUGE niche game (except Smash Brothers, is really popular, mainly because it doesn't have the "execution wall" others fighters have) but eventually won't become extinct because It has a defined market of very dedicated players (Evo, shoryuken forum).

i agree that the same game can be both hardcore and casual; this is sometimes the case. usually, though, a game specializes in one or the other, or is designed primarily for one or the other. for instance, it's hard to play bejeweled hardcore, and hard to play dwarf fortress casually

i also didn't say it was something bad (or good). obviously it's bad for me since i prefer hardcore games, but it's good for most people, since most people prefer casual games. but in another way it might be good even for me: niche games have more freedom than blockbusters do. they're freer to take risks because they aren't trying to please everyone, they're trying to please a small dedicated audience of a few thousand people. so if hardcore goes entirely niche it might be more interesting than hardcore mainstream games today

[halk3n]

There's also another way to approach the casual vs hardcore angle more accurately when defining a game type. Let me quote a banned member from GAF:

-Downmarket software refers to software that have low barriers to entry.

-Upmarket software refers to software that have high barriers to entry.

"Barriers to entry" can be anything from the abilitiy to maneuver through two-dimensional or three-dimensional space, control schemes, user interface, uninteresting content, or overdrawn cinematic treatment. Upmarket gamers are equipped with the know-how to overcome these barriers quickly so that they can enjoy the software they play. Downmarket gamers, on the other hand, are not equipped with the know-how to overcome these barriers quickly, which often leads to frustration and lack of interest.

So, in other words, whether a game is a downmarket game or not depends entirely on how quickly a player can become satisfied, can feel like they're "kicking ass." Obviously, games like NSMB and MKWii would qualify as downmarket games. Sorry, bottles.

The most fascinating thing, to me, about using these terms is that they say nothing about a game's size or scope. Often times, we tend to think of downmarket games as being short because downmarket gamers cannot tolerate longer experiences. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Downmarket gamers don't care about scope, or challenge, or complexity, AS LONG AS THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE KICKING ASS, AND KICKING ASS SOON. With this in mind, a lot of games you'd think would be "hardcore" are actually "downmarket" games. Games like the original Legend of Zelda or Metroid: Zero Mission.

The key to understanding Nintendo's direction is that they're trying to remove barriers to entry while at the same time "educating" downmarket gamers to move upstream, as many others have said in this thread. They're doing this because the upmarket is where all the money is. Unfortunately for Microsoft and SONY and a lot of other gaming houses, Nintendo is changing how games are played, but they're not changing with it. pretty soon, they'll be forgotten if they don't change.

[MattG]

I love the wiiU. Even if it is just evolutionary, the ability for players to create their own content easily through the touchscreen opens up a new level of connection between players and the games.

We have been moving in this direction with our next game sketchbrawlers, we are already nintendo developers( with no products shipped for wii) so we are definately looking forward to putting some outrageous indie fun on the system.

[[RM8]]

There's also another way to approach the casual vs hardcore angle more accurately when defining a game type. Let me quote a banned member from GAF:

-Downmarket software refers to software that have low barriers to entry.

-Upmarket software refers to software that have high barriers to entry.

"Barriers to entry" can be anything from the abilitiy to maneuver through two-dimensional or three-dimensional space, control schemes, user interface, uninteresting content, or overdrawn cinematic treatment. Upmarket gamers are equipped with the know-how to overcome these barriers quickly so that they can enjoy the software they play. Downmarket gamers, on the other hand, are not equipped with the know-how to overcome these barriers quickly, which often leads to frustration and lack of interest.

So, in other words, whether a game is a downmarket game or not depends entirely on how quickly a player can become satisfied, can feel like they're "kicking ass." Obviously, games like NSMB and MKWii would qualify as downmarket games. Sorry, bottles.

The most fascinating thing, to me, about using these terms is that they say nothing about a game's size or scope. Often times, we tend to think of downmarket games as being short because downmarket gamers cannot tolerate longer experiences. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Downmarket gamers don't care about scope, or challenge, or complexity, AS LONG AS THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE KICKING ASS, AND KICKING ASS SOON. With this in mind, a lot of games you'd think would be "hardcore" are actually "downmarket" games. Games like the original Legend of Zelda or Metroid: Zero Mission.

The key to understanding Nintendo's direction is that they're trying to remove barriers to entry while at the same time "educating" downmarket gamers to move upstream, as many others have said in this thread. They're doing this because the upmarket is where all the money is. Unfortunately for Microsoft and SONY and a lot of other gaming houses, Nintendo is changing how games are played, but they're not changing with it. pretty soon, they'll be forgotten if they don't change.

I disagree with this so much. If all the "downmarket" wants is "KICKING ASS, AND KICKING ASS SOON" then what are titles like Wii Fit, Brain Training or those Sudoku games? "upmarket"?

And I agree that Nintendo games tend to have a "low barrier to entry", but they also tend to be "easy to learn, hard to master". There are world Mario Kart rankings, world Super Smash Bros. tournaments, Mario games speedruns, etc. - so these games can be fully enjoyed by anyone.

And this guy got it wrong, the "upmarket" is NOT where all the money is. We are a minority. That's like saying art films is where the money is at instead of the typical Hollywood market.

[Richard Kain]

That's true. Nintendo essentially expanded the downmarket into new demographics. They made the downmarket much larger than it had been previously, by releasing new styles of easily accessible games. And the upmarket is not where all the money is. Quite the opposite in fact. The kind of downmarket games that Nintendo produces have very low production costs, and still sell better than most "upmarket" games.

The upmarket is flush with AAA titles that have astronomical production budgets and even higher marketing budgets. It's where serious money is spent, but not necessarily where it's made. The upmarket of the game's industry is where games can bomb, and bomb hard. Serious money can be made on the blockbuster game money, but it is also where studios can gamble their future on a single title.