"Take the 'game' out of gaming"? I'm going to assume that the a phrase was used because it was catchy, as opposed to being an effective way to sum up your stance. Mostly because it's an immensely subjective statement to make. For instance, I thought a game was something to play. If it's fun, or enjoyable in some way, then it's succeeded in its purpose.

The impression I got from the OP, was that Jaguar thinks that a game is only a real game when it tries its hardest to prevent you from seeing the credits.

And then you get this:
Surely it can-not be long until the gap between 'casual' and 'hard-core' (hate both those terms) becomes so vast that they effectively become 'Non-Competitive' and 'Competitive'.

What exactly are you saying, here? That if Nintendo keeps doing what they're doing, so many people will play games, that any serious gamer who doesn't go to gaming tournaments or care about their place on leaderboards will be indistinguishable from somebody who plays games as they read books? Is this supposed to be bad, or something? What's your point? That Nintendo is focusing on getting more support from the people who haven't considered games before? I think we'd noticed that already, to be honest.

If trends increase this time next year nintendo will become like a kind of v-smile crap
but be called n-smile it is already there motto

Fatalis67:
I don't own a Wii because I never liked the whole cuddly, colorful vibe that many of their games have *cough* Super Mario Galaxy *cough*. This usually makes them more geared towards the younger audience, with a difficulty level to match.

Nintendo is only doing this to make the spoiled little whiny kids the chance to beat a game in which it is nearly impossible to fail, so they don't cry and will keep on giving them money.

Well done sir, you are ignorant and ill-informed. Congratulations.

I don't understand the beef with the live system in Galaxy. It's still an amazing gaming experience from start to finish. Why pick on something so insignificant to the actual experience? There was this same 'problem' with Mario 64 and no-one gave a crap. I think it's more a case of since Super Mario 1 and all Mario games since, it's just become an accepted convention that 100 coins and 1-UP mushrooms give you extra lives. In a 3d exploration environment it's just easier not to die (this is true of nearly all 3D platform games, thats just the nature of the beast). What's the big deal?There's no life system at all in GTA IV. Does this make it easy? Does it make it any less challenging a game? No.

As for the whole casual thing, I think it just depends who you are. I can personally play Animal Crossing and find it innovative and addictive. Like literally it will sap hours of my life away. This is because it's a fun and original experience. Yes there's no real goal or purpose to it, but you could argue that with something like WoW. Or COD4 online. Why do you play it? To get the top prestige? No you play it because its fun an addictive.

I just love the fact that Nintendo don't give a shit about trying to be cool and will consistently pursue new and different things in the quest for original gaming experiences that make you feel good. Who knows, Wii Music might actually be good! The new motion control development is an exciting one for future games, and even though we didn't see anything at E3, we know they are working on their major IPs.

Bit of a disjointed post. Basically in my opinion I get more satisfaction from unique, original and new gaming experiences. The rest of this year is going to be slow for Nintendo buy I'll continue to show them my support.

On another note, perhaps in new Mario games, "lives" could be like a kind of currency you buy things with. Like a 100 coins will get you a diamond or something and would let you unlock new stuff.

In Galaxy's defense I'm not sure having a certain amount of lives matters at all. Getting a game over does absolutely nothing, so nothing changes if you have as many as you want.

Nintendo is historically known for creating great games. Since the Wii came out, only a few games were decent for the matured gamer, the rest are a little too juvenile.

I will say that most Mario games have always been incredibly easy. You never lose as long as you keep grinding those green mushrooms ;)

With the recent announcement by Miyamoto that hardcore gamers aren't their main focus anymore; I can only hear the death knolls of a by-gone era. I shudder to think of what the new "games" will be. By shunning the devout crowds that constitute a large number of their revenue, Nintendo will only cripple itself as kind of a "Pop-Cap in a console" kind of thing. The Wii-gimmick I think is over, and since the library of games is a "cavalcade of mediocrity" (thanks, Yahtzee); there IS no game in nintendo anymore. sure there are some gems, like Twilight Princess, Brawl, or Galaxy; but even those are outdone by their predecessors from generations past. Anything else worth getting on the Wii is already out on a better console (ie Okami for PS2, Guitar Hero for 360, RE4 for PS2) and on and on.

It's no longer about "mature" games or juvenile things, I just want a freakin good game! I'm tired of FPS on 360 or grinding at my computer (not that there's anything wrong with it). I dust off my PS2 and N64 just to play Disgaea or OoT.

The Nintendo dynasty has come to an end. I'm calling it here, but I think the big N will revert to a Sega-esque role of game publishing within the next 2 generations.

if you are looking for a challenging mario game, you simply need to go dig out that old gamboy color/advance and get your copy of Super Mario land.

Those when the days when Nintendo understood the concept behind a game

Last time I checked, the dictionary definition of the word "game" was something along the lines of "an activity that induces amusement." Nowhere in the dictionary did I find any mention that "an activity that induces amusement" is limited to "running around in a grayish brown wasteland shooting everything in sight."

Where is it written that it's not a "real" game if it doesn't have violence, levels with bosses, and a horrendous difficulty curve? What law is on the books that says "Enjoying oneself when playing games that aren't designed for 'hardcore' players is a crime against gamers everywhere?"

ChaosDragon:
Anything else worth getting on the Wii is already out on a better console (ie Okami for PS2, Guitar Hero for 360, RE4 for PS2) and on and on.

Except the PS2 is not a better console than the Wii. What you mean to say is they're available on another console.

As for the topic, your definition of "game" is simply less flexible than Nintendo's. The overwhelming majority of games these days have grizzly space marines shooting monsters in levels with a boss at the end, with a cutscene before and after, the only differences being whether the space marine can see his feet or if numbers pop out of enemies when you hit them. But that's not necessarily true of all games, the same way all movies aren't romantic comedies. And not everyone plays for the challenge. Some people play for fun, and there are people who find it fun to play Wii Tennis with their kids, fetch presents for their friends and decorate their home in Animal Crossing, or wave the remote around to the music, or however Wii Music is supposed to work. And really, how is a cutscene of a nuclear bomb going off more of a tangible reward than listening to a KK song on a Saturday night? Hell, if we're going by games with a point then Wii Fit should be the best game ever, since it has an actual real life point, which most games don't.

Besides which, they are still catering to the hardcore, just less so: they didn't develop Metroid Prime, but they did publish it and could have cancelled it in favour of Wii Book Reader if they wanted. Same with Smash Bros. Brawl. Same with Geist and Eternal Darkness on the Gamecube. If a game is published by Nintendo then Nintendo are at least partly responsible for it coming out, even if they're not the ones who developed it, and Nintendo publishing a game means they are trying to cater to that game's target audience.

So hell, quit complaining. If you've got a Wii and aren't satisfied then start saving and trade it in towards an Xbox 360. You'll be reuinited with the girzzled space marine in no time.

The Nintendo dynasty has come to an end. I'm calling it here, but I think the big N will revert to a Sega-esque role of game publishing within the next 2 generations.

what's this?
isn't the wii mega succesful? console is outselling others everywhere and they're actually making profit with each one sold...
I think they'll be still in business longtime... just that the 'big N' as we know it has ended. Besides, NES & SNES was the real Nintendo dynasty. After that the Playstation 1 & 2 Sony dynasty. At the moment there isn't really one ruler

Surely it can-not be long until the gap between 'casual' and 'hard-core' (hate both those terms) becomes so vast that they effectively become 'Non-Competitive' and 'Competitive'.

Not every gamer is looking for competition, although it is something casuals are NOT looking for it seems. But at least 'story/immersion' is something else. At least that's what I'm looking for, and I'd like to call myself hardcore although I don't really care about competition.

tobyornottoby:

The Nintendo dynasty has come to an end. I'm calling it here, but I think the big N will revert to a Sega-esque role of game publishing within the next 2 generations.

what's this?
isn't the wii mega succesful? console is outselling others everywhere and they're actually making profit with each one sold...

Yeah, that confused me. The Wii hasn't just outsold the Gamecube, it's outsold the original Xbox, in less than half the time. Whether or not people in this thread like it, it's on its way to being the winner of this generation. The Wii sequel will have to be a pretty spectacular failure for Nintendo to end up as a third party developer.