Support NeoGAF

[monkeyrun]

simple games are good n all, but if im gunna spend more than $20 then im gunna expect something thats a little more complex than tetris. Everything gets complex, it's like the evolution of technology, Tv's Computers, Mobile phones etc.

simple games means simple control e.g. Zelda, not tetris, tetris could be pretty darn complex if the developer's bad enough.

Anyways Tetris' a damn good puzzle game.

 

[APerfectCircle]

simple games means simple control e.g. Zelda, not tetris, tetris could be pretty darn complex if the developer's bad enough.

Anyways Tetris' a damn good puzzle game.

It's just the new market that nintendo are trying to create, i pick up a zelda game and i can understand the controls etc quickly, my little brother can too, but my mum looks at it and straight out says "to hard, too many buttons".

 

[ge-man]

Agreed. It was a very stupid move in the long term, because it basically allows Sony to sell it for only $50 more, and the consumer not feel screwed. Nintendo made it okay for handheld gaming to be priced over $100, and that is a big mistake.

I'm surprised I'm not the only one who thought this. I said this right after the Japanese PSP price was revealed and most responses I got back was that Nintendo could wait until the PSP launched in America for price drop. Nintendo should've bit the bullet and let the DS eat into the GBA pie. They could afford to with GBA capability built into the DS, but instead they missed an oppurtunity to leverage the GB brand in way that would've been difficult to counter.

 

[Spike]

This whole argument was based off Spike's assumption that the DS would appeal more to "non-gamers" than PSP. And MY argument was that if we assume non-gamers would be attracted to either product, then they'd probably be more attracted to the system that has non-gaming features.

I don't think PSP is targeting non-gamers at all. I think it might lure in a few, but I doubt it'll be anything widespread.

Let me explain my previous post a little better. I wasn't talking about myself, and I should have been more clear about that, sorry. I was putting myself in Iwata's position, as in what he's probably thinking about the PSP and the general public. Then, again from his angle, looking at his own product and how it might appeal to the non-gamers.

Sorry for the confusion, but lack of sleep over the past few nights has made it a bit harder to articulate my thoughts properly.

Now, as to what I think about this whole thing. I think that Iwata is downplaying the PSP because the DS has sold about a million systems already, if the sales figures of 500,000 in Japan + 500,000 in N.A. are correct. Also, he does this because he knows that the amount of PSP's that will be available will be very small. I'm sure if there was alot more PSP's available, he'd be singing a different tune.

Nintendo needs to wake up. As much as I love them, they need to get a grip on reality. Sony is not like the companies that came before. They have a massive following. They have developed the PlayStation brand name into one that challenges even the mighty Coke/Coca-Cola. If they don't smarten up, they will find themselves with the short end of the stick again.

Now, I haven't forgotten about the GBA. This is where Nintendo gets props. I believe that the DS is simply a tool to ward off the perception that Nintendo isn't looking to the future of handhelds. I do believe that when the PSP launches over here, the DS will be $99-129, and they'll be trying to get consumers to pick the DS over the PSP. If the DS, at that price point, fails to provide a decent fight against the PSP, they will unleash the GBNext offering the same features as the PSP, and at a comparable price point. The only problem with this is, will the consumers be dissapointed with Nintendo if they do this? Only time will tell...

 

[Jonnyram]

Re: PSP's price point
The 20000 yen price is very misleading. Only a fraction of the shipped units will be available at this pricepoint - Sony is shipping mostly Value Packs at 25000 yen.

Re: Third pillar
I think the DS will continue to be a third pillar, even when the new GB is announced. I imagine the new GB will use new screen tech, will stick with cheap flash cards (like DS). It won't be backwards compatible with DS, because that's pointless. Also it might not be backwards compatible with GBA either, because the DS already takes care of that.

 

[Amir0x]

Let me explain my previous post a little better. I wasn't talking about myself, and I should have been more clear about that, sorry. I was putting myself in Iwata's position, as in what he's probably thinking about the PSP and the general public. Then, again from his angle, looking at his own product and how it might appeal to the non-gamers.

Sorry for the confusion, but lack of sleep over the past few nights has made it a bit harder to articulate my thoughts properly.

Now, as to what I think about this whole thing. I think that Iwata is downplaying the PSP because the DS has sold about a million systems already, if the sales figures of 500,000 in Japan + 500,000 in N.A. are correct. Also, he does this because he knows that the amount of PSP's that will be available will be very small. I'm sure if there was alot more PSP's available, he'd be singing a different tune.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense now ... re-reading your comments and such. That's cool.

Nintendo needs to wake up. As much as I love them, they need to get a grip on reality. Sony is not like the companies that came before. They have a massive following. They have developed the PlayStation brand name into one that challenges even the mighty Coke/Coca-Cola. If they don't smarten up, they will find themselves with the short end of the stick again.

I really think the problem is they fail to see the potential of their own system. Nintendo DS... it just has so much fucking potential. And although I love Super Mario 64 DS, that should not have been the flagship title to launch such a "different" device. The entire marketing in the US was based around "Touching is Good", a rather sexy and, dare I say, captivating campaign that was handicapped because they refused to show any "sexy" or "adult" games using the unique features of the DS to back it up. As I said in another rant, they NEED to be able to back up their campaign with games that fit the mold.

Here is my rant on what Nintendo needs to do to change its image:

Nintendo is in a very precarious situation because, despite the quality of its franchise titles, mainstream gamers have taken Nintendo to mean old hat or childish. When a casual gamer thinks about Nintendo, they don't see a system offering them possibilities they haven't yet experienced, they see Zelda, Mario and Metroid and think "well, I enjoyed the last fifteen Mario and Zelda and Metroid games... but do I really want to play more of that?" I think the answer for casual gamers is pretty much universally NO.

Now, my position is not to get rid of Zelda, Metroid or Mario. All that would serve to do is isolate their key userbase, which is basically super hardcore gamers that have grown up with Nintendo.

But my "Nintendo Strategy" is fairly simple.


- Make a string of new franchises. And these franchises must have the same tender loving care that you have put into Mario and Zelda over the years. Pikmin was a good start, but you need to tell casual gamers what makes Pikmin so interesting, which you failed to do with your ludicrous marketing of said game.


- Market the new Nintendo franchises foremost. Yes, that means more than Zelda, more than Mario and more than Metroid. Don't worry, those games will still get the attention they deserve and will have plenty of love from the hardcore. They will sell well on those merits alone. But if you're going to draw in the casual gamers, you need people to perceive you on a new foot.


- Touching is good. But if you're going to have such a sexy marketing campaign, you've gotta have the sexy games to back it up. I want to see tons of marketing for Feel the Magic XY/XX. I want to see tons of marketing for every game that would appeal to the casual 18-30 year old demographic. Nintendo DS will be a mild success, but if you ever plan to skyrocket the thing you can't be saying "TOUCHING IS GOOD" and then show Kirby and Super Princess Peach. I'm anticipating those games as a hardcore gamer, but marketing such things to casual gamers is not only going to be difficult, it's going to be downright impossible.

- Tone down the family friendly atmosphere. Yes, we know that you have games that appeal to all ages. We've got that point. We understand that you're prone to complain when a porn star mentiones Zelda as a favorite game. But let's be serious. As much as I like to have options, no casual gamer is going to support a Revolution that comes in purple and polka dot yellow. Similarly, they're not going to give a shit when the controller is red, yellow, green and perceived as one step up from a Fischer Price toy. Casual gamers are stupid. Take advantage of their stupidity. As long as you bring the great games, Nintendo, us hardcore gamers will come no matter what level you must stoop to.

If there were to follow some or all of these steps, I really think perceptions will change and they'd have much more freedom to create the types of innovative products they want while simultaneously interesting more people in the product and those same games.

Now, I haven't forgotten about the GBA. This is where Nintendo gets props. I believe that the DS is simply a tool to ward off the perception that Nintendo isn't looking to the future of handhelds. I do believe that when the PSP launches over here, the DS will be $99-129, and they'll be trying to get consumers to pick the DS over the PSP. If the DS, at that price point, fails to provide a decent fight against the PSP, they will unleash the GBNext offering the same features as the PSP, and at a comparable price point. The only problem with this is, will the consumers be dissapointed with Nintendo if they do this? Only time will tell...

Yeah, I hate time...

 

[Spike]

I really think the problem is they fail to see the potential of their own system. Nintendo DS... it just has so much fucking potential. And although I love Super Mario 64 DS, that should not have been the flagship title to launch such a "different" device. The entire marketing in the US was based around "Touching is Good", a rather sexy and, dare I say, captivating campaign that was handicapped because they refused to show any "sexy" or "adult" games using the unique features of the DS to back it up. As I said in another rant, they NEED to be able to back up their campaign with games that fit the mold.

Agreed. I think that Feel the Magic should've gotten a bigger push. It seems like a title that falls in line with the advertising they were doing before the system launched.

If there were to follow some or all of these steps, I really think perceptions will change and they'd have much more freedom to create the types of innovative products they want while simultaneously interesting more people in the product and those same games.

I agree with your points. I think Nintendo needs to look at Disney. I think they need to diversify their IP's and adapt and change. They need to offer something that's going to get the GTA/Halo crowd to show some interest in Nintendo's offerings. I know this is easier said than done. But it makes it even harder when they keep tacking on Mario and Donkey Kong onto every title that could utilize a new IP.

This isn't the same Nintendo. They seem afraid to take chances when it comes to creating new franchises. They need to branch out and take the risks. They did it with Pokemon, and it paid off. They followed up with Pikmin, and it wasn't as huge a sucess. After that, they just stopped.

Yeah, I hate time...

So do I...

 

[FnordChan]

BUT is it so hard to believe that complexity alienates new players?

The vast majority of people who don't play video games don't do so because games are too complex for them. These people aren't stupid. Whether or not they've been directly involved, these are folks who have been surrounded by the concept of video games for over 30 years. Add in pinball and other electromechanical games and we're looking at well over a century. Throw in the concept of playing games in general and we've got positively fucking the history of mankind.

Right now there are little old ladies at the bridge club bemoaning young punks who are too fucking weaksauce to play their game of choice. "The children these days just don't have the patience to understand a complicated game like bridge", they say while proving their superior finger dexterity by knitting entire wardrobes while tearing through hands of bridge, bidding with their partner, chatting with the children on their cel phones, and occasionally scoping out Andy "Pimp Smooth" Griffin's fine ass on television.

Once again: If people aren't playing video games, it's not because they don't understand them, or because they're daunted by their complexity. It's because they just don't give a shit about the theme of the game itself. If you have a good game that's squarely aimed at a non-standard target audience - say, Video Bridge with Andy Griffin - it doesn't really matter how complicated it is, as long as it's appealing enough to draw the audience in. If someone is interested in the game, by god, they're going to figure out how to play and enjoy it. If a game is complicated and abstract, yet addictive, then you will be able to addict people to it.

This reminds me of the argument that, since the vast majority of people reading comic books in America are either kids, teenage boys, or hopelessly geeky men, then people in general don't enjoy reading comic books. Which is bullshit; it's just that most American comic books are about superheroes, which most people could give a shit about. It's not the medium that's the problem, it's the content.

Are simpler, pick-up-and-play games not fun? Of course not. Are they the only way to reach out to traditional non-gamers? Hell no.

Iwata said he doubts that PSP, which marks Sony's foray into handheld gaming, will attract new fans the way Nintendo DS has, wooing beginners, including young women who studies have shown usually dislike games.

Of course he doubts the PSP. It's his job to. He's desperately trying to spin the DS as having more general appeal than the PSP, based on...what? The fact that they're trying real hard? A PSP game could hit on the thematic key to appeal to a more general audience just as easily as the DS. They've got a touch screen? It's perfectly possible to have intuitive controls with a standard pad, as evidenced by the past two decades of modern controllers. When Defender was first introduced at trade shows, the experts deemed it a failure because it was too complicated. It went on to become insanely popular. There's just as much chance of a breakthrough PSP game appealing to a wider audience, because the appeal of the game is a matter of software development, not hardware.

FnordChan

 

[DDayton]

There are people who don't play video games because they don't care about them, and there are people who don't play video games because they are "scared" by the complexity.

I can think of dozens of examples of folks I know who play several video games (Tetris, older titles like Pac-Man, Super Mario Bros., etc.) but refuse to TOUCH modern games. The new games scare them. They'll try quirky things which don't resemble standard games (Samba de Amigo, Donkey Konga) or games which are SIMPLE in the learning curve (Pac-Man Vs.), but they won't touch "modern".

Tie to this the fact that most people associate "modern" games with polyogonal graphics, and you get people who refuse to play any new games because they have 3D graphics or because the controller looks too complex.

Why do you think the GBA NES Classics series sells so well?

 

[={<SMOKE>}=]

There are people who don't play video games because they don't care about them, and there are people who don't play video games because they are "scared" by the complexity.

I can think of dozens of examples of folks I know who play several video games (Tetris, older titles like Pac-Man, Super Mario Bros., etc.) but refuse to TOUCH modern games. The new games scare them. They'll try quirky things which don't resemble standard games (Samba de Amigo, Donkey Konga) or games which are SIMPLE in the learning curve (Pac-Man Vs.), but they won't touch "modern".

Tie to this the fact that most people associate "modern" games with polyogonal graphics, and you get people who refuse to play any new games because they have 3D graphics or because the controller looks too complex.

Why do you think the GBA NES Classics series sells so well?

you're spot on, excellent post. i just can't understand how people don't see nintendo's point...

i lived with my older brother (who's 10 years my senior) for two years ending this past september. he would bust my balls about always playing games and i couldn't get him to touch anything, not even sports titles.

my father recently bought one of the namco "gamesticks" for when my brother's kids (who are 5, 3, and 1) come to visit. apparently, my brother was on this thing for like an hour.

when i heard about this, i was surprised and was asking his wife about it. she told me that they were all playing and having a good time. she then told me that there's no way she would even attempt to play any of the games i do because they're too complex. she said she wouldn't know what's going on or what to do. however, they now own one of the namco "gamesticks".

this is the market nintendo is trying to reach. people who would play, but are intimidated by "modern" games. a touch screen is a good idea for an interface because it's an idea everyone can understand immediately. i think they're on the right track, but i don't see the ds becoming this huge revolution in gaming or anything. i'm sure it will do fine though and end up being the "successor" to the gba.

 

[soundwave05]

The thing is with these people who are "scared" of games, they also aren't willing IMO to spend the same amount of video games.

For them like even $100 is a lot of money to be spending on a video game system. $200 for a DS (after getting a game) would be insane for them.

To reach this audience, Nintendo might just be better off lowering the GBA SP to $50 and bringing software prices down to $19.99 a pop.

That's kinda the problem. Nintendo wants this audience, but are they willing to give up their profit margins on hardware and cut software prices to reach them?

The great thing about those Namco arcade classic "systems inside a joystick" is they're so cheap.

 

[missAran]

"We're making every effort so that people will say we were right."

He said it the best right there. Nintendo isn't catering to an audience, its doing what it thinks is best. If consumers don't buy into it, then frankly, what it thinks does not matter. Nintendo is so arrogant, it drives me crazy. At times like this I ask myself why I support the company at all (let alone prefer it to the rest)... then I remember it has something to do with these AAA titles:

 

[Unison]

The thing is with these people who are "scared" of games, they also aren't willing IMO to spend the same amount of video games.

For them like even $100 is a lot of money to be spending on a video game system. $200 for a DS (after getting a game) would be insane for them.

To reach this audience, Nintendo might just be better off lowering the GBA SP to $50 and bringing software prices down to $19.99 a pop.

That's kinda the problem. Nintendo wants this audience, but are they willing to give up their profit margins on hardware and cut software prices to reach them?

The great thing about those Namco arcade classic "systems inside a joystick" is they're so cheap.

IAWTP. I mean my grandma might potentially have fun with the right DS game, but she'd never buy one for herself unless the costs was totally negligible (and even then it seems doubtful...).

 

[kaching]

You're really stretching your examples now. Interactive Entertainment is an entire form of entertainment media. If movies and television have the potential to be wide-spread and universal in their appeal, so do video games. That means that there should be a potential scenario where there are games to satisfy everyone.

Examples were meant to highlight the simple fact that a pastime is never going to satisfy everyone. Even if I broaden the example to say sports in general, the appeal widens significantly, but it never becomes universal. You seem to be suggesting that if we don't appeal to everyone, we must be failing somehow. That just runs roughshod over people's inalienable right to not like whatever the F_CK they want.

I like a good drama movie, and I know if I hit up the local cinema I could probably find a good drama playing there. My sister likes really bright and fun animations. The new Pixar and Miyazaki films cover this easily. There is no such balance in the video game world in terms of complexity and themes.

Thematically these two differ but they're not necessarily different in terms of level of complexity. Pixar and Miyazaki aren't just "really bright and fun animations" - they bear intricacies of motion and form that hold up over multiple viewings, not unlike the emotional and psychological conflict/interactions of a good drama movie.

Your big mistake here is assuming that what we have here and now is what video games will (and should) always be.

I have made no such assumption. I have simply suggested that what exists now and in the 30 yr back catalog of interactive entertainment provides us with more than enough foundation material to offer ranges of complexity and themes to test the hypothesis that we're leaving a whole class of people out in the cold with their noses pressed to the window. And it doesn't require new hardware to do it.

If I choose, I would not even have to back up my claims with numbers. To see what I mean, just go ask those around you. Ask your grandmother what she thinks of Viewtiful Joe. Ask your mom if she picked up the newest GTA game. Ask younger females what kind of new games they've played. The very fact that those statements sound ridiculous speaks volumes. I can ask my grandmother about books and movies. I can talk to my mom about what TV shows she's watching. Video games just don't have that kind of appeal right now, and complexity is one of the factors contributing to this.

Hooray for anecdotal evidence. We'd match for mom and grandmom, but I wouldn't consider it ridiculous at all to ask younger females what new games they've played, as I could point to several who would name games like Halo, Resident Evil, Shenmue as some of the more complex fare they've indulged in recently.

But what would be more interesting is if we took your little anecdotal exercise and swapped out video games and replaced it with sports. Using your same female survey groups, I'd be willing to bet that more would end up saying they play sports than they play video games (esp. among the young females group) but what's ironic about that is the complexity of sporting exercises is certainly greater than just about anything encountered in a videogame and poor performance has the potential for far more serious and far-reaching repercussions. Factor in Fnordchan's vivid examples of multitasking ladies playing at more traditional gaming pasttimes and I think we've beaten the horse that Complexity-is-a-Hindrance rode in on dead enough.

 

[Rahul]

We're losing track here...

But to quickly address some recent posts: PSP can be a phenomenal success by giving itself the right image. By generating the right opinions. We ALL know this. Hopefully anyway. Incidentally, Amir0x's observations about MPEG4 conversion are well thought out. And who's going to rebuy their collection on UMD? I also agree with the guy who in response feels they're going for the tech savvy consumer... the caveat being of course, that they expect to pick up their loyal PlayStation following on the way, and sweep many more up in the hype. Which I'm sure it will.

I think we've digressed though. The debate is already going around in circles. Does Iwata have a leg to stand on?

I'm in the yes camp. Getting back to the original material:



I can see why people have issues with this statement, but I haven't outright dismissed Iwata because of it yet...


WHAT ACTUALLY SELLS?

There is no evidence that we can provide that proves people are drifting away from gaming. At least not that I am aware of. Iwata hasn't provided any either. But could it be happening? We always hear about record sales being met here in the west, but could it be limited to the familiar (or occasionally well hyped) killer app? With well known developers closing shop this generation - is the problem:

* that games are ever more complex to create,
* that competition is too harsh,
* that selling games to disenfranchised and/or fickle consumers is hard,
* OR is it all of the above?

I remember reading that Japan's market was a buzz about such doomsday thinking... I think in essence, that as a Japanese company, this is Iwata's core context. I also wager he believes it will be mirrored in the west eventually. Obviously lots of companies are going from strength to strength. Where there are losers there are winners. But I have to admit: I seldom meet a gamer who can buy games on a whim. They tend to buy what they know, or what they have come to know through hype. Everything else is tablescraps.

You might say to me: "hey! things have never been better". We can argue about things like this til we are blue in the face. I suggest we don't. Total waste of time. But in Iwata's defence -- consider how hit-driven the market is. It's rare for new, innovative titles to come along and succeed. People, including Nintendo, are forced to play to current gamers' expectations. On the one hand, this is rather convenient, but when push comes to shove is rehashing really good for anyone? Can unending sports game updates, Japanese RPGs, cutesy platformers and film franchise games etc. continue to woo people forever? And more importantly - are these software updates targetting new gamers, or just spreading their reach amongst a common type of consumer? Is the games industry selling to the same audience it has grown in the last 25 years? Can that audience rear a future gaming audience of it's own? What if this current audience outgrows certain types of games? Or gets bored of typical code and convention? Could this be why we're accepting more passive movie-convergence type experiences more and more? I mean, it seems to me that few games start with the formulation of a fun idea; a good gaming mechanic. It's not like game designers sit down en masse, like Alexey Pajitnov did with his traditional Russian blocks game, and get inspired to create something new as he did with Tetris. Underneath it all, some games will have superior graphics engines, good level design or super tight control -- but most games will be a variation on something you have played before. A genre title. Rather than evolving from an idea involving 'play' - they all evolve from - "gee, what can we make that will sell?" .... they pick a genre template (ie. Fighting game or first person shooter) and then before we know it, we're being offered the franchise sequels, and TV/movie spin offs: Fight Club/Godfather/Lord of the Rings/Spiderman/Star Wars/Alias/24 type projects. And I think it's also why, every now and then, some eejit embarrasingly tries to shift crap like BMX XXX or The Guy Game onto the consumer. Can anyone honestly say that people must have sat down on these projects and thought - what kind of new / fun experience can I create?

I don't think you can. Now don't get me wrong, when you make a formula and perfect it -- the old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is perfectly applicable. There are awesome games out today. I've been coo-ing hardcore recently about Prime 2, The Minish Cap, GTA:SA and playing lots of Xbox games for the very first time. I say that if you can justify it and still make it fun, then there should be a franchise, there should be a sequel. People would want it that way. You can't just stop responding to demand. But when you're basely marketing to the lowest common denominator and using other forces in place of a good idea to sell your game, I really think that's detrimental to this industry.


WHO'S BUYING IT? OR MORE IMPORANTLY - WHO ISN'T?

Look at the demographics. Even just on this forum. Most people are in their teens or their twenties, some now entering their thirties. All of you guys, even if you just started playing in recent years, have grown up knowing what a gamepad was all about. You understood that to do more things, to have the experience be as it is today, more buttons and newer (more complex) interfaces were needed. Essentially, you are the middle and upper classes of the video game industry. You are priviledged to a better experience and understanding that newer generations of gamers might not have. You have went through the re-honing of your motor skills (particularly hand to eye co-ordination) in this traditional gaming set-up. But why are people here so opposed to change? There are people who've never touched a game before. People who can't comprehend that pushing a stick upwards moves you into the distance relative to a 3d camera. With some people: it would absolutely blow their mind if you explained that controlling the camera is a job you're meant to do in symbiosis with actual movement of the character, and interaction with it's surroundings. Hell, let's consider computer literacy. There are people who don't use computers as often as you and I. Your average worker bee doesn't sit at an office computer terminal all day, and then come home to Xbox Live to frag some of his fellow Spartans. The potential female gamer almost certainly doesn't. For whatever reason, there is this great mass of people that (aided by the convolution the extra dimension brings), cannot play modern video games... or do not want to play video games. Some of these people may have sat down to Tetris in the past and loved it. Or played Pong, Pacman or Galaga. They might be playing Snake on their mobile phone right now, or some other simplistic Java applet. That is to say: there will be things that these people are prepared to play. And there's nothing to say we couldn't have fun with those games too.

The bottom line is - OF COURSE a modern gamer, versed in modern gaming doesn't mind 11 buttons on a gamepad. OF COURSE they can have fun with a good first person shooter, or a tremendously detailed RPG game system. Most of you can comprehend pressure sensitive analog buttons. Directional analog sticks that you can click. Concepts of variable arrays that change when you level up a character. Abilities and limitations in an environment. Your understanding of video game genre conventions. BUT is it so hard to believe that complexity alienates new players? We can all give examples of successful and complex games. But this is not to say it's for everyone... some posts in this thread really convey a quite ignorant attitude of "ah well, it's our way or the high way".

At least some of you are acknowledging the existence of a market for simple-but-fun games... or even just complex games with simple interfaces. One need only consider how easy people adapt to games like Tetris, Puzzle Bobble, Snafu, Sokoban, Super Monkey Ball, Dance Dance Revolution, Donkey Konga, Eye Toy, Singstar, Theme Park, Roller Coaster Tycoon, The Sims and the plethora of early mobile phone games (console > Ngage ports show their power or lack of in Ngage sales). And while it's early days yet, and things could change a hell of a lot in a few months, you have gotta wonder how the DS is doing so well in Japan despite the near simultaneous launch of a more complex machine (graphically and control-wise) if that's all that people supposedly want. You gotta look at the continual success of Gameboy. Tamagotchi. Pokét Monsters. Wario Ware. I have to wonder, personally at least, could Nintendo be onto something?


QUESTIONS ON MY MIND

1) Gamers outside the older boundary of typical gamers are still not convinced the medium is viable entertainment, particularly over the course of hours. Some would rather watch or engage in sport. Some would rather watch a film or TV. Some would rather chat to friends on a mobile, or on Instant Messengers.. would these people indulge in easy to pick up, easy to drop, fun gameplay with an endearingly simple approach?

2) Younger gamers either dig games or they don't - increasingly most of them do. The public crazes suck them in on many hyped games, and kids have a tendancy to want to be cool and more grown up as they reach their teenage years. But having said that, there is an equal if not greater attraction for many of them in the Beyblades, Yu Gi Oh and Pokemon games of this world. Or other Gameboy platform success stories. Are other games perhaps unnecessarily visually complex or convoluted to control for some children? Could this be why 2D has persisted, and GBA has moved by the bucket load to the point where "Gameboy" is now as powerful if not more than the PlayStation brand?

3) What about girl gamers? Patronising women with dating games, britney dance games, and barbie adventures might sucker in the really young ladies, but things that are pulling in a lot of women are basically NOT what the game industry consider hot commodities and wave of the future. While doubtless there are girls who like them somewhere - Halo 2, American Football, and copy after copy of racing game or first person shooter aren't appealing across the gender divide effectively. A lot of stats put a lot of female gamers sitting at PCs endulging in online games/communication with one another, playing The Sims, the tycoon games and other rather unconsole-like gaming. That's the women who are gaming at all mind you. There are millions upon millions who aren't. Could this strategy pull these people?


NINTENDO DS

The thing I like about Nintendo DS so far, is that it really imposes some thought on the developer and publisher. You can take a one screen game, slap a map on the bottom screen and call it a happy-port-day. You could probably do this and somehow sleep at night.... but the game won't be as good as something that's designed ground up for the system. The developer has to contend not only with the screens, but consider WiFi, Stylus control and Microphone input. The latter two being a direct allure for simplistic, intuitive control schemes. There is basically more incentive on Nintendo DS to create new content than on any other platform. Whether people take the bait or not... we'll see:

Because the other hand it has everything required to make traditional games play as normal. The thing I don't like about the DS, is that Nintendo might allow this to happen in an epidemic kind of way. If Nintendo DS doesn't offer these new kind of experiences we've been talking about - what are you left with? No new audience gained, and ports that aren't as good as their PSP cousins.

At the end of the day, whether what Iwata says is right or wrong doesn't really matter. Everything he says could be, and almost certainly is, just PR justification for Nintendo DS' existence. An attempt to sell Nintendo DS to the media, to consumers, or to his investors. For gamers, the motives should be inconsequential. It's the games that should matter.




---

some quotes that I find interesting, that lead me to believe certain things or back my ideas up:



I think from the Japanese marketing campaign you can tell they've been targeting women there as well as men. The US campaign played more towards an adult campaign - attempts at seductive female voiceovers negate the gender ambiguity the Japanese campaign had.



I agree with whoever said Iwata communicates the companies thoughts poorly. I don't think he sees how western gamers can react to statements like this with utter horror. As I understand it - he's basically saying: just using your extra power to up the graphics is not enough, you can do more with technological innovation. Instead it sounds like he's lambasting fancy graphics themselves. Which, given the desire for handheld gaming to be a more cost-free arena, might be his intention. But I doubt it somehow..




Games anyone can play. It's always been their quest for the holy grail. And a quest that people have been saying would doom them for the last 10 years. Fuck dem kids! Fuck those people who can't use 11 buttons! Slap a T or an M on the box and give me bigger, better graphics.

I know whose side I'm on. Perhaps I justify what Iwata has said because I'm drifting away from gaming myself. I have all three consoles now. I have fun with a handful of games, and consider almost everything else on shop shelves to be utter shite. The prospect of something fresh, and a company (who in PR at least) seems commited to making it, excites me.

Thom

Great post, I have nothing to add, just wanted to say I actually read it (unlike most others in this thread, it would seem).

 

[TekunoRobby]

Thanks a lot Rahul if it weren't for your repost of radioheadrule83's excellent post I would have missed it.

I wholeheartedly agree and I find it ridiculous that people don't understand the appeal of simplicity.

 

[mrklaw]

Hooray for anecdotal evidence. We'd match for mom and grandmom, but I wouldn't consider it ridiculous at all to ask younger females what new games they've played, as I could point to several who would name games like Halo, Resident Evil, Shenmue as some of the more complex fare they've indulged in recently

Its not just anecdotal. Research shows that consoles are male-oriented.

Now, take games in general, including web based games (bejeweled, that sort of thing). That is fairly even - female dominated even.

To me, that shows that 'non-gamers' are interested in games, its access and cost that is the barrier. If they already have a PC, they will play easily accessible games on the web. But they won't go out and buy a console just to play games.

 

[wazoo]

radiohead is right.

It does not mean the DS will be a success (it will only be a sucess if it sells a lot AND sells to people not interested in gaming too), but at least they are trying.

 

[kaching]

Its not just anecdotal. Research shows that consoles are male-oriented.

He didn't specify console only as the focus. This has been a general discussion between him and I about videogames. The core of the dispute is whether complexity is what's really at the core of putting people off.

I would agree with you that accessibility and cost are the biggest factors.

 

[mrklaw]

So, who will be the first manufacturer to give away consoles? Would any of them consider it for 'older' machines?

Sony's idea of PSX was almost there, but if they were braver, they'd build PS2s into all their Wega TVs, and stick a controller port in it.

Then you could play games without having to buy a machine.

 

[FnordChan]

I can think of dozens of examples of folks I know who play several video games (Tetris, older titles like Pac-Man, Super Mario Bros., etc.) but refuse to TOUCH modern games.

And I'm maintaining that this isn't because of any inherant complexity in modern videogames, it's because the more complicated modern games are built around themes that don't appeal to a broad target audience. Older games are either more abstract (allowing for a more universal appeal) or, more often, are games folks are already used to. If this audience is turned off by modern games, it's probably because they probably aren't particularly interested in Grand Theft Auto, Halo 2, or MGS3 in a thematic sense. If publishers were making games that appealed to this target audience, complexity wouldn't be an issue. If the game is appealing enough the audience will play it. They may look at a modern game and say, "Oh, that looks too complicated; I'm sure I couldn't play it", but that's because the game isn't drawing them in. If the game is appealing, the audience will give it a go.

Let me put it this way. Grandpa Joe probably could care less about MGS3. But, it's not so much that the game is complicated but that he isn't really digging on the notion of tactical stealth action. What is Grandpa Joe into? Betting on the horses every once in a while. Now, if someone manages to market, say, PSP OTB or Gallop Racer DS to him, with networked gambling with his buddies down at the old folks home, it wouldn't really matter how complex the game itself was - if he's actually interested in it, he'll pick up on it as quickly as the rest of us.

Why do you think the GBA NES Classics series sells so well?

For the most part? Nostalgia. Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of classic games - and, by "classic" I'm thinking Atari 2600 games that aren't at the level of those newfangled NES games. However, their simplicity can be limiting, which gets to a major problem I have with the push for simple games.

If you think about your absolute favorite games of all time, you're probably going to be pegging more complicated games. Not necessarily, but I just spent some time browsing through the "Your Personal All-Time #1 Game EVAR" thread, and it's dominated by RPGs and strategy games. Not entirely, but definately the majority. I'd suggest that the more complex games are popular because of a) the depth they offer and b) the environment they create. Can simpler games have depth and create an immersive experience? Sure - but a lot of them are pretty straight forward and not that immersive, particularly abstract puzzle games. If you want to really hook the non-gaming public, simple games are fine, but not a great long term strategy. You want to offer a game that has depth and creates an environment that they find absorbing. In a lot of cases, that might not be Zelda:OOT. Not because Zelda is too complex, but it just isn't appealing to this audience. Now, if you find a genre of game that offers complexity, depth, and an absorbing, appealing experience and sell it to the untapped masses, then you will see a broad enthusiasm for games develop and the level we tend to enjoy them at.

One more example. You know the casual gamers that get discussed a lot? The ones who love to play EA sports games? It's pretty obvious that they're perfectly capable of enjoying a complicated, in-depth videogame experience, even if they aren't also playing the latest Zelda game or whatnot. It's just that the complicated game happens to be a sports sim. So, we aren't really talking about "casual" gamers at all - we're talking about gamers who are into sports simulations. They're probably pretty goddamned serious about their sports sims and have completely mastered the controls for that sort of game - that, last I checked, go well beyond "move controller to run, press button to jump".

Now, if we can assume that there's an older male audience who particularly enjoys a game aimed squarely at their interests, even if they don't fit the hardcore enthusiast pattern, there's probably a type of game that a female audience would go for...and an older female audience...and then an elderly audience...and so on and so forth. It's just a matter of finding that game, letting this audience know that it exists and they want it, and making it available at a mass-market price, whatever that may entail.

In other words, instead of being patronizing towards non-gamers, we should probably spend more time finding the game that will turn non-gamers into enthusiasts, rather than assuming that our hobby is just too damned complicated for the poor dumb bastards.

FnordChan

 

[={<SMOKE>}=]

So, who will be the first manufacturer to give away consoles? Would any of them consider it for 'older' machines?

Sony's idea of PSX was almost there, but if they were braver, they'd build PS2s into all their Wega TVs, and stick a controller port in it.

Then you could play games without having to buy a machine.

but doesn't sony profit (quite well) for hardware?

 

[mrklaw]

Not sure. But after PS3 they won't care so much? And they make way more from the software anyway (and have no risk, as publishers pay upfront for the inventory)

 

[Scottlarock]

Nintendo handhelds have been on a 2.5-3 year cycle since the mid 1990s. A new Game Boy in 2007 would be holding the pattern, not accelerating it.

gameboy color is gameboy, gameboy sp is a gameboy advance. thats like ps2 relaunching with a new slim-line shell.................

 

[Rahul]

It's the daunting aspect of the controller device and the consideration of having to learn how to use it and how to manipulate the action onscreen that relagates modern games to "inaccessible". No one equates "tedious learning process" with "having fun". We do, because our learning process is tweaked to the point that we've memorised the location of buttons, the basic interactions possible with certain types of buttons, etc.

My mother is very interested in many of the concepts presented by modern videogames (MGS, FF, other primarily story-centric games), but won't touch them because she is A) embarrassed and B) uninterested in doing that much work just to experience something.

In other words, there's a big difference here between the already-trained group of active gamers (who grew up with the stuff) and the audience used to passive forms of entertainment media (music, movies, books) where interaction isn't something they've had to handle. Until hardware manufacturers can meet game developers halfway such that some result is produced that accommodates that gap, those that do not play games will not flock to games en masse, wahtever thematic attributes games may have today or tomorrow.

Which is why Nintendo is trying experimental things like DS to see if what they think is a possible solution actually IS a solution. Time will tell from their demographic research as to whether or not they are successful.

 

[jarrod]

gameboy color is gameboy, gameboy sp is a gameboy advance. thats like ps2 relaunching with a new slim-line shell.................

We've been over this before. Saying GBC is essentially a GB is like saying the DS is essentially a GBA... it's simply not true. They have added hardware, differing chipsets and incompatible software.

 

[JasoNsider]

Examples were meant to highlight the simple fact that a pastime is never going to satisfy everyone. Even if I broaden the example to say sports in general, the appeal widens significantly, but it never becomes universal. You seem to be suggesting that if we don't appeal to everyone, we must be failing somehow. That just runs roughshod over people's inalienable right to not like whatever the F_CK they want.

Thematically these two differ but they're not necessarily different in terms of level of complexity. Pixar and Miyazaki aren't just "really bright and fun animations" - they bear intricacies of motion and form that hold up over multiple viewings, not unlike the emotional and psychological conflict/interactions of a good drama movie.

I have made no such assumption. I have simply suggested that what exists now and in the 30 yr back catalog of interactive entertainment provides us with more than enough foundation material to offer ranges of complexity and themes to test the hypothesis that we're leaving a whole class of people out in the cold with their noses pressed to the window. And it doesn't require new hardware to do it.

Hooray for anecdotal evidence. We'd match for mom and grandmom, but I wouldn't consider it ridiculous at all to ask younger females what new games they've played, as I could point to several who would name games like Halo, Resident Evil, Shenmue as some of the more complex fare they've indulged in recently.

But what would be more interesting is if we took your little anecdotal exercise and swapped out video games and replaced it with sports. Using your same female survey groups, I'd be willing to bet that more would end up saying they play sports than they play video games (esp. among the young females group) but what's ironic about that is the complexity of sporting exercises is certainly greater than just about anything encountered in a videogame and poor performance has the potential for far more serious and far-reaching repercussions. Factor in Fnordchan's vivid examples of multitasking ladies playing at more traditional gaming pasttimes and I think we've beaten the horse that Complexity-is-a-Hindrance rode in on dead enough.

First of all, you're really using some bad examples again. I think I know why, too, but I'll get to that in a second. Using "sports" as an example of a passtime that some may or may not enjoy is far too specific. A valid example would be "excercise" as a whole. Ask someone what they do for excercise. My grandfather might say gardening, my mom might say walking, my brother would say football, and finally my sister would say "I don't excercise." The point I'm trying to make is that Interactive Media is not this club with very specific appeals. It has potentially broad appeal, but this industry lost sight of that over the last decade or so. The reason I think you keep using these examples that make reference to the specific instead of the general is because you might see videogames as a very niche market. To me, videogames are dictated only by what cart you put into your system and what controller you're using to play. That means that your experience is not necessarily going to be as specific as "sports" are to "excercise".

Obviously we're not making any progress here. It seems kind of silly that people are even denying the fact that there is over-complexity in the market today. If I have a tough time mastering controls on the latest and "greatest" releases, why is it difficult to imagine that newcomers would feel intimidated? I think that's the true test right there. Games on the PC can use all 100+ keys on the keyboard, and console games will have you doing finger gymnastics until your brain melts trying to remember it all. I've been playing games since I was roughly five years old, and I have problems with controls every now and then.

Having said all that, I completely agree that there are major problems with the themes and images that are pushed in this industry. The situation is almost more severe than the complexity. I can't blame people outside the teenage boy demographic for laughing at videogames. If I shake my head in disgust at the industry on an almost daily basis, and I'm 23 years old and a huge game player myself, I can only imagine how ridiculous this all looks to the outsiders. A close friend made an interesting comment to me. He said "perhaps we should leave the industry for 10 years and come back when it has truly matured." There is no "English Patient" in the videogame world. Almost every project is shallow and, lately, have become increasingly insulting to the actual core players (PoP:WW, Jak, to name a few.)

 

[FnordChan]

It's the daunting aspect of the controller device and the consideration of having to learn how to use it and how to manipulate the action onscreen that relagates modern games to "inaccessible".

Two comments:

1) First off, see other comment. If you dig back a bit, you'll see me arguing that most folks have absorbed the basic vocabulary of modern gaming simply through being exposed to it (either directly or through the media) for the past three decades.

2) This isn't anything a halfway decent tutorial mode can't fix. Take GTA: San Andreas. I'm coming to the conclusion that it's a lousy game, but I will admit that it does a fairly decent job of introducing you to a complex environment. You aren't thrown in completely to all the gameplay components, it introduces them a bit at a time, wtih explanations popping up in the corner of the screen and basic missions that allow you to test things out. Of course, it would help if their mapping system didn't completely suck ass, but otherwise they've made a good stab at it.

We do, because our learning process is tweaked to the point that we've memorised the location of buttons, the basic interactions possible with certain types of buttons, etc.

We are not that special for having played games for a while, and few modern videogames strike me as having a learning-curve that couldn't be overcome in short order by someone who had only a rudimentary knowledge of videogames. The modern day controller doesn't exist in order to be a complicated device; it exists because it does a pretty decent job of allowign you to move around and do things without being a pain in the ass. If you want to see a learning process, try playing action intensive games on an old PC keyboard.

My mother is very interested in many of the concepts presented by modern videogames (MGS, FF, other primarily story-centric games), but won't touch them because she is A) embarrassed

I don't know your mom so I can't say for sure, but at a guess I'd say she's embarassed to play video games because so many of them are being marketed at teenage boys. If someone makes a story-centric, fantasy epic game aimed at an older female population and does a half-assed job of letting this target audience know it exists, she may well be a lot more interested in giving it a go.

and B) uninterested in doing that much work just to experience something.

And, again, I maintain that it's because the experience offered isn't quite her thing. But, because we could always use more anecdotal evidence, a question: has your mom said, "Oh, that looks interesting, can I try?", spent some time with the game, and then said, "No, it's just too much work", or does she just look at the game and say, "Gosh, that looks complicated." without actually giving it a try. Personally, I'd like to think that my mother is capable of picking up on a game in short order, assuming the game offers the right appeal.

Until hardware manufacturers can meet game developers halfway such that some result is produced that accommodates that gap, those that do not play games will not flock to games en masse, wahtever thematic attributes games may have today or tomorrow.

How on earth is this a hardware issue? With a good software tutorial, someone can get used to a standard controller without much, if any, difficulty. New controller features don't hurt, of course, but I don't think they're an inherant obstacle to the enjoyment of a game by tradtional non-gamers.

Which is why Nintendo is trying experimental things like DS to see if what they think is a possible solution actually IS a solution. Time will tell from their demographic research as to whether or not they are successful.

Alternately, the stylus is a nice gimick, but at the end of the day it's just an input device, and not one that strikes me as being particularly superior to a standard control - just different. I don't see it as being particularly more intuitive, either. Sure, we're used to using pens to write with. However, that doesn't necessarily translate to "gosh, this sure does make controlling the game a lot easier". It doesn't necessarily hurt, either, but I'm still not sold on the DS stylus input as anything remotely resembling a necesssary stepping stone towards drawing in new gamers.

FnordChan

 

[JasoNsider]

Alternately, the stylus is a nice gimick, but at the end of the day it's just an input device, and not one that strikes me as being particularly superior to a standard control - just different. I don't see it as being particularly more intuitive, either. Sure, we're used to using pens to write with. However, that doesn't necessarily translate to "gosh, this sure does make controlling the game a lot easier". It doesn't necessarily hurt, either, but I'm still not sold on the DS stylus input as anything remotely resembling a necesssary stepping stone towards drawing in new gamers.

FnordChan

I don't have the time to fully respond to your comments, but I think you're really pushing it here. The touch screen is not trying to make classic input methods "better." It's trying to make an input device without any learning barriers. You're telling me that there is no difference with input when you can control games with one finger? I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't fly on this one. I see so many of you looking at this sort of input method and judging it based on existing ones. You have to stop and realize that it was put in the device with the intention of doing things differently. I can play Yoshi's Touch and Go with one finger. It takes 5 seconds to learn how to play, and away I go. It will take a newcomer maybe a solid minute to just remember the placement of the buttons on a dual-shock, and even longer to retain that information while playing. I know it sounds a little silly, but you actually do have to think outside the box here.

Maybe it's just that I've had the pleasure of watching non-players pick up games like Yoshi's Touch and Go that I'm able to see this. When you see them realize that they actually just play the game with their finger and don't even need a tutorial, they get a big smile on their face and are glued.

 

[Rahul]

Two comments:

1) First off, see other comment. If you dig back a bit, you'll see me arguing that most folks have absorbed the basic vocabulary of modern gaming simply through being exposed to it (either directly or through the media) for the past three decades.

Maybe. I can't prove either way, I'm just trying to understand Nintendo's point of view, which is that people need more accessible input devices in order to easily pick up titles. The same problem is present in the VCR industry, where many people have trouble doing something as simple as taping a movie. The interface is confusing; there are too many buttons on the remote. One of the reasons iPod is popular is because of its highly accessible input system. Etc etc.

2) This isn't anything a halfway decent tutorial mode can't fix. Take GTA: San Andreas. I'm coming to the conclusion that it's a lousy game, but I will admit that it does a fairly decent job of introducing you to a complex environment. You aren't thrown in completely to all the gameplay components, it introduces them a bit at a time, wtih explanations popping up in the corner of the screen and basic missions that allow you to test things out. Of course, it would help if their mapping system didn't completely suck ass, but otherwise they've made a good stab at it.

Many games do this, but that still doesn't make something pick-up-and-play, which for many people with little to no time to play a game, is a basic requirement. I already gave an example yesterday: Mario Kart or Monkey Ball involve maybe one or two buttons for basic gameplay. That's about as far as you can hope to take someone until they've mastered basic control. GTA:SA is far, far more complicated in that sense; you not only have to do many different things besides running and jumping, but you also have to do it in two different gameplay modes (vehicular and on foot). I agree that good game design practice will easily lead you into the controls of a game (Metroid Prime and Mario do this excellently as well), but even that is still not relevant given that many people simply do not have the time needed to sit down and get to grips with what is possibly quite an extensive control system. Gaming, ideally, should be entertaining the minute you start, like playing cards or kicking a ball. It shouldn't have to be as complicated as learning to drive a car, which if you think about it, it basically is at this point.

We are not that special for having played games for a while, and few modern videogames strike me as having a learning-curve that couldn't be overcome in short order by someone who had only a rudimentary knowledge of videogames. The modern day controller doesn't exist in order to be a complicated device; it exists because it does a pretty decent job of allowign you to move around and do things without being a pain in the ass. If you want to see a learning process, try playing action intensive games on an old PC keyboard.

I wouldn't say we're "special" at all, but we had the privilege at an early age (usually) to freely experiment and spend a lot of time on getting to use a new control device. This doesn't mean no one else can't learn it, but I doubt that many will want to given the tedious nature of doing so on a limited time schedule. Why do it the hard way when there's an easier way? If the answer is "more complex and therefore richer game experiences", then I think there's a basic flaw in the approach to videogames on the whole.

I don't know your mom so I can't say for sure, but at a guess I'd say she's embarassed to play video games because so many of them are being marketed at teenage boys. If someone makes a story-centric, fantasy epic game aimed at an older female population and does a half-assed job of letting this target audience know it exists, she may well be a lot more interested in giving it a go.

She's embarrassed because she thinks she'd look stupid in front of, say, me, trying to interact with a control device that I have already mastered. She also dislikes me looking over her shoulder when she's using the computer and telling her to alt-tab between windows instead of clicking on them one by one, for instance. Perhaps the environment in which she would be able to learn should be different, but as a hardware manufacturer, it's hard or nigh impossible to control that. I do not think the audience of the game matters, because she's enjoyed most of the titles I've played in the living room at home, as well as being pretty fanatic about modern teen culture anyway (watching numerous shows and such, listening to bands, etc).

And, again, I maintain that it's because the experience offered isn't quite her thing. But, because we could always use more anecdotal evidence, a question: has your mom said, "Oh, that looks interesting, can I try?", spent some time with the game, and then said, "No, it's just too much work", or does she just look at the game and say, "Gosh, that looks complicated." without actually giving it a try. Personally, I'd like to think that my mother is capable of picking up on a game in short order, assuming the game offers the right appeal.

Her comments don't hold any relation to the gameply, except when I actually bring it up. For instance, I explained the gameplay system of Crystal Chronicles (which took a lot longer than I'd thought given that she had absolutely no idea of the basics of magic casting, etc) and ended up having to translate it into and compare it to terms she knew, such as from her favourite fantasy novel or Lord of the Rings and Star Trek. Mainly she'll be throwing over comments on the voice acted script, as if it were a movie. So the theme and story generally do interest her, but having to sit down and interact with the game in order to experience that story or theme is not her kettle of fish.

How on earth is this a hardware issue? With a good software tutorial, someone can get used to a standard controller without much, if any, difficulty. New controller features don't hurt, of course, but I don't think they're an inherant obstacle to the enjoyment of a game by tradtional non-gamers.

Again, I base my speculation on Nintendo's (apparent) opinion while marketing the DS. As a web developer specialising in accessibility and usability, I can see where they're coming from when they say input devices are a wall between the user and the medium. On the web, ideal website design is when a user can navigate around it with any input device, regardless of it being a mouse, keyboard, mobile phone, or whatever. These principles are present in any interactive medium, and I think Nintendo is trying to follow through on general accessibility, because the more accessible a medium is, the wider your audience will be. This generally has to do with presentation, but it can definitely be related to input devices. Let's say games are at the stage of navigating a Windows-style desktop with 3d graphics using only a keyboard. Nintendo is trying to come up with the mouse. That's how I view it, anyway.

Alternately, the stylus is a nice gimick, but at the end of the day it's just an input device, and not one that strikes me as being particularly superior to a standard control - just different. I don't see it as being particularly more intuitive, either. Sure, we're used to using pens to write with. However, that doesn't necessarily translate to "gosh, this sure does make controlling the game a lot easier". It doesn't necessarily hurt, either, but I'm still not sold on the DS stylus input as anything remotely resembling a necesssary stepping stone towards drawing in new gamers.

You could also try ignoring the stylus and focusing on the touch screen: this is the big thing about DS that Nintendo's really pushing as the input device. All the stylus is is a tool with which to access the input device, but it also supports your finger, thumb strap, or whatever else the crazy Japanese come up with. As states by radiohead elsewhere in this thread, "Touch!" is the keyword and brings everything back to one thing: touch the screen, something happens. That's all you have to do. That's their ideology. Whether it's effective or not is arguable and decidedly unproven at this point. I'm interested in watching how it plays out, because I agree with the ideology and think it might be a good path to go down. Other than that, I can't really tell you anything that will convince you that my opinion holds any more weight than your own.

 

[Pimpwerx]

I don't have the time to fully respond to your comments, but I think you're really pushing it here. The touch screen is not trying to make classic input methods "better." It's trying to make an input device without any learning barriers. You're telling me that there is no difference with input when you can control games with one finger? I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't fly on this one. I see so many of you looking at this sort of input method and judging it based on existing ones. You have to stop and realize that it was put in the device with the intention of doing things differently. I can play Yoshi's Touch and Go with one finger. It takes 5 seconds to learn how to play, and away I go. It will take a newcomer maybe a solid minute to just remember the placement of the buttons on a dual-shock, and even longer to retain that information while playing. I know it sounds a little silly, but you actually do have to think outside the box here.

Maybe it's just that I've had the pleasure of watching non-players pick up games like Yoshi's Touch and Go that I'm able to see this. When you see them realize that they actually just play the game with their finger and don't even need a tutorial, they get a big smile on their face and are glued.

SSX takes 5 seconds to learn. It takes a while to get good at it. GT4 takes 5 seconds to learn. It takes a little longer to get good at it. There are lots of games that use the regular 8-button controllers that take no time at all to learn. The basic functions are always simple controls. All I see with this touchscreen is a lack of options. You don't need a touchscreen for simplicity, and there's nothing inherently simple about a touchscreen. There may be games on it that have really simple controls but it's really down to software then. I'm really not gonna be convinced that the Nintendo guy's claims are anything but a copout. It just flies in the face of what we know about gaming. PEACE.

 

[JasoNsider]

SSX takes 5 seconds to learn. It takes a while to get good at it. GT4 takes 5 seconds to learn. It takes a little longer to get good at it. There are lots of games that use the regular 8-button controllers that take no time at all to learn. The basic functions are always simple controls. All I see with this touchscreen is a lack of options. You don't need a touchscreen for simplicity, and there's nothing inherently simple about a touchscreen. There may be games on it that have really simple controls but it's really down to software then. I'm really not gonna be convinced that the Nintendo guy's claims are anything but a copout. It just flies in the face of what we know about gaming. PEACE.

That's like saying guitar takes 10 seconds to learn because you can play Twinkle Twinkle Little Stars with no problems. Nice try, but that doesn't fly. Knowing how to position your hand in one or two ways won't get you very far when you're suddenly pitted with the task of playing Stairway to Heaven.

There are a lack of options with the touch screen. That's the whole point. When Ueda designed ICO, he employed what he called "subtractive design." It's basically the opposite of what you and every other gamer on the planet is asking for. Instead of seeing how much they could add, they sought after things they could take away. By doing so, they a) made all actions meaningful and b) made a much simpler game to play.

It might take someone 5 seconds to know that one button is gas and tilt left or right to turn, but they won't make it very far with just that. Soon they will be bombarded with information and features to soak in and remember. In five seconds, I have both mastered the touch screen and mastered the gameplay in Yoshi's. Which one would you see a non-player grabbing first?

 

[FnordChan]

I don't have the time to fully respond to your comments, but I think you're really pushing it here. The touch screen is not trying to make classic input methods "better." It's trying to make an input device without any learning barriers. You're telling me that there is no difference with input when you can control games with one finger?

And you're telling me that this is exponentially simpler than "move joystick and press buttons with both hands"?

Touch screens have been around for ages, and are generally for two reasons:

1) They provide a dead simple method of input. You know, touch-screens for bridal registeries, electronic maps, that sort of thing. Anyone can walk up to it and poke at the screen without spilling soda on the keyboard or whatnot.

2) Graphics tablets that you can draw on.

So, they're simple to use - but I'm not so sure that translates as "particularly good to use for gaming". Will the stylus be fantastic for Wario-Ware style mini-games? You bet. Is the stylus an inherant improvement over traditional controls in, say, an action game? I mean, we've had touch pad technology for ages. It's been readily available at a cheap, commercial level for, at the least, two decades. And, who knows, Nintendo may be amazingly pioneering here - but I'm guessing that the reason controls have evolved the way they have is because they tend to work fairly well as is, and that touch-pads, nifty as they are, aren't inherantly better or worse, nor does their simplicity make them critically more appealing over a traditional control scheme.

I can play Yoshi's Touch and Go with one finger. It takes 5 seconds to learn how to play, and away I go. It will take a newcomer maybe a solid minute to just remember the placement of the buttons on a dual-shock, and even longer to retain that information while playing. I know it sounds a little silly, but you actually do have to think outside the box here.

Let's look at what you just said: 5 seconds versus solid minute. That's a big fifty-five second distinction. Let's factor in the "even longer to retain that information" and say it'll take 10 minutes of tutorials to get a grasp of the game. That strikes me as being a bit long, but there you go. If the game is appealing to it's audience, they'll sit down and figure out the controls. They've got great incentive to do so - a fun experience that they're genuinely interested in. A few minutes of extra time to get a handle on a traditional controller isn't going to make a major difference; a well-integrated tutorial mode negates most of this time entirely.

And while the five seconds allows you to play games as complicated as Yoshi's Touch and Go - you know, not very - will the same stylus be suited for a more complicated game? As I argued above, the games we consider our all-time favorites tend to be more complex affairs than, say, Wario Ware. The simple games are fun, but the truly immersive games that we rave about years later are a bit beyond that. Is the stylus any worse than a regular controller for playing these games? I'd say that depends on the game and the skill of the programmer, but let's assume an ideal situation and say, nope, the stylus works just fine. The real question is: Is the stylus inherantly better than a more traditional controller? And, in most cases I'd say no, not really. Different, sure. Better? No. The critical step needed to draw in all those non-gamers? Sheeeeit.

Maybe it's just that I've had the pleasure of watching non-players pick up games like Yoshi's Touch and Go that I'm able to see this. When you see them realize that they actually just play the game with their finger and don't even need a tutorial, they get a big smile on their face and are glued.

And, hey, that's great. They'll use the stylus, they'll have fun playing games like Touch and Go, fantastic. I'd love to see more people enjoy games that way. I'd also love to see more people enjoy games that go beyond the level of Touch and Go, because I think that's where the appeal of gaming beyond the scope of short diversion comes from: complex, immersive experiences. And in that case the stylus doesn't strike me as, at best, any better or worse than a traditional controller in terms of allowing people to play complicated games in general.

You could be right and I might be stuck inside the box. I could be the guy who looked at the first mouse and said, "But, why would you bother using anything other than the keyboard?" I'm not an expert in game design, input, ergonomics, or anything like that, and I'm mostly talking out of my ass...

...but that said the stylus still strikes me as more than a bit gimicky. Fun, sure. Useful, why not. A revolutionary improvement that's going to draw in non-gamers? Hardly. Good games aimed at a non-traditional gaming audience is what will draw them in, and the input device used to attain this goal is not a major consideration.

FnordChan

 

[mrklaw]

I'm 34 and have two kids. I've been gaming for a long time.

So I guess one question to ask is this: Is it worth developers/console manufacturers going after my mum and dad, when that slice of the market is shrinking as I and my generation get older. At some point will the 'complicated' controls not be an issue?

 

[kaching]

First of all, you're really using some bad examples again. I think I know why, too, but I'll get to that in a second. Using "sports" as an example of a passtime that some may or may not enjoy is far too specific. A valid example would be "excercise" as a whole.

My examples are fine. The problem is that you're spending more time arguing semantics than getting at root causes, else you would have addressed my point directly that there are probably more females who engage in sport than they do videogaming, despite complexities of the latter being greater than the former.

Without trying to erroneously classify all of it simply as forms of "exercise" (exercise is a process of self-improvement that may be incidental to sport, but does not necessarily define all forms of sport), sport is more than broad enough as a category of pastime by itself and, in fact, already represents a wider breadth and variety of activity generally more complex than anything videogaming does.

The reason I think you keep using these examples that make reference to the specific instead of the general is because you might see videogames as a very niche market.

No, I've said nothing that would suggest that at all and if you've been paying attention to what I've been saying, I don't see how you could come to that conclusion. You made a similarly myopic claim about my position earlier when you said that I was assuming that, "what we have here and now is what video games will (and should) always be." and I rebutted that as well. Spend less time trying to tell me why I think what I think and more time understanding the points I lay out that explain EXACTLY why DO think what I think.

Obviously we're not making any progress here. It seems kind of silly that people are even denying the fact that there is over-complexity in the market today. If I have a tough time mastering controls on the latest and "greatest" releases, why is it difficult to imagine that newcomers would feel intimidated? I think that's the true test right there. Games on the PC can use all 100+ keys on the keyboard, and console games will have you doing finger gymnastics until your brain melts trying to remember it all. I've been playing games since I was roughly five years old, and I have problems with controls every now and then.

Who denied that there were overcomplex games on the market? The problem is that we disagree over the extent to which they exist on the market. An overcomplex game is one I'd define as fulfilling its game design goals through *unnecessarily* complex controls. A form of interaction that requires mastery shouldn't be considered overcomplex simply because you or someone else has trouble achieving that mastery. Plenty of broadly appealing pastimes require the mastery of some form of interaction.

Notably, you keep trying to group "Interactive Media" with very passive, non-interactive forms of entertainment like TV and movies in your quest to try to explain why it isn't as broadly appealing as those. Is it really any wonder that more people are willing to simply watch the hero kill alien invaders than put in some level of effort to play the hero's role themselves? You're never going to take the "interactive" out of videogaming and you're never going to stop that from requiring more effort than it takes to simply watch/listen.

 

[DCharlie]

"You're never going to take the "interactive" out of videogaming and you're never going to stop that from requiring more effort than it takes to simply watch/listen."

you've never played early soccer management games have you ?

PS. Sports have been around a fair bit longer than videogames, with a tradition built around it. Sports are MANDATORY in school too. Even more , in sports there is no abstraction in terms of control (not entirely true for all sports) but if someone wants to run in a sport, then they don't have to worry about knowing which button or command to issue.

For me, the level of abstraction in games in terms of control does put people off. We're all used to controllers from years and years of gaming. Give someone who hasn't played a game since the NES an Xbox controller and it's gonna take them a while to get back into things.

Now what the DS does is it is introducing a "new" control method, one that looks easier - or is at least used in a much more fun way than a D-pad + buttons. If someone needs to cut veggies in Sawaru MIW, they chop the veggies on the screen with the stick. You slash as you would normally, you don't have to think about moving a blade sprite over the screen then have to press a button to do a slash.

Personally, my feeling is that it's this reduction in abstraction in terms of controls that is attracting lapse gamers and non-gamers to the DS.

(other control abstraction reduction argument : See Eyetoy sales in europe)

 

[DDayton]

As a side note...

I don't think making games with simplistic gameplay would solve anything, and I think that's one of the major issues people keep bringing up. I'm talking more about simplistic controls. You can have a very complicated game system, with dozens of weird little nuances, but stick with a somewhat simple control scheme. Most RPGs use just a + controller and two buttons for the majority of their gameplay, yet few would argue that RPGs are "simplistic" in their gameplay, especially on this board.

I'd argue that more folks are scared away from games because of a complex control scheme than because of the game itself being complex. In all my experiences, non-traditional gamers refuse to play new games because of the controller and the belief that the game will be too confusing to play. While it's true that someone can be turned off by a confusing game design, they won't even try the game if the controls are confusing.

Sports games are a special case, I think. Folks get drawn into sports games because of the social and competive aspect, and quickly learn "basic" controls -- you can play a typical sports game using just a + and a few buttons, which reduces the learning curve; you may not play all that well, but the game is simpler to jump into than your typical action title.

 

[kaching]

PS. Sports have been around a fair bit longer than videogames, with a tradition built around it. Sports are MANDATORY in school too. Even more , in sports there is no abstraction in terms of control (not entirely true for all sports) but if someone wants to run in a sport, then they don't have to worry about knowing which button or command to issue.

Have you ever seen some people try to run? Honestly, I think they'd be happy for the abstraction. And most people are certainly performing bicycle kicks far quicker by abstraction than in real life.

I'm not ignoring the advantages that sports have over videogaming. But note that they have nothing to do with reducing complexity as a means of encouraging adoption.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Although I definitely think that touch screen control can offer a more intuitive experience for non-"gamers", there's another reason for its inclusion that I didn't see anyone mention:

Whether it's better or not, the fact is that the touch screen will get more people to try it. My parents would watch me play video games a lot, but even if they liked the game they didn't actually want to try it. But when I bring the DS home for Christmas, I'm positive everybody will want to grab it away from me and mess around with the touchscreen.

Regardless of whether or not they then go and buy their own DS, what it's done is gotten somebody to try a videogame, maybe for the first time in years, maybe for the first time period. That's great for Nintendo and it's great for the industry.

 

[DDayton]

there's another reason for its inclusion that I didn't see anyone mention:

Whether it's better or not, the fact is that the touch screen will get more people to try it. My parents would watch me play video games a lot, but even if they liked the game they didn't actually want to try it. But when I bring the DS home for Christmas, I'm positive everybody will want to grab it away from me and mess around with the touchscreen.

Bah! I just noticed that I had never actually MADE my point, just led up to it. Thanks!

 

[Doogdogg]

I need that Sony e3 pic "console war is over.competition cannot catch up" thing.

 

[DCharlie]

"Have you ever seen some people try to run? Honestly, I think they'd be happy for the abstraction. And most people are certainly performing bicycle kicks far quicker by abstraction than in real life."

... bicycle kicks are a piece of piss! (in real life)