Nintendo: Game too hard? No problem it plays itself!

You don't seem to get what I was stating above. It doesn't matter if it's optional or not. Because it's optional, people would use it and render the idea of buying a game and enjoying it by beating it with their own skills useless. If people won't use it, then why even having such feature installed?

For those that would use it, it's the same idea as donating money to Nintendo since you are just watching the computer playing the game for you.

Originally Posted by Aerorian

You don't seem to get what I was stating above. It doesn't matter if it's optional or not. Because it's optional, people would use it and render the idea of buying a game and enjoying it by beating it with their own skills useless. If people won't use it, then why even having such feature installed?

For those that would use it, it's the same idea as donating money to Nintendo since you are just watching the computer playing the game for you.

You haven't been reading people's reactions to it, have you?
The whole point is that Nintendo no longer has to dumb down their difficulty in order to appeal to more causal gamers. They can appeal to people who like harder games at the same time, without losing their expanded audience. Win-win.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

You haven't been reading people's reactions to it, have you?
The whole point is that Nintendo no longer has to dumb down their difficulty in order to appeal to more causal gamers. They can appeal to people who like harder games at the same time, without losing their expanded audience. Win-win.

As neutral as I am to this issue, I do have to point out that you're looking at this through purely through a "hardcore" viewpoint. I'm just pointing out the slight misunderstanding un your argument.

Casuals are somewhat attracted by intuitive gameplay. This does not equal a dumbed-down difficulty. Much of Nintendo's casual game selection could be far harder than most "hardcore" games given the right conditions.

Brain Training can be hard. Wii Fit can be hard. Even Wii Sports Tennis can be hard if you had a friend who is good at the game as an opponent.

Sure, casual games tend to be easier than "hardcore" games, but it isn't this "easiness" that appeals to the casuals.

Originally Posted by Double A

As neutral as I am to this issue, I do have to point out that you're looking at this through purely through a "hardcore" viewpoint. I'm just pointing out the slight misunderstanding un your argument.

Casuals are somewhat attracted by intuitive gameplay. This does not equal a dumbed-down difficulty. Much of Nintendo's casual game selection could be far harder than most "hardcore" games given the right conditions.

Brain Training can be hard. Wii Fit can be hard. Even Wii Sports Tennis can be hard if you had a friend who is good at the game as an opponent.

Sure, casual games tend to be easier than "hardcore" games, but it isn't this "easiness" that appeals to the casuals.

Do you think that's what Nintendo thinks?

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

Do you think that's what Nintendo thinks?

Are you telling me that it isn't?

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

You haven't been reading people's reactions to it, have you?
The whole point is that Nintendo no longer has to dumb down their difficulty in order to appeal to more causal gamers. They can appeal to people who like harder games at the same time, without losing their expanded audience. Win-win.

My point is that if you feel that you need computer's help to pass through a level whenever the gameplay gets difficult then might as well don't bother buying the game in the first place.

I don't see a valid point coming from you right now regarding the intention of what a gameplay should be or what the original intention of buying a game should be since you mentioned casual gamers and hardcore gamers. Either side can choose a game that can be easier or harder or select a difficulty level of their liking if need be, rather than having a "dumb-dumb feature" where the CPU is going to lead your hand through levels that you feel difficult.

It's pretty much like having an invincibility cheat on stand-by and whenever you feel frustrated in a level you turn it on. What's the point of gameplay then?

Why do classic games so fun to play? It's not because they have good graphic. It's because they have the challenges that force players to think, to practice, and to spend time on the games themselves that could generate a sense of accomplishment from the moment levels have been completed by possible luck or just sheer skill.

By implementing this new feature into future games for Wii, Nintendo pretty much destroyed what they were going for back in the 90's and that was challenging gameplay both intuitive and fun to play. Gamers would more or less feel obligated to use such new feature if given the choice to use it.

I don't believe that you, yourself, ain't gonna use this feature in the future Nintendo games.

Originally Posted by Double A

Are you telling me that it isn't?

How do you know it isn't? They included it for some reason. If it wasn't to help casuals through a level, what was it for?

Originally Posted by Aerorian

My point is that if you feel that you need computer's help to pass through a level whenever the gameplay gets difficult then might as well don't bother buying the game in the first place.

But for the time being, we're talking about Mario. Everybody plays Mario, even if it kicks their asses. This includes people that don't normally play games at all (i.e., my parents).

I don't see a valid point coming from you right now regarding the intention of what a gameplay should be or what the original intention of buying a game should be since you mentioned casual gamers and hardcore gamers. Either side can choose a game that can be easier or harder or select a difficulty level of their liking if need be, rather than having a "dumb-dumb feature" where the CPU is going to lead your hand through levels that you feel difficult.

Not everyone is going to use this. You can, for example, use it so someone sees how the game is played and so that they can jump in at a particular point.

It's pretty much like having an invincibility cheat on stand-by and whenever you feel frustrated in a level you turn it on. What's the point of gameplay then?

I dunno, talk to whoever would use that sort of thing.

Why do classic games so fun to play? It's not because they have good graphic. It's because they have the challenges that force players to think, to practice, and to spend time on the games themselves that could generate a sense of accomplishment from the moment levels have been completed by possible luck or just sheer skill.

But classic games are also hard, meaning nobody but dedicated gamers are going to (or have) bother(ed) with them. Nobody that wasn't really a gamer ever played past the first stage in anything. Oh no, so they use a feature that lets them pass without trying after they've failed several times. How does that affect you at all?

I don't believe that you, yourself, ain't gonna use this feature in the future Nintendo games.

And where in the hell did that come from, Sam? As you've brought up, I don't like my games to play themselves.

Originally Posted by Aerorian

My point is that if you feel that you need computer's help to pass through a level whenever the gameplay gets difficult then might as well don't bother buying the game in the first place.

That's faulty logic. This is a single player thing only, and I tell you right now that the major selling point to this game will not be the single player. As for other games it will eventually be implemented into, it'd still be entirely optional (I would imagine). Complaining about it is like complaining about there being cheat codes in games. They help people who want to use them, but there's nothing that stops you from not using them.

I don't see a valid point coming from you right now regarding the intention of what a gameplay should be or what the original intention of buying a game should be since you mentioned casual gamers and hardcore gamers. Either side can choose a game that can be easier or harder or select a difficulty level of their liking if need be, rather than having a "dumb-dumb feature" where the CPU is going to lead your hand through levels that you feel difficult.

It's not different from having someone else help you out with a level you can't get right (because honestly, you have to die a lot in order to even activate this help mode). This was the case with old NES titles like Super Mario Bros., and I often found myself bothering my brother a lot about helping me get past this one level. As soon as he was done, I'd have the controller back.

Regardless, I'd rather have a game that can cater to both sides than keep making games that are either too hard or too easy.

It's pretty much like having an invincibility cheat on stand-by and whenever you feel frustrated in a level you turn it on.

After you die a lot of times.

What's the point of gameplay then?

You wouldn't be playing the game. Watching the computer play is boring. You'd want to have control as soon as possible, not just let the game play itself for the rest of the run.

Why do classic games so fun to play? It's not because they have good graphic. It's because they have the challenges that force players to think, to practice, and to spend time on the games themselves that could generate a sense of accomplishment from the moment levels have been completed by possible luck or just sheer skill.

For those who have the patience and will for spending so much time. Many people don't. They just want to play, and frustratingly difficult sections of the game will prompt them to stop playing.

It's a case of Nintendo saying "Well, sure, we'd love it if you buy our game but we'd like you to play it too".

By implementing this new feature into future games for Wii, Nintendo pretty much destroyed what they were going for back in the 90's and that was challenging gameplay both intuitive and fun to play.

Back in the 90s they had the warp zones in the Super Mario titles. That's basically skipping worlds altogether.

Gamers would more or less feel obligated to use such new feature if given the choice to use it.

That will be their problem. People use game guides nowadays anyways, this is just allowing those who would like to use it to have a chance at enjoying as much of the game as they like.

This's thread's



is amusing.


This is almost exactly what I assumed it would be when it was announced (though I thought you'd select it from a menu, rather then it being a power-up box). I still think it could have been implemented better. A ghost that runs beside your own character whilst you play, for example. It would do a section of the level, whilst you watch, it would wait, you would follow it, it would continue. The system still doesn't seem very streamlined, though I was always supportive of the concept. It's not that different from a hint system, and if people are just going to GameFAQs a game they are having problems with anyway, why not let them access help from within the game itself?