For whatever reason, ever since last year, I've seen a lot of people discuss the possibility of a console/handheld hybrid system being Nintendo's next console. I've seen a ton of people talk about it, but I've always wondered where the heck people get this idea from. Is it that stupidly fake leak back around E3 2014 that people were talking about? The whole idea of a hybrid has honestly bothered me ever since that fake leak first brought it up, and I've always wondered why so many people want one. Anyone able to give me some insight?

Because the only Nintendo home console to do well since the SNES is the Wii and that's only due to casual gamers.

Because their handhelds have always been miles ahead of their home consoles. Combining the two would create a viable market for both, especially given the extensive cross-play other companies are trying to/have achieved.

Because the only Nintendo home console to do well since the SNES is the Wii and that's only due to casual gamers.

And this is why I hate the terms "casual" and "hardcore" gamers... People act like one is a diminishing title, and the other makes someone royalty.

 

Also, plenty of "hardcore" gamers also own a Wii. It has plenty of games that cater to both audiences, just like Nintendo's other systems. Either way, success doesn't explain it.

And this is why I hate the terms "casual" and "hardcore" gamers... People act like one is a diminishing title, and the other makes someone royalty.

 

Also, plenty of "hardcore" gamers also own a Wii. It has plenty of games that cater to both audiences, just like Nintendo's other systems. Either way, success doesn't explain it.

 

I'm not doing either. Lol. Casual gaming is a simple term to define someone who doesn't play a lot of games and this was extremely common with Wii and thus why it died so soon.

 

Yes, success does explain it. You can't keep failing.

I'm not doing either. Lol. Casual gaming is a simple term to define someone who doesn't play a lot of games and this was extremely common with Wii and thus why it died so soon.

 

Yes, success does explain it. You can't keep failing.

Success doesn't explain why people are so certain it will happen. Most people who I've seen go on about how it's 100% going to happen don't even seem to care much about whether Nintendo's systems are doing well or failing.

We have that already its call a Wii U.

We have that already its call a Wii U.

Wii U isn't a hybrid. It's a console with a controller that has a second screen on it. The Gamepad can't be taken that far away from the Wii U itself.

Success doesn't explain why people are so certain it will happen. Most people who I've seen go on about how it's 100% going to happen don't even seem to care much about whether Nintendo's systems are doing well or failing.

 

Well I do care and I believe it's the best thing to do.

Well I do care and I believe it's the best thing to do.

The only people who say it's the best thing to do are people who don't actually follow Nintendo and buy their systems. Their consoles and handhelds each have their own strengths, and they'd only be limiting each other if they were combined into one system. Not to mention that if a family has multiple people who want to buy the new handheld, they'd essentially have to pay for multiple home consoles, which would cost much more.

 

Also, since when did you care about Nintendo? All you ever do is talk about how they're inferior to Sony.

The only people who say it's the best thing to do are people who don't actually follow Nintendo and buy their systems. Their consoles and handhelds each have their own strengths, and they'd only be limiting each other if they were combined into one system. Not to mention that if a family has multiple people who want to buy the new handheld, they'd essentially have to pay for multiple home consoles, which would cost much more.

 

Also, since when did you care about Nintendo? All you ever do is talk about how they're inferior to Sony.

 

Since I owned a Game Boy Color. I don't talk about Sony any more. Lol.

Then what the hell is the Gamepa- Oh wait that was already addressed.

Shots faiyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad

And this is why I hate the terms "casual" and "hardcore" gamers... People act like one is a diminishing title, and the other makes someone royalty.

 

Also, plenty of "hardcore" gamers also own a Wii. It has plenty of games that cater to both audiences, just like Nintendo's other systems. Either way, success doesn't explain it.

 

There's nothing wrong with the term casual really, it's used in my Game Design class

 

Casual - Plays games that require less dedication (such as grinding) and fit around their life instead of requiring them to devote their life

Core - Common people who call themselves "gamers" and enjoy the experience they get from a variety of games

Hardcore - Essentially devotes every single waking moment to a game or series of game.  

 

To many people think the only choice is Casual and Hardcore which by comparison of the words (and the general attitude from game snobs (those who don't see mobile games as "real games" for example) makes Casual seem bad, but it's not.   It's more of a scale than distinct categories.    

 

The Wii was popular though because it did cater to casual gamers, in a sense that anyone from your 2 year old niece to your 80 year old grandma could find something enjoyable to play on it, where as the Xbox and PS3 were more dedicated to enticing people with specs and "beautiful" intense visual scenes and graphics (though it should be noted, you buy consoles for the software that'll be on them (the games) not for hardware specs).  

 

There's nothing wrong with being a casual, core or hardcore gamer (though the last one would be a problem if you avoided showering and taking care of yourself for it like).  

 

EDIT: and also, I think in response to the forum topic, it's people's wishful thinking if they say it more enough it's bound to be true.  

Edited April 6, 201510 yr by Caity

There's nothing wrong with the term casual really, it's used in my Game Design class

 

Casual - Plays games that require less dedication (such as grinding) and fit around their life instead of requiring them to devote their life

Core - Common people who call themselves "gamers" and enjoy the experience they get from a variety of games

Hardcore - Essentially devotes every single waking moment to a game or series of game.  

 

To many people think the only choice is Casual and Hardcore which by comparison of the words (and the general attitude from game snobs (those who don't see mobile games as "real games" for example) makes Casual seem bad, but it's not.   It's more of a scale than distinct categories.    

 

The Wii was popular though because it did cater to casual gamers, in a sense that anyone from your 2 year old niece to your 80 year old grandma could find something enjoyable to play on it, where as the Xbox and PS3 were more dedicated to enticing people with specs and "beautiful" intense visual scenes and graphics (though it should be noted, you buy consoles for the software that'll be on them (the games) not for hardware specs).  

 

There's nothing wrong with being a casual, core or hardcore gamer (though the last one would be a problem if you avoided showering and taking care of yourself for it like).  

 

EDIT: and also, I think in response to the forum topic, it's people's wishful thinking if they say it more enough it's bound to be true.  

My point with the discussion regarding the whole "casual" term is that most gamers seem to use it as an insult. "Hardcore" gamers tend to use it in a manner that shows inferiority, which is why I hate those terms.

My point with the discussion regarding the whole "casual" term is that most gamers seem to use it as an insult. "Hardcore" gamers tend to use it in a manner that shows inferiority, which is why I hate those terms.

 

But there's nothing wrong with the terms, they are correct terms in Game Design and Development, whenever someone uses them out of them you should ignore them or explain how they're basically being ignorant elitist idiots, throw a smoothie on them (even throw it through the internet if it's not in person) and move on.  We shouldn't allow morons to force us to change definitions (in the way that the definition of "literally" has been changed to mean "not literally, figuratively")  

But there's nothing wrong with the terms, they are correct terms in Game Design and Development, whenever someone uses them out of them you should ignore them or explain how they're basically being ignorant elitist idiots, throw a smoothie on them (even throw it through the internet if it's not in person) and move on.  We shouldn't allow morons to force us to change definitions (in the way that the definition of "literally" has been changed to mean "not literally, figuratively")  

There's nothing wrong with them inherently, but due to their usage, I can't stand to hear them. It pretty much always comes off as a meaning regarding superiority when I see it being used.