Topic: At E3, why does Nintendo explain gameplay more than Sony or Microsoft?

There's more to being dudebro than being mature though. Conker is mature, and yet that's not really a dudebro game, it's an adult cartoon game.

Okay, so we actually agree on something, maybe now we can make some real headway and-

...what the ****, man?

The Last of Us is missing one ingredient to a dudebro game: a testosterone-driven story. It's close, but the idea is supposed to be the empowerment of the main character. But that's not the case here. As much as I hate The Last of Us as a game, it never really empowers the player. Honestly, half my frustration with the gameplay was expecting a dudebro action-fest only to find that my main is very vulnerable and presented as feable human being, both in morals and his actions. Honestly, if it was a movie, I might've felt it was worth a watch. It sucks to interact with, though. A dudebro game Ironically is not something that's fun without the controller in your hand, even if all you're doing is pressing X to win the game. Because the whole point is that you're being told "You won the game".

@Bolt_Strike I'm not saying that mature = dudebro. I'm saying that you're mixing the two up. The last of Us is mature, with a well written story about survivors of a zombie apocolypse.

Geez Louise I think the term dudebro is being used completely wrong right now and honestly makes you seem as ignorant as the people saying all Nintendo games are childish.

Lol... This is hilarious. I don't have the energy or time to directly reply to the people who quoted me, so I'll just say: By all means, please, keep educating us as to what a "dudebro" game is and why Microsoft and Sony make primarily said games. It is endlessly entertaining.

@BinaryFragger I didn't say that all PS/Xbox games are dudebro, you're putting those words in my mouth. I said that most of them are (about 80-90%).

And no, Spongebob isn't dudebro. There's nothing mature or realistic about it.

Because from the beginning, Nintendo's been about the experience.

Sony and Microsoft, while also about the experience, constantly tout their powerful machines. Since Nintendo hasn't stepped into the arms race with Sony or Microsoft, the other two spend more time showing what their tech can do this time around while Nintendo shows off the gameplay experiences they've come up with or the experiences their hardware allows them to do.

I like the 80-90% figure, @Bolt_Strike. I finally have a reliable statistic to work with. What would I have ever done without this enlightening conversation straight from the mouth of an authority figure?

@kyuubikid213
"Because from the beginning, Nintendo's been about the experience." What the heck? Did you ever play Sony's "beginning," PS1, and the numerous, numerous classic experiences to be had on it? EACH of the Big Three are about the experience, it's the twisted perception of the internet that, within the last generation and currently, have put forth these ridiculous notions that Microsoft/Sony care more about graphics than gameplay.

I've owned all three companies' consoles (and this gen I own all three at once), and I can tell you - I've played incredible games on all systems. I've played Nintendo games that were skimpy on gameplay, too, and I've played Sony games that innovated and provided more dynamic experiences than Nintendo! And Microsoft's Project Spark - why do we keep brushing this one aside? In terms of pure imagination and opportunities, I don't know if any other console game provides as much creative flow (maybe Little Big Planet... nobody's mentioned that, as well ... is that dudebro, by the way @Bolt_Strike?) It is VERY short-sighted and a bit saddening to see so many people buying in to these stereotypes.

And yes, you are stereotyping. That is exactly what you are doing, @everyonewhokeepstellingmethey'renotsteretyping.

@rallydefault
I'll take this to mean you didn't read my post past the first sentence.

Just so you know, my first home console was a PS1. Then I upgraded to the PS2. I would have gotten a PS3 if it wasn't so expensive. My first Nintendo home console was the Wii.

From the moment Sony entered the console race, they did have a heavy focus on the powerful machine the PS1 was. You can't deny that. The only console Sony had that was "underpowered" was the PS2, but even then they were showing off more of what the machine could do as opposed to getting in-depth with the gameplay behind specific games. Microsoft followed their model because they were worried about the PlayStation making PC gaming irrelevant.

Nintendo hasn't been a part of any arms race since Sega stopped making consoles and they've gone in-depth with their gameplay experiences more so because of it. I never said anything about the other two caring more about graphics than gameplay, that's stupid. They DO put more emphasis on the visuals though and they have since they came into the market.

In case you're wondering, I currently own a 360 alongside my Wii and Wii U.

@kyuubikid213

No, I really wasn't wondering which consoles you own - I don't really care, to be honest. I did read your post, and you're just backtracking on what you said. You literally typed, "since the beginning," which clearly implies that SINCE THE BEGINNING (excuse my emphasis), Nintendo has been focused on gameplay while Sony/Microsoft have not.

I can't think of a more untrue statement.

Yes, the PS1 was powerful. So was the Gamecube. Just because a console is powerful doesn't mean its company is focused only on graphics.

So thanks for making my point even stronger. Of course I won't deny the PS1 was powerful. It was. But that has absolutely no relation to the point whatsoever. The PS1/PS2 have some of the greatest GAMEPLAY games of all time, some may even argue they have a stronger library than Nintendo's of the same era.

@rallydefault If you're looking for a reliable statistic you're missing the point, it's an estimate to give people a rough proportion. Don't tell me you've never done something like that before, where you don't have an accurate statistic and just give them a ballpark estimate. But if you want to go through every single game and come back with an exact statistic, be my guest.

And no, I'm not stereotyping. I'm not pulling these statements out of nowhere, I've seen their lineup.

@BinaryFragger Then you're just not understanding English, because that statement does not strictly translate into "all". The word "barely" adds room for error. And no, I never broadened my definition or changed my point, so that's not grasping at straws.

@rallydefault
Look, if you're not going to read my posts, don't waste time replying.

I never said anything about Nintendo's games being the best or most innovative. I never said anything about the quality of Sony or Microsoft's games. I never said anything bad about the experiences on the PS1 or PS2. If those are things you believe and you have to bring them up in arguments online for some reason, you should probably go back and play the excellent titles like Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper, or something. Those are great games and the PS1 and PS2 were great systems.

What I was saying was that Sony and Microsoft have always been more focused on their machine's grunt than Nintendo since the three started competing. As a result, their presentations have more emphasis on cutscenes, visuals, and narrative than Nintendo's.

Nintendo has been more focused on gameplay and gameplay experiences because that's what they've been doing for years. That's why their consoles have different control methods--for a different gameplay experience. The GamePad offers a different way to play and Nintendo wants to talk about that in conferences. The Wii offered a different way to play and they wanted to go in depth about that. Different games have different experiences, so Nintendo focuses on those.

Sony and Microsoft want to constantly push their hardware to make people see how far they've come. They have incredible experiences, yes, but they want the visuals to draw you in as well. Newsflash, very few people bought the PS4 or XB1 for gameplay. They bought them because of powerful hardware. They wanted 1080p/60fps and that's the kind of advertising Sony and Microsoft go for. Beautiful visuals and strong narratives first, in-depth gameplay synopsis for those who want it sometime later

Sony used to be great back in the PS1 and PS2 days, but they've been trending away from games like Jak and Daxter and Sly Cooper and towards more dudebro games. They've been relying more on newer IPs like Killzone, Infamous, and Uncharted than they have with games like LBP, Ratchet and Clank, and Sly Cooper. We haven't had a Jak and Daxter game in years either, and the series was completely absent on PS3 (not counting the Trilogy version which is an HD remaster and not a new game), what happened to that IP?

The irony being that Jak and Daxtar and Rachet and Clank both being games where the player uses platforming to traverse the world and kill enemies with guns of various type.

Yet Sunset Overdrive is dudebro

What? Sunset Overdrive so blatantly has made fun of dudebro games.

Let me get something straight, I don't mind the occasional dudebro game. What I don't like is 500 million of them and little of anything else, because that makes them all seem diluted. Also, I liked the first Jak and Daxter better anyway, the series wasn't as great when they dudebro-ized it in the second game.

The problem doesn't seem to be that there are too many 'dudebro' (ugh that word...) games, more that you seem to label most of the games available as 'dudebro'. That's basically like looking at Nintendo's lineup and saying 'it's all just kiddy games.'

I also can't help but think that the discussion has gone a little off topic now.

Nintendo shows off gameplay because what sells their consoles traditionally is gameplay, not graphics.

And also, a game is not "mature" because you kill and curse and other "dark" things. Mature isnt in art direction either. What's truly mature is looking past appearances, and taking something for its core experience. In Nintendo's case, I would even consider a game like kirbys epic yarn to be mature, simply because it is a creative and unique way to play, while call of duty would be considered "kiddy" because of its paint by numbers approach to game design.

That I get , I'm personally of the opinion that the moment Jak took the darker turned they killed the franchise for long term usage. But were saying that a lot of the games your saying are dude bro probably wouldn't be considered so. Take Halo, I agree that the multiplayer was one of the bigger pushes for bro gaming so to speak, but the single player happens to be a somewhat hard- Sci-fi military shooter. The actual story and Lore of the series is really deep and spans games, comics, novels, etc.

I have no idea what "dudebro" actually means. But if we're talking about a certain demographic that each respective console is trying to cater to, there can be no denying that PlayStation and Xbox are vying for the same demographic while Nintendo is not. Nintendo decided to not engage in the arms race past the GCN era because they saw it as a failure. Since then, it has been Sony and Microsoft going at each other in that sense.

When a game uses its visuals to make up for lack of gameplay, lack of quality, story, etc., that is a shame. However, it's a trend that is happening right before us. Let's not kid ourselves, the majority of games are marketed as "look at the awesome new graphics". Now, great visuals does not mean a game is automatically lacking in gameplay or storytelling, or any of the things that make a game good (great graphics do not make a game good). One can have a great-looking title that is a good game, but one can't have a good title that has bad gameplay.

I don't think anyone can argue that the marketing trends are leaning towards a certain demographic that prefers the latest and greatest visuals over gameplay. That doesn't mean these people do not also enjoy gameplay, but when purchasing a game, gameplay is not their main focus. It seems to appear that gameplay is more of a happy accident these days.

There's a reason why so many heavily marketed games, with incredibly robust budgets have gotten criticized heavily by the media and fans alike. Some people are speaking out, but when those games still sell like crazy, money speaks. And the money says "Hey, as long as we advertise with awesome CGI movies, maybe team up with Taco Bell and give away our game if you buy a chalupa, we can sell millions of copies of our crappy game, because people will get it as long as it looks good."

I mean, that demographic exists. it's vocal and boisterous and buys yearly iterations of certain franchises no matter what. As long as that demographic exists, certain companies will continue to market to them, and they will continue to give them what they want. This is a business, after all.