Nintendo: we're "not good" at core games

[17DaysOlderThanNES]

RPGs are not "hardcore," in fact, they are the antithesis of hardcore, they are an abomination unto video games and I wish they would be called something else entirely (boredom simulators?) so every time I tell someone I play/collect video games they don't think I play Final Fagasy or Waste of Timecraft. Playing obscure or niche games is not hardcore.

Hardcore often refers to the depth and skill required to beat a game. By depth I don't mean 60 hour level grind nonsense, I mean like Street Fighter where you need to learn all of the specials and really finesse your skills to come out on top. A "hardcore" game is a game you can't just run through and beat the first time you play it. Contra, Street Fighter, Fatal Fury, Mega Man, Gran Turismo, Puyo Puyo, Tetris, anything that requires lots of practice and skill to truly win is a hardcore game IMO. This pansy ass "you can't die" shit they come out with today is all casual gaming as far as I'm concerned. I Wanna Be the Guy is the extreme example of a hardcore game, that game could take you all day to beat some screens.

In this article snippet, I think he's referring to hardcore as games for an adult audience, which is kinda stupid IMO. If they just want better graphics and more gore, just go out and say that, but I don't think that's what people really want (not the real hardcore gamers, anyway). People want a solid game that provides a unique experience, period, not a 10 minute waggle fest that makes no sense and has completely nonsense controls. We need more games like Shadow of the Colossus, that's all I'm saying.

[MrPopo]

While it's good to hear Nintendo talk realistically about how they are best at making games generally targeted at a younger demographic, is this really surprising to anyone? Nintendo has never really tried to publish more "mature" games themselves - the Metroid series being about as "mature" as Nintendo has ever attempted.

Have you ever heard of a game called Eternal Darkness? Not sure what you'd classify it as but I'd certainly put it in the "mature" game area. There are others as well and while they don't make a lot of them and it's not a focus it's something they certainly have done before.

Eternal Darkness is mature, but Nintendo was just the publisher; they didn't do any work on it. It's much easier to just funnel money to a dev than it is to actually create an M title.

[fastbilly1]

I for one would like less hardcore games. Less porn in games = good by me.

[the7k]

@ 17DaysOlderThanNES
Wow. Great attitude.

Let's look it up, shall we?

hard-core
   /ˈhɑrdˈkɔr, -ˈkoʊr/ [hahrd-kawr, -kohr]
–adjective
unswervingly committed; uncompromising; dedicated: a

Would those dedicated and committed to gaming go with a) The games that get LOADS of screen time, appear in all the magazines and have millions of advertising dollars put behind them, or b) the games that are made by smaller developers, that don't catch on with the masses? The ones that have to be dug for, which only those in the know would know to play?

Hardcore has always been the opposite of mainstream. There's mainstream punk, and then there is hardcore punk. There's mainstream rap, and then there is hardcore rap. Hardcore gaming is the opposite of mainstream gaming - and thus, obscure/niche titles are a hardcore gamers cup of tea.

They aren't hardcore because they are obscure/niche; they are obscure/niche because they are hardcore. How many times have you seen Raiden IV or any other shmup in magazines lately? Exactly.

If we're going to dictate that a game is hardcore due to its difficulty/learning curve, then perhaps we should count Guitar Hero as a hardcore game. After all, it's expert mode is nigh impossible on high level songs. It seems more like you are confusing hardcore gamers with professional electronic sports players.

Also, if you consider RPGs not hardcore just because they aren't difficult enough - King's Field series, Shin Megami Tensei series, Demon's Souls. Game, set and match. And keep in mind, I'm not even a fan of RPGs anymore (although I do love Demon's Souls). This isn't "Hardcore games are the games I like" sort of thing. It's about the games that are not mainstream yet have cult followings. Games that are obscure in spite of their high quality.

Anybody can put thousands of hours into Tetris, Guitar Hero and yes, even Wii Sports.
It takes a hardcore gamer to find the gems.

[Pulsar_t]

Eternal Darkness is just one example. The truth remains that we'll never get to witness games like ME2, Heavy Rain or L.A. Noir on a Nintendo system. Someone I knew used to wildly speculate how Nintendo's expansive marketing strategy would lead them to undertake more risks once said market demands more than the mini-game compilations currently flooding the Wii/DS retail shelves. He couldn't have been more wrong, obviously.

And why shouldn't the Shenmue finale appear on the Wii? It's the perfect system for it.

[Flake]

RPGs are not "hardcore," in fact, they are the antithesis of hardcore, they are an abomination unto video games and I wish they would be called something else entirely (boredom simulators?) so every time I tell someone I play/collect video games they don't think I play Final Fagasy or Waste of Timecraft. Playing obscure or niche games is not hardcore.

I'm not on board with everything you said, but in this I agree with you wholeheartedly. The modern RPG (especially JRPG) is just an over hyped point and click adventure.

[pepharytheworm]

I am just going to ignore 17DaysOlderThanNES. He sounds like a troll who hopes people will jump on him. Please don't feed the Troll.

I like the term "core" better then "hardcore". Then I can imagine it meaning.

The central or innermost part.

The basic or most important part; the essence.

Which I have to say Nintendo is great at.

Hardcore as defined by gamers has changed a lot. When I was very young it meant the people who went to arcades to get high scores in the likes of Donkey Kong or Pac-Man.

When I was a 5-8 it meant getting all the stuff you could in games and beating them as quick as you could. Zelda is good game example that people used. Time and collection were more of a factor then score or rather replaced score.

In the early ninties while on consoles it stayed about the same, arcades became about knowing all the moves and creating your own combos.

In the mid-nineties we starited calling computer gamers hardcore. It was more about how powerful your PC was and what games it could run. "Time" was more of a factor this time in how long you still played the game and how many hours without a break. The longer the more hardcore you were, well at least til the next version came out. Creating your own levels, finding ever glitch and using them to your advantage, then getting expansion packs to continue the journey. The computer gamers always seem hardcore but we just started taking notice of them during this time.

Now it seems graphics, realism and gore/violence are what makes a game hardcore.

But to me hardore and casual can never be types of games only types of players. A hardcore gamer could make Cooking Mama a hardcore experience. A casual gamer could do the same for Resident Evil 5. Pac-man was for the casual and the hardcore, its all about putting as much as want into the games you play.

[blackmagepwns]

I play video games I like.

But look at this situation, I go out and buy a used copy of F-Zero for the SNES. I go home and get every best time on every track, even after a few tries on 3-4. Too some, people would say I have a lot of dedication to do something like that, on the other hand people would question what I'm doing with my life.

But as long as I ENJOY the experience, why should it even matter?

[Gamerforlife]

I like to think of hardcore as a gamer of high skill who challenges himself. Street Fighter tournament players, people who can SS rank Dant Must Die Mode on DMC or go through Master Ninja in Ninja Gaiden without breaking a sweat.

Someone who simply plays a lot of games and keeps up with the indunstry I like to think of as a gaming enthusiast, as oppossed to the casual gamer.

Anyone who spends a lot of time with shmups, 2-d fighters and outdated systems is the retro or old school gamer.

I think Pro should refer to someone actually making MONEY playing games, and there are people out there doing just that.

Course many people fall under all of those categories, and I probably left something out I'm sure.

[Pulsar_t]

I don't get all this redundant categorising. It's like the difference between movie buffs and cinephiles.