Nintendo's Ungaming

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

AceDiamond:

WanderFreak:
*Preface: I consider myself a "hardcore" gamer, and my post reflects this POV*

Sorry I stopped listening to you because you started using those labels. Labels which I am sick of and serve only to further the image of gamers as misanthropic people with social problems and only try to compare the size of their e-boners. Apparently you can only game if you "earn it". And that you shouldn't try at all or be helped by anything. I suspect you've used cheat codes and strategy guides before, I would be pleasantly surprised if you didn't. I've played games for 19 years, and I don't act like an elitist up my own ass with delusions. Gaming should be accessible to all who wish to play, not just those of us who spent countless hours playing just to get an achievement that ultimately means nothing in the grand scheme of things, or those of us who only think FPS's belong on a certain platform, or those of us who think PC gaming is the alpha and the omega of all gaming.

Time for more reiteration as I drag this back on topic. This "feature" or "bane of existence" or whatever you want to call it is optional and if affects nobody here, least of all anybody who professes to be "hardcore". I do not fear something optional destroying gaming as we know it. And if you are afraid, then I believe it's because you're afraid you might use it.

This is basically how I felt from the beginning, minus the "I've been gaming for 19 years" thing, that's longer than I've been alive :)

But yeah, this whole notion of how the "casual" are apparently going to destroy the "hardcore" is just wearing so thin. Why does everything need to be Us Vs Them?

HobbesMkii:
When I was a kid, not so long ago, we had these things called "difficulty settings." They ranged from "Easy" which was often the easiest setting, and would give you lots of ammo, or health, or lives, or reduce the number of enemies, or types of enemies, or how much damage they did, etc. etc. to "Very Hard" which was often the most difficult setting, and basically did the opposite of "Easy."

And see, if you played a game, and you weren't getting very far, you could go down a difficulty setting, which would make the game easier to play.

That, however, ignores one of the problems pointed out. Look at the basketball analogy on the second page, and watch the video he links to there. The problem is that difficulty levels only make things easier for those who have some idea what they're doing, the "hardcore" (god I hate that term), if you will. If I can't figure out the timing for this jump, or figure out that bosses Achilles' Heel, it doesn't make a difference whether I have 3 lives or 5. This tutorial program might not be the correct response, but at least they're acknowledging that there is a problem.

randommaster:

WanderFreak:
*Preface: I consider myself a "hardcore" gamer, and my post reflects this POV*

I use the old tidbit: give a man a fish, he's fed for a day. Teach a man to fish, he's fed for the rest of his life.

The "hardcores" earn their beaten games. They earn their achievements, their K:D ratios, their bragging rights. They have mastered the double jump, the spin drift, the headshot. They have put time and effort into perfecting their skills, mastering levels, memorizing spawns, shaving nanoseconds off of times. They have INVESTED in the games in a way that most people don't.

This is the equivalent of putting an untrained driver in Nascar and letting him push a button that lets the car drive itself, while everyone else is fighting their way through it. Then when he crosses the finish line first, saying he won fair and square. What this does is furthers the gap between the hardcore (who will damn well grind their way though anything) and the casual (who can now just sit back and let the game beat itself and feel proud of having beaten it).

But more so, why even bother playing these games? I mean really, if the game literally plays itself why are you going to spend $50 or $60 or more on something you are going to not even bother playing yourself? But then if there are people out there willing to shell out videogame dollars for glorified DVDs, I guess Nintendo has already won this round.

A big problem with this argument, though, is that people don't get satisfaction from watching something happen if they are not a part of it. People don't feel proud that they watched an entire movie because they didn't do anything. What people will feel like after watching a game beat itself is "so that's what the ending is." I think haze had a level skip feature, but nobody heralded that as the death of gaming. The demo mode won't make people feel accomplished, it will just make them bored.

Hacking.

Go to any Counter Strike (or whatever FPS title) and try to pitch that same theory. People will feel pride for having "beaten" the game for the same reason that hackers enjoy racking-up a large number of headshots. Neither person has actually played the game, but both people are beating the game, and outside of the hacker eventually getting banned from the server, no one can tell him that he isn't beating it, just look at his K/D ratio.

Gamers dislike this new feature Nintendo is announcing for the same reason they tend to dislike when there are hacks and cheats available for the game: Because it cheapens their ability to say "I beat this game", because it quickly comes with any number of counter-arguments about methods of which they could have made that easier on themselves. As the days go on and on, beating a game is more of a personal victory that only you really get to celebrate. Bragging rights are basically a thing of the past, and this new "Demo Mode" feature just takes it away from gamers even more.

"Hey, I just beat that new Mario game and got all the stars!"
"Yeah? Who hasn't?"

:/

WhiteTigerShiro:

randommaster:

WanderFreak:
*Preface: I consider myself a "hardcore" gamer, and my post reflects this POV*

I use the old tidbit: give a man a fish, he's fed for a day. Teach a man to fish, he's fed for the rest of his life.

The "hardcores" earn their beaten games. They earn their achievements, their K:D ratios, their bragging rights. They have mastered the double jump, the spin drift, the headshot. They have put time and effort into perfecting their skills, mastering levels, memorizing spawns, shaving nanoseconds off of times. They have INVESTED in the games in a way that most people don't.

This is the equivalent of putting an untrained driver in Nascar and letting him push a button that lets the car drive itself, while everyone else is fighting their way through it. Then when he crosses the finish line first, saying he won fair and square. What this does is furthers the gap between the hardcore (who will damn well grind their way though anything) and the casual (who can now just sit back and let the game beat itself and feel proud of having beaten it).

But more so, why even bother playing these games? I mean really, if the game literally plays itself why are you going to spend $50 or $60 or more on something you are going to not even bother playing yourself? But then if there are people out there willing to shell out videogame dollars for glorified DVDs, I guess Nintendo has already won this round.

A big problem with this argument, though, is that people don't get satisfaction from watching something happen if they are not a part of it. People don't feel proud that they watched an entire movie because they didn't do anything. What people will feel like after watching a game beat itself is "so that's what the ending is." I think haze had a level skip feature, but nobody heralded that as the death of gaming. The demo mode won't make people feel accomplished, it will just make them bored.

Hacking.

Go to any Counter Strike (or whatever FPS title) and try to pitch that same theory. People will feel pride for having "beaten" the game for the same reason that hackers enjoy racking-up a large number of headshots. Neither person has actually played the game, but both people are beating the game, and outside of the hacker eventually getting banned from the server, no one can tell him that he isn't beating it, just look at his K/D ratio.

Gamers dislike this new feature Nintendo is announcing for the same reason they tend to dislike when there are hacks and cheats available for the game: Because it cheapens their ability to say "I beat this game", because it quickly comes with any number of counter-arguments about methods of which they could have made that easier on themselves. As the days go on and on, beating a game is more of a personal victory that only you really get to celebrate. Bragging rights are basically a thing of the past, and this new "Demo Mode" feature just takes it away from gamers even more.

"Hey, I just beat that new Mario game and got all the stars!"
"Yeah? Who hasn't?"

:/

I somehow think that online hackers do it more to ruin others' experiences (think a troll, but not on a forum) than for a feeling of accomplishment. Alternatively, it could be to show off their "1337 h4x0r 5ki115", but even then, it's showing off their ability to hack rather than their inability to play.

Could people stop complaining about this? If you don't want to use it, you don't have to.

orannis62:
I somehow think that online hackers do it more to ruin others' experiences (think a troll, but not on a forum) than for a feeling of accomplishment. Alternatively, it could be to show off their "1337 h4x0r 5ki115", but even then, it's showing off their ability to hack rather than their inability to play.

I'm sure that for every hacker who's doing it for troll-level reasons, you have just as many who do it because they want to round corners and pop-off easy headshots without having to go through the hassle of learning how to aim properly. The "casual" gamer is generally a beast who wants instant satisfaction. He doesn't want to have to work towards being good at the game he has fun playing, so if he knows of a program he can download that makes him "good", then he'll do it so he can focus more on just running around and shooting.

Just as long as they allow us to turn it off, and as long as they don't include any of those damn Windows Vista reminders of asking 'Do you want to have the AI make you feel inferior?' every five minutes, I don't really care.

Bit of a prick move on nintendo's part, though.

Like so many have said here, the feature will be optional and you won't have to use it. And like someone else said, we don't even know the specifics of this feature yet so it's silly to jump to conclusions. And yet no one has quoted these two facts posted here, instead choosing to ramble on about how it cheapens hardcore games for casual gamers, etc.

HobbesMkii:
I guess the best way to illustrate my point is to relate an apocryphal story about the early days of space exploration:

When NASA was confronted about the difficulties that zero gravity would create in terms of writing utensils, they immediately put American gung-ho innovation to work. They spent a million dollars to create a pen that would not write upside down, but also in the vacuum of space. The result is the absolute pinnacle of writing utensil technology. They were assured of having no problems when it came to writing beyond the pull of Earth's gravity.

The Soviets, on the other hand, not having a million bucks to blow on pen design, promptly switched from pens to pencils.

Graphite gets into the instruments, particularly in zero-gravity conditions where small fragments of the graphite will float around uninhibited. Graphite is also a good conductor of electricity, causing potential short-circuits, messing up your expensive space mission.

Nintendo's Ungaming is good news for everyone.

1. casuals gamers now enjoy the demo mode, because playing the game is too hard for them
2. demo mode will ensure casual gamers will always remain casual and unskilled, so the hardcore crowd will always have a dog to scoff at
3. the patent will isolate the casuals on Nintendo consoles, while the other consoles will have to continue to cater to gamers.

An easier solution would've been to include more checkpoints. Or in Prince of Persia terms: if you mess it up, you get teleported back to right before the challenge you had failed.

Prinny: Can I Really Be The Hero? was a terribly hard game, yet it doesn't punish you THAT hard. You've got 1000 lives to start with (and you really need to try your best to lose all of them), but are incredibly vulnerable.
The game is ridiculously hard in the later levels, BUT there's checkpoints past every 2-3 "chokepoints", which kept the flow going. The big exception is the final boss, which is so damn hard, I never even got to beat him. You're basically forced to spam the attack button, taking down literally 1/750th of his health per hit, since he has NO weaknesses AT ALL. But anything before that, was done really well.
The game even offered a 'soft reset' option, which lets you save your points, but restart the game progress if you'd like to try a different level order (you can pick any level you want right from the start, and once you finish a level, the game ends up an hour later. The later it is in the world, the more dangerous the areas become).

I'd love to see more games executed like this. It can keep the "hardcore" challenge, yet is open for new gamers.

Yeah cause every gamer has sub 20 m/s reflex response times & implicitly understands the design & game mechanism integral to the game. Or more likely the above is total bullshit.

No one enjoys spending 6 days trying to get past a level only to discover they were to use the undocumented double duck jump. From personal experience the first secret in Return to Castle Wolfenstein if you accidentally graze the chair in anyway this includes shootin the guy with the machine gun & his body falls near the chair, the secret cant be reached.

Again with Castle Wolfenstein the first boss ? The only realistic way to kill him was blowing up the innocous gas cyclinders near him. The gas cyclinders the same colours as the walls & the one exploding gas cyclinders in the game ?

Many games have ridicolously steep difficulty curves for no reason other than to extend the length of the game (*cough* Call of Duty 4 : MW *cough* Bloody Ferris wheel *cough*) So why would NORMAL players want an option to skip the bollocksy piss poor design 'nerdco... erm hardcore' fanbois think is 'hard'. Difficulty is very hard to balance but it doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out random deaths are not skill based. Insta death challenges that require movement that isnt standard to play until that point is the game designer being a dick. The most current example being the Prototype fight with the specialist, where in our free running proitagonist is dropped into a small room & then 'lased' the best method to avoid this is dashing to the right or left, a technique you wont use commonly until AFTER this when fighting the Apache choppers.

Also aside from this rant, I assume no one has ever heard of walkthru ?

HobbesMkii:
When I was a kid, not so long ago, we had these things called "difficulty settings." They ranged from "Easy" which was often the easiest setting, and would give you lots of ammo, or health, or lives, or reduce the number of enemies, or types of enemies, or how much damage they did, etc. etc. to "Very Hard" which was often the most difficult setting, and basically did the opposite of "Easy."

And see, if you played a game, and you weren't getting very far, you could go down a difficulty setting, which would make the game easier to play.

/snip

Indeed have you noticed that difficulty level means even less these days :(. The AI doesnt change at all just a damage modifier (*see COD4:MW, frikken ferris wheel). But theres a fatal flaw in the argument. Play The Hobbit up until the Troll section. Theres a sneak challenge attached to a timer with a very very very very narrow success window. So narrow in fact I only know one person whos succeeded & they did it by luck. Doesnt matter what difficulty its on (I dont evn think it has a difficulty) its too much for a normal person to do.

On a side note its a really good game ;D

Thank you for realizing this complete patent abuse here! Nintendo is overhyping this thing way too much as there have been plenty of games with a sort of "demo mode" to it to keep it from getting too hard. Them patenting the thing only makes it worse for games that do something similar in the future, and it's much too simple to even need a patent.

I do agree with alot of the things you've said in this, that it's only delaying the problem or changing it entirely. If we want "casuals" to become "hardcore" or something inbetween this, we shouldn't hand them off a game that can essentially play itself. People abuse help, I've done it tones of times with walkthroughs and cheats for games.

To make "casuals" into "hardcore" we have to gradually make them into one, not assume that they're retards who can't figure out where the jump button is. Unfortunately, most developers thing "stupid" when they think "casuals" and so they make everything dumbed down for them, which is not how we want to introduce them to games (though to be honest, I don't know exactly how to introduce them either).

I don't think its the best way to make things easier but its no skin off my nose as I wont be using it (I'd have to buy a wii first)

I feel games should be difficult. I'm 29 and have been gaming longer than most gamers have been alive. I beat most games I play unless I get bored (GTA4, Fable 2, yawn). The last game I got stuck on was Ninja Gaiden on the xbox.

The Dragon in the lava pit. I couldnt figure his attack pattern for love nor money. Re did the fight a tonne of times. The answer? put on my fire ball shield, jumped in the lava and pain war'd him to death. Think outside of the box.

Games are getting easier and easier. Teenagers now have never played a difficult game. They're designed so anyone with at least one thumb can finish them. Difficulty settings can help but there is an audience that wants that hardcore experience. Its why I ground out CoD4 on the hardest setting. Not my crowning achievement but it kept me entertained for a while.

The best recent example of this balancee between HC and casual was the original Guitar hero. It was new to most gamers, you couldnt rely on your years of playing contra/thunderforce/street fighter to help. You started on medium (or easy if you had no coordination through inner ear damage) and worked your way up to expert. The transition to 5 buttons was painful but you worked through it.

Its still accessable (your grandma can play with just 3 frets and 20 notes a song) but it has the hardcore 5 fret, carple tunnel inducing, difficulty if you want it. Win win, everyones happy.

Jumplion:
To make "casuals" into "hardcore" we have to gradually make them into one, not assume that they're retards who can't figure out where the jump button is. Unfortunately, most developers thing "stupid" when they think "casuals" and so they make everything dumbed down for them, which is not how we want to introduce them to games (though to be honest, I don't know exactly how to introduce them either).

The only way a casual gamer turns into a hardcore gamer is through perseverance i.e. his will to become better. It's just that the average casual gamer wants some simple, fast fun. They don't want to invest a lot of time figuring out the controls/ gameplay. They don't want to grind...don't want to train. They want their fun to be effortless. Their satisfaction instantaneous. It's all about instant gratification.

Although the transition from casual to hardcore is not obligatory (it's a choice)... casual gamers should be encouraged to 'ascend' for they are the majority and the gaming industry is a business in the end.

How to encourage them? Invite your casual friends to your house for a 'hardcore' evening/ night. Play some co-op games, go online...explain stuff...be patient..serve food and beverages. Basically you should 'convert' them :).

Shame on you Nitendo, shame on you.

This definitely brings a new meaning to wii-tard. (nothing against wii owners)

I think nintendo need to wizen up and stop stabbing non-casual gamers in the back and attempt to bring back the old ways.

Are they trying to make themselves outmoded and obsolete?

Manji187:

Jumplion:
To make "casuals" into "hardcore" we have to gradually make them into one, not assume that they're retards who can't figure out where the jump button is. Unfortunately, most developers thing "stupid" when they think "casuals" and so they make everything dumbed down for them, which is not how we want to introduce them to games (though to be honest, I don't know exactly how to introduce them either).

The only way a casual gamer turns into a hardcore gamer is through perseverance i.e. his will to become better. It's just that the average casual gamer wants some simple, fast fun. They don't want to invest a lot of time figuring out the controls/ gameplay. They don't want to grind...don't want to train. They want their fun to be effortless. Their satisfaction instantaneous. It's all about instant gratification.

Although the transition from casual to hardcore is not obligatory (it's a choice)... casual gamers should be encouraged to 'ascend' for they are the majority and the gaming industry is a business in the end.

How to encourage them? Invite your casual friends to your house for a 'hardcore' evening/ night. Play some co-op games, go online...explain stuff...be patient..serve food and beverages. Basically you should 'convert' them :).

Basically, yes, you're right. I won't deny this new (patent-abusing) technology won't possibly help encourage "casuals" to "hardcore", but I am very doubtful of it.

Super Mario Bros. definately turned "casuals" into "hardcore" gamers and it didn't need some sort of auto-play to make those gamers (technology like that being available at the time, notwithstanding), it was simple and fun and gave you achievment.

All you hvae to do is make a similar game that's simple and easy to play, but at the same time challenges you to "save the princess" or something. What companies like Nintendo, Activision, THQ, EA, and countless others assume with "casual" gamers that they need their hand held the entire way. In other words, "casuals" to them means "stupid" or "retarded". This is not what "casuals" are at all and it pains me to see some developer trying to make a controll method or something that's "both for the hardcore and the casuals!" when it boils down to them using 1-3 button combat (though that can be "hardcore" or something).

With this technology, Nintendo basically confirms that they think "casual" gamers are stupid. Such a simple concept, used in various other games, shouldn't have to be patented at all and yet Nintendo is doing it saying "it's a new revolution in gaming!" or something. You don't need to patent something this simple, you just need to use something like it in the damn game!

Not to mention that with this in place, this means that no other developer could either use this system on the damn Wii because Nintendo owns it and now nobody can do something similar because of the patent.

I'll admit, I'm probably overblowing this rather out of proportion, but it's really annoying when I see companies pull this "for the casuals!" bullshit.

redmarine:

hagaya:

redmarine:
Why ain't I surprised? Seems like Nintendo will make playing games absolute in the long run.

Are you saying that Nintendo is making gaming perfect? If not, look up the word absolute because I think you're looking for obsolete.

I was wondering why it sounded so odd. Thanks.

Anytime. I love being a constructive jackass.

RAKtheUndead:

Graphite gets into the instruments, particularly in zero-gravity conditions where small fragments of the graphite will float around uninhibited. Graphite is also a good conductor of electricity, causing potential short-circuits, messing up your expensive space mission.

Jeez, I'm having to defend my statements in this thread more than I have anywhere else. Let me direct your attention to a key word I used in the sentence before I started the story:

HobbesMkii:
I guess the best way to illustrate my point is to relate an apocryphal story about the early days of space exploration...

I'm aware of the actual dire necessity for inventing the space pen, and it's use. Just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean it's not a good folktale with a good message. I mean, I know elephants didn't get long trunks by crocodiles grabbing their noses and stretching them out, but I never called Rudyard Kipling out on it. I enjoyed the story. But cheers for ruining a good story with the truth.

This actually might work, if they would use it as a sort of in-game walkthrough instead of using it to actually play the game.
Think about it; someone hasn't got the "skills" to beat that boss or make that jump all by themself, but after they see what they ought to do, it's that much easier to finally succeed.

BTW,

Tales of Symphonia had a system that offered various levels of automation so the player could decide how much or how little they wanted to be involved with the twitchy gameplay elements.

Is it just me who thinks that description also fits EA's FIFA games?

Hah, why am I not surprised to see these responses? This is an idea for something OPTIONAL that you DON'T HAVE TO DO and people are taking it as reasons not to buy a games console.

Elitists. Says it all, really

I totally agree with this article. Watching someone beating a difficult part of a game does not constitute for beating it yourself. No matter how good the computer is at game, the "newbies" will never get good without actually playing the game and learn what they fail at. Nintendo's patenting this automated playing device is just despicable to me.

Easy Medium Hard nuff said. Super Mario Bros was the first game I ever played me and a buddy spent an entire day beating that little devil and I will never forget that moment. It actually makes me sad that kids wont feel that accomplishment and that kids now have another way to be lazy. I would be pissed if I shelled out 150 bucks for a console then 60 for a game and my kid just got to sit back and watch the thing play itself.

Oh my god this may be the dumbest game-related thing I've ever heard. I hadn't heard of this until now and I really wish I hadn't. I have to agree with Seamus on this. Why the hell would anyone want this feature? Not only does it defeat the purpose of playing a video game in the first place, but where's the satisfaction? If I were unable to beat a game and then suddenly the game beat itself for me, there's no sense of achievement there. If the player can't do something for themselves, then there's no point in doing it. Plus, imagine someone new to games playing some exceptionally difficult Nintendo creation. Finally they go "fuck this" and let the stage complete itself. Are they going to be thinking, "Yay, now that I'm past that part let's move on to the rest of this exciting diversion!"? No. The most likely train of thought will be something along the lines of "If the game plays itself, why am I sitting here wasting my time playing something too hard for me anyway?" This will not work and repel more people than it attracts.

Not a big deal Realy. I mean unless YOU ARE GOING TO USE IT its not going to effect how you play the game.

LimaBravo:

Indeed have you noticed that difficulty level means even less these days :(. The AI doesnt change at all just a damage modifier (*see COD4:MW, frikken ferris wheel).

I hear that.

That map wasn't difficult.

It was unfair.

Or rather, still is. 40 attempts and counting. Closest one was dying on the fecking entrace platform to the damned chopper. I almost started cutting myself.

Yeah but you see with things like tales of Symphonia you never really WANTED to put the game on auto for the battles as the immersion was half the job with the RPG elements, shoving this into the undubidably fustrating mario platformer formula is just asking for it, it'll be abused and everyone will quickly get bored. Hell with Tales 4 of my friends alternated controlling the different characters and we had a blast taking the piss out of every character while mashing buttons with the battles. And hell the Symphonia battle system was smooth and fun and it knew it... Still have nightmares of my friend jason cackling with glee each time he refused Raine's healing my way. Bastard.

I remain steadfast in my belief that this idea is so bad it borders on the patronizing.
My little brother can at least complete a few levels in the old Sonic 2D games... and If I'm remembering correctly my mum used to have Warioland on the gameboy and would spend hours completeing each level... Nintendo you really don't have to stoop this low...really...the casual gamers are going to leave you eventually I'm sorry...it's like some desperate plea in the form of an embaressing dance.

Hey hey! Look look, it can play ITSELF now! Look!

I wouldnt care about whatever nintendo does simple because I dont give them my money. But it just seems to me that they are taking something out of videogames with this idea. And that something is a Sense of accomplishment. When my roommate and I beat Halo 2 on legendary with skulls on. We were so proud of ourselves we had a party.

Personally I think its a dumb idea. Why would anyone buy a game they dont have to play? They might as well buy a movie. they are like a 1/4th of the price. Anyway im used to nintendo throwing all its money into gimmicks that people buy then instantly regret. Im just waiting for that day when they make a sonic game that noone will buy.

In short, its a shit idea.

No I do not think that watching Miles Davis Play will make you a trumpet player, but from a lot of Jazz experiences and history watching and listening to jazz will make you a better player faster than doing it by yourself.

And a lot of the greats really did just that.

I think the DEMO mode refers to the GBA sp version of super mario bro. 3 where you could watch them beat a level and then try it yourself.

I've noticed an underlying notion in this thread that "Hardcore", videogame-wise, partially means complicated over-buttoned controls. Even though a couple of decades ago, there were barely more than two buttons, and games still managed to be a hell of a lot harder and (far more importantly) stimulating than they are today.

I do agree with the point of the article, this idea from Nintendo does defeat itself, specially because by giving the player the option to give up interactivity (the defining element of videogames as an artform) in order to watch the game being played by itself.

Although I've always enjoyed the demos playing when the games weren't started, speedruns, superplays and generally other people playing, the possibility of seeing the concept of the Full Motion Videos being given a further step does not particularly pleases me.

I don't think it's a great solution or even a solution at all, but still it's better to experiment with a potencial bad idea than not experimenting at all, if it means possibly arriving at some future and proper means of attracting non-gamers and ending this asinine Hardcore/Casual dichotomy.

On a final note, can no one think of a good thing that might come out of it? Something about machinimas sprung in my mind, but I wanna sleep so bad I'm almost zombiefied. Good night.

manicfoot:
Its optional and won't affect 'teh hardcorez' lives in any way. I absolutely suck at Zelda puzzles. If this feature will show me how to do them IF I get stuck then I'm all for it. Just means I won't have to go to gamefaqs.

And the voice of reason resounds over the battlefield. Not like many will care. If its an optional feature, and wont harm them in any way, the hardcore gamers will still bitch about it.

When I was younger, and just getting into gaming, I sucked at everything. Zelda, Mario, Sonic, you name it, I could not do it. I would sit and watch my friend play, slowly learning the how to properly partake of this new hobby. How is this any different from a demo mode that simply shows people the basics of how to proceed, without saving progress? They still have to do it themselves. I see no harm in providing some help for the little leaguers.

Regardless of what it does for the player, its opening a dodgy door for the developer. A bias of graphics over playabilty has long been gripe of the gaming community, and in using a mode where the only stimulation for the user comes from (what will now HAVE to be) eye candy visuals, Nintendo, and others (foolish enough to pay the patent I guess) will have a seemingly legitimate excuse to focus on graphical strengths.

Whats the line? In Soviet Russia, games play you? Guess doing smack ain't gonna affect your high scores anymore...

While i struggle to see why an on-screen prompt or two and an easy mode wouldnt suffice i have to say that you shamus seem to have missed the point of nintendo's system -

Yes watching the computer play their game for a bit wont transform them into a gamer like the rest of us what it will do is open them up to ideas they havnt thought of before. -

The amount of times i could have done with something like this in my gaming infancy is staggering - like in prince of persia for PS2 (or argueably the original but i never actually completed that... or got close), i was absolutely fine upto a garden level somewhere in the middle when i hadnt quite figured out the intracies of jumping off ropes and i was stuck absolutely for ages, and ages and ages when i really shouldnt have been. All those failures at the rope jump didnt make me a better gamer, i had flown through the rest of the game, i was just missing that little petty solution.

Hell even recently i could have used it - valkyria chronicles, final boss, I knew i had to shoot the obivous weakspots but i didnt realise it was feasible to take down these metal targets with normal gunfire because they had no glowing plate like the tanks did to show they were weak - i spent ages trying to get my sodding USELESS second tank to hit its damn marks and it wouldnt, or would and gave me all of one turn to shoot said boss before the inevitable full-heal. I'm not a better gamer because i thought to use my sniper, it was just a silly confusion that should never have been a problem in the first place.

Consider that i've been gaming for years, for new gamers, especially adults these sort of things will crop up all the time, they're not stupid, so let them have their nudge in the right direction and let them use it as such.

... That said, for grinding through boring parts on 2nd playthroughs i'd love something like this.

This is why Easy, normal and hard modes wher introduced. Nintendo have gone and made a 'Cba' difficulty mode, it sucks balls.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here