Topic: George Harrison answers questions on GameCube 2 (N5) and next Gameboy

[ultrafamicom]

great interview with Nintendo's George Harrision.   Unusually frank and forthcoming with answers, especially so early in the game of next-generation consoles.  Even Sony has not given this much insight into PS3.


You should count yourself lucky that I didn't ban you for posting that entire article in here. -Bloodworth.


           http://www.egmmag.com/article2/0,4364,1364679,00.asp
 

[Ian Sane]

That's a fun read though really it doesn't reveal too much new info.  However I'm glad to see that Nintendo does realize that they need more variety in the lineup and that third party games at launch are important.  If what is said in the interview becomes reality then the N5 is going to have a much better launch lineup than the Gamecube.

I don't like this comment though:
"Making games complicated and long-playing because you can do it doesn't necessarily mean it'll appeal to a wide range of people. I think Mr. Miyamoto tried to demonstrate with Pac-Man Vs. at E3 that you can have a lot of fun without having to necessarily commit 80 hours to something. We believe that's a big part of the future of the industry."

If that means more sh!tty beat-in-a-weekend games like Luigi's Mansion, Wario World, and Kirby Air Ride then I'm not to keen on this strategy.  It seems that whenever Nintendo talks about less complicated games that take it to an extreme where the game is so simple that it has little depth and thus isn't worth buying.  Overly complicated isn't that good but no one's goign to buy Pac-Man or Tetra's Trackers.  There needs to be a middle ground.

"And Rare didn't deliver a single game for us at the launch, when their history had been to make some really great games for us in the past. That hurt us, and it led us into this gap of titles, starting after the launch and lasting for about seven or nine months until Mario Sunshine came out."

That's an interesting statement.  So it's Rare's fault that the Cube launch sucked and thus the console never got anywhere?  Sounds like some bad blood there.  At least it's taught Nintendo that they can't just rely on their first and second parties to get the job done.  Funny how he doesn't mention Eternal Darkness coming out between that time.  Shows how important that title was to Nintendo.

From this interview I see a company that has learned from some of it's mistakes but potentially doesn't completely get everything yet.

[mouse_clicker]

No, you're  just making assumptions, Ian.

Quote
f that means more sh!tty beat-in-a-weekend games like Luigi's Mansion, Wario World, and Kirby Air Ride then I'm not to keen on this strategy. It seems that whenever Nintendo talks about less complicated games that take it to an extreme where the game is so simple that it has little depth and thus isn't worth buying. Overly complicated isn't that good but no one's goign to buy Pac-Man or Tetra's Trackers. There needs to be a middle ground.

That's not what Mr. Harrison meant- what he MEANT was that you shouldn't make a game really long and really complicated just because you have the ability to do so. He never said anything about making games insanely short- in fact, I fail to see how you could have come to your opinion from what he said anyway.

And like he said, Pac-Man VS is not meant to be some big huge title- it's more of a project that proves tyou can have a lot of fun with so little. They're not even charging people for the game.

Quote
That's an interesting statement. So it's Rare's fault that the Cube launch sucked and thus the console never got anywhere? Sounds like some bad blood there. At least it's taught Nintendo that they can't just rely on their first and second parties to get the job done. Funny how he doesn't mention Eternal Darkness coming out between that time. Shows how important that title was to Nintendo.

Stop putting words in his mouth- where does Mr. Harrison blame Rare for the Gamecube's poor launch? I didn't see anything he said even hinting at that- in fact, he admitted that it was NINTENDO to blame, since they were a year late to the market, failed to give important 3rd parties development kits soon enough, and lacked variety in game types. What he was saying about Rare was that they spent a lot of money and gave Rare development kits way before anyone else, only to have them shore up and not release any game at all until a year AFTER launch. And for that Rare CAN be be blamed, and it's the primary reason Nintendo let them go. True, he doesn't mention Eternal Darkness, but then again there wasn't a big controversy about Nintendo letting go of Silicon Knights, because it didn't happen. George Harrison isn't part of some conspiracy to cover up Nintendo's mistakes- on the contrary, he points most of them out. Just because the man didn't say Nintendo was failing, which they most definitely are NOT, doesn't mean the company hasn't learned at all. Try to read a little better next time, or even reread it until you get what they're saying.

[nemo_83]

The who are you campain is okay in some adds like Mario 3 and then crappy in adds like Fire Emblem.  Also the Mario Kart commercial is uber lame.  The game has the greatest potential of any game in Nintendo's arsenal over the next 2 years to increase sales of Cube and it has a lame add showing gameplay.  I want a sinical ad like the Mario 3 ad or the original SSB ad.  A commercial that really says something other than here it is straight forward, no imagination, just gameplay footage, we hope you buy it.  

If I were making a Mario Kart ad it would basically be like the magezine ad with people driving karts at some family place and then Mario and Bowser pull up beside the front man who looks at them and freaks out as the camera pans out and we see what he is looking at.

Nintendo made so many promises coming into this gen that they didn't deliver on.  Mario 128, more mature Mario (very funny Shig, you put another finger on the character and gave them machines instead of powerups), no more delays, no more kiddy image, uber real Zelda (false advertisement, that is what that video was), GBA-GC connection that would ad more worth to games, lots of third party support, wider variety, online at some point, more mature games, and new fresh games (Pikmin and Animal Crossing along with 30 sequels and several straight up remakes).  I don't hate Nintendo.  I like their games more than anybodies', but I wish they would do what they say they are going to do.  

They are saying the same thing as last gen.  More 3rd parties, more mature games, more variety, maybe a proper Mario 64 sequel, less of a kiddy image and more of an everyone image, new games and fresh ideas, online, and portable to console connection worth something.  Get what I'm trying to say.  I hope they actually do what they say they are going to do.  Hopefully it won't be another system that alienates (not intentionally) half the market with a purple lunchbox design, unbalanced controller, and memory cards with no where near the amount of storage space needed for Madden.

Looks like it won't be N5 in 05.  MS seems like they want to wait a year after Sony so they can be sure theirs is more powerful and Sony doesn't have a clue if it can get its cell technology ready for an 06 release.  Nintendo probably wants to steal the PS3's thunder about a month or 2 before PS3 comes out.  I could see the commercial explaining how important and how much past Nintendo has compared to the competition.  How Nintendo was in the market first and remind people of the fun of those systems and how Nintendo is going to take the rookies for a walk.  Similar idea for the next GameBoy.  Nintendo could really tease Sony by showing the evolution of the GameBoy to it's newest incarnation and show at the same time all of the failed systems of the past that couldn't compete with it and then show the next victim and finally the newest GB.  Then ask, who would you put your money on.  

[mouse_clicker]

What the HELL are you talking about, nemo? Nintendo didn't make any of those promises- you were either told they did or made them up on your own accord, but I all I see you doing right now is spouting out crap. What ARE you talking about? Nothing you said in your post had an inkling of sense to it.

[nemo_83]

short games are not the solution and neither is making nothing but a ton of half-@$$ed games instead of some killer aps.  NIntendo needs a wide mix of different kinds of okay to good games with a few AAA titles like Mario 128, Zelda, and Metroid.  GTA is the best example of how people still do buy a system for one game.  I don't buy short games and by that I mean shorter than 15-20 hours.  I like games to really last to like 25 hours.  I don't like games that are 6 hours long.  And I really hate games that are only 6 hours and don't have replay.  

[ultrafamicom]

Sony is looking at a late 2005 or early 2006 introduction of PS3 in Japan, which points to fall 2006 in the U.S.

MS has said they will launch ahead of Sony, or at the latest, at the same time as Sony.


Nintendo has said they want to launch before the others, but admitted they might not be able to, but would launch no more than a few months after Sony, if worst came to the worst, and no 1 year lead for Sony.

[Bill Aurion]

Simplistic as in design, not in game length or difficulty...

I do like the more serious approach Ninty is taking, and from this info, you can gather a lot more about the future than you may think...

[mouse_clicker]

Do you want ALL your games to last 25 hours? Do you honestly want developers to add things to their game just to MAKE it 25 hours long? Did you LIKE the incredibly boring searches common in Rare's game and more recently Wind Waker that were only added to lengthen the game? You have to realize every game has it's ideal time, and that ideal time varies from game to game. If every game was 25 hours long, some would be very repetitive and others would feel rushed. You can't just set a barrier for a game- it doesn't work that way.  

[The Omen]

To defend Nemo for a sec., Shiggy did, in fact, say it was time for "Mario to grow up" in an interview about 6 months before launch.  What he meant by that is beyond me.  

And Rare were probably in negotiations with MS well before launch, and were just waiting for their contract to expire with Nintendo, hence 1 game, a year after launch.  Remember, PD0 was to be a launch title...lol

[nemo_83]

I kept up with the development of Dolphin to the GameCube very closely because there were not enough games to play at the end of the N64's life, and I know for a fact that there were promises made by Nintendo in particular Shigeru about a more mature Mario sequel to Mario 64, the "Nintendo Difference," the broadening of third party support due to easy development and disk based medium, a wider audience image, no more delays due to ease of development, mature games to go along with the Pokemons and Pikmins, and many other things in interviews and press conferences and gaming shows like E3 and SpaceWorld.

Looks as though Nintendo will fight the PSP with....wait for it....GBcamera.  I hope they don't let PSP eat up their market just because of their ego.  Have they already forgotten the PS vs N64/ cd vs cartridge?

[mouse_clicker]

I doubt that Omen- I'm sure Rare was looking for a buyer well before SFA was released, but nowhere near as early as before the Gamecube's launch.

As for "Mario growing up", I think Miyamoto was referring to gameplay, not image. Honestly, what did you expect out of a mature Mario? And if you can't answer that, how can you complain that Nintendo didn't meet your nonexistant expectations?

And jesus, nemo, you barely read the interview! Mr. Harrison said that they were looking into a lot of new innovations for the GBA, but that he couldn't comment on the next Gameboy. Every Nintendo fan should know by now that a dismissal of that sort always means something. He never said that's all they were doing to compete with the PSP. I REALLY get pissed off when all these little hot headed kids with no life think they know how to run Nintendo better than Nintendo does

[The Omen]

 Mouse-clicker is correct . I have no problem with games like Dead to rights being 7 hours, because it didnt offer anything except mayhem, which would've been too repetitive for 20 hours. I also enjoy very lengthy games, like Ogre Battle 64, as long as the game holds up. But there are plenty of games that have you perform menial tasks over and over, just to add to the overall length, which is wrong. Make the games as long as they need to be, just dont add in for the hell of it.

Quote
As for "Mario growing up", I think Miyamoto was referring to gameplay, not image. Honestly, what did you expect out of a mature Mario? And if you can't answer that, how can you complain that Nintendo didn't meet your nonexistant expectations?

Take it easy, Mouse-Clicker.  Where did i say i expected a mature Mario?  I was merely stating thats probably what Nemo read.  I like my Mario as is.  And how do you achieve more mature gameplay?  Sunshine is about the same as Sm64, except for the water pack.  Is that grown up gameplay?  Shiggy said it, i just relayed the message.  In no way did i say what i expected from that quote.  In fact, i said 'what he meant by that was beyond me.'

[mouse_clicker]

I was talking to nemo in that, sorry. I wouldn't call you young and hotted headed since you're most definitely not as young as most here.  

[nemo_83]

I hate it when they just throw some scavenger hunt in to lengthen the game.  I want the game to actually last 20-25 hours.  Also simplicity should not equal overly simple gaming.  With that said I don't want to read an instruction booklet to play or have a lengthy intro of training exercises.  Also simple should equal accessibility, not lack of depth and/or difficulty.  Once again I shall bring up GTA as it is easy to get into but still difficult and long enough to be worth playing.  Though I didn't like the uninspired sidequests of the game I did like the ability to do what I wanted and that is why I played it like it was called Mario Kart.  

I believe that Shig meant that we would nolonger do sensless things like bust floating boxes, shrink/grow with shrooms, and fly with coon suits.  I liked the series when it stuck to what it was.  I don't like using waterguns or vacums.  I like using Mario and Luigi.  I don't think Mario's design should change too much, just the attitude of the design.  The design is classic like Mickey Mouse, but the personality of Mario is far beyond absent.  If Mario could create a connection with the player instead of just being the bland guy with the grey personality maybe then he won't be looked at as kiddy.  Why is Mario's character development so flat.  The only hints of soul in him are his seven year old style woo hoos and wee.  He is a plumber not a child.  

[mouse_clicker]

Nemo, until you get out of your mindset that Mario is for kids, our debate's not going anywhere. As for gameplay length, yeah, it'd be nice if all games actually lasted 25 hours, but that's physically impossible- some games simply won't work being long, or vice versa. It just doesn't work that way. A lot of people enjoyed games like Luigi's Mansion and Pikmin, but complained about how short they were. The thing is, though, would you REALLY want to hunt ghosts or command Pikmin for 25 hours? Of course not, you'd be bored and repetitive pretty quickly. Those games were the right length for their style of gameplay.

[Ian Sane]

"Just because the man didn't say Nintendo was failing, which they most definitely are NOT, doesn't mean the company hasn't learned at all. Try to read a little better next time, or even reread it until you get what they're saying."

I never wrote they haven't learned at all.  Maybe you should read a little better too.

As for my opinion on simple games Harrison said that Miyamoto was demonstrating that concept with Pac-Man.  Seems like a fair association to me.  It isn't just this interview.  Whenever someone from Nintendo talks about simple games stuff like Pac-Man and Kirby Air Ride is mentioned in the same paragraph.

I also have never got what this "Mario growing up" thing was supposed to mean.  Personally I've never wanted Mario to change (I was PISSED when they gave him a voice).  A "mature" Mario would suck.  It's just not what that franchise is about.

"Do you want ALL your games to last 25 hours? Do you honestly want developers to add things to their game just to MAKE it 25 hours long? Did you LIKE the incredibly boring searches common in Rare's game and more recently Wind Waker that were only added to lengthen the game?"

If a game doesn't have enough gameplay or replay value to last that long then I'm not interested.  Collecting useless crap to make a game longer is just as inexcusable as making a game that doesn't have enough depth or replay to last longer than a rental.  It's not so much game length as it's game value.  It a game only lasts two hours and provides me with no incentive to play again then then it's not worth $50 and isn't a good value.  Ditto for a 40 hour game where I only had fun for 5 hours.

Anyway just so people don't misinterpret me here's my overall opinion.  Nintendo has learned from some of their mistakes with the Gamecube and I think they have a chance of significantly improving with the N5.  But they're not PERFECT and I think there's still a large enough potential for error that the same problems could surface again.

[Sirmorphix]

Quote
That's an interesting statement. So it's Rare's fault that the Cube launch sucked and thus the console never got anywhere? Sounds like some bad blood there.

"Also, when we launched the GameCube, we put the concentration of our development kits in the hands of only a few people"

He was making a reference that it hurt Nintendo to put most of the Dev Kits in the hands of a developer which didn't produce any titles or launch, not that they are the reason that launch wasn't a success, just a contributing factor.

[mouse_clicker]

I realise that there are some games that seem intentionally simplified, which I also don't like, but you shouldn't assume Mr. Harrison is referring to those whenever he mentions games being too complext. There are medians, you know, not just extremes. I agree that the potential exists for Nintendo to repeat the same mistakes, but the same potential exists for anybody, regardless of past successes or failures. Personally, I think it took Nintendo a long time to work out their issues (for one the PSX's popularity got them off guard, although they unintentionally spurred it on), but I think they do have most of them sorted out. No company is without faults, but I think Nintendo has far less than other companies, especially compared to Sony who, despite great sales, isn't making much of a profit at all, or Microsoft, who has very poor sales AND is losing a lot of money (I find it odd how everybody focuses their criticism on Nintendo and the Gamecube when the Xbox is doing just as badly, if not worse).

[Ian Sane]

"No company is without faults, but I think Nintendo has far less than other companies, especially compared to Sony who, despite great sales, isn't making much of a profit at all, or Microsoft, who has very poor sales AND is losing a lot of money"

I'll agree with you there.  Sony's strategy in particular relies a lot on third parties and marketing.  That's working good now but it's putting less emphasis on Sony's own titles, ie: the only games that will be left if things turn sour.  What games Playstation fans like are for the most part not guaranteed to remain with the Playstation brand forever.  Sony is also encouraging the sales of low quality which in the end will only hurt the industry and thus Sony themselves.

However right now I'd say that both Sony and MS are more in touch with what gamers want right now.  Nintendo on the other hand comes across as fairly out-of-touch.  I think that Nintendo is better at concentrating on the future and the big picture but the "now" is what is going to determine how well the N5 does which will have an effect on Nintendo's future.

[mouse_clicker]

"However right now I'd say that both Sony and MS are more in touch with what gamers want right now. Nintendo on the other hand comes across as fairly out-of-touch."

That I agree with- although Nintendo is prodigious on the business side of things, able to make a profit off of almost anything, they do need to get more in touch with the public. Like I've always said, if Nintendo had the sales of Sony, they'd be making an incredible amount of money.

[nemo_83]

why would you assume I'm a kid, or were you talking to someone else who is a Junior in college.  I did read the entire article.  

Competition against a rising competitor starts with hype and right now people are not hyping any next gen Nintendo machine the way they are the competition.  Point is they need to hype the next GameBoy.  Ecard readers, cameras, and wireless addons won't help the little system that could to beat PSP.

 He says there may not be any specifications released on the next console next year also and that gives more of the impression of lets not worry about the future.  Gamers do worry about the future and they tell their friends what they read.  If Nintendo doesn't release info while the competition does then it only equals GameCube part 2.  If they want to release the next console in 05 then next year is the time to begin hype, if not then all signs point to 06 release.

I would like to say if I wanted to make Mario more mature I would start with a toonish gun that shoots bullet bills.    There could be fast bullets, slow bullets, smart bullets, exploding bullets, torpedo bullets in water, and bullets that take out multiple enemies in a row.  The gun wouldn't be the focus of the game like the water gun was in Sunshine though.  It would just be something you would grab from koopa troopas.  Mario Sunshine was more like a big scavenger hunt than a trip around the world racing through platforming stages using multiple paths like in old Mario games.  Mario 64 is sorta between Sunshine and Mario World in gameplay.  

[mouse_clicker]

Hype is a double edged sword- efficient hype combined with deliverance can be very useful indeed, but overhyping and virtuall no deliverance will backfire on you and actually turn public interest away. Hype is a very delicate thing, something I don't think ANYONE has mastered, much less Nintendo.

As for your ideas on Mario, THAT'S why I called you a kid, because you think like one. How on Earth could cartoon bullets make Mario better? How would it be any more mature, either? If you ask me, tha't s a very immature thing to add to a game, appealing to people's desires to see stuff blow up and get killed- it doesn't make you think at all, which is what Mario has traditionally always done. I don't care how old you actually are- you could be 99 for all I know, but you still think like a kid.  

[nemo_83]

The reason people keep complaining is because Nintendo makes some DUMB mistakes like cartridges and purple consoles which any idiot could figure out would be mistakes ahead of time.  Some how Nintendo has great hindsite and no forsite anymore.  Everyone and their mother is complaining because we all know the problems and want them addressed and feel we could do a better job since Nintendo is content with not taking the bull by the horns.  At least that is why I think Nintendo fans are in an uproar.  We know what's is wrong months sometimes years before Nintendo admits it.  We know Nintendo could be doing better and we know how and it is just frustrating so we complain and then it seems like even we are against them when we just want to better them so the whole industry thinks Nintendo doesn't have a chance at second place despite pulling in profits while MS looses 3 bil.  Nintendo can do more than just be profitable, they can be kings.

[nemo_83]

The bullet bills are classic mario enemies.  I want a toonish gun that has a toonish look.  Meaning exagerated form with large bullet bills coming out of the barrel.  What, did you interpret the idea as a machine gun with realistic bullets that blow limbs off with the result of screaming and gushing blood everywhere?  I want the bullets to do the same thing as a fireball or well placed jump on the head.  A puff of smoke and the enemy is gone.  Also once again let me say that the gun shouldn't be the focus of the game.  It should just be an item like the shroom, star, fire flower, and coon suit.  Something you gain if your good at the game that helps you through the level easier before you discard it at the end of the stage.  Kiddy ideas for games are definetly ideas like DOA Beach Valley Ball.  Cause only a child wants a game who's existence rides on the characters' racks rather than gameplay.  

I think the funky cannon should also affect jumping and speed.  I think it would fit well with the game, better than vacums and waterguns.  I'm tired of cleaning up messes, I want to make a mess.  It has to be heavy and carry disadvantages as well as advantages.  The bullets could reach enemies in the sky or blow holes in the ground or wall revealing secret passages.  

It would make the game seem more mature.  Giving the game a new air to it.  A new attitude overall would make the game appeal to wider audiences.  Simply make the character more complicated and give the design some edge (maybe even toon shading).  Of course I don't want anything like Jak and Daxter which is focused on weapons in Mario.