Post by: Ian Sane on June 03, 2005, 06:21:04 PM
Shiggy's doing the "simple games" routine again. And like Iwata he has something outrageous thrown in so that everyone thinks he's crazy.
"A lot of the games out there are just too long. Of course, there are games, such as Halo or Grand Theft Auto, that are big and expansive. But if you're not interested in spending that time with them, you're not going to play."
He's suggesting that there's not a lot to interest gamers nowadays and then he references two games that significantly outsold every game Nintendo made on the Cube. These games sold huge. That means there's demand for them. That means gamers want to play games like this. So where is all this simple games stuff coming from?
I'm concerned that Nintendo is going to focus too much on non-gamers. A lot of people say that I shouldn't worry and that Nintendo is going to target both non-gamers and long time gamers but here there is no suggestion of that. He's suggesting "unique products" over "epic games". I want "epic games". I don't want Halo and GTA specifically but I want games with their kind of length, depth, and complexity. He's really giving the image that the Rev's going to be the Electroplankton console.
Reggie does a good job of selling the Rev to me but anytime anyone from NCL opens their mouth I immediately get the impression that the Rev won't interest me at all. I get a feeling that NCL and NOA are on completely different pages.
How the hell can he use the two most successful games of this generation as justification for gamers not being interested in today's games? That makes no sense at all.
Post by: KnowsNothing on June 03, 2005, 06:46:23 PM
He's saying that there are people out there that don't like big expansive games out there, not that NOBODY wants them. If they don't want them, they won't buy them. The group of people that DON'T play GTA, or Halo, or games at all (non-gamers) is like a gajillion times larger than the people who do. Nintendo wants to get those people to buy their games. Makes sense to me.
We've heard this complaint from you a hundred times. While Nintendo is focusing alot more on nongamers than they used to, when it comes to games they show no signs of giving up on their core fanbase. The new SMB? Fire Emblem? ZELDA? It makes sense for them to go for nongamers, too. That's like 1,000,000,000,000,000 potential sales.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 03, 2005, 06:50:08 PM
*Currently accepting applications for a Japanese girlfriend*
Post by: Mario on June 03, 2005, 06:59:27 PM
Post by: jasonditz on June 03, 2005, 07:02:25 PM
In the original interview nothing Shiggy said would give the impression that he believes people aren't interested in epic-scale games. He said he personally misses the sort of game you can just pick up and play without having to invest a lot of time in them. He says he hopes the Revolution will bring that sort of game back, but nowhere does he suggest Nintendo's not going to make epic games anymore.
And you know, I agree with him. Some of my fondest early video game memories were of games that you could just pop in and play for 10-15 minutes. When I hear him talking about things like that the game that comes immediately to mind is Lock N' Chase for the Atari 2600. I loved that game, and beyond arcade compilations and the excessively multiplayer-heavy Pacman Vs., its a sort of game you just don't see anymore.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still the sort of person that loves to invest 80+ hours in a game, but at the same time, it'd be nice to have a game like that where if you've got a few minutes before dinner or something you can just pop it in and play around for awhile, and if dinner gets ready before you're done you can turn it off without saving and not feel like it was a total waste.
Post by: nickmitch on June 03, 2005, 07:13:09 PM
Quote
When you have a Revolution, you're not going to have the same experience as you would with the other home consoles.
Intriguing, yet scary and a bit nerve racking.
I like epic games too. Nintendo needs to go both ways to attarct more audiences. I like a good, long game that I can really get in to but it's also nice to have ick up and play games. But when I think about it I realize that Nintendo does both with Zelda (epic) and Wario Ware (pu&p).
Post by: Pittbboi on June 03, 2005, 07:25:41 PM
On one hand, there's nothing wrong with missing the simpler days of gaming, where more games were pick up and play. However, on the other hand, Nintendo has no right to complain, because the majority of games they released for the 'Cube were of the exact same pick-up-and-play variety that they claim to "miss."
If those are the types of games they desire, make them--which is what Nintendo has been doing. But don't try to claim that it's a market-wide complaint that games are getting two long and epic, because they wouldn't be if there wasn't such a high demand for them. Shiggy proved this point when he referenced two games of this type that really did sell a crap load more than anything on the 'Cube.
There is a market for shorter, pick-up-and-play games, and Nintendo as a supplier to it (as well as many other developers). But there is also a market for long, more in-depth games, as well. Leave that market be.
Post by: jasonditz on June 03, 2005, 07:35:59 PM
Looking at the majority of the games nintendo released for the Cube I see very little that fits the "pick up and play" mentality. Maybe Animal Crossing... but games like Wind Waker, Mario Sunshine, both Metroids, Pikmin... those are games you need to dedicate time to.
Post by: Pittbboi on June 03, 2005, 07:59:14 PM
Even if the amount of pick-up-and-play games are equal to the amount of epic games they make, the above list at the very least shows that they make too many pick-up-and-play games to make sense complaining about a lack of them.
Post by: jasonditz on June 03, 2005, 08:08:30 PM
I'm not talking about "play for 15 minutes and continue later", and I'm pretty sure Miyamoto wasn't either.
Post by: Arbok on June 03, 2005, 08:16:35 PM
Others seem to enjoy them though, so win some, lose some I suppose.
Post by: Pittbboi on June 03, 2005, 09:08:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
I'd forgotten about Wario Ware. The other stuff more falls into the category "get several people over to your house and play on a Friday night". Luigi's Mansion is again, one of those games where you can't really just play it for 15 minutes. I mean you can, but you can play GTA3 for 15 minutes too... its still something you need to dedicate time to to really do anything with.
I'm not talking about "play for 15 minutes and continue later", and I'm pretty sure Miyamoto wasn't either.
Well then, if you're talking about "play 'and beat' in 15 minutes" games then I'll have to agree more with Ian Sane than I originally did.
Can those games be fun? Yes. Is it a shame that they're not dominating the market? No. I honestly don't think Miyamoto was thinking of those sorts of games.
Yes, most games nowadays (even the ones I mentioned by Nintendo), can be "play for 15 minutes then continue later". But I think there are multiple levels of this concept. A game like Final Fantasy, for instance, can be played for 15 minutes and continued later, mostly because in 15 minutes you can't experience the game the way it's meant to be experienced. However, a game like Donkey Konga can be played in 15 minutes and continued later, not to get the full experience of the game, but to add to the full experience. You'd keep playing DK not to fully get the purpose of the game, but to get new songs/levels/etc. The latter is the type of game I think Miyamoto was referring to. And those are the types of games Nintendo are experts at making.
And, even so, this is veering away from my original point. These are the types of games Nintendo makes; and, not just Nintendo, LOADS of other developers make short pick-up-and-play games. There's a market for them. Just like there's a market for epics. Just because Nintendo wants to see more of these games, doesn't mean the general public wants to. I personally think that Miyamoto’s comment was just more of Nintendo convincing itself that what it wants to do is exactly what the general public wants, too.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 03, 2005, 09:10:53 PM
I like pick up and play games too but I don't want a console that specifies in such titles. Plus you have to think of the dollar value. Midway Arcade Treasures costs like $20 and it comes with over 20 games. That's less than a dollar a game. Nintendo on the DS is selling pick up and play games like Yoshi Touch & Go for $30. They're expecting us to pay more money for one game than we do for 20. That's why stuff that plays like Pac-Man isn't made anymore. Since more "epic" games have become available no one justifiably wants to pay the same money for something where you've seen the whole game in a couple of hours. So unless they can make these new simple games at a low enough price where they can compete with the extremely cheap to make arcade comps it just isn't going to happen.
And no one knows how to make pick up and play games anymore. They're supposed to be hard. The challenge is what justifies the short length and encourages replay. Too many games today are quite easy so that they appeal to the mass market. You can't have a simple game that can be beaten in one try. You either have to make games where you keep playing until you die or make games that take only half an hour to beat but take months and maybe even years of practice to build up the needed skill. My brothers can consistently beat Contra III within half an hour. That's a pick up and play game. It's meant to be completed in one try. My brothers didn't beat Contra III the first time they tried it. It took them a long time to get good enough. Today's games are too easy. If the game is designed to be completed in half an hour odds are it will be completed within the first half hour of play and high scores, collecting useless junk, getting perfect rankings, using multiple characters, etc doesn't add enough to the game to make up for the short length. So if Nintendo wants to make simple games they better be the kinds of games that kick your ass in the first minute you ever play. Otherwise those games are going to be overpriced and too short.
Post by: IceCold on June 03, 2005, 10:00:19 PM
That's the 2,344th time you've said the exact same sentence, and I still laugh every time I see it. Nintendo won't do that; they won't just alienate their fanbase like that. And "simple" games have the ability to be extremely deep - they're just easier to play. Isn't that an improvement?
Post by: KDR_11k on June 03, 2005, 10:32:48 PM
Resident Evil 4. Epic. Save points half an hour apart so if you got less time than that you're out of luck.
Crimsonland. Coffee break game. I don't last longer than maybe 8 minutes in Survival. Still, damn fun.
Sure, paying 60 Euros for a coffee break game is a ripoff but hell these things are cheap to produce, released en masse for free on the internet and when they cost money it's maybe 10-20 US dollars. The indy scene produces lots of games like that. Since the Rev seems to be aimed at indy devs you can expect to see a whole shitload (since you're going to ask, it's a metric shitload, which is 1/1007th of an imperial shitload) of short and cheap games from the independents.
Hell, I've got a folder called "mini" in my games directory, it contains about 60 small games I can play when I want to waste five minutes or so. Almost all of them are freeware games.
Post by: stevey on June 04, 2005, 04:11:49 AM
He's suggesting that there's not a lot to interest gamers nowadays and then he references two games that significantly outsold every game Nintendo made on the Cube. These games sold huge. That means there's demand for them. That means gamers want to play games like this. So where is all this simple games stuff coming from?"
no they just buy GTA for the hooker and halo for shooting thing.
Post by: UncleBob on June 04, 2005, 04:22:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
He's suggesting that there's not a lot to interest gamers nowadays and then he references two games that significantly outsold every game Nintendo made on the Cube. These games sold huge.
For what it's worth, there were way more people who didn't buy GTA or HALO than people who did.
The trick is to figure out what (if anything) would get these people to buy a game. You know, the way the NES did... Or Pokémon did... Or, likely Nintendogs will...
Post by: mantidor on June 04, 2005, 07:41:04 AM
Not to mention the next-gen versions of Metroid and Zelda are confirmed, do you think that after Twilight Princess, which is looking to be the most epic game this generation, they are going to dumb down the series in some way when the make the revolution installment? I cant understand why some of you are worried that there wont be epic games from Nintendo in the next gen.
Post by: PaLaDiN on June 04, 2005, 09:58:08 AM
Come on now Ian. Are they supposed to add "and we're still targeting hardcore gamers" to every interview they give? Why would they restate what they've been doing since the NES? You'd think after 4 generations you would have gotten the message.
Nintendo is making a big deal out of appealing to non-gamers because they don't currently appeal to non-gamers. It's a change. Appealing to hardcore gamers is not a change. Nintendo is not going to blow a horn that rusty. It's a given by now.
Post by: IceCold on June 04, 2005, 10:04:20 AM
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on June 04, 2005, 10:14:42 AM
1. Rev is really going to change the way we control (and perhaps view) games, and Nintendo believes developers will have opportunites to create quick, challenging, and engaging titles due to the new user interface
2. Miyamoto's new IP is one of these titles designed for the masses. Mario and Metroid will serve as Ian's timekillers at launch (if SSB doesn't satisfy him)
Nintendo is really trying to capture female gamers. Nintendogs, Electroplankton (that'll catch some stoners, too), hell.. Pikmin are cute, too. THis isn't a bad move, as I doubt Sony could release NInentodo's death grip on the female and child demographic , but could piss some of us off. I'm excited to see how this pans out
speculation time :
--- Nintendo wants the rev to be your gaming hub, just as sony and microsoft seek to control your entertainment appliances. You download classic games to your rev, then save them on the DS for portable play.
---sez Ian: Nintendo wouldn't allow that: it would cut into their GBA classic sales. .....
i think he might be right.. but imagine how tight that'd be.
and does everyone else agree that Crystal Chronicles will be played between DS and rev. players? It would save Square development time and improve sales like madz... if they make it good enough to warrant two purchases. Or hell, include two quests in each version and make one platform-exclusive exclusive
finally , I think force feedback/haptics contained within the controller (specifically the analog stick) would be friggin dope. imagine trying to run uphill and actually feeling the analog stick supply a reactionary force proportional to the slope of the hill/difficulty of the terrain.
or I'd like an analog stick that can be depressed into the controller (akin to the ps2 and xbox clicks).. but make it analog. I really dont know why that sounds cool, but damn i want one
Post by: Galford on June 04, 2005, 02:13:07 PM
Sometimes I think Nintendo is nuking the US and European markets to revive it's Japanese marketshare.
Post by: Bill Aurion on June 04, 2005, 04:52:34 PM
Nintendo will make games that cater to EVERY gamer and EVERY non-gamer, as Reggie, Iwata, and every other Ninty official has been saying for the past year...It amuses me that people are "scared" by these comments when the standard fare "epic" games have already been proven to be in the works...It's the "pick up and play" games (which could easily be applied to a game like Smash Brothers in the first place) that we haven't seen yet...
Post by: Pittbboi on June 04, 2005, 08:15:17 PM
Post by: Robotor on June 04, 2005, 08:27:00 PM
I really think that this is what Nintendo is doing, Yoshi's Touch and go's diffulcty changes depending on how well you do. The simplicity and elagancy in many upcoming DS games further supports it.
That or they will just do both....
Post by: Mario on June 04, 2005, 09:49:49 PM
Sure, Nintendogs would be one of the few new games to appeal to people who aren't big followers of games and don't visit message boards where everyone bitches, which is a great thing! The audience and userbase gets bigger and more varied! Gamers at Famitsu also loved the game! Everyone wins!
Anybody who calls a game too short or too easy, has no imagination whatsoever, due to being fed the bullcrap idea that's being fed to people subliminaly through crappy reviews and the internet, that you should only play what the game tells you to play, and yes, i'm sorry, but you're in the minority. In Grand Theft Auto, there are missions that are what progresses the "story" throughout the game, but guess what? The missions aren't as fun as bumming around doing whatever you feel like. Don't like old ladies? Run as many over as you can before you either get killed or get arrested by the cops, fun! Oh damn, time to do a mission.
For example, if you only spend 4 hours on Wario Ware, you're COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT of the game. It's not to storm through as fast as you can and merely play every microgame then hop straight on the internet and complain, it's to challenge yourself and see how well you can do in your favourite microgames or minigames. Just because you've played a game before, doesn't make it totally pointless to play again because "you've already beaten it", the point is, if it's fun, keep playing it. I've played Wario Ware Touched for i'd say.. around 50 hours now, and I only just unlocked Pyoro T, I could have unlocked it really quickly if I just stormed through the game filling in the "requirements", but that's boring, i'm not going to force myself to do that, because I don't want to, and guess what? I don't have to either. It's an "and" game, Nintendo are an "and" company, don't like my approach to the game? Well that's fine, just don't bitch about why your approach to it sucks.
A game only lasts for 5 hours if you only spend 5 hours playing it. The only time I see the short and easy comment as valid, is if the game sucks and you aren't enjoying it, but then if you didn't like the game you wouldn't play it til the end in the first place.
What the text? Originally I was just going to say something simple that agreed with Robotor.. now.. I don't know WHAT i've said, i'm tired. (epic non-gimmick hardcore post?)
Post by: Robotor on June 04, 2005, 10:15:15 PM
Post by: Mario on June 04, 2005, 10:39:05 PM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 05, 2005, 01:29:59 AM
Not only did I get the most out of the game, but I got it the first time through. Not only was the game not too quick, but it was definately not too easy(using most of your ammo when taking alternate routes after backtracking to make sure you haven't missed anything makes you do things slightly differently).
Post by: Mario on June 05, 2005, 02:14:18 AM
I was only talking about games people would consider "short and easy" in my post, as for large adventure games like RE4 and Metroid Prime... well nobody complains about them so there's nothing to address. =P The people that WOULD complain about such games wouldn't be on an internet forum, and those are the people Nintendo wants to bring into gaming.
Post by: thepoga on June 05, 2005, 09:12:08 AM
Wario
"Anybody who calls a game too short or too easy, has no imagination whatsoever, due to being fed the bullcrap idea that's being fed to people subliminaly through crappy reviews and the internet, that you should only play what the game tells you to play, and yes, i'm sorry, but you're in the minority."
Okay. So how about a game LIKE Luigi's Mansion? I'm sure you felt compelled to beat it 3 or 4 different times. After beating it the first time, it wasn't really satisfying to try to beat it again. Even to search for more money. It WAS an AMAZING game though that valued quality over quantity. And games being too easy? WHAT? There are tons of games that are too easy. My nephew is playing this computer game. You gotta count all the frogs! OMGOSH THATS SO HARD!!! Expand your thinking of what a game is you jerk. (jk about you being a jerk. It just sounded like a good way to end)
Post by: Mario on June 05, 2005, 09:36:44 AM
Obviously that counting game is aimed at certain people, people learning to count, jerk.
(i'm finally going to sleep now)
Post by: Ian Sane on June 05, 2005, 12:41:34 PM
There's one problem with that. Metroid Prime 3 and SSB 3 are sequels. I want NEW game properities from Nintendo and I'm concerned that they'll put too much effort on making the new stuff for non-gamers and such while we're expected to be content with sequels. I'm sick of sequels. Nintendo released far too many franchises games on the Cube and GBA and while I would buy Metroid Prime 3 if I owned a Rev I would never buy a Rev for it. I need something new to justify the console purchase. If Nintendo dedicates too much effort to non-gamers we might not get enough new "epic" games.
My fears are largely based on the DS which so far has not had ANYTHING released on it that I am interested in. There's some good stuff on the way but most of the DS stuff I'm interested in are sequels. The new stuff on the DS so far seems to be the non-gamer variety like I'm supposed to buy a Nintendo system just to play more Mario. I'll probably buy a DS for the side scrolling Mario game I should have got on the GBA but there's not much else that's grabbing my interest. The new IP is going to stuff like Nintendogs and Electroplankton. I don't want that to be the case on the Rev. I want new IP's from Nintendo that appeal to me.
Plus you have to remember that Nintendo only can make so many games at a time. No matter how much effort they focus on non-gamers it's going to be at the expense of effort put towards the existing fanbase. Let's say Nintendo releases 10 games a year. Let's say you like 8 of those. With the Cube Nintendo for the most part is only focusing on existing gamers. Now let's say on the Rev they dedicate 30% of their effort to non-gamers. So now of those 10 games only 7 of them are for existing gamers. Realistically out of those you only like 5. Suddenly there's a lot less games that attract your interest. Keep in mind that the Rev's third party support is going to be iffy to begin with and you're potentially seeing an N64 scenario where you have to wait months for a game you like to come out. Nintendo could be taking a console lineup that's going to be slim to begin with and making it even slimmer. The fact that almost every first party game rules really helps make up for poor third party support. Now the odds of liking every third party game is going to shrink. For me these last few months on the Cube have been hell because Nintendo released two games in a row (Star Fox Assault and DK: Jungle Beat) that didn't interest me. If they focus too much on non-gamers this scenario could be commonplace on the Rev.
"Anybody who calls a game too short or too easy, has no imagination whatsoever, due to being fed the bullcrap idea that's being fed to people subliminaly through crappy reviews and the internet, that you should only play what the game tells you to play"
I should only have to play a game as long as I find it enjoyable. I don't find replaying the same stuff again and again to be any fun. I don't find insanely long games fun either. It's got to have a good amount of content yet play at a pace that it doesn't seem to ever drag. I beat Luigi's Mansion once and then never touched it again because I wasn't interested in playing anymore. I should not be expected to play through a game several times to get a respectable amount of play time out of it.
Post by: nemo_83 on June 05, 2005, 06:28:29 PM
Several times GTA has been brought up because it is epic like Zelda and you can play it for hours; but is easy to pick up, play with for fifteen minutes, and put down too. You can't just pick up and play Metroid Prime. Hell sometimes when playing games like Prime and Majora's Mask I find myself unable to get into the game; fighting my way through just to experience the ending when things get sort of unfun. GTA in comparison has sort of mediocre adventures compared to Zelda and Metroid, but it is really fun to just goof off on. GTA is accessable, Zelda is not quite so. You can still find yourself playing with a Zelda game in the way you can in GTA; but I hate how long it takes to get a Zelda game like WW started. Noone wants to spend an hour going through instructions on how to play a game whether they have never played the game or have played it sixty times. In Halo, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, and Eternal Darkness you can play through the game, but you can also goof off experimenting or playing multiplayer. In some games this replayability is more prevelant, but these are all adventure games with progressive mature stories that are easy to pick up and play. There are much less accessable games out there like KOTOR, Fable, and FF11. Speaking of which, Nintendo is touting their deal with SquareEnix for games on REV and DS; but Square makes some of the most unaccessable games in the world.
I like epic games. I like games I play. I specificly like epic games I can play, but also can play with like GTA. I don't like games I can only play with. REV doesn't need to be the Electroplankton console. There is a shard of the hardcore market that likes those games, but those gamers also like other games while most any noncore audience Nintendo digs up with music miny games is only going to like that kind of game; they won't be into Castlevania. Nintendo's people keep talking about how accessability and depth are like oil and water; and as has already been discussed it just doesn't help when you try to move that opinion with some of the best selling and most accessable games of the generation as examples of how this is true. There must be a balance so that most all games can appeal to broad audiences; but they need to remember they have to aim their consoles at broad audiences content wise. That means they need a broad range of types of games; adult and family friendly. Nongamers don't mind playing two or three games a year, gamers would get bored because there are way too few games and go online to discuss games with fellow gamers because they have no games to play...and people ask why Nintendo's fanbase is so active online.
If Nintendo wants the REV to be the Electroplankton system then they better make creative games focused on creating games rather than a recreating the *** club.
The article on Japan's portable market made me think about how different America is from Japan. Like how REV presently has only wifi out of the box. That works fine for Japan; but in America we live from Maine to California. There is too much space for there to be wifi on every block; and the privitization lobyist spend billions keeping such things as public internet access off the tables of Congress. People drive cars in America. We're not on the train; we can't play games when we're going places. It is just like how minidisks never got big in America; and how their cel phones put ours to shame. Japan is just a portable market; and Nintendo has a chance to hold that market forever. Nintendo can become the king of everything portable; games, music, phones, blackberries, PDAs, etc.
I don't like the quote about wanting developers to not make epic games on REV. Nintendo is already pumping their lineup full of milked Mario minigames and now they want developers to make small sports or action minigames too. They must think they can use backwards compatibility to satisfy the real fans? I like new stuff way too much; and if you count the score card the competition is planing lineups with new IPs like Gears of War, Prey, and Too Human on 360 or original work from Factor Five on PS3. New IPs make gamers giddy. Nongamers could care less. So why are they talking like their new IPs are going to be like Nintendogs? The new IPs should be focused on appealing to gamers. Nintendo is trying so hard to break the shakles of the present game industry; but I think they have to wait. You can't muscle weird games upon people who just don't like games. You have to wait until everyone from the grandparents to the children have grown up with videogames before you can really sell games to everyone. Some people are never going to game, **** them. Think about the people who have been providing healthy profits for twenty years. Think about providing that audience for another fifty years and their children and their children. Don't try to sell it to my grandparents; they're more worried about going to Church than playing videogames. Wait and try to keep selling us videogames until we're grandparents, because then you'll be able to serve every generation, then you'll be able to sell to old and young with the same kinds of games without dividing up your efforts to serve different types of people, serve the traditional gamers instead of people who won't be here tomorrow. The mainstreme can be summed up by a single comment on MC Hammer's carreer. Here today, gone today.
Like I said, **** the mainstreme. You want to know an honest to god offensive reason Nintendo is not where they should be. Years ago a close friend told me he was thinking about selling his N64 to buy a PSX because the black kids at our school liked the PSX. I was floored. Take from that comment what you want. It says a lot about gamers, their minds, our culture, Sony, and Nintendo.
Post by: jasonditz on June 05, 2005, 08:05:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
I don't like the quote about wanting developers to not make epic games on REV.
That's OK, because no such quote exists.
There's quite a stunning progression between what Shiggy actually said in the original article, what IGN reported based on that article, and what some of the people here are interpretting based on IGN's article.
You guys ever play that game "telephone" when you were kids. Its like we started with Shiggy saying he personally misses the kind of game you can just "pick up and play" and after it filters down the line it somehow came out as "Every Rev game is going to be exactly like Luigi's Mansion".
Something important you guys have to remember about Shiggy: he's not a businessman. Go back and read a bunch of his interviews. He's a designer and what he says comes from his personal design sensibilities. So when he says something about GTA or Halo, its got nothing to do with how well the titles sell... it's not his job to sell software: he just makes it.
Post by: Mario on June 05, 2005, 08:53:42 PM
Quote
but I hate how long it takes to get a Zelda game like WW started. Noone wants to spend an hour going through instructions on how to play a game whether they have never played the game or have played it sixty times.
The beginning part of TWW is the best part of the game, I think. I spend hours in that first village playing around with things (am i right Bill?) Then I get up to the next few dungeons and get bored =\. I've only completed that game once, but i've tried like 5 times and always ended up stopping when I got to around Dragon Roost and a few months later i'd start all over again, there's just something about that game that I can't play it for too long or I get bored of the controls.. or something. I don't know.
Quote
So why are they talking like their new IPs are going to be like Nintendogs? The new IPs should be focused on appealing to gamers.
NEWS FLASH GAMERS liked Nintendogs so much they gave it 40/40. Games like Electroplankton and Nintendogs only expand the definition of videogames, and i'm all for that! Don't be afraid of new genres.
Quote
I want NEW game properities from Nintendo and I'm concerned that they'll put too much effort on making the new stuff for non-gamers and such while we're expected to be content with sequels.
You can keep playing just your sequels then, i'll sit here and enjoy my gimmick nongamer games (because i'm not a gamer) AND the awesome sequels and games like Another Code (Trace Memory) and Geist
. Not buying a Revolution just because SSB3 and Metroid Prime 3 are sequels is just stupidity. They are new games, you haven't played them.
I'll end with this quote from Iwata during this years E3 conference
"Revolution is the perfect home for videogame masterpieces, games that look beautiful, games that play flawlessly, masterpieces that connect you to the games story like no system before"
Post by: Ian Sane on June 05, 2005, 09:10:44 PM
Huh? I said I don't want to just play sequels.
"Not buying a Revolution just because SSB3 and Metroid Prime 3 are sequels is just stupidity. They are new games, you haven't played them."
But they're not new experiences. These will probably be great games but they're not going to be that unique. I bought a Gamecube for Pikmin because there was nothing like it anywhere. I had to buy a Cube just to experience that type of gameplay. Super Mario Sunshine was great but I didn't need to buy a Cube for it. The N64 was more than sufficient at providing my 3D platformer fix. Sequels are supporting titles. You buy them to compliment the brand new stuff that required you to buy a new console or miss out.
Post by: Mario on June 05, 2005, 09:18:05 PM
Quote
Huh? I said I don't want to just play sequels.
I thought you implied that Nintendo wasn't targetting you with it's new franchise, that you had to be content with just the sequels... since you refuse to enjoy new games like Electroplankton that you dismiss as nongamers games.
Post by: mantidor on June 05, 2005, 09:50:12 PM
when did games became defined as RTS, FPS, puzzle, action, adventure, etc, etc, etc, and they stop being just "something that makes you have a fun time"?
Post by: Don'tHate742 on June 05, 2005, 11:23:28 PM
In one simple sentence...
What do you want?
Post by: Pittbboi on June 06, 2005, 01:00:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
Its confusing... you want new unique experiences but at the same time you dont want them to focus on non-gamers...well, I guess thats a total oxymoron, anything thats unique will instantly be some sort of a non-gamer experience, since it wont be an extension of any known genre. Thats what Im deducing from your posts, you want new unique experiences, but somehow when Nintendo offers them, like Nintendogs and Electroplankton, you dont want them because its for the "non-gamer".
I'm not trying to speak for Ian, but I think the problem is that when Nintendo goes for new gaming experience, it usually creates a niche, cult game like Nintendogs or Electroplankton--which target non-gamers, and is all well and good. However, when Nintendo makes games for well-established genres like FPS or Adventure games, it usually goes for sequels. Sequels can be fun, but I'd like to see Nintendo devote some of its creative energies to a new FPS or Adventure game for someone other than Link, Samus, or Mario.
Post by: Mario on June 06, 2005, 01:19:00 AM
Quote
when Nintendo goes for new gaming experience, it usually creates a niche, cult game like Nintendogs or Electroplankton
It doesn't "usually", those two are the ONLY examples.
Plus, Nintendogs is not niche, it's selling amazingly well, and it's a good gamers game too, it's an "and" game, stop using that as an example.
Post by: Pittbboi on June 06, 2005, 01:57:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MarioQuote
when Nintendo goes for new gaming experience, it usually creates a niche, cult game like Nintendogs or Electroplankton
It doesn't "usually", those two are the ONLY examples.
Because Animal Crossing and Pikmin don't count?
Nintendogs is niche in the type of market it captures, not how much it sells. The game can sell very well and still be niche.
And this still doesn't change the fact that Nintendo leaves all of its bright and original ideas for cult games. It seems to always go the safe route and make sequels when it's time to make games of established genres. Nintendo has the creativity and brain power to not always have to play it safe. As much as I like Mario and Metroid and Zelda, it's time for Nintendo to blow us away with something epic and new.
Post by: Mario on June 06, 2005, 02:03:39 AM
Post by: Pittbboi on June 06, 2005, 02:14:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Pikmin? Please tell me you're joking, a friend of mine tried to play that game and he had no idea what to do, Pikmin is way too complicated to be a game for "non-gamers" (god i hate that term now). Animal Crossing, good point, but that series was established 5 years ago, and isn't the result of Nintendo trying to capture "non-gamers". Personally, i'm not a very big fan of Animal Crossing, but it has been a HUGE hit with gamers. Though I do think it's funny how most of the people that posted in the once existant Animal Crossing Trading Board section of these forums didn't post ANYWHERE else.
I wasn't referring to pick up and play games when I mentioned Pikmin; I was referring to niche market games Nintendo has made. When it comes to these games, Nintendo gets creative. It isn't the same concept but with Mario plucking miniature Toads out of the ground and having them carry stuff and attack koopas, but a completely original concept with completely original characters. Why can't Nintendo do that with a FPS or a Adventure or RPG? There's no reason why it can't or shouldn't.
And, not to bash your friend, but it doesn't take much to get Pikmin. Pikmin is one of those games where the controls are extremely simple, but not the gameplay. Fair amount of brain power involved.
Post by: Mario on June 06, 2005, 03:23:17 AM
Yeah the controls for Pikmin are simple, but he was just running around without knowing what was going on.
Post by: jasonditz on June 06, 2005, 06:05:05 AM
Maybe more people would've bought the perfectly solid "Polarium" if it had been "Mario's Polarium" and had a bunch of Mario themed graphics on what is otherwise the same game?
Post by: couchmonkey on June 06, 2005, 06:15:37 AM
Now I think that view is a bit narrow-minded but I also think lots of people share it. There are definitely many gamers out there who wouldn't count The Sims or Animal Crossing as "true" video games because they don't set clears goals and obstacles to pass to achieve those goals. That's one of the differences between new games aimed at directly at gamers and new games aimed more at non-gamers. I think Ian wants new games aimed at gamers. I want both! I think a lot of the non-games out there are really exciting and fun, but I do want new experiences in the old vein: I don't want to have to rely entirely on predictable sequels to give me my traditional gaming fixes.
There's something I like about Miyamoto's comments, and that's that I'm tired of games getting more complicated. I don't have the time to devote to games that I did five years ago, and a lot of new titles out there are too hard to learn. Splinter Cell comes to mind as a perfect example: the control scheme is different enough from anything else that I've played that I have to learn a lot, but I've never had enough time to get past the training level, so I've never really gotten into the game, so I have these several-month gaps before I try to play again, and then I've forgotten all the controls and once again it takes me too long to beat the training level. It's a ridiculous cycle that exists because games have gotten too complex. There are other games like Tales of Symphonia or Prince of Persia that I managed to get further into because I found them more appealing than Splinter Cell, but even they start to elude me if I stop playing them for more than a month. On the other hand, I can go back and play Super Mario World or The Legend of Zelda after years away from them. I am excited by the possibility that Nintendo could reduce some of this complexity.
The comments Miyamoto made about games being too long is a bit annoying though. I love DK Jungle Beat, and it has enough replay value to last quite a while, but I can't be the only one who wants the game to be twice as long.
Post by: mantidor on June 06, 2005, 06:21:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PittbboiQuote
Originally posted by: mantidor
Its confusing... you want new unique experiences but at the same time you dont want them to focus on non-gamers...well, I guess thats a total oxymoron, anything thats unique will instantly be some sort of a non-gamer experience, since it wont be an extension of any known genre. Thats what Im deducing from your posts, you want new unique experiences, but somehow when Nintendo offers them, like Nintendogs and Electroplankton, you dont want them because its for the "non-gamer".
I'm not trying to speak for Ian, but I think the problem is that when Nintendo goes for new gaming experience, it usually creates a niche, cult game like Nintendogs or Electroplankton--which target non-gamers, and is all well and good. However, when Nintendo makes games for well-established genres like FPS or Adventure games, it usually goes for sequels. Sequels can be fun, but I'd like to see Nintendo devote some of its creative energies to a new FPS or Adventure game for someone other than Link, Samus, or Mario.
Then you dont want new and unique experiences, you want more of the same with a new face, FPS or adventure games are hardly innovative and new, are you saying that Nintendo should then do a Zelda clone with a new IP? because I disagree then. I dont mind the games being sequels to franchises with Nintendo because all their sequels feel and play very different from its predecessors, specially with the franchises of Zelda and Mario.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 06, 2005, 07:37:24 AM
That's pretty close to what I think though I don't only want new games that mess around with existing genres. I do want that as well but I think you guys are assuming that any brand new type of game MUST be for non-gamers. That doesn't make any sense unless you have very broad definitions of game genres. Pikmin and Metroid Prime really didn't play like anything else when they came out. You could probably classify then into existing genres but they're not cliche or generic. They're new games with new experiences created for gamers. They're not targeted at my Mom, they're targeted at me. That's what I want to see. GTA is the big success story of this generation. Was there anything like it when it came out? No. That's largely why it was so successful.
Brand new games that only loosely follow existing genre definitions that are clearly designed for existing gamers can still be made. I know this because I have ideas for new games and if I can think of new stuff that isn't a glorified mini-game then Nintendo can.
Post by: nemo_83 on June 06, 2005, 09:02:50 AM
Original games do not have to be quirky. A game can tell a story and be original. There are only really two or three stories out there in the whole of the world and they've been around for as long as we could communicate our thoughts to one another and thus could recall stories to tell to others. Usually its good vs evil. For example, Tolkein didn't sit down to write Lord of the Rings and think to himself I better keep this brief so the dumb kids will take the time to read it. He wrote it for the ages, for the many numbers of people who would read it long after he had died. Its called art. Its called passion and emotion. You know, when someone has something important to say so they sit down and write an epic poem or a novel. There seem to be too few many people in the world these days who have something to say. You see, it is not the destination (good vs evil) that matters. What makes a story individual is the journey.
To tell you the truth I find it increasingly harder to make short stories as I discover more about writting. Think of poetry; how all the information, the facts and images are crammed into fourteen lines and illustrate for you a story that has to be as meaningful as a great as any short short story or nine hundred page novel. These micro games to me though do not represent the gaming equivalent of poetry. These micro games seem more like pornography or music videos (that is if pornography and music videos are two seperate things). I am still searching for the right language, the right analogy to simply describe what I feel.
You could say Zelda is an epic novel and literary masterpiece. You could say Ico is a short story, my favorite short short is William Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" (so it lacks the length of delivery, a short story can be great; much better than seven hundred pages of dribble). If you're looking for poetry's heir in games then you need look no further than Captain Communist himself decked out in red. Alas, poetry still proves to be the most difficult to create.
The sad thing is that most of the games out there are pulp garbage, more closely related to an episode of Dukes of Hazard than Allen Ginsberg.
Post by: OptimusPrime on June 06, 2005, 09:21:10 AM
owning those new niche markets= more profit and more marketshare
To create those niche markets you have to make new types of genres= new concepts to work and improve on= gamemarket expanding and enriching
new genres= new gaming experciences= irressistable for every serious gamer out there (if they're good)
So what are the complaints again? No really...i'm only seeing win-win situations here (i have to note i'm a "the glass is half-full" kind of person). I'm seeing it this way. EAD will probably pump out a new game and the classic franchises and Nintendo will probably be supporting other teams who make *shock* new franchises....yaaaaay! with the support of Nintendo (you know having some guys of EAD working at your joint and all).
We only hear mumblings, we only hear some vague stuff, nothing solid, nothing official. I'm sensing fear of the unknown here and the people who do that as history has proven are almost always wrong.
Post by: couchmonkey on June 06, 2005, 01:35:40 PM
Now those unecessary embelishments can make the game experience better, and make it last longer, which is theoretically better in gaming, although perhaps maximum pleasure is the best goal a videogame can achieve. In that case, maybe that is more like porn than art! Ha ha, this is getting too rhetorical. I'm not too worried about anything Miyamoto says, he's just philosophizing, and I believe we'll see plenty of gamer's games on the next console.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 06, 2005, 01:59:57 PM
I think they're more like pop songs. Like Nintendo is pulling a Genesis (the band not the console), going from an innovative progressive rock band to a cliche inoffensive pop band. With either analogy though it's more or less Nintendo selling out their real fans to attract a new market. I think that's what ultimately annoys me about the situation. I stick with Nintendo through some pretty tough times and put up with a lot of crap in hope that they will someday make a comeback. As a reward for my loyality Nintendo more-or-less gives up on reclaiming the top spot and then focuses on a different target market. I view this focus on non-games as a betrayal of sorts. I don't appreciate my loyality being taken for granted.
Post by: jasonditz on June 06, 2005, 05:35:53 PM
Oh... wait...
Post by: nemo_83 on June 06, 2005, 07:09:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
You're right... to prove they appreciate their loyal customers they should do something. Maybe, for example, they could release another 3D Legend of Zelda game with amazing graphics, and a new 2D Mario title.
Oh... wait...
See, that is part of the problem. Too little, too late. Its been 15 years since a 2d Mario Bros. I'm all hyped for it, can't wait, but its still not the console sequel I've been waiting for; its a DS game.
Nintendo promised a realisticly styled Zelda years ago and is just now releasing it. I liked the cel shaded Zelda, but looking back strategic wise I think perhaps the experimental asthetics should have been saved for the second game on Cube. Still I can't wait for the new Zelda.
Yet those are only two games. It is not enough. I wanted more by now; I was expecting Cube to have many more original and exclusive IPs than it did. Mario and Zelda are very important to me, without them I would not game at all; noone would whether they realize it or not. But for Nintendo to interest me with their new console they are going to have to create a new original epic IP independent of all their present universes. I am not just looking for the next Mario or Zelda sequel from Nintendo; I am looking for the next Zelda or Mario from Nintendo. And I have been looking for it for four years.
Post by: Bill Aurion on June 06, 2005, 07:57:20 PM
See, that is part of the problem. Too little, too late. Its been 15 years since a 2d Mario Bros. I'm all hyped for it, can't wait, but its still not the console sequel I've been waiting for; its a DS game.
Nintendo promised a realisticly styled Zelda years ago and is just now releasing it.
These statements are so unbelievably retarded that I just had to enter this filthy wretch of a whiners' orgy to comment on them...PARTICULARLY the Zelda one...Ninty didn't promise jackshit, I'm sorry you believed a TECHNICAL DEMO was a promise of a game in that style...
Post by: RABicle on June 06, 2005, 08:01:16 PM
Oh but then you carry on complaining about an alledged 'promise' of a realistic Zelda game. No such promsie ever existed, and if you liked Wind Waker why does it bother you. In fact why are you stilla sking for more new things if all you really want is for essentially an updated sequel. Besides, wasn't Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Eternal Darkness and what may as well be a whole new IP in Metroid Prime enough for you this generation? Do you want Nintendo to make another 4 new IPS and keep pumping out expansios to their current ones? You ungrateful weak dog. Get out!
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 06, 2005, 08:08:30 PM
>=U
Post by: jasonditz on June 06, 2005, 08:12:32 PM
Post by: Caillan on June 06, 2005, 08:42:33 PM
Quote
With either analogy though it's more or less Nintendo selling out their real fans to attract a new market.
Are you serious? You just need look at forums everywhere to see that the Wario Ware games are overwhelmingly popular among Nintendo fans. In this case you seem to be more of the odd one out.
To me, the Wario Ware games are like diamonds: gaming itself crystalised into a pure and tiny form. They have great gameplay and a crazy sort of 'atmosphere' or 'theme' which only makes them more enjoyable. That was extremely cheesey but you get what I mean.
Quote
Nintendo promised a realisticly styled Zelda years ago and is just now releasing it.
They quite clearly said that it was only a tech demo.
Quote
I am not just looking for the next Mario or Zelda sequel from Nintendo; I am looking for the next Zelda or Mario from Nintendo. And I have been looking for it for four years.
That is a strange statement considering you started your post by saying that the new Super Mario Sequel is "too little too late". You know Nintendo cannot continuously make sequels to its franchises whilst developing new ones. Anyway, I think I see your point. Unless Metroid Prime 3 really is a big shake-up I think I'll be giving it a miss. I'd love to see more new stuff from Nintendo, but to be fair we've already got both Pikmin and Wario Ware this generation. As well as games like Jungle Beat which are very original. And soon we'll have Nintendogs. Plus the Revolution will have yet another one close to launch. In fact, you could probably say that they've had a bit of a turnaround and aren't doing so badly.
Post by: nemo_83 on June 07, 2005, 01:25:14 AM
I was just defending my point about how Zelda is too late to save the Cube when I brought up the Zelda video. When a game is shown in an early form you expect it to change(look at the N64), but it is not often that games recieve the level of change the way WW did.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on June 07, 2005, 02:21:08 AM
Anyone remember how Nintendo came into power? That's right, the industry got too damn full of itself and imploded, like a neutron star. So how is Nintendo hedging its bets? By showing investors and gamers that they understand bigger isn't always better. I don't know how much money the fancy new Xbox and PS3 games announced cost to make, but I can guaruntee you more money is at least spent on art. Now, how many more sales will it take to break even? What kinds of risks can a publsher take with those odds? Now imagine if people suddenly start buying fewer console games (it's happening in Japan!)? UH OHS! Publishers need a back-up plan!
I initially had a reaction similar to some here--perhaps the first time I became really worried that Nintendo was throwing out the game styles I enjoy. I hate Wario Ware, didn't enjoy Animal Crossing, and couldn't care less for Electroplankton! Then Bloodworth reminded me that this is the same Nintendo that is making the Twilight Princess and New Super Mario Bros. We'll see epic games, but Nintendo also promises to push cheaper games and strange peripheral titles, unlike Microsoft and Sony. Frankly that's a promise to third parties as much as it is to us, and they better keep it. Heck, if shying away from 3 huge-budget teams = more classic sidescrolling and crazy new games, sign me up!
Post by: Pittbboi on June 07, 2005, 09:19:46 AM
Don’t get me wrong, they’re all great games, but I just think Nintendo needs to adopt the same risk taking strategy with established genres as it does with niche games. When I say this I’m not asking for a new IP that’s basically Metroid with a different character, but a new experience, which Nintendo is capable of doing. With Metroid, Nintendo changed the way FPSs are played; they added to the genre. They can do it again with someone other than Metroid. Thinking they can’t is undermining the talent Nintendo has.
Post by: nemo_83 on June 07, 2005, 01:00:45 PM
Post by: RABicle on June 07, 2005, 10:47:55 PM
