Topic: Is Miyamoto Past His Prime?

[GoldenPhoenix]

How anyone can say Nintendo is past their prime is beyond me, they still are regarded as one of the best if not the best developer going right now. That is not being past your prime! IN addition to that I think people are overreacting, Nintendo is preparing for the future, the Zelda franchise is primarily in new hands, and you have games like Paper Mario which most likely have little Miyamoto influence. You also have Smash Brothers which is not a Miyamoto franchise. Heck even Nintendo's bread and butter, the Mario platformer is basically in new hands now besides Galaxy. I'm sorry but I see nothing to worry about when it comes to their future, they some more prepared than about any other game developer out there.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Deguello are we talking commercial success or artistic success?  To me Pikmin is a major recent success story for Miyamoto because it's as good as his best work while I found Brain Training to be as exciting as school work but it's a huge seller.  I don't know what Pittbboi means but there is a big difference there.  I would say Miyamoto is past his prime because his best games are behind him regardless of how well they sell.

Yeah, to me Pikmin WAS a watershed event for Miyamoto fanbois. It was pure, and it was magic... And I didn't like Pikmin 2.

However, I think that if we're gonna judge him we should use Nintendogs to refine our terms. It WAS critically successful, and it WAS commercially successful. The only way we can pooh-pooh it is to judge it on "hardcore gaming" terms, which completely misses the point of the game. I think that Miyamoto's relevance in modern day CANNOT be disputed when faced with success on the order upon which Nintendogs found with critics, academics, consumers... and maybe not even as many hardcore gamers as we're used to.

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

[segagamer12]

Well I was going to say pretty much what Deguello just said.
Except I was going to ask who cares abotu innovation! god damn that word gets thrown around like its the end all be all ingrediant for good game. Serioulsy SO WHAT if a *sequel* doesnt change the formula and only changes the story, thats what sequels are, a continueation of an existing game. You dont need to change anyting.


I know I am not alone here and others who agree oughta speak up cuz I am tired of looking lieka lunatic. I HATE the word innovation with a passion, especiialy sicne those who tout it often don't even know what it means or what *they* mean when they say it, all they know is whatever game wasn't *innovatinve* enough for them just means that they didnt like something about it and thatw as the only word they could come up with.


TP not *innovative* hell even arguing that a game doesnt need ot be innonavtive I wont say TP *WASNT* because thats ludacris.


I don't get it. What does a game *have* to do to be considered innovative? Or when is it so essential to innovate that a good game is torn down because it failed to innovate in some area? Holy **** I hate it when people say a game wasn't good cuz it didnt innovate, or say it is just "more of the same" thats what NIntendo *WANTS* you to think.

When is it ok for  a sequel to stay within the formula of its predacessors and when it is manadtory to change everything up? I dont get it, EXPLAIN IT to me, what is so dag gum improtant about effing innovation? *HUH!* I don't get it. If a game is good who cares if it didn't do somethign that hasn't been done before. I mean its DEBATABLE if it is even *POSSIBLE* to come up with new ideas in the first place. Because human histroy goes back a long time and as far as I have been told, and can see from my own observations, everyting we see today has been thought up by someone else at one point in time or another.


All I know is I hate it when people use that word and dont understand what they are saying. all i ask is explain to me what is so friggin improtant about being innovative, and *start* with giving me a workable edifnition of the damn word cuz I m sick and tired of it being used when there are beter words to use.  Did you find TP repetivive? *SAY THAT* instead. Was it boring? was it because it was too easy? was it because you've played all the previous Zeldas, knowing that they are all basically the same game, and somehow expected this one to stary form the formula in some way? WHAT! I really wanna know.

and before someone chimes in with "rat calm down"  or a mod thinks I am flaming, just listen to all the arguments that go on here, it gets old when peopel compain aboug games needing to innovate, but when you mention doing something new like adding multipalyer to a single player game, peopel get all bent out of shape. which is it!?

The discussion started because someone things Miyomoto isnt innovative, yet everytig he does seams to sell millions, so whast the complaint? Was Nintendogs innovative? Did it *have* to be? I dont get it.


I understand needing to make changes between sequels andI think TP had enough new stuff to qualify it being innovative, and in no way was it "more of the same" or did Link turn into  a wolf with an Imp on his back in all the previous Zeldas and I missed it?

[ShyGuy]

This sounds like a POLL.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
When is it ok for a sequel to stay within the formula of its predacessors and when it is manadtory to change everything up?

That is an EXCELLENT question.

... uh... which I'm not sure if I have an answer to. LOL.

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

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon

Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
When is it ok for a sequel to stay within the formula of its predacessors and when it is manadtory to change everything up?

That is an EXCELLENT question.

... uh... which I'm not sure if I have an answer to. LOL.

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

Sega does make a good point and I think people focus too heavily on innovation and new IPs. While they definately have their place, sometimes the tried and true is the best experience. Yeah you can have your goofy, stylistic games with gimmicky gameplay features up the ying yang which may even be good, but most of the time there feels like there is something missing, something fundamental that makes a game great. We also need to differentiate between a knock off sequel and a true sequel as well, there are many games that feel more like an expansion while others feel like a fresh adventure because they add enough "new" to the tried and true formula to make them special (The mario series and Zelda series definately fall into this category).

Take Zelda: TP for example, yes it borrows from previous games but it builds quite a bit on the formula as well. You have an even more expansive and interactive world, in addition to brand new additions to the Zelda series such as the unique wolf feature, a flying segment, and even a snowboarding segment all of which fit pretty well. In addition to that you have a solid mixture of both old and new puzzles along with weapons. Not to mention some very unique boss fights that build once again on the formula from previous games. I'd say Zelda: TP has many innovative features but on the flip side it doesn't mess with the formula to the point of decreasing the fun which is a huge risk for ever changing things when they are not broken.
 

[Strell]

No.  He is not.

F*ck this question.

Why it is even being asked is beyond me.

Neither is Nintendo as a developer.  You point me toward some good games in the last few years that measure up, because I've seen a handful at best, and even that might be stretching it.

[Ian Sane]

"How anyone can say Nintendo is past their prime is beyond me, they still are regarded as one of the best if not the best developer going right now."

You can still be incredibly talented and still be past your prime.  Being past your prime just means your talents have peaked and it's all downhill from here.  It may be a slow descent downhill and you may be so talented that even past your prime you still dominate your field but you're past your prime nonetheless.

"When is it ok for a sequel to stay within the formula of its predacessors and when it is manadtory to change everything up?"

Personally I just want things to feel fresh enough that I don't feel like I'm going through the motions, like I've already experienced what the game is offering.  Staying within the formula isn't a bad thing but there has to be some changes for it to remain interesting.  This is why I typically don't like cookie-cutter sequels.  If you've played Mega Man 4 then you've pretty much played Mega Man 5 and 6.  If you're played any Bomberman game you've pretty much played all of them.  A good series is when you can't miss a game or you'll feel like you're missing out on something important.  Usually this requires some new elements to the formula with each game and sometimes a big change is needed to keep things going.  Spacing releases and keeping franchises from being overexposed also helps.  Keeping the quality up is important too.  A spin-off isn't that bad but lousy spin-off games hurt.  Things also stay fresh if new scenarios and settings are introduced (Nintendo is weak on this part as often storylines and settings are reused).  

[Pittbboi]

Quote
To me Pikmin is a major recent success story for Miyamoto because it's as good as his best work while I found Brain Training to be as exciting as school work but it's a huge seller. I don't know what Pittbboi means but there is a big difference there.

That's exactly what I mean. Sometimes huge sellers aren't indicators of what makes a game great. A good example would be music. Britney Spears has some of the biggest selling albums ever, but does that mean her music is up there with the best? Of course not. Games like Brain Training sold well because Nintendo focused them on a huge market of people who usually don't play video games. They fall outside of the typical market. That's why I consider them niche. Nintendo's main games that are built from the ground up to appeal to "gamers" (not hardcore gamers, but people who play games) are still Miyamoto's franchises for the most part.

Quote
When is it ok for a sequel to stay within the formula of its predacessors and when it is manadtory to change everything up?

Good question. I guess, for me it's when a game franchise seems trapped in the generation that created it. I think for the most part, despite it's minor upgrades, Zelda still falls into this category. It's still a great game, but it comes from a time when the storytelling was still new to videogames, and in some aspects it shows. I don't want to turn this into another Zelda thread, but it's storytelling, characters, setting, soundtrack and fighting are some examples, for me, of where Zelda needs to update.
 

[blackfootsteps]

Is Miyamoto responsible for that scuba diving game (which I can't recall the name of) that was briefly shown at E3?

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi

Quote
To me Pikmin is a major recent success story for Miyamoto because it's as good as his best work while I found Brain Training to be as exciting as school work but it's a huge seller. I don't know what Pittbboi means but there is a big difference there.

That's exactly what I mean. Sometimes huge sellers aren't indicators of what makes a game great. A good example would be music. Britney Spears has some of the biggest selling albums ever, but does that mean her music is up there with the best? Of course not. Games like Brain Training sold well because Nintendo focused them game on a huge market of people who usually don't play video games. They fall outside of the typical market. That's why I consider them niche. Nintendo's main games that are built from the ground up to appeal to "gamers" (not hardcore gamers, but people who play games) are still Miyamoto's franchises for the most part.

Quote
When is it ok for a sequel to stay within the formula of its predacessors and when it is manadtory to change everything up?

Good question. I guess, for me it's when a game for the most part seems trapped in the generation that created it. I think for the most part, despite it's minor upgrades, Zelda still falls into this category. It's still a great game, but it comes from a time when the storytelling was still new to videogames, and in some aspects it shows. I don't want to turn this into another Zelda thread, but it's storytelling, characters, setting, soundtrack and fighting are some examples, for me, of where Zelda needs to update.

TP definately changed up the storytelling like wind waker before it, so I do not see that as a problem whatsoever. Characters, not sure what you want here, besides the big 3 (Zelda, Link and Ganon) there are always unique and different characters. Soundtrack is still amazing and has enough different to make for some memorable tunes. Fighting is fine, but I agree it may need some slight reworking here and there. Setting, Hyrule is still an amazing place and maintains freshness with some familiar and some new. Personaly though I would not mind to see an expanded Hyrule, that encompases areas not yet explored.

In regards to Ganon, I hold the same opinion about him as I do Bowser, you need him and he is definately part of the magic that is Zelda. Not to mention he is establisheed in the canon of he series as being the ultimate evil that will forever be interlinked with Link.

[Bloodworth]

I'm not sure Miyamoto was ever relied upon as the "bread and butter" producer.  He created Donkey Kong, Mario, and Zelda and got super-star status from there.  He provides valuable feedback to Nintendo's teams, but with NST, HAL, Retro, Intelligent Systems, Eguchi, Aonuma, Iwata, etc., Nintendo's hardly going to fall apart without him.

And Metroid?  Metroid was never Miyamoto's project.  He was influential in getting Retro on track with Metroid Prime, but aside from that, his involvement has been pretty insignificant.  If anything proves Nintendo can do good things without Miyamoto, it's the Metroid series.

[The Omen]

Inevitably it's not the artist who's past his prime, it's the public that loses interest in the artists work.  An artist is judged solely on how his work is received, however fair or unfair that is.  If the public becomes immune to his creations because they're expected, or the next big thing has shown it's ugly face, it is the fault of the public/consumer.

It's like Martin Scorsese.  The guy has now made classic films in 4 decades.  You know how many times the discussion of him being past his prime has come up?  As early as 1983!  Yet 25 years later, here he is again, back in the public eye for no other reason than that they came back to him.  Watch Mean Streets from 1973, then watch The Departed.    Both are Scorsese through and through. (yes, I know The Departed is a remake, but it's been absolutely Scorsese-ized)  

To get this back on track somewhat, all of Miyamoto's games are an extension of himself.  If we no longer find his traits or quirks endearing, is that his fault, or is it our own built up immunity?  

[son of lucas]

I'll agree with the premise, Miyamoto will likely never reach the heights we've already seen from him.  Then again no one else is likely to either.

So what was Miyamoto's prime then?  His NES days of creating Super Mario Bros., and The Legend of Zelda?  Or his N64 days of creating Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time?

[Bloodworth]

Also, Nintendo has been raising up new directors and teams since Majora's Mask.  They have been well aware of the need not to rely just on Miyamoto.

[Djunknown]

Quote
I wont say TP *WASNT* because thats ludacris.

Did you mean ludicrous? I know spelling isn't your thing, but I can't let that one slide. Ludacris is the rapper we know and love representing the "Dirty South" and 'disturbing the peace'. Ludicrous is the adjective. [/off topic]

Quote
Also, Nintendo has been raising up new directors and teams since Majora's Mask. They have been well aware of the need not to rely just on Miyamoto.

I think that right now, the public faces we see, hear, and read from Nintendo are as follows: Iwata and Miyamoto (Anouma, when they're talking about the next Zelda) from NCL, Reggie, Kaplan, and George Harrison from NOA. The names from NOE and NAL evade me at this time, but you get my point.

If we could hear more from the designers, programmers, artists, even from NCL's board, then we'd could equate Nintendo to more than just the names I mentioned above. I just learned from this thread the man responsible for Animal Crossing!

I agree with both sides of the argument: Miyamoto isn't as (obviously) culturally relevant like in times past. If you talked to a 'non-gamer' about who made Nintendog's, could they answer? Also, he's pretty much done it all. Numerous accolades and praise from the public and developers alike, what more can he do?

If they are to groom Miyamoto's successors, part of it is to let them take the spotlight more. Once it trickles down to us the fans, then the rest will follow.  

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Djunknown

Quote
I wont say TP *WASNT* because thats ludacris.

Did you mean ludicrous? I know spelling isn't your thing, but I can't let that one slide. Ludacris is the rapper we know and love representing the "Dirty South" and 'disturbing the peace'. Ludicrous is the adjective. [/off topic]

Quote
Also, Nintendo has been raising up new directors and teams since Majora's Mask. They have been well aware of the need not to rely just on Miyamoto.

I think that right now, the public faces we see, hear, and read from Nintendo are as follows: Iwata and Miyamoto (Anouma, when they're talking about the next Zelda) from NCL, Reggie, Kaplan, and George Harrison from NOA. The names from NOE and NAL evade me at this time, but you get my point.

If we could hear more from the designers, programmers, artists, even from NCL's board, then we'd could equate Nintendo to more than just the names I mentioned above. I just learned from this thread the man responsible for Animal Crossing!

I agree with both sides of the argument: Miyamoto isn't as (obviously) culturally relevant like in times past. If you talked to a 'non-gamer' about who made Nintendog's, could they answer? Also, he's pretty much done it all. Numerous accolades and praise from the public and developers alike, what more can he do?

If they are to groom Miyamoto's successors, part of it is to let them take the spotlight more. Once it trickles down to us the fans, then the rest will follow.

Well if you got Nintendo Power the last few months before Zelda they had monthly interviews with various staff behind TP. There are some talented people with Nintendo and interviews from NP showed that things are no longer "Miyamoto" only in influence.

[Caliban]

"Is Miyamoto past his prime?" No.

Should he be let alone developing new IPs, while the newer kids play with the old toys? Yes.

[IceCold]

This thread is pointless. Of course Nintendo recognises that Miymaoto won't be there forever, and if you did your research on its internal studios, you'd know that they are developing a lot of great young talent. That's probably a big reason why Miyamoto isn't concentrating all his efforts on a few games; he's training the talent, and moulding them into designers and producers.

Quote
Games like Brain Training sold well because Nintendo focused them on a huge market of people who usually don't play video games. They fall outside of the typical market. That's why I consider them niche

Well. Now the "typical market" is niche.

Quote
This Wikipedia article is interesting. Mario Galaxy is his first time to take the director role since Ocarina of Time (1998) and Mario Artist (1999).

As much as I would love for that to be true, the article is wrong. I believe Takao Shimizu and Yoshioki Koizumi from Tokyo EAD are handling the director duties. Takashi Tezuka is overlooking the game with Miyamoto, though Shiggy did say that he was going to focus a lot on the game. Speaking of internal talent, these two are prime examples. They directed Jungle Beat too, and have now been given the reigns to the Mario franchise.

[KDR_11k]

Miyamoto isn't past his prime, he's just not as in charge as he was back then. Now he's stretched thin and more of an advisor to most game projects instead of directly in control of them. Starting with Majora's Mask Zelda became more and more Eiji Aonuma's responsibility with Miyamoto's role fading away. Aonuma is also the guy who is responsible for making Zelda so easy, he said he found OOT way too hard and as a result kept reducing the difficulty in his games more and more. Miyamoto's role reduction can be seen in the story of TP: He said he vetoed a more complex story for Wind Waker since he felt that would detract from the game and TP has a much more detailled storyline.

That aside Zelda has strayed more and more from the core idea that created the first game: Being alone and lost in a strange world. Modern Zeldas guide you everywhere instead of just telling you some vague directions to the first dungeon and letting you find the rest yourself.

I think Miyamoto should be more in full charge and less in an advisor position. Give him the freedom he needs to make his games as good as he can instead of letting him come up with an idea and somebody else in charge of making it work.

[Adrock]

Quote
IceCold wrote:
Of course Nintendo recognises that Miymaoto won't be there forever, and if you did your research on its internal studios, you'd know that they are developing a lot of great young talent.

I've read up on Nintendo's internal teams. The thing is that Miyamoto is still holding these younger guys by the hand. He has had free reign over his games and the opportunity to release games when they were ready. I think what many people in this thread are trying to say is that the so-called new talent don't seem to have that same freedom. They all answer to Miyamoto. Are they really being trained or have they developed an over-reliance on Miyamoto's guidance? I wonder if Eiji Aonuma can handle Zelda by himself with minimal outside imput or if he's just Miyamoto's Robin.

[Kairon]

Quote
Games like Brain Training sold well because Nintendo focused them on a huge market of people who usually don't play video games. They fall outside of the typical market. That's why I consider them niche

You remind me of the Tendo people in Earthbound. They built a fence around their village and called it a "cage" that contained the dinosaurs.

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

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock

Quote
IceCold wrote:
Of course Nintendo recognises that Miymaoto won't be there forever, and if you did your research on its internal studios, you'd know that they are developing a lot of great young talent.

I've read up on Nintendo's internal teams. The thing is that Miyamoto is still holding these younger guys by the hand. He has had free reign over his games and the opportunity to release games when they were ready. I think what many people in this thread are trying to say is that the so-called new talent don't seem to have that same freedom. They all answer to Miyamoto. Are they really being trained or have they developed an over-reliance on Miyamoto's guidance? I wonder if Eiji Aonuma can handle Zelda by himself with minimal outside imput or if he's just Miyamoto's Robin.

Yeah. There's a whole bunch of Nintendo people being given more duties, but they all seem to harken to the Miyamoto philosophies, and we haven't seen anyone truly idealogically independent aside from nitnendo CEO Iwata himself.

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

[TrueNerd]

Quote
Originally posted by: Bloodworth
I'm not sure Miyamoto was ever relied upon as the "bread and butter" producer.  He created Donkey Kong, Mario, and Zelda and got super-star status from there.  He provides valuable feedback to Nintendo's teams, but with NST, HAL, Retro, Intelligent Systems, Eguchi, Aonuma, Iwata, etc., Nintendo's hardly going to fall apart without him.

And Metroid?  Metroid was never Miyamoto's project.  He was influential in getting Retro on track with Metroid Prime, but aside from that, his involvement has been pretty insignificant.  If anything proves Nintendo can do good things without Miyamoto, it's the Metroid series.

You beat me to it. The greatest game that Nintendo or anyone has ever made, Super Metroid, was one that Shiggy had very little to do with.

Wasn't there a thread recently where someone posed the question as to whether or not Nintendo's greatest mistake was making Miyamoto take on a supervisor role and leave his lead designer role behind? So which is it? Is Nintendo relying on Miyamoto too much or not enough?

With all that being said, Pikmin was the best new franchise introduced last console generation.

[Adrock]

The point isn't that Nintendo is screwed without Miyamoto. Rather, it doesn't seem like Nintendo and Miyamoto is necessarily training the younger designers to create independently which could lead to titles not meeting the same quality that Nintendo is known for. When hurdles in development arise, are these designers prepared to come up with solutions without Miyamoto's help? That's the possible issue here.

Metroid is still handled by series co-creator Yoshio Sakamoto. He has supervised almost everything Metroid related, including the Prime games. I think Metroid II was more Gunpei Yokoi's work, who also happens to be Metroid's other creator. That said, I don't think Nintendo as a whole is really fostering internal up and coming designers. It strikes me as odd that Masahiro Sakurai is finally getting his shot at free reign (with Super Smash Bros. Brawl) after leaving Hal Labs.

I seen new talent emerge at many 3rd parties. For example, Tetsuya Nomura began as an artist at the lowest level, but now, he's in charge of big name titles like Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy. Hironobu Sakaguchi isn't even with Square Enix anymore, but the series is as strong as ever.

At the same time, there are teams like Kojima Productions. Hideo Kojima has tried for like the last 7 years to move away from heading the Metal Gear series, but every time, his team begs him to return. That's a problem because what is that team going to do after Kojima. I think the same scenario applies at Nintendo. These people are equipped to design games, otherwise they wouldn't be working with these companies. The question is whether they can handle projects on their own and still uphold the same quality without senior members holding their hands.