Author Topic: Has Nintendo forgotten the hardcore gamer? (Read 10415 times)

Jman · « **on:** January 30, 2009, 02:17:00 PM »

I've been on various forums lately, and I've noticed that a lot of people have gotten uptight about Nintendo making such casual fare as Wii Fit and Wii Music. Even I admit to playing my SNES and N64 more often than my Wii lately. Sure, we have our fair share of franchise games such as Super Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, and so on, but I see a lot more games aimed at the casual crowd on the Wii. I don't think Nintendo has forgotten hardcore gamers, I just think they're more concerned about getting "everyone" to play their games. What are your opinions on this matter?

CrossEyed7 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2009, 02:36:07 PM »

They need to survive, just like anyone else. They tried catering to the hardcore on the GameCube, and almost went bankrupt for it. They only survived last generation because everyone and their mother bought a GBA. The NES didn't appeal to the hardcore gamer, it appealed to everyone. In fact, the hardcore gamer of the day didn't even think the NES, with its inferior 8-bit technology and lack of serious games like text-based adventures and arcade shooters, even counted as a game.

Nintendo's market share has been successively declining since the day the SNES came out, because they kept trying to appeal to gamers instead of people. Their goal now is to make video games a medium and not just a subculture. Everyone watches movies. Everyone reads books. Everyone listens to music. But ever since the 16-bit days, only gamers have played games.

Hardcore gamers will still have a place, just as there's still a place for movie buffs. But we'll need to get used to other people using consoles to play games we don't like, or that don't even fit any previous definition of what games are -- some that don't even try to be games -- just as most of us accept that Requiem for a Dream, Barney's Big Adventure, and Tony Little's exercise videos can all be played on the same DVD player.

The Chef · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2009, 02:57:47 PM »

They haven't forgotten us. They just don't advertise to us. What I'd like to see is them start advertising "hardcore" games to "casual" gamers. Then we'd be in business.

Glorb · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2009, 03:17:27 PM »

Quote from: CrossEyed7 on January 30, 2009, 02:36:07 PM

Requiem for a Dream, Barney's Big Adventure, and Tony Little's exercise videos can all be played on the same DVD player.

Mine's configured to turn all DVDs played in it into Tropic Thunder.

BP · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2009, 06:59:02 PM »

All I'm asking for is more Zelda and some F-ZERO. And all the Star Fox fans are dying for more of that.

If you think about it it's gotten all the helpings of each franchise the GameCube and 64 got, just lacking one or two games here and there. Mario sports games are declining in number (yay) and Mario Kart Wii sucked (booo) and that's about it. 2008 was a crappy year for the Wii (except for Brawl). I believe they'll start picking back up soon.

You just don't remember much of what you have because it's drowned in shovelware. But the NES was completely submerged in shovelware itself.

ShadowBrain · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2009, 09:56:04 PM »

My opinion is implied.

TEM · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2009, 10:16:13 PM »

This is based off of many years of intense study.

FlamingBlueMario · « **Reply #7 on:** January 31, 2009, 12:50:13 AM »

Quote from: Bird Person on January 30, 2009, 06:59:02 PM

And all the Star Fox fans are dying for more of that.

Yeah! What happen to Star Fox? No debut on the Wii yet?

I really don't know if I'm a hardcore gamer or not. This is my games list http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=8883.msg532886#msg532886. I think I'm inbetween casual and hardcore...I don't know. But Nintendo seems to be struggling. They're starting to sell a lot of "weak" First party games like SMG and maybe even TP. Super Mario Galaxy was great, but...it left me wanting more. I have yet to play Twilight Princess, but
I'm sure it's "ok" (don't hurt me, Zelda fans).

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #8 on:** January 31, 2009, 01:17:15 AM »

I lost all interest in Star Fox because of Star Fox Command. And I loved Star Fox before that.
Super Mario Galaxy is no less substantial than the last regular Mario titles of the past decade.
Twilight Princess is really really great, even if it is easy.

This thread is a copy of all other threads on this forum and Jman should have just read all of them instead.
In response to CrossEyed7's post, I don't believe there was such a thing as a "hardcore gamer" in 1985. Bird Person is correct about NES being covered in shovelware, but when you get right down to it, 99% of games for every system are terrible junk. Possibly 99.9% of say, Atari or NES games were junk. Again, I don't think there was a concept of shovelware in the '80s, because while most games were just made to turn a quick profit, the difference was that back then, all games were made by teams of about 5 people. Anyway, TEM is right.
Also, you look at Wii, you see casual gamer shovelware.
But look at Xbox or something, and there's tons and tons of shovelware too. It's just bad in a different way. Cheap terrible games are cheap terrible games no matter who they're targeting. PS2 is probably king of terrible games just because it's king of having the most games anyway.
I don't really understand why the GameCube failed, but oh well.

I bought a PSP this week.

SolidShroom · « **Reply #9 on:** January 31, 2009, 08:33:08 AM »

The DS is doing everything right for gamers at this point. It seems like it maintains an excellent balance of shovelware, fun--yet short and not very in depth--games, and "hardcore" games that appeal to people who play games a lot, probably because of excellent third party support.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 31, 2009, 09:08:17 AM »

Quote from: FlamingBlueMardio on January 31, 2009, 12:50:13 AM

I really don't know if I'm a hardcore gamer or not. This is my games list http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=8883.msg532886#msg532886. I think I'm inbetween casual and hardcore...I don't know.

I think I'm probably somewhere in between, too. I think we need a more substantial "middle class," if you will.

FlamingBlueMario · « **Reply #11 on:** January 31, 2009, 11:37:27 AM »

I agree. It should be "Middle Gamer" or "Balanced Gamer" something. But what we really need to ask ourselves is what defines a hardcore gamer and what defines a casual gamer? Aren't casual gamers people who play video games in a leisurely manner? But then once they like a game they try to improve at it and thus becoming a hardcore gamer? ...Or is a hardcore gamer really just about points, leader boards, rankings and bragging rights? I really do think that casual gamers "evolve" into hardcore gamers over time. That's all.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #12 on:** January 31, 2009, 12:06:16 PM »

Hardcore gamers read Hardcore Gaming 101. Casual gamers don't know that most games exist.

TEM · « **Reply #13 on:** January 31, 2009, 01:48:21 PM »

In the most all encompassing definition of Hardcore vs. Casual, I would say this is the line: Hardcore gamers actively care about video games, casual gamers may play video games, but they don't care about them. Casuals don't nitpick, or compare, or know who the developers are, they play a game and either think it is fun or don't. Casuals don't know about what games are coming out (as someone mentioned) or what new system is about to be unveiled. They don't care. Under this definition, the term "Casual Gamer" is a misnomer, because you'd be hesitant to call them a "gamer" at all. (I personally don't like the term Gamer, but that's another conversation)

I think the gap between these two types is the most distinct, a person can go from being casual to hardcore in a matter of seconds, but once the gap is crossed the change in attitude towards video games is very distinct. As we get into categorizing within the aforementioned hardcore category, the distinctions get less defined. Examples being quibbling about who is more hardcore: who has more games, who is a bigger fan, who plays the game for 8 hours a day, etc., etc.

BP · « **Reply #14 on:** January 31, 2009, 02:12:14 PM »

Quote from: TEM on January 31, 2009, 01:48:21 PM

I personally don't like the term Gamer, but that's another conversation

Actually I'd like to hear you talk about this. My definition of "gamer" is someone who spends a majority of their spare time gaming and a majority of their time talking to other people talking about gaming, I guess. That's really true of me--a lot of my life seems to revolve around video games. I seek a career in the video game industry. I prepare for that by drawing stuff from video games or modifying things in video games. My friends and I talk a lot about video games because it's something we have in common. i listen to music from video games, or remixes thereof. I eat and sleep in hopes to survive another day for more gaming. But see, I have a life, and a good one--it's just built on video games.

You are right about "casual gamers" really not being gamers... but then again you could call a dude who goes fishing every once in a while a fisherman in the context of fishing.