Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@cwong15 how about giving the real source instead of a Twitter user? Since he says it is from Reddit, but he doesn't seem to link to the original source.

"Casual gamers" are what "hardcore gamers" accuse others to be when they disagree with something. Both terms are meaningless, since they are not even remotely reflecting on the gamer groups that do exists.

Edit: it might have had other meanings in the past, but this is what it has become.

No, I'm just trying to describe a split of gamers into two groups that actually makes sense. This idea that someone who is really into games won't be into the NX by default? It doesn't really add up. Because someone who spends a lot of money/time on games will buy into another platform in a heartbeat.

Nintendo doesn't need to have third party releases to convince "the hardcore" that the NX is worth it. These consumers can already play those major third party releases! I'm not going to buy the NX for GTA, I already have a PC. So what they need are quality exclusives and/or a point of difference on the hardware. Which they get by being the only serious portable system on the market.

It's the more casual players that Nintendo needs to work on. Those are the people who will be standing in the shops deciding whether or not they get an NX or a PS4. The portable angle will work well just as it will with the more dedicated audience. But the PS4 will have the big third party releases and the NX probably won't. That'll count against it for more casual consumers. Nintendo need to again counter-punch with exclusive content.

So again, I think your analysis is backwards.

@skywake I agree. You get hardcore and casual gamers on ALL systems. It is based more on a person's situation and circumstance as opposed to someone who throws money at companies blindly and crave a certain thing. I think it is a false supposition to see hardcore gamers as a market. This demographic needs ironing out in more detail to consider tastes, budget etc. It is a bit of a basic label that I honestly think not even Microsoft or Sony chase (even if middle management might use 'key words' to try to affiliate with a mindset.)

@rallydefault No, he was making the difference between Nintendo vs Sony; as if that was equal to gameplay vs story. All I'm saying is that it isn't black and white like that. When he was saying that the average Sony fan wants story over gameplay or that Sony sells their games as if they were films, that's simply not true. You can point to The Last of Us, but then you're ignoring a very vast and diverse PS4 library. When the best selling games like COD, GTA or FIFA are not played for their deep narratives, but gameplay instead, then yes I think he's wrong about the average Sony fan wanting story over gameplay. As I pointed out, I don't see how Sony is selling their games like films either, if it's a story driven game, then yes of course, but there's a lot more than those types of games. And even Nintendo has its share of games with intertwined stories. Does really matter in the end? No. Are they all games? Of course they are.

This is just like the casual vs hardcore discussion in a way. Both are extreme ends, but the majority falls somewhere in-between, so the distinction isn't as black and white as some would like it to be.

This whole gameplay v story argument is nonsense. Look, some games just don't really need a great story or a story at all, and very often Nintendo creates games to that end:

Does there really need to be a story to get me going about various levels, collecting stars and fighting Bowser in 3D Marios? No. A simple "Peach is kidnapped" really is enough and I can't (although willing to listen to opinions) of how a well-thought out story in the Mario world would really help. The same could be applied to lots of Nintendo's franchises that focus on level-based gameplay.

However, when it comes to games like Zelda that try to create a connected universe with myths/lore then naturally a clear and well-spoken story that complements the gameplay is very important. It helps achieve an additional level of immersion, can make the player feel emotion towards various characters and helps drive the "journey/quest" aspect to Zelda.

Of course, Nintendo focuses much more time on developing games that are more Mario-like than Zelda-like thus for the most part stories are not that important. However, Nintendo could focus on developing more titles that attempt to do some of the things that Zelda does where story is important to the game

@Octane Quit making it a battle between to different companies! Lol, I was saying that Nintendo does not talk up it's story lines as much as Sony and third party companies. Sure there are examples out there of other companies like you mentioned that do big their gameplay up, but as this is a Nintendo website, I am focusing more on how Nintendo specifically tends not to. This might be a change of tack to win over a certain crowd that Sony and Microsoft have captured since both Sony and Microsoft have video gameas that are pretty much soap operas that hook people like Game of Thrones and they want to know what happens next. Mario has no continuity as they are trying to create something new when they make a game. I really don't know how to explain what I am trying to say lol. Hell, even Zelda sells itself on its gameplay and it was only because of narrow minded folk demanding a timeline that they crow bar'd one in. Japan are fond of unrelated side stories and retells. The next Mario game will be sold on what the NX allows it to do differently, not "Last time...in Mario 3D world..."

@GrailUK I'm not really sure, but I think you were the one making the distinction between Nintendo and Sony. All I'm saying is that there's no battle, or difference really. That if you want to play ''Nintendo-esque''-gameplay games that don't focus on story on a Sony console, that you can, because they make those for the PS4 as well.

Or is it that you are arguing that Nintendo should attract or develop narrative driven games to appeal to wider audience? I'm not really sure what your point is anymore, haha!

To put it simply the term "casual gamer" is used in gaming communities in the same way that "bad taste" is used in music communities. It's just shorthand for saying that someone is ill-informed because they're consuming "bad" content. But it's of course BS because most people don't care and will play both the "bad" and the "good". So when someone uses it to describe consumer behaviour? It falls apart.

Really, it only makes sense to divide consumers into groups based purely on their level of consumption. The power users and the everyday consumer. Where the only noticeable difference between the two is that the former is willing to pay for premium content and is willing to buy more of it.

@Octane
I agree that things are never black and white. But, I disagree with your last point: that it basically "doesn't matter," and that they are "all games." Technically, yes, they are all games, but like I said in my first post, some of these games coming out that are basically interactive movies don't really strike me as "games" (and I've played quite a few of them).

A perfect example of that would be The Order on PS4. BEAUTIFUL game. Absolutely beautiful. Engaging story, for the most part. But in my opinion: almost totally lacking actual gameplay, and in my eyes, really bordering on what a "game" is (MY OPINION): almost 100% player involvement and influence. When I find myself watching cutscenes and listening to dialogue for more than 50% of the game, I'm kind of at the point where I could've just watched a movie or read a book.

I enjoy all the consoles, but the facts are the facts: Nintendo does not generally put out games that are heavier on story than they are on gameplay elements. You can try to argue against that, but it's just their track record. You can find a few games here and there to support your side (maybe the Ace Attorney games, for example - but do they even count as 1st-party?), but let's get serious: it is NOT the norm for Nintendo to fret over story. You can read/watch almost every Nintendo developer interview out there. Even some of their bigger "story" titles like the Mario RPGs are cherished for their gameplay moreso than the actual story at the end of the day. That's the kind of the difference, and I do think there is a difference.

There's a rumour that at the Playstation meeting (September 7th) Sony will announce the PS Vita Trinity.

https://twitter.com/NeoGAFNewThread/status/763360036588486656...

How did they jump from an fcc application for wireless (for example ordinary wifi) to a new vita?

Really don't see why Sony would bother.

@Octane Yeah, I pretty much agree with you. Games focused on gameplay exist on other consoles aside from Nintendo's, and to suggest otherwise is...well, untrue. Perhaps it's just because there's such a huge amount of "cinematic" games on the Xbox and Playstation that it's just easier to point at them and say that is the only kind of game on the console, despite HUGE successes such as Rocket League, Destiny (let's be honest, that game survives on its gameplay alone because the story is pretty much nonexistant for most of it), TearAway, Gravity Rush, Ratchet and Clank, and countless others.

@BiasedSonyFan I'm just gonna simply disagree there. They would definitely be missed. But considering neither of us could prove this, I'll just disagree with that point and leave it alone.

@BiasedSonyFan Sure thing, bud

To get back on track, with the Neo revealing soon, hopefully Nintendo can have all focus on them when they reveal.

@Grumblevolcano The OP of that thread just won the Olympic gold medal for conclusion jumping.

@BiasedSonyFan lol you were the one that pulled out sales data. Sooo.. Same to you.

@IceClimbers I think if anything it's a new Vita with an HD screen, wireless AC 5 GHz, and longer battery, aimed at being best device for ps4(neo) remote play.

For NX and Nintendo's sake,lets hope that Vita Trinity rumour isn't true.