Nintendo losing their Touch (Generations)?
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Jun 1st 2006 at 10:55PM }
If Nintendo's desires are realized, it won't be too long before the image of Grandpa hunching furiously over his DS Lite and murderously screaming "Blue" joins that of the bespectacled nerd in the ranks of uninformed gamer stereotypes. In an effort to reach out to those who would normally shy away from electronic devices and their confusing beeps and boops, several forthcoming and readily available DS games have recently been shoved under the Touch Generations banner. The range highlights Nintendo's popular "non-games", titles that are meant to be approachable by any person, regardless of their previous gaming experience.In North America, games like Nintendogs, Brain Age and Sudoku Gridmaster seem to gravitate towards the label quite naturally, but it seems that the selection differs significantly from that of other regions. Anthropomorphic neighbour sim, Animal Crossing: Wild World, slots right in with Electroplankton in Europe, but the choices of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney and Trauma Center: Under the Knife seem to fit in less comfortably. The latter two titles are far more traditional, with linear stories, clear conditions for success and failure and, in the case of Trauma Center especially, a more pronounced difficulty level that requires intricate stylus strokes--lest your patient's internal organs become reduced to a bloody mush (technical term). In other words, all the stuff that the mythical casual gamer doesn't want.
The Japanese selection is almost the exact opposite, filled with English trainers, dictionaries and travel guidebooks. If you looked up "game" in one of those dictionaries, you'd likely find a description far removed from most of these titles. It raises an interesting question, then: What constitutes a game that, according to Nintendo's mantra, anyone can pick up and play? Is it a game that almost exclusively relies on intuitive touch screen controls? Or is it something with simplistic gameplay mechanics? Perhaps it's not even a game at all. Nintendo's pretty clear about the kind of people they're chasing with the DS and the Wii, but things seem less vivid when it comes to matching specific games with specific audiences. With games being such unique and often personal experiences, it's doubtful that the line between hardcore and casual will ever become especially obvious.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Matthew @ Jun 1st 2006 11:17PM
"Hardcore" and "Casual" are overused words in my opinion. A hardcore gamer is someone who has a lot of interest "at the subject at hand", in this case, videogames. And because their interest is so high, they are going to play it alot. A casual gamer is simply someone who has "valid" interest in videogames, but they're thoughts are not almost always consumed by the videogames. Hardcore, or not. You either play videogames or you don't. The difference is in the varying levels of interest. I think videogames are far too "single-minded" at the moment, as Iwata from Nintendo says. It's true. The fact is, a "videogame" is interactive entertainment. Stop with this, it has to have a story, it has to be epic, there has to be an ending, blah, blah, blah... If that was so darn important, the videogame industry would be expanding and growing. It's not. I'm not saying those traits are not important, they are, but that's pretty much all we're getting. For now. But you know what, change is already in motion. I bet in the next 5 years, the industry will be quite different from the way it is now. And once this change starts to become a reality, we will come to realize that yeah, videogames used to be targeted for a very niche group of people. I hate the word "videogames." I want to hear "interactive entertainment" from now on.
Brian @ Jun 1st 2006 11:48PM
Matthew,
How about interactive art? Why can't videogames try to express some idea or emotion the same way a book or movie does?
I think the search for the casual gamer comes at expense to the people who have supported the industry for so long and we are forced to sort through mainstream (read: overly simplified and easy) titles to find true gems.
Look at New Super Mario Bros. I was really excited about this game but couldn't get into it because it as too simplistic and repetitive.
Although, these are just my opinions about the games I like to play. Everyone should do what they want and I want my gameplay to have a purpose, I want to care about why I do something. In Mario there is not real emotion behind the characters, I have no reason why I should save the princess except that I am told to. Compare this to Ico which told a beautifully emotional tale without any real story or a game like Oblivion where you can do anything.
Brody Brooks @ Jun 1st 2006 11:52PM
I applaud this step to clearly label games that are easy to pick up and play so that more lenient players (avoiding the words "hardcore" and "casual" here) know which games are going to prove their appeal quickly. There aren't a lot of games like that, if you compare them to the number of titles that try to put out engaging and drawn-out games.
My issue is the moniker "Touch Generations" as the label for these simpler games. Unless you're told what "Touch Generations" means, you're not going to understand what the label implies. If you're trying to reach out to the voluntarily gaming-deprived, it makes more sense to use a clear name.
But still, this label is a good step towards diffusing the line between gamers and non-gamers.
Raikage @ Jun 2nd 2006 12:18AM
Matthew: PERFECT! A *(that's a star) from me to you!
Video games is a horribly derogative term that needs to be done away with. Perhaps Joystiq can help us out *hint**hint*
First of all I believe vide.....Interactive Entertainment is far superior to any other entertainment medium not just because I like it, but because they are *Interactive* The industry has lost sight of the mainstream appeal through the complicated control. For example if you were with some friends and they had their motorcycles, wouldn't you want to ride one instead of watching them ride. It's the same concept between movies and games...I know I'd rather get a game than a DVD any day, more content, more variety, more fun.
With the controls being complicated the fun has diminished. Why do non(interactive entertaniees?) like Pac-Man and Mario...It's because these games were designed to be fun, not for more and nothing less. The DS has proved simple(er) controls doesn’t mean a bad *intertainment*(get it INTERactive enterTAINMENT(I need to copyright that)) experience and hopefully the Wii brings that thought to the masses. But I do believe that the 360 and PS3 have their place (the 4% of gamers who don't hate MS,...and the very wealthy for the later(jk (I have(sold)all last gen systems))) So Nintendo (in my eyes) is the only chance in the near future to confront the stigma of the art form formerly known as *video games*(gross)
P.S. I like these ()
The Raikage
Brad Lee @ Jun 2nd 2006 12:50AM
Matthew: I agree with you on everything except the 'interactive entertainment' idea. I also believe a storyline in video games is kind of pointless. I mean, I've only played a handfull of video games that have had competent storylines (in other words, aren't overly predictable or unintentionally corny). The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Metal Gear Solid (just the first one), Final Fantasy III (American 3), and Beyond Good and Evil. That's sad, considering how many games have storylines. The stories in video games just seems to be a poor way of piecing together the gameplay. As far as the 'interactive entertainment' idea, I would just feel like twice the nerd asking my friends "Hey, wanna go home and play some interactive entertainment?" However, it might be a good idea for Nintendo. The term 'video games' has too much negative stereotyping and the like to all non-gamers, and new terminology might help Nintendo attract new players. Hell, it sounds a lot better than 'Touch Generations.' Really, that just sounds kinda creepy when you think about it.
Number 2: I couldn't disagree with you more. I loved New Super Mario Brothers, in great part because it DIDN'T have a storyline. It didn't need one, it had fantastic gameplay with new challenges in each world. Adding a 'real' storyline would have just interrupted the gameplay. This game was meant to be old-school, before storylines became commonplace. It focused on gameplay, and I personally think it is all the better for it.
Brian @ Jun 2nd 2006 12:56AM
#5
I was referring to NewSMB's simplicity. I don't think story, per se is what games need. I think they need auteurs who can use video games as a way of expressing an idea or emotion.
Remember, every new medium has been thought inferior until someone proved otherwise. Film had Griffith, cmic books had Lee. Video games need someone to step up and make them what they could be.
Hey, could someone get Frank Miller or Neil Gaiman involved in a video game? Am I the only one whoes head would explode if that happened?
Brian @ Jun 2nd 2006 1:18AM
Put another way, gameplay is essential to a great game. However, I should also be given a reason to complete objectives beyond just playing the game, I should want to do things and care about whether or not they get done.
Probot @ Jun 2nd 2006 1:41AM
Regarding the post, I think this just goes to show that Nintendo is not trying to throw a one-size-fits-all campaign over every region. It's inconsistent, but no one besides the hardcore gamers (those not really targeted by the campaign) will notice.
#1, it's too late to change the term, I think. At least nothing that great has come up yet. Interactive Entertainment is too long. (Though Intertainment is kinda creative.) It'd have to be something short, like Veo.
That's of course assuming you don't think "games" is simple enough. There are those that don't consider video games as a new medium, but simply an extension of the existing category of games.
#5, while I won't deny you of your opinion, I personally, have enjoyed the story lines of more video games than movies. I'll admit, movies have never been my thing, but I find most of them to be overly predictable and boring. Even when I find a movie I enjoy, I can't watch it more than once or twice.
I won't say every game has a good plot, but I think most are passable, same as most movie plots are only passable. Very little of any medium is exceptional.
theLoneYoshi @ Jun 2nd 2006 1:47AM
Funny. I just came from a bonfire at one of my college's clubs, and one of the first things I saw there was a girl I don't expect to pick up a DS holding an Electric Blue DS sideways, and one of the other club members, who I also wouldn't expect to pick up a DS, went up to her taunting that he "has a brain age of 30." It surprised me that Nintendo really is reaching these "casual" gamers with their "non-game games".
GlitchCog @ Jun 2nd 2006 8:13AM
@ hunching Grandpa
It helps if you sort of say "blu-" without the exagerated "ew" on the end.
striderhayasa @ Jun 2nd 2006 8:43AM
@ Matthew, you've got a fan club building up there. I agree with you 100 percent.
My biggest problem with the hardcore/casual moniker is hardcore in this day and age means you play playstation games or xbox games. If it's not PS2 or PSP (or xbox and 360) then it's not hardcore. If it's not violent then it's not hardcore. I used to work with a guy that wasn't a gamer. But he bought a gamecube for his daughter and got hooked on Super Mario Sunshine. He's a casual gamer by definition but is MArio Sunchine a casual game? I don't think so. Trying to find all of the shine sprites is hard as hell at the worst of times. It's a test of ones patience at the best of times.
Look at the PSP. The library for it has be debated on Joystiq to death, for good or for ill. But one of the best games for the PSP is Lumines. How is that games defined? A "hardcore" casual game? Can puzzle games be hardcore? Of course not, you don't kill anything.
By Nintendo's definition, Animal Crossing could be defined as a casual game. The objectives are such that anyone can do them if they just put the time into it. I tried and got bored. My girlfriend loves it to death though and can't stop playing it. She is a gamer but has very specific tastes as far as what she likes to play. She thinks that Metroid Prime Hunters is awesome because of the level of quality throughout the title but she'll never play it.
I guess my point is everybody can't like everything. Hardcore has been used to validate one console over another, one game over another. Like Matthew said, if the industry is so great in it's present form then why isn't it expanding? It's like mentioning change is good to "hardcore" gamers and they all cry foul because they feel violated. It's the weirdest thing because it's almost like "fun" is not in the equation anymore. I had a guy tell me that Metroid Prime Hunters can't be good because it's made by Nintendo but Coded Arms is great because it's on PSP. "New Super Mario bros can't be fun because it's on DS." "GTA is the greatest because you can shoot people in an urban setting and jack cars and beat up hookers." "I can't play the the new Xmen game because there's no blood in it." The new standard..."it's not hardcore unless it's in hiDef." Why does hardcore seem to associate itself with fanboy stupidity so often.?
Unimental @ Jun 2nd 2006 8:54AM
Given the multiple uses of "hardcore" in the comments, can we please start referring to casual gamers as "softcore" players?
Please?
Prof-KOS @ Jun 2nd 2006 8:58AM
Great post. I think this is a serious issue if the industry is to grow to encompass more than just the 18-25 male core market that exists now. Sure there are players outside of this demographic, but it's hard to argue that the bulk can't still be found there. I've always felt that a 'game' is anything that provides entertainment through interaction. To this degree math, science, or even a book can be a game depending on the person who is interacting with it. The stagnation we've seen over recent years in Interactive Entertainment (nod to Matthew) comes partly as a result of trying to define genres and games too definitively. Kudos to Nintendo for seeing the value in an Elektroplankton, Nintendogs or Brain Age. They are succeeding in expanding the market. By offering software that doesn't fall into the accepted definitions of video games they have brought non-traditional buyers into the market. It is on thing to spout off about 'Disruptive Marketing' but having the cahones to do it is imppressive. Being able to succed at it is something that every person in the industry should be thankful for.
Why do all 3 console manufacturers have to compete directly with each other. We fall into this trap everywhere. We all spout off about the benefits of one console over another, but the truth of the matter is that people who desire to own a PS3 or Xbox 360 primarily want something different than someone who is looking forward to a Wii. There are doubtless many that want both. There is no real basis for competition between the two. Microsoft has realized this and are promoting the Wii almost as a peripheral to the Xbox 360. Hell, there are many commenters here that are calling the combo a Wii60 or some other variant. This is an intelligent move on Microsoft's part. They don't have to offer motion control, they can offer the Wii for that while providing the Hi-Def gaming that the Wii can't. I suspect that at some point in time there may even be some interconnectivity between the two (through your PC, maybe). Sony may attempt to counter this with something of their own as well.
Returning to games; I feel that there is a place for simple pick up and play games as well as long epic games. Even Nintendo (the bastion of simple games) realizes this with in-depth games like Zelda and Metroid. While offering with their other hand party games like WarioWare, Mario Party and Wii Sports. Just because the industry has been stagnant doesn't mean that we should scrap the whole thing. The idea is to expand the market and introduce games that defy the established genres as well as fill them.
Prof-KOS @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:01AM
Holy marathon post, I didn't expect that kind of length.
By the way, I laughed like hell at "Grandpa hunching furiously over his DS Lite and murderously screaming "Blue"". I almost through my DS across the room once when my Brain Age must have raised by 20 years because of that damn colour.
David D @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:55AM
Just a quick little thing about the Trauma Center comment. My parents bought me that for Christmas, and after watching me play for twenty minutes my dad asked me if he could try it out. He then spent the next two hours on the couch making farther progress than I did.
Under the Knife is difficult, but come on, the "non-gamers" aren't stupid. The rules are readily apparent, everything is explained, and unlike other games you don't have to memorize crazy button combinations or move around with joysticks. There's hardly a game like it, and that alone gives much of its difficulty. So even though I've been gaming since the good ol' NES, Trauma Center reduced me to a newb...which was exactly where my dad was starting out.
Gonzo @ Jun 2nd 2006 9:59AM
It's too late.
These things will all be called video games for a while to come. Sure some geeks will insist on calling some "applications" or whatever but most will refer to them as video games, which I don't think is necessarily inapproriate.
Of course (as soon as they started coming out) within the VG realm we already have terms for the particular type from the classic action and sports games to the more recent sim and mmorpg.
So they're video games, I don't think it should deterr anyone.
By the way it helps me if I say "ba-loo" like the character from Jungle Book. Making it 2 sylables slows my score though. I know it does.
Vegetable @ Jun 2nd 2006 11:07AM
While Nintendo is supposingly losing its touch with the casual gamer, Sony is drawing them in with the PSP, because it's aimed for them, right?
Look at the sales figures before you write an article that makes little sense.
intel @ Jun 2nd 2006 11:17AM
How about a class for kids: Introduction to Computer Games
john wood @ Jun 2nd 2006 11:52AM
guys/gals we didnt ask for a lecture
Rootbeer @ Jun 2nd 2006 1:32PM
"I should also be given a reason to complete objectives beyond just playing the game, I should want to do things and care about whether or not they get done."
New Super Mario Bros meets those criteria, in my opinion. Why do I care if I make it to the flagpole in level 1-1? Because if I don't, then I can't move on to explore level 1-2. If I don't find the secret exit in the tower, then I can't unlock the Warp Cannon to World 5.
What would an SMB game that DID make you care enough about completing objectives be like, I wonder? Would there be a M. Night Shyalaman-esqe twist in the cutscene at the end of each world? Will we ever find out whether Bowser Jr. is related to Iggy, Ludwig, Wendy O. and the rest of the Koopa Kids? Is Pauline jealous that Mario never has any time to spend with her because he's always hanging out with that Princess Peach tramp?
Ludwig Kietzmann @ Jun 2nd 2006 1:42PM
Vegetable, read the post before you make a comment that makes little sense. ;)
Some interesting discussion emerging here. David D - I wasn't implying that casual gamers were stupid, merely that a game like Trauma Center is much stricter when it comes to winning and losing, especially when compared to something like Nintendogs.
GTgamer @ Jun 2nd 2006 1:44PM
"Video games is a horribly derogative term that needs to be done away with."
You've got to be kidding me? Derogatory?! VIDEO (played on a television or other image display device) GAME (a contest with a given set of rules). There's nothing wrong with the term at all, the only issue would be with some people's perception of the social placing of video games.
...and in response to Brian's suggestion that games should strive to become more of an emotional artform as a whole with an emotionally driven story or goals...NO! I don't mind games here and there that try to take themselves seriously (though I don't really play them very often nor care), but I also don't think what's hindering the games industry is a lack of games focused on pulling on the heart strings. During the video/arcade game "boom" of the 80's, it wasn't a deep story line that had stock brokers and secretaries dropping quarters into Pac Man machines or throwing down in Tetris.
Probot @ Jun 2nd 2006 3:09PM
I think the terms hardcore and casual mean different things to different people. To me, it's always been a matter of how much or how often you play, irrelavent of the type of game.
If you're into long games or play games often, then the best term would be hardcore. If you pick up and play a game here or there, you're non-hardcore gamer. If you play casual games, e.g. on pogo.com or similar sites, I'd say you're a casual gamer. If you don't play games at all, then you're a non-gamer.
This is all over simplification, like all labels, so it's not to be taken very literally. But if you want a breakdown of the different classes of gamers, that's how I often see those particular words used.
We all have to remember one thing: we're discussing a marketing campaign. The argument about what consitutes a game or not, while valid, doesn't really figure much into what Nintendo is thinking. They're looking at the statistics and demographics and deciding what label to put on what games in order to increase sales.
For me, the concept of Touch Generations is simple. It encompasses games that "touch" multiple generations, i.e. they aren't focused on any one age demographic, and the double meaning is that the games also rely heavily on the touch screen of the DS.
Prof-KOS @ Jun 2nd 2006 3:51PM
Well said Probot. The plan that Nintendo has put forth is a sound one. Same with the Wii. So often people have been saying that since Nintendo wants to focus on the casual and non-gamers that they will forget the Hardcore fans. Not likely. There will still be games for the rest of us AS WELL as games for expanding the market.
mrBucket @ Jun 2nd 2006 10:29PM
I have played a lot of rpgs in the past and I can honestly say that gameplay is the most important aspect of any game. That’s why I quit playing rpgs there just to hard to get into. The storys are good and all but there not as timeless as gameplay. Tell me how many times you beat an rpg than look at how many times you beat Mario. Or tell me which is more fun FFX or Smash brothers. If I want a story for now on I just read a book