Viewing Thread:
"Nintendo Backing Easier Games.."

[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3750000/3750107.stm[/URL]

Thats just silly, if games were easier then playing them would be shorter which is less value for money. Crazy.

gerrid wrote:
> Also, this report (which I saw on Newsround, actually), is absolutely
> laughable.

I'm pretty sure the Newsround team were criticising complex gameplay in Playstation software (holding a Playstation controller after all) and backing Iwata's claim of more accessable gameplay that is easier to get into and understand.

like Wario Ware, Donkey Konga or Zelda: Four Swords, titles that do not rely on graphics or complex button bashing etc... etc...

But very simple, incredibly addictive games that are challenging as well.

What Gerrid said.


Accessability is one of the main reasons why the casuals never took to Perfect Dark like they did to Goldeneye.

When did Iwata claim games are getting easier. Only mention of it was in the title of that BBC article.

Would love to know what they would give as an example as a difficult game as the only really challenging games I have played in the last couple of years would have to be Ikaruga and Ninja Gaiden, the latter getting very interesting when battling for Master Ninja rating on Very Hard. Aside from that games are a joke for the most part.

gerrid wrote:
> Newsround made a massive screw
> up (it is the BBS after all), and misunderstood greatly.

The BBC have always been anti-Nintendo, I made a big topic on it once.

Also, this report (which I saw on Newsround, actually), is absolutely laughable.

What Iwata means is not that games should be easier to complete, just less complicated and easier to play. Newsround made a massive screw up (it is the BBS after all), and misunderstood greatly.

He meant that games should just be less complicated, with easier accessibility, so that people can understand the game. That doesn't necessarily mean that the games are EASIER to complete, just that they are EASIER to understand and physically PLAY.

Frankly anyone who complains that they didn't get value for money, because a game was too hard is a retard.

If you can't drive a car, you wouldn't buy a car, would you?
If you are rubbish at games, then don't buy hard ones.

It's simple, but, as usual, people are idiots.

Parr wrote:
> [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3750000/3750107.stm[/URL]
>
> Thats just silly, if games were easier then playing them would be
> shorter which is less value for money. Crazy.

I kind of agree with that guy, but if they do that they will have to either offer downloadable levels and stuff (well, maybe not for the Cube)or make the games cheaper because whats the point playying a game your gonna complete in hours. You might as well rent it out.

Of course, I understand your point of view; I'm a regualr games player myself (which isn't surprising given what I do as a living), and I too find games easy to complete; but then I am known to play 2-3 hours straight on many days of the week. Bear in mind a lot of folk don't have the time teenagers and young adults do.

Of course it is. Easier and shorter can be beneficial to players and developers - less chance of the project going astray as hopefully it should mean more time can be spent on other things, or even shorter release dates inbetween games. Another words, more games from developers in the same amount of time.

Remember most people who own consoles nowadays actually need to work, and use their other spare time for other things. When you think about it, there isn't much time left over for games.