Interesting Idea From Nintendo. Could it take the fun out of games?

Hello,

Just wanted to see what other 'gamers' thought about Nintendo's latest move.

Check this article out: Nintendo's new help feature

Basically, the new Mario Bros. Game that is coming for the Wii is going to have a feature where you can push a button during any time while playing a level. You can then select an option to let the game finish that level for you.

They will also do the same feature with other games in the future as well. Is it the end of strategy guides and cheats as we know it?

Quote's from article:

Beginning with the upcoming New Super Mario Bros. Wii, players will be able to pause a game during a particularly difficult level and let the game take over to complete the level. Press a button at any time to resume playing.

This will help reduce barriers of entry for new or younger players – without purchasing a strategy guide or resorting to websites that list cheat codes.

If it takes off -- and perhaps even copied by the likes of Microsoft and Sony -- this could mean the end of strategy guides and other game help books, too.

Do you think this feature is a good idea to help those stuck get through troubled spots in a game? Or are you in favour of a harder game, whereby players should keep trying (and failing) until they get it right (on their own)?

Well that's a waste, who wants a game that plays it self? lol

I hear it's already a big seller in Eastern Europe and parts of Southeast Asia, where kids have little interest actually playing games and would prefer to take the shortcut. Hey, it's not cheating when the game allows you.

To think I felt so 'bad' using a Game Genie.

It basically reflects the wants of the current young generation. They're spoiled, so they want to finish a game, regardless of how much work they actually do.

Isn't the purpose of a game to have fun? That's why you're paying $50 or so to buy it, right? And it's really no fun if you can't beat a level, but that's good. You try different strategies (mind you, you don't actually need a strategy guide if you're patient enough), and eventually, one of them works.

Plus, if you're just going to let the game beat itself, it'd be quite a bit simpler if you went on YouTube to watch someone beat it - for free. The move could backfire on Nintendo, because you might start seeing kids who simply watch a walkthrough on YouTube, or borrow a friend's game to "play" it.

Pifreak wrote:It basically reflects the wants of the current young generation. They're spoiled, so they want to finish a game, regardless of how much work they actually do.

Isn't the purpose of a game to have fun? That's why you're paying $50 or so to buy it, right? And it's really no fun if you can't beat a level, but that's good. You try different strategies (mind you, you don't actually need a strategy guide if you're patient enough), and eventually, one of them works.

Plus, if you're just going to let the game beat itself, it'd be quite a bit simpler if you went on YouTube to watch someone beat it - for free. The move could backfire on Nintendo, because you might start seeing kids who simply watch a walkthrough on YouTube, or borrow a friend's game to "play" it.

'

I think this feature is can be a good and bad thing. It would allow you to have fun (not sure if this is the right word for it), by seeing different strategies, but could also take the fun out of it by knowing what to do and just going through the game. This can be prevented but having the game as open as possible such as the game Deadrising or Portal, you can have a lot of different ways of completing a goal, the feature could be used to show only 1 possible way to accomplish the goal. In the game Portal you have lots of different ways to complete a level, and it won't spoil the fun by just showing just one (hopefully).

It would be good if they give you Hints but not finish the game for you.
Like they give you some sort of indirect hints, to know where to look, what to do, etc...

Thtat's the biggest load of Bullshit ever!

GChrome wrote:

Pifreak wrote:It basically reflects the wants of the current young generation. They're spoiled, so they want to finish a game, regardless of how much work they actually do.

Isn't the purpose of a game to have fun? That's why you're paying $50 or so to buy it, right? And it's really no fun if you can't beat a level, but that's good. You try different strategies (mind you, you don't actually need a strategy guide if you're patient enough), and eventually, one of them works.

Plus, if you're just going to let the game beat itself, it'd be quite a bit simpler if you went on YouTube to watch someone beat it - for free. The move could backfire on Nintendo, because you might start seeing kids who simply watch a walkthrough on YouTube, or borrow a friend's game to "play" it.

'

I think this feature is can be a good and bad thing. It would allow you to have fun (not sure if this is the right word for it), by seeing different strategies, but could also take the fun out of it by knowing what to do and just going through the game. This can be prevented but having the game as open as possible such as the game Deadrising or Portal, you can have a lot of different ways of completing a goal, the feature could be used to show only 1 possible way to accomplish the goal. In the game Portal you have lots of different ways to complete a level, and it won't spoil the fun by just showing just one (hopefully).

(yay, proper discussion!)

A kid would likely have the main objective of completing the game. The kid wouldn't care what method is taken, as long as the objective is completed at the end. And when the end is reached, the kid (usually; I'm going on what the current generation generally does) gets bored of the game, sees another game that looks appealing, and quickly develops a strong desire to start playing it. The previous game is completely forgotten; there is no desire to find alternate methods of completing a level. That's why game companies survive: they depend on kids buying a bunch of games, with little turnover time. Now that I think of it, this may be why Nintendo is considering this idea. It reduces the amount of time spent playing the game, and thus increases the amount of games played by the kid (and by extension increases the profit made by game companies).

wow you have a lot to say about this ... don't mind me just keep talking

yeah I'm to bored to type that much.

too much reading too :s

Pifreak wrote:

GChrome wrote:

Pifreak wrote:It basically reflects the wants of the current young generation. They're spoiled, so they want to finish a game, regardless of how much work they actually do.

Isn't the purpose of a game to have fun? That's why you're paying $50 or so to buy it, right? And it's really no fun if you can't beat a level, but that's good. You try different strategies (mind you, you don't actually need a strategy guide if you're patient enough), and eventually, one of them works.

Plus, if you're just going to let the game beat itself, it'd be quite a bit simpler if you went on YouTube to watch someone beat it - for free. The move could backfire on Nintendo, because you might start seeing kids who simply watch a walkthrough on YouTube, or borrow a friend's game to "play" it.

'

I think this feature is can be a good and bad thing. It would allow you to have fun (not sure if this is the right word for it), by seeing different strategies, but could also take the fun out of it by knowing what to do and just going through the game. This can be prevented but having the game as open as possible such as the game Deadrising or Portal, you can have a lot of different ways of completing a goal, the feature could be used to show only 1 possible way to accomplish the goal. In the game Portal you have lots of different ways to complete a level, and it won't spoil the fun by just showing just one (hopefully).

(yay, proper discussion!)

A kid would likely have the main objective of completing the game. The kid wouldn't care what method is taken, as long as the objective is completed at the end. And when the end is reached, the kid (usually; I'm going on what the current generation generally does) gets bored of the game, sees another game that looks appealing, and quickly develops a strong desire to start playing it. The previous game is completely forgotten; there is no desire to find alternate methods of completing a level. That's why game companies survive: they depend on kids buying a bunch of games, with little turnover time. Now that I think of it, this may be why Nintendo is considering this idea. It reduces the amount of time spent playing the game, and thus increases the amount of games played by the kid (and by extension increases the profit made by game companies).

But... But... Then... Um... Uh... But that's weird! Maybe some kids will fall for it (I'm young too, but I'm not sure if I fit in the 'current generation description'), and maybe others won't! Anyways, why would kids buy games if they not playing it? Well maybe kids could just buy it to see the cutscenes/know the story. (Some games have really great story lines with twists, drama, etc.. It's like watching a movie except as a video game! Pretty cool!)

Argh! I have a feeling this will involve psychology to enter the kid's mind and know what they want


There are also advantages to both the consumer and the company,


PROS
CONSUMER
Less times of getting frustrated since there is a hint/solution system which shows you way

COMPANY
More profit (as you said)


Well I'll just list those And now for the cons


CONS
CONSUMER
Not satisfying to play game since you didn't solve problems yourself

COMPANY
More time to finish game since programing the solution is hard in a dynamic environment (moving enemies, moving platforms, moving doors, etc.. But is easy to do in a static environment like a maze with no enemies, doors, etc.)

too much reading again!!

naughty naughty writers!

Lol... it's a dumb idea, in any case.

I hate Cheats, especially cheating games. THEY GRIND MY GEARS

Lol.

OK, I'm not going to type a whole bunch again, I don't really feel like it...

Seeing as both stances were examined, there's not much of a debate anymore.

I don't see why it's such a big deal?

See, you don't have to press the button that solves the game for you.

Of course, what this says about laziness of the current generation is troublesome - philosophically it worries me, but I don't see it negatively affecting me (or anyone) as a gamer.

The popularity of "Achievements" in things like Steam and Xbox Live mitigate a potential phenomenon where the accomplishment of a non-cheater beating the game is tarnished by the ability of others to beat it with out effort.

Plus! If this feature is in play, maybe game designers will feel safer making games harder?

Bah, it's apparent that this is a reaction to outcries from consumer focus groups who said "This game is too hard!" Bloody youngins; you need to all go back to playing Pong. Can't cheat at Pong.

Yeah, <insert long tirade about attitudes of entitlement in the young generation>

It's like script kiddies and aimbot users in CS; it's not like being accomplished in a video game is something to brag about in the first place, but skipping a level or cheating because it's too hard? What the hell kind of message does that send to the impressionable youths left in the parental care of Consoles and TVs? If life's too hard, cheat, but Now, with this Easy Button, it's Staples-world; life's too hard, let life play itself for you! F-ing marketing execs.

Only thing I could see this kind of easy-button replacing is good ol' fashioned grinding/farming in Single-Player RPGs. Not multi-player games, but Single-Player.

Come on cheating in games the only game that's worth using cheats is GTA lol

Lol, and any game made by Maxis, because the POINT is to cheat there.

Maxis? mmm....never heard of that company

They made SIMS, plus a few others

Yep.