When asked what sort of innovation he felt Nintendo brought to the table, Miyamoto responded, "Our basic principle is very clear: were always trying to be different from everybody else. Many other companies might try to do the same things as someone else whos already been successful in a certain area: they think in terms of the competition, and they think in terms of how they can be better than their predecessor in any established arena. But Nintendo always tries to be unique instead. We always try to be different all the time."
Miyamoto, who has overseen classic franchises like Super Mario Bros. as well as modern games like Nintendogs, commented on the challenges of bringing something new to the table when developing the latest iteration on a classic formula. He added, "Even when were working on those so-called 'serious' titles, when we're hard at work on a Zelda or Super Mario Bros., amongst ourselves in the same development team, the way we discuss the game is to ask: 'What's new? Whats fresh about this title?' That kind of focus on trying to be new, to be unique every time, of trying to create something different every time, will be carried on and on and on, so that even when we are working on several other titles, our spirit of trying to be different is always there in the background somewhere."
Earlier in the interview, Miyamoto comments that the addition of multiplayer to the classic Super Mario Bros. formula in New Super Mario Bros. Wii is an example of how he changes the framework of the game while retaining the tradition of the franchise.
The interview also contains some of Miyamoto's insight Nintendo's hiring practices. Commenting that Nintendo has been a desirable employer for many college graduates, Miyamoto says, "Because of that, the competitions really become so fierce for positions. And that means that a lot of the recent recruits for Nintendo have tended to have the higher degree from the prestigious colleges and universities and whatnot. I often say to Mr Iwata: 'If I was applying for a job here today, I, with my actual college degree, would probably not have been employed by Nintendo!'"
Speaking about former Nintendo President Hiroshi Yamauchi, Miyamoto adds, "Many years ago, when people like myself were first employed, I know that Mr. Yamauchi was always trying to see how things would develop. He was very calm, and he was very objective, but he believes in luck he believed that each person has luck at certain times. He would say: 'We dont have the luck now, theyve got the luck. This guy here? He just didnt have the luck'. That was really the way he would look at people, and we do try to keep that instinctive approach to people and situations in our own way."
The full text of the interview is available at Edge Online.
There's something disturbing about Miyamoto admitting that Nintendo doesn't care about doing their games better than their counterparts within the various genres (I wonder if that's somehow a mistranslation)
If Nintendo really wants to try to be unique, why was so much of that game oriented towards somehow trying to outdo OoT? GAH!!!Because they were trying to please the fans who claimed to want another game like OoT. What somebody didn't realize (the fans or Nintendo, take your pick) is that what the fans want is a new experience that feels like Ocarina of Time. Can it really be done? Call me a cynic if you want, but I don't think anything yet to come will be as amazing as the transition from 2D to 3D. That doesn't mean they shouldn't still try to come up with fresh and unique ideas and concepts... but I still stand by that a game needn't do anything new or innovative in order to be fun, it just needs to be well-designed.
I saw CD as one of the technologies Nintendo refused to comply to. However, they originally refused on the ground that loading times would hurt the game experience, which is why when they finally "complied" they did so in ways that would reduce these loading times as much as possible. Only on the Wii do we see Nintendo games even remotely flirt with the standard amount of loading time. It's critical to understand that CDs had nothing to do with the N64's failure against the PS1. PS1 beat the N64 simply because of library and install base. You can see the converse of this with DS and PSP, where it was theorized the Carts vs CDs would repeat itself, except in this instance the carts won.
I think sometimes we demand too much from companies, which is our prerogative, but there comes a point where sometimes we demand that they financially go into the red just because technology or competition demands it. And I think it's a lot wiser when they rebuff or delay to grab the technology when it's priced right instead of cutting themselves on the bleeding edge, particularly when said bleeding edge is actually killing your competition.
Also, and to close, I think we do Nintendo a great disservice when we completely discount their actual technological advances because a few don't like them or the rest of the industry wanted to do something else.
It's critical to understand that CDs had nothing to do with the N64's failure against the PS1. PS1 beat the N64 simply because of library and install base.
But if they want to survive as a company, and if they want to continue making the Marios, Zeldas, Pikmins, Wii Fits, Brain Ages, and Wii Musics that they want to make, they believe that the way to accomplish that is to do what's best for keeping their games unique, not what's best for out-feature-listing their competitors.
You claim CDs had nothing to do with the N64's failure, yet it is exactly CDs that led to the larger library and subsequent install base. Square and others were able to push the cinematic games they wanted only on the PS1, and that's what many gamers flocked to.
The DS vs. PSP isn't a fair media comparison because the CD size dwarfed the N64 ROM size much more than UMD does the DS.
How do you think the PS1 got the huge library and install base? Nintendo goes from having the strongest third party support to having the weakest immediately after releasing a cartridge based system to compete with CD systems. Cartridges are noticably more expensive to produce. Do you honestly think that that is a coincidence? Why else did all the third parties jump ship seemingly overnight? And the large install base I think is pretty clearly tied together with the large library. Everyone saw all their favourite games jump from Nintendo to the Playstation and went along with it.
I agree that what Sony and Microsoft does with their console subsidies is ridiculous. On the other hand, Nintendo is sitting on a mountain of money and could afford to do more if they wanted.
I don't think anybody is saying that here. We're just saying that they could do both: focus on innovating, but also acknowledge and utilize innovation of others.
None of the previous systems had anything near the power of the Playstation... CD storage to that point had primarily been used for movies and music. It wasn't the CD by itself, it was Sony showing what could be done with CDs and their courting of the publishers. Also, the PS1 had <5 million in sales by the time the N64 launched, hardly a huge established base.QuoteYou claim CDs had nothing to do with the N64's failure, yet it is exactly CDs that led to the larger library and subsequent install base. Square and others were able to push the cinematic games they wanted only on the PS1, and that's what many gamers flocked to.
I disagree, because that had more to do with the PS1 getting something of a 2 year head start on the N64 and having a huge install base before your competition even exists has more to do with it than media choice. CDs were a convenient explanation, but Squaresoft didn't make Sega CD games, now did they? Also, CD-ROM systems were an absolute disaster all the way before hand, and Nintendo's failed deal with Sony for the Playstation sort of sealed it for them. Sony may have hit gold with the PS1, but that's more due to having a larger install base to begin with before the N64 released than the CD.
QuoteThe DS vs. PSP isn't a fair media comparison because the CD size dwarfed the N64 ROM size much more than UMD does the DS.
That's actually not true. N64 carts went from 4-64 MB to CD's 750 MB. DS Cards range from 8-512 MB to the UMD's 1.8 GB. UMD's have a greater than one gigabyte advantage to the very best of the DS, and even with the potential for a 1 GB DS Card, the UMD still wins by 100 MB or so.
QuoteHow do you think the PS1 got the huge library and install base? Nintendo goes from having the strongest third party support to having the weakest immediately after releasing a cartridge based system to compete with CD systems. Cartridges are noticably more expensive to produce. Do you honestly think that that is a coincidence? Why else did all the third parties jump ship seemingly overnight? And the large install base I think is pretty clearly tied together with the large library. Everyone saw all their favourite games jump from Nintendo to the Playstation and went along with it.
Well, Ian, explain DS vs. PSP. I can. DS won a much larger install base than the PSP and that's basically all there is to it really.
None of the previous systems had anything near the power of the Playstation... CD storage to that point had primarily been used for movies and music. It wasn't the CD by itself, it was Sony showing what could be done with CDs and their courting of the publishers. Also, the PS1 had <5 million in sales by the time the N64 launched, hardly a huge established base.
Yeah, and you could have multiple CDs. And almost no games were anywhere near the 64MB because ROMs cost much more back then. I wasn't comparing byte for byte, I was comparing percentage, and as I said, cartridges don't have as big of a disadvantage as they used to do to advanced compression. And they also make more sense for a portable given the power consumption and fragility of having a disc drive.
That's not all there is to it. The initial couple years of sales of the PSP were much better than the Playstation 1. As we've seen with both DS and Wii, there's a fairly significant time lag before publishers realize which system has the install base that can't be ignored.
Quotes talking about FFVII ad campaign mentioning carts.
Although many fans continued to perpetuate the myth of a lost Final Fantasy 64 game, some of the same magazines that had led to the creation of the rumors sought to clarify the situation. In May of 1996, Volume 4, Issue 5 of Diehard GameFan Magazine contained one such follow-up: "Ah, remember SQUARE's beautiful SIGGRAPH demo (GF Vol. 3, Iss. 10)? Though it wasn't the Nintendo64 game everyone assumed it to be, it still holds a valuable spot in FF history as the most direct ancestor of FF VII's battle system. Believe it or not, it's actually a pretty cool (and totally playable) little game. Instead of the usual menu system, you control your characters by drawing shapes (a star for magic, for example) with the mouse."This sounds like it could be a Wii game. Makes me wonder if another FF game comes to Wii that it could be like this.
No, it's more like they were experimenting with stuff like the FFVI SGI demo, then realized they couldn't fit anything like what they wanted on a cartridge.
