You know I thought he only had 2 daughters. I didn't know he had a son...

In the interview he's asked this..

You've had great success in your ability to predict what players will find fun to play. Have there been games that you thought would be fun but didn't turn out that way?

'Yes, that has definitely happened. In the past we've worked with some outside development houses on titles like F-Zero and Starfox — and let me just say that we were disappointed with the results."

I really hope this doesn't mean they are not going to be making another F_zero game for the Wii, I loved that game. I didn't think it had done all that bad here in the US.

I think he meant the original.

Yeah - he wasn't talking about F-Zero GX.

Really, the original F-Zero is one of my favorite in the series. Though my personal all time favorite is F-Zero 64.

I bet he meant one of the F-Zero Gameboy Advanced games...probably the one based on the television series.

I liked it when he was asked about what social concerns affect him. Other people are all concerned with stuff like war, poverty, disease, the environment, human rights, etc. and he talks about kids not giving up seats for the elderly and people avoiding taxes. DAMN FOOL KIDS ON MY LAWN!! I'm imagining some new Miyamoto game called Bureaucrat where you go around stopping jaywalkers and giving parking tickets. THE WORLD IS IN THE SAD SHAPE IT IS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE PARKING IN FRONT OF HYDRANTS DAMMIT!!

I figure when talking about F-Zero and Starfox Miyamoto may mean the deals with Sega and Namco (outside development houses). I thought F-Zero GX turned out great but the game was hard so maybe in Japan it didn't go over as well. I thought the whole idea of was kind of a waste anyway so if Miyamoto is turned off of something like that it's probably for the best.

Zelda being unpopular in Japan doesn't sound good. I don't want Miyamoto to change it around for Brain Age fans who won't appreciate it anyway.

Zelda does need to be revamped, not necessarily drastically changed but the gameplay needs to be freshened up. Yeah I think they can still have the nostalgia things like Ganon, some of the enemies etc, but the game itself needs to be something that will help, once again, to redefine the action/RPG genre. As much as a LOVED TP I think it should be the swan song for the current Zelda formula, now they need something fresh and exciting, like they have chose to do with Mario Galaxy (I do not mean have Zelda in space, but something that is exciting and new).

In regards to his Halo comment. Couldn't a bunch of lab monkeys design Halo if they wanted to?

I think I really liked the Halo answer.

It just was a casual offhand remark: Yeah I could make that but it doesn't interest me.

In a way, it is a slap in the face to Halo. Everyone looks at that game as this brilliant perfectly executed game...but in reality its just a well crafted first person shooter. Miyamoto isn't even interested in those types of games, his interests lay else where.

And he could have answered it differently...and he has worked closely on creating American styled games.

I believe he gave Rare input on Goldeneye, he helped craft Metroid Prime and Geist, and I am willing to bet he has his hand in Battalion Wars Wii as well.

Well, he has to be talking about Star Fox Assualt or Stor Fox Command, right? Or was he talking about Star Fox Adventures? Those are the only Star Fox titles that outside development houses worked on in that series, right?

I think with F-Zero, he was talking about the Falcon GP ones, or whatever they were called.

Come to think of it, Miyamoto wouldn't bash Namco or Sega's game development teams in a public interview, since Nintendo has too many open developments with both of them.

"Zelda does need to be revamped, not necessarily drastically changed but the gameplay needs to be freshened up."

I find the gameplay to be the freshest part or at least it's a style of gameplay that's timeless. Zelda is getting stale because of Nintendo's bizarre insistence to tell virtually the same story every time with the same characters and the same setting. Link's Awakening really isn't that different from A Link to the Past but at the time it didn't feel like a rehash because it didn't take place in Hyrule and didn't have Zelda or Ganon. Yeah you were still going through dungeons and getting items and using that item to defeat the boss and access more of the overworld but it was an unfamiliar overworld which made it more interesting.

Twilight Princess was just too damn similar to Oracina of Time. The areas were the same. When encountering a new area I was rarely wowed because I had more or less seen it before. The areas that did wow me were stuff like the big bridge over Lake Hylia because that was new for a Zelda game. Wind Waker actually had the right idea by having an overworld that was so different. The problem was just in the execution; the flooded world was boring. I think Nintendo thought that the fact that it wasn't Hyrule was the problem and thus stayed too close to the OoT blueprint for the next game. Changing things up a bit isn't bad, just changing things into something lame is. One thing I love about Majora's Mask is that I'm not put in the same scenario as before. It still played like Zelda but I was in a new area with new objectives.

I don't think we need to revamp Zelda's whole gameplay, they just need to remember that there was a time where the "expected" Zelda content was still being defined. Gorons didn't exist for the first 11 years of Zelda. If they could introduce them in OoT and have the fans immediately accept them why can't they use different races in a new Zelda? A lot of IPs that form series reach a point where they stop defining the formula and start following it. Well why do that?

One thing I would like would be to expand beyond Hyrule. Start me off in a familiar Hyrule area and then have me leave Hyrule and explore different countries entirely. Maybe ditch the multiple Links pattern and just start using one Link and have him in a new adventure each game. So he's in new lands fighting new villians. That way there's no need to retell the story every generation. They should still acknowledge the different Links as different Links and not pretend it's the same guy throughout the whole series but just pick one Link and start following him for a while.

Well after his comment about gardening everyone expected a gardening game, and it end up being Pikmin, so I'm intrigued about this "give the elderly your seat" idea, then again Nintendogs was straightforward after his experience raising his dog...

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
One thing I would like would be to expand beyond Hyrule. Start me off in a familiar Hyrule area and then have me leave Hyrule and explore different countries entirely.

---

Brilliant!

I'd buy it

I always wanted a Zelda game to not just center around the hero's journey but the entire battle and wars going on around it. Have an idea of something grander happening in the background of the story.

The problem is almost every Zelda story puts you in pre-crisis or post crisis. Where a definitive mission is required for you to overcome evil.

I would love the idea of a pre-emptive story. A wise King of Hyrule sees the signs of evil creeping into his kingdom, so he seeks out and finds a "hero" a young Link. And he is sent on a mission for a partner to find the Master Sword and the equipment of a hero.

While that is going on, you literally see the battles tear across hyrule and destroy the townies and castle. You can choose to help fight in these battles or not...and sometimes you are called into story arcs for defending villages, strong holds and what not.

As you grow in power, you become closer and closer to the Hero the King desired you to be.

However, mid game you are struck down, and your dying breath you realize your partner was the true destined hero and barer of the triforce of courage. And the final paths of the journey are his alone.

It is basically infusing Zelda with a grander story...sorta like Zelda meets Tolkien.

The next Zelda game needs to be a steampunk setting with Ganondorf as the protagonist.

Spak, I'm with you 100% on this "middle of a war" sort of scenario. I think it'd be awesome for Link to team up with a band of elite warriors (the adventurers in the tavern in TP?) and lead them in to save a group of besieged Knights at Hyrule Castle. Then later on, there's some sort of LOTR-scale epic sweeping battle of the Knights vs. Ganon's monsters. They're at like a stand-off, and then Link (on Epona of course) gives the rallying cry, and the whole lot of them charge down the field at the horde of evil, before everything just goes crazy. Link is spin attacking and fighting 4-5 baddies at once, every so often helping out a knight who's over-matched.

While we're at it, let's get Zelda (as Sheik? or as magic-user) involved. I see Link and Zelda/Sheik, back to back, fighting off wave after wave of enemies until suddenly, the swarm of baddies parts and that giant fiery ball-and-chain guy comes trudging up. Link and Zelda glance at each other – Zelda winks and Link gives a crooked smile, and they both charge at the guy, Zelda firing off some sort of ice magic and Link just... well, being Link and shooting arrows and throwing boomerangs and all the typical stuff.

I don't care if it's a rip-off of LOTR, how cool would all that be? I'm freaking out just thinking about it.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I liked it when he was asked about what social concerns affect him. Other people are all concerned with stuff like war, poverty, disease, the environment, human rights, etc. and he talks about kids not giving up seats for the elderly and people avoiding taxes. DAMN FOOL KIDS ON MY LAWN!! I'm imagining some new Miyamoto game called Bureaucrat where you go around stopping jaywalkers and giving parking tickets. THE WORLD IS IN THE SAD SHAPE IT IS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE PARKING IN FRONT OF HYDRANTS DAMMIT!!

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
I think I really liked the Halo answer.

It just was a casual offhand remark: Yeah I could make that but it doesn't interest me.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: decoyman
I don't care if it's a rip-off of LOTR, how cool would all that be? I'm freaking out just thinking about it.

---

Well, I agree with the most part, I mean, we've definitely seen a lot from Zelda, but it's been about the same each time, when referring to the game's storyline.

However, looking at the environments, the play control, and everything in that aspect, we've actually had large variations. There's been Volcano areas, island galores, Young Link, old Link, alternate universes, Link on a horse, Link as a wolf, the stealth parts in the Four Swords Adventures, great four player game play, if you had four GBA's. Now, I'm even having trouble seeing what sort of environment they could put Link into without crossing into something they've done.

However, like other people have said, the scenario can be changed drastically. Time and time again, we've scene an unknown nobody, our Link, rise, gain the materials, and then defeat a great enemy, usually Ganon. What if we put a very, very young Link on the run. Ganondorf reincarnated, knows the legend, and seeks out any lad named Link, and he finds him, and sends minion after minion to get him. I don't know, that's just a quick brainstorm, but really, anything to change the formula is great, as the environment is already pretty dynamic.

So exciting to think of a new Zelda!!!

But yeah... I don't think it would need anything drastic, but something to give a new twist on it. Something to refresh it like a new take on Triforce lore, or some new small gameplay thing like how OoT had masks (a clever, if short-lived, re-imagining of the red-lock-red-key-card concept). It doesn't need to be anything as drastic as changing the thing into God of War (GOOD GOD PLEASE NOOOO!!!!), but just a little tweak to gives us a new perspective on timeless gameplay.

Also, better puzzles.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Am I the only one that thinks the "OH NOES Twilight Princess has bombed in Japan!" thing to be nonsense?

Its true that the sales are not as impressive as in the US and Europe, but half a million copies ain't bad either. Combine that with the phenomenal worldwide sales and Twilight Princess is more than a hit!

I mean, Fire Emblem and Wario Ware sold much less, yet I don't see anyone waiving the doomsday stick.

On the subject of changing the Zelda formula I agree. While I enjoyed TP I could see what was coming our way in terms of gameplay. It is in dire need of an update.

Nintendo should also hype the game more. I mean, they hyped the hell out of Wii Sports, Wii Play and even Wario Ware and Excite Truck, yet I saw nothing for TP. For the next Zelda game they should make it an event. Make the game more than just another Zelda game, this generation's Zelda.

Fire Emblem and Wario Ware cost less and take less time than Zelda does, so if they have lower sales, higher profits can still be made.

Flop princess has only sold a million combined between GCN and Wii right? Yeah confirmed flop, Zelda series is over guys.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: thatguy
Fire Emblem and Wario Ware cost less and take less time than Zelda does, so if they have lower sales, higher profits can still be made.

---

Oh, I've been speaking of gaming Doomsday II since maybe three or four years ago, when after I read Game Over. I saw far too many similarities to games in the late '70's and early '80's to games that are being made now, when looking past the graphics perspective. That's probably a major part of the reason why I'm heavily supporting Nintendo, more than I have before. I think that they can keep video games alive, where sales would flop the way the market was heading. Nintendo, to me, seems like the only hope the gaming future has. But that's my market speculation.

Why did they take out the bumper car aspect of FZero? That part made it unique.

FE Wii has sold remarkably well considering its niche status and low Wii user base, and compared against RECENT FE games, it's quite respectable.

Thatguy, do you think that Nintendo will have possibly saved the videogame industry TWICE by the time this is over?

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Quote

---

Originally posted by: MJRx9000
Why did they take out the bumper car aspect of FZero? That part made it unique.

---

Well, we know they saved it once, at least in America, and now they're keeping it from dying in Japan, but really, going the route of the PS3 and 360, where would games go? They'd get bigger and bigger, cost more and more, ceasing to grow in new content, and eventually, for the developers involved, costs will rise far beyond returns, and sales will drop, because there are too many too similar game experiences. Already, we're beginning to see demand for licensed games rise, compared to what it is, and performance of the same games are being rated lower and lower. Most gameplay today is already a rehash of what's been done before.

There's not a place for an old fashioned home console anymore. People already had one of those. The graphics were great whenever a developer actually put in effort last generation. If I buy a 360 or a PS3, I'm going to pay ten more dollars a game for a marginal difference in graphics. Let's say I'm an uneducated, semi-casual gamer, which I would consider the largest portion of gamers that actively purchase console games. I play Madden, Halo, and other frathouse games. I've recently bought a PS3, the "most powerful" game machine out there. And then I bought Spider-Man 3. I liked the movie, and think that the game would be a fun extension. I play the game, it sucks, and I decide that I've wasted at least 660 dollars, noting that I could have bought the same thing, only slightly less pretty, for my PS2. Only I don't, because I've realized that I've already got all the gameplay experience I want in the last gen.

Let's say I'm an middle-aged woman gamer. Another majority in gaming, apparently. I've got my MMORPG capable computer, along with bejeweled. What else do I need? I've got everything I enjoy playing right there.

Let's say I'm a hardcore gaming "nerd." What's out there to appeal to me? RPG's? I'm better off with a PS2. Shooters? PC shooting is really the best type, what with free online gaming and the accuracy a mouse and a keyboard offers. What does a new generation have to offer that I don't already have?

Those three seem to be the most common situation right now to me. People are either growing tired with the same thing, only prettier with worse control than what they had previously, or they are satisfied with the hardware and software of the last generation of game machines, when they think about it. This is pretty close to what happened then, from my reading. Though I wasn't alive at the time, I think we all know the story of how ET is an icon of the death of the very first breed of video games - All the games were rip-off of the originals and developers made lousy games of franchises, because they thought it was easy. Then, we saw maze games, all spinning off from Pac-Man. This time, we see GTA-style knock-offs and cookie-cutter FPSes, still bringing nothing new, but slapping a franchise on to it, with many bugs and glitches. More and more of these games are being produced, but their sales are beginning to drop, because people realize each game offers the same experience as the last, with nothing new.

In comes Nintendo, with the Wii. Offering innovation, among other things, also, once again making a system that families enjoy sitting around. Sure, there are FPSes, and sure, there are free-roamers, but there is also Trauma Center. There's new revival in racing games, offering an arcade feel at home. There's more opportunity here for allowing people to experience the game, rather than just playing it. I think given all of this, if the Wii doesn't succeed in revitalizing and expanding the market, gaming's future will be in trouble.

Feel free to disagree, though. I'd love to hear different perceptions and opinions, especially since we all see how successful most analysts, and this is just an analysis. As far as I know, the best way to tell where gaming is going is to see where gaming has gone before, which is something most analysts don't do, so hopefully you'll find me more insightful than all of them.

God what I WOULDN'T GIVE for an "Operation" Game with a dedicated multiplayer mode... *drool*

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

That would be awesome. Zelda Four Sword Easy Operation

I wonder how that would work...

After reading that interview I got a lot of flashbacks of the "Jet Alone" episode of Evangelion.
Am I the only one?

The only thing that interview confirmed is Nintendo has a very Japan centric view of it's gaming business, nothing new there.

That guy, do you really Nintendo is going to save the video game world with it's endless flow of mini games?

To the contrary, Nintendo is striking me more and more as non-Japanese...

What makes you think that they've got a Japan centric view of gaming Galford? If such was the case, I'd think we'd be seeing a hell of a lot more RPGs and a hell of a lot less success for Nintendogs in the global market. This is just Miyamoto talking... I guess you could call him "Miyamoto-centric" but that's not much of an accusation now is it?

If anything, the only charge we can level at Nintendo is that they are very individual and very resistant to the "conventional" wisdom... almost... UN-Japanese...

~Carmine "cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

They need to make Zelda Pinball, Zelda Party, and Zelda Baseball, those will revive the franchise!

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Galford
After reading that interview I got a lot of flashbacks of the "Jet Alone" episode of Evangelion.
Am I the only one?

The only thing that interview confirmed is Nintendo has a very Japan centric view of it's gaming business, nothing new there.

That guy, do you really Nintendo is going to save the video game world with it's endless flow of mini games?

---

Quite frankly I don't believe his comment about Halo. Japanese devs don't seem to learn from advancements in western games (especially visible in RTS games) so I'd expect Nintendo to make some mistake in Halo that Bungie knew to avoid.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Quite frankly I don't believe his comment about Halo. Japanese devs don't seem to learn from advancements in western games (especially visible in RTS games) so I'd expect Nintendo to make some mistake in Halo that Bungie knew to avoid.

---

That gut I'm not trying to insult you or your parents, but lets face it Nintendo has abandoned the hardcore demographic and replaced it with games whose gameplay was state of the art on the Atari 2600. If an endless flow of mini-games is Nintendo's answer to "saving" the game industry I would much prefer to see it die then go on in this direction.

I know I'm the odd man out, but I everytime Nintendo opens it's mouth I get the idea they don't care about the hardcore gamer which supported them for 20 years.

My response is the list I posted of upcoming games. I don't see that as Nintendo abandoning the hardcore gamer. I see that as the opposite. There are only a few "mini-game" compilations in comparison to the number of "harcore" games.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Galford
That gut I'm not trying to insult you or your parents, but lets face it Nintendo has abandoned the hardcore demographic and replaced it with games whose gameplay was state of the art on the Atari 2600. If an endless flow of mini-games is Nintendo's answer to "saving" the game industry I would much prefer to see it die then go on in this direction.

I know I'm the odd man out, but I everytime Nintendo opens it's mouth I get the idea they don't care about the hardcore gamer which supported them for 20 years.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: UncleBob

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
I think I really liked the Halo answer.

It just was a casual offhand remark: Yeah I could make that but it doesn't interest me.

---

I wasn't pleased with his Halo answer. It sounds like something a kid would say "I could do that!" "Then do it!" "Naw, I don't want to."
It'd be like me saying that I could bag Lisa Loeb, if I wanted to.

---

"I think a lot of people who bought the Wii are not necessarily the types of people who are interested in playing that kind of game."

Finally an official acknowledgement that it's not the "system for everybody/everything" that some fanboys insisted it was. This doesn't bode well for gamers down the line. They should definitely consider a second system to get their fix.


"But mostly, I think it's that there are fewer and fewer people who are interested in playing a big role-playing game like Zelda."

I don't think I agree with this. If the audience is smaller, it is not to the point where there's only lukewarm interest. What they either don't acknowledge or don't want to admit is that the problem isn't disinterest in epics. The problem is the increasing disinterest in Nintendo's rinse-and-repeat IPs. They shouldn't focus on "the next Zelda" or "the next Metroid." They need to create the FIRST .

I'm surprised me talked smack about F-Zero. Unless he's talking about one of the portable ones or something.

I like some change in Zelda. I also believe that the Wii is doing good things and that we really won't know Nintendos focus till next years release list.

"I don't think I agree with this. If the audience is smaller, it is not to the point where there's only lukewarm interest. What they either don't acknowledge or don't want to admit is that the problem isn't disinterest in epics. The problem is the increasing disinterest in Nintendo's rinse-and-repeat IPs. They shouldn't focus on 'the next Zelda' or 'the next Metroid.' They need to create the FIRST ."

I think this a great point. One thing I've really noticed with this blue strategy stuff is that Nintendo too often is confusing "hardcore gamer" as meaning "someone who just wants the same old". The new Nintendo IP's lately have mostly been non-gamer focused stuff like Nintendogs, WiiSports and Brain Age. And then when Nintendo (or anyone for that matter) lists off the "gamer game" titles it's mostly a big list of sequels. Nintendo talks about how gaming as is has gotten stagnant but doesn't acknowledge that all their unessential Mario spinoff product has contributed to that. And they aren't doing anything to fix that. Their creative energy is being used to target a new group of customers while their same old IPs are going to the traditional gamers. They aren't making much effort to get this old group interested again, just to get the new group in. They think everyone got bored of the same old stuff that THEY are creating because we're bored with games but that's not necessarily the correct conclusion. The sales may be slipping because those old IPs are stale and Nintendo is making no effort to make new ones. Part of the success of Nintendo's non-games may be less because of how they're designed but more because they're just something different and people want something new.

Though Nintendo may actually believe that the reason they're making all these sequels and why everyone is making so much cookie-cutter stuff is because there are no more ideas for gaming as is. I think that's bullsh!t. The true company that "saves" gaming will be the company that proves Nintendo wrong and innovates without resorting to g!mmicks.

By that philosophy I beleive that the VC will really bring this to light and bite Nintendo to create new "core" genre series.

Given that new IP's have a success rate of LESS THAN 10% in the traditional gaming market... I'd think it's safe to assume that most traditional gamers want more of the same.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Kairon's right. Would most of us had bought Power Tennis if Mario's name wasn't in front? Same with Mario Golf. Maybe Mario Kart would never have gotten off the ground if Mario and friends hadn't been the ones driving. I don't mind them abusing a license like this, so long as the games are good. Overall, I have to say that it's been better that they stick Mario in several new IP's.

But don't say that Nintendo is creating new franchises left and right. Disaster: Day of Crisis, Project Hammer, the Wii games have also been successful. Chibi-Robo is also a highly praised newer IP. Nintendo isn't shorting players out of fresh intellectual property.

I bought Power Tennis because my Virtual Boy came with Mario Tennis. Which I thoroughly enjoyed and was told many times that this was one of the best tennis games in the series and it was made by Camelot. Once I got it I found it to be terrible compared to the original and, after Strikers, proceed to swear off Mario sport games because they hypnotize people into thinking they are good and it doesn't seem to work on me.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Their creative energy is being used to target a new group of customers while their same old IPs are going to the traditional gamers. They aren't making much effort to get this old group interested again, just to get the new group in. They think everyone got bored of the same old stuff that THEY are creating because we're bored with games but that's not necessarily the correct conclusion. The sales may be slipping because those old IPs are stale and Nintendo is making no effort to make new ones.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
The true company that "saves" gaming will be the company that proves Nintendo wrong and innovates without resorting to g!mmicks.

---

Quote

---

"gimmick." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 08 May. 2007.
gim·mick (g?m'?k) Pronunciation Key
n.

1.
1. A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the secret and dishonest control of gambling apparatus.
2. An innovative or unusual mechanical contrivance; a gadget.
3. An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project: an advertising gimmick.
4. A significant feature that is obscured, misrepresented, or not readily evident; a catch.
2.
1. An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project: an advertising gimmick.
2. A significant feature that is obscured, misrepresented, or not readily evident; a catch.
3. A small object whose name does not come readily to mind.

---

"Given that new IP's have a success rate of LESS THAN 10% in the traditional gaming market... I'd think it's safe to assume that most traditional gamers want more of the same."

I think part of that stat is skewered. By releasing so many sequels game companies train the buying public into only showing interest in sequels. Plus the huge amount of sequels can turn away those looking for new stuff entirely so they aren't included in the statistics. Often sequels receive a bigger marketing push as well thus giving the impression that the new IPs are the b-titles. Nintendo released a handful of new IPs on the Cube but were any of them given a marketing push that tried to establish them as flagship title? No. Established IP like Mario, Metroid and Zelda got the big push giving the impression that something like Pikmin was a b-title, and not one of the console's top games. Meanwhile MS gave a new IP like Halo a big marketing push that established it as an a-title for the Xbox and it sold appropriately. Nintendo didn't even TRY that so how can they determine that gamers just want sequels? It seems very much like Nintendo doing something poorly and then using the inevitable failure to justify not doing it in the future, which is something they do a whole lot. The Gamecube was Nintendo's most IP milking cookie-cutter console yet and it was the least successful.

Plus Nintendo feels that innovation will help sell the Wii. Well why does this innovation have to be so non-gamer focused? Why is all talk of innovation towards bringing in new customers? Why don't they have the same commitment of innovation for their traditional customerbase? Why don't they attempt to innovate within epic games? Instead Miyamoto is worried that Zelda is too complicated for non-gamers. He's less worried that it's stale or that Nintendo needs new IPs that target gamers that like Zelda but rather that Zelda isn't popular with non-gamers. Why does Nintendo's innovation only seem to involve dumbing down games and removing depth, complexity and challenge? Nintendo is noticing that traditional games aren't selling but their only response to this is to make games for non-gamers. Why don't they also try to make tradtional games more interesting? They aren't saving gaming. They're letting it die and are trying to establish something else to rely on when gaming dies. As traditional gaming is growing stagnate Nintendo is not really making any effort to prevent that. They're merely abandoning group A in favour of group B.

No, Miyamoto is worried that games like Zelda don't appeal to Japanese gamers anymore. This is evidenced by lower sales of Twilight Princess in Japan. They are obviously trying to maintain the appease that they have had of Group A up until now. Have you been following what's been said about Zelda? Sure, you may like where the Zelda series is now, and so might several Americans stuck in the sequel mindset that you seemingly desire and despise at the same time. However, with even the powerhouse that is Zelda, Japanese interests in the game are dwindling. Sure, they aren't astronomically low yet, but the sales are dropping, which means people that were interested in Zelda are not interested any more.

Anyways, Nintendo is offering both new IP for new audiences, and sequels for those that consider themselves "hardcore," so I don't see what there is to complain about, especially seeing their upcoming line-up.

I'm going to say this and be flogged later. If a game does well in America and Europe it could make more then doing Superb in Japan. In fact doing Superb in either one of those bigger markets could net them more.

I think the mindset that Japan is everything is terrible. There/their/they're is plenty of games that are never released beyond Japanese shores because they are believed to not have a market anywhere else in the world, dating games or novel games come to mind. Then why can't there/their/they're be games that can just be for one region and not Japan?

I agree, Ceric. Realize that Twilight Princess was made entirely with American gamers in mind, too. However, while Nintendo is a company, one that desires profit in every venture, recognize that the company is one made up of artists, artists who all want to see proper respect from the people around them for their work. If they make a game that no one will buy in Japan, but will sell out else where, sure, they will have money, but they won't have the respect of their family and peers. That's why several Japanese developers are hesitant to work on 360 games. They know the game could sell well, but no one around them will buy it, and their work will wind up unrecognized.

That's my reasoning on why Japanese developers focus on making games for Japan, instead of looking directly for profit.

Quote

---

Realize that Twilight Princess was made entirely with American gamers in mind, too.

---

Actually, have you guys SEEN Zelda sales in Japan? I don't think Wind Waker even broke a million there. Zelda hasn't been big since the N64 there, and is exhibiting early stages of Metroid syndrome, perhaps better known as Metal Gear Solid syndrome (i.e. the Americans will buy it, but the Japanese won't). Hopefully the Big N finds a cure...

I don't think anyone considers Japan the be-all-and-end-all (especially not Microsoft). And of course, Capcom's heavy X360 support can be placed directly on that particular Japanese company's belief of this tenet.

But Nintendo is operating under the assumption that Japan is a sort of accelerated canary for the rest of the world in game habits. Traditional game sales in Japan have shrunk and shrunk, so Nintendo unleashed the market disrupting non-game trend there that's reinvigorated it. With Europe and America buying up Nintendogs and Brain Training at lesser but impressive rates, I think there's a little bit of weight to that estimation.

But, let's forget all that. I WANT to see innovation in hardcore games too. I have a hardcore gamer's tastes, if not their zeal. But I don't think that Nintendo is abandoning me. I think they're enabling a whole new explosion in hardcore game innovation, and from a multiplicity of sources.

I believe that their essential improvements in user input really HAS put us one step closer to virtual reality (still a loooong ways to go), and will spawn more immersion, more interactivity, and new forms of interactive gameplay.Sure, more processing power is nice too. But eye candy can always come later: what's more important is expanding the FREEDOM that a player has to interact in their world...

That promise hasn't been fulfilled yet (where's my Wii Oblivion clone gol'darnit!!!), but it's still a promise I hold dear.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

"Anyways, Nintendo is offering both new IP for new audiences, and sequels for those that consider themselves 'hardcore,' so I don't see what there is to complain about, especially seeing their upcoming line-up."

No that is what's worth complaining about. The new IP is for the new audience. Where is the new IP for the hardcore gamers? Why do we only get sequels? That is what suggests that Nintendo is focusing more on the new audience. If Nintendo only gives hardcore gamers sequels then eventually anyone with hardcore tastes that is not interested in non-games is going to get bored of the same old stuff. I want to play games like Pikmin (new IP, total gamer-game). I don't want the bulk of Nintendo's new creative ideas to be in non-games that I have no interest in.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: BigJim
"I think a lot of people who bought the Wii are not necessarily the types of people who are interested in playing that kind of game."

Finally an official acknowledgement that it's not the "system for everybody/everything" that some fanboys insisted it was.

---

Hmmm, looks like someone at Bungie took offense to the Halo question, here's a snippet...


"Joystiq: One final question: last week, Shigeru Miyamoto said in an interview with Geoff Keighley in Entertainment Weekly that he could make Halo.

Frank: Yeah, well. I just want to go on the record and say that Bungie is hard at work on a side-scrolling platform game featuring some plumbers — I’m not going to say what their ethnicity is, it’s none of anyone’s business — but we took that as a gauntlet, a sort of glove slap, and we’re going to respond in 2D scrolling style. That’s all I’m saying."

Are they...are they...German plumbers?

Poor Bungie, they can't help but throw a hissy fit because they know it is true.

Its a sad day when someone, even if its just a joke, compare what Super Mario Bros did for platformers (and games in general for that matter) with what halo did for FPS.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: thatguy
Are they...are they...German plumbers?

---

Quote

---

Its a sad day when someone, even if its just a joke, compare what Super Mario Bros did for platformers (and games in general for that matter) with what halo did for FPS.

---

No I think Bungie got offended because Miyamoto said he could have created Halo, which could be interpreted in various ways. Instead Bungie, who has an obvious confidence problem, thought Miyamoto was saying it would be easy to create (as in the game itself isn't that impressive). Granted I do think Halo is an uninspired, poor man's FPS for consoles, so perhaps Bungie does have the right to be offended.

Quote

---

Hmmm, looks like someone at Bungie took offense to the Halo question

---

Quote

---

Poor Bungie, they can't help but throw a hissy fit because they know it is true.

---