Editorial: Nintendo Wii, Harbinger For The Death Of Gaming

I am not going to say what is better, or what will do what. I own a Wii, love it, and from that perspective disagree with your article.

However, I have something else to say in response to what you say.

I work in the Automotive industry, and have for years. I also own a paintball business, and am in my third year with that as well.

In automotive, they are usually a couple years ahead of everyone else. The parts that you will see in your average vehicle are usually in luxury vehicles first. Before that, they are in the factory's being tested as prototypes. There is a ton of money dumped into each phase of the project, but each time, it is on a larger scale, and is cheaper per model. The longer it is in production, the better the company gets at it, the lower the cost to the consumer.

Paintball is even more specific. High end paintball markers are in the $2000 plus range, and on top of that, they usually require a ton of add ons. These markers are generally only used by either very wealthy people, or sponsored teams. The next range of prices is in the $800-$1500 range, and some of them require less add ons. Finally, you will get your markers in the $100-$500 range which are all pretty durable with most of the same technologies, but missing only a few of the bells and whistles. Every year, there is a new top end, and everything shifts down.

The point is, in all these industrys, just like gaming, there will always be someone who is willing to pay the top dollar for the best thing. It does not have to even be that much different, just the newest. Someone will always want to have a share of this market as it will help to offset very high research costs, which companys have to make in order to keep their larger production models less expensive. So it does not matter how wattered down the market gets, there will be companies that are trying to stay at the top. This will always drive companies to stretch the limits, and redefine the industry.

I'm not a gamer other than the odd game of freecell and I only pay attention to the "console wars" due to a deep personal loathing of Sony Corporation, however I am considering buying a Wii. What prompted this is the 54 year old receptionist at my workplace who bought one for her 62 year old husband. She had so much fun with it that my boss (who's over 50) bought one and they all love it and use it for exercise. Which makes me think that if they like it, I will too (being a good few decades younger).

What Nintendo have figured out is that the fun-ness of a game is not necessarily connected to its cinematic quality, cut scenes or the number of speakers you can hear it from. In fact for people like me the opposite is true; nothing turns me off faster than being plunged into a game with a million things going on and two million unfathomable controls to try to work out. Give me an intuitive controller and something to hit and I'm happy.

I love you guys.

This article was not written with some sort of Nostradamus-esque clairvoyance. You've got to understand that when writing something for publication you can't be wishy-washy. A writer simply cannot say, "Meh, it'll iron itself out." Because its journalists that raise peoples attention to issues. So I'm fully ready to admit that very little in this article is what we would call fact. It's my opinion, which is why it has an "Editorial" heading.

It's so great to see that there are fans of gaming out there who aren't programmed with responses by a console manufaturers PR firm. You guys raise some great points that definitely forced me to reevaluate my argument. I still stand firm on this debate but the discussion that came about I think helped everybody evaluate for themselves where they stand.

Oh and I never said anything about graphics equaling quality, and DANIEL you're right, it should have said OUR TYPE of gaming, and that is what this is all about...but that doesn't make for a catchy title now does it?

I hope to see all your names posting again on my future articles. BTW much props to Stafir for leaving the first 1000+ word comment in the history of CB Games.

The problem with videogames is not Nintendo attracting casual gamers but it is with people assuming that technology is what determines a good game/gaming system.

Take just about everything you said and reverse it - that's what I see happening. Also, about next week's article - You should change it to "The Wiimote: Pretty fuckin' rad"

Me as a gamer over 30, I really enjoy seeing the revival of "fun" gaming. It's really fulfill watching my father or other non-gaming adults having fun playing video games (Wii Sports mainly).

But I think I understand where Andrew is going. Yesterday I had 3 PS-fans playing Wii. They're open to the new experience, but I felt that the Wii Sport fun factor did not last as long as when non-gamers are present. Non-gamers' reactions are actually what make the experience fun, (of course it is triggered by Wii's game at the first place).

Basically, when there are only hard-core gamers present, the "fun" factor wear off faster because they ask for more. So we need something for the hard-core gamers to totally convince them. I think this is where Andrew is now: There is no killer app for hardcore gamers "yet".

Zelda TP is/was a GC game that did not pull off the full potential of Wii "yet". All of those FPS did not hit the bullseye "yet". Even Super Paper Mario was from GC.

But as I kept emphasizing the "yet", I'm still confident with Nintendo's direction. It's a business afterall, they have to bounce back, make money, get some third party supports, in order to keep on their innovation!

I don't agree that this direction is leading to death. As long as there is innovation, we can always ask for more. On the other hand, when there is only better graphics, better processing power, 10 buttons & 2 analog sticks (I can't believe Sony actually used this config for over 10 years!!), this is when we're reaching the end.

While you did take a long time thinking and considering. I am going to have to say I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree with your assertion. Not because I don't understand your worry, but its simply because I've been through this EXACT same worry. Here let me paint a picture.


I'm a longtime gamer, I've been around since the late atari days, thats right I played through the crash (which I oddly never noticed) however my true start is probably on the NES. I was hooked on arcade games at the time...Karate champ, Golden Axe..Altered Beast, Pole Position, etc. I enjoyed the challenge, I enjoy needing to actually be skilled and work hard at the game. Then the NES came out....cool I bought into it..I got Mario..awesome! Hard..but awesome! In fact I loved that it was hard, I would go through it, learn all the little knack and knooks..work my way through. Beating the game, then perfecting my gameplay so that I'd be able to repeat beating it. It was enjoyable for me. I started this on any game I played. Heck I was able to play the origional Contra, without the 30 lives code..and end the game with more lives than I started with. I played and practiced that much. And I enjoyed it, I enjoyed playing the game, and I enjoyed the thrill of going through all the challenges.

Then the SNES came...holy cow you had some tough ones still, Mario wasn't so bad, although it could be rough to get all the stars..which yes I managed to do. But there was the buttkicking battletoads, which I managed to make my way through, yes I have beaten the SNES battletoads. I also perfected my playtime on Super Mario Kart, I have a save file with all the races unlocked, I had fun, loads of it. I even got other side things like Mario Paint (was fun to fool around with), I even liked RPG's, usually spent my time on FF IV and VI in that area though.

Next came out the N64/PSX era, I missed the fact we didn't get FFVII, but we did get the awesome Mario 64, a blast to play..yes I have a perfect save of that game as well. StarFox 64 was heckafun, Mario Kart 64 gave us a few new things to enjoy and it was fun to race around the tracks on. But I started noticing it was getting hard to find games I liked..I didn't know why, but I knew I was having some problems finding a good game. I looked at the stuff the PSX had..same way I had looked at the gensis and its kind back in the day. As was true then..I found nothing to excite me more (maybe the same on some, but not more) and I didn't understand what was going on.

Then came the internet for me...along with it info on the next system comeing out..omg the GC, the PS2, and the X-Box! OMGdudezorz! The PS2 wasn't for me, few games I wanted that much...the XBox was by Microsoft, and I still abhore their shody workmanship on Windows...the GC would have games by the only company who has kept my interest the entire time, so I went for it. It made sense, its always had the fun games.

Then the oddity happened..the PS2 sold a TON to people who..gasp..never played video games before! They bought it simply because it was the 'hip' thing at the time. They didn't care what games it played, only that people wanted it, it was the big thing..so everybody got it. This was a horrible time for me. All these people comming into the industry..only on the promise of pretty graphics, they didn't read up on what the game was like..they saw the word 'Madden' and bought it because it was football. They saw a game with 'realistic' characters, tons of blood, and poor to shoddy gameplay..and they would actually buy it over games that were fun to play! Why wasn't anyone buying the good games, the ones that were enjoyable, that were fun. Why did everyone insist on buying the snorefests of games that were easy as sin, and let the good fun games be left behind to sit and rot and never get a sequal?

Then I realized...its those new people. Its not the oldtime hardcore gamers. Its THOSE people that sony brought in..those..casuals! Because of them more games with nothing but fluff was being released. Games that just caught your eyes with pretty visuals (or just plain blood and cussing), but were sorely lacking in gameplay otherwise. Those casuals just ate up any and all games like them. They were ruining the industry! Its thanks to them I was having problems finding more and more games that were fun to play, and most things I picked up were just shiney with nothing fun to do.

Those casuals, they would be the death of the industry!


It's been a few years..I've sense gotten a better grip on reality. While I'll admit that casuals exist, I don't see them as a bane anymore. Sure they still bought only stuff that was fluff, or simply marketed correctly. But they are a natural part of the industry. So I stopped resenting the PS2 and the XBox..I actually own all 3 (although the XBox was a prize I won to be honest), and I go through and pick out games that are interesting on them, sure I sometimes got duds (God of War just ain't all people claim it is), but I still get some decent stuff.

And so it comes around...Nintendo decides to try and do something different. They try to change things so they force the idea of games that are just fun to play. That you enjoy sitting down and playing, whose main appeal isn't shiney graphics..and it works. A ton of people who never played before now find gaming easier to get into..and they finally 'get' why I enjoy games.

And then I look back and realize..this is what the PS2 did, didn't it?


And so it comes full circle...I come to a websight..and read an article..how the Wii is the death of gaming. And while I do believe its utter bullhocky, I don't see a ranting full. I simply see myself..and how I was so many years back.

You make a pretty valid point in terms of quality, although you do have to keep in mind that even some hardcore gamers have a different definition of quality. If that weren't so, how then, did the Pokemon series on the Gameboy alone (not including the N64 GBA and such) manage to sell over 50 million units worldwide in a time when hardcore gamers really DID dominate? Pokemon was archaic, of course, but its sales went through the roof, and even I had a copy, and I do consider myself a pretty hardcore gamer.

However, by and large I disagree with your argument. Firstly, I grew up with an NES and SNES as my pals. Back then some of my friends loved games. As the Playstation, Playstation 2, N64 and Gamecube came along some of these very same gamers quit playing. Why? "Games are just becoming too complicated," they said. "They're not simple anymore." To an extent they were right. Games ARE becoming more complex. So for the gamers that are still there, you have to remember that because of the transition from 2D to 3D the gaming industry also lost gamers.

I think you just have a big fear of change. What's wrong with expanding the market? Firstly, Nintendo has--as far as I can tell--NEVER been about graphics. They've always been about having fun. Super Mario Bros. was released 22 years ago and it's still one of the most played and addictive games on the face of the planet. In terms of graphics, Nintendo has never really been one to please. But again, the definition of "quality" for everyone is different. Does a quality game mean having fantastic graphics and artwork? Certainly not, look at the failure of games like Lunar Dragon Song. Great looking game, but bad game to PLAY. You PLAY video games, you don't oogle them. The gaming industry is small, why not expand on it? Cater to those that aren't gamers as well as those that are? Come on now, The Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess is a perfect example. There's a game on the Wii for the hardcore gamer. Wii Play on the other hand, is for the more casual gamer. Nintendo does know how to maintain to the hardcore gamer, remember it was them that made "hardcore" a gaming term in the first place. If that weren't true, how do you explain the gazillions of games they've sold? The Gamecube wasn't a huge success, but whenever Nintendo released a game for their beloved system (first party) it was almost guaranteed 2-4 million copies sold in the UNITED STATES ALONE! Most games are lucky to sell 200,000 copies. Most third party companies will not see 1,000,000 units sold. The latest Grand Theft Auto might pull off those numbers, but the latest Resident Evil game--despite it's popularity--will not.

Also, when you talk about the whole Disney/Pixar games, keep in mind these games ARE on the other systems too. This is because the film industry also plays a role (in this day and age you NEED to have a video game movie tie in) in those games getting released. It's business and whether Nintendo had gone with a different system or not, you'd be seeing those games because of business. Remember, a game doesn't HAVE to be licensed by Nintendo to sell on their system.

Finally, if you don't expand the market, it will die. Videogames have not been around for that long, and they're still being looked at as a popular fad rather than a form of mainstream entertainment. If you only appeal--or appeal mostly to--hardcore gamers and you alienate the "casual" gamer or the person who doesn't really play games, then you're asking for the industry to cave under. Gaming has grown, but you have to remember that a significant part of it also shrank because suddenly games were becoming too complex. People like simplicity. Why do non-gamers play Tetris? Simplicity. Why is Super Mario Brothers 3 still the best-selling non-pack in game of all time? Simplicity.

The market will just become like the movie market. Split in a way. You'll still have hardcore gamers and hardcore games, but in addition those who don't normally play games will also be able to do something. And who knows, they may develop into hardcore gamers as well. None of us started out as such, we all had to start with simple games, some of which were of poor quality. We only became "hardcore" because of playing them for so long. The same thing will happen to some of these new gamers.

You have a charming writing style, which worries me, because despite your claim to being logical or unbiased, your actual points show otherwise. The biggest problem is that you equate nintendogs with the Pixar games that get marketed to kids. Nintendogs is the originator of these "casual" fare games and I've played it myself (though I do not own it). The game is actually very fun, and the other games: Hamster, Cat, and whatever versions are out, are copies who came in on the bandwagon. But what is wrong with little girls wanting to buy video games? Just because a game does not appeal to you, does not mean that it should not exist. There is also a market for Pixar games to small children.

The greatest irritant of this article to me is that there is an almost denial that there is a market for games to every age group on the planet. Small children will like simple colorful games based on child aimed franchises like Spongebob Squarepants. Girls and guys tend to lean toward different types of games at that age. Then in the teen years, guys tend to want macho warfare games and no sissy stuff type gaming from action to rpg, while girls tend to like similar games but spread off into puzzle gaming and many brainier games as well. Then the 20 something gamer (probably the most spoiled of gamers) wants the best graphics, the best stories, and the best of everything. This age group is now the pinnacle of gaming markets but the most lucrative because you never know how they'll roll. Then there are adults who like more simple timeless fun, and Wii Sports caters to that.

The Nintendo Wii caters to all these markets without spoiling a particular one. Nintendo has a committment to the hardcore gamer with future titles such as No More Heroes (from the makers of Killer 7), Project Hammer and Disaster Day of Crisis which are due out this year. Metroid Prime 3 Curruption is supposed to be amazing, and Sadness is supposed to be an MA title to rock the foundations of those who want a more adult and dark theme.

Then we have a move back toward creativity with Nights 2 (a sequel to one of the masterpieces on the Sega Saturn), and the best Sonic game in recent years, mini games from WarioWare for the whole family, and a Wii Sports phenomenon. My whole family played Bowling and Golf together yesterday in tournaments, and it was a community affair. It was the most fun I've had gaming and it takes it from the cave dwelling 1 player status to 4 player community that gaming is going towards without having to pull out ethernet cords. All people have to do is be together.

I think that this title should not be "Harbinger for the death of Gaming" but rather, "Harbinger of the Death of -Your Type - of Gaming." I do not pity you either, because more research into the topic will show more diversity of games beyond the post launch dry spell, than your current research implies.

You must be blind to not see that this is already going on has always been going on and will always be going on. There will be good games there will be bad games, but if anything at least this should bring about some diversity. People will stand in line every year to buy the same Madden title, and that will be the end of gaming. Also buy a dreamcast, just to play pirated games, and REZ really does suck.

I agree, but when i bought my wii i knew this. I decided to support wii for this exact reason. It does piss me off when i see the launches on ps3 and xbox360 in comparison to wii, however if i really wanted to continue as a hardcore gamer, then i would be in the ps or xbox camps and so should u!

I couldn't disagree more. There are just as many "hardcore" games that have terrible quality levels and breed more crappy hardcore titles. The increase in casual games isn't going to change that. A lot of people defend these crappy hardcore games because the subject matter appeals to them, and so they ignore the fact that the software is garbage.

I just wanted to say first of all that I'm very proud of the gents before me who commented. One of my main objectives in writing this was to start a dialogue. You guys kept it intelligent and hopefully in the coming days we'll have a freeflowing current of ideas.

I'll be getting back to each of you personally (if you actually left your email address like it asks) but I wanted to highlight a few things for future commenters.

I do enjoy the Wii. But I feel that it's cheap thrills. With the simple mindset they have I find it hard to believe they'll create a classic whilst trying to cater to infants and geriatrics.

Until Nintendo shows me that the new world of gaming has a place for us, I'll continue to see them as the geek who paid the cheerleader to date him. Now theyre too cool to hang out with the geeks anymore.

And btw kids can handle modern games. Tell that theory to my 6 year old step-god-nephew (it's complicated) who totally destroys me in Halo. HIS LITTLE HANDS CAN'T EVEN REACH THE JOYSTICK AND THE TRIGGER AT THE SAME TIME!!! He has to stop moving and reach around to pull the triggger and he still wins. And I can hold my own in a game of Halo.

Finally, TO MIDO: I don't think I ever said anything about graphics in there. I don't feel that one needs to license Unreal 3 to have a good game. The lack of quality I talked about isn't about graphics its about audience. Casual gamers aren't going to star flame wars or stage boycotts over bad products like the hardcore does. The industry needs that to regulate itself.

But again, I loved the input, and I hope to hear more from you guys.

I've was angry at the entire entertainment industry for a long time over lack of quality in movies, tv, books and - like you - games. Until I realized that I was projecting my own sense of disappointment onto a population of consumers that had a different idea of what quality was.

You're entire premise - although obviously heartfelt - is based on a single flawed premise: resolution does not equal quality. Your examples are all the same ones I would have picked. Nintendo has always had low graphic standards... always. And yet they outsell and outlast every other competitor that comes along, every single time. Why? Because the consumers driving their sales are having fun playing the games!

Having fun? What does that have to do with quality? Everything. Quality is perceived my friend and all those millions of people funding Nintendo employees with lifelong job security are happy to pay because they are having fun and that is what they equate to quality.

I too am horribly disappointed in the avalanche of missed opportunities that games such as Pokemon have suffered. But I stubbornly keep returning to the hospital bedside of such franchises hoping for a miracle - hoping they will come out of their static coma and life will be sweet again.

It could happen.

In the meantime I find that Wii has been slowly changing my own perception of quality. Just the other day, I was replaying one of my favorite sections of Zelda when I took a break and played boxing with a neighbor. I caught my reflection in a glass panel in the kitchen and there was this huge grin on my face. I can't remember the last time I enjoyed something so shamelessly as an adult.
I'm sorry, but it's time to tell that stubborn, jaded adult in my head to just shutup and let me enjoy myself for a change. I suggest you do the same.

I am a loyal Nintendo consumer since the NES. And the only reason I stick with Nintendo is because of the quality of its games. All the games you mention that are mediocre are either third-party games that Nintendo has nothing to do about or Nintendo games targeted to a younger audience.

I don't believe for a second that you are not being biased. You think that the videogame industry is doomed because Nintendo is expanding and being succesful at it? Come on. If anything the industry needs, is more players. From these new "casual" gamers will come the next generation of hardcore gamers, developers and if possible, new gameplay experiences. Nintendo is helping the videogame industry just like the independet filmakers helped the film industry: refreshing the market with ideas, not with special effects and big name actors.

The hardcore community will only get smaller if the industry only makes games for them. Games were becoming too complex and hard to get into for newcomers. That means, no new people coming in, the only ones enjoying the games are the ones able enough to understand their 15+ button controllers or keyboards.

We need to get into gaming the kids who are not skilled enough yet to play harcore games and the old gamers who stopped playing games because they became too hard to play. And the industry will only get strong if they supply games for both the casual gamer and the hardcore.

That's my two cents. Pheeeww!!!

Andrew, I appreciate you taking the time to write your opinion on the current console generation, as well as a select history, but just to be pedantic your arguments are bordering fan-boy-ish and ill-conceived. You talk about a industry entirely through your own personal perspective. Neglecting of course the natural transition of products and changes to demographics.

Some might say your being short-sighted. Your main argument tries to establish that broadening the demographic of gamers is going to result in a reduced quality. You support this with citing the poor quality and large quantity of IP games from Pixar and Disney and the success of Nintendogs.

Somehow this argument seems completely flawed. Companies such as this will continue to release their IP for games, its a sales thing. It doesn't reflect the status of the gaming industry.

Secondly, the success of Nintendogs, as you mentioned, was to target a new demographic. The female and casual gamer. No matter how you argue it, its statistically undeniable that this step has already been accomplished. Nintendogs did what the Sims did in attracting a second gender to games.

You're making it seem your too scared to see the industry change. You're personally not ready for change, so your attacking the people responsible.

Get with the times.