What's the point of Nintendo pandering to "core" gamers?

I know this sounds like a confusing question but, bare with me. What I'm really asking is why should it matter if a game is "hardcore" or "casual"? I know there are hardcore game fans, and those who are more casual fans of the medium. And I know there are deep, complex games, and simple, accessible games. But why should one be better than the other. Why should things like challenge and a good story be exclusive to hardcore games, while casual games must conform to being shallow, pay-to-win puzzle games, or mini-game waggle fests? What good does that do for games, and more importantly, what would happen if a game steps out of those boundaries?

Take for example, the Professor Layton series. Is it a core game, or a casual game? While one would classify it as a casual game (which, it is), the answer should be, who cares, I enjoyed it, it's a good game. Thus comes to Nintendo. People keep begging for Nintendo to return to "core gamers" and make "core games". But I'd argue, what's the point? Just make good games. By freeing yourself from obnoxious generalizations about what is casual and what is core, you'll be able to explore different concepts, and make games that both audiences, could actually end up enjoying. Casual should not be code for "crap". That's just ego stroking BS made up by whinny elitists.

I'm not arguing that Nintendo shouldn't make games that aren't deep, core experiences, they certainly can. What I'm saying, is focus on what YOU want to play first. If it happens to be casual, then so what. Put as much effort into it as you can.

I believe mobile phone and tablet gaming has helped cement a negative connotation with casual gaming, as these games are almost universally cynical and exploitative in nature.

When titles like Tetris came about on the Gameboy no one complained, it was a good game regardless of label.

Gamers themselves also develop a puerile elitism, when in reality, many "core games" have adopted a pay2win model, Battlefield for example, it uses a play or grind wall exactly like mobile games, except it's a £50 product.

The idea of Nintendo pandering to kids was used as a marketing ploy by Sega in the 90's, the Sega was portrayed as the Dark Knight cool console, even though Sega themselves emulated and shared many IP's.

With the wii came about aimed at everyone, entitlement bore fruit, and once again it became popular to dismiss them as casual.

Of the modern titles that come to mind, or relatively modern, Portal 2 very much like Tetris seems to a good example how to make a game appeal to basically anyone regardless of age or sex without some group of people alienated or resorting to cynicism. A very excellent title.

@TheMisterManGuy: Just think of it as Beginner, Intermediate, and Hardcore. Nintendo makes games for all three. You also have casual or intense. The ratings like E for Everyone, T for Teen, M for Mature, etc.

I agree we shouldnt reject games based on how they are rated, but ratings come in handy. We as gamers just have to get better at using them.

Kirby for instance is usually a Beginner-Intermediate casual rated E for everyone game that doesnt really require reading. So its perfect for gamers who cant read...all the way to adults.

Donkey Kong is Intermediate-Hardcore intense rated E for everyone that doesnt require reading.

Zelda is Intermediate-Hardcore intense rated E for everyone that does require reading.

Pokemon is Beginner-Intermediate casual rated E for everyone that requires reading.

@iandizion713: I agree that we it's necessary to categorize things. My point, is that we shouldn't mock or ridicule other categories just because they don't fit our closed view of what gaming should be.

@TheMisterManGuy: I agree on that.

@uninspiredcup: Battlefield 1 requires you to grind or pay to not grind just to win? First I heard about that despite my 100+ hours into it.

Maybe, just maybe, you should play the games you badmouth. You may actually come off as slightly credible.

http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Battlepack

Battlefield 4 Battlepacks contain a combination of new weapon accessories, dog tags, knives, XP boosts, and character customization items. The packs are designed to add an all-new layer of multiplayer persistence with a degree of item variation in each pack, and are awarded during gameplay.

The Gold Battlepack contains 5 items, including a minimum of 2 Advanced items and 2 Standard items, with a bonus 5th item, that contains a small likelihood of rewarding a Distinguished item, not present in a Silver Battlepack.

Battlefield 4 Battlepack items fall into 4 levels or rarity:

• Standard: 25% XP Boosts, Weapon/Vehicle Paints, & Basic Weapon Attachments (Scopes, Barrels, Grips, & Flashlights/Laser Lights)

• Advanced: 50% Boosts, "Night Vision" Weapon Attachments, Emblems, & Battlelog Profile Images

• Superior: 100% Boosts, Dog Tags, & Soldier Camos

• Distinguished: 200% XP Boosts & Knives

Also, never specifically said Battlefield 1.

Nintendo is the heart of console gaming - home and handheld - and doesn't care about conforming to labels except "awesome"

People think Nintendo isn't catering to their core audience? That's really almost all they do. I'll leave it up to third parties to stir the pot.

I'm an enthusiast of this hobby. As such, I desire all it can afford. Same as if I were a car enthusiast. I'd want to be driving the top-of-the-line cars around the best tracks, not Honda Civics that everyone is capable of driving.

Is that entitled? I suppose. I have no trouble with casual games (enjoy a few myself) and don't look down on them, but I do take issue with them when they infringe upon the enthusiast market.

see there's these people "gamers" who want and need to feel bad ass, so they call themselves "Hardcore" and bash on Nintendo because they think it's for little kids.

but really a hardcore gamer would have a Nintendo console and just enjoy "being hardcore" into games and not into having a "hardcore" image

Holy mother brain! The most I've ever agreed with you on.

@uninspiredcup: So you move the goalpost when your argument falls to pieces. Fantastic.

It's also clear you never played an ounce of Battlefield 4 to think any of that stuff actually mattered. It's just some asinine talking point somebody who wants to look like he's some "hardcore" gamer says.

No, you just didn't read the post properly due to an overly eager knee jerk.

Yes, yes, I'm a horrible person.

@uninspiredcup: I read the post, the whole "pay to not grind" angle you're taking is not actually grounded in reality. You would know that if you would have actually played BF4. Instead you're trying to convince us that you know what you're talking about by making assumptions about mechanics.

You really don't know what you're talking about yet you parade around like you do.

I'd say it's because their track record in the past was a lot better than it is now and they are definitely capable of making games that appeal to a more hardcore base. GameCube and SNES did this very well, they made a lot of GOAT classics on those systems which appeal to core gamers.

I think they need a better balance of releasing casual and core games, but it seems like they're taking a step in the right direction by keeping the casual stuff on smartphones and bringing the deeper experiences on the Switch.

that's unfortunate, because "awesome" isn't quite how i'd describe the Wii U. "incredible failure" is the label that comes to mind immediately

I'd say Nintendo should just make games that have that nebulous quality of enjoyment. As long as there is some slice or segment of society that will enjoy it, then the games should sell (which- bottom line- they need to) and then it doesn't bother me if it's not exactly my cup of team. At least some people can enjoy it, and I can play something else. Although this could lead along the slippery slope of developers trying to make games which are all things to all people, but I don't think that'll happen since there are some genres which just can't mix.

@edquarters: I agree, i dont think the market should all do the same thing, its good for Nintendo to go against the grain.

The LGQTSJW console. Dont assume its core.

That pretty much sums up 95% of System Wars.

@rasengan2552: But why can't there be so called LGQTSJW games if people want to buy them? People are also into games that wouldn't be a part of this classification, and they buy those. Both can exist, and both can sell.

OH YOU ARE NEGATIVE ABOUT EVERYTHING

Also...the Wii U is not a game.

It is also not the PS Vita.

That's the stance I take when people here say "I have standards" or tell me I have low standards.

What good does that do? Self imposed limitations on being open to what may entertain you. It is just ego stroking, identity craving BS. Great post.

I'll put it this way..

if MS and Sony's game divisions were restaurants theyd be appealing to people with a great appetite.

Nintendo is appealing to those craving a happy meal or value meal.

I'll tell you why Nintendo should "pander" (aim games at) the "core" (gamers who buy games other than Nintendo) crowd.

Because the last console they released with its limited library was one of the weakest, most pathetic, most derided releases ever and the sales reflected that. Barring the original wii anomaly (down to an ultra casual craze crowd you simply can never bank on) Nintendo's consoles have been selling less on less every year and that's bad news for Nintendo and its fans.The Wii U's sales were simply not good enough for one of the big three. They are the sales of a sega console when sega were struggling.

And when did Nintendo not struggle? Well, the NES era, the SNES era. When they had the 3rd party and therefore a whole host of games for everyone of any persuasion. You want the switch to be a success? You want Nintendo's console post Switch?

Then Nintendo panders to the core crowd. And everyone else. It's that simple.

@DocSanchez: They just need to release Pokemon on it. No need to cater to wannabe core gamers, they can go buy Xbox One SS, PS4 Pro 2.0, or get a real machine like PC.

Also, dont forget about Wii/DS, you know, Nintendo's best era that didnt need to cater to dudebros and their boring imaginations.

@iandizion713: I didn't forget wii. I addressed it. It was a craze and the audience isn't coming back. Did you ignore it? Why yes you did, because your level of bias on here is comical and you can't be taken seriously.

@DocSanchez: They might be back. Nintendo just has to do better communicating with them. Majority of them still dont know what Wii U is.

So basically, catering to the gamers version of bigots leads to success? No, just no (at least not for Nintendo at least).

Lol. If we are going with that kind of analogy

Nintendo: A foreign resturaunt, while a rather limited selection, offers plenty of things you cant find elsewhere.
Microsoft: A bog standard resturaunt, everything offered here can be found better elsewhere.
Sony: A superior selection compared to the Microsoft Resturaunt. And while they do have their special every now and then. Most of the stuff, you are just better off cooking at home. Cheaper and better quality.

@bowserjr123: Thing is, Nintendo's strategy with smartphones is to get casual gamers interested in buying the Switch. In that context, they shouldn't just banish all their casual games to mobile. There's no reason the Switch can't have games like Rhythm Heaven in addition to Zelda. As for balancing for skill, I wouldn't single out Nintendo specifically, as that's something a lot of developers struggled with in the 7th generation, but fortunately, things have been evening out lately.

@nintendoboy16: Bigots? Don't make me laugh. You're basically referring to people who have different tastes than you as bigots. That's ridiculously over the top, and ignores pretty much everything I've said.

If Nintendo want to turn their fortunes around, it needs to cater to more people. That's basic.

Yep exactly, I think it's a great idea because it gets the casuals more interested in their franchises. Pokemon Go and Sun & Moon are a great example of this.

I do think a casual release is fine once in a while on a console, but as long as they don't interfere with their main franchises (ie. the Wii), I don't see a problem with it. With their blue ocean approach, I think it hindered them as a company, but I think they're regaining their core roots with the Switch.

I do agree that other companies are guilty of it too with products like the Move and Kinect coming out the 7th gen. I am glad that the Wii success seems more like a fluke and that motion controls/casual focus aren't completely taking over though.

By System Wars's own language:

Nintendo's restaurant is a mutton only nouveau cuisine type place (sheep)
Sony's restaurant is a steakhouse (cows)
While Microsoft, well Microsoft have a restaurant with tasty tasty Lemmings :p

@bowserjr123: It's actually a good thing the Wii and for that matter the DS succeeded. They both helped saved make games more popular as a medium than ever and saved gaming from going down the road of being a cynical, isolated niche hobby. I feel Nintendo's Blue Ocean strategy is still viable, the problem was that the way they handled the Wii and DS's last few years, their successors, and their initial contempt for mobile gaming was awful. The allowed the iPhone to steal away the very customers they spoke to, and basically did nothing about it.

They let their success get in the way of planning for the future, and they suffered because of it. I don't believe the Wii was a fluke, it had one of the highest software attachment ratios of any modern console. I believe that, much like the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive, the Wii fell victim to the parent company making bad decisions later in it's life, and driving away their audience to a much more attractive platform (iOS).

While there were instances of Nintendo stumbling balancing for core and casual (Brawl, Skyward Sword) they were more the exception than the rule, and I feel Nintendo did a fine job with their games. The Switch seems more like a return to the philosophy of the Wii rather than an SNES part two. For all intents and purposes, it's a glorified tablet with a TV out, that sentence practicaly screams casual friendly. It also helps that the Switch, unlike the Wii U, is versatile, but still maintains a sense of simplicity.

No, I'm saying that to the "hardcore" because...

-they bash the "casual" for having their tastes

-claim superiority over what companies (especially Nintendo) should do

They need to cater to core* gamers because casuals* aren't really playing on consoles any more. They're happy on tablets, mobile and social media games, and that's fine. But it ain't paying Nintendo's bills. Everyone who wants to play GTA, Deus Ex, Mass Effect and so on are on Xbox, PS or PC. Nintendo need to appeal to SOMEONE. Or else they'll just release another failed piece of shit like the WiiU.

(*Nebulous terms, admittedly.)

Yeah I'm glad they succeeded, more specifically the DS because it had tons of great games that weren't hindered by the controls. I will agree that it was a good approach to get more people into gaming, but it's too bad that Nintendo turned into a more casual company for a while. I also strongly agree that the Wii had a miserable ending with the lack of quality titles.

Totally hear ya on their long term success, they set themselves up for failure on the Wii U by believing their strategy would still work. They did have a good software attachment rate, but it seems to be more so with the casuals buying the casual titles (Wii Play, Mario Kart Wii, Wii Sports Resort, NSMB Wii, and Wii Fit are the highest selling games outside of Wii Sports which I don't count since it was bundled).

Overall those titles were well made (SS, Brawl), but they came with some compromises, like the forced motion controls with SS and Brawl having slower gameplay than Melee and the tripping. I can see the Switch being like either the SNES or the Wii, depending on what kinds of games are announced in January. If they focus on bringing core experiences and good third party support back, I'll go with the former but if there's a more casual focus, then I'll go with the latter. The simplistic approach is definitely more Wii focused, but the fact that they're more focused on traditional controls (hopefully) will make it more like the SNES.

@locopatho: While getting AAA games is important, that doesn't mean Nintendo shouldn't try to make home gaming more attractive to casual gamers, which is what the Switch looks to be doing.

They can try. They DO need to appeal to SOMEONE. But the WiiU had piles of Wii style casual games. No one cared. Different world to 2006. Every kid I've met in the past few years has their face buried in a tablet. Outlook doesn't look good to me there.

Core gamers will at least be very loyal and buy a lot of GTA/Deus Ex/Mass Effect style titles. Get the casual titles by all means. But WiiU proved they alone won't be enough.

@bowserjr123: The problem with the Wii U was that it never felt like there was any serious thought put into it. It felt like Nintendo was trying to recreate the Wii's success, without understanding what made the Wii a success. In the end, the Wii U became rushed, bloated, and needlessly complicated albatross that had no idea what it was trying to be. Casuals couldn't figure out if it was an add-on, or a new system, because Nintendo couldn't figure out what they wanted it to be either.

With the Wii, there was a lot of research and smart design put into it as it was addressing a problem that actually existed at the time. And most importantly, Nintendo sent a clear, focused message to it's consumers. The Wii U however, felt like it was trying to solve a problem, that didn't even exist. As such, the U wound up lacking an identity of it's own.

The Switch looks to have a lot more thought put into it. Yes, they didn't show motion controls or touchscreen yet, but only because they wanted to avoid the mistakes of the U by sending as clear and to-the-point of a message as possible. I guarantee you the Switch's Joy-Con controllers have motion sensors, and knowing Nintendo, they'll implement them where they see fit. That's fine, but not making it the focus is a smart move since it would over complicate the message they were trying to send.

In January, I feel Nintendo should just focus on showing good games period, be it casual or core. Because something that may look unusual, could turn out to be amazing.

True that, the Wii U had a multitude of issues that made it fail from the get-go. Everything about it, especially the marketing, was horrible.

The Wii did revolutionize gaming with motion controls and it was definitely a smart idea that was marketed well. It's just a shame that it hurt them in the long run.

Switch looks awesome so far, it looks more modern and definitely like it was developed by younger folks like Miyamoto mentioned. Their marketing has been outstanding so far, as if Nintendo actually hired people for their marketing team this time. Amen to not advertising motion controls, I also think the Joy-Cons have IR pointers. They'd be great to use for menu controls/shooter games, but as long as they don't interfere with other games, then I'm down.

January's gonna be pivotal, they really need to prove that the third party support is for real this time. I'm hoping for some quality third party exclusives/features, like Link in Soul Calibur II.

Btw I appreciate the intelligent conversation, it's pretty difficult to do with a lot of blind Nintendo haters/fanboys on here...

@bowserjr123: Me too, it's nice that we can discuss, agree and even disagree on things without getting into a pissing match (something that's very rare on video game forums). Back to the point, there were some great ideas behind the Wii U, the problems came in execution, strategy, and a host of other challenges. I feel the Switch is everything the Wii U should've been, and I definitely look forward to seeing more.

@TheMisterManGuy: Yeah, Wii U's off screen play, dual screen coop, and Miiversing with the Tablet are amazing. Hoping they bring those innovations over to the Switch along with Gyro.

Yep exactly, took the words right out of my mouth. My body is ready for January. What games/announcements do you want to see that day?

I agree with the OP, in the sense that the labels "hardcore" and "casual" are fairly arbitrary - to some degree, I think we as gamers have saddled ourselves with these fairly nonsensical labels.

I do think there are gamers who are sort of "casual" in nature - people who play Candy Crush on their phone, but who have never played Mario or Sonic, or who would never even consider buying a game console of any kind. I think what they are looking for as an experience is totally different than someone who is a keen gamer.

For people who love games and who are prepared to play them on dedicated machines - I just tend to call those people enthusiasts rather than "hardcore gamers".

I say this because I've been gaming since the mid-80s. In a sense, I'm as "hardcore" as you can get. I have a fairly large game library across multiple platforms.

And yet, I play a wide variety of games. Some gamers would look at me and say I'm a filthy casual because I love The Sims. Others would say I'm an elitist hardcore player because I'm obsessed with the Dark Souls games. So, which is it? More importantly, why even create a silly dichotomy like that in the first place?

Put simply, I'd define myself as a games enthusiast. I love all sorts of games - from simple to complex, from light-hearted to deadly serious and even frightening. I love the variety and the different experiences I can have. And I love good games more than I love specific brands - as I said in another thread, I'd own every single game platform ever invented if I possibly could! :-)

So, to me, the weird battles around definitions are fairly pointless. If you simply love good games and you love the experience of playing good games, then you're a games enthusiast. There's no need to define yourself more narrowly than that, surely.

Because a long time ago, Nintendo released F-Zero GX, Metroid Prime, The Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess, Super Smash Bros Melee...

Did some aggressive stuff like getting a Remake of PS1 classics such as Metal Gear Solid 1 and Resident Evil (with the latter being called one of the greatest remakes of all time) and even got Exclusive rights to Resident Evil 4.

Nintendo at one point dominated the Market getting nearly all the 3rd Party support, much like the PS4 now.

Pretty much just look at the Gamecube's Library and then look at the Wii's library and you can see what a Nintendo looks like catering to the Core Gamer Crowd vs catering to the Casual Market.

The Gamecube had Games for the Core Gamer, but had some games for the Casual market, while the Wii had games for the Casual market, but had some games for the Core Gamer.

Catering to hardcore gamers is a high risk, very expensive venture. Casuals is a lot safer bet and less risky due to lower expenses required.

@LegatoSkyheart: I think the general thrust of your points are correct, I guess I'd just say that I don't think everything falls into one of two buckets: casual or hardcore.

I mean, a lot of gaming enthusiasts loved WiiSports - I know I did. But I can tell you that I don't fall squarely into some "casual" bucket.

It's interesting because if you look back at Nintendo's past, they've always catered for "casual gamers" in a serious way. Even some of their most "hardcore" games have been designed to be as accessible as possible for less-experienced players, while still offering depth for people who are very experienced.

To some degree, Nintendo's biggest strength is that they can cater for a really wide variety of players. This is something that both Sony and Microsoft have become better and better at over time, as well.

So...as gamers, I don't think we should be so eager to force ourselves into one of two strictly-defined camps. I don't think it's helpful or even factually accurate. Some days, I feel like playing The Sims and some days I feel like playing Super Mario 3D World and other days I feel like playing Final Fantasy XV. So, am I casual or hardcore? Or both? Or - perhaps - neither, because these labels were never terribly helpful.