So who is the true pioneer in casual gaming? Sony or Nintendo?

[darktruth]

http://www.twilightlynk.com/2008/06/...e-to-play-ps2/

Many gamers would have you believe that Nintendo is responsible for the flood of casual gamers and non-gamers who have been introduced to the videogame industry. While I agree that Nintendo is succeeding greatly as they focus their effort appealing to new and untapped audiences, I disagree that they are the ones that encouraged growth in this direction in the first place. Nintendo is taking advantage of the foundation another company had already lain. The true leaders of this gaming revolution are in fact, none other than Sony with its PlayStation 2.

Unlike Nintendo who has shaped their current image to appeal to a new audience beyond the core gamer. Sony insists that their main focus has always been the core gamer. However, while Sony was saying one thing, they were doing something entirely different by encouraging and supporting the development of certain games that were definitely not part of the norm.

Games under the banners of the EyeToy, SingStar and Buzz! series did a lot to attract attention from casual gamers and non-gamers. Unfortunately, Sony never went full force with these titles. Most of them were released in Europe and Australia, some made their way over to the US and to my knowledge only the EyeToy had a Japanese presence. In any case, Sony did at least, make an effort to advertise these titles and they became quite popular in the regions in which they were sold. A lot of people outside of the gaming community, who had no idea about Wii at the time, all had their eyes on the PS2 and the titles mentioned. These were the first truly expanded audience titles appearing in the industry and they weren’t alone. Sports titles such as Madden NFL as well as racers, games based on movies and others such as Guitar Hero cemented the PS2 as the must have console for casual and non-gamers along with the usual core gamers. Granted, the PS2 wasn’t alone in its efforts, since The Sims, a PC game was just as influential, but I feel that the PS2 was the ignition that started the industry in a direction towards an expanded audience.

120 million+ PS2’s have been sold in its lifetime, and a lot of those units sold were thanks to these expanded audience games. As the last generation ended, the new began and the mass audience was introduced to the DS and Wii for the first time. What Nintendo did was and is one of the smartest business decisions made for the videogame industry. They were able to look at the industry trends and gauge, quite accurately, what people wanted even if they didn’t know they wanted it in the first place. Nintendo refined Sony’s efforts, but instead of making the expansion of the gaming audience one of their secondary objectives, Nintendo made it their primary goal.

What the industry has been shaped into with this generation is a place where both traditionalist gamers and new audiences can coexist with a selection of games that has never been so diverse. A lot of credit can be given to Nintendo for their effort, but their efforts wouldn’t have gone as far if it wasn’t for the PlayStation 2.

I'm not really much of a gamer myself although I did use to own the original fat PSX but had only about 5 games on it. Pretty much lost interest in video games over the years but it is obvious more and more third party games are being churned out, mostly by Nintendo.

The question is who do you think was the first to pioneer a market for the casual gamers? Nintendo has already branched out towards another target audience called the non-gamers with games and software like WiiFit and Brain Training but Sony had already created some games for the casual gamers before the Wii like the EyeToy and Singstar. The writer of the article above believes Sony was the first to try and create a market for these types of gamers.

To me, casual gamers have existed for awhile now. I guess an obvious game that many would've played is Tetris but I also remember playing Puzzle Bobble at the arcades when I was young and then there's other fun shooting games like Point Blank. I'm not exactly sure who would be the true pioneer for casual gaming but I do know casual gamers have existed even way back in Nintendo 64/Playstation era.

[DragoonKain3]

As far as I'm concerned, being the 'first' usually means nothing in the gaming world. I mean, Sega CD was AFAIK the first 'console' to feature games on CD, but you see no one singing praises over it.

And the problem is that most of these 'expanded audience' titles only came after the dominance of the PS2 over its same generation counterparts. It was only really released for the PS2 because it was the most popular console of its generation; it was there because the game would be accessible to the most number of people. If say the Xbox or the Gamecube dominated the market, I have no doubt in my mind that you would be seeing these titles in whichever console 'won' the war in that current generation.

The Wii, and the DS to a lesser degree on the otherhand, are popular BECAUSE of these games, rather than it has those type of games because it is popular.

And really now, if we get down to it, Duck Hunt was the first console game not really aimed at the core crowd, while the NES also had that olympic game thingie majiggy whose name I forgot that used pads as well. The reason why the N64 was the first to have 4 controller ports was partly because they wanted a 'party' friendly system, and it was even expanded further down the road by having hits specifcally aimed at this crowd like Smash brothers and Mario Party. So really, in whatever shape, way, or form, all I see is that Nintendo has been catering to them since way back when.

I'm not saying all these because I'm a Nintendo fanboy. On the contrary, I was disillusioned at Nintendo because ever since the N64, the consoles they made were more or less specifically aimed at this sort of crowd. (And being an RPG collector who's into difficult, hardcore games of that genre, that's a big nono for me) They had two generations where they obviously marketed and toyed around with it. Now they got it right, and I give credit where its due.

[Ending]

That text paints a rosy image of the industry and how well the games have been absorbed as a mainstream media, but I'm not sure if it's a good thing. What about those of us who want to play serious games instead of, say, Super Silly Monkey Ball or Super Princess Peach?

The reason why the N64 was the first to have 4 controller ports was partly because they wanted a 'party' friendly system

I wouldn't say party, but whole family friendly. Because that's what Nintendo has done ever since N64: catered for the families and their small ones. And now they are buying.

[Benoit]

Nintendo was the pioneer with its Game Boy. Still the best-sold console to date, with plenty of casual games. Tetris started it all off. Its image is still so strong that people on the street don't even know that the Game Boy Advance exists, but know of the original.

And really, the PS2? I'd say the PSX was more responsible for the flood in casual gaming in homes. The PS2 just built on that success.

That text paints a rosy image of the industry and how well the games have been absorbed as a mainstream media, but I'm not sure if it's a good thing. What about those of us who want to play serious games instead of, say, Super Silly Monkey Ball or Super Princess Peach?

yeah lawl matoor dood cuz im so kewl

[WanderingKnight]

What Sony did as "revolutionary" (in quotes because it was already done back in the early 80s) was open the doors up for third party developers. And yeah, probably the PSX did more for casual gamers than all the other consoles together--mainly due to the vast amount of third party games available for it, and the market towards which Sony advertised it--not only for those 6~18 years old.

Those games mentioned probably built on the dominating success of the PS2.

Nowadays, with such an overflow in crappy third party non-games, I wonder what can be done to prevent another major videogame crash like in '83.

yeah lawl matoor dood cuz im so kewl

Yeah, your image as an idiotic troll is way cooler.

[Js2756]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

What Sony did as "revolutionary" (in quotes because it was already done back in the early 80s) was open the doors up for third party developers. And yeah, probably the PSX did more for casual gamers than all the other consoles together--mainly due to the vast amount of third party games available for it, and the market towards which Sony advertised it--not only for those 6~18 years old.

Those games mentioned probably built on the dominating success of the PS2.

Nowadays, with such an overflow in crappy third party non-games, I wonder what can be done to prevent another major videogame crash like in '83.



Yeah, your image as an idiotic troll is way cooler.

You have to understand that Nintendo's original stance on having so much control back in the days of the original Nintendo was because they saw just how much crap can flood the market when there is no control over what gaming developers can make. Look back at the library of games back in the Atari 2600 days, and it was obscene just how crappy a lot of games were and how many crappy games were out on the market. Atari was way more open than Sony ever was (especially SCEA), but that openness ended up being one of the factors in the great crash.

The situation nowadays, is so different than 1983, that if there was a crash in the video game industry (which I predict won't happen any time soon), it would be because of completely different reasons than for the crash of '83.

Personally, I think that insomniac article has a point, but fails to address the fact that consoles (both handheld and traditional) are becoming more and more than just gaming machines. Even Nintendo recognizes this with those channels you can download with the Wii.

Generally speaking, I hate the term "hardcore gamer" and the hardcore vs casual gamer labels. What the hell is a "hardcore gamer"? Given the way I approach games like Smash Bros (as a competitive fighting game), and the amount of time I put into 2D fighters and danmaku shooters, some people would consider me a hardcore gamer. However, the general definition of one would exclude me because I hate FPS games, and don't play GTA. Nor am I attacted to games where the focus is on "mature" themes like violence or sex (2D fighters notwithstanding). Why are Mario or Zelda games not for "serious" or "hardcore" gamers? Is a person who spends hours playing Wii Sports perfecting their boxing technique not a "serious" gamer because he's not playing God of War?

[WanderingKnight]

Personally, I think that insomniac article has a point, but fails to address the fact that consoles (both handheld and traditional) are becoming more and more than just gaming machines. Even Nintendo recognizes this with those channels you can download with the Wii.

I believe the point of that article was to remark that gaming magazines have to deal with games, not with self-learning applications. I don't believe Alex Kierkegaard has a problem with those applications existing--I believe he doesn't want them listed on Famitsu competing with legitimate games for magazine real estate.

Note that Alex tends to have a quite extremist take on the industry (and gaming, and discussion) in general--I definitely don't agree with many things he says, but it's interesting nonetheless to read what he writes, mostly because he is a good, intelligent writer who knows what he wants.

[Ichihara Asako]

I had practically every console up until the PS release. That generation (playstation, dreamcast, N64) was the death of console gaming, to me. When games started focusing too much on graphics (with ridiculous load times) and nowhere near enough on story, longevity, enjoyment and overall 'fun' that Sega and Nintendo had provided with their 8 and 16bit consoles, and other platforms (Atari, Amiga, DOS) had focused on for years.

The state of gaming these days really disappoints me. Pretty much the only games with more than 10 hours of gameplay are (primarily MMO) RPGs, and that's only because of the repetitive grind. Too many companies seem to think gamers have no attention span and don't want long, involved, well written stories, instead just wanting fast paced action. And while there certainly are gamers like that, I don't think they make up the majority.

I will never consider Sony in the picture of gaming at all. I don't care how many people praise the playstation (1 or 2) the ONLY thing they ever did that was notable is open their console to third party developers, which allowed for a bare handful of good games to be made that otherwise wouldn't be. And they're rare gems in a mountain of garbage.

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

Originally Posted by Ichihara Asako

I had practically every console up until the PS release. That generation (playstation, dreamcast, N64) was the death of console gaming, to me. When games started focusing too much on graphics (with ridiculous load times) and nowhere near enough on story, longevity, enjoyment and overall 'fun' that Sega and Nintendo had provided with their 8 and 16bit consoles, and other platforms (Atari, Amiga, DOS) had focused on for years.

There were plenty of games with good stories and its not like the graphics were miond blowing. Although graphics didn't matter much for me there are a lot of games that just wouldn't be fun as 8 bit games with sub par graphics. Games I loved from the PSX like Crash Bandicoot, Tony Hawk, and Twisted Metal would suck with Mario style graphics in my opinion because you just wouldn't get the same atmosphere. I do agree with you that games have become a lot about graphics now, but I don't think it really started with the PSX. I don't care what you say there was plenty of fun games with good stories on the PSX and N64. Infact most of the old 8 bit era games stories were terrible to be honest with repeated formulas (Mario for instance). But just because the story sucks doesn't mean the game does.

With that all said I'm not a big fan of the nex gen games. I was a huge gamer from the 8 bits to the PS2, but then after that is when games truly became nothing but the graphics and realism just to make the gore in FPS look better and better. In fact most gaming is nothing but shooters anymore. Thats probably why the only games I really play much anymore are on DS and Wii. They're not mind blowing grpahics but there are fun games with plenty of them having good stories to back them up.

I feel Nintendo did a good job creating a formula for fun games and bringing gaming to the masses, but I think sony helped puh the bar a bit higher or "added" if you will to the gaming experience with graphics helping games become more than just side scrolling or very limited looking in their appeal. Some games just wouldn't be the same with out the graphics and disc space. Both PSX and the old systems had great games and I think they both deserve respect for what they helped bring to gaming.

[technomo12]

all i can say is that sony made a revulutionary game for all gamer and types

thanks to them MMORPG/MRPG/FPS/TPS/RTS/(put here those dance games and other music games that makes use of you body)

is now all over the world

and many power house are now competing against the tyrant of gaming industry wich is SONY!!