To me, video games need to be a challenge of the mind. But then again, Nintendo has a demographic consisting of young ages. Maybe they want to consider the kids, rather than the teens and adults that want a challenge.

I guess that's what they want...which is exactly why the Wii may fall like it's cousin, Gamecube. Too many v. game adaptions to kids' movies.

~kugen

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard

Time marches on, I suppose.

You know what. I agree with all of you. Games should be left alone. Then again, if you're too stupid to not avoid these references, you really, and I mean really do not have enough intelligence to play the game. The only two games in the history of history that must be given this treatment are The Impossible Quiz/The Impossible Quiz 2. That's it. Hands down. Amen. Thanks for responding guys!

Seems people are missing the point - just because you can take an alternate route through a level you can not beat, doesn't mean you have to. If you are all about spending 3 weeks in the same boss fight until you beat it, more power to you! If someone chooses to move along and keep playing, why shouldn't they be allowed? It's no different than other ways people get through things. If you have ever, and I mean ever even once, used a strategy guide or called a buddy and asked for tips, etc etc, you have already taken an alterante way rather than 100% defeating it yourself. I am willing to bet almost nobody has taken a 100% no help way through an entire game. I feel it's kind of snobby to attack people who need help in a game. I bet a lot more people would enjoy gaming if they didn't get stuck. Part of gaming is the challenge, I agree wholeheartedly. However, it should also be fun.

I remain baffled by the fact that this concept has gathered so much hate from people around the internet, yet other forms of strategy guides and walkthroughs are commonly accepted. WTF, people?

Myself, I think it's a great idea. If people want to play the game completely by their own skill, they'll still be able to do that. Nothing will force you to use this feature. But if people want a little help, they can get it without even leaving the game instead of having to pull out a strategy guide or look up a walkthrough on GameFAQs or wherever.

I think people get too stuck on the idea that you must play games in a linear fashion. But, really, why should you have to? If there's a scene in a movie you don't like, you can skip it. If there's a track on a CD you don't like, you can skip it. But if there's a part of a game you don't like, you should never be allowed to play past it without completing it? That doesn't make sense to me.

@haseo luver92:

Exactly. And those are the kind of games people should start off with. The fun games and the games that don't require too much. And if a game isn't fun for you, why are you playing it?

My issue is that there are plenty of games made for people who just want something fun to play, and the 'harder' games are made for those more dedicated, not for a general casual audience. The enjoyment from the harder games comes from beating the stringent requirements, not from simply the game itself, and if you can't manage those requirements then you won't enjoy the game at all—so why play it in the first place?

So this act by Nintendo seems not designed to make gaming more fun for more people, but to eliminate the need for discernment in gaming. It's a money-making thing.

For instance, I'm never going to play FFX-2. I could play it, but the basic concept behind the game is dress-up to maximise certain battle scenarios, and I do not enjoy that concept. I'm more liable to play strategy, rp, racing, and fps games because that's what I enjoy. I don't really care about buying a game just to jump in at the final level and beat it.

Or take, for example, Star Wars: Bounty Hunter. I bought that game because it seemed to require a mix of tactics and espionage along with the fps element. But even though I had no problems with beating the stages, the game itself was so mind-numbingly dull that I quit playing. Making it 'easier' wouldn't have increased my enjoyment. Making it better and less repetitive would have.

@haseo luver92:

But there's my point; if you're nine, what are you doing playing a game where the strategy concepts are completely beyond you?

Or to my mind, even, what are you doing playing video games at all? =P Not that I personally think there should be an age-limit on who can play games, but I didn't grow up in a gaming environment. I really enjoy them when I play them (as opposed to my mother, who almost thinks they're from the Devil *rolls eyes*), but I read a lot more when I was younger, and that helped my mind develop a lot. I'd want the same for my kids.

They're basically taking a bad idea and making it sound good. I enjoy the challenge in video games, that's why I play them, especially the Legend of Zelda. If I get told the way to solve puzzles with a little animation, it probably won't be as fun, I think.
one of The best parts of a video game should be it's storyline. If you just skip around the story, it's unlikely you'll get it at all.
Just because you're stuck you shouldn't get a little animation to tell you what to do. And if you're really stuck, ask for help. The best part of a video game is to be able to use your brain to get through it. If you're really stuck, a few steps to a computer won't kill you.
If they have to have the guide, they should make it an option at the beginning of the game,but the skip around part is just a stupid idea, I'd say.
If I was harsh, it was necessary.

Although that does sound useful, I don't like the idea at all. One of the reasons why I play games to begin with is because I get a thrill from the challenge it provides. Sure, getting stuck sucks, but figuring out what the game prescribes in that particular section provides a sense of satisfaction you just can't replicate with someone else providing the answer to you. In short, it makes feel as though playing the game was definitely worth your time.

Besides, this idea is a double-edged sword: you'll definitely gain more customers at first for the "user-friendly" motif, but you could also lose as many customers--if not more--for making it so simple that one could question if it were insulting the gamer's intelligence. (My apologies if that was too harsh.)

Being told how to beat the game takes the pleasure right out of playing it. What's the point of getting the game in the first place, if you're just going to cheat your way through?

This is fail. Just fail.

"...a [system] for preventing a player who desires to clear a game by him/herself from losing his/her interest in the game."

Cry me a river.

So basically now a person can buy a game, jump straight to the final boss, beat it, and say they beat the game. Good job, Nintendo!