Nintendo Admits to Being Bad at Hardcore Games

[Ultra_Caboose]

It's about damn time they finally said it.

He really isn't making much sense in his reasoning on hardcore titles, though. Dante's Inferno and Bioshock 2 are good games and well marketed, but as far as I can tell, when Nintendo's hardcore games get released, everybody knows about it. Any hardcore title developed by Nintendo is going to make its money back, at least just about any.
What he's really saying is that Nintendo is getting lazy and complacent, churning out crap that's easy to make and priced the same as any normal title. He and the rest of the company know that uneducated casual gamers will buy crap games, and don't tend to their more serious and devoted hardcore following, which if I've noticed anything, is dropping as of late.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Nintendo can't do hardcore well! *gasp*
There hardcore audience plays only new games in previously know series! *gasp*
THE SKY IS BLUE! ohhhh *faints from excitement*

Nintendo is shifting their market focus and it seem to be working. The company has been around long enough that I'm not going to question their decisions being profitable. Of course I would like to see new and totally fun games that I'd play as much as the next guy but we can't have everything now can we?

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Can someone explain to me how Nintendo, the creators of gaming, are 'bad' at hardcore games?

GET BETTER! Third Parties aren't going to make bitchin games for your consoles again until you prove to them it can be DONE. People lost faith in you after the debacles of the N64 and the Gamecube. But your bad luck has worn out, your on top again, EXPLOIT IT! GET ANGRY! SHOW ME YOUR ANGRY FACE!

Besides how do you 'define' a Hardcore game? A hardcore game is a game designed specifically for gamers. Gamers who understand how to play games, gamers who want a visceral, involving experiance. That doesn't mean titties blood and swearwords. Zelda is a hardcore game. Metroid is a hardcore game. Mario COULD be a hardcore game. Just have some motherfucking imagination and branch out slowly.

Edit: What about Star Fox? What about Monkey Magic? What about Kid Icarus?

You've all got Peter Pan syndrome! I get it! But get someone who doesn't and HAVE THEM MAKE A HARDCORE GAME WITH YOUR HDKJBFSFDA ARGH MY BRAIN

Okay

I'm cool now.

:|

 

[Woodsey]

THey dont make hardcore games.

Look where nintendo is now, top sellers.

So.. is it a problem? I dont think so.

Not for them it isn't.

I'm sure a few gamers might have a problem with it.

Soooo buy a 360 or PS3 as well? I have a 360 for my hardcore gaming and my wii for fun multiplayer stuff

Oh, you've misunderstood me - personally I don't care. Always been a PC gamer and I occasionally use a 360; I did have a Wii for a few months though and once I realised I'd just wasted £180 on a party game machine I was a little pissed off. I know I'm not the only one - that's why there are so many threads asking who uses their Wii anymore.

 

[Goombanator]

I think everything needs to be said about nintendo can be seen in the Mario bros game for wi. Utter laziness and complete pandering to casual gamers (the feature where it play the game for you) And shameless offerings to fanboys. "Hey look, a side scrolling Mario title, Just like you remember!" The only fun I ever had with the wii was the RE4 remake.

 

[CrystalShadow]

EDIT: And for the love of all things holy, BRING BACK DONKEY KONG!

Nononononononononononono! Do not bring back Donkey Kong, Rare was the only company that could make a truly amazing, without question Donkey Kong game. (The DKC Trilogy, Diddy Kong Racing, Dk 64) :/

So get Rare back into the mix. Come on, when Nintendo was teamed up with Rare, they were freakin' unstoppable!

Two problems:

1. Rare is an empty shell; Most of the people that made it great have left. (for instance, the main people behind Goldeneye later created Timesplitters, forming a company called Free Radical Design.)

2. Microsoft owns Rare. That happened in the middle of the gamecube era. StarFox adventures was Rare's last Nintendo game - You can see how this would be a problem...
(however, since then, I've seen Rare produced Game boy Advance/ DS games, which suggests microsoft is not beyond a degree of flexibility here, as long as it doesn't conflict with their own stuff... (they don't have a viable handheld system after all. And it was a donkey kong game, so Nintendo has exclusive rights...)

In any event, it's unlikely.

 

[mikecoulter]

I think Nintendo should try to get back into less casual games. But then... Does Madworld count as casual?

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Fuck no.

I hate Mario with all my being, but his games are well made, just not my thing.

Especially Kart. Mostly because of the Blue. Fucking. Shell.

Nintendo's other 2 franchises...Metroid and Zelda, are gods, though.

Especially Metroid. Which, to my knowledge, has never had a bad game.

Zelda...had Phantom Hourglass. EWWWWW.

 

[Leroy Frederick]

They didn't have that problem with the NES / SNES, perhaps if they made a console that matched in tech / graphics power with there innovations they wouldn't have problems getting 3rd party dev's making mature core content on their system.

Of course, while they're printing money they won't really give a damn about this and while we have xbox's, ps3's and core games neither will we!

 

[Steampunk Viking]

I like Nintendo but... No really? How long did it take you guys to figure this out Reggie?

If anyone from Nintendo is reading this, I'm telling ya, Pokemon MMO. You'll be minted.

 

[Rect Pola]

I find it funny how Reggie actually says they don't develop hardcore games but at the same time Mr.MacKenzie here just mentioned some actual hardcore titles that are published by nintendo by developers they own.

I think if anything this is telling that hardcore is more of an image when a consumer and developer thinks of when they now hear the word hardcore.

So to my fellow Escapists, what would you say would be the criteria for "Hardcore"?

I would suggest that it is the graphics and atmosphere is the top criteria that can label a game as hardcore. I'd go a bit further by suggesting that on the average the graphics and atmosphere must be dark and realistic(as in human proportions and characters) and violent.

Difficulty is more of an afterthought and is adjustable to allow players to experience the game.

Personally I think labels like Hardcore and Casual need to die out right now especially if people can't agree on what makes a game as such. Although your ideas hold some merit the real problem is that people like to use the words to brand games that they think are beneath them as casual. This is something I've failed to understand because my first exposure to casual games were things like Peggle, so to me casual just seemed like a game you could play in the span of a lunch break. Apparently I must have had the wrong thought in mind according to popular usage now.

Hear hear!

That's where I lean in defining something as 'casual' too.

 

[experiment0789]

First I want to congratulate Nintendo for FINILY admitting this; of course this is like a(an) alcoholic telling you that he/she is not drunk when you are both at a bar,at 1:00pm,Its now 8:00pm, and there is enough empty glass bottles at/around your table that you could make a stain glass window.
So lets give Nin?ten...do a @#$#en medal for all there??what ever.
Now that?s out of the way, I agree with Woodsey some gamers might have a problem with that
(I know I do). I don?t know if I?m a hardcore gamer, but I?m getting a little deterred from anything Nintendo. It?s like what Yahtzee say's a in his Left-4-Dead-2 and New-Super-Mario-Bros-Wii video (from 2:52 on), ?WHAT REALLY HAS BEEN THE POINT OF THE LAST 15 YEARS IF YOUR GOING TO MAKE MARIO 3 AGAIN COMPLETE WITH CHERPY NEW SOUND EFFECTS STILL INTACT,IN WHAT IS SOUPOSALLY A NEXT-GEN CONCEL NO LESS?

There really needs to be a "Yahtzee's Law", which is basically Godwin's Law only it brings Yahtzee into an argument. First off, he is wrong about calling Mario 3 and NSMBW the same exact game. They are not. The only things the two have in common is the base powerups (mushroom, fire flower, star), the Koopalings as world bosses, and the map screen mechanics. To imply otherwise is to say that Super Mario 3 had any of the following: Yoshi, Wall Kicks, Ground Pounds, Four-Player Simultaneous co-op, A penguin suit. Ice Flowers, Helicopter Suit powerups, Occasional Airship Levels instead of one every world, and many many many many other differences that separate it from Mario 3. Secondly, to parrot what he says without having any sort of other information on the subject is just lazy. I'm not saying it's bad to agree with Yahtzee but I am saying it's bad to agree with such an obvious fanboy statement that he is wont to make whenever the Wii is being talked about. I can directly attack this statement because I actually played the game to completion, found it exponentially harder than Mario 3 (which I have beaten in one sitting before without continues) and therefore can easily say the two games are different.

Where was I going with this? Oh nowhere, except to point out that the point of "re-releasing Mario 3" was to make money, and money it did make. Even though it's a lot harder than most typical Mario platformers (there is a reason that there's a term called "Nintendo Hard" after all) Even though it still isn't the same thing as Mario 3 no matter how badly someone may try to tell you it is. Just like the point of any sequel that adds to existing base concepts is made to cash in and turn a profit. There are bad sequels and good sequels, and New Super Mario Bros. Wii definetely falls into the latter category, in my opinion. I don't see why Mario needs to be anything other than a platformer in most iterations. After all the adventure game forays with Mario were pretty bad other than Luigi's Mansion

And once again this topic continues to point out that these are the true definitions of Hardcore and Casual now

Hardcore: What a gamer likes
Casual: What they don't like.

And that is not how either of those words should be used.

...The point I was trying to make was that Nintendo is depending too much on It's usual characters,not that Super Mario Wii is Literally like Mario 3. The quote ?WHAT REALLY HAS BEEN THE POINT OF THE LAST 15 YEARS IF YOUR GOING TO MAKE MARIO 3 AGAIN COMPLETE WITH CHIRPY NEW SOUND EFFECTS STILL INTACT,IN WHAT IS SUPPOSITORY A NEXT-GEN CONCEAL NO LESS? means to me that Nintendo is not even trying anymore. I'm not saying I Don't like Mario anymore,is just now that he has gone in to space,he's done pretty much everything.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/19-Super-Mario-Galaxy

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/35-Super-Smash-Bros-Brawl

I understand that Nintendo is trying to make money, but how come it can't be like almost every one else and make a good,and sometimes,original games to make money. All this repetitiveness is kind of depressing, Most of the time you can guess what the game is and going to contain.

Mario: princess captured AGAIN by giant lizard/dragon thing,try to save her while stomping on Goompa and Koopas.

Link: Save Zelda,Defeat Ganondorf,while collecting the hock shot,boomerang and other stuff to complete a temple that was designed to be a huge puzzle.

Metroid:...?????>>> I actually don't remember, I have played like one or two but there pretty much complete a temple that was designed to be a huge puzzle with more enemy's in it.

The first two have so many games that when you think of Nintendo,the first two characters that comes to mind is Mario and link(at least mine).

The last thing I think I need to say is Yahtzee has pretty much stated what I think about Nintendo in his collection of reviews, and the fact that I think he says them better than me comes to no surprise since this is his JOB.

 

[experiment0789]

Sorry my connection has been acting up,so mind the double post.

 

[The 11th Plauge]

well, at least they admit it. but they are still some of the best game makers in the world.

 

[hypothetical fact]

Since everyone can't figure it out here's my guidelines on hardcore, feel free to see how many of your games are hardcore after reading this.
The criteria of hardcore:
1. Niche appeal

2. Difficult to pick up due to high difficulty or complicated features; rewards the player with a feeling of satisfaction for overcoming the difficulty or gives the user increased control with the features.

3. Any and all sequels must add to the game with new features, the standard for these features is set by mods (If players could mod features into the game for free they shouldn't have to pay for them in the expansion). There may be features that were in mods but the majority must be new/innovative/an improvement.

Hardcore is not:
1. Restricted to maturity, as violence and drug use are just as likely to attract a child as an adult.

2. Defined by graphics, a hardcore title may have brown and bloom or rainbows everywhere. Any attempt to define hardcore otherwise would require debating the colours and graphics of every game ever made.

3. Restricted to older games, nostalgia does not equal quality and as a child everyone's views were tinted with ignorance.

Extra: If you feel relief for overcoming a difficult scetion rather than satisfaction it is more likely poorly designed than a legitimate challenge and therefore not hardcore.

 

[theultimateend]

How are Pokemon and Super Mario Galaxies not 'hardcore' games?

One is better than most RPG style games I play and the other was harder (at least the QCoins portion) than any other game (that isn't badman) I've played since its release. I get around too...

If the poster above me is defining hardcore games as they did then my favorite hardcore games are made by a company that almost doesn't exist anymore ((((((((((.

Nippon Ichi being that company and Disgaea being the series.

 

[Valiance]

You know, I suppose this is true, though I never really thought about it.

I dunno, I thought metroid was pretty hardcore.

 

[S_K]

way to point out the obvious Nintendo... what's next? Xbox <3's fps games?