Should Nintendo cater to the hardcore gamer?

When you're on the internet as much as I am, you are always privy to debates. The debates I typically run into (based on my surfing habits) are best sports team, pro vs anti Obama, and PS3 vs Xbox 360. I want to talk about the last topic I mentioned in particular. You see, I hear TONS of juvenile reasons to choose one system over the other, and lost in this debate is the current juggernaut console (sales-wise), the Nintendo Wii. I can already hear the collective groan and subsequent excuses from the "hardcore" gamers now: "the Wii is for babies and old people", "the only people who buy Wiis are 10 year olds who play Mario and Sonic", "the Wii is only popular because everyone in Japan owns one" and so on, and so on. Here's the thing: some of those arguments, as elementary as they are structured, are not totally invalid. The Wii does enjoy a larger age demographic, and has been universally adopted by the country of Japan. However, because of this, Nintendo has taken a vastly different approach this generation as opposed to their previous two "also-ran" consoles (the N64 and Gamecube, respectfully).

The N64 and Gamecube were not as successful to many people because Nintendo was trying to keep up instead of doing what it does best: innovate. Nintendo was the first major console that had an analog stick built into the standard controller (the Sega Saturn had an alternate controller that had to be purchased separately), as well as the first major console to offer force feedback (the Rumble pack), both of which were quickly mirrored by Sony in their future controller iterations (the Dualshock analog). However, Sony improved upon the implementation of both peripheral options, and with a catalog of games with far more range than the N64, caused a shift in the balance of video game supremacy for several years to come.

By the time the Gamecube premiered, the Playstation 2 had already been available in the US and Japan for a year, and had all but crowned itself as the heavyweight champion of that console generation. With Microsoft entering the fray with the Xbox, and Sega cashing in their chips as a hardware producer after the Dreamcast flop, the video game landscape was changing quickly, and Nintendo tried its best to keep up, with minimal results. Even with a brief exclusive contract with Capcom for new Resident Evil titles, there wasn't enough incentive to choose a Gamecube over a PS2.

Instead of focusing on ill-fated third party games for their quirky system, they (once again) turned the standard controller on its head, packaging the Wii with a motion controller from day one. Nintendo also accentuated the positives of their controller in creating friendly, simple, and cute games that are by no means intimidating. Sure, they have a few shooters and some "rated M for Mature" games available, but they have not placed the fate of the system in the success or failure of said games like in years past.

Any doubters in Nintendo's current model for success can look towards two key points: sales numbers and future plans from competitors. Here is a list of the top three (worldwide) highest-selling games for each current console:

Xbox 360:

1. Halo 3 - 10.33 Million
2. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - 7.89 Million
3. Grand Theft Auto 4 - 7.29 Million

Playstation 3:

1. Grand Theft Auto 4 - 5.94 Million
2. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - 4.74 Million
3. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots - 4.31 Million

Nintendo Wii:

1. Wii Sports - 50.09 Million
2. Wii Play - 24.67 Million
3. Wii Fit - 22.63 Million

*All sales stats provided by vgchartz.com


Nintendo's next three top selling Wii games are Mario-related (Mario Kart Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and Super Mario Galaxy), so it's not simply a matter of casual games being their primary means of success. These statistics, however, have caused a bit of a shift towards peripheral strategy for Microsoft and Sony. Those who keep up with video game technology trends are well aware of Project Natal, a full-body motion control system being implemented by Microsoft for the Xbox 360, and the dual "wand" controllers to be used in conjunction with the PSEye for the Playstation 3. Both controllers have been very impressive in the recent tech demos that have been shown, cementing that true 1:1 motion is the next logical step in video game peripherals. However, there may not have been such an immediate push in that direction if it had not been for the overwhelming success of the Wii.

Most educated gamers would agree that the video game realm is much better with Nintendo as a power player, however, these same individuals would be hard pressed to say they do not see glaringly obvious patterns from the demise of the previous two systems. Once again, Nintendo seems heavily reliant on first-party software, while third-party titles fade into obscurity. This has resulted in a trend of major third party developers shifting even more focus away from producing quality Wii games, due to the lack of profits in which these games will inevitably result in. Prime examples of this are the dismal sales numbers of Madworld, Dead Space: Extraction, and The Conduit, just to name a few. It seems that Microsoft and Sony are dedicating their efforts to implement motion control in the current types of games they have available, which are aimed more at the "hardcore gamer" crowd, while Nintendo is content to continue letting their casual games and mascots keep the ship afloat. This strategy, while currently effective, may in fact work against Nintendo in the near future when the playing field is leveled, so to speak, in terms of peripheral options, as well as the catalog available. In my opinion, Microsoft or Sony is one or two "killer apps" away from seizing a chunk of the casual crowd away from Nintendo, be it this current console generation or the next. If that happens, Nintendo may find themselves without a leg to stand on, and my go the way of Sega in years to come. As I stated previously, I feel the video game world is a better place with Nintendo in the fray, and I would hate to see them falter in the future due to narrow-minded business decisions.