Author Topic: Miyamoto Cites Uniqueness as Key Principle (Read 9180 times)

NWR_DrewMG · « **on:** December 17, 2009, 07:16:35 PM »

A lesson from the master on Nintendo's approach to game design.
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/newsArt.cfm?artid=20573

In a recent interview with Edge Magazine, Nintendo designer Shigeru Miyamoto recently cited uniqueness as the key principle to Nintendo's game design philosophy.

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.

broodwars · « **Reply #1 on:** December 17, 2009, 07:27:17 PM »

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), and something ironic about him stating that Nintendo uses "uniqueness" as a key principle considering its fondness for recycling core franchises and relying on nostalgia.

That said, no one can ever make the argument that Nintendo is not "unique" in the industry in many ways.

Peachylala · « **Reply #2 on:** December 17, 2009, 10:44:53 PM »

Translation errors are quite common with Miyamoto these days, aren't they?

ThePerm · « **Reply #3 on:** December 17, 2009, 11:51:13 PM »

lol Yamauchi family saying "leave luck to heaven" = nintendo

Kairon · « **Reply #4 on:** December 18, 2009, 01:28:37 AM »

Quote from: broodwars on December 17, 2009, 07:27:17 PM

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)

I don't know, it sounds like something he would say. Sorta like saying that they don't want in on the rat race, and that keeping up with the Joneses doesn't matter.

I mean, this IS Nintendo after all. This is the sort of company that looks at a blockbuster game like GTA4 and thinks "That's okay, we've got Mario Kart."

MegaByte · « **Reply #5 on:** December 18, 2009, 01:34:16 AM »

Yeah, it does seem true. He's stated before how he doesn't really look at or keep up with other games/developers; he just does his own thing. I wonder if E3 is the only time he actually sees what everybody else is doing. It's not necessarily a bad thing since he pushes project direction and keeps his originality, but the developers under him are probably aware of what's out there, and thus good ideas from outside still make it.

I will say that being different has certainly saved Nintendo, but it's often also held them back from their full potential-- it seems that whenever other companies come out with something new, Nintendo purposely avoids using it for too long (e.g. disc media, online, multiple shoulder buttons, etc.) It seems like a pride thing that they can't dare "copy" other companies even when it makes sense.

Kairon · « **Reply #6 on:** December 18, 2009, 01:49:59 AM »

I will agree with the presence of that behavior MegaByte, but I don't attribute it to pride. I just attribute it to what Miyamoto describes here: the belief that just because something exists in a successful example elsewhere, it doesn't necessarily follow that they should include it in their own efforts.

I don't think that's stubbornness, I think it's innocence. (Or if you want to put a cynical spin on it, naivete). And I think that's an essential aspect of Nintendo.

MegaByte · « **Reply #7 on:** December 18, 2009, 01:58:28 AM »

With Miyamoto, you're probably right. But I wonder about Yamauchi or Iwata or other execs. Iwata, in particular, is always talking about Apple and the like. Though seeing Yamauchi's philosophy here puts things in another light.

Kairon · « **Reply #8 on:** December 18, 2009, 02:03:42 AM »

Yeah, that info about Yamauchi is surprising. I'm so used to thinking of him as a caricature of power and control, but to hear him talking about luck almost makes him sound vulnerable and open to failure.

ThePerm · « **Reply #9 on:** December 18, 2009, 04:02:22 AM »

Yamauchi is the richest man in Japan, he sounds like he's done a fair amount of gambling, but he gambles really well. Miyamoto = win,
Iwata = win. Yamauchi knows how to pick his horses. If only things were ran as well in the states, i think Nintendo is the quintissential japanese company, but they don't have as good of an American arm as when Howard Lincoln, George Harrison, and Peter Main were running things. Reggie is good, but he needs to do some Ed Fries type stuff.

NWR_DrewMG · « **Reply #10 on:** December 18, 2009, 08:54:22 AM »

I think where my concern lies is that I don't think Nintendo does a particularly good job of determining when they're being different for the sake of being different versus when they're being different to avoid a flawed design principal.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #11 on:** December 18, 2009, 12:14:42 PM »

Nintendo does do everything different... so much so that it's to a fault. Sometimes the competition does something first in the most ideal perfect way imaginable but Nintendo feels the need to be different and does it their own way, which ends up being inferior. I think this uniqueness idea is great for game design but in other aspects they should be willing to follow conventions if the conventions are solid. Try to improve an existing idea if you can but don't be different for the sake of being different. There's a real arrogance in that.

Ironically game design is where I feel Nintendo has slipped with this. They almost exclusively rely on their established franchises these days. Making each game unique and essential is how I define Nintendo. It's why I became a fan in the first place. That is the one thing Nintendo should never change and I think they need to re-evaluate themselves because they've slacked off on that big time. It is good to hear Miyamoto acknowledge this though.

Kairon · « **Reply #12 on:** December 18, 2009, 04:43:55 PM »

Yeah, for a long time in the N64 period it was okay that Nintendo rehashed their franchises because that leap was just so amazing, from 2D to 3D, from digital to analog, from 2-player to 4, that everything from Star Fox to Mario Kart to F-Zero were brand new experiences.

After that though, Nintendo has to really be careful to create new experiences with those franchises. Personally, I view Twilight princess with a little dislike. If Nintendo really wants to try to be unique, why was so much of that game oriented towards somehow trying to outdo OoT? GAH!!!

Mop it up · « **Reply #13 on:** December 18, 2009, 05:31:03 PM »

Quote from: Kairon on December 18, 2009, 04:43:55 PM

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.

ThePerm · « **Reply #14 on:** December 19, 2009, 04:24:11 AM »

Mop_it_up is so right it hurts!

Deguello · « **Reply #15 on:** December 22, 2009, 07:41:30 AM »

If I may ask, exactly how successful with an idea does Nintendo have to be before any of their ideas becomes the "convention" or "standard?" Because we certainly ask Nintendo to conform to a whole lot of stuff when it's their things that are more successful than the status quo this time.

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. Before 2006, we had no motion controllers at all. 3 years later, thanks solely to Nintendo, we have motion controllers that follow our every move. This IS a great leap in technology. And it's certainly newer to gamers than HD (which PC gamers had enjoyed for years) and more robust online system (enjoyed by Dreamcast players.) These things are nice and will come in the future (and before anybody says it, Nintendo will not be "copying" these technologies. Microsoft and Sony did not invent HD graphics or online, and it is not hypocritical for Nintendo fans to simply not value them as much as motion controls), but I'm glad Nintendo's not bankrupting themselves like Sony or throwing billions into the hole for it, because they, and truly all of us, will benefit more in the long run.

MegaByte · « **Reply #16 on:** December 22, 2009, 01:42:52 PM »

Quote from: Deguello on December 22, 2009, 07:41:30 AM

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.

Nintendo was pushing the CD until their deals fell through with Sony and Philips. As most companies do, they make up excuses when it comes to not using a certain technology. Sony did it with rumble and then reversed course once their lawsuit was done. Though the loading time issue was probably a big factor, their atrocity of the N64DD indicates that they really didn't get it. 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. They simply couldn't do that with carts given the compression technologies of the time. 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. There were also huge advances in video compression. On the handheld front, there were a lot of other factors such as control scheme, price, form factor, backwards compatibility, etc. The N64's big innovations, the control stick and the rumble pak, were both incorporated into the dual-shock, and that was the end of that advantage.

Quote from: Deguello on December 22, 2009, 07:41:30 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: Deguello on December 22, 2009, 07:41:30 AM

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.

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.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #17 on:** December 22, 2009, 03:09:13 PM »

Quote

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.

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 think someone who is truly smart, knows they're not that smart. By always doing it their way Nintendo is operating under the assumption that they're always right and that they always have the best solution. That's stupid. Only an idiot is so arrogant. It's not about credit, it's about having the best solution. A smart company would look at their competition and figure out what they do right and what they do wrong and then learn from that. That knowledge combined with their own unique ideas would give them an advantage. The Gamecube could have easily been the number two console over the Xbox if Nintendo did this.

Kairon · « **Reply #18 on:** December 22, 2009, 04:43:16 PM »

I don't think that by doing things "their way" Nintendo is always assuming that they're right. They're just always assuming that they can do something different. It's a great methodology when you're a sort of artisan-style videogame crafting house going up against a huge megaconglomerate consumer electronics firm, and the company that gave Bill Gates his billions. Nintendo does things different, and sometimes this means that they're not going down the same path that others are going down.

Sometimes this is counterproductive in the short term. But in the long-term, it helps preserve the company's unique brand, identity, and way of approaching its products, things that, more than any one generation of not-using CD hardware, or not having a GTA on their system, decides how well the company can approach an industry as young, volatile, risky, and unpredictable as this half-entertainment-half-technology-all-consumer industry.

I'm sure Nintendo would like to be top dog in every generation. 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.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #19 on:** December 22, 2009, 05:21:46 PM »

Quote

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.

I don't have so much of a problem with Nintendo being unique in their games. It's more the hardware and customer relations and such that I wish they would not insist so much on being different. Nintendo's utterly BIZARRE attitude regarding demos for example has been nothing but an inconvenience to their customers. That sort of stuff is what drives me nuts. There is no reason to take something so simple and routine like that and do it uniquely. In that situation it provides no benefit to anyone.

Kairon · « **Reply #20 on:** December 22, 2009, 05:25:02 PM »

I think there are many other cases of that IanSane. *shrug* If Nintendo had New Year's Resolutions, things like that would be on their resolutions list for many years running. Hmmm... Maybe Nintendo just got to their resolution to exercise more (WiiFit) and learn to play a musical instrument (Wii Music) first?

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #21 on:** December 22, 2009, 06:24:51 PM »

I think one of the main reasons Nintendo is always trying to do things differently even if a competitor has already done something great is because Nintendo want to be fully in control of whatever it is. They want to control the code the tech and if possible the patent.

This is not always gonna be to the (immediate)benefit of the end consumer, but it helps Nintendo protect themselves and alot of the time that is in the best interest of the end consumer.

MegaByte · « **Reply #22 on:** December 22, 2009, 06:30:40 PM »

Actually, that's probably more to the point. After all, Nintendo of America probably wouldn't be in the position it is if it wasn't for their lawyers in their early game-producing days.

Deguello · « **Reply #23 on:** December 23, 2009, 10:03:02 AM »

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

I think they will in the future. They have significantly more money to risk on all the little bells and whistles next time. Remember we're discussing things they decided around 2004-2005 when they probably weren't even sure the DS would compete favorably with the PSP. This was Nintendo at its weakest right before their meteoric rise in profits. Around that time they were spending something like $150-$200 million in R&D. Their current budget states something like $450-$500 million. Assuming that's not the development of videogames, half a billion dollars is mighty beefy for their future, especially at lower prices. Remember, you win a game of chicken by not driving off the cliff. You don't have come as close to the edge as possible.

MegaByte · « **Reply #24 on:** December 23, 2009, 11:56:46 AM »

Quote from: Deguello on December 23, 2009, 10:03:02 AM

Quote
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Deguello on December 23, 2009, 10:03:02 AM

Quote
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Deguello on December 23, 2009, 10:03:02 AM

Quote
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.

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.

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.

News:

Author Topic: Miyamoto Cites Uniqueness as Key Principle (Read 9180 times)