Revolution Demos Play-tested – Full Report

they are aiming at hardcore gamers.they are aiming at the whole spectrum of gamers.

Well, no they're not. Hardcore gamers care about graphics, power, etc. Nintendo are anti all that. They want you to believe that they're aiming at hardcore gamers, but right now, they're the least hardcore game company you can find. They can't focus on everybody, so they're not.

If you're a parent, a child or a girl, you're more likely to be interested than a typical gamer. If you are an interested hardcore gamer, the reason you're interested is because it has the Nintendo brand name. Nothing to do with the Revolution in particular.

Hardcore gamers will buy the system with the best graphics, and then consider a Revolution afterwards. Otherwise you aren't very hardcore, because you're playing on a Family game machine.

A 5 or 95 year-old playing something such as Quake or GTA, I would consider hardcore, not a 5 or 95 year-old playing a Nintendo game designed specifically for them.

I think you're just wrong there.

This all comes down to how you define a "hardcore gamer". If you're talking about the PC/Xbox gamers then, yeah, I agree - there's no way they'll be interested in Revolution.

But equally there are a lot of hardcore gamers that own Gamecubes, PS2 or even just a handheld console. These people are likely to buy a Revolution.

Some hardcore gamers may have missed Nintendo this generation, but if the games are right may well come back.

To say that Nintendo isn't for hardcore gamers is just wrong though.

The DS is a fine example of Nintendo making games for hard-core and mainstream. Mario Kart DS was made for the hardcore, Animal Crossing mostly designed to attract the "non-gamer" but there are a lot "hard-core gamers" buying it too.
Nintendogs non-gamer, Mario and Luigi RPG 2 (screw the official name you know what i mean) hard-core. I can go on for a while.

As Adam said, your defenition of hard-core is wrong because it only covers 1 type of hardcore gamers (yes there are different types).
You got the rusted in hardcore gamer, the "I LOVE HALO 2" people, the "Metroid Prime is such a sucky FPS" people and so forth.
On the other end of the spectrum you got the innovation-loving hardcore and then you got a bunch of others who are between those 2 extremes.

What you used is very euphemistic version of "Nintendo is teh Kiddy!!!!!1111111!!!!" argument, it doesn't stand however because, define kiddy... you can't because someone else can give a second defenition on the term that contradicts yours. It doesn't have a definition is my point.

I'm a PC gamer and I'm very interested in Revolution, in fact, it's by far the most interesting of all three new consoles, what with XBOX 360 not even being a truly next gen console (all those awful, awful XBOX and PS2 ports, ever heard how you can't polish a turd?).

Anyway, what makes a Hardcore Gamer? I'd say it's those freaks who smell funny and stand around in your local games shop and have no social skills what-so-ever. And they import all the new consoles regardless of price, and they own every different colour and of PS2 and XBOX and they eat their own feces. Perhaps.

Yes, it entirely depends on the definition of "hardcore gamer," I completely agree with that. I would argue that a hardcore gamer isn't defined by what machines they own, but it's defined by their style of playing and view of computer games. Some games cater to it better, but it doesn't mean you're "hardcore" just because you play a particular game or vice versa.

So, we have new types of game and gameplay on Revolution. That cannot be "hardcore" - it can't have fans, or whatever you call them, because it's brand new ideas. What will attract them is Nintendo brand names. However if, when you compare Revolution to say, PS3, the only thing "hardcore gamers" will appreciate in the Revolution is Nintendo braind names. Apart from that, the PS3 is better suited to them.

Yes, Nintendo's Revolution may end up defining a new type of "hardcore gamer", but this isn't the type I was talking about, because they don't exist yet.

Secondly, you can't say I'm wrong, if you also say that "it depends."

Lastly, I did not say Nintendo isn't for hardcore gamers at all! I said Revolution is not aimed at hardcore gamers. And if hardcore gamers are interested in the Revolution, it's because of the Nintendo brand name. I didn't say Nintendo isn't for hardcore gamers, I was implying that it was.

Well, to me, a hardcore gamer is someone that is really passionate about gaming, whether that means playing bust-a-move, Final Fantasy, Halo or Animal Crossing.

Someone that is purely interested in high specs, graphics etc. is a hardcore idiot, not a hardcore gamer.

In my opinion, a gamer is someone who is passionate about playing computer games, a hardcore gamer is similar to what you would call a hardcore idiot, and anyone else who plays games is quite normal.

People seem to like to boast that they care more about computer games than "everyone else" for some reason, but I think that at the moment we're just about at the stage where people can play computer games and still be normal. That is how it should be, in my opinion, which is one reason why the word gamer really pisses me off. I think it was just invented by Microsoft to help themselves sound "cool." And the verb game, I thought meant to gamble.

I kind of get what you're saying, but also don't really understand your argument. Keep telling me it and I'll get it eventually ;).



OK



Why can't it be hardcore?

But surely someone who buys every Mario game is just as hardcore as someone who buys every major PC FPS?

If a totally new FPS is released, "hardcore" gamers will buy it even if it's got new ideas, because there are still elements of genre in it.

In the same way, if Nintendo release Smash Bros on Revolution, their "hardcore" gamers will buy the console and game even if it's got new ideas.

To be honest, the Nintendo brand name is quite weak now, and I think that increasingly people are looking beyond the brand. I certainly don't think our stereotypical "hardcore" game will buy a Revo for the Nintendo brand.



But if "hardcore" is defined on such things as playing attitude, frequency of game purchases, view of games then the Revo wouldn't create a new type of hardcore gamer because those values wouldn't change.



Sorry. You post did sound like it was implying a nice, neat group called "hardcore".



I do agree that Revo isn't targeted at stereotypical "hardcore" Xbox/PC gamers, however if you take your definition of defining hardcore as the values then Nintendo is aiming the Revo at hardcore gamers - even if it might be those people that it knows will commit to buying almost every game with Mario, Zelda or Pokemon stamped on it. It needs these people to generate revenue.

Again, I don't think that the brand name will help Nintendo at all. I have learn't not to trust Nintendo's brand, and you can bet that when Revo arrives if it doesn't have the support in terms of excellent games, then the brand name will count for sweet FA - especially amungst hardcore gamers.

Does anybody else share my opinion that this "revolutionany" controller is anything but revolutionary? All I see is a light gun using a different form factor! Given, it does use an alternate technology to determine the location on-screen, but this is nothing that either Microsoft or Sony couldn't implement in their own console with minimal effort. In fact, I would be surprised if those two companies are NOT working on a HD compatible technology for light gun usage on their consoles. Therefore, the only thing that is revolutionary is the fact that developers are being forced to use this peripheral.

actually, its not that the controller is revolutionary, its how the controllewr is used. it won't only be used for fps games, a warioware based game is possible, or baseball soccer tennis, that is why EA has such an intrest, which brings me to the second previous post. The revolution currently has a HUGE amount of third party support. This is what you see because you dont go to sites like revolution report and ign and then think. As for adams other idea of limiting people is also wrong because nintendo has already confirmed the shell controller that works like a regular controller attatchmen. How do you think smash bros would work? the attatchments are also very cheap to produce, its plastic with buttons, no electronics, thats on the revolutions original controller

Yeah, both this and the other Revolution news story (the comments from Nintendo about the system's power) are old hat, things we already knew.

Yes, the story about the Rev's "lack" of power is old news, yet some news argans appear to have completely ignored this when peddling sensational stories about developers flapping over Rev's apparent lack of power compared to 360 or PS3- that's the news.

if you don't believe me, i couldn't care less. It wont be my fault that your wasting 200 dollars more than me just so that you can play games exactly as they were 7 years ago while looking better and I could have fun in new and old ways. PS3 games are going to be 70-80 dollars. HAVE FUN!

I wopuld go on but I now have school

if you don't believe me, i couldn't care less. It wont be my fault that your wasting 200 dollars more than me just so that you can play games exactly as they were 7 years ago while looking better and I could have fun in new and old ways. PS3 games are going to be 70-80 dollars. HAVE FUN!

And just because the revolution has support doesn't mean ps3 and 360 don't. I never said that. The revolution has support because it's easier to make games because of the leaning curve needed, it's small.

I would go on but I now have school