Author Topic: Editorial: Don't Leave Me Now (Read 25730 times)

The Omen · « **Reply #75 on:** March 10, 2004, 08:22:58 AM »

Quote
You can't just release Mario Sunshine, Pikmin, and Donkey Konga and expect people to see you as different. They just see you as one dimensional when you can't tell the difference between one tellutuby game and the next.

What about WW, ED, Metroid Prime and MGS:TS?

Deguello · « **Reply #76 on:** March 11, 2004, 03:25:15 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
You can't just release Mario Sunshine, Pikmin, and Donkey Konga and expect people to see you as different. They just see you as one dimensional when you can't tell the difference between one tellutuby game and the next.

God DAMN that is so retarded nemo. What does that last sentence even mean?

KDR_11k · « **Reply #77 on:** March 11, 2004, 06:55:14 AM »

Sega does what Nintendon't. Like goin' third party.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #78 on:** March 11, 2004, 01:32:21 PM »

Proof that some 3rd parties must have some bias against the Gamecube. Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters Melee was built from the ground up for the Gamecube and then ported over to the XBox months later. As a result the Gamecube version's sales crushed the XBox version's. Logically, then, Atari should drop the XBox version of Godzilla Destroy All Monsters Melee 2 and release it at the very least on the Gamecube. But what does Atari do? Release the sequel on every console BUT the Gamecube. Apparently when the Gamecube gets a half assed port of a months old game, its not selling well is the Gamecube's fault. But when the same thing happens on a different system, the publisher conveniently turns a blind eye towards it and STILL screws over Gamecube owners. How the hell can you explain that? Maybe it's not a huge conspiracy, but it shows at least Atari doesn't even want to try to support the Gamecube.

Kairon · « **Reply #79 on:** March 11, 2004, 01:40:54 PM »

This has got to be the most balanced editorial I've read about Nintendo's situation in some time. Why? Because of the very important acknowledgement of a particular value system in the way we may look at Nintendo. At one point the author states that, "If Nintendo wants to regain ..."

That "If" is very important, because it acknowledges that all of these ideas that Nintendo fans have of worldwide domination, all these concepts of marketting, mindshare, and money... these are based on the assumption that Nintendo, at their core, is a company solely focused on winning the marketshare war.

Which, if you instead consider Nintendo a company built around Shigeru Miyamoto's legacy... it isn't.

Think about it: Nintendo has been built around Shigeru Miyamoto games. Even when Yamauchi was in charge, his most significant and pivotal action was to create an environment in which Shigeru Miyamoto could create freely. And Shigeru Miyamoto doesn't care about marketshare, he doesn't care about appealing to just adults, or in winning any image war. He doesn't care much about how many third parties Nintendo has... Shigeru Miyamoto, and Nintendo by extension, has just one core value: creative, high-quality games which are not dependent on graphics or gameplay. (This is opposed to SquareEnix, whose games are built wholly around graphics and storylines, with gameplay as a less important topic)

Looking at Nintendo this way, it's apparent that Nintendo will never have as many third-parties as Sony, and will enver have as cool an image as Microsoft. It becomes apparent that Nintendo's true philosophy is one that propels it towards creating the next Pikmin, or next Mario Kart... not the next awesome commercial or the next all-inclusive piece of home media center hardware.

And perhaps...when Nintendo Fans truly accept Nintendo as a company not meant to lead in terms of marketshare, but meant to lead in terms of visionary game design... perhaps THEN Nintendo fans will learn to appreciate their chosen company fully...

And perhaps they'll appreciate Nintendo enough to stop trying to turn it into Sony or Microsoft.

Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Ian Sane · « **Reply #80 on:** March 11, 2004, 01:58:43 PM »

"Logically, then, Atari should drop the XBox version of Godzilla Destroy All Monsters Melee 2 and release it at the very least on the Gamecube. But what does Atari do? Release the sequel on every console BUT the Gamecube. Apparently when the Gamecube gets a half assed port of a months old game, its not selling well is the Gamecube's fault. But when the same thing happens on a different system, the publisher conveniently turns a blind eye towards it and STILL screws over Gamecube owners. How the hell can you explain that?"

You can't explain it. That's just f*cked up.

"Think about it: Nintendo has been built around Shigeru Miyamoto games. Even when Yamauchi was in charge, his most significant and pivotal action was to create an environment in which Shigeru Miyamoto could create freely."

Incorrect. Nintendo didn't become "the Shiggy show" until the N64. Before that there has a much wider variety coming from Nintendo's different teams. It wasn't until Gunpei Yoki left the company that Miyamoto became the main focus. Nintendo consoles traditionally were platforms designed to create great games not just great EAD games. If Nintendo focused on just creating great games period without having Miyamoto get involved in everything they probably have a much wider appeal.

I like Miyamoto and I like EAD but I don't want EVERY game Nintendo makes to feel like a Miyamoto game. I think a lot of other people feel the same way and that's pretty much Nintendo's diversity problem in a nut shell.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #81 on:** March 11, 2004, 02:09:14 PM »

Miyamoto may have increased his influence a bit, but Nintendo does NOT revolve around him- look at games like Animal Crossing, Fire Emblem, Mario and Luigi, Metroid Fusion and Zero Mission, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Wave Race, 1080, and Kirby's Air Ride. Even games I know he had a big part in, like Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, and Twin Snakes, don't outwardly show any signs of his style.

Quote
And perhaps...when Nintendo Fans truly accept Nintendo as a company not meant to lead in terms of marketshare, but meant to lead in terms of visionary game design... perhaps THEN Nintendo fans will learn to appreciate their chosen company fully...

I think it's more a matter of what Nintendo deserves. I personally wouldn't care if Nintendo never became the market leader again, as long as they keep making a profit, which I know they will. But I think Nintendo should be given the respect they deserve from the industry, not only for what they've done in the past but for what they're still doing- it makes me sad when I hear about stunts such as what Atari is pulling. I've come to expect stupid businesses and come to terms with their disrespect towards the real leaders, but that doesn't mean I'm any less pissed off when I hear about something like that.

Kairon · « **Reply #82 on:** March 11, 2004, 03:10:38 PM »

Quote
"Think about it: Nintendo has been built around Shigeru Miyamoto games. Even when Yamauchi was in charge, his most significant and pivotal action was to create an environment in which Shigeru Miyamoto could create freely."

Incorrect. Nintendo didn't become "the Shiggy show" until the N64. Before that there has a much wider variety coming from Nintendo's different teams. It wasn't until Gunpei Yoki left the company that Miyamoto became the main focus. Nintendo consoles traditionally were platforms designed to create great games not just great EAD games. If Nintendo focused on just creating great games period without having Miyamoto get involved in everything they probably have a much wider appeal.

I like Miyamoto and I like EAD but I don't want EVERY game Nintendo makes to feel like a Miyamoto game. I think a lot of other people feel the same way and that's pretty much Nintendo's diversity problem in a nut shell.

That's a good correction, but the point still stands that even if Nintendo hasn't always been built around Shigeru Miyamoto's game design philosophy, it is now.

Shigeru Miyamoto has always been a major (if not the) driving force behind Nintendo, even in the NES era. And Yamauchi's heavy-handed ideals during that generation (like encouraging quality over quantity by limiting companies to only a set number of releases each year) easily became absorbed with Miyamoto's pursuit of excellence. Even Yokoi seems a distant second when counting Nintendo's marquee games. AND, with the N64's utilization of cartridges, we see that Miyamoto has really becoming an integral aspect of the company. There were many reasons for the cartridges, but surely one of them is that Mario 64 would not have been possible with 1996 CD technology. Add to this the fact that Miyamoto is even tied into hardware design with the N64 and GC controllers... and Miyamoto's modern dominance of Nintendo thinking is apparent.

Now, new voices are always a good thing.
And we can judge whether or not Miyamoto is dead weight. We can decide for ourselves whether Nintendo is held back or not, or whether pursueing market numbers and dollars is worth forfeiting support for Miyamoto's visions.

But I don't think we should criticize Nintendo for being something they aren't. They aren't Sony, they aren't a consumer electronics company, they can't win the tech-spec battle. They aren't Microsoft, they can't network as well and they can't market as savvily. They can try, but in the end they are only Nintendo, a company driven by Miyamoto's game design, a company that's being ever more marginalized because of it.

I personally expect Miyamoto to get credit for the next Nintendo controller. That's how integral he's become with Nintendo's work. I expect Nintendo to continue pursueing the hardware market for some time, because Mario 64 exemplified how Miyamoto was needed hardware & software innovation simultaneously. But I don't expect them to become the market share leader, because I don't think Miyamoto cares about marketshare as much as he does innovation or fun games.

I expect Nintendo to do exactly as they think they should, as Miyamoto thinks they should. Nothing more, nothing less. And if this means they don't take the marketshare position again... I expect that that's never been what Miyamoto's philosophy is about...

And as a Nintendo fan, I guess I can't help but respect that level of integrity.

Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

The Omen · « **Reply #83 on:** March 11, 2004, 07:35:27 PM »

Everyone on these boards(mostly) have high respect for Nintendo. The main point of contention has been why no respect abroad when they do deserve it? Not having the popularity vote is one thing, but having people actually disrespect Nintendo in the industry, as moves like this one by Atari prove, is just plain questionable, at best. There are many companies who either A) Just think Nintendo is kiddie or B) are being spoonfed BS from MS and Sony, the same way Sega did in the early 90's, or C) They have released a game on Nintendo of poor quality and it didn't sell, or D) they released a port much too late as an afterthought, and it didn't sell. Its a sad state of affairs, it really is.

Man , that Godzilla

AMM 2 item has me pissed....

Kyosho · « **Reply #84 on:** March 11, 2004, 10:21:55 PM »

Quote
The main point of contention has been why no respect abroad when they do deserve it? Not having the popularity vote is one thing, but having people actually disrespect Nintendo in the industry, as moves like this one by Atari prove, is just plain questionable, at best

We make up a very very very small minority of the crowd. Who are we to say that they do deserve respect or they don't? We can only argue why we think they deserve the respect. IMHO, from the last 2 generations (including this one), with the way Nintendo proceeded with their lucklaster business approach, they are at fault for the current dilemma.

Deguello · « **Reply #85 on:** March 11, 2004, 11:45:21 PM »

Quote
lucklaster business approach

I don't see where making a metric ass-load of money is "lackluster." A lackluster approach would be to spend like there is no tomorrow, and thus fund your own demise.

thecubedcanuck · « **Reply #86 on:** March 12, 2004, 01:33:58 AM »

"as long as they keep making a profit, which I know they will."

I wouldnt go that far. In my biz I see this statement bite more asses than any other.

" But I think Nintendo should be given the respect they deserve from the industry, not only for what they've done in the past but for what they're still doing"

I disagree with this. Respect is an ongoing thing and NINs current state in the console market doesnt warrent any respect IMO, profit or not. THey went from the kings of the market to third for most of this gen, that doesnt deserve respect as far as I am concerned.

"A lackluster approach would be to spend like there is no tomorrow, and thus fund your own demise."

Middle ground would be nice. A few more $$$ spent on advertising wouldnt hurt. How about a MGS ad or 2?

Mario · « **Reply #87 on:** March 12, 2004, 01:39:20 AM »

Quote
How about a MGS ad or 2?

Nintendo aren't publishing MGS:TTS.. it's up to Konami to do that.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #88 on:** March 12, 2004, 02:21:28 AM »

Regardless of whether you personally think Nintendo deserves respect, will anyone here say they deserve what Atari has done?

thecubedcanuck · « **Reply #89 on:** March 12, 2004, 03:49:06 AM »

"will anyone here say they deserve what Atari has done?"

what did Atari do that was so bad? I must have missed it?

The Omen · « **Reply #90 on:** March 12, 2004, 04:11:28 AM »

They scrapped the GC sequel even though the original was built from the ground up on GC hardware and outsold the Xbox version .

Ian Sane · « **Reply #91 on:** March 12, 2004, 06:44:05 AM »

"I personally expect Miyamoto to get credit for the next Nintendo controller."

Is that a good thing though? Both the N64 and Cube controllers seemed to be designed for his games and as a result both designs were not very flexible for use in third party games. The N64 controller managed to be sufficient for most games but the Cube controller absolutely sucks for fighting games or any game that favours digitial controls. It's a real shame because from a comfort point of view the Cube controller is the best on the market. It could have been so perfect if non-Nintendo games were taken into account in the design. Note that with the NES and SNES, Nintendo's most successful consoles, the controller was incredibly accomidating and worked with nearly every type of game, not just Nintendo games.

I think Miyamoto should have input on the next controller design but shouldn't design it outright because he just doesn't think of how the controller will work with the types of games he doesn't make. The design should be a collaborative effort with designers from Capcom, Sega, Namco, etc so that it is more generic and thus works better with all types of games. I would rather have a controller that's good at all games than one that is absolutely amazing for Nintendo games and completely sucks for anything else.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #92 on:** March 12, 2004, 07:08:20 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
They scrapped the GC sequel even though the original was built from the ground up on GC hardware and outsold the Xbox version .

Oh, I thought you guys meant the crime to humanity that was E.T...

vudu · « **Reply #93 on:** March 12, 2004, 10:23:31 AM »

Quote
Apparently when the Gamecube gets a half assed port of a months old game, its not selling well is the Gamecube's fault. But when the same thing happens on a different system, the publisher conveniently turns a blind eye towards it and STILL screws over Gamecube owners. How the hell can you explain that?

a hypothetical example:

i design a game for gamecube and it sells 100,000 copies. then i port it over to xbox and it sells 25,000 copies. for some reason, i don't port it over to ps2 (maybe it's because i don't have the resources to create 3 versions of the game). still, i just sold 125,000 copies of my game. not half bad.

then, i sit down and think about it (not sure how i figure all this out, because i'm not atari) and i decide that if i had originally created the game for xbox or ps2 in the first place rather than port it over, i would have sold 150,000 copies. if i had then ported it over to the other one, it would have sold an additional 75,000 copies. my studies show that most gamecube owners own at least one other console, so if the game was readily available on the other two systems, it would only sell 50,000 on gamecube.

at this point, it would only make sense (from a business standpoint) to create the sequal for the xbox and ps2 (assuming i can only devote the resources to make two versions of the game).

i have no idea how my company could have come to this conclusion, but if i did, that's what i would do (assuming i was looking to maximize my revenue).

Deguello · « **Reply #94 on:** March 12, 2004, 12:58:25 PM »

I disagree, king. The logical assumption would be to put it on the GC and the PS2. God

amm has already proved to sell like fermented manure on the Xbox. So therefore, at least according to most third parties logic, the Xbox gets no further support. But of course, if their failure were to be subsidized, I'm sure they might have a change of heart.

vudu · « **Reply #95 on:** March 15, 2004, 08:10:28 AM »

Quote
i decide that if i had originally created the game for xbox or ps2 in the first place rather than port it over, i would have sold 150,000 copies.

i somehow decided that if it had originally been created for either the xbox or the ps2, it would have sold 150k copies, not 100k. in my hypothetical scenario, the only reason it sold so poorly on xbox is because it was a gamecube port.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #96 on:** March 15, 2004, 10:17:34 AM »

Quote
i somehow decided that if it had originally been created for either the xbox or the ps2, it would have sold 150k copies, not 100k. in my hypothetical scenario, the only reason it sold so poorly on xbox is because it was a gamecube port.

Exactly- but if 3rd parties used your logic, the Gamecube would have gotten sequels to the games that sold poorly because they were XBox/PS2 ports, too. Obviously Atari is not using that logic- Atari created their own logic, probably with an old coat hanger and some yarn.

vudu · « **Reply #97 on:** March 15, 2004, 11:31:31 AM »

Quote
if 3rd parties used your logic, the Gamecube would have gotten sequels to the games that sold poorly because they were XBox/PS2 ports, too.

um...damn. you got me there. well, i never said it was good logic.

maybe atari seems to think that xbox people don't like gamecube ports, but but gamecube people have no problem with xbox ports. maybe atari views the xbox as the better platform, and therefore more people will buy the xbox version of the game if the xbox version is available at the same time or sooner than the gamecube version, but if it's later no one will get it. who knows.

this talkback thread has kinda gotten off topic.

Kairon · « **Reply #98 on:** March 16, 2004, 08:42:29 AM »

Quote
" But I think Nintendo should be given the respect they deserve from the industry, not only for what they've done in the past but for what they're still doing"

I disagree with this. Respect is an ongoing thing and NINs current state in the console market doesnt warrent any respect IMO, profit or not. THey went from the kings of the market to third for most of this gen, that doesnt deserve respect as far as I am concerned.

I can certainly see how one can not favor a company with your reasoning, but I'd think that whether or not we respect someone should have deeper foundations than "They are no longer number one." Why did they lose the market? Because Nintendo, as a game-centric company built around Miyamoto's ideas and games isn't equiped to lead the modern-day market. They don't have the technical know-how of either Sony or Microsoft, and don't have the ability to blast open the industry to the mainstream. So of course they're no longer number one!

BUT, they keep doing what they are built for, what their mission is. They're not trying to pretend to be hip, or bleeding edge, or something they're not. They're not good at bombarding consumers with ads. But they are good with making great and creative games.

And if one sees that Nintendo's spirit is simply in line with that, one perceives a sort of integrity to what the company's trying to do: surviving as an entity of traditional craftsmanship in a day of automation and mass-producing.

If you're bottomline line is consumer dollars, then you may not respect Nintendo for that.
But you should at least not disrespect them for merely being who they are, for failing to capture market share but succeeding at creating games that only Nintendo can bring forth.

Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Ian Sane · « **Reply #99 on:** March 16, 2004, 10:22:02 AM »

"They don't have the technical know-how of either Sony or Microsoft"

BS. They don't have the marketing know-how of Sony or MS but they easily have the technical know-how. I don't see any official wireless controllers for the OTHER consoles. Plus the Gamecube has virtually no load times. Hardware-wise Nintendo has made a very good console. They just suck at marketing their games and making games that fit the current market trends.

News:

Author Topic: Editorial: Don't Leave Me Now (Read 25730 times)