It seems like everybody hates a lot of the decisions Nintendo has made with the Wi-Fi Connection: friend codes, lack of random matchmaking, restricted voice chat, no leaderboards. A lot of people just chalk this up to Nintendo being dumb and not being able to copy Xbox Live, but a recent installment of the Iwata Asks series about Super Smash Bros. Brawl clearly states that most of the WFC's "deficiencies" are absolutely intentional.
Iwata: To me, online gaming had always been a place for the strong. One person would be living it up while hundreds or thousands of people were unhappy. I cant completely reject this model of course, but as long as things remain this way, online gaming can spread only so far no matter what you do. I mean, even if people thought it looked interesting, most would hesitate to get involved and stay lingering on the sidelines.
Yeah, that's pretty much Xbox Live for you. If you want to see how Iwata and Sakurai got from "we don't want to make Live again" to the current WFC, then jump behind the cut.
Iwata: Therefore, we tried to think of ways to avoid this form of online gaming and ways to fashion an environment in which parents would feel safe letting their children play games online, debating at length on topics like how to create an online environment free of harassment. As a result, our concept of the WFC slowly began to take shape with two separate modes of play; players could play with friends or play with people they dont know. It would be more about the fun of sharing rather than simply competing. Amazingly, these were the proposals I found in the first document you gave me.
Sakurai: Thats right. When people think of playing Smash Bros. online, they think about battling opponents to see what happens based on their record of wins or losses, or about holding tournaments online. But I felt that this would make it a service from which only a select group of players could derive enjoyment. For Smash Bros., there are small communities here and there where theres fun in winning and losing, even when there are more skilled players than others. But if you make an environment where everyone is trying to climb their way to the top of a single tall mountain, its clear that the people having fun would be limited to a small number of individuals.
This is kind of interesting to me because it's a total rejection of the leaderboard/achievements mentality, and a near-total rejection of true competitive gameplay. On one hand I can see why Nintendo's philosophy would be the most fun for the most people, but I wonder if they could've also made the game friendlier to the truly skilled? As it is, this philosophy completely devalues the idea of being "best" at a game as anything meaningful, or the idea that you achieve anything when you excel at a game.
Then again, maybe that's a dose of reality gamers need. No matter how many points are on your gamertag, all they really signify is sitting around on your ass. And how many 360 games give you Achievement points for doing things any idiot could manage?
