Jump to content
N-Europe

NEW! Super Mario Bros. U

darksnowman

By darksnowman
in Nintendo Gaming

 Share

Recommended Posts

Burny Newbie

Burny

Posted
Posted (edited)

For one, the last three articles seem to originate from this Gamespot interview with Scott Moffit. Reading that youll see that it says a very different thing from "we're trying to re-capture the hardcore market". Even more so, as Nintendo is obviously not doing so with their own games.

 

So who are these core Wii U titles for? Are they aimed at your hardcore Call of Duty player? Or at more casual players, in the hope of turning them towards core titles?

 

It's a simple answer: the Wii U is designed to appeal to everybody. In the range of games we showcase at E3, you saw a lot of first-party content that will appeal to younger, newer, or more casual gamers. NintendoLand, Wii Fit U, etc. are broad games. A lot of third-party content that was shown will appeal more to core gamers. Oftentimes though, core and casual gamers live in the same household, so that's why so often you see households with more than one console, and the Nintendo platform is usually the most popular second console in some of those core gaming households.

 

So if the Wii U is in the house, are you hoping core gamers will get into it? Do you think that will work?

 

Do we want to reach out to the core audience? Absolutely. They're very much part of our audience and the group of consumers we hope will find the way you can reimagine games on the Wii U. The Wii U could become the preferred way to play those games for some of the core gamers. You can imagine how a game like Call of Duty would work on the Wii U--the GamePad will allow you to declutter the TV and pull gaming items like maps down and not interrupt your interaction and enjoy the cinematic quality of the game on the TV. That's one application that could be exciting and could enhance gameplay for a core gamer.

 

Reggie also said that for the core gamers, the Wii U will "tick all the boxes" for stuff like online - it's over a year since he said that and those boxes still aren't ticked.

What boxes did he mention that aren't "ticked" for you exactly? They've got "core" games, even if they're turning out to be late ports and maybe some of the annual sellers, although they're not all announced, yet. They've got at least one 1080p game, even if it's just Scribblenauts. They've got some kind of online network in place with Miiverse, even if we don't know all the specifics. It's just like I'm saying: It was all very unspecific and noncommittal. Nothing suggesting they'd be trying to focus on "core gamers" like some people have seemingly been thinking since last E3. Going by what Nintendo have said and done, I'm really not seeing how they could have possibly been thinking that in the first place. Unless those people have just freely interpreted what they've been wishing into what Nintendo have said.

 

Please, give me specific quotes from anybody from Nintendo. Anything where they give an indication that they're actively trying to win back the "core", not passively trying to lay out foundations to satisfy that crowd somewhat ("ticking boxes"). Or even where they say they'd be focus more on the "core" than now, if you want. Not badly copied articles that twist an interview that said something very different, until it sounds like Nintendo themselves are turning towards that audience.

Edited by Burny
  • Replies 459
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Sheikah Newbie

Sheikah

Posted
Posted
Yes and no.

 

I actually enjoyed New Super Mario Bros for the Wii. It was fun to play, whilst having some cool ideas within it. Pretty tense at times with two players. Caused countless arguments with Ine and I. :laughing: (I remember rage quitting at one point)

 

But, Galaxy is on a different level. It feels unique and it gives you the impression that Nintendo were truly pushing themselves when they were developing that game. Haven't played Galaxy 2, but it seemed like a no-brainer at the time, considering that there were lots of things they could still do with the game that they didn't in the first. Will get around to it at some point.

 

My gripe is that I would rather Nintendo spend their time pushing the boundaries on a Galaxy-type game. The Super Mario 64 of the WiiU. It just doesn't scream "we are serious about the WiiU" and "re-capturing that hardcore crowd" (which they have said that they want to do) when they don't have a ground-breaking Mario game at launch. I have no doubt that this game will come at some point in the WiiU's lifecycle. But, really, they've dropped the ball by not having it at launch. Or, at least giving us an insight into what it will look like. It partly seems like "We need a Mario at launch", so lets just get another New Super Mario Bros out there quick.

 

My view was that with Galaxy, just one of their franchises, they pretty just expanded on an existing foundation (the jetpackless sections to sunshine). Which was great, but hardly revolutionary. I actually disliked the gravity mechanic, it fucked around with the controls a lot. I'd have actually preferred if most of the game was like the Sunshine stages (much harder to die also, without gravity pulling you to objects/planets a lot of the time).

 

Everything has been pretty safe and samey, even Galaxy 2 being a follow on from Galaxy 1 with not too much different (some may say that's a good thing, considering the gameplay is good and it hadn't had a sequel yet).

 

Meh, I just remember back to the days of the N64 when game after game was pretty original and excellent. Guess we'll never see that again from them in this day and age.

Ronnie Newbie

Ronnie

Posted
Posted

 

Everything has been pretty safe and samey, even Galaxy 2 being a follow on from Galaxy 1 with not too much different (some may say that's a good thing, considering the gameplay is good and it hadn't had a sequel yet).

 

Meh, I just remember back to the days of the N64 when game after game was pretty original and excellent. Guess we'll never see that again from them in this day and age.

 

I'm not sure how you can call Galaxy 'safe' and 'samey', it was very original at the time. Fair enough 2, but that was just a direct sequel which everyone was fine with because the first was so stellar

Sheikah Newbie

Sheikah

Posted
Posted

I meant Galaxy 2 was more safe like the rest of most Nintendo titles these days, sorry. Although the first Galaxy borrowed heavily from the FLUDDless levels in Sunshine.

Grazza Newbie

Grazza

Posted
Posted
Please, give me specific quotes from anybody from Nintendo. Anything where they give an indication that they're actively trying to win back the "core", not passively trying to lay out foundations to satisfy that crowd somewhat ("ticking boxes"). Or even where they say they'd be focus more on the "core" than now, if you want. Not badly copied articles that twist an interview that said something very different, until it sounds like Nintendo themselves are turning towards that audience.

 

Iwata:

"If you ask us whether everything Nintendo has done was right or whether we would use the same tactics if the company's policy or strategy remains the same, there are issues to overcome," he admitted.

 

"For example, the Wii was able to reach a large number of new consumers who had never played games before by bringing hands-on experiences with its Wii Sports and Wii Fit. However, we could not adequately create the situation that such new consumers played games frequently or for long, consistent periods. As a result, we could not sustain a good level of profit.

 

"Moreover, regrettably, what we prioritized in order to reach out to the new audience was a bit too far from what we prioritized for those who play games as their hobby. Consequently, we presume some people felt that the Wii was not a game system for them or they were not willing to play with the Wii even though some compelling games had been released... Once consumers have a notion that 'this system is not for us,' we have learned that it is extremely difficult to change their perceptions later.

 

"Therefore, in promoting the Nintendo 3DS and the Wii U, we have announced that we would like 'width' and 'depth' to coexist. With the Nintendo DS and the Wii, the approach of 'width' was well accepted by many people; however, what we did in terms of 'depth' was not satisfactory for some consumers. This time, we would like consumers to be satisfied in both aspects.

 

"In order to do so, we started to work on the 'depth' aspect first, and the current and existing software you can see for the Nintendo 3DS is based on that idea. In the future, the approach will evolve. By exploring the development both from width and depth standpoints, it is our intention to satisfy a wider audience with one gaming platform.

 

"Our approach for the Wii U is basically the same. By doing so continuously, we are expecting that the number of game users per household will increase and as the gaming population increases, we believe we can create a sustainable video game market. We would like to materialize what I have said for both the Nintendo 3DS and the Wii U in the future."

 

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/346121/nintendo-plans-to-attract-core-gamers-before-casual-with-wii-u/

 

He may not say "core", but every website that reported it (correctly) interpreted it as such. Width = casual, Depth = core. Iwata is not saying the Wii U will be targeted more at the core than now, just more than the DS and Wii. (He would be quite justified in saying they catered to the core with the 3DS.)

 

All I'm saying is that it was very strongly implied. Very strongly indeed. And considering the different way they launched the 3DS/are launching the Wii U, it's hard not to think they changed their mind at some point.

Dcubed Proficient

Dcubed

Posted
Posted (edited)

For one, the last three articles seem to originate from this Gamespot interview with Scott Moffit. Reading that youll see that it says a very different thing from "we're trying to re-capture the hardcore market". Even more so, as Nintendo is obviously not doing so with their own games.

 

 

 

 

What boxes did he mention that aren't "ticked" for you exactly? They've got "core" games, even if they're turning out to be late ports and maybe some of the annual sellers, although they're not all announced, yet. They've got at least one 1080p game, even if it's just Scribblenauts. They've got some kind of online network in place with Miiverse, even if we don't know all the specifics. It's just like I'm saying: It was all very unspecific and noncommittal. Nothing suggesting they'd be trying to focus on "core gamers" like some people have seemingly been thinking since last E3. Going by what Nintendo have said and done, I'm really not seeing how they could have possibly been thinking that in the first place. Unless those people have just freely interpreted what they've been wishing into what Nintendo have said.

 

Please, give me specific quotes from anybody from Nintendo. Anything where they give an indication that they're actively trying to win back the "core", not passively trying to lay out foundations to satisfy that crowd somewhat ("ticking boxes"). Or even where they say they'd be focus more on the "core" than now, if you want. Not badly copied articles that twist an interview that said something very different, until it sounds like Nintendo themselves are turning towards that audience.

 

Nintendo don't use the "core gamer" and "casual gamer" dictomy. It was Microsoft and Sony that created those terms and manufactured that divide in the eyes of the media, in order to de-legitimise Nintendo and their games in the eyes of their typical readership (and it worked - just as the "kiddy" label did before)

 

They also don't design games purely for one audience or another. All of their games (to varying extents) are designed to appeal to both audiences. That's what the whole "bridge game" concept is about. Something like New Super Mario Bros is designed to appeal to the long time Nintendo fan just as much as grandma.

 

So you're not really gonna see those kinds of words coming out of the mouths of Nintendo's execs, but rather it's an interpretation by the media in a way that fits the Core VS Casual narrative that they and MS/Sony created. Besides, it's not about winning back Nintendo's "core" audience (because they never really left), it's about attracting that audience that Nintendo never had - the typical dudebro 12-25 year old "gamer". In that respect, that is in of itself, an "expanded audience" for Nintendo!

Edited by Dcubed
Burny Newbie

Burny

Posted
Posted
All I'm saying is that it was very strongly implied. Very strongly indeed. And considering the different way they launched the 3DS/are launching the Wii U, it's hard not to think they changed their mind at some point.

Depends on what you consider that he very strongly implied. He implied they'd try to cater to both audiences, sure. That's just the exact same thing Moffit is talking about. He most certainly didn't say even once (assuming this is a good translation) that they're trying to "re-capture" the "depth" crowd, which would imply recapturing from the competition. Just that he'd like to satisfy them somewhat. Leaving it completely open as to ho he would go about doing so. Or that their "focus" is on them vs. the "width" crowd. But that's exactly what I keep hearing here and it's just not based on anything more than wet dreams.

 

Not when Iwata is tiptoeing around who they're focusing on, the system is named "Wii" and was introduced with what Nintendo calls "lifestyle" videos of the controller first, rather than "dudebros" shooting each other in the face during an online game. Those are also very official statements btw. and some people seem to have been in utter denial when it came to reading them.

 

They're doing exactly what Iwata has said btw.. They have the more "depth" oriented Pikmin 3 as the first thing in their presentation, the utterly "width" oriented Nintendoland last and in between the ultimate bridge game NSMBU. You think you're "depth" and are not satisfied? That's the thing about being so damn unspecific: He said he would like you to be satisfied. Never that he'd ever do more than getting a couple of high profile ports with "depth" to try and satisfy you. Or try to push any hardware limits with the new console when he sees other paths as more profitable.

 

Besides, it's not about winning back Nintendo's "core" audience (because they never really left), it's about attracting that audience that Nintendo never had - the typical dudebro 12-25 year old "gamer". In that respect, that is in of itself, an "expanded audience" for Nintendo!

I was very much under the impression that people here saying Nintendo claimed to "re-capture" or focusing on the "core" crowd were referencing to that audience. And no, Nintendo still never claimed that. All they're ever saying, is that they want to cater to both audiences.

Zechs Merquise Newbie

Zechs Merquise

Posted
Posted (edited)

This whole 'core' gamer and 'casual' gamer crap is mainly just used by teenage kids who think it's cool to slate Nintendo fans. It's no different to when fanboys described Nintendo as 'kiddy'.

 

Is Little King's Story a 'core' game? I'd say so, it offers a serious challenge, looks great, plays great, has depth, an interesting story and offers a unique experience.

 

Ask most of the people who use terms like 'core' and 'casual' and they'll tell you Little King's Story is definetely not a 'core' game. This is because by 'core', they mean something they percieve as mature - most likely a game filled with guns, blood and an alien invasion!

 

Nintendo will just do what Nintendo do. They'll carry on creating innovative and fun games regardless of these needless lables that are used most by angest ridden fanboys infesting sites like N4G!

Edited by Zechs Merquise
dazzybee Newbie

dazzybee

Posted
Posted

But is it crap? I mean we all know exactly what we mean we we say it. Yeah it feels a bit trite when we say it but there is a massive difference between the two types of gamers (I think it referes to the players then the games themselves, and certain games appealing to one or the other and sometimes both) how else do we differentiate between the people who will just buy wii fit and play sports every 6 months to the gamers who buy a couple of games a month, try everything etc?

 

Same with films, theres a difference between the people who go to the cinema and watch the latest blockbuster, maybe watch a film on tele, and the people who watch everything they can, have hundreds and thousands of films in their collection etc.

 

We need a language to separate. It's what we do. It's how we can talk and be understood more succinctly.

Dcubed Proficient

Dcubed

Posted
Posted (edited)
But is it crap? I mean we all know exactly what we mean we we say it. Yeah it feels a bit trite when we say it but there is a massive difference between the two types of gamers (I think it referes to the players then the games themselves, and certain games appealing to one or the other and sometimes both) how else do we differentiate between the people who will just buy wii fit and play sports every 6 months to the gamers who buy a couple of games a month, try everything etc?

 

Same with films, theres a difference between the people who go to the cinema and watch the latest blockbuster, maybe watch a film on tele, and the people who watch everything they can, have hundreds and thousands of films in their collection etc.

 

We need a language to separate. It's what we do. It's how we can talk and be understood more succinctly.

 

You're right in saying that it refers to the players rather than the games themselves, but not only is the terminology too broad, it has also been corrupted beyond repair.

 

If I'm to think with psychographic labels, this is how I would broadly categorise the populace at large; baring in mind that it's perfectly possible for people to overlap categories.

 

Non Gamers: Those who have never played a video game before (perhaps barring that one time they had one go on DDR or GTA which they played for 5 mins, didn't like it and never played it again)

 

Lapsed Gamers: Those who used to play games regularily in the past but no longer do so (this category may also encompass a subset of hardcore players who only play retro games because they dislike modern games)

 

Light Gamers: Those who might play video games now and again, maybe when friends come round or when something interesting/the typical yearly sports/Yearly FPS comes out)

 

Medium Gamers: Those who buy games on a fairly regular basis, may or may not visit some of the mainstream gaming news sites for reviews or FAQ guides every now and again. Gaming being a secondary hobby.

 

Heavy Gamers: Those who treat gaming as their main hobby and frequently visit gaming sites for news, reviews etc. May or may not post on a message board.

 

Hardcore Gamers: Those who frequently visit messageboards (us here...), are willing to import games, aim for those highscores and platinum medals in games like Wii Sports or Sin & Punishment 2 and are more likely to buy a game based on word of mouth rather than reviews (It doesn't matter if it's aimed at nongamers, casual gamers or hardcore players, just as long as it's good) These are also the types of players to post speed run videos and FAQ guides up online.

 

Of course that's ignoring normal Geodemographic categorisation.

 

The target audience for something like COD or ME3 isn't us here on message boards (although of course it's possible to like those games too!), it's 12-25 year old, C1-B, Light Gamer dudebros.

Edited by Dcubed
Zechs Merquise Newbie

Zechs Merquise

Posted
Posted (edited)
But is it crap? I mean we all know exactly what we mean we we say it. Yeah it feels a bit trite when we say it but there is a massive difference between the two types of gamers (I think it referes to the players then the games themselves, and certain games appealing to one or the other and sometimes both) how else do we differentiate between the people who will just buy wii fit and play sports every 6 months to the gamers who buy a couple of games a month, try everything etc?

 

Same with films, theres a difference between the people who go to the cinema and watch the latest blockbuster, maybe watch a film on tele, and the people who watch everything they can, have hundreds and thousands of films in their collection etc.

 

We need a language to separate. It's what we do. It's how we can talk and be understood more succinctly.

 

I see your point, but then it's the way the terms are applied and the way they are used to cast disdain on any game that doesn't feature grunting marines and high powered weapons!

 

For example, my sister's boyfriend is the epitome of 'casual' in your definition - yet he doesn't play Wii Sports or Just Dance or Wii Fit. He buys a couple of games a year - FIFA and COD, he plays them both for a week or so then once or twice a fortnight afterwards. Surely he's a 'casual' gamer - yet he plays games that those who love using the terms 'casual' and 'core' would term 'core' games.

 

Gaming is a huge part of my life, but I enjoy games like Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Wii Sports and love the re-emergence of 2D platform games. Yet all the titles I've mentioned have been part of what people have termed the 'casual' revolution in video games.

 

I would argue that FIFA, COD and Need for Speed are just as much focused on 'casual' gamers as Wii Sports, Just Dance and Wii Fit - they just appeal to a difference demographic of the 'casual' market.

 

This is where the whole 'core'/'casual' gamer definition gets confused as it's all too often applied by teenage faboys that use the terms to denigrate games they don't think are 'cool' or 'mature'.

Edited by Zechs Merquise
Agent Gibbs Newbie

Agent Gibbs

Posted
Posted

I would argue that FIFA, COD and Need for Speed are just as much focused on 'casual' gamers as Wii Sports, Just Dance and Wii Fit - they just appeal to a difference demographic of the 'casual' market.

 

This is where the whole 'core'/'casual' gamer definition gets confused as it's all too often applied by teenage faboys that use the terms to denigrate games they don't think are 'cool' or 'mature'.

 

(Using the above classifications)

 

I'd agree there! all of my core friends play video games, but I'd only class myself as a hardcore gamer and another 3 as heavy/medium ones.

They buy a fair chunk of games but its often the big heavily advertised games like COD, Skyrim, Oblivion, Fifa, PES, Battlefield, and they play them all daily, but they don't go on message boards of news sites, they rely on me for that info, and they don't generally buy games on word of mouth or import games, there has been the odd occasion.

 

The others (and majority) are casual/lapsed and light gamers! they buy fifa, COD, Little Big planet and Grand theft Auto, thats it, their collection of ps3 games consist of endless sequels of those games, no wait one bought Rayman for his girlfriend who likes plat formers - they play on them when people are round, when we play as a group online or as a last ditched thing to do if nothing is on TV. but they all think the Wii and nintendo are for kids and playstation is "where its at"

 

This is where distinction between groups break down, they actively buy the best selling block busting games that are on the ps3/360 and the media and even developers think that people who buy them are hardcore gamers! hell i've even seen Angry Birds refereed to as a hardcore game because its such a big seller! when in reality its a toilet break game.

the lines are blurred! Hardcore gamers generally own any console they perceive to have a good set of games, the market the media is toting as hardcore is actually the light to casual gamers who now form the biggest number of sales of block buster games.

 

The whole hardcore / casual argument is so flawed it should be abandoned completely by developers and manufacturers alike!

dazzybee Newbie

dazzybee

Posted
Posted
I see your point, but then it's the way the terms are applied and the way they are used to cast disdain on any game that doesn't feature grunting marines and high powered weapons!

 

For example, my sister's boyfriend is the epitome of 'casual' in your definition - yet he doesn't play Wii Sports or Just Dance or Wii Fit. He buys a couple of games a year - FIFA and COD, he plays them both for a week or so then once or twice a fortnight afterwards. Surely he's a 'casual' gamer - yet he plays games that those who love using the terms 'casual' and 'core' would term 'core' games.

 

Gaming is a huge part of my life, but I enjoy games like Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Wii Sports and love the re-emergence of 2D platform games. Yet all the titles I've mentioned have been part of what people have termed the 'casual' revolution in video games.

 

I would argue that FIFA, COD and Need for Speed are just as much focused on 'casual' gamers as Wii Sports, Just Dance and Wii Fit - they just appeal to a difference demographic of the 'casual' market.

 

This is where the whole 'core'/'casual' gamer definition gets confused as it's all too often applied by teenage faboys that use the terms to denigrate games they don't think are 'cool' or 'mature'.

 

Absolutely, I have friends like that too. And yeah, it is the disdain that is the problem, one of the greatest things about this generation is that I could play games with my family, and my girlfriend and friends who would never play games, and now do. That's great. But these people are fleeting, they won't buy loads of games, and with the rise of smartphones and tablets it will be even more difficult to get these on board. Now ultimately, the big budget games, the gamers gamers games, these are what we all want on our machines, the wii didn't get many, and surely we want them on the wii u.

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
Dante Newbie

Dante

Posted
Posted (edited)

GI info:

 

- dozens of levels across one world map, like Super Mario World

- map can be panned around and explored at any time

- game features an auto-scrolling, Boost Rush mode for more of a challenge

- multiple branching paths that let you pick which way to go

- this is much more than the tradition level choosing, which usually gives you only two paths to choose from

- Game Informer spotted 7 worlds: Acorn Plains, Sparkling Waters (tropical), Frosted Glacier, Layer Cake Desert (complete with melting desserts), areas similar to Forest of Illusion and Sky World and a world surround by a tornado

- mid-world fortresses guarded by Boom-Boom

- end-level castles guarded by Koopalings

- Super Acorn power-up makes you a flying squirrel

 

Images:

BDEE5178-EB12-49C4-B475-AC3DA7BD3C66.PNG

F0E41979-96FD-4539-80F1-206C47077F54.PNG

CB97237B-139B-4A06-8009-10CD860ADD46.PNG

1CB07D32-9080-4DA3-9A7E-A8DD91BA1476.PNG

74E643F6-5AD7-41F1-A023-E8C69A0B8652.PNG

Edited by Dante
Dcubed Proficient

Dcubed

Posted
Posted

I wonder how Boost Mode will differ from NSMB2's Cannon levels, sounds very similar in concept...

 

The world map stuff sounds crazy, definitely taking a page out of Super Mario World's book. Me likey! :D

Serebii Newbie

Serebii

Posted
Posted
I wonder how Boost Mode will differ from NSMB2's Cannon levels, sounds very similar in concept...

 

The world map stuff sounds crazy, definitely taking a page out of Super Mario World's book. Me likey! :D

Seems to me that you have full control of Mario in it, but the level is side scrolling and will then speed up

Dcubed Proficient

Dcubed

Posted
Posted
Seems to me that you have full control of Mario in it, but the level is side scrolling and will then speed up

 

I wonder if Mario's movement speed will also increase alongside the faster scrolling?

 

That would make things a lot more interesting!

Grazza Newbie

Grazza

Posted
Posted

To say I've changed my opinion about how much I'm looking forward to this would be an understatement! New Super Mario Bros 2 has reminded me how much I like these games.

 

Does this game have a level creator? I got the impression that one of them did (and it's not the 3DS game!) I'd love to design some levels full of cannon pipes!

Hamishmash Newbie

Hamishmash

Posted
Posted

I've always wanted to see a level creator in a Mario game but nothings been announced and I get the feeling it'd be one of the first things they'd have said.

 

It would be pretty perfect with the Miiverse and Gamepad though.

Serebii Newbie

Serebii

Posted
Posted
I've always wanted to see a level creator in a Mario game but nothings been announced and I get the feeling it'd be one of the first things they'd have said.

 

It would be pretty perfect with the Miiverse and Gamepad though.

I don't believe we'll ever see a Mario level creator

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...