Making Magic Happen: How CCGs Helped Manage the ADHD I Didn't Know I Had

I'm on a roll,

I'm on a roll to success

I feel my luck could change

             - Radiohead, "Lucky"

I'm playing one of my first games of Hearthstone since discovering a recipe for the so-called "Doctor Draw" deck that I'm now using. I've been playing Hearthstone for a few weeks since rediscovering it after they added iPhone support, but this is the first time that I've sought out advice for deck building online. This is a Priest deck; the Priest class revolves around healing and board control, and this particular deck features a card called the Northshire Cleric, which allows its owner to draw an extra card every time a minion is healed. Late in the game, after withstanding an early rush from my opponent, I play Holy Nova, which damages all of their minions and heals all of mine. This clears their side of the board and gives me four extra cards, one for each minion of mine that was damaged at the time. As my hand filled and it became clear that I had the match well in hand, I suddenly felt a rush I hadn't felt in a long, long time. And it felt really good.


My high school gaming experience was all about two types of games: Fighting games and card games. I didn't get an NES until I was 11, and then not until 1990, very late in that system's life cycle. The Super NES came out almost immediately afterward, and that was a non-starter, as far as my parents' willingness to buy one was concerned. I had wanted the NES, I had begged and pleaded for nothing but the NES for five years, and so the NES (and the Game Gear that I got for my Bar Mitzvah, because I was swayed by pretty colors to make the terrible decision to not get a Game Boy) would have to do. The NES would be the last console I'd get until my wife-to-be and I would pool our money in college one summer and get the N64 that would be our first joint possession of many. I had a PC, but most of what I had were Sierra games and Doom, neither of which I was ever able to get the handle of to the point where I could really enjoy them.

This means I missed out on a lot of important games that I had to catch up with later. For some things, this was no big deal; I've since played through Super Mario World and A Link to the Past, and I recently finished Super Metroid for the first time thanks to the virtual console on the Wii U. However, the one game that I was never able to catch up on was Street Fighter II. That's not to say I've never played the game; of course I have, but there's a difference between playing Street Fighter II once in a while at a friend's house or in the arcade and having ready access to it. I could play Street Fighter but I could never really get good at it; that takes the kind of time and obsessiveness that you really only can get as a kid or a teen, the same kind of drive and ability to learn that let me get good enough at NES games to get to the very last stage of Battletoads, past the speeders and the giant snake levels.

There are different levels of play in a fighting game. Anyone can just pick up and play, hit random buttons, and hope to get lucky once in a while. That was the level I was always stuck at, where I was a world class button masher but could never really get to the next tier of play. What happens once you actually learn a fighting game, when you get to the point where you're not just pressing buttons randomly, but you know what each button does for the character you chose and when each button is to be pressed, is that magic starts to happen. All of a sudden you can go from randomly hitting and getting hit to being able to counterattack reliably, and even execute combos that your opponent can't answer. In other words, at some point, the game seems to slow down for you. This is the level I always wanted to get to in Street Fighter, and it remained a constant frustration that I couldn't, no matter how hard I tried. It could be that my reflexes were never fast enough, or I never played with the right people who could teach me what I was missing, or I just missed my window of opportunity to learn how to play those games correctly. Maybe it was all three. Whatever it was, the game never slowed down for me. No fighting game has.


I had very few friends in high school, which is something that should come as no surprise in any retrospective that revolves around video games in the 90s. Up through 8th grade, I was in a Jewish day school that dwindled to a graduating class of twelve; everyone more or less at least tolerated each other because there wasn't much choice otherwise. I moved to the public high school in 9th grade, which was considerably larger. Once I went from being a big fish in a small pond to a small fish in a giant pond, I needed to learn how to swim very quickly, and I never really did. I was either lucky or smart enough to stay out of the line of fire of the bullies, for the most part; I never got physically beaten up, though the threat was always there, that one wrong move would lead to Beatdown City. I mostly kept to myself, kept my head down, and stayed out of trouble. I was terribly lonely a lot of the time, though.

My sophomore year, I became friends with Ryan, who would end up being one of the only real friends I'd have in the school during my time there. Being outside the generally accepted "cool" social circles, we did the only other thing there was to do as a teenager in New Jersey in the mid-90s: We went to the mall and walked around without buying anything. (When I was eventually exposed to the movie Mallrats, it felt like it was a story tangentially about my life; I actually recognized more than one of the malls they visited in that film.) Once the mall closed or we just got bored of doing what we called "the ritual" (read: a loop around the mall with obligatory stops at stores like Electronics Boutique and Spencer Gifts), we would go back to his house and play video games. Ryan had a Sega Saturn, and the only games worth playing on it that he owned were Japanese imports of X-Men vs. Street Fighter and Marvel Super Heroes vs Street Fighter. We'd play for hours, and I'd be lucky to win a match in any given evening.

I desperately wanted to get better at the game, to feel like I was good at something. I was perpetually on the honor roll, so I was good at academics, but that didn't really count for me at the time. That wasn't valued, I thought, by anyone except for college admissions officers who would eventually look at my GPA, and they were in the future. Being good academically certainly wasn't winning me any friends, because it became abundantly clear early on that, as far as the social order of high school was concerned, my intelligence was a negative trait, and I would be punished if I were to try to make it otherwise. Video games were something I felt like I could be good at, and fighting games were the only kind of game that was out at the time where I felt like I could prove that competitively. I printed out move lists from GameFAQs and studied them, to no avail. Try as I might, it just never happened.


Around the same time, I went into what would become my regular comic book store and noticed the display of Magic: The Gathering cards on the counter. This was an easier sell to my parents than an SNES or a Playstation; instead of needing a $200-$300 console, all I needed was a $12 starter deck. The math was easy, at least at first. I fell in love immediately. Before I knew it, I was a regular at the comic shop's Magic night every Sunday. That became a fixture of my high school life from that point on, and I rarely missed a week; it was the one thing I had to look forward to at the time. No matter how bad the week got, no matter how mean the kids were to me at school, I knew that as long as I could make it to Sunday night everything would be ok, at least for a little while.

What's more, I was actually good at Magic in a way that I never really could be with fighting games. Magic is a really difficult game; the basic rule book is fairly thick, and the game actually gets more complex as different cards interact in ways that the rule book doesn't always cover. That never really bothered me, though; it made sense to me as though I'd been playing the game all my life. The intricacies of the game, like how to balance a deck, how to make the most of the cards available in any given situation, and how to bait an opponent into using up defensive cards on decoys before playing important cards, came to me relatively effortlessly. The same skills that would eventually make me a good programmer also made me a good Magic player; every situation was a problem that I needed to use a set of tools to solve, and I was good at putting the pieces together on the fly. As helpless as I felt playing fighting games, that's how confident I felt when playing Magic. They both put me one on one against another person, but when playing Magic, I knew what to do and I knew how to do it. I could finally win at something.

Magic: The Gathering quickly became more than a game to me. It was an opportunity, once a week, to sit down across the table from someone and prove that I was actually good at something that mattered to my addled teenage brain. Playing Magic went from being something I did to being something I was. I had binders full of uncommon and rare cards meticulously catalogued, despite the fact that everything else I owned was perpetually in a series of piles on my bedroom floor, a dichotomy my parents pointed out frequently. (In retrospect, I either was hyperfocused on keeping the cards organized or Magic was so important to me that I was able to push past the attention issues that I didn't yet know I had to get them in order.) I found channels of Magic players on IRC and downloaded a program that simulated a card table online to be able to play practice games during the week. I spent whole evenings reading web sites on strategy and deck building. School was easy for me at the time; the real study time went to Magic, not academics.

To be clear, I wasn't ever professional level good; that kind of proficiency took a monetary commitment I was never able to make. I don't know that I even won more matches than I lost, looking back on it. I certainly didn't win enough to cover the cost of the cards I needed to buy. But I held my own in the weekly tournaments at the comic shop and the bigger tournaments that were held in the area. I even got to the quarterfinal round in a large sealed deck tournament in Boston toward the end of my freshman year of college; the challenge of beating that many opponents in a row was equalled by the challenge of trying to find a taxi out of downtown Boston at 2:30 AM after I was finally eliminated.

Eventually, though, the cost of the game caught up with me. New expansion sets came out three times a year, on average, and getting the new cards was necessary to stay competitive. My reward for getting on honor roll for a quarter was a box of booster packs, which usually ran between $100 and $150; it was like an extra birthday every time I got one of those, because I spent the whole day opening presents. Once I was in college and on a limited budget, though, the idea of spending that much money to just be able to keep playing became too much. I moved over to sealed deck for a while, but that was never as fulfilling as being able to put together a deck I knew like the back of my hand. After my freshman year of college, I gave Magic up cold turkey one day and didn't look back.

Ultimately, by then I didn't need Magic anymore. When I got to college I found a supportive environment full of people who accepted me as I was, so I didn't feel the need to prove my worth constantly, either to myself or others. A few months after I gave up Magic I met the woman who would eventually become my wife. Magic wasn't a lifeline to get me through the week anymore. It became just another game, and an expensive one at that, so when I closed up the boxes full of decks for good I didn't feel like I needed to open them back up again.


One of the things I learned since being diagnosed with ADHD is that, the later in life you're diagnosed, the more damage is done to your self esteem and confidence. What's happened to me as a result of being plagued with inconsistent attention is that I stopped believing that I could actually do the things I'm good at. In general, the expectation is that once you acquire a skill, it's something that's repeatable. Once you're sufficiently skilled at riding a bike, for instance, you're not going to suddenly not be able to ride it again, for instance. For people with ADHD like me, though, failing at something you should be able to do easily does happen. I've had spells of time where I'd stare at a daunting piece of code for weeks and not be able to figure out what needed to happen next, and then one day I'd sit down, somehow trigger a bout of hyperfocus, and crank through the whole thing in an hour or two. Or I'd be able to master a really complex technique but not be able to grasp basic concepts in a related area that really aren't that complicated, but I couldn't get my brain to focus in on.

Unfortunately for me, I managed well enough as a kid to evade an ADHD diagnosis. I got good grades despite rarely taking a book home to do do homework. I wasn't hyperactive or disruptive; if anything, I was the complete opposite, staying quiet and out of the way. To the people around me, when things that I was clearly capable of didn't get done, this meant I was either lazy or didn't care. I could seemingly do things when I wanted to, so when I didn't, the explanation had to be that I was blowing them off because they weren't important enough to me. The thing is, I did care about what it looked like I was blowing off a lot of the time, but I couldn't get myself to stay focused on those things long enough to get them done. It wasn't that I cared only about the things I became hyperfocused on, like Magic, but rather the things that would trigger hyperfocus were the things I started to care about more than anything else; those were the areas where I knew I could maintain my focus long enough to do what I needed to do.

The problem with hyperfocus is it's difficult to predict when it will kick in. Very often, without the benefit of hyperfocus, tasks felt daunting or impossible. What's worse is that hyperfocus would sometimes leave me high and dry in situations where it had been my saving grace before. This happened enough that I started to question whether the skills I had were really skills at all, because a skill is something that you're supposed to be able to rely on; my skills never felt reliable to me. It was almost random if I'd be able to make use of one of my skills on any given day, as though I was waiting for the right card to come to the top of my internal deck before I could use it. So if what was getting me through life wasn't skill, then the explanation is obviously that I got lucky. So if I've been getting through life on luck and not skill, what happens when that luck runs out, as luck always eventually does?

Taking this all the way to its logical conclusion has left me with a pretty severe case of impostor syndrome, for pretty much every aspect of life. I could look at everything I'd accomplished, be it honor roll in high school, or graduating college, or a performance appraisal or anything that was a proof of my accomplishments, and I wouldn't feel like I earned them, or at the very least that I didn't deserve them. I knew all the places I messed up along the way. I knew all the times that I couldn't do what I needed to do, or I could do it but couldn't will myself to do it, and felt like luck got me through. Even now, knowing what I know, and that what I've accomplished is real and maybe even more impressive because I overcame undiagnosed ADHD to accomplish it, it's very easy to go back to that dark place.

I think a lot about failure these days, since it tends to affect me so strongly. Little failures can lead me to beat myself up for a while, especially when I should know better. A bad day where I see the results of several small failures at once, or one big one, can leave me in a funk for days that's very difficult to pull myself out of. I'll tell myself that I'm in over my head, or that I'm a fraud, and that people are going to find out and then everything I've gotten (not earned, never earned) over the years is going to come crashing down like a house of cards. This has gotten better since the diagnosis; I can recognize the failure for what it is and not see it as a harbinger of doom. Even now, though, it takes a lot of effort to see past the yelling voices and realize that the good outweighs the bad. As a result, I'm less likely to put myself into situations where I know I'm likely to fail a lot; I know how that can snowball and it's not good for me.

What I realize, knowing what I know now, is that what made Magic different was that failure wasn't a sign of weakness or that I wasn't good enough; it was an expected part of the game. Sure, luck got me through when I won, because luck was built in. No one wins without getting at least a bit lucky, and any loss could be dismissed by a bad starting hand or the wrong card at the top of the deck. It was the one place where I could compete on equal footing and be legitimately proud of whatever I accomplished, and when things didn't go my way, I could dust myself off and come back the next time because I knew that was just part of the game. I'm only now realizing how much I needed Magic at a time in my life where I didn't feel like I could be good at anything that was important to me.


I try to get back there sometimes, when the failures start to pile up and I need to feel like I'm good at something among everything feeling like it's falling apart. Card games have been out of the question since I gave Magic up, both because of the expense and the difficulty of getting somewhere physical to play, so I've tried what I've always seen as the next best thing, which are fighting games. I've made an attempt at playing almost every major fighting game when they've come out. I got good enough at Marvel vs Capcom 2 to be able to beat the computer on medium more often than not, but playing against another human still ended poorly for me, and I was never able to execute any more than one basic (and fairly cheap) combo with Jin. I gave Street Fighter IV and Marvel vs Capcom 3 legitimate chances when both those games came out also. Street Fighter IV in particular had a setting that allowed people to challenge you as you played single player mode. I left that on for maybe a day before it left me too demoralized to continue. I decided, based on that experience, that I was too old to be able to get good at fighting games now.

When Mortal Kombat X came out a few weeks ago, I tried one last time to see if I could ever get a fighting game to click for me. I'd been assured that the fighting system was simpler than other games, and had been tuned to be more accessible for newcomers. I got advice from one of the best fighting game players I know. ("Don't look at your fighter because you know what you're doing; look at the other player so you can react to them.") That said, I gave the story mode several hours, and while I was able to make progress, I never felt like I had any actual control over what was happening on the screen. I was right back to Ryan's room in high school, hitting buttons with no real feeling like I knew why any button should be pressed. I felt no agency over my character; I was entering commands and things happened on the screen, but those two things felt disconnected, as though the result would be the same if I wasn't manipulating the controller. The experiment ended the same as every other one had, with a sense of frustration that I'd failed at fighting games yet again.

Around the same time, Hearthstone was released for the iPhone. I'd tried Hearthstone when it was in beta; it was a fun game but it had always felt like a really stripped down, basic version of Magic to me. The rule set was drastically simplified compared to Magic, and it felt like all I was doing was lining up minions to fight other minions; there didn't seem to be any deep strategy there to appeal to me. Add to that a client that was slow to load on my Mac, and I quickly forgot about it until I decided to give the game another try on my phone. Once I could load up a game instantly, wherever I was, and I gave it a legit chance, the depth of Hearthstone became apparent to me. What's more, being free to play, I could get into it casually without going down the booster pack treadmill again. I'd lose some games to people who had spent enough money to have a full set of Legendary cards, of course, but that's just going to happen. And I already knew all too well that just having good cards won't win you matches if you don't know how and when to use them.

So I started playing again, taking advantage of the daily quests to maximize my gold to get better cards, and slowly I got better. The first month that I played Ranked mode, it took me a few days to get from rank 25 to rank 20, where you earn a special card back for that month's campaign. The next month, it took me a day. I learned how each of the classes plays, and figured out which ones suit my play style (priest, warlock, druid) and which don't (warrior, mage, hunter). I learned how to build a deck and how to make the cards work together. I learned how to be patient and not to panic from an early game beatdown. I got to the point where I could go into any match expecting to win, and I could brush off a loss and go right back in without feeling like I wasn't really as good as I thought I was.

I didn't realize that I still needed that reassurance, but some days, despite having the diagnosis and knowing my skill is real, I still do. For ten minutes, even if everything else feels like it's going to pieces, I can remind myself that I am as good as I think I'm supposed to be, both in and out of the game. That it's ok to stumble, as long as I go right back in and try to do better the next time. That even a string of failures doesn't mean that the next win can't be a match away. That I don't have to win every time, as long as I can win sometimes, and I know that I'm good enough to win when things go my way. That just because my cards didn't come the right way once doesn't mean my cards aren't good enough to ever win again.

All I have to do is shuffle the deck, draw another starting hand, and remember that I'm as good as I'm willing to let myself be. That's what I needed all along.

Cord Cutting

My girls recently re-discovered Nintendo Land on the Wii U, since Super Smash Bros has mostly gotten old, and Splatoon is still a week away. It's a hidden gem for the platform, and if you own a Wii U, it's worth tracking down, if only to see the unfulfilled potential for the system. Nintendo Land was supposed to be the Wii U's Wii Sports, in that it was a collection of mini-games that showed off what the Wii U gamepad was capable of. There are a lot of ideas that have been minimally explored outside of that title that are interesting to play around with in Nintendo Land: asymmetrical multiplayer, motion control on the gamepad, the touchscreen and stylus as primary input devices, and even some interesting use of the gamepad in a portrait orientation. The problem is that Nintendo Land was never as immediately intuitive as Wii Sports was. If anything, Nintendo Land was as difficult to explain as Wii Sports was effortless, and so it never got to the point where people were curious enough to try it and then appreciate the potential of the system when it was first released.

Asymmetric local multiplayer games, in particular, can be a lot of fun, but they're rare given the limitations of current hardware. The best one I've played was back on the GameCube, and it was called Pac-Man Vs., which came as a pack-in with Pac-Man World 2. In that game, one player would play as Pac-Man on a Game Boy Advance system that was connected to the GameCube, and the others would play as the ghosts on the TV. Pac-Man would play as normal, but the ghosts could only see Pac-Man on their screen when he got close. It was a ton of fun at the time, and there really hasn't been anything like it since. I'd actually misremembered the game as putting the ghosts on GBA systems and Pac-Man on the TV, which made me sad because I thought that it wouldn't be able to be recreated on the Wii U. Hopefully Namco and Nintendo will rectify that oversight soon, but that got me to thinking about what I'd like to see Nintendo do with their next system, currently codenamed the NX, since Nintendo, and the console industry at large, seems to be at a crossroads.

With Nintendo's recent announcement that they're moving into mobile games, they have gone above and beyond to reassure their fans that they're not giving up on consoles. That hasn't stopped some from editorializing that's exactly what they should do, of course. I don't think console gaming is dead or a bad bet to make their next system on. I do think, though, that Nintendo needs to rethink their approach to console gaming in order to justify the existence of whatever their next console ends up being.

If you ask any Wii U owner what the best feature of the system is, most people will tell you that it's the off-TV play, bar none. It's hard to explain how much of a difference this one feature makes, especially when you have more televisions than people. I've ground through long sessions of Mario Kart and all of Super Metroid via virtual console, while watching TV with the family. Especially compared to the unreliable at best Sony equivalent, PS4 Remote Play, the feature works flawlessly, but it doesn't go far enough, in the literal sense. For starters, the range is limited; I can't use my gamepad in my kitchen, two rooms over from my Wii U, for instance. That's kind of a minor quibble, though; when you think bigger, why should the TV need to be there at all?

It's always struck me as backwards that the Wii U gamepad is tethered to a console that's attached to a stationary television somewhere in the house when I'm playing something single-player and off the TV. I'm not alone, either; while I wouldn't go so far to say that it's common, there are people who have devised plans to play Wii U games on long flights. But why should one need to hope for a plane with available AC jacks for something like this? Ideally, the next Nintendo console would be the gamepad, with a real HD screen and the CPU and GPU built into the gamepad itself, instead of simply streaming off the console that's attached to the TV. To facilitate local multiplayer and the times when you do want to play on a bigger screen, Nintendo could offer a box that attaches to the television and pairs with one or more gamepads and additional controllers like Wiimotes and Wii U Pro Controllers. For single player content, though, it would be great to just throw the gamepad in a backpack and attempt to get better at Mario Kart on a plane, for instance; you shouldn't need to place a console on a tray table in order to do that.

Even better, this could make local multiplayer more viable than it is now. The DS and 3DS both have modes where multiple owners of the same game can play together locally; some only require one copy of the game among all the players. If Nintendo could take this mode to the NX, where one gamepad could host a multiplayer game session and any number of controllers or other NX systems could join a game in progress, that would alleviate a lot of the processing limitations that the Wii U runs into when trying to implement multi-screen local multiplayer. Hyrule Warriors lets two people play co-op, one on the TV and one one the gamepad, but the frame rate struggles to keep up. Splatoon also will have the feature, but reports are that will also be limited to one-on-one with no option for split screen on the TV, presumably because the demands of driving two screens push the system to its limit. Offloading each screen to its own system could eliminate a lot of these restrictions, and presumably the processors have improved enough over the three years since the Wii U was released to allow a non-trivial number of additional players on the TV screen.

Once you start thinking along these lines, this starts addressing a lot of problems that plague Nintendo right now. Splitting their efforts between 3DS and Wii U is a challenge, especially since third party support has slowed to a trickle, so Nintendo bears the burden of keeping up a steady stream of releases for two platforms virtually alone. Having one platform that's both portable and capable of traditional console games could address a lot of that problem, because they'd only have to sell one system and build all their games targeting that. Similarly, consumers wouldn't have to choose what kind of experience they wanted to have, or worry about cross-buy; they'd just get both experiences with a game purchase without any additional cost, and presumably the cost to develop would be significantly less for the developer as well, especially for indie developers who are currently offering cross-buy versions of their games. I'm not a game developer, but I don't think it's a stretch to imagine there's a significant cost involved for developing or porting their games to two platforms with different architectures. Since Nintendo seems to be betting heavily on indie games to supplement their major releases right now, anything they can do to make it easier to get those games on their platforms has to be a win.

There's one major snag here, though, and that is the simple fact that this scenario isn't particularly compatible with disc based releases. The Wii U isn't a particularly bulky platform, but what bulk there is comes almost exclusively from the presence of the optical disc drive. In order to get the gamepad to have all the power of the console but still be usable, the disc drive would have to go. There are a number of implications for a move like this, not the least of which is that Nintendo still relies heavily on their retail partners to sell systems, accessories, and now Amiibo. Their decision to partner with Best Buy for the Nintendo World Championships underscores how important those relationships are to Nintendo, and going disc-free could jeopardize those relationships. It would be a difficult sell to retailers to get them to only carry the low-margin hardware but not the higher-margin software. One only needs to look at the machinations Microsoft went through when announcing the Xbox One to try to go primarily digital but keep retailers appeased, and they were in a significantly stronger position in the marketplace than Nintendo is now. There are ways around this; GameStop sells download codes for eShop games in its stores now, so they could expand that program to full retail releases as well, but it's hard to say how receptive they would be to that.

The bigger elephant in the room, however, is Nintendo's terrible handling of digital purchases up to now. Cataloging all the issues with the eShop would take an entirely separate blog post, but suffice it to say that their insistence on tying games to not only a single purchasing account, but a single hardware device, has been problematic at best. I've deliberately avoided purchasing 3DS games from the eShop because I can't share them between me and my two daughters who have 3DS units; once the game is downloaded to one device, it will stay there forever, whereas if I buy a cartridge, the three of us can share the same game on any of our devices. This also assumes the device never gets lost or broken, in which case Nintendo may be able to assist, but not without a long wait and a lot of heartburn. This is already unacceptable in 2015, and will be even more so if buying games on disc or cartridge is no longer an option. The DeNA arrangement is supposed to address this as well, but given how long Nintendo has promised improvement in this area and failed, skepticism isn't unreasonable here.

Obviously, there are no end of people telling Nintendo what to do, and Nintendo has shown time and again that they're going to ignore all of them and do what they think is best, for better or worse. Further, I'm not qualified to tell Nintendo what to do, either; I don't make games for a living, so there could be a million technical holes in this wish list that I don't know because I only play the games that other people make. It's easy to look back at the original iPad announcement for inspiration here, though. Before the iPad was announced back in 2010, there were a slew of artist renderings of the device, few of which imagined it would be as simple as a bigger iPod Touch. That seemed underwhelming to some at the time, but that simple change of form factor was enough to make a drastically different experience. Something simple like detaching the Wii U gamepad from the television could be the change that makes the console that revitalizes Nintendo for the next generation.

A Winner Is You

Last week, Nintendo had an announcement about their E3 announcements, which is about as meta as you can get, considering that spawned articles about the announcement of the announcement, and then tweets announcing the articles, and so on. When the announcement of the announcement finally came, along with the details of when the E3 Nintendo Direct would air, Nintendo dropped the news that they were bringing back the Nintendo World Championships, 25 years after the original event took place. Given that my Twitter bio features the phrase "Nintendo World Championships participant", I had a lot of people ask me how I felt about it. As with anything related to Nintendo, I have a lot of thoughts about it, naturally.

What most people don't realize about the Nintendo World Championships is how big of a deal it really was at the time. The open trials that I attended were held in the Javits Center in Manhattan; this is the same convention center where the New York International Auto Show is held every year, just to provide scale of the event. As I remember it, the expo floor was split into two sections, one for the competition itself, and one with banks of NES systems set up with newly released and yet unreleased games to play. Nintendo even created a completely unique cartridge for the competition, with three challenges based on Super Mario Bros, Rad Racer, and Tetris. It was a spectacle, and it's still something I remember fondly to this day. (My parents, less so; their main memory of the event was bribing me with a new Nintendo game to get me out on the early train to avoid being stuck there for several more hours. I chose Shadowgate, by the way, which was not one of my finer moments.)

It's really hard to describe how important of a memory going to the Nintendo World Championships was for me as a kid. Imagine being eleven years old and going to something like PAX, except that it was a one of a kind event and it would turn out that there would never be another one. If you're someone like me, that would be something you'd treasure forever. That event really solidified my love of games, and I've always felt lucky that I was able to be part of it, even if I did completely terribly and didn't advance past the initial round. (It turns out that when you've played World 1-1 of Super Mario Bros over and over, when you suddenly have to play it differently, it doesn't occur to you to not waste time collecting 1ups that you don't need.) I found the shirt in my basement last summer; it's too small for me but I was overcome with nostalgia just seeing it again.

That said, I was apprehensive when Nintendo announced they'd be bringing this back for E3; that seemed way too soon to do anything that would live up to the Nintendo World Championships that I remember. Upon reading today's details, that hunch appeared to be correct. Not only is the qualifying round going to be held at Best Buy, there are only eight locations holding qualifiers. For the entire United States. (And two of the eight are in California, because of course they are.) Having attended Nintendo's last in-store event held at a Best Buy for the Super Smash Bros preview, I'm dubious that these qualifiers will be run smoothly at all. The Smash Bros event was, to be kind, a mess: There was one console with the Wii U version of the game set up for the entire store, and the line took over an hour to snake around the store. That was after it took them what felt like an eon to actually get the Wii U display unit and hooked up, for that matter. As for the 3DS version, they had one poor employee with a 3DS literally tethered to her body who walked around to people in line to play while they waited for the Wii U line to move. It's only because Super Smash Bros is as good as it is that the entire afternoon didn't feel like a giant waste of time.

All that said, this feels to me not like a loving tribute to a significant event in the life of early 90s nerds, but more like a naked appeal to a very specific nostalgia. If this were truly a throwback to the original Nintendo World Championships, or if the event felt like it was planned to be the spectacle that the 1990 incarnation was, then I might be intrigued. But this? I don't use the phrase "crapping on my childhood" lightly, but that's honestly how this whole campaign feels to me right now. For a company that trades so heavily on nostalgia, this seems so poorly considered that it reeks of desperation. This is what I would have expected from a Nintendo on its heels in 2013, pleading with anyone who remembers the original Nintendo World Championships to think back to how they felt about the company then as opposed to now.

That's what makes this whole Nintendo World Championships event seem so oddly timed; simply put, this feels like a desperation move that Nintendo doesn't need to make right now. Nintendo is profitable for the first time in four years. Splatoon is easily the most anticipated upcoming release right now, by a wide margin. Plus, Nintendo's presentation at last year's E3 was easily the highlight of the show, so they already have a lot of positive energy heading into this year's show. Why they would risk losing some of that good will by putting together something like this, especially because it relies on Best Buy to not screw it up, is baffling.

Maybe I'll be wrong, and this will live up to the memories that I have of 1990. I'm not optimistic, but it could definitely happen. I'm not particularly inclined to find out, though; I'm happier to sit in my basement, clutching my t-shirt from 1990, and pretending that was the last Nintendo World Championship. It's the only one that matters, in any event.

Fresh Ink

Splatoon’s unorthodox demo finally was released this past weekend, giving us an chance to get our hands on Nintendo’s first major new IP since they stopped putting the word Wii in front of any noun they could find. What surprised me, among the generally positive reactions to the game, is an undercurrent of opinion that Splatoon is dead on arrival. One article even went so far as to suggest that Nintendo shut the whole thing down and turn it into a free-to-play affair, because it’s doomed at a $60 price point. This doesn’t surprise me, of course, because the simple reason for all of this doom and gloom is that it’s very hard to see the appeal of a game that is not for you, and Splatoon is a game very specifically not for the typical online multiplayer shooter fan. What’s more, that’s the game’s biggest strength, not its weakness.

There are two major complaints about Splatoon’s gameplay, from what I’ve read, and they both tend to center around the perspective of the hardcore gamer without consideration for how people who haven’t reached level 30 in Destiny might approach a multiplayer shooter. [Update: John Siracusa correctly pointed out that the level cap in Destiny is 32, not 30.] One is the motion control; the tutorial in the Splatoon demo requires you use the Wii U Gamepad to look around, and only uses the right stick for lateral view control. This is understandably jarring to anyone who’s played any first or third person perspective games on a console before; I certainly turned it off immediately and went back to using the dual sticks as I was accustomed to once the tutorial was over. This isn’t necessarily a gimmick to justify the use of the Gamepad, however. I gave the demo over to my oldest daughter, who is becoming fairly adept at games in her own right but hasn’t yet had any experience with a game like this aside from a brief excursion with Disney Infinity, which didn’t hold her interest long enough to warrant learning to control a 3D camera.

What I noticed is that she spent the entire time looking straight down and didn’t know how to look where she was going with the motion controls turned off. She started to figure it out, but not really. It hadn’t occurred to me to turn the motion controls on for her during the limited time allotted for the demo, but I think it could actually be more intuitive for people who are not used to playing this kind of game. Even games like Portal 2, which are generally very inclusive for people who aren’t adeptly skilled at games, have a high learning curve for new players because the camera control is unintuitive; using the gamepad in this way, to literally move the window on the gamepad to where you want to look, could help a lot of people who have struggled to play this sort of game before.

The other big complaint from hardcore gamers about Splatoon is the lack of voice chat. For most people not deep into that culture, the lack of voice chat isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. I’ve heard horror stories of parents who took their grade schoolers online in Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare and got a swift education in foul language. Having played the demo, I can safely state that team chat really isn’t necessary to be successful (especially since both teams are at equal disadvantage), and it’s reassuring as a parent to not have to worry about who’s on the other mics hooked up to the game. That’s not to mention a lot of the gatekeeping and harassment that happens over voice chat to women who play online multiplayer. If one is privileged enough to not ever have to experience that, not having voice chat is a flaw, but it’s a relief to many others who do have to endure that in other games.

Because this game doesn’t include the checklist of features that are assumed to be necessary to have a successful online multiplayer game, the storyline in the hardcore gaming community is that this game will struggle to sell. These arguments tend to reference Sin and Punishment and Bayonetta 2, those games being the last shooter type games that Nintendo has attempted. My feeling is the complete opposite. Honestly, I’d be concerned if Nintendo was trying to court that type of player, and skewed Splatoon toward those types of preferences. There’s a reason that Activision doesn’t port Call Of Duty games over to the Wii U anymore; that’s not the type of game that sells on the Wii U, and it would be a mistake for Nintendo to try to make something for that audience that frankly isn’t really there. It’s actually reassuring that Nintendo is willing to throw out some of the mainstay features of online shooters if they don’t serve the game they’re trying to make.

The game that Nintendo is trying to make, by the way, is rated E10. That’s important for a lot of reasons, not the least of which that it dictates who the audience of the game really is. It’s quickly reaching the point where you can count on your fingers how many major console releases are rated below T; the number drops even more dramatically when you remove sports games and toys-to-life games, especially given that even Lego games are moving into the toys to life realm with the upcoming Lego Dimensions. That’s not to say that Splatoon is a game that’s made specifically for kids, because it’s not by any stretch, but it is a game that’s built so that kids can play it. The rating is not part of the marketing message, to be sure, but publishers know what kinds of content will lead to which ratings and absolutely tailor that based on who they want their audience to be.

You can see that not only in the content of Splatoon but in how and where Nintendo is advertising it. Many AAA releases advertise on prime time network television or during sporting events because that’s where they think their audiences are; I’ve seen plenty of AAA game ads during NFL games, for instance. The other day, while watching Teen Titans Go, one of my daughters came over and told me very excitedly that she saw the game I was playing that morning on Cartoon Network. Cartoon Network is the most influential network in all major kid demographics right now, and by choosing to spend their ad dollars there, Nintendo is making a big statement about who they want to buy their game. It’s a good bet, too; I’ve spoken at length on Isometric about the lack of console games that families can play together without having to worry about exposing my kids to something they aren’t ready to see. Granted, most parents aren’t as dialed into upcoming game releases as I am, but rest assured that kids can be relentless when they see something that appeals to them advertised on shows they’re watching. That alone can move copies, and for some households, it may even sell consoles now that the rest of the software available is fairly substantial.

Ultimately, what defined Nintendo’s approach to the last console generation was a belief that there were people who wanted to play games who weren’t being served by the console market as it was. They were right, almost to a fault; there was such a market out there, and those people did want to play games, but they weren’t looking for the kinds of involved experiences that a TV-based console dictated. Those new players wanted gaming in smaller chunks, to pass five or ten minutes waiting in line, not hour long sessions in their living rooms. So while the Wii appealed to them initially, once the fad of Wii Sports wound down, they weren’t interested in buying new games to replace it, and they certainly weren’t willing to spend another $300 on another console that was still tied to their living room TV when they had a device in their pocket that served that need just fine. Worse, since Nintendo had mostly alienated the types of consumers who were still interested in buying a new console by focusing on experiences like Wii Fit and Wii Music at the expense of more traditional games, it took them a long time to win back that audience’s trust.

What’s shaping up to define Nintendo in the current console generation is a subtler variation on the same theme. While the games being made for the Xbox One and PS4 skew further and further in the direction of what they believe their audience (read: hardcore gamers) want, Nintendo is clearly betting that there is a wider audience that is already inclined to play console games but is not able to find anything that’s outside of the games that have been approved by the hardcore gaming community. While Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros were more or less expected to be what they are based on the two series’ predecessors, just by virtue of having none of the baggage of an existing franchise, Splatoon shows what Nintendo wants to make now: Games accessible to players of multiple skill levels and ages, with an emphasis on fun over competitiveness. Nintendo appears to have accepted that they’ve lost the opportunity to win over people who have never considered themselves gamers before to the mobile devices those consumers already own, and they’ve sold all the consoles that they’re going to be able to sell to anyone who’s also inclined to play Bloodborne, because no one’s expecting a truly “hardcore” experience on the Wii U anymore. To bet that there’s a middle between those two extremes, full of groups of people who are subtly or not so subtly being told that the games being made are Not For Them, seems like a really smart move, and in line with the blue ocean strategy that carried them through the Wii years.

Will it work? That remains to be seen. Nintendo’s a company that’s been known to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory more than once in the past. That said, the game, based on the demo, is good, and Nintendo appears to know who they need to market toward, so Splatoon has every chance to succeed. If you’ve looked at the current landscape of console releases and found yourself frustrated, even if you have no interest in the game itself, it’s worth keeping track of how Splatoon is received in the marketplace. Purely in terms of determining what kinds of games get made for the rest of this console generation, Splatoon could easily be the most important game released this year.

Isometric Moving to Relay.FM: The New Feed is Here!

As promised when we announced our move to Relay.fm, we have a new feed, which you can find at http://www.relay.fm/isometric/feed. We’ll be repointing the existing feeds this week, but if you’re subscribed to the 5by5 Master Feed or you want to be absolutely sure not to miss an episode (because Monday will be awfully boring without being able to listen to Bri breaking bookcases or Georgia threatening orcs in the nicest way possible), you’ll want to take a few minutes to resubscribe. Here are instructions on how to do that in the major podcast clients:

Podcasts on iOS:

Just click on the feed link, click Subscribe in the box that pops up, and you’re done!

image

iTunes: 

Choose File > Subscribe to Podcast and paste the URL into the text box.

image
image
image

Overcast:

From the main screen, click the + in the upper right, then “Add URL”, and paste the feed into the text box.

image
image
image

Downcast:

Tap Add, then Add Podcast Manually. Paste the feed where it says “Feed or OPML Address” and tap Subscribe in the upper right..

image
image

Instacast:

Tap the + in the lower left on the Podcasts screen. In the search box, paste the Feed URL and tap Search. On the show page that comes up from the search, tap the + in the upper right to subscribe.

image
image
image

Pocket Casts:

In the Discover menu, tap on search in the upper right. Paste the feed into the search box and tap search. When the show page comes up, tap Subscribe.

image
image
image

That’s it! Thanks, as always for listening! (And for regular readers of this blog, I promise to have something other than technical details of RSS feeds soon. Stay tuned!)