Graphics only take you so far. The game-play is what matters.
I could not agree with this more. The whole casual vs hardcore argument is pretty pointless. From everything I've ever seen it was started by people who play one game or one type of game constantly and ignore the millions of other options out there. To me hardcore = boring and myopic.
All it comes down to is whether or not a game is fun to play. That's one of the reasons why I love the NES so much. The games are damned fun to play.
Well, I think the Wii deserves a little more credit then some of you guys have given it; The new Super Mario Bros is proof that even after... 4 years of being around they can still make some great games. The 3rd party thing has been a problem for Nintendo since the N64 in my opinion. I don't think it is that the systems are "weak" but usually are more advanced then what is on the market at the time and I see the other game companies as being lazy and not wanting to step up their game as much as Nintendo.
I would like to see the downloadable games go down in price a little bit- it is still $10 for a N64 game and $8 for a SNES game- that is way too much for games that are over 10 years old at this point. I LOVE what they have done with the virtual console, Turbo Grafix games? Are you f'n serious??
The main problem as I see it with 3rd party support and the Wii is that few companies are willing to develop Wii-exclusive titles. Developers usually just take the games they made for XB360 and PS3 and ram-rod them into the Wii. Who wants to buy that? Not me.
The PS3 and XB360 are essentially the same style/caliber of platform, but the Wii is something unique and Nintendo seems to be the only company capitalizing on it. Sure, it's of the same generation as the PS3 and XB360, but that doesn't really MEAN anything.
Case in point, 3rd party developers don't seem to have any trouble making profit on games developed specifically for the DS... but that's because they don't see the DS and PSP as being the same product. They are treated as being completely different platforms. Obviously the DS isn't nearly as graphically powerful as the Wii or PSP... but developers manage to release FUN games on it anyway and manage to sell a crapload of product. Go figure!
Woah Woah Woah Woah slow down a second. You guys don't dig Twilight Princess, Smash Bros, New Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Galaxy, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, Mario Kart, Wii Fit, Super Paper Mario, etc??
Woah Woah Woah Woah slow down a second. You guys don't dig Twilight Princess, Smash Bros, New Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Galaxy, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, Mario Kart, Wii Fit, Super Paper Mario, etc??
Of course those are good games, but all of those except one were published by Nintendo and more than half of them have "Mario" in the title. Don't get me wrong, Nintendo makes excellent games. I also love my Wii... but I know more people who NEVER play their Wii's than people who do regularly.
Believe it or not, some people don't like Mario and Zelda, or even Metroid games...
Other people want to watch movies and have a robust online experience...
Some people just like having a normal controller...
If you're hell bent on only owning one system, which some people are... any of these can be a deal breaker for the Wii. As long as Nintendo never gives up and keeps making unique hardware, I don't care... at least nobody can touch the DS.
Oh wait... people touch the DS all the time. Touching is good.
But I digress...
Even I, being a Nintendo fan of a high caliber, have trouble recommending a Wii to anyone who only wants to have one system... I recommend PS3 instead because it just has a better variety of software and the best default hardware configuration for the money.
Although, I do agree that none of the current gen software lineups are currently anything to write home about... there just seems to be more future promise in the PS3 and XBOX360 due to the ample 3rd party support and two-systems-for-the-price-of-one development costs.
Well, Brion, you must live in a different gaming world where driving simulators are actually fun...in the world most of us live in, we drive a car every day, and it's the most boring experience imaginable...I don't want to waste gaming time doing the same thing
Most of us who drive a car drives in normal traffic and in "normal" speed though, and Gran Turismo isnt really an "average day driving" simulator Gran Turismo is more of a racing simulator where you race against the clock and/or race against other opponents. I would say that games like Gran Turismo and Forza Motorsport is more aimed towards people who have some interest in racing and who are interersted in cars in general.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Graphics only take you so far. The game-play is what matters.
That is true as you say, i agree, but there is no problem to have both great graphics and fun gameplay
I remember a few years ago when there were those discussions (not on NintendoAge.com, but discussions in general at other gaming forums) about the Wii VS the PS3/Xbox 360. I understood some of the arguements in these discussions almost like some people ment that the developers had to chose between having good gameplay and having good graphics. I am not sure if this is what they ment, but i almost understood it like this at least.
In some cases, some developers might focus more on the graphics and focus less on the gameplay, but there are definitely games out there that has both great gameplay and great graphics in my opinion, so it is no problem to have both great gameplay and great graphics in a game
I am not saying that you are saying that this isnt possible to have great gameplay and great graphics in a game just to underline that, i was just speaking generally that it is possible to have great gameplay and great graphics in a game
Speaking of gameplay, i would say that "good/bad gameplay" is pretty much the same as saying "the game is fun/not fun to play". Which games that are fun to play or not is more of a personal opinion, so i dont think that there is any direct key answer to what good or bad gameplay actually is. Maybe more variated gameplay (where you dont do pretty much the exact same gamplay mechanics throughout an entire game) can be defined as "better gameplay", but what matters the most is how fun the game is to play, at least in my opinion
Personally i feel that good graphics can actually enhance the gameplay experience in some cases. If the graphics are good, it might create a good atmosphere in the game if you know what i mean? "Good graphics" doesn neccessarily means "more detailed graphics", but in some cases i feel that graphics can enhance the gameplay experiences.
I could not agree with this more. The whole casual vs hardcore argument is pretty pointless. From everything I've ever seen it was started by people who play one game or one type of game constantly and ignore the millions of other options out there. To me hardcore = boring and myopic.
I dont think that Brion Shon ment that "hardcore gamers" ignore games just because some games might be defined as "casual games", if that is what you mean? I think that he ment that "hardcore gamers" is just a way to describe people who are interested in playing games that have a little more "deeper experience" (or what i shall call it), while "casual gamers" are the people who arent really that interested in more deeper experienced games, but that prefer to play for example some mingames instead. And also that "hardcore gamers" are people who are more interested in games in general compared to "casual gamers".
I think that pretty much every console have games that i would describe as "hardcore games". For example, games like Metroid and Zelda i think that i would define these games as hardcore games because i cant really imagine that for example my mother (which i would describe more as a casual gamer because i think that she enjoys playing for example Tetris more than she would enjoy playing an deeper adventure/RPG/action game like Metroid and Zelda) would have too much interest in playing a game like Zelda and/or Metroid.
I think that people who have some interest in games in general are mainly the ones who will play games like Metroid and Zelda. There are always some exceptions though, but at least i would guess that mainly people who have some interest in games in general are the ones who mainly will play games like Metriod and Zelda.
How do you mean with "hardcore = boring and myopic" by the way? Do you mean that those kind of games that are described as "hardcore games" are boring to play?
For some reason, i feel that it has become something negative over "casual games/casual gamers". I am not sure why there should be anything negative against this. Maybe it is because some people dont really like the type of that are described as "casual games", which maybe mostly is minigame collections etc. and therefor they say something negative against "casual games" in general? But i dont know.
But i think that "casual gamers" and "hardcore gamers" is more of a description that describes what kind of games people like. And i think that "casual games" and "hardcore games" is more of an description that describes what type of game it is and who that is most likely interested in playing the games. So i dont really see anything negative about these descriptions, at least in my opinion
Originally posted by: Maydogg6
All it comes down to is whether or not a game is fun to play. That's one of the reasons why I love the NES so much. The games are damned fun to play.
Yep, that is true, i agree As long as a game is fun to play, that is pretty much all that matters in my opinion
I guess I'm odd in that I find the 480p output on the Wii to be perfectly adequate.
It's not like a PC game where you're sitting 10 inches from the screen...
I dont think that is odd to find the 480p output to be perfectly adequate. 480p might not have the possibility to give the same detailed picture as 720p or 1080p can give, but i think that 480p can give a fairly good picture at least
I also think that several of Wii games has good graphics, especially Super Mario Galaxy. I played that game on a 42" Plasma TV in 480i (my sister doesnt have a component cable for the Wii to get 480p) and i liked the graphics anyway. The picture/graphics would probably look even better in 480p
I dont think that it is always necessarily to have very powerful hardware to produce good looking graphics. More powerful hardware helps much in many cases though, but i dont think that it is always neccessary to have very powerful hardware to be able to make good looking graphics. What i like about the graphics in for example Super Mario Galaxy is the colors etc. that are used which i think gives the game a very good atmosphere and you dont always need very powerful hardware to be able to produce graphics like this
In many cases, i also prefer 2d pixel graphics over the latest 3D (or 2D) graphics. Pixel graphics is one thing that i miss in newer games. From my experience, newer 2D games usually have a cartoon- drawing styles to them and not pixel graphics like NES and SNES games had. Some exceptions are Mega Man 9 and 10 though, those are newer 2D games and they look like NES games
arch_8ngel: Ok, thanks for the tips about "Wario Land: Shake It!" and "Super Paper Mario"! I will see if i get around to play those games some day. I own Paper Mario for the Nintendo 64, but unfortunately i have never taken the time to play it for more than a few minutes. It was only because i unfortunately got lazy, not because i didnt enjoy the game.
I have seen some movie clips from "Super Paper Mario" and i think that the game looks fun indeed! I have also seen some movie clips from "Wario Land: Shake it!" which i also thinks looks fun, and i agree that the graphic style in that game looks very nice indeed! I guess that "Wario Land: Shake It!" is also more enjoyable if you play it against a friend or so by the way?
And just to clearify something what i said earlier in case i didnt wrote it to good, i do enjoy 2D cartoon-drawing styled games as well, so i dont say anything negative about that It is just that i wish that more newer 2D games would use a pixel graphics style instead
Super Paper Mario is an entirely different type of game than the other Paper Mario titles. I wouldn't go into it with any expectations derived from the rest of the series.
There's no multiplayer in Wario Land. It's a single player platformer, with puzzle elements.
Ah ok, isnt both Paper Mario games 2D platformers? (i know that in Super Paper Mario you can switch between 2D and 3D, and i dont think that is possible in Paper Mario for the Nintendo 64).
Ah, i was thinking of the other Wario game, "Wario Ware" or something, sorry for the mixup. I have also seen some movie clips from "Wario Land: Shake It!" and i think that the game looks fun and the graphics style also looks very nice indeed! I enjoyed the other Wario Land games, so i guess that i will enjoy "Wario Land: Shake It!" as well
Ah ok, cool, thanks for the info about the difference between Paper Mario and Super Paper Mario!
Ye, i had almost forgotten about the Wario platformer game for the Wii hehe I only remembered the Wario Ware game, but when you said that it was a platformer game, then i remembered it
Cool, i enjoy platform games, so i will try to get around to play "Wario Land: Shake It!" some day Thanks again for the recommendations!
By the way, speaking about "Wario Land: Shake It!", i wonder why the game is called "Wario Land: The Shake Dimension" in Europe and "Wario Land Shake" in Japan. Why 3 different titles on the game? It doesnt really matter though, i am just curious if there is any reason for why the game is called different in Europe and in Japan
Probably things sounding better in translation in various places. The game takes place in "the shake dimension", so all of the titles are accurate, I guess.
I could not agree with this more. The whole casual vs hardcore argument is pretty pointless. From everything I've ever seen it was started by people who play one game or one type of game constantly and ignore the millions of other options out there. To me hardcore = boring and myopic.
How do you mean with "hardcore = boring and myopic" by the way? Do you mean that those kind of games that are described as "hardcore games" are boring to play?
You're probably right that I misunderstood what he meant, but most the time when I hear someone talking about being a "hardcore" player they mean that they only play a single genre (usually the first person shooters crowd) and anything outside of that genre is for kids and a waste of time.
So that sentence was meant to say that only focusing on one type of game and refusing to try others to me sounds boring, short sighted and silly.
The main problem as I see it with 3rd party support and the Wii is that few companies are willing to develop Wii-exclusive titles. Developers usually just take the games they made for XB360 and PS3 and ram-rod them into the Wii. Who wants to buy that? Not me.
The PS3 and XB360 are essentially the same style/caliber of platform, but the Wii is something unique and Nintendo seems to be the only company capitalizing on it. Sure, it's of the same generation as the PS3 and XB360, but that doesn't really MEAN anything.
Case in point, 3rd party developers don't seem to have any trouble making profit on games developed specifically for the DS... but that's because they don't see the DS and PSP as being the same product. They are treated as being completely different platforms. Obviously the DS isn't nearly as graphically powerful as the Wii or PSP... but developers manage to release FUN games on it anyway and manage to sell a crapload of product. Go figure!
If you look at the titles, the Wii actually has more exclusives than either the PS3 or the 360. Not just crap like Ninja Bread Man or Imagine Babyz Party, but deBlob, No More Heroes, Elebits, Boom Blox, Blast Works, Geometry Wars Galaxies, etc. I mostly agree that Nintendo is the only company truly making interesting motion-sensing games. I thought that the Wii would be the first system I started buying sports games for, but they all paled in comparison to . . . Wii Sports. Wii Sports was REALLY basic, yet there isn't a decent full-fledged tennis sim on the Wii. I guess there's plenty of good golf . . . but it's golf.
What I find most depressing is that developers are releasing the same build of the game on PS2 and Wii, and the motion control is a tacked-on afterthought.
Most 3rd-party games utilize the motion control as another button. Swing to jump! Swing to attack! It doesn't matter how you swing it, just that it's swung. Bleh. No wonder there is no support for Wii Motion Plus. Too much work. There's no incentive to do better when the titles they half-ass fly off the shelves because the word "Wii" is on it. Yet, WiiWare developers that want to experiment have the hardest time ever getting approved to sell on the system.
Play "Wario Land: Shake It!" or "Super Paper Mario"...they pack some of the best 2-D punch any system has ever delivered.
Hands down, the Wii "Wario Land" is one of the most graphically beautiful games ever made, as well.
Gotta completely agree here. The Wario Land game looks absolutely amazing. It is extremely cartoony, but the graphics are unreal.
For the Super Paper Mario, again, I agree. It is hardly anything like the 64 and gamecube (I hated those). It it probably my favorite game on the Wii. I need to sit down and play it through again. It is a pretty long game if you try to get all the pixls and it is well worth the price. VERY good game!
I was playing through Wario Land over the last week getting treasures and missions that I had missed the first time through, and noticed all kinds of stuff that I didn't see initially.
Also, discovered a few moves that I somehow didn't figure out the first time around. If you shake the bombs the timer stops. Also, if you throw one of the fork-head guys into a wall...you can use him as a stepping stone.
You're probably right that I misunderstood what he meant, but most the time when I hear someone talking about being a "hardcore" player they mean that they only play a single genre (usually the first person shooters crowd) and anything outside of that genre is for kids and a waste of time.
Ah ok, i see what you mean. Ye, that might be a definition of a "hardcore" gamers as well, that one person only plays one or two types of games (usually first person shooter games etc. as you mention) and dont play many other types of games, that is true.
When i think of a "harcore gamer", then i think more about a person that likes to play games that have more deeper experiences, but that also likes to play other games as well. I also think about a person that is quite interested in playing games in general and also a person that plays quite a bit as well
When i think of a "casual gamer", then i think more of a person who enjoys more simple games where the gameplay mechanics usually are simple and that the games doesnt have for example a more deeper history that the player must/can follow. I also think about a person that doesnt play games that often, but that maybe plays a few times each week or so.
I guess that there is other ways to describe "hardcore gamers" and "casual gamers" as well, but this is how i personally would describe what a "hardcore gamer" and a "casual gamer" is at least
Originally posted by: Maydogg6
So that sentence was meant to say that only focusing on one type of game and refusing to try others to me sounds boring, short sighted and silly.
Ok, i understand what you mean, and i fully agree If a person only has interested in playing for example shooter game i guess that it is his/her choice and that is no problem i think, but if i a person refuses to play other games just because the other games arent "hardcore" enough, then i think that is a bit silly indeed, i agree. And then this person would most likely miss out on many games that he/she would have enjoyed playing.
Personally i'd like to give every game a chance. If i found a game boring, then i will most likely stop playing it for the moment (maybe i will give the game a second chance later on), but if i find the game fun to play, then i will most likely contunie to play it for a while. It doesnt matter much to me who a game is mainly aimed for, as long as i find a game fun to play, that is the most important thing to me
^^^ Pac Man, Tetris, Donkey Kong, Galaga, Marble Madness, Centipede, and many other classics all have extremely simple gameplay mechanics. Does that make them "casual" games?
^^^ Pac Man, Tetris, Donkey Kong, Galaga, Marble Madness, Centipede, and many other classics all have extremely simple gameplay mechanics. Does that make them "casual" games?
I would say both yes and no. Games like Pac Man and Tetris etc. are games that i would describe as "all around games". These are games that pretty much "everyone" enjoys and i dont think that these types of games are aimed more at a specific audience, but that they are aimed towards a more general audience of gamers, at least in my opinion
To take a newer example, i would define New Super Mario Bros Wii as an "all around game" because this game is trying to be aimed towards "everyone", at least in my opinion. It has simple enough game mechanics for "casual gamers", but the game is still cool enough for the "hardcore gamers" to enjoy
A person who might not be interested in playing for example a more deeper experienced games like Zelda might want to play for example Tetris instead, but a person who really likes to play Zelda games might also enjoy Tetris a lot. So i would describe these games as "all around games", and i dont think that these types of games are more of a typical "casual" or "hardcore" games
-
I would also say that there isnt exactly any direct key answer to what defines a "causal game" and a "hardcore game" though, because even the most "hardcore gamer" might really enjoy a game that a lot of people would define as a "casual game".
But i think that a general description is that games that most "non-gamers" (people who arent that interested in games in general and that maybe doesnt play that often) would be interested in playing are often described as "casual games". An example that is fairly often used (from what i have seen at least) when it comes to "casual games" are mini game collections.
While games that most "gamers" (people who are interested in playing games in general and that might play games quite often) would be interested in playing are often described as "hardcore games". But as said, i dont think that there is always a direct key answer to what described a "casual game" and that what describes a "hardcore games".
Personally i dont think that it matters what a game is being described as, i think what matters the most is that the game is fun to play I just wanted to mention what i think about when i see people mentions "casual games" and "hardcore games" and this is this the way that i would describe "casual games/gamers" and "hardcore games/gamers"
-
By the way, about Pac Man, Tetris, Donkey Kong etc., these games does indeed have simple gameplay mechanics as you say compared to many games today, but when those games were new back in the days, didnt these games have some of the most advanced gameplay mechanics on the market (at least compared to how the gameplay was in games in genereal at that time)?
Comments
Graphics only take you so far. The game-play is what matters.
I could not agree with this more. The whole casual vs hardcore argument is pretty pointless. From everything I've ever seen it was started by people who play one game or one type of game constantly and ignore the millions of other options out there. To me hardcore = boring and myopic.
All it comes down to is whether or not a game is fun to play. That's one of the reasons why I love the NES so much. The games are damned fun to play.
Well, I think the Wii deserves a little more credit then some of you guys have given it; The new Super Mario Bros is proof that even after... 4 years of being around they can still make some great games. The 3rd party thing has been a problem for Nintendo since the N64 in my opinion. I don't think it is that the systems are "weak" but usually are more advanced then what is on the market at the time and I see the other game companies as being lazy and not wanting to step up their game as much as Nintendo.
I would like to see the downloadable games go down in price a little bit- it is still $10 for a N64 game and $8 for a SNES game- that is way too much for games that are over 10 years old at this point. I LOVE what they have done with the virtual console, Turbo Grafix games? Are you f'n serious??
The PS3 and XB360 are essentially the same style/caliber of platform, but the Wii is something unique and Nintendo seems to be the only company capitalizing on it. Sure, it's of the same generation as the PS3 and XB360, but that doesn't really MEAN anything.
Case in point, 3rd party developers don't seem to have any trouble making profit on games developed specifically for the DS... but that's because they don't see the DS and PSP as being the same product. They are treated as being completely different platforms. Obviously the DS isn't nearly as graphically powerful as the Wii or PSP... but developers manage to release FUN games on it anyway and manage to sell a crapload of product. Go figure!
Oh how I would love for it to take more than 4 years for one of my products to possibly start declining in sales after destroying every record
No kidding.
My granddad used to say "pray for the day you have to pay a million dollars in taxes"
Woah Woah Woah Woah slow down a second. You guys don't dig Twilight Princess, Smash Bros, New Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Galaxy, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, Mario Kart, Wii Fit, Super Paper Mario, etc??
Of course those are good games, but all of those except one were published by Nintendo and more than half of them have "Mario" in the title. Don't get me wrong, Nintendo makes excellent games. I also love my Wii... but I know more people who NEVER play their Wii's than people who do regularly.
Believe it or not, some people don't like Mario and Zelda, or even Metroid games...
Other people want to watch movies and have a robust online experience...
Some people just like having a normal controller...
If you're hell bent on only owning one system, which some people are... any of these can be a deal breaker for the Wii. As long as Nintendo never gives up and keeps making unique hardware, I don't care... at least nobody can touch the DS.
Oh wait... people touch the DS all the time. Touching is good.
But I digress...
Even I, being a Nintendo fan of a high caliber, have trouble recommending a Wii to anyone who only wants to have one system... I recommend PS3 instead because it just has a better variety of software and the best default hardware configuration for the money.
Although, I do agree that none of the current gen software lineups are currently anything to write home about... there just seems to be more future promise in the PS3 and XBOX360 due to the ample 3rd party support and two-systems-for-the-price-of-one development costs.
Well, Brion, you must live in a different gaming world where driving simulators are actually fun...in the world most of us live in, we drive a car every day, and it's the most boring experience imaginable...I don't want to waste gaming time doing the same thing
Most of us who drive a car drives in normal traffic and in "normal" speed though, and Gran Turismo isnt really an "average day driving" simulator
Gran Turismo is more of a racing simulator where you race against the clock and/or race against other opponents. I would say that games like Gran Turismo and Forza Motorsport is more aimed towards people who have some interest in racing and who are interersted in cars in general.
Graphics only take you so far. The game-play is what matters.
That is true as you say, i agree, but there is no problem to have both great graphics and fun gameplay
I remember a few years ago when there were those discussions (not on NintendoAge.com, but discussions in general at other gaming forums) about the Wii VS the PS3/Xbox 360. I understood some of the arguements in these discussions almost like some people ment that the developers had to chose between having good gameplay and having good graphics. I am not sure if this is what they ment, but i almost understood it like this at least.
In some cases, some developers might focus more on the graphics and focus less on the gameplay, but there are definitely games out there that has both great gameplay and great graphics in my opinion, so it is no problem to have both great gameplay and great graphics in a game
I am not saying that you are saying that this isnt possible to have great gameplay and great graphics in a game just to underline that, i was just speaking generally that it is possible to have great gameplay and great graphics in a game
Speaking of gameplay, i would say that "good/bad gameplay" is pretty much the same as saying "the game is fun/not fun to play". Which games that are fun to play or not is more of a personal opinion, so i dont think that there is any direct key answer to what good or bad gameplay actually is. Maybe more variated gameplay (where you dont do pretty much the exact same gamplay mechanics throughout an entire game) can be defined as "better gameplay", but what matters the most is how fun the game is to play, at least in my opinion
Personally i feel that good graphics can actually enhance the gameplay experience in some cases. If the graphics are good, it might create a good atmosphere in the game if you know what i mean? "Good graphics" doesn neccessarily means "more detailed graphics", but in some cases i feel that graphics can enhance the gameplay experiences.
It's not like a PC game where you're sitting 10 inches from the screen...
I could not agree with this more. The whole casual vs hardcore argument is pretty pointless. From everything I've ever seen it was started by people who play one game or one type of game constantly and ignore the millions of other options out there. To me hardcore = boring and myopic.
I dont think that Brion Shon ment that "hardcore gamers" ignore games just because some games might be defined as "casual games", if that is what you mean? I think that he ment that "hardcore gamers" is just a way to describe people who are interested in playing games that have a little more "deeper experience" (or what i shall call it), while "casual gamers" are the people who arent really that interested in more deeper experienced games, but that prefer to play for example some mingames instead. And also that "hardcore gamers" are people who are more interested in games in general compared to "casual gamers".
I think that pretty much every console have games that i would describe as "hardcore games". For example, games like Metroid and Zelda i think that i would define these games as hardcore games because i cant really imagine that for example my mother (which i would describe more as a casual gamer because i think that she enjoys playing for example Tetris more than she would enjoy playing an deeper adventure/RPG/action game like Metroid and Zelda) would have too much interest in playing a game like Zelda and/or Metroid.
I think that people who have some interest in games in general are mainly the ones who will play games like Metroid and Zelda. There are always some exceptions though, but at least i would guess that mainly people who have some interest in games in general are the ones who mainly will play games like Metriod and Zelda.
How do you mean with "hardcore = boring and myopic" by the way? Do you mean that those kind of games that are described as "hardcore games" are boring to play?
For some reason, i feel that it has become something negative over "casual games/casual gamers". I am not sure why there should be anything negative against this. Maybe it is because some people dont really like the type of that are described as "casual games", which maybe mostly is minigame collections etc. and therefor they say something negative against "casual games" in general? But i dont know.
But i think that "casual gamers" and "hardcore gamers" is more of a description that describes what kind of games people like. And i think that "casual games" and "hardcore games" is more of an description that describes what type of game it is and who that is most likely interested in playing the games. So i dont really see anything negative about these descriptions, at least in my opinion
All it comes down to is whether or not a game is fun to play. That's one of the reasons why I love the NES so much. The games are damned fun to play.
Yep, that is true, i agree
As long as a game is fun to play, that is pretty much all that matters in my opinion 
I guess I'm odd in that I find the 480p output on the Wii to be perfectly adequate.
It's not like a PC game where you're sitting 10 inches from the screen...
I dont think that is odd to find the 480p output to be perfectly adequate. 480p might not have the possibility to give the same detailed picture as 720p or 1080p can give, but i think that 480p can give a fairly good picture at least
I also think that several of Wii games has good graphics, especially Super Mario Galaxy. I played that game on a 42" Plasma TV in 480i (my sister doesnt have a component cable for the Wii to get 480p) and i liked the graphics anyway. The picture/graphics would probably look even better in 480p
I dont think that it is always necessarily to have very powerful hardware to produce good looking graphics. More powerful hardware helps much in many cases though, but i dont think that it is always neccessary to have very powerful hardware to be able to make good looking graphics. What i like about the graphics in for example Super Mario Galaxy is the colors etc. that are used which i think gives the game a very good atmosphere and you dont always need very powerful hardware to be able to produce graphics like this
In many cases, i also prefer 2d pixel graphics over the latest 3D (or 2D) graphics. Pixel graphics is one thing that i miss in newer games. From my experience, newer 2D games usually have a cartoon- drawing styles to them and not pixel graphics like NES and SNES games had. Some exceptions are Mega Man 9 and 10 though, those are newer 2D games and they look like NES games
Hands down, the Wii "Wario Land" is one of the most graphically beautiful games ever made, as well.
arch_8ngel: Ok, thanks for the tips about "Wario Land: Shake It!" and "Super Paper Mario"!
I will see if i get around to play those games some day. I own Paper Mario for the Nintendo 64, but unfortunately i have never taken the time to play it for more than a few minutes. It was only because i unfortunately got lazy, not because i didnt enjoy the game.
I have seen some movie clips from "Super Paper Mario" and i think that the game looks fun indeed!
I have also seen some movie clips from "Wario Land: Shake it!" which i also thinks looks fun, and i agree that the graphic style in that game looks very nice indeed! I guess that "Wario Land: Shake It!" is also more enjoyable if you play it against a friend or so by the way?
It is just that i wish that more newer 2D games would use a pixel graphics style instead 
And just to clearify something what i said earlier in case i didnt wrote it to good, i do enjoy 2D cartoon-drawing styled games as well, so i dont say anything negative about that
There's no multiplayer in Wario Land. It's a single player platformer, with puzzle elements.
Ah ok, isnt both Paper Mario games 2D platformers? (i know that in Super Paper Mario you can switch between 2D and 3D, and i dont think that is possible in Paper Mario for the Nintendo 64).
I enjoyed the other Wario Land games, so i guess that i will enjoy "Wario Land: Shake It!" as well 
Ah, i was thinking of the other Wario game, "Wario Ware" or something, sorry for the mixup. I have also seen some movie clips from "Wario Land: Shake It!" and i think that the game looks fun and the graphics style also looks very nice indeed!
Super Paper Mario is a platformer with heavy RPG elements, but no turn-based combat at all.
Yeah, I figured you had Wario Land confused with Wario Ware...TOTALLY different games!
Anyone who enjoys platformers should play Wario Land, though.
Graphically, it's what you dreamed these kinds of games would look like, as a kid.
Ah ok, cool, thanks for the info about the difference between Paper Mario and Super Paper Mario!
![:\](https://connect.gocollect.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
I only remembered the Wario Ware game, but when you said that it was a platformer game, then i remembered it 
Ye, i had almost forgotten about the Wario platformer game for the Wii hehe
Cool, i enjoy platform games, so i will try to get around to play "Wario Land: Shake It!" some day
Thanks again for the recommendations! 
It doesnt really matter though, i am just curious if there is any reason for why the game is called different in Europe and in Japan 
By the way, speaking about "Wario Land: Shake It!", i wonder why the game is called "Wario Land: The Shake Dimension" in Europe and "Wario Land Shake" in Japan. Why 3 different titles on the game?
I could not agree with this more. The whole casual vs hardcore argument is pretty pointless. From everything I've ever seen it was started by people who play one game or one type of game constantly and ignore the millions of other options out there. To me hardcore = boring and myopic.
How do you mean with "hardcore = boring and myopic" by the way? Do you mean that those kind of games that are described as "hardcore games" are boring to play?
You're probably right that I misunderstood what he meant, but most the time when I hear someone talking about being a "hardcore" player they mean that they only play a single genre (usually the first person shooters crowd) and anything outside of that genre is for kids and a waste of time.
So that sentence was meant to say that only focusing on one type of game and refusing to try others to me sounds boring, short sighted and silly.
The main problem as I see it with 3rd party support and the Wii is that few companies are willing to develop Wii-exclusive titles. Developers usually just take the games they made for XB360 and PS3 and ram-rod them into the Wii. Who wants to buy that? Not me.
The PS3 and XB360 are essentially the same style/caliber of platform, but the Wii is something unique and Nintendo seems to be the only company capitalizing on it. Sure, it's of the same generation as the PS3 and XB360, but that doesn't really MEAN anything.
Case in point, 3rd party developers don't seem to have any trouble making profit on games developed specifically for the DS... but that's because they don't see the DS and PSP as being the same product. They are treated as being completely different platforms. Obviously the DS isn't nearly as graphically powerful as the Wii or PSP... but developers manage to release FUN games on it anyway and manage to sell a crapload of product. Go figure!
If you look at the titles, the Wii actually has more exclusives than either the PS3 or the 360. Not just crap like Ninja Bread Man or Imagine Babyz Party, but deBlob, No More Heroes, Elebits, Boom Blox, Blast Works, Geometry Wars Galaxies, etc.
I mostly agree that Nintendo is the only company truly making interesting motion-sensing games. I thought that the Wii would be the first system I started buying sports games for, but they all paled in comparison to . . . Wii Sports. Wii Sports was REALLY basic, yet there isn't a decent full-fledged tennis sim on the Wii. I guess there's plenty of good golf . . . but it's golf.
What I find most depressing is that developers are releasing the same build of the game on PS2 and Wii, and the motion control is a tacked-on afterthought.
Most 3rd-party games utilize the motion control as another button. Swing to jump! Swing to attack! It doesn't matter how you swing it, just that it's swung. Bleh. No wonder there is no support for Wii Motion Plus. Too much work. There's no incentive to do better when the titles they half-ass fly off the shelves because the word "Wii" is on it. Yet, WiiWare developers that want to experiment have the hardest time ever getting approved to sell on the system.
Play "Wario Land: Shake It!" or "Super Paper Mario"...they pack some of the best 2-D punch any system has ever delivered.
Hands down, the Wii "Wario Land" is one of the most graphically beautiful games ever made, as well.
Gotta completely agree here. The Wario Land game looks absolutely amazing. It is extremely cartoony, but the graphics are unreal.
For the Super Paper Mario, again, I agree. It is hardly anything like the 64 and gamecube (I hated those). It it probably my favorite game on the Wii. I need to sit down and play it through again. It is a pretty long game if you try to get all the pixls and it is well worth the price. VERY good game!
Also, discovered a few moves that I somehow didn't figure out the first time around. If you shake the bombs the timer stops. Also, if you throw one of the fork-head guys into a wall...you can use him as a stepping stone.
You're probably right that I misunderstood what he meant, but most the time when I hear someone talking about being a "hardcore" player they mean that they only play a single genre (usually the first person shooters crowd) and anything outside of that genre is for kids and a waste of time.
Ah ok, i see what you mean. Ye, that might be a definition of a "hardcore" gamers as well, that one person only plays one or two types of games (usually first person shooter games etc. as you mention) and dont play many other types of games, that is true.
When i think of a "harcore gamer", then i think more about a person that likes to play games that have more deeper experiences, but that also likes to play other games as well. I also think about a person that is quite interested in playing games in general and also a person that plays quite a bit as well
When i think of a "casual gamer", then i think more of a person who enjoys more simple games where the gameplay mechanics usually are simple and that the games doesnt have for example a more deeper history that the player must/can follow. I also think about a person that doesnt play games that often, but that maybe plays a few times each week or so.
I guess that there is other ways to describe "hardcore gamers" and "casual gamers" as well, but this is how i personally would describe what a "hardcore gamer" and a "casual gamer" is at least
So that sentence was meant to say that only focusing on one type of game and refusing to try others to me sounds boring, short sighted and silly.
Ok, i understand what you mean, and i fully agree
If a person only has interested in playing for example shooter game i guess that it is his/her choice and that is no problem i think, but if i a person refuses to play other games just because the other games arent "hardcore" enough, then i think that is a bit silly indeed, i agree. And then this person would most likely miss out on many games that he/she would have enjoyed playing.
Personally i'd like to give every game a chance. If i found a game boring, then i will most likely stop playing it for the moment (maybe i will give the game a second chance later on), but if i find the game fun to play, then i will most likely contunie to play it for a while. It doesnt matter much to me who a game is mainly aimed for, as long as i find a game fun to play, that is the most important thing to me
^^^ Pac Man, Tetris, Donkey Kong, Galaga, Marble Madness, Centipede, and many other classics all have extremely simple gameplay mechanics. Does that make them "casual" games?
I would say both yes and no. Games like Pac Man and Tetris etc. are games that i would describe as "all around games". These are games that pretty much "everyone" enjoys and i dont think that these types of games are aimed more at a specific audience, but that they are aimed towards a more general audience of gamers, at least in my opinion
To take a newer example, i would define New Super Mario Bros Wii as an "all around game" because this game is trying to be aimed towards "everyone", at least in my opinion. It has simple enough game mechanics for "casual gamers", but the game is still cool enough for the "hardcore gamers" to enjoy
A person who might not be interested in playing for example a more deeper experienced games like Zelda might want to play for example Tetris instead, but a person who really likes to play Zelda games might also enjoy Tetris a lot. So i would describe these games as "all around games", and i dont think that these types of games are more of a typical "casual" or "hardcore" games
-
I would also say that there isnt exactly any direct key answer to what defines a "causal game" and a "hardcore game" though, because even the most "hardcore gamer" might really enjoy a game that a lot of people would define as a "casual game".
But i think that a general description is that games that most "non-gamers" (people who arent that interested in games in general and that maybe doesnt play that often) would be interested in playing are often described as "casual games". An example that is fairly often used (from what i have seen at least) when it comes to "casual games" are mini game collections.
While games that most "gamers" (people who are interested in playing games in general and that might play games quite often) would be interested in playing are often described as "hardcore games". But as said, i dont think that there is always a direct key answer to what described a "casual game" and that what describes a "hardcore games".
Personally i dont think that it matters what a game is being described as, i think what matters the most is that the game is fun to play
I just wanted to mention what i think about when i see people mentions "casual games" and "hardcore games" and this is this the way that i would describe "casual games/gamers" and "hardcore games/gamers" 
-
By the way, about Pac Man, Tetris, Donkey Kong etc., these games does indeed have simple gameplay mechanics as you say compared to many games today, but when those games were new back in the days, didnt these games have some of the most advanced gameplay mechanics on the market (at least compared to how the gameplay was in games in genereal at that time)?
EDIT: I added some text.