Let me start off as to why I am talking about ‘content’ in the first place.
Nintendo went in a company direction of ‘user generated content’, and it really blew up in their face. I’m shocked because I thought Nintendo knew that video games were in the content business. So this is why I am talking about content.
A fundamental element to my outlook is that I believe the ‘game experience’ exists entirely in the alchemy of the customer and the game. The game, on its disc and how it is displayed on the screen or in the speakers, is not the experience. Rather, the experience is taking place inside the customer’s head. Gaming is a theater of the mind.
Just as a theater experience is not dependent on the visuals, the music, the story, and all, it is dependent on all of this working together and how it is absorbed by the audience. This is why I believe categorizing games as in ‘sound’, ‘graphics’, and so on is missing the point. When I eat a souffle, I do not review it by breaking it down by the ingredients. In cooking, the experience is more than the sum of ingredients. So it is the same with games.
I’m using Mario as the example since he is well known to everyone.
Also, using sales for this metric isn’t going to be revealing. There are far different macro-environments going on. In the 80s, for example, Nintendo was not expanding as they wanted to in Europe because they were too tied up in the courts in America (with Atari nonetheless). There have been population increases (especially in the United States). There have also been a more global selling environment for games. There was no ‘global economy’ in the 80s for example.
I also believe that gaming, while not art in itself, engulfs and digests art within it which could be a clue as to why the game might be magical in the first place. For example, the music of Gyruss, which is the standout part of the game experience, is from Bach. While game developers are smart guys, they are not Bach. My ‘mythos’ is the source for that ‘magic’, the original material the game is suckling from. Mythos would be to a game as a light source would be to a bright spot on the wall. So I would say the mythos to Gyruss would be Bach, to Super Mario Brothers it would be Alice in Wonderland.
Since the game experience is in the Theater of the Mind, not in the hardware, this means the experience still lives on even if the hardware is shut off. This explains how and why some games can leap and give rise to a universe of various products. Super Mario Brothers unleashed cartoons, a movie, many novels, and so on. The game also unleashed many spin-offs which couldn’t have happened to a lesser game.
It is also my hypothesis on how some game universes do not age. The Mushroom Kingdom is timeless because Alice in Wonderland is timeless.
Malstrom,
I’m going to start out by saying that I like Malstrom, and I think he is one of the few who actually understand Nintendo’s business strategy. However, the more I read about his specific game criticism, the more I think he is just trying to bend his theory to his own personal taste in games.
When Malstrom says ‘content’, he does not mean it in the same sense as the average gamer. The average gamer sees content as how many levels there are, how longer are the levels, how many characters there are, how many weapons there are, and so on. This is not what Malstrom means. He has used the word ‘mythos’ to describe the same thing he is talking about here.
Content is the Theater of the Mind.
Pretend you are a game developer. “Content” would ultimately be measured by what the customer touches. All games must be programmed. But the ‘content’ of games is not in the programming. If customers notice the ‘programming’, the game is broken! The art, the sound, and even the levels are all just props. They are elaborate stage craft.
You could say that content is what remains when the player turns off the game. What remains in the player’s head?
King Kong is the mythos behind or content of Donkey Kong.
Alice in Wonder Land is the mythos behind or content of Super Mario Bros.
Malstrom’s argument is that games with great new content are well received by gamers, and therefore sell better. Let’s examine that a little closer.
Not that they sell ‘better’. But that they sell forever. Most new games are recycling content from previous games. This only works when the audience hadn’t played those earlier games.
I’m going to skip the two arcade games he mentions because I’m not old enough to know much about them, and we don’t have data on them either.
Super Mario Bros. is praised by Malstrom has having great new content. It sold 40.24 million units worldwide, 6.81 million in Japan, 29.52 million in America, and 3.91 million in Others. It was a great success, although bundling pushed these numbers higher.
Success is the wrong word for it. It was a phenomenon. Mario was everywhere. He eclipsed Mickey Mouse.
Super Mario Bros. 2 in Japan (or Lost Levels as it is known in America) is criticized by Malstrom for having no new content. I agree with that. It is basically the same game on hard mode. It sold 2.65 million in Japan. It was not released anywhere else.
Whatever was introduced in SMB2 (poison mushrooms and all) did not find their way to the other Mario games.
Super Mario Bros. 2 in America is praised by Malstrom for being great new content. It sold 7.46 million worldwide, 0.7 million in Japan, 5.47 million in America, and 1.29 million in Others. The reason it sold so poorly in Japan was because it was released in 1992, four years after the release of Super Mario Bros. 3. But for all the praise that he gives this game, Malstrom does nothing to say why it sold so poorly in the other two regions compared to SMB. I think this is the first example of Malstrom trying to force his theory to fit his own personal taste.
NOA was tied up in courts in America and could not expand in Europe. But look at the sales in America. SMB 2 was sold out everywhere. So was Zelda II. There are videos of news casts of that time period on YouTube which even show it.
Super Mario Bros. 3 is also praised by Malstrom for being great new content. In fact he calls it ‘the zenith of Mario content’. In other posts, he also makes it clear that this is the best, most content rich Mario game. It sold 17.28 million worldwide, 3.84 million in Japan, 9.69 million in America, and 3.75 million in Others. If this is the best, most content rich Mario game, why does it outsell SMB 2 Japan (a game with no new content) by only 1.19 million units in Japan? That doesn’t seem like that much. Again, I see this as Malstrom forcing his theory to fit his own personal taste. It misses SMB by almost 3 million units in Japan and almost 20 million units in America. Bundling is part of the reason, but those still seem like big gaps to me. This could be more of Malstrom’s personal taste instead of objective theory.
I am pointing only to content. Super Mario Brothers 3, for all its excellence, did begin to overshoot people. The NES originally had what we would call the Wii audience. People would play Duck Hunt or the NES sports games. This is why sports games have been such a priority for the Wii and why the bundled game is Wii Sports. This is also why NSMB, on DS and Wii, do not have flying. Nintendo doesn’t want to overshoot that audience again.
Super Mario World is next. Malstrom says it has some nice surprises, but is missing the magic of the other games. It sold 20.61 million worldwide, 3.55 million in Japan, 12.97 million in America, and 4.09 million in Others. So, how does a game that is missing the magic do as well or better than SMB 3? Part of the reason is bundles, but it wasn’t bundled in Japan where it only sold a quarter of a million less. I see more personal preference over theory here. Malstorm states that ‘Mario Madness’ ended shortly after this game was released. I think it just ended for him. Malstrom admits here ( https://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/email-of-mario-and-of-mythos/ ) that he fell out of gaming shortly after 1992 (this game released in late 1991 in America).
I fell out of console gaming around 1994. Most likely, it was 1995. I am not too sure. I just kept playing less and less until I didn’t play anymore.
PC gaming was in a golden age at that moment. For example, the RTS genre was born at that time as well as online gaming.
Malstrom criticizes Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island heavily. He blames it for killing ‘Mario Madness’. Again, I think it just died for him. In the link above he also criticizes it for making Mario uncool. I would blame the marketing of Sega and Sony during this time period. Other things that hurt this game’s sales was the fact that the first PlayStation had just launched, and the N64 and Super Mario 64 were just around the corner. This game sold 4.12 million worldwide, 1.77 million in Japan, 1.68 million in America, and 0.68 million in Others.
Zelda: Windwaker divided the Zelda audience due to its cartoon visuals. Nintendo said they would avoid that fate with future console Zelda games. This is why Twilight Princess does not have ‘cartoon visuals’ as Windwaker did.
Yoshi’s Island suffered the same exact problem Windwaker did. Donkey Kong Country had come out and had a more realistic style of graphics. Miyamoto did not want to go that direction. Yoshi’s Island was criticized as being ‘kiddy’ and ‘for babies’ by its graphical style alone.
So there are many reasons why a game does not sell. I am not pointing to content as the sole reason why games sell. I am pointing to content as the sole reason why games sell forever.
As with any other entertainment medium, games are in the content business. Think of Super Mario World. While I think that game might have begun the slide downward for Mario, the game did introduce much new content such as Yoshi. Think of all the games with just Yoshi in them: Yoshi’s Cookie, Yoshi, Yoshi Touch and Go, etc.
Generating content allowed a fertile ground for spin-offs to occur.
Malstrom praises Super Mario 64 for it’s new content. It sold 11.89 million worldwide, 1.92 million in Japan, 6.87 million in America, and 3.10 million in Others. This game barely outsold SMW 2 in Japan, a game that Malstrom heavily criticized. Again, I see more personal preference than theory in his analysis.
Japanese don’t like 3d Mario games. I can’t blame them.
How am I using personal preference for praising Mario 64 in the content it introduced when I admit that I don’t like 3d Mario games at all?
Malstrom criticizes Super Mario Sunshine. It didn’t sell too well for Mario. It sold 6.28 worldwide, 0.87 in Japan, 4.03 in America, and 1.38 million in Others.
It is not how people want their Mario games.
Malstrom also criticizes Super Mario Galaxy. He makes some strange claims without proof like 2D Mario fans bought the game because of no alternative, and people think that Petey the Piranha and Bowser Jr. are annoying. This game sold 8.07 million worldwide, 1.05 million in Japan, 4.20 million in America, and 2.82 million in Others. He has a right to wonder why this game didn’t sell more than it did, but his criticism seems superficial here.
A Mario game on the best selling game console of all time not putting it near the 2d Mario sales? It failed.
Miyamoto publicly said that the purpose of Mario Galaxy was to make 3d Mario sell as 2d Mario did. It didn’t work. Look at the other 2d Mario game at the same time for comparison: NSMB DS.
Keep in mind that the markets, today, are very different and much larger than what was going on in the 80s.
The markets are also WARM MARKETS. In sales lingo, this means these markets have bought previous Mario games before and are open to a new one. The first Mario games were selling to COLD MARKETS. It is much harder to sell to a cold market which is why the earlier franchise series sales (for Mario, Zelda, and Metroid) are more impressive than twenty years later.
In other words, Brain Age and Wii Sports sales are very impressive because they are selling to cold markets. Sequels to those games cannot be as impressive because they are selling to a warm market.
Malstrom ends by criticizing New Super Mario Bros. He makes the claim that many fans thought it was disappointing. Proof? I’ve heard pretty much nothing but praise for this game. Critics didn’t think it was disappointing. It is the sixth highest rated game on the DS, and only misses the top spot by less than 4 points on a 100 point scale. This game sold 19.22 million worldwide, 5.69 million in Japan, 7.08 million in America, and 6.45 million in Others. Malstrom claims that this game sold so much because it was selling to people who never played SMB, so it was like playing that game for the first time. It could be true, but again, there is no proof of this, so it is hard to tell. I think his personal dislike has clouded his theory here again. He should be trying to explain why this game sold so well, not trying to cut it down and say it lacks content. He is contradicting his own theory here.
Of course NSMB DS was selling to people who haven’t played Mario. There is no way it could sell so much if it wasn’t. NSMB DS easily eclipsed the 3d Mario sales numbers. Reggie said that the sales of NSMB DS came from Nintendo fans… at first… but then it went on to non-Nintendo fans.
NSMB DS is still selling quite strongly today. It is obviously selling to people who are buying new DS systems. I’ve even seen it occur in person. They buy a DS for a kid and NSMB DS. An excellent first game for a kid or for the DS owner.
NSMB DS didn’t pioneer any new content. It is clearly relying on the paths that the earlier Super Mario Brothers games blazed. The Mushroom Kingdom and the villains are all clearly defined. If you are a child and this is the first Mario game, it will seem great. If not, it will seem like a re-hash.
After decades of no new 2d Mario, 2d Mario would be classified as publishers as a brand new franchise.
Short version/Conclusion:
Malstrom has warped his ‘content’ theory to try and fit his personal taste in games. When actually looking at the sales of these games, his theory falls apart. Properly applied, his theory might have merit, but that is yet to be seen.
Take an very long running entertainment franchise like Star Trek. Star Trek kept being watched due to the content (there weren’t any shows like that or gave that experience). After Star Wars became a hit, Paramount began Star Trek movies. The first Star Trek movie, not a very strong showing, was emulating 2001: Space Odyssey. The second two movies were operas. The fourth movie was a comedy. The massive success of the fourth movie was the reason why Paramount gave the green light to The Next Generation. Within a few years, that show became very huge spawning more movies and several spin-off series. The rise and fall was all based on content. The latter years, the writers became obviously less talented and the series took too many trips to the well. The franchise died because they lost the ability to create new interesting content.
Take Metroid. It is already over-extended this generation. The Wii will have three Metroid releases for it. DS already has two and will likely have a third. The content of Metroid is fantastic. However, the well is not being refreshed. Too many trips are being taken to the well. (Part of the reason why Metroid Prime is the best selling Metroid is because Metroid was asleep for a while. Metroid content seemed more fresh because of that.)
One of the reasons why I am so critical of Other M is because I am seeing the same mistakes being made there of other entertainment in decline: the developers obsessed over content already made. The last Star Trek series, Enterprise, was practically worshipful of the ‘content’ already made in the series. There was no exploration of ‘new’ content in that series which gave people very little reason to watch. Sakamoto seems very interested in “Metroid storyline” but the masses are not.
In the same way, Zelda games sales kept increasing up to Ocarina of Time. Around then, Nintendo stopped putting out new (largely) content for Zelda. The games since then have to *connect* to Ocarina and the ‘timeline’ somehow which means the franchise is worshipful of its lore which means it can only go down. Zelda is also taking too many trips to the well. After Zelda Wii, Zelda should be put to sleep until the next Nintendo hardware comes out.
I really liked your response there: I think you hit the nail on the head. I’d also add that his theory isn’t all-encompassing: I’m at a complete loss to understand what archetype stands behind the enormously-successful Pac-Man, or Frogger, or Asteroids, for example.
They had content too. Pac-Man had characters and cut-scenes. Frogger is easily identified as everyone understands frogs and highways. Asteroids is clearly about space ships.
Space Invaders clearly nods toward Star Wars. Pong nods toward tennis.
When all the Pong sequels came out, many of them not from Atari, the Pong craze clearly died. Dr. Pong, four player Pong, and all didn’t offer new content. The same content (tennis) was used over and over. Space Invaders came on the scene and gave fresh content. Donkey Kong was fresh content.
Super Mario Brothers was totally fresh content from Donkey Kong.
The biggest complaint about Nintendo is that it doesn’t make new IPs, that it just makes more Mario, Zelda, and Metroid games. This complaint is actually content based. Longtime players want fresh content. New users (which children are a large part of Nintendo’s audience), see the latest games as ‘fresh’ since they haven’t played the older ones.
Nintendo is clearly in a content crisis. How else to explain a company who didn’t even think they were in the ‘content business’ by going user generated content route?
That said, I think he makes an excellent observation about the difference between “content” and “story,” one which no one else I’ve heard has brought up. He takes it too far, yes, but I would really like to see more people explore the difference between the two.
I know it is long, and I thank you in advance for any response. We do enjoy discussing your work at the website, so keep doing what you do.
The belief has been that gameplay is the driving force behind games. I say it is content. This explains why licensed games with horrible gameplay sell (because people want that content). It also explains why people pay $15 a month to Blizzard to stay in World of Warcraft. When expansion packs come out, what are they expanding? The content.
Malstrom's Articles News 