|
Its 2008, and after the advent of the Wii system sales explosion, game companies are perplexed about how best to go after our gaming dollar. Since the "Wii Explosion", the industry has tried to identify two distinct types of gamers with a label. On one hand, you have what the industry calls "The Casual Gamer". These are the people content to play a quick game of something that can easily engross them with simple controls and minimal fuss. In more simplistic terms, these are the gamers that are looking for a "quick fix". Folks who "keep it casual" by playing Wii Virtual Console games, Wii Sports, XBOX Live Arcade, and Playstation Network vintage game downloads often get this label. On the other hand, you have what the industry now labels "The Hardcore Gamer". These are the people who want to dive into a game with more depth, intricate controls, extensive options, and -in some cases- very deep game storyline. These are the gamers who want to "master" the art of a given "deep" game, and are willing to invest the time into doing so. These are the guys who have mastered "Madden", and often play other gamers of similar high skill level. These are the guys who dove into COD4 online and have the best weapon kits and the most kills. These are the guys who invested the time necessary to beat Metal Gear Solid 1 through 4. These are the gamers who beat Mass Effect, and do it again to see other endings. So we have the "Casuals" and the "Hardcores"- and the media as well as the publishers would have us believe that these are two completely split groups of gamers of opposite type. In the minds of a few game execs out there, this hypothesis to be validated by the huge amounts of hardware sales for the Wii. But is that accurate? I would say "No."
Non-gamers (and even some regular gamers) tend to look at Nintendo and see a cutesy, character-based softcore gaming company who also makes its own hardware. To an extent, I can see their point.. at least until I play the games that actually SELL Nintendo systems. What are those games? Well, those are the classic franchises such as Mario and all of his spin-offs), Metroid (& sequels), Legend of Zelda (& sequels). I own the Wii versions of all of those franchises, and one thing comes to mind... Rare is the "softcore" gamer or "new videogaming grandma" who will finish Super Mario Galaxy. The game is huge, lengthy, and challenging to both the reflexes and the mind (with some of the puzzles). There's plenty of "one-slip deaths into black holes" as well. I've been playing the game since November (off and on) and I'm still maybe about 70% of the way through it. The same goes for the time and in-world exploration required to beat Metroid Prime Corruption and Legend Of Zelda: Twilight Princess, which could clock in at a hefty 20-26 hours each in total game-time just to beat. Hell, I still never beat Zelda: Ocarina of Time on N64! (I was stuck in a forest temple 75% of the way through) Bottom line: The games that REALLY sell the Wii are not the ones the media seems to think are the ones attracting the most Wii adopters. They'd have us believe that elderly gamers, grandmas, and non gamers are the ones pushing this system- but sales data simply doesn’t support that. Instead, it’s the gamers who grew up on Nintendo's classic first party franchises that are buying the system. Sure, there's the people who might be interested in a quick game of Mario Kart Wii, but those are usually also the same people MORE enthralled with the core Mario Galaxy game. The same goes with Smash Brothers: Brawl. Sure, it’s a simplistic fighting game- but the real draw is the characters that are from Nintendo's classic games. Without those characters being "the big deal", the game would have no legs even among fighting game vets. So I think the Wii's first party games are a whole lot more hard-core than industry execs give credit for. Nintendo makes some of the most involved and deep adventure/action games around, and the first-party Wii releases have been just that. However, the media and various gaming publisher CEO's see something different, and something altogether divisive (in terms of segragating gamer typologies) I personally think that the truth of the matter is that gaming execs HOPE that softcore, simplistic gaming would go absolutely bonkers. The idea is that those games would be faster to produce, have less cost associated with them, and be "lower risk" than it would for a developer to green-light a project on the order of Metal Gear Solid 4, that would take tons of resources, time, and cash investment. The cost of making an A or even B title has skyrocketed in next-gen, so its only natural that gaming CEOs would "hope" that some sort of "casual gamer revolution" might help ease the development cost burden..even if no such real "revolution" is actually ocurring. So what I suspect we are seeing is wishful thinking on the part of publishers that they can cash-in with cheaper projects and hopefor some mega-popular casual game...something on the order of Pac Man 2008,or something similar, that will- because its on Wii- sell millions. However, in looking at the sales numbers, there's no 3rd party Wii publisher doing anything close to mega-business, despite the installed base of the system. What you have instead is a very un-game-savvy press falling for what publishers are feeding them in terms of trying to build a "casual game buzz" when in reality they are porting PS2/XBOX games and hoping to make a buck by calling them "casual!". To be fair, Nintendo fans these flames too, yet the Big N's games are super involved and deep. (Yeah, well- try beating Metroid Prime Corruption on a 2-4 day rental... go for it!) Simply stated, there's one thing that gaming execs and the press don't get. Many "hardcore" gamers are also "casual" gamers too. Yes, the same person who might play Commando 3 on XBOX Live Arcade will also play Call of Duty 4 or MGS4, contrary to popular belief. I know this, because I am the gamer that plays both games. Speaking for myself, the reasons I play both games, and decision of which game style to play, often centers on how much time I have in a given session. I'll fire up Commando 3 if I know I'll have to be doing something else in a half hour. However, I might fire up Metal Gear Solid 3 if I know I have some time to kill (and also have the time to sit through the cut-scenes!) And that's the thing the industry has been slow to realize. The differential between casual and hardcore gamers is often the available time they have to game. "Casual" gamers will be more prone to try something deeper in a 2 hour sitting (given the free time), and "Hardcore" gamers will often still jump into Mario Kart Wii if they know they only have 20 minutes before they need to head to work. I know I might fire up some practice-mode Madden (thought to be a more "casual" part of the game) if I have to be ready to go somewhere in 20 minutes, while on an off-day with more free time on my hands, I'll fire up some Madden franchise mode (thought to be a "harcore" mode.) And alas...I'm the same person..the same gamer, playing both modes .. But this still-young industry has been really slow to recognize that. Good games are good games..no matter what. And gamers will always flock to good games.. be they casual or hardcore games. ..and much of the decision of what type of game to play depends on their free time in a given sitting. Scott Hemphill
"Quietcool72"
Senior Writer/Co-Founder
Consolesports.net
|
