http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/nin … ty/1278610

Although in some ways you might think that's cool... it seems to me like it rather detracts from the game. How many people here think the original Super Mario, Zelda, Metroid... are some of the greatest games ever? Would you think so if you could beat the games the first or second time you played? I can just imagine most players as getting to a spot in a game where they think they might die, or are simply not sure what to do, and then they immediately pull up their in-game hints ... and breeze through a game that way... which will force players to purchase more games. Yup, definitely good for business! Not so sure it's good for the industry as whole though. But hey, just my personal take on it

cheers,

-avatar!

I don't know, all I think it might do is make less ppl pull-up gamefaqs in all or any jams.

Something just bugs me in this, don't know what. Maybe it's the fear of games becoming too easy or just tip-button smashfestage for some people, thought why I would even care about other people tipraping their playthroughs.

Also, I do wonder if the in-game tips would be better in the end than regular good FAQ in Gamefaqs or not, atleast I tend to like visit that site to find time to time a good discussion in a some older 'nonpopular' games, thought 99% of posts there are utter crap.

But thankfully it's Nintendo doing this and not Microsoft, for some reason I can imagine Tip-clip popping up if you for instance would go in a wrong direction like in some sandbox-game ala GTA.

And in the end, nothing beats beating game without any outsider help, thought I've noticed that it's somewhat annoying / difficult not to get any tips or find discussions about the game in the net nowadays, but maybe that's my forum-lurking personality. Or the fact that my gaming backlog just keeps growing and growing and no time to play.

Times--games--have changed a lot since our first forays into Hyrule or the Mushroom Kingdom, but as much as things have progressed, they've stayed the same as well. We had player's guides in the 80s, GameFAQs in the 90s, Youtube walkthroughs in the 00s, and I suppose on-screen aid in the 10s--same thing, different forms. The watch-the-game aspect does seem to defeat the purpose of gaming, but then again anyone who's sat down in front of a big-budget title in the last ten years knows that modern games are very much a cinematic experience anyhow.

I've seen a lot of uproar and rage over this across the web, but I personally don't really think it's worth getting so uppity over those who don't play games "the way they were meant to be played," drawing a line in the sand as to who "real" gamers are or what it takes to be one. Nor do I think it's going to kill the industry--it's simply moving in a new direction, just as it always has. That doesn't mean we'll never do things the old-fashioned way again; 2008 had seen platformers, run-and-guns, 2D fighters, and even text adventures right alongside the latest technological marvels. I highly doubt that the watch-a-game system is going to wholly replace games as we know them. For the old-school and hardcore, the tip system is said to be completely optional, and there's no reward for those who rely on the system.

Not to mention, we're going on a patent filing alone--let's wait to see something more fleshed out before we shake our heads ruefully (or quiver with anticipation, for that matter). As challenging as games can be, as cerebral as games can be, games are ultimately meant to be fun--and having successfully tapped into a market that approaches games not for an enriching deep experience but a carefree break from life, I think this is a way to ensure they still have that experience. Better yet, even ease them into the world of more conventional video gaming. Who can balk at that?

I should probably not write at 3AM.

Well, if the content of your reply is anything to go by, I'd say you should do more writing in the middle of the night, cos it's spot on if you ask me.

Basically, you're getting a free guide with every game, what's wrong with that?
It's still optional, noone is FORCING you to use it, so why complain? It's just a bit of extra service on Nintendo's part!

I'm kind of torn on this.  As was brought up in the article about this on kotaku, the key question here is what is the primary purpose of a game, to entertain or to challenge?  If all a game is supposed to do is entertain, then Kind Codes would be a great way to help casual gamers finish games and experience all a game's art, music, and storytelling have to offer.  There has been much chatter in the industry about how most people never finish the games they buy because games are either too difficult, too repetitive, or too long.  On the other hand, overcoming a game's challenge and the sense of satisfaction that accompanies that are great feelings and they help the player form an emotional bond with the content.

I can tell you that I certainly would not have the feelings I have for my favorite RPGs if I could have skipped all the battles and simply watched the story bits.  While they are frustrating and repetitive in places, the extra time spent deepened my knowledge of the game design and my connection with the game's characters.  Would I have loved the insane perfection of Wave Race 64 if I wasn't up till early in the morning screaming profanity at the fat guy who would always knock my chick off her jet ski?

I think there's much to be written about the masochistic bonds gamers form with video games and finding that perfect balance of challenge and reward.  This is what separates good game designers from bad game designers.  I'm worried that the inclusion of Kind Codes could become an excuse for lazy game design.  Why bother balancing your game when the player can always get a pass whenever they want?

Free? Who said anything about free? Since when do games come with free guides? Nintendo is not going to patten something and then just share it for free with players!

Although you are right, so no one is forcing you to *purchase* it, but Nintendo eventually wants it so that their patent becomes the standard. In other words, if you want a hint guide, you're forced to purchase the in-game book. I'm going to stick with gamefaqs if I need a hint!  LONG LIVE GAMEFAQS!

There's no way Nintendo could ever prevent a site like Gamefaqs from offering its own hints, though.

I might miss the day the parent of my classmate asked me about the walkthrough of DQ on the phone.

In-game hintbooks for Wii Fit 2 and Wii Music 2 on the way. Excellent. But will they really compete with the walkthroughs on Gamefaqs? Really?

This is a great idea.  If anything, it means that Zelda games will be more challenging - this opposed to being the pushovers they've been since Ocarina of Time.  Shiggy wouldn't have even tried to copyright this if he didn't anticipate people being stuck.

Instead of trying to straddle the fence and appeal to both diehard Zelda players and new 'Blue Ocean' players with no difficulty settings (which hasnt worked), they can make a challenging and rewarding game for the former and an accessible one for the latter at the same time.  The hints and dungeon/area/boss skipping is optional - so I don't see what the big deal is.

Besides, it's not like we haven't seen this before.  Super Mario Bros. had warp zones.  Super Mario Bros. 3 had the whistle.  Same thing.

Link to the past had an in-game hintbook.. it was called the fortuneteller

Man, remember that little black hint book they included with A Link To The Past?  Damned thing spoiled on how to do EVERYTHING. 

Yes, there was a warning, but who can resist opening such a Pandora's Box?

I don't think that'll be the case, actually. It'd take them more work to design dungeons in the World's Most Ornery Crossword sense than to just make the standard-difficulty type with answers always available, and Zelda games go through multiple delays as is. Would be nice though.

As far the idea walkthrough idea goes, I kind of torn. On the one hand, videogames are a tricky medium to get the hang of, and I do think there could stand to be some more easy ones available so that people can ease into it. That said, while games could benefit from letting people win more often, making it so that they could hypothetically never lose seems a bit too drastic. A college degree wouldn't mean much if the professor gave test answers on demand, you know?