Again, because you and others are not happy does not mean that their fan base as an entirety is not happy.
AGAIN, I'm talking about the HARDCORE FAN BASE. I would have to be an idiot to say that the casuals aren't happy.
Because it was a moment the developer could not have predicted nor avoided aside from putting a giant arrow pointing "GO HERE." What the helper code does is take out the chance that a less experienced gamer (as I was with Paper Mario, I didn't know the screen could turn like that at all, it was my first paper Mario game and I had no idea they would do things like that) is allow them to see an example of what to do. Doesn't mean they will be able to do it, I'm convinced that the main reason for my major fail on the 2D Mario games has to do with my intimidation by them thus making a large mental gap that keeps me from making the jumps that I should, but regardless of how easy it makes for them, it gives gamers who NEED an option the option of it. Complaining about an option that isn't going to effect you is silly. Its the equivalent of complaining about that they gave a game an Easy mode because that takes away the challenge.
It was my first Paper Mario game too, and I'm pretty sure that the first game only treated the "paper" part as an art style, not a gameplay mechanic to the extent TTYD implemented it, from what I've heard from friends.
Gamers do not NEED the option. Gamers do not NEED to even play the game, much less beat it. Gamers NEED to actually gauge what they're able to handle without ragequitting unless they have a help system built-in.
I've said this about a million times now:
I. DON'T. GIVE. A. CRAP. IF. IT'S. GOING. TO. AFFECT. ME.
It's the
principle of the thing. Maybe no one else cares about principles anymore, but I do.
Also, Easy mode is 100% fine with me, I love Easy mode. It is a totally ridiculous idea to compare an easier mode of play to HAVING THE GAME BEAT ITSELF FOR YOU.
Simply because they didn't have to doesn't mean I won't have to. Even then, how is Super Mario going to transition into a GameFAQ? A written description is only going to get you so far in Super Mario.
No one has to resort to FAQs, even when I resort to FAQs it's not because I have to, it's because I want to.
And yes, a FAQ only gets you so far when it comes to physical difficulty as opposed to puzzles. That's where easier difficulties and actually playing the game come in.
The level of help the device gives shouldn't be important.
Oh, but it is when you're saying that the use of a FAQ is equivalent to just using an infinite HP cheat.
If the developer stops and thinks, "How will they know what to do now? Oh, I guess they can look it up if they are lost" No, that's not something a developer should do.
You keep acting as if I said this when I didn't.
When I initially said "You should've used a FAQ at that point", I was speaking realistically. Like, forget the debate for a second, if you're stuck on such a small thing for a month you're not doing yourself any favors by wandering around without figuring anything out.
In a game liker Mario, they would present a more obvious example in earlier levels to provide a basis for knowing what to do. World 1 is almost always there to show you the limits of Mario's jump and abilities so you can get a field of him. Mario Brothers 3 1-1 is there to demonstrate the flying ability. Now, we can expect these things in the new Mario world as they have remained presistent in all Mario games, Sunshine to an even greater extent with the first world being a tutorial of sorts, however, can we expect a young child to correctly comprehend what to do at all times? No, we can't, especially considering the 2 levels I saw on the live stream earlier. Now, since this code is an OPTION and Nintendo generally has been opposed to separate difficulty modes, this is a way to create the game they want while still giving the younger crowd a chance to succeeded at the game.
I'd love it if someone could explain to me where this sense of entitlement to beating a game is.
Seriously, I thought the point of beating a game was to actually put in the effort to beat it? If the younger crowd is unable to beat the game and Nintendo can't be bothered to put in an easier difficulty, then the younger crowd can't beat the game. It should be as simple as that.
Obviously Nintendo has a vested interest in this, but that doesn't mean it's a defense of Kind Code for the consumers that don't need it, so don't try to tell me that I should support Kind Code so someone who doesn't have the ability to beat a game can beat it.
When I got stuck for a really long time 2 or 3 times in the Halo 3 campaign (because I suck at all FPS's) I didn't expect the game to beat itself for me, or just let me get to the last level since that was the part I was most excited for. No, I kept playing the levels again and again, and I got frustrated for sure, but I got through it eventually.
That's the point of a video game if it has challenges. To actually overcome the challenges. Not get a free pass just because you don't feel like it. And if someone doesn't like challenges, it's as simple as picking up Nintendogs or Endless Ocean or something that doesn't have any challenges.
Generally, most RPGs aren't designed for 4 year olds, though Pokemon has a simple enough concept that it generally fits well enough with them. Other than a few bossess, TYD isn't SO hard that I couldn't see a 4 year old beating it though. Its rather self explanitory.
Don't jump on spikey villains
Don't touch fire villains.
And a very easy to comprehend level up program.
The only thing that would hold a 4 year old back is there ability to read, though I did fine through Super Mario RPG at that age, and that game was even harder O_O, unless you count the 100 level pit
I'm not just talking about the battles, I'm talking about the puzzles and such too. It's a pretty involved game, and I can't imagine a little kid getting through it.
Which is exactly why this is needed, to make a game that reaches for all ages.
So we've gotten to the point where the only way we can make a game for all ages is making it super difficult and just giving the option of having the game play itself?
Its an option, so the point of you complaining for something that was designed for an audience less experienced than you is a little silly.
What's silly is that no one understands the concept of principles anymore.
There are others out there, but this is a shining example of the kinds of creativity that can be unlocked when you abandon the traditional ideas behind a video game, that being to view it as a game.
...If you abandon the idea of a video game being a game then it ceases to be a video game. Because that's what it is. It's a
video game.
I have no problem with some exploration on consoles with that sort of thing, but let's not pretend that this is just some traditional, outdated notion. It's the DEFINITION of a video game. It's just that video games don't have to be the only thing on a console.
1. THat is an outside system. The developer should not stop to say "I am targeting the audience of the very young as well as the inexperienced gamer, what should I do if they can't figure this out? Oh wait, they can just go on youtube."
I am not telling the developers what they should be thinking, so stop putting everything I say into that context.
I'm saying what's logically realistic.
I'm also saying that the developer shouldn't have to take into account an audience that
isn't going to actually play the game. Because then that circumvents the purpose of the game in the first place.
2. It doesn't mean you don't care enough about the gameplay. That is a horrible way to categorize those who would use it. Those who are playing are playing to have fun, and if there idea of fun isn't something that is challenging, and they would want to see an example, then what is the problem? For them, there is no problem at all. You are complaining about something that doesn't effect you simply out of principal despite that there are people who Nintendo is targeting who do indeed need this system if they are to get their own personal enjoyment out of the game.
Thanks for calling me horrible when taking my statements out of context.
I'm saying the people that want to play a game just for the plot or something can, and indeed, should, just go on YouTube and watch it instead of getting upset because gameplay is involved in a game.
And if they need this system to enjoy the game, they should play another game.
I don't enjoy Call of Duty, you don't see me saying "They should change Call of Duty into a platformer because I would actually be able to enjoy it then."
I thought that was why so many games existed.
(Yes, Nintendo may need this to cater to that crowd, but once again, I don't really give a crap what makes Nintendo money.)
Again, the games being played are NOT the point, the HOURS they are being played is. These numbes are sizable and despite their limited range of people they are accessing, they are still pulling large numbers. Imagine if everyone who played Brawl competevily turned in their numbers as well, (doubtful because they use Homebrew), then we would likely see numbers equal to Halo ODST, which included 100 percent of online users. The amount of time spent playing these titles shows that hardcore players who are Nintendo fans ARE playing the wii, and you wouldn't play something you weren't satisfied with.
Fail logic is fail.
I've invested almost 300 hours into my Diamond version, I've invested over 100 hours into Brawl, and I think both are mediocre games.
Furthermore, I don't know if you're rolling in cash or just not realizing the fallacy in your argument, but someone who spends $250 on a console is not going to throw it in the trash and never play it just because they're not satisfied with it for the most part. Whatever games DO satisfy them, they'll play.
Seriously, I'm EXTREMELY dissatisfied with my Wii, but I still play with it. Are you telling me that this means that I'm actually satisfied with my Wii and just don't know it?
I think most important to note here is this:
Being satisfied with the system as a whole and being satisfied with ~10 games are two TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.
I thought you meant core as in Hardcore, which has never been the majority of Nintendo's fan base. Nintendo has always had the advantage of giving games for both hardcore and softcore and for casuals and for the young.
I mean the fans of Nintendo that were fans of Nintendo throughout the N64 and GameCube eras and then got screwed on the Wii.
Which are the fans I call hardcore.
(This is why I just said "fans", I never know what to call them because people get pissed off when you say "hardcore" and "casual", but then "fans" is too general.)
And again, I have provided number of play hours to show that the core fan base is NOT unhappy with the Wii, and if you will not allow these numbers to count as a evidence, then you who has no evidence other than your own animosity then there is no reason to even argue anything about their 'core fan base' since it is unprovable, and you can't offer up your own disapproval either, because opinions are rather irrelevant to the discussion.
You've given me play hours that prove absolutely nothing except by extreme, false derivation.
And your logic is absolutely AWFUL. Assuming for a moment that no scientific evidence exists, if someone came into a debate using a religious text as support and saying "You have no evidence, so my evidence, however flawed it may be, wins automatically", would you say they have perfectly good logic and have won the debate?
An opinion is equally, if not more, relevant to a discussion as facts that prove basically nothing.
I don't have any solid facts to back it up, and I'm not claiming to, but I certainly have a pretty good idea that many fans aren't happy with Nintendo considering how much of an outrage there's been about the Wii. I wouldn't have made the claim in any way, shape, or form if I didn't feel there was some logic to it.
I know for certain that the only statistics you can find that will actually be able to prove how many fans are satisfied with their Wii will be polls of a sample group of fans explicitly asking that.
And are you really telling me there's no reason to argue about this since it's unprovable? I didn't start the argument. You did.
