@LimeDudeZ @Zelos_Zensation No challenge?! Man, go and try to get all stars in Super Mario Galaxy 2 or try a three heart run in Zelda. I bet that's a hundred times more difficult than finishing any shooter on the hardest difficulty setting. Wanna know why? Simple answer: Because you can acutally lose health.
@Lach0121 Of course! I think what ggregd wanted to say is that there's a clear misunderstanding on what is actually "adult" and what is "for kids". Am I childish when I enjoy my new 3ds Mario game? Am I an "adult" when I play Heavy Rain? Or am I pre-mature when I enjoy some good blasting in Gears of War? You decide.
I'm a dedicated Nintendo fan since I was 6 (but don't worry, I own a PS3 and an XBOX360, too) and I simply love video games. But when I saw nintendo's presentation yesterday I just thought: "Are they kidding me?!" Now, that I calmly thought about all of it, I can understand the company at least in SOME WAYS. When Wii U was anounced, Nintendo promised that it'll be a hardcore system. So how do you define hardcore? Is it an achievement/trophy feature? Is it outstanding graphics? Or merely outstanding violence in games? You see, the thing is: when we talk about hardcore and casual, we think of things Sony and Microsoft did with their respective systems, and of things Nintendo did with the Wii. The terms seem to be settled. But who says that hardcore means how many generic shooters are available on a system or how many deaths per minute are delivered by games. When we talk about "Nintendo hardcore" we need to think differently. There's no need for another system like the PS3 or Xbox. There's also no need for another reward system like achievements. The only thing we need is good and immersive games. Sony did well with showing the world how video games (graphically) may look in the future (that's what they are best at); Microsoft showed how well they are able to connect players to each other (that's where they pioneered); and ultimately Nintendo showed us new ways how to play a game (that is what they are best at: innovation). It's true, the show was not the way everybody would have wanted it to be. I also went into the presentation with the expectation that I would see a new Metroid game with stunning graphics, a glimpse at a new Zelda, Starfox or Smash Brothers or even a sequel to Eternal Darkness. But what I got was just explanation on how the Wii U will work. What I wanna say is that: we must be patient! I'm sure Nintendo has some fantastic stuff for us to come. In the meantime we can focus on all the great games for our Xbox and PS3. What I learned again is: No one does it quite like Nintendo. And assuming that they would bring a console with only violent shooters and stuff is just what is it: a naive thought.
Well, Mr. Mc Shea, since your review on Skyward Sword your person is kinda ... whatever to me. But with this article you addressed some very good points. I'm glad to have read this. Keep up the good work.
@Incubus420 True. But the thing is that Sony also needs to make games for younger audiences. In my opinion they're making the same mistake Nintendo is making with the Wii U or did with the Wii (only the other way round): A few hardcore games hardcore gamers will surely like but the problem is that these titles don't sell as much as games like Pokemon or other games targeted at younger audiences. Vita is too much hardcore; and Wii was too much casual. A successful handheld/console needs both types of games.
Yeah, Sony had the best presentation. But that doesn't mean it was good. The games they showed were truly amazing - especially Beyond (which puts graphical design on a new level) and The Last of Us (which puts the way you react with your environment on a new level). BUT: what about the PSVita? They showed nothing of REAL interest. Nothing that could help the device to get out of its miserable state. As well all know: the software is important to sell a handheld.
lordjustify's comments