Ashley Posted June 28, 2014 Posted June 28, 2014 But then PlayStation is a Japanese brand, and everyone within their company gets the importance of it. Sony has more of a worldwide flavour though. Their key staff come from more than just Japan and they got a westerner to design the PS4.
Retro_Link Posted June 28, 2014 Posted June 28, 2014 Sony has more of a worldwide flavour though. Their key staff come from more than just Japan and they got a westerner to design the PS4.Because that's the shift they've made within over the years in order to be successful. Nintendo should take a look.
Ashley Posted June 28, 2014 Posted June 28, 2014 Because that's the shift they've made within over the years in order to be successful. Nintendo should take a look. Oh yeah that was kind of my point! Basically just because Nintendo is a Japanese company, doesn't mean that they have to be inherently insular. Heck, most Japanese tech companies take great strides to appeal to the wider world while it feels like Nintendo still see the West as being less important.
Hogge Posted June 28, 2014 Posted June 28, 2014 I think it may actually be that stellar E3 presentation that saved his bacon. Hopefully, he'll now continue in this new direction.
Hero-of-Time Posted June 28, 2014 Posted June 28, 2014 I think it may actually be that stellar E3 presentation that saved his bacon.Hopefully, he'll now continue in this new direction. The question remains whether the good press will translate into sales, which is ultimately what investors and shareholders care about. Mario Kart has had a fantastic start and helped push hardware a bit but their next big game is Smash, which won't arrive until Nov/Dec time. The titles in between, such as Captain Toad, Bayonetta and Hyrule Warriors will do well within the Nintendo fan base but I can't see them pushing hardware much. You also have to factor in that consumers only have so much time and money and Nintendo will have a hard time pulling the masses away from CoD, FIFA, Battlefield, Dragon Age, Aliens, Destiny, Assassins Creed to name but a few. All of which arrive from September onwards.
Tamazoid Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 Since/before any console but the Wii. I contest that point, Nintendo really only actively targeted the 'core gamer' during the 64 and to a lesser extent the Gamecube generation and both were hardly successful eras for the company. This was typified by their focus of Western developed games that were targeted at a mature audience, such as Body Harvest, Eternal Darkness, Geist and the like. Currently with the Wii U they are making an effort to target this similar audience, but now through Japanese developed games like Bayonetta 2, Hyrule Warriors (The Dynasty Warriors link) and Devil's Third as well as their apparent funding of Eternal Darkness 2 before Silicon Knights lost their lawsuit. Not to mention that arguing that Nintendo always targeted the 'core gamer' before the Wii is disingenuous, since the modern 'casual gamer' really only developed after the Wii and a 'core gamer' is something hard to define. My personal definition of a 'casual game' is one that is accessible and has a low learning curve, games like the original Super Mario Bros and the ilk, games that Nintendo has always made but apparently now are 'casual' and 'not targeted at the core gamer'. That design philosophy has always been the mantra of Nintendo, you only have to read an interview with Miyamoto or Iwata to see. In addition you only have to look at the origins of the Game and Watch, that Gunpei Yokoi conceived it after seeing a Japanese businessman playing around with a calculator on a train, which is why the Game and Watch had a clock, it was a device designed to be used to kill time. Similarly, Tetris, the original killer app of the Gameboy was hardly aimed at core gamers, since I'd argue it is the genesis of a 'casual' game: a game anyone can pick up and quickly learn how to play. So really, I don't particularly understand the prevalence of this notion that Nintendo has somehow abandoned it's origins and are blindly chasing the 'casual gamer'.
Hero-of-Time Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) I contest that point, Nintendo really only actively targeted the 'core gamer' during the 64 and to a lesser extent the Gamecube generation and both were hardly successful eras for the company. This was typified by their focus of Western developed games that were targeted at a mature audience, such as Body Harvest, Eternal Darkness, Geist and the like. Currently with the Wii U they are making an effort to target this similar audience, but now through Japanese developed games like Bayonetta 2, Hyrule Warriors (The Dynasty Warriors link) and Devil's Third as well as their apparent funding of Eternal Darkness 2 before Silicon Knights lost their lawsuit. I always dislike it when people think this was the reason for the lack of success for these two consoles. Both of these failed despite these types of games being on the platform, not because of it. Both of these consoles failed for many reasons, most due to Nintendo going their own way and making very questionable design choices. N64 Cartridges over CDs. Hard to develop for. No 3rd party support. Price of the games compared to the competition was just crazy. Playstation arrived with some great marketing that had mass market appeal, where this didn't Cube Launched far too late, with many already invested in the PS2. Had a lack of appeal due to its looks ( Dat purple lunch box ). The kiddy image for Nintendo was in full swing this generation Used it's own format instead of DVDs. Had no DVD player built in, which was becoming a big thing at the time. 3rd party support was better than the last generation but still not as good as it's competition. Your other point about casual and core gamers I won't debate, purely because the terms mean something different for everyone. Edited June 29, 2014 by Hero-of-Time
Sheikah Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 So really, I don't particularly understand the prevalence of this notion that Nintendo has somehow abandoned it's origins and are blindly chasing the 'casual gamer'. I'll try explain it then. Nintendo used to mostly make games that appealed to existing/dedicated gamers and they were the sort of games that you now might refer to as 'core'. Even Mario Kart SNES was tailored to your hardcore gamer, unlike MK Wii which was designed to appeal to new and old gamers (with the introduction of the Wii Wheel, the Mii racer and the ability to pull the lead back easily). I think Mario Kart is one of the better games for appealing to more people but really this was just a small point to illustrate what I'm getting at. Wii Sports, again, was clearly a game to reel in non-gamers. They're now still focusing on some Wii_ content on the Wii U when the Wii phase has died. Hence, I'm calling for them to go back to doing what they used to do. Get some new IPs going but with the core audience in mind, with a budget and scale to match their Mario and Zelda titles. And bring back their other series like F-Zero, Earthbound and Metroid. They also need to adapt to the core audience's demands of an improved online infrastructure, voice chat, etc.
Serebii Posted June 29, 2014 Author Posted June 29, 2014 I'll try explain it then. Nintendo used to mostly make games that appealed to existing/dedicated gamers and they were the sort of games that you now might refer to as 'core'. Even Mario Kart SNES was tailored to your hardcore gamer, unlike MK Wii which was designed to appeal to new and old gamers (with the introduction of the Wii Wheel, the Mii racer and the ability to pull the lead back easily). I think Mario Kart is one of the better games for appealing to more people but really this was just a small point to illustrate what I'm getting at. Wii Sports, again, was clearly a game to reel in non-gamers. They're now still focusing on some Wii_ content on the Wii U when the Wii phase has died. Hence, I'm calling for them to go back to doing what they used to do. Get some new IPs going but with the core audience in mind, with a budget and scale to match their Mario and Zelda titles. And bring back their other series like F-Zero, Earthbound and Metroid. They also need to adapt to the core audience's demands of an improved online infrastructure, voice chat, etc. Well that's bullshit. I have pulled back from 8th with ease so many times in Super Mario Kart, from huge gaps. And the rubber banding in it is atrocious. Stop looking at things with nostalgia goggles
Sheikah Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 Well that's bullshit. I have pulled back from 8th with ease so many times in Super Mario Kart, from huge gaps. And the rubber banding in it is atrocious. Stop looking at things with nostalgia goggles SMK in no way had the casual appeal that MK Wii does, to say otherwise is insanity. Or to do a Serebii, some may say.
Blade Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 SMK in no way had the casual appeal that MK Wii does, to say otherwise is insanity. Or to do a Serebii, some may say. I have to agree. The difficulty alone in SMK compared to MK Wii clearly shows this.
Tamazoid Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 I'll try explain it then. Nintendo used to mostly make games that appealed to existing/dedicated gamers and they were the sort of games that you now might refer to as 'core'. Even Mario Kart SNES was tailored to your hardcore gamer, unlike MK Wii which was designed to appeal to new and old gamers (with the introduction of the Wii Wheel, the Mii racer and the ability to pull the lead back easily). I think Mario Kart is one of the better games for appealing to more people but really this was just a small point to illustrate what I'm getting at. Wii Sports, again, was clearly a game to reel in non-gamers. They're now still focusing on some Wii_ content on the Wii U when the Wii phase has died. Hence, I'm calling for them to go back to doing what they used to do. Get some new IPs going but with the core audience in mind, with a budget and scale to match their Mario and Zelda titles. And bring back their other series like F-Zero, Earthbound and Metroid. They also need to adapt to the core audience's demands of an improved online infrastructure, voice chat, etc. How exactly was Super Mario Kart tailored to the 'hardcore gamer'? I think an important point to note is that Nintendo games, even during the SNES era were in general always accessible and did not have steep learning curves like I noted in my earlier post. Games like Super Mario World, Yoshi's Island, Super Mario Kart and A Link to the Past for example are testaments to this philosophy. Games such as those and ones I previously mentioned like Tetris show that Nintendo have also aimed at primarily developing games which are accessible to a wide audience, while also developing games that are aimed at a more 'core gamer' audience and their 'hardcore fanbase'. This trend was even noticeable in the Wii generation, as seen by games such as Sin and Punishment, Xenoblade, Last Story, Pandora's Tower, and the like. But their higher budget games and games with the most marketing have generally always been their most accessible titles. I agree with the need for improved online infrastructure but once again, this belief that series like F-Zero and Earthbound are the games that the 'core audience' want is laughable. You're key argument boils down to a belief that Nintendo needs to focus on games that appeal to 'existing/dedicated gamers' yet you suggest games that sit within genres that are hardly mainstream and are relatively niche. These are games that appeal to the Nintendo faithful and hardcore Nintendo fans, not 'hardcore gamers' as a whole. I think if your main argument is that if Nintendo wants to be successful they need to shift their focus towards 'core gamers' and develop games like F-Zero, Earthbound and Star Fox you're wildly misinterpreting the term 'core gamer' in its contemporary usage and infer that somehow hardcore Nintendo fans and 'core gamers are interchangeable. 'Core gamers' in general flock to games like Bioshock, Assassins Creed, GTA, Watch Dogs. All cinematic orientated games which has never been Nintendo's forte, yet you argue that to recapture success it is necessary for Nintendo to return to its roots and focus on the 'core gamer'. There's a a clear dissidence which is apparent between the two as Nintendo's apparent 'hardcore' past which it has abandoned include games in genres that are no longer popular or successful, as well as franchises and series which have rarely sold well or given Nintendo much success. For example Earthbound is a cult classic, it didn't even appeal to the so called 'hard gamers' of the SNES days which Nintendo apparently pandered to and were the reason behind their success. Finally I think it is fool hardy to suggest that Nintendo requires someone 'less conservative' to 'give the core gamers what they need.' It suggests an entire culture and philosophical change for the company which I'd argue would damage what makes Nintendo unique and appealing to even 'hardcore' Nintendo fans such as yourself who crave games like Earthbound and F-Zero which in all honesty would not be developed in such a reorientation. If Iwata, a man who is close friends with and a former colleague of Itoi won't greenlight a new Earthbound no one will, not to mention Itoi does not wish to make another Mother game. But sure, go on believing that it is likely that a successor to Iwata would actively attempt to pander to the Nintendo fanbase more than the current management is and would actively develop and publish niche games that have a proven track record of mediocre sales, while avoiding a sustained push towards courting the 'casual gamer' due to the continued rise of smart phone gaming.
Sheikah Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) There's really nothing to defend here as what I said is basically correct, however much you may protest. Given 8 people thanked my initial post it's a decent indicator that a good amount of people think the same. Do not misunderstand what a 'core gamer' means. It doesn't mean people who want mainstream, unoriginal grungy games, it means people that are passionate about games and not around due to a gimmick that happens to be fashionable at the time. They're more likely to buy a lot of games and they are the bread and butter of your fan base - they will stick with you. That is if you don't piss them off by continuously delivering underpowered consoles and poor network features, as well as a continued focus on delivering Wii_ titles that even the casuals no longer want. All the while gushing platformers and neglecting other franchises other people want to see. It would be foolhardy to think as you do - that a conservative person should be in charge. Nintendo are in need of a radical kick up the arse to fix a lot of the issues I've mentioned. Sony show that you can do it by branching out to the West, talking to devs and even getting an American to design their console. I don't see Iwata helping that sort of thing happen with Nintendo. Edited June 29, 2014 by Sheikah
Goron_3 Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 Well that's bullshit. I have pulled back from 8th with ease so many times in Super Mario Kart, from huge gaps. And the rubber banding in it is atrocious. Stop looking at things with nostalgia goggles Give SMK and MKWii/MK8 to a casual gamer and see which one they find much easier. SMK was god tier difficultly for a racing gamer; narrow tracks, awesome track design and an emphasis on cornering ability to set quick lap times for the quicker characters (Bowser).
Sheikah Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 Give SMK and MKWii/MK8 to a casual gamer and see which one they find much easier. SMK was god tier difficultly for a racing gamer; narrow tracks, awesome track design and an emphasis on cornering ability to set quick lap times for the quicker characters (Bowser). I know, it's so very absurd to suggest that SMK was also aimed at casuals. It makes you wonder what on earth is going on in Serebii's head sometimes.
Pestneb Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 I know, it's so very absurd to suggest that SMK was also aimed at casuals. It makes you wonder what on earth is going on in Serebii's head sometimes. I don't know whats going on in Serebii's head, but back in the mid 90's a few casual gamers must have felt the same way. Playing as toad in 50cc wasn't hard, gaming wasn't as forgiving as it is these days but, relative to a lot of other games of it's era, smk was pretty easy.
Sheikah Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 Its not just difficulty, it is general appeal. Gaming has come a long way since then and has generally adapted to appeal to a much larger audience. Which is a good thing, but at the same time it's important to continue to deliver the sorts of things your established fanbase would continue to buy. And in Nintendo's case, they need to evolve with the current demands of modern gamers both in terms of hardware (power/networking) and software (new high scale IP to address their franchise exhaustion). THAT is what they need to focus on.
Pestneb Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 Agreed, but given the limited audience gaming had back in the Snes days, I think it would be fair to argue SMK fits quite comfortable in a more casual bracket, even if it also included elements that appealed to more dedicated gamers.
Hogge Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 I find the argument of "Nintendo have never aimed at core gamers or made AAA-games" quite odd. In the NES day, Super Mario Bros and Zelda were as core and AAA as games got. Even when you look at the N64-era Nintendo appealed to those gamers. Waverace was at the very cutting edge of both graphics and physics when it launched. Options and content were on-par with the competition, because the competition at the time was the original Ridge Racer. Or, more closely, this: Starfox 64 had ambitious voice acting, which I'd say is better than a lot of voice acting we see today. It had an ambitious story, the branching paths gave the game massive replay value. The graphics here too, were AAA for their day. Super Mario 64 was a quantum leap in 3D gaming. Up until Mario 64, many gamers and developers argued that 3D was something that only was good for racers, FPS games and flight simulators. Mario 64 had a functional camera, fluent controls, great graphics and lots of content. Putting it simply, it proved that 3D gaming was here to stay. Ocarina of Time was also an absolute quantum leap. Where sword combat in other games at the time was either a chore, or imprecise button mashing, Zelda was fast, fluent and fun. The day-night cycle had never been done in 3D before, Hyrule felt living and open like no 3D game had done before that time. The lack of voice acting was forgivable, as voice acting wasn't even present in all CD-based games at that time and Zelda was of course a very grand game. Plus, Nintendo had partners which would deliver fairly large quantities of AAA core titles exclusively for their machines. The thing is that something went wrong by the time the Gamecube came out. When Waverace Blue Storm came out, the competition wasn't Ridge Racer anymore, it was Gran Turismo 3, which contained hundreds of hours worth of challenges, rather than a few arcade cups which a skilled player could finish in an afternoon. And when it comes to the other AAA franchises they had... well, they yet again focused on making their games different, rather than just better.
Jonnas Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 I know, it's so very absurd to suggest that SMK was also aimed at casuals. ...The game with Mario in its cover wasn't aimed at the gaming masses? I have to disagree with that. I can see your point that games need to have depth, but posts like these are actually arguing that they shouldn't be (or were never, in SMK's case) accessible. It's not one or the other, you know. Also, comments like these: I know, it's so very absurd to suggest that SMK was also aimed at casuals. SMK in no way had the casual appeal that MK Wii does, to say otherwise is insanity. Preemptively insult those who disagree with your views, so please refrain from doing that. @Serebii, you tend to do this, too, so that goes for the both of you.
Sheikah Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 I can see your point that games need to have depth, but posts like these are actually arguing that they shouldn't be (or were never, in SMK's case) accessible. It's not one or the other, you know. My point is that while Nintendo have done a good job making MK more accessible, their need to target the casual masses on an almost universal scale has somewhat ruined their output (for me, at least). Franchise fatigue from pushing out the same franchises that are very popular, as well as gimped system specs to again appeal more to casuals (top priority was to make the Wii U console size discrete as that was what they thought families wanted...over power). Also, comments like these: Preemptively insult those who disagree with your views, so please refrain from doing that. @Serebii, you tend to do this, too, so that goes for the both of you. It's not pre-emptive at all. Serebii made a comment about how fair/balanced/whatever SMK was as a response to me saying it is much more casual oriented these days. It is an irrelevant comment meant to make SMK appear little different to MK Wii, which is crazy talk, as others have also attested to since. He knew what he was doing and he failed.
Jonnas Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 It's not pre-emptive at all. Regardless of who it was targeted to, or who you were trying to prove wrong, you are still saying that the opinions of those who disagree with your view are "absurd" or "insane". And from the responses of Tamazoid and Pestneb, it's pretty clear Serebii wasn't the only one with a disagreement. We are discussing opinions, none of us are holders of absolute truth, regardless of how many people agree with you.
liger05 Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 Give SMK and MKWii/MK8 to a casual gamer and see which one they find much easier. SMK was god tier difficultly for a racing gamer; narrow tracks, awesome track design and an emphasis on cornering ability to set quick lap times for the quicker characters (Bowser). My 4 year old son loves MK7. I put on SMK on for him and he hated it, found it far too difficult.
Pestneb Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 My 4 year old son loves MK7. I put on SMK on for him and he hated it, found it far too difficult. my nephew was the same, the game was too hard so it wasn't fun, he quit before he completed a single lap, then I suggested he tried playing as toad. He now chooses to play smk as often as mk8.
Sheikah Posted June 29, 2014 Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) Regardless of who it was targeted to, or who you were trying to prove wrong, you are still saying that the opinions of those who disagree with your view are "absurd" or "insane". And from the responses of Tamazoid and Pestneb, it's pretty clear Serebii wasn't the only one with a disagreement. We are discussing opinions, none of us are holders of absolute truth, regardless of how many people agree with you. I don't think you'd find one person who in their heart of hearts believed SMK was more accessible or noob friendly than MK Wii. Genuinely seemed like Serebii was dismissing an entire post (note that he called it bullshit) based on a nuance within the game, which didn't even discredit the point I was making. He was just being awkward. Edited June 29, 2014 by Sheikah
Recommended Posts