-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
August 2008 NPD Results
- Thread starter sonycowboy
- Start date
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
Edit: Reading Comprehension ftl. Ignore this post.
Eteric Rice
Member
WrikaWrek said:
Who said anything about locking the thread?
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
WrikaWrek said:
You heard it here, people! Hannah Montana, a game that appeals to preteen girls only, is hardcore. :lol
It has a specific target group. Barbie games are hardcore too.
Eteric Rice
Member
WrikaWrek said:
Apparently not so clever on Sundays either.
Regulus Tera said:
Right but i don't need to have previous knowledge of games to play it, and the fact that i'm older or a guy doesn't mean i won't be able to enjoy the game.
I'm pretty sure someone with no previous knowledge of games, and someone who is younger won't be able to properly enjoy Resident Evil.
But you are right, i stand corrected, i tried to encompass a number of factors, and choosing "gender and age" was wrong.
I should've sticked to the "requires no previous knowledge of games", like i said after, in a post in this page.
But i guess that definition doesn't interest you, it's harder to make fun of.
Eteric Rice said:
Yet, you avoid answering, may it be that you want people banned because they don't share of your opinion and that pisses you off, but you avoiding saying the words in fear of being accused of back seat modding and thereby fall on your own shitty attempt at getting others banned?
Is that it? Oh...you are mean
Aaron Strife
Banned
Eteric Rice said:
you stole my joke =(Aaron Strife said:
yurinka
Member
Well they were called casual mainly by Nintendo hardcore gamers who didn't know what "casual game" and "casual gamer" means. I was specially upset because I work developing casual games. Read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_gameCult Hero said:
By expample, these "casual" industry unknown by the harcore gamers released games Nintendogs-like and Brain Training-like before these Nintendo games.
Even it was released certain console in 1999 with a motion sensitive controller, and has some baseball/bowling/tennis game that reminds me something... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSxiz4Bzinw
Eteric Rice
Member
WrikaWrek said:
I just wanted to see if you could figure it out yourself. :lol
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I'm not sure I would agree with either statement. Those terms are just another way for people to label themselves and others based on their degree of involvement in some activity. It's pure elitism, and it can have both positive effects (stronger sense of community and identity) and negative ones (hostility towards new comers or fringe groups).Cult Hero said:
Your perception of cool is going to be dependent on your perception of gaming. It's all subjective and at times really petty.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
WrikaWrek said:
It's a lot more respectable than the previous one. However...
WrikaWrek said:
I can play Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels without ever having played the original or other games in my life. The controls are simple, easy to learn, and addictive. Yet, I doubt anyone will contradict me, that game is probably more hardcore than any Halo, Call of Duty or Gears of War.
Contra is also a hardcore game with easy to learn controls. All it has is a shoot button, a jump button and directional buttons. Mega Man, while not as difficult, still has very easy controls with hardcore gameplay.
I rest my case.
yurinka
Member
As I said, the terms "casual game" and "casual gamer" were created by a real industry that exist under these name (see the wikipedia entry I posted in a previous post) and generates some billions. But some hardcore gamers used these terms wrongly giving them the mean you said.SapientWolf said:
Aaron Strife
Banned
Hell yeah, that's me. First Mario game I played was Lost Levels.Regulus Tera said:
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
WrikaWrek said:
You actually don't. I know plenty of people who remember those games from their childhood yet do not play video games these days. One can appreciate fun activities without having to triumph over them. The reason the video game market kept shrinking up until the 32/64-bit era was that "casual" people who enjoyed difficult and meaty games did not become "hardcore" gamers, therefore abandoning the ship until new people jumped into it thanks to the PSX and the new experiences it brought to the table.
Regulus Tera said:
They do not play games these days but they did back then.
legend166 said:
Yeah it's pretty stupid. I regret that one.
Brak said:
Ok you know what, fuck it. I'll just leave it to developers, publishers, analysts, and the market to tell you the stuff.
Then it's not just a poster in a gaming message board, and you can deny it, and you can resent it, but things are as things are.
Wii fans that are gaming enthusiasts apparently don't share the notion of a "casual gamer", and apparently refuse to acknowledge it.4
And that's their prerogative
yurinka
Member
The casual games usually use a easy to use controls and mechanics, a low difficulty when it starts, and its difficulty curve is very long. Don't use to punish the user when he/she plays badly. Also uses stories and visuals focused to anyone, doesn't matter gender or age. Are thinked to be played in shortly, time wise.Regulus Tera said:
This is why any of the games you named are casual. Of your list, Mario is who fits better, but as you said The Lost Levels, like Mega Man, was hard as hell and punishes the user a lot.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
WrikaWrek said:
Never mind that we are talking about the "hardcore" quality of the games, not of their players.
Another thing to take into account: you say a hardcore gamer appreciates the challenge in the product he's enjoying. How many hardcore gamers do really play in the highest difficulties? What about all those hardcore gamers who are more interested into seeing how the story of their game unfolds than in the actual gameplay? The last criteria counts for a lot of people who play Final Fantasy, by the way.
yurinka said:
Contra is casual now?
Aaron Strife
Banned
This is the most rational post in this entire threadjibblypop said:
Regulus Tera said:
It's like you are trowing tomatoes at the wall. I think the more you are into games and the challenge they provide, the more you will want to play in high difficulty settings sure.
The fact that Final Fantasy sells itself as an experience 1st and foremost doesn't change the fact that you have you go through what is a pretty complex set of gameplay rules, and i'm pretty sure that someone who isn't into games, would probably not bother going through FF challenging gameplay just in order to see the story.
Because FF actually does demand a lot from the player, not only skill but time and patience too.
WrikaWrek said:
Your depiction of the situation, despite some points I don't agree with, is surprisingly accurate. Indeed, I too think that Nintendo's intent is, in a way, to start from scratch. After all, the Wii's codename was "Revolution" (in retrospect, I'm so glad it remained a codename, as it sounds so pretentious and aggressive
).For me, their most difficult challenge for now is to design games that can appeal to traditional gamers and new gamers (ah, forgot about that. Nintendo also talks about "new gamers", and I think this expression goes well with what you say), and while there are not that many examples of games that achieve that, either at Nintendo or third parties, we do have games like Mario Kart Wii that, while keeping the core gameplay intact, manages to draw in more new customers than any installment before. For me, this game is one of Nintendo's most impressive achievements this generation. Mario Kart has always been big, but man, are they on fire with MKWii! Lucky me, it's also my favourite installment
.Anyway, that brings me to my few gripes with your message. First, I wouldn't say Sony revolutionized gaming with the PS1. Not for the sake of being anti-Sony (the PS1 is one of my favourite systems, after all), but because it all came down, once again, to enhancements in graphics and sound technology, with a clearer emphasis on cinematic experiences. The lowering of royalties did the rest for developers. But from a technological standpoint, it never felt like a revolution, as the controllers gained more buttons, the systems were still better at processing 2D than their predecessors... You could call 3D a "radical sustaining technology" or something like that (does it show I read Christensen far too much? Yeah, probably
), and, because it's readical, it brought enough novelty and felt refreshing enough to grow into the success we all know, despite being in line with previous conceptions of progress. But that first point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I just wanted to voice my opinion on that, don't bother answering to that, that would derail the actual argument at hand ^^'.Second, and that is my main gripe, is the end of your post. While the new gamers are indeed supposed to continue gaming and have more and more refined tastes and demands as you suggest, I don't think you should assume that they'll eventually come to like what most of us like right now. They don't play games for the graphics, nor for button-based controls, scenarios or long, drawn-out experiences. They also don't care much about online (I'll add a "yet", as I'm not sure), and when they do, I'd wager they don't necessarily need an incredibly feature-rich online service. Since Iwata applies the strategy of disruption, what he does with the Wii and the DS is supposed to be value-changing, or game-changing. What that means is that the common criteria on which most games and sequels tend to be judged today (graphics, length, more controls/moves for your character, scenario, etc.) are not the criteria of the new gamers, and that, should Nintendo apply the strategy with complete success (and so far, they've been quite successful, can't be denied), they won't be decisive criteria ever again. Some of them might still have some sort of relevance, but that's it. Of course, this is assuming Nintendo is able to keep the momentum going.
To give you a simple example of how Nintendo wants progress in terms of games to be based on other criteria, take a look at Wii Sports Resort. You would assume that a better Wii Sports, according to traditional standards (as in, what the industry and gamers have come to accept), would be a fully online-enabled, prettier Wii Sports, with far more sports, and more complex controls (like, say, being able to freely move around in Tennis, as it wasn't possible in WS, much to a lot of gamers' dismay
). While we do know that the game will have 9, maybe 10 games, and we don't know if it'll be online in some capacity, we do know that the emphasis is put on motion controls once again. You still don't have more options of control over your character (you still can't move it), it's still pick-up-and-play (not to mention that it's not dramatically prettier), but the motion controls, one of the key values brought forth by the Wii, are improved with the new accessory.Does that mean that things like graphics won't evolve anymore? No. Well, at least that's not what I think. But if you put it in simple business terms, it's just that the pace at which graphics have been evolving is beginning to severely overshoot the market, and so Nintendo says "wow, maybe we should brake a little, nobody cares about that any more, save for a few". Graphics will evolve, but at a much more reasonable pace, because 1) most consumers think they've become good enough, 2) the industry is going into a wall with that line of thinking. Meanwhile, interface, among other things, will become king, if it isn't already. For now, it takes the form of motion controls that are an extension of the body.
I've overdone it again. I should punch myself in the face for being unable to make things shorter :/.
The problem is that you're trying to make some ghetto for games that don't fit your conception of what a game should be.WrikaWrek said:
There are absolutely hardcore gamers, but the only thing that makes them such is their enormous interest in videogames and the amount of time they spend playing videogames.
If someone plays The Sims, Rock Band, Wii Sports, and World of Warcraft for 50 hours every week, then they are a hardcore gamer. Despite the fact that people will come up with excuses that any of those games are casual games.
This is the problem, there are no casual or hardcore games. Only casual and hardcore gamers. You could play Nintendogs in a very hardcore way, and you could play Resident Evil 4 in a very casual way. It's all about the gamer.
Too bad jvm's post was on the cusp of a new page, otherwise you would have known that some new figures were released.
From Edge-Online's article, Vesperia's numbers were released: http://www.edge-online.com/features/august-sales-in-depth
From Edge-Online's article, Vesperia's numbers were released: http://www.edge-online.com/features/august-sales-in-depth
Eteric Rice
Member
Doesn't the term casual describe more the user than the actual game itself. Personally I play the same games most hardcore gamers play but in a casual way(on easy, once a week, for spurts of entertainment) that doesn't make the game itself casual. I think complexity of the controls of game are less of a deterrent than the quality and intuitiveness of the controls. For example I bought a spongebob game for my daughter it has a simple control layout but even for someone like me it was unplayable due to the unresponsiveness of the controls. Also just because a game gains popularity doesn't transform it into a casual game it just means its a popular game.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=335160
Tales sold only 33k
proving without a shadow of a doubt that the 360 is an "inhospitable" platform for Japanese RPGs.
Tales sold only 33k
gtj1092 said:
You're almost right. In my opinion, the term casual doesn't qualify either the game or the user, but the actual use of a game. Depending on the time of the year and other factors, you can ideally play a game in a casual or dedicated way.
Which is why "casual games" and "casual gamers" are fundamentally flawed expressions. One day, you play casually, a few minutes, but the other day you might put more time and attention into it, but you don't play a game that is, in essence, casual, or a game that is, in essence, hardcore. However, you can design a game in such a way that you can play it for a few minutes (by not cramming unskippable cutscenes in the game, for instance), but that's not being casual, that's being pick-up-and-play. Besides, designing a game so that it lends itself well to casual use doesn't make it deeper. It just makes it more accessible. Some might say that's nitpicking, but I believe that careful thinking and careful wording go hand-in-hand. You don't have a clear mind if you can't articulate your thoughts precisely, do you?
[EDIT] @Threi: nice one :lol.
Kilrogg said:Your depiction of the situation, despite some points I don't agree with, is surprisingly accurate. Indeed, I too think that Nintendo's intent is, in a way, to start from scratch. After all, the Wii's codename was "Revolution" (in retrospect, I'm so glad it remained a codename, as it sounds so pretentious and aggressive
............
I've overdone it again. I should punch myself in the face for being unable to make things shorter :/.
I think you bring good points, but i disagree that PS1 didn't revolutionize gaming, as it brought a new dawn of games to us, it was the sort of games possible on it, that clearly brought gaming into a whole different plate, games like MGS, Gran Turismo, etc, that completely changed what kind of gamers the market restricted itself to.
And while i certainly agree that the Wii is a great method of control that allows anyone to have an easier time with games, as the fun starts at the moment you are point the controller to the screen, i call shenanigans on the whole visuals thing.
Fact is gaming isn't just about hitting a ball with a remote, that is just one part of gaming, that's one style of gaming, and then there's the other style of gaming where visuals suddenly matter a whole lot.
Sure people didn't have a problem with RES graphics last gen, nobody is saying that, but as developers strive to be able to deliver these experiences, these feelings that transcend the mere act of puzzle solving or the instant gratification of a bat hitting a ball, we are talking about experiences that involve immersing the player in a world for example.
And that kind of experience can't be sold just because you have motion controls. And if these new gamers start getting into gaming and suddenly start seeing how games can be more than that, then they will appreciate the vistas created by more powerful hardware.
A system like the wii plays a major role in this though, and hopefully the market will expand enough where the rise in development cost is sustainable. And it's not like there's not a big demand for these "bigger" experiences, clearly, by looking at sales numbers.
Souldriver
Member
:lol Holy shit indeed! I only watched the vid for 2 minutes or so, but because of your comment I went back to look some more. Holy shit indeed.Brak said:I was like
OMG at 5m10s!!
Threi said:http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=335160
Tales sold only 33kproving without a shadow of a doubt that the 360 is an "inhospitable" platform for Japanese RPGs.
Is it that the 360 is an inhospitable platform for that genre or rather the genre itself is stagnant in the US?
goldenpp72
Member
it could also be a total lack of advertising and a terrible shipment, best buy near me removed it from their shelves altogether because they barely got any copies.
Eteric Rice
Member
IceIpor said:
I dunno, it didn't get very good reviews. A lot of people that would have bought it will probably ignore it now.
I'd wait for the Wii main tales game.
I agree with WrikaWrek and others that if you want to play Resident Evil 5 get a console it's going to be released on. Don't whine because you want a port like the 360 fans for MGS4. Don't bitch like the PS3 fans who want Dead Rising or one of those 360 rpg exclusives. Don't be those Dragon Quest fans that cry because it's on the DS. Just don't become one of those people that won't play a game or quit a series just because it's not on the platform you prefer. You don't have the money? Wait it out until you do. If you love the series or if there's a game that really want to play you should follow it where ever it goes and whatever platform it's on.
I'd also prefer a Resident Evil spinoff on the Wii myself then a downgraded port of Resident Evil 5. Why settle when there's a chance a Resident Evil spin off like Code Veronica could eventually show up on the Wii. RESWi>>>>>>>>>>>>RE5Wii imo.
Hmmm I'm kind of sad about the Tales numbers. Did they ship enough games? Maybe it'll have long legs. Tales is the main reason besides XBLA that I'm getting a 360 sometime this year.
I'd also prefer a Resident Evil spinoff on the Wii myself then a downgraded port of Resident Evil 5. Why settle when there's a chance a Resident Evil spin off like Code Veronica could eventually show up on the Wii. RESWi>>>>>>>>>>>>RE5Wii imo.
Hmmm I'm kind of sad about the Tales numbers. Did they ship enough games? Maybe it'll have long legs. Tales is the main reason besides XBLA that I'm getting a 360 sometime this year.