Nintendo and the 'Hardcore'

“Nintendo has abandoned the hardcore”

It’s a statement so ubiquitous on video game forums throughout the Internet that it warrants no citation. Its truthfulness is so widely accepted, that one might assume it to be self-evident. I’m not so certain.

Since the Nintendo Wii launched in 2006, the little white box has slowly amassed an impressive first-party line-up of critically acclaimed titles. In one console generation, there have been four Mario titles (Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, New Super Mario Bros., Super Paper Mario), two Zelda titles, two Metroid titles, two Kirby titles, two Warioware titles, a Super Smash Bros., a Punch-Out revival, a new Donkey Kong Country, and a new Sin and Punishment. The Nintendo Wii has seen more ‘core’ first-party franchises than what was seen on the Nintendo 64, or the Nintendo Gamecube.

If Nintendo didn’t really ‘abandon the hardcore’, then what actually happened? I think the often-held perception has to do with major shifts that took place in the video game industry beginning in the early 2000’s.

The release of Halo for the original Xbox marked a turning point for console first person shooters. Previously, the standard was set by Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, but they were wholly different games when compared to Counter Strike, Quake 3, or Unreal Tournament. Playing Goldeneye and Perfect Dark with one analog stick and C-Buttons was a far-cry from the precision of a mouse and keyboard. Halo benefited from the dual joystiq’s on the ‘Duke’ controller and the games slower, methodical pace. The slower pace worked well because the dual joysticks still couldn’t replicate the twitch action of PC first-person shooters. With the release of Halo 2, Bungie showed that online competitive multi-player could be done well on a console. Xbox Live even had some benefits because of its integrated nature. Finally, the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare series cemented the competitive online first person shooter as console domain.

Many people who traditionally played first person shooters on the PC migrated to the consoles because of these trends. The migration of PC gamers to the Xbox also created a substantial console market for Western role-playing games. The Fallout, Mass Effect, and Elder Scrolls franchises all found comfortable homes on the Xbox. First-person shooters and Western role-playing games became console ‘staples’, and the staples of the previous decade were displaced. Platform game’s and Japanese role-playing games would not be the hallmark genres of the sixth console generation. When platform game’s fell out of favour, so did their E-Rated nature. The new hardcore audience demanded more ‘mature’ themed content. Naughty Dog & Sucker Punch recognized the trend, and replaced their kid friendly platform games (Jak & Sly) with decidedly more mature ones (Uncharted & Infamous). New expectations and criteria for what constitutes a ‘hardcore’ experience had been created in the minds of console gamers’. In the Nintendo 64 era, ‘The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina’ of time was considered a hardcore console game. Today, ‘The Elder Scrolls IV: Skyrim’ is hardcore, and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword is a casual action-adventure game by comparison.

I believe the idea that Nintendo has ‘abandoned the hardcore’ is a misconception. Rather, I think the expectations of ‘hardcore gamers’ have changed over the passing decade. First-person shooters and Western role-playing games have become the new meat & potatoes of console gaming. Along with that, expectations have been made that hardcore games should be violent, realistic, highly customizable, and have online-play. Nintendo has continued to make game’s the way it always has, and by doing so it has failed to meet the expectations of the new ‘hardcore’ console audience.

Gallery

“Nintendo has abandoned the hardcore”

It’s a statement so ubiquitous on video game forums throughout the Internet that it warrants no citation. Its truthfulness is so widely accepted, that one might assume it to be self-evident. I’m not so certain.

Since the Nintendo Wii launched in 2006, the little white box has slowly amassed an impressive first-party line-up of critically acclaimed titles. In one console generation, there have been four Mario titles (Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, New Super Mario Bros., Super Paper Mario), two Zelda titles, two Metroid titles, two Kirby titles, two Warioware titles, a Super Smash Bros., a Punch-Out revival, a new Donkey Kong Country, and a new Sin and Punishment. The Nintendo Wii has seen more ‘core’ first-party franchises than what was seen on the Nintendo 64, or the Nintendo Gamecube.

If Nintendo didn’t really ‘abandon the hardcore’, then what actually happened? I think the often-held perception has to do with major shifts that took place in the video game industry beginning in the early 2000’s.

The release of Halo for the original Xbox marked a turning point for console first person shooters. Previously, the standard was set by Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, but they were wholly different games when compared to Counter Strike, Quake 3, or Unreal Tournament. Playing Goldeneye and Perfect Dark with one analog stick and C-Buttons was a far-cry from the precision of a mouse and keyboard. Halo benefited from the dual joystiq’s on the ‘Duke’ controller and the games slower, methodical pace. The slower pace worked well because the dual joysticks still couldn’t replicate the twitch action of PC first-person shooters. With the release of Halo 2, Bungie showed that online competitive multi-player could be done well on a console. Xbox Live even had some benefits because of its integrated nature. Finally, the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare series cemented the competitive online first person shooter as console domain.

Many people who traditionally played first person shooters on the PC migrated to the consoles because of these trends. The migration of PC gamers to the Xbox also created a substantial console market for Western role-playing games. The Fallout, Mass Effect, and Elder Scrolls franchises all found comfortable homes on the Xbox. First-person shooters and Western role-playing games became console ‘staples’, and the staples of the previous decade were displaced. Platform game’s and Japanese role-playing games would not be the hallmark genres of the sixth console generation. When platform game’s fell out of favour, so did their E-Rated nature. The new hardcore audience demanded more ‘mature’ themed content. Naughty Dog & Sucker Punch recognized the trend, and replaced their kid friendly platform games (Jak & Sly) with decidedly more mature ones (Uncharted & Infamous). New expectations and criteria for what constitutes a ‘hardcore’ experience had been created in the minds of console gamers’. In the Nintendo 64 era, ‘The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina’ of time was considered a hardcore console game. Today, ‘The Elder Scrolls IV: Skyrim’ is hardcore, and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword is a casual action-adventure game by comparison.

I believe the idea that Nintendo has ‘abandoned the hardcore’ is a misconception. Rather, I think the expectations of ‘hardcore gamers’ have changed over the passing decade. First-person shooters and Western role-playing games have become the new meat & potatoes of console gaming. Along with that, expectations have been made that hardcore games should be violent, realistic, highly customizable, and have online-play. Nintendo has continued to make game’s the way it always has, and by doing so it has failed to meet the expectations of the new ‘hardcore’ console audience.

Gallery

Or there was no 3rd party support and shit ton of shovelware . Plus the good first party stuff was few and far in the cycle.

Or there was no 3rd party support and shit ton of shovelware . Plus the good first party stuff was few and far in the cycle.

@DylanGW said:

I believe the idea that Nintendo has ‘abandoned the hardcore’ is a misconception. Rather, I think the expectations of ‘hardcore gamers’ have changed over the passing decade.

One could argue that a company not moving forward in the same direction as their fans could be considered a form of abandoning.

Personally I think the statement is nonsense as I will always consider "casual" and "hardcore" to be more about a state-of-mind than a style of game.

first of all tc, the nintendo 64 actually paved the way for first person shooters on consoles --

-goldeneye was the first highly recognized fps on console sure there was wolfenstine 3d and doom for snes,

but those really didnt change much it wasnt until goldeneye came out that fps was strong on console

- n64 has many exclusive fpses,

and pc ports

hexen doom 64 quake 1/2 turok 1-3 and ragewars ,, the world is not enough007 mission impossible etc

last gen all fpses were multiplats except killzone and halo and metroid

timesplitters 007 medal of honor call of duty all started in that gen , this gen just a repeat with better visuals and tacked on online play with the drop out of split screen on hd twins games,

in fact of all the multiplat fpses

call of duty and goldeneye are the only ones on hd consoles that retain split screen , quantum of solace only has split screen on wii also far cry has split screen 2 players on wii 1 player on xbox 360 version,

secondly, alot of people are wrong about this shovelware , there is games on the wii but people just ignore them and i think thats the main problem they choose graphics over gameplay

as a result any core game that was released on wii just got ignored as if it never happened, i can name alot of examples of these games cause i own most of them ,

1. call of duty series
2. goldeneye 00 7
3. quantum of solace
4. driver series
5. the god father
6. bully se
7. madworld
8. no more heroes
9. conduit 1/2
10. red steel 1/2
11. zack and wiki
12. deblob
13. house of the dead overkill
14. driver 5
15. cod mw 3- probably right now being ignored
16. ford racing 3 off raod
17. nascar 2011
18. wwe series
19. farcry vengance
20. brothers in arms double time
21. silent hill shattered memories
22. klonoa
23. spyro

that list dont included wii ware/nintendo made games as those are not being ignored

theres a ton more multiplats i didnt care to list but their out there-eg sims series

the point is, i think once wii u comes,

people will have no choice but to accept nintendo because i doubt people are gonna wait til 2015 for a ps4 o r 720

which would be much more expensive in this economy people will choose the cheapest option because

well look at how 3ds started- and look how it is at 169 ,99

point is, people are still not spending as much as they used to .

,and they are gonna question whether they should buy a new ps3 or 360 at the same possible price wii u will launch at, -

250-300 or just get the better bang for their buck ,

there is alot of things nintendo will have going for it next gen

that sony and ms will once again have to play catch up with, just like how this gen started ,

motion became popular, next gen , convinent gameplay option will be popular

eg being able to still play a game even when some one else wants to watch tv ,

and since wii u has all the features of wii and a standard controller a ds and a camera eg kenict

it will be welcome because well its like the swiss army knife of consoles,

i dont think wii u will sell as much as wii it may come close though , if they can continue what they did with wii -get good first party titles from every franchise, -that was mostly why everyone bought a wii is nintendo games, proven fact but if they can also get third parties to finally not give wii gimped versions of games people would buy them , i dont see a problem next gen as wii u is slightly more powerful then ps3 360 and sony said they not aiming for power next gen ,

theres gonna be a main console, its usually the one with enough power , not the one with the most or the least ps2 was an exception,

since the market has changed, 360 is this gens main platform of choice for developers wii for cashins, so seeing as 360 is this gens 2nd most powerful , it was easier to dev for etc, they most likely will choose wiiu because they say its easy to port pc games/360 games to it, then any console before, so ya im going with my gut and i say nintendo is going to do good next gen , 3ds is already paving the way , slow start but guess what it sold more then ds did in its run at this same time frame,

pretty much puts to sleep any doubt people had about that said product,

same will happen with wii u because history has a way of repeating it self,

@slightconfuse said:

Or there was no 3rd party support and shit ton of shovelware . Plus the good first party stuff was few and far in the cycle.

The Nintendo Gamecube and The Nintendo 64 were no better when it came to 3rd party support, and the first-party game's were even fewer and far between.

@mariokart64fan: Why all the spaces? Your post is difficult to look at.

Best thing to do with Nintendo nowadays is wait till they release their next console/handheld, pick up the previous one for scrap, get all the big games and enjoy.
Otherwise you're paying full price for a (soon to be) older model, few games and some tacked on shit my watch could do.
 
I love Nintendo, but they're taking things way to slow.
Bring out a thing, make it awesome to last, like a ps3 or xbox (sure they changed models, but the hardware stayed the same, no extra shit or buttons or whatever).

@ProfessorEss said:

@DylanGW said:

I believe the idea that Nintendo has ‘abandoned the hardcore’ is a misconception. Rather, I think the expectations of ‘hardcore gamers’ have changed over the passing decade.

One could argue that a company not moving forward in the same direction as their fans could be considered a form of abandoning.

Personally I think the statement is nonsense as I will always consider "casual" and "hardcore" to be more about a state-of-mind than a style of game.

That's a fair point. What I am trying to address is the idea that Nintendo has changed, and that explains why they have fell out of favour amongst the hardcore. I think the opposite. I think Nintendo has stayed relatively the same, and has failed to meet the evolving expectations of hardcore gamers. Perhaps I am splitting hairs? I think there is a real distinction to be made, because viewing it one way or the other has a pretty big impact on how one understands the past decade.

Note: I also think the term 'hardcore' is a loaded term (hence the quotations) but I think it is useful in the context of this blog post. Most people who read it will probably know what I mean by it.

i still play Nintendo games

I buy nintendo consoles purely for the first party titles, they are worth it to me, can't really get the same experience anywhere else.

I am not trying to defend or berate Nintendo. Whether Nintendo has done the 'right' thing or the 'wrong' thing is subjective, and none of my concern. What I am interested in is the narrative that "Nintendo has changed" and therefore "abandoned the hardcore". I think it is quite the opposite; Nintendo has failed to change, and so the hardcore abandoned Nintendo. I have no personal issue with what has happened, I am merely pointing out this basic difference. I think it is important for how we understand the changes that have occurred in the past decade.

Allow me to use an analogy. Let's imagine a popular 1950's ballad singer. She was having a great career singing ballads all throughout the 1950's. Her listeners loved her. But in the 1960's, rock & roll music became more popular, and many of her listeners realized they liked rock & roll music more because it was aggressive. "Why listen to those boring ballads, anyway" they thought. The ballad singer continued to sing ballads, but her audience left her for the new rock & roll. Would it be correct to say that her audience stopped listening because she changed? I don't think so, she never changed, she kept singing ballads. What changed were the tastes of her listeners, and it was her failure to change with them that caused her audience not to tune in. Depending on how you frame it (change vs. failure to change), the story of the ballad singer looks very different, and that's why I think it's important we understand what's happened with Nintendo and the 'hardcore'.

@MikeGosot said:

@slightconfuse said:

Or there was no 3rd party support and shit ton of shovelware . Plus the good first party stuff was few and far in the cycle.

This.

Every time someone goes for the "shovelware" crap argument I point them to the library of the PS2. There were far more third party games, yes. There was also a SHIT TON more shovelware that no one ever mentions, and yet it had the best library of that generation of games.

But this topic is using the term "hardcore" in a serious, non-ironic manner, that makes it just plain bad. Stop the hardcore/casual divide, it only makes gaming worse for everyone.

@MidgardDragon: I'm actually not one to throw around the term 'hardcore' (hence the quotations). I am only using it because it is in the context of addressing the common statement that "Nintendo has abandoned the hardcore". I personally don't care for the term, but I can't not use it given the subject I'm looking at.

EDIT: Agreed, a console is judged based on the glut of it's best games not the glut of it's worst.

@DylanGW said:

@slightconfuse said:

Or there was no 3rd party support and shit ton of shovelware . Plus the good first party stuff was few and far in the cycle.

The Nintendo Gamecube and The Nintendo 64 were no better when it came to 3rd party support, and the first-party game's were even fewer and far between.

Now you are flat-out lying.

The Gamecube and N64 were comparable systems to the PS1 and PS2 respectively which allowed companies to port and develop similar games to that system. Resident Evil 4, Eternal Darkness, Viewtiful Joe are some pretty "core" games that lead to software sales and a dedicated attachment rate.

The Wii being a 480p only system without much internet support directly set up a road block to most game developers that couldn't just port their work onto that system or develop games using their new technology. That's nintendo abandoning the "hardcore" gamer. How can you deny this?

@MidgardDragon said:

@MikeGosot said:

@slightconfuse said:

Or there was no 3rd party support and shit ton of shovelware . Plus the good first party stuff was few and far in the cycle.

This.

Every time someone goes for the "shovelware" crap argument I point them to the library of the PS2. There were far more third party games, yes. There was also a SHIT TON more shovelware that no one ever mentions, and yet it had the best library of that generation of games.

But this topic is using the term "hardcore" in a serious, non-ironic manner, that makes it just plain bad. Stop the hardcore/casual divide, it only makes gaming worse for everyone.

Shovelware games vs shovelware storybooks. I choose games.

I think that you and I think alike, and since I am a raging narcissist I think that this post is great.

It seems that you've put a lot of effort into this thread and I don't mean to be dismissive, but as Jeff has said in the jar time videos, the simple fact is that video games evolve. Until you're blue in the face, you can explain away the fact that the Wii doesn't have HD graphics or a hard drive or competent online play because "they were never about that" but it won't change anything about how these hardcore gamers feel now. You can't judge by a 1998 yardstick anymore, we're judging by a 2011 yardstick.

The crux of your argument then becomes that they abandoned Nintendo and not the other way around, but does history really agree? No previous console, even the N64 with its infamous game droughts ever saw a year like this one on the Wii. No previous console, even the Gamecube with its lack of online and mini disc format has ever been as gimped right out of the gate as the Wii.

In my opinion, Nintendo packaged and sold a deceitful, gimmicky controller with a rebranded Gamecube and made a fortune from a brand new market. And now that market seems to care more about phones and Angry Birds than anything else, so we'll see if it was a smart long-term decision. I don't care for whether it was the 'right' or 'wrong' thing to do either, but this "who abandoned who" talk is silly. People who buy video games are predictable as they come and the Gamecube was profitable, yet Nintendo went in another direction.

And there hasn't even been any NOA Xenoblade discussion here.

first of all tc, the nintendo 64 actually paved the way for first person shooters on consoles --

-goldeneye was the first highly recognized fps on console sure there was wolfenstine 3d and doom for snes,

but those really didnt change much it wasnt until goldeneye came out that fps was strong on console

- n64 has many exclusive fpses,

and pc ports

hexen doom 64 quake 1/2 turok 1-3 and ragewars ,, the world is not enough007 mission impossible etc

last gen all fpses were multiplats except killzone and halo and metroid

timesplitters 007 medal of honor call of duty all started in that gen , this gen just a repeat with better visuals and tacked on online play with the drop out of split screen on hd twins games,

in fact of all the multiplat fpses

call of duty and goldeneye are the only ones on hd consoles that retain split screen , quantum of solace only has split screen on wii also far cry has split screen 2 players on wii 1 player on xbox 360 version,

secondly, alot of people are wrong about this shovelware , there is games on the wii but people just ignore them and i think thats the main problem they choose graphics over gameplay

as a result any core game that was released on wii just got ignored as if it never happened, i can name alot of examples of these games cause i own most of them ,

1. call of duty series
2. goldeneye 00 7
3. quantum of solace
4. driver series
5. the god father
6. bully se
7. madworld
8. no more heroes
9. conduit 1/2
10. red steel 1/2
11. zack and wiki
12. deblob
13. house of the dead overkill
14. driver 5
15. cod mw 3- probably right now being ignored
16. ford racing 3 off raod
17. nascar 2011
18. wwe series
19. farcry vengance
20. brothers in arms double time
21. silent hill shattered memories
22. klonoa
23. spyro

that list dont included wii ware/nintendo made games as those are not being ignored

theres a ton more multiplats i didnt care to list but their out there-eg sims series

the point is, i think once wii u comes,

people will have no choice but to accept nintendo because i doubt people are gonna wait til 2015 for a ps4 o r 720

which would be much more expensive in this economy people will choose the cheapest option because

well look at how 3ds started- and look how it is at 169 ,99

point is, people are still not spending as much as they used to .

,and they are gonna question whether they should buy a new ps3 or 360 at the same possible price wii u will launch at, -

250-300 or just get the better bang for their buck ,

there is alot of things nintendo will have going for it next gen

that sony and ms will once again have to play catch up with, just like how this gen started ,

motion became popular, next gen , convinent gameplay option will be popular

eg being able to still play a game even when some one else wants to watch tv ,

and since wii u has all the features of wii and a standard controller a ds and a camera eg kenict

it will be welcome because well its like the swiss army knife of consoles,

i dont think wii u will sell as much as wii it may come close though , if they can continue what they did with wii -get good first party titles from every franchise, -that was mostly why everyone bought a wii is nintendo games, proven fact but if they can also get third parties to finally not give wii gimped versions of games people would buy them , i dont see a problem next gen as wii u is slightly more powerful then ps3 360 and sony said they not aiming for power next gen ,

theres gonna be a main console, its usually the one with enough power , not the one with the most or the least ps2 was an exception,

since the market has changed, 360 is this gens main platform of choice for developers wii for cashins, so seeing as 360 is this gens 2nd most powerful , it was easier to dev for etc, they most likely will choose wiiu because they say its easy to port pc games/360 games to it, then any console before, so ya im going with my gut and i say nintendo is going to do good next gen , 3ds is already paving the way , slow start but guess what it sold more then ds did in its run at this same time frame,

pretty much puts to sleep any doubt people had about that said product,

same will happen with wii u because history has a way of repeating it self,

I really hate the terms "hardcore" and "casual".

@Doctorchimp said:

@DylanGW said:

@slightconfuse said:

Or there was no 3rd party support and shit ton of shovelware . Plus the good first party stuff was few and far in the cycle.

The Nintendo Gamecube and The Nintendo 64 were no better when it came to 3rd party support, and the first-party game's were even fewer and far between.

Now you are flat-out lying.

The Gamecube and N64 were comparable systems to the PS1 and PS2 respectively which allowed companies to port and develop similar games to that system. Resident Evil 4, Eternal Darkness, Viewtiful Joe are some pretty "core" games that lead to software sales and a dedicated attachment rate.

The Wii being a 480p only system without much internet support directly set up a road block to most game developers that couldn't just port their work onto that system or develop games using their new technology. That's nintendo abandoning the "hardcore" gamer. How can you deny this?

I think you make a good point. Performance-wise, the Nintendo 64 and Nintendo Gamecube were comparable to the PS1 and PS2. Nintendo's downgrading of the Wii's performance can be viewed as an abandonment of the 'hardcore'. I failed to consider this important point because I was so wrapped up in my other ideas.

However, I stand firm on the issue of third-party support. Third-party support for the Nintendo 64 and for the Nintendo Gamecube was relatively poor, and that trend continued with the Nintendo Wii. There were some gems for each system, but they were few and far between. The Nintendo 64 had Turok, Rayman 2, Resident Evil 2, Ogre Battle, Tetrisphere, but little else. The Nintendo 64 was poorly supported by third-parties in comparison to the PS1, which gained nearly the entirety of the great JRPG franchises that previously occupied the SNES. The Nintendo Gamecube had a few wonderful third-party games like you mentioned, but the majority of third-party developers supported the Playstation 2. The Wii, like the Gamecube & N64 before it, is the same story. There have been a few stand-out third-party games; No More Heroes, Mad World, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, Okami, Boom Blox, Tatsunoko vs Capcom, Sin & Punishment, Zack & Wiki, but despite these games for the most part it has been poorly supported. I think the last three generations of NIntendo consoles have comparable third-party support- a few stand-out games but a general lack of support overall.

The lack of functional on-line on the Wii actually supports my claim. My argument is that Nintendo's lack of change has caused the hardcore to abandon them.

@Turtlemayor333: Thanks for the comment. I'm in agreement with you for the most part. But when I talk about "the hardcore abandoning Nintendo", I don't mean it in a "How dare you!" fanboy-ish kind of way. I think people are right to go where their tastes lead them. My personal console of choice is the PS3, not the Nintendo Wii. What I am trying to demonstrate is the difference between a company alienating their audience by changing, and a company alienating their audience by not changing. With a few exceptions (as some people have helpfully pointed out), I think Nintendo's case is the latter. My allusion to the ballad singer is the best way I can get this across.

Let's imagine a popular 1950's ballad singer. She was having a great career singing ballads all throughout the 1950's. Her listeners loved her. But in the 1960's, rock & roll music became more popular, and many of her listeners realized they liked rock & roll music more because it was aggressive. "Why listen to those boring ballads, anyway" they thought. The ballad singer continued to sing ballads, but her audience left her for the new rock & roll. Would it be correct to say that her audience stopped listening because she changed? I don't think so, she never changed, she kept singing ballads. What changed were the tastes of her listeners, and it was her failure to change with them that caused her audience not to tune in. Depending on how you frame it (change vs. failure to change), the story of the ballad singer looks very different, and that's why I think it's important we understand what's happened with Nintendo and the 'hardcore'.

You have casual to hardcore games like Call of Duty and Madden. But then you have niche casual to hardcore games like Zelda. Zelda doesn't sell shit compared to a Call of Duty game and then take into account year after year. So many variations when making a game. They try to reach but at least we get to play.

@MidgardDragon said:

@MikeGosot said:

@slightconfuse said:

Or there was no 3rd party support and shit ton of shovelware . Plus the good first party stuff was few and far in the cycle.

This.

Every time someone goes for the "shovelware" crap argument I point them to the library of the PS2. There were far more third party games, yes. There was also a SHIT TON more shovelware that no one ever mentions, and yet it had the best library of that generation of games.

Yeah but it has a higher quantity of good games than the Wii does, which is why people probably forgive the amount of shovelware. The ratio was better.

I stopped caring about Nintendo years ago. In the late 90's and early aughts I went with them over anything else.

To me it has nothing to do with Nintendo supporting the 'hardcore' or not; just what they're doing no longer interests me.

@Matfei90 said:

I stopped caring about Nintendo years ago. In the late 90's and early aughts I went with them over anything else.

To me it has nothing to do with Nintendo supporting the 'hardcore' or not; just what they're doing no longer interests me.

You must not like video games. Or maybe only a few.

If I lived the rest of my life never hearing the term 'hardcore' again, in any context, I'd die a happy man. But, in terms of this thread, the video game business is only recently starting to become a main-stream industry that is not just relegated to being enjoyed by a sub-population. It is still a new, young industry and those who like the industry would likely see a benefit in not fragmenting themselves into small groups. This is especially true when the fragmented groups end up bitching at one another. So, the 'hardcore' group of video game fans would be better suited by not excluding themselves from everyone else who plays games. But, more specifically, those 'hardcore' fans look like petty little children who only want to be around other fans who "get it" and want to ridicule those that don't. It's silly. It's fine wanting video games to meet a personal standard. It's not ok if that personal standard is forced upon all video games despite other potential audiences.

So, all that said, Nintendo can do whatever the fuck they want. They are clearly still one of the most influential and creative developers in the industry and are constantly growing and pushing themselves. For example, I think the two Galaxy games are two of the most phenomenal games to be released this generation and will hold up for years and years to come. They still have a ton of talent and utilize that talent much more often then not. If that means that that talent is making family games, kids' games, or "casual" games then so be it. If a person doesn't like the games made they don't need to buy those games. But don't fucking yell "Nintendo doesn't care about the hardcore!" It's petty, it's childish, it's ignorant, and it only leads to video game fans, those self-titled 'hardcore' fans, look like jackasses.

@Claude said:

@Matfei90 said:

I stopped caring about Nintendo years ago. In the late 90's and early aughts I went with them over anything else.

To me it has nothing to do with Nintendo supporting the 'hardcore' or not; just what they're doing no longer interests me.

You must not like video games. Or maybe only a few.

How does that make sense? Nintendos output doesn't outweigh that of what's available on the PC, 360 and PS3.

I very much like games, and alot of them.

@Matfei90 said:

@Claude said:

@Matfei90 said:

I stopped caring about Nintendo years ago. In the late 90's and early aughts I went with them over anything else.

To me it has nothing to do with Nintendo supporting the 'hardcore' or not; just what they're doing no longer interests me.

You must not like video games. Or maybe only a few.

How does that make sense? Nintendos output doesn't outweigh that of what's available on the PC, 360 and PS3.

I very much like games, and alot of them.

My goodness. Not only does the Wii and Nintendo have some wonderful if not the best first party games available on consoles, but the third party games on the Wii have seen some good ones if you know what you're looking for. I don't know. I just play video games.

@Claude said:

@Matfei90 said:

@Claude said:

@Matfei90 said:

I stopped caring about Nintendo years ago. In the late 90's and early aughts I went with them over anything else.

To me it has nothing to do with Nintendo supporting the 'hardcore' or not; just what they're doing no longer interests me.

You must not like video games. Or maybe only a few.

How does that make sense? Nintendos output doesn't outweigh that of what's available on the PC, 360 and PS3.

I very much like games, and alot of them.

My goodness. Not only does the Wii and Nintendo have some wonderful if not the best first party games available on consoles, but the third party games on the Wii have seen some good ones if you know what you're looking for. I don't know. I just play video games.

All comes down to taste, in the end. I have a Wii, bought one a few months after they came out, but it's spend over 3/4s of its lifetime in the closet with my old hardware.

I may pull it out again when Skyward Sword drops in price significantly (as up until Twilight Princess I've been a big Zelda fan), however I don't have a motionplus so I'm not sure how much that would affect the gameplay. As for the Mario Galaxies and everything else like that, just not interested enough to put down for it.

@Matfei90: A lot of people liked playing games on the Wii. You just gave up because nothing interested you. There's nothing wrong with that. I for one have had a ton of fun. I guess it must be taste. Shattered Memories, the port of Resident Evil 4, The Godfather: Blackhand Edition and Bully were straight up fun. I remember playing Boom Blox for the first time and don't get me started on how great Endless Ocean: Blue World was. Good times. I bet I put 150 hours into Mario Kart Wii. And over a thousand hours into the Tiger Woods series on the Wii.

But that party is coming to a close, I'm up for the Wii U. Will it interest other people who like video games and have different tastes? Well, that's to be seen.

@Claude said:

@Matfei90 said:

I stopped caring about Nintendo years ago. In the late 90's and early aughts I went with them over anything else.

To me it has nothing to do with Nintendo supporting the 'hardcore' or not; just what they're doing no longer interests me.

You must not like video games. Or maybe only a few.

This statement is ridiculous, just thought i would add...

@probablytuna said:

I really hate the terms "hardcore" and "casual".

I prefer to use the term "traditional" gamer. I am a traditional gamer. I have always played consoles or PC. I also prefer to use the term "new" gamer. They may start with what many consider to be a "casual" game, but they are merely traditional gamers in the making. We are all gamers. That is why I despise the hate and derision for "lesser" games and gamers, as they will hopefully grow into supporters of the gaming industry as a whole.

Even if Nintendo was a "kids" game company, which it isn't, then why crap on them anyway? They are supplying the industry many of the traditional gamers of the future. Everyone should love Nintendo for what they do well. I can't believe anyone wouldn't have fun with Super Smash Bros or Mario Kart and if you can afford more than one console, you are crazy not to allow yourself the pure, unadulterated enjoyment that comes from Nintendo.

Now, I need to get pack to my PS3 for some game time.

I agree with your statements about the fall of JRPGs and the rise of western ones and shooters. I never thought about how I used to play all the shooters and WRPGs on PC before, but you're right. 10 years ago I was playing Neverwinter Nights and Counter-Strike on PC, but now I play that kind of stuff on X-Box. That would be the decline of the PC for me though, not Nintendo.

Nintendo's fall for me was a deadly combination of me hitting a certain age, and the Gamecube. I got my N64 when it first came out so I was in 6th grade. It was good enough for awhile, but Playstation had a lot of games I really wanted to play (even though I thought most PS games looked like shit) and their games were clearly more "mature" as a whole. I abandoned my N64 for PC long before the next-gen popped up, and when it finally did the PS2 annihilated the Gamecube in every single way. As far as I was concerned they had even managed to make Mario suck. I was in highschool by then and I sure as fuck wasn't choosing Luigi's Mansion or Mario fuckin Sunshine over GTA3 or FFX. I mean seriously, what the fuck Nintendo?

They almost tricked me into thinking the Wii would be fun, but fortunately my friend fell for it first so I never got one. I know I sounded pretty negative towards Nintendo there, but that was just my thoughts at that time in my life. I still like Nintendo games, and have a 3DS and had a DS. Their consoles are just so damn shitty and I see no end in sight. I do plan to play Mario Kart 7 in quite the hardcore fashion though.