Hi here,
I’m not sure that you received my last e-mail; so what that one primarily consisted of I have just included immediately below.
I did, but I haven’t gotten to it yet. Sometimes when I answer many emails, more come in. It is like Sisyphus rolling the boulder up and it falling back down on him again!
I hope no one takes as the lack of reply to mean lack of interest. It takes me longer to go through the email because I’d prefer to actually answer emails rather than reply. I also try to keep the blog updated as well.
E3, of course, has jinxed everything.
I have thought of newer things since then however, and the more relevant things follow after the copy of my last message. I will try to be as quick as possible for you here.
:: I read an amount of your article about “Why I’ve Stopped Respecting This Industry”, and agree a lot, and am annoyed, and sad.
It has amazed me how much people have agreed with that post. If people don’t respect the industry, people won’t care if it shrivels up and die.
I just wanted to bring up though, that I thought you said previously (to me at least) that 3d Legend of Zelda was great, and that 3d Mario was just a different game than the old ones?
Do you think there is any hope for the main/old-time Nintendo games ‘series’– like Mario, etc.? From what you say, it would seem like the newer, or current, main games are bad.
Making and crafting a game isn’t just about working on it until it becomes ‘fun’. A good game developer is also a good game analyst. They have to ‘backwards engineer’ the fun, so to say.
I think not just Nintendo’s core games, but the entire industry’s core games, feel so weak lately because there has been a breakdown in that ‘backwards engineering’ of the fun analysis. Elements such as ‘Let us make the game as artistic masterpiece!’ or ‘Pages of thick ludology papers of game development and game design in academic persuasion’ have been hurting games.
I am not sure why Nintendo did not make a 2d Mario for consoles for almost twenty years, but I suspect one reason is that Nintendo thought 3d Mario and 2d Mario as the same exact series. They were Mario games. Consumers saw it differently. 3d Mario, while good, doesn’t have that simple arcade action as 2d Mario did. When Wii launched, Iwata referred to Super Mario Galaxy as the Mario game. If you liked 2d Mario as many people do, well, you felt lost since you wondered whether a 2d Mario would ever return. If it weren’t for the NSMB DS massive (18 million +) sales, I don’t think we’d have heard Cammie or anyone from Nintendo talk about 2d Mario and 3d Mario as different games.
Here is, perhaps, a better example. Iwata says he loves Tetris and wants to make a game environment to make the next Tetris. True to his word, Nintendo has come out with many Tetris type games such as in the ArtStyle series. But one thing I have never heard Iwata say, and from looking at these Tetris-type games Nintendo keeps putting out, is linking the Russian mythos to Tetris. I remember the shock of when Tetris came out… first on the PC. Tetris was draped with ‘war themes’ from Russia which is not what the Tetris creator wanted. On the NES and Gameboy, Tetris didn’t have the ‘warring’ Tetris theme but a more ‘classical’ style. When you played Tetris, you were not just playing with blocks. You were tasting Russia. This ‘taste’ is what I’ve always referred to as a game’s mythos. I don’t know any other way to describe it.
My theory is that the very first game developers (which I call Generation Zero developers) did not grow up playing games. They grew up reading books, watching movies, playing board games, and even playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons. They meet a computer and want to make a game. So they make a game based on what they considered ‘neat’. So the first games ended up being about the books, board games, and Dungeons and Dragons that they have read. Some games became hits, others did not. Some are classics, others are forgotten.
When prior generations followed, they were drawn to making games because of a game they played (and loved). These preceding generations of developers were making games because they, at one point, fell in love playing games. So many games that came out were based off of those games they loved. For example, they would be making a ‘better RPG’ based off the original RPG game. However, that original RPG game wasn’t based off of any previous video game (since no video games existed at the time). It came from Dungeons and Dragons or Lords of the Rings.
Another generation of game developers then appears. They would make games based off of those games they loved (which were games made off of games those developers had loved). It is like photocopying a photocopy. The original mythos becomes faded and blurred. It becomes a watered down mythos. This is why playing these games feels as if you are drinking watered down wine.
It is my view that people do not buy games for gameplay. The gameplay is nothing more than the connection of the player to the game content (and the game content to the mythos). In the same way, people do not buy books for writing styles. The writing style is nothing more than the connection of the reader and the book content (and the book content to the story). What good is excellent gameplay when the game isn’t about anything? Tetris wasn’t about blocks. Tetris was about Russia. Super Mario Brothers wasn’t about a plumber. Super Mario Brothers was about Alice in Wonderland.
Currently, in the book industry there are many writers who have amazing writing styles. Their ‘amazing writing style’ books do not sell. The reason why is because of the content. People want a story. This is why there are many ‘classic’ books that constantly befuddle ‘literary critics’. They cannot understand why books such as Lord of the Rings or even Atlas Shrugged are consistent best sellers with their atrocious writing style. The reason is because of the content of such books. After all, we still read Aristotle and Sophocles today not because of how they said things but what.
The original 2d Mario series wasn’t loved so much how it played but what it was all about. Super Mario Brothers blazed onto the scene with an Alice and Wonderland mythos. It was a marvelous world. When not playing, customers could watch Mario cartoons, eat Mario cereal, read Mario novels, play with Mario toys, and so on. None of this would have been possible if Super Mario Brothers didn’t have that rich mythos. I haven’t seen any other game have such a reaction with young people aside from Pokemon (which is another example of the same phenomenon).
Take a look at this image:
It is like another world. There is nothing generic in the picture. It is as if a video game had ripped the magic of Alice and Wonderland and supplanted it in itself. When people say a game like NSMB DS feels like a shadow of what is should be, they are referring to that loss of magic, to that watered down mythos. Yes, Mario is still eating mushrooms to get big and all, but it is a photocopy of a photocopy. Such a Mario game is being made by emulating previous Mario games instead of coming from that source that inspired the original in the first place.
If Tetris is nothing more than ‘pure gameplay’, why does the game feel so hollow without the Russian music and influence? Why is it that if I play the Tetris music, anywhere, people immediately respond (often with joyous applause)?
Mythos isn’t a fictional mythology. It is some element from a timeless piece. Mario is timeless because Alice and Wonderland is timeless.
One of my favorite examples is Gyruss. The music is based from Bach’s “Toccata and Fugue in D Minor”. “But there are no space ship battles in the past, Malstrom! LOL!” There are space battles in the past. Space ship battles in the ancient literature. Do you think some developer at Square dreamed up the idea of airships? The ancients looked at the stars very differently than we do today.
Or take a look at the very beginning of Final Fantasy. This is a very blatant, but extremely simplified, expression of mythos. It is likely something of Japanese lore. Those who are more familiar with Japanese heritage would know about its roots more than me. But I know it wasn’t invented.
Or to sum up, the beginning games, which most franchises are based from, started a little well of mythos. While games might improve technologically and all, they keep going back to that original well. Since everyone makes games based on previous games, this well of mythos is not being replenished. I think gamers can feel the weakness of current games which is why they tend to stop gaming. To compensate for this weakening well, games keep pushing out ‘innovation’ in terms of graphical improvement or gameplay improvement. This is why, I believe, the current discussion is so dominated by gameplay or graphics because these are the only players left. The people who bought these games to experience worlds have gotten bored and left. Everyone else keeps buying them hoping the new technology and new gameplay give them that same awe and wonder they once had.
They are consistently disappointed.
The best line Miyamoto has ever said was: (paraphrasing) “The best video game ideas come from outside the game industry.” It is because the game industry tends to have a copycat syndrome, a photocopy mentality of content.
Will games get back to that rich quality? I think they eventually will because the technology will level out and mythos will give a game an edge over another game.
One of the reasons why I believe Blizzard games remain so strong and sell so long is because Metzen and others build the games in a mythos orientated way. This is what Metzen refers to as the ‘story’ (which really isn’t a story).
Also, I’m a little confused: I know someone that has absolutly no in-depth knowledge of the game industry, and thus no idea about the hard core/casual internet talking, as far as I know. He just plays some games.
But, he has recently said – in summary – that he thinks the Wii is just a successful fad, that his relatives’ Wii is ignored at family gatherings (in favor of the GameCube), and that the only game he remembers playing on Wii was Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and then that, with Gamecube controllers!
I wanted to get out a frank (with politeness) curiosity I’ve had: do you think at all that you could be wrong about games’/Nintendo’s present, and the future?
What you are describing is an anecdotal experience. Anecdotal experiences shouldn’t be taken seriously because, in our daily lives, we tend to filter out what is happening. For example, if someone says, “Someone bought a PlayStation 3 today!” to mean “Everyone is buying a PlayStation 3 now!” it is often not correct. This is why we rely on other data such as sales data and all that tell us consumer interest.
As for my talk about games, this is because Yamauchi had the ability to pick a great game and know why it was a great game. Iwata has admitted he does not share this talent and must rely on focus group data. So I wonder if it is possible to develop such a Yamauchi talent.
We never know unless we try!
And, besides, I talk about games from time to time so I am not just saying ‘disruption’ and ‘blue ocean’ all the time.
———————————————————
Now, the new:
You said in one of your (kind of) recent articles Wii Poised to Outlast… that the Wii would be out longer than [other old game systems]. In the article Translating Iwata, though, you seemed to say differently. Do you still think the Wii won’t be replaced for a long time more, unlike past systems?
Have a good day!
How long was the Famicom on the market? There you go.
Not sure why you thought that I thought Wii wouldn’t be on the market a long time.
Out of all the game consoles, the two ‘godly’ ones that are spoken of with a strange sense of reverence are the Atari 2600 and the NES. Both of these, unlike other consoles, pushed back the disinterest in gaming.
Like our first love, we all fall in love with our first console. Since the Wii will be many people’s first console, more so than ever, I expect it to be spoken of as we do of the NES and Atari 2600 today.
After E3, there was this one developer, apparently stunned, who said, “It looks like the Wii will be remembered like consoles such as the NES since the Wii began the motion controller.” There are many people just waking up to the idea that we have known since 2006: that the Wii is doing something truly historic. (However, what will truly be historic is its business strategy, not the motion controls.)
At 2006, Nintendo said Wii would start the ‘New Generation’ as opposed to the ‘Next Generation’ that were the Xbox 360 and PS3. But with 2009, and Sony and Microsoft moving towards motion controllers, it should become clear that Next Generation has died.
Even Sony and Microsoft agree to the New Generation line now.
P.S. More minor things, if you wish to read:On another note, I wanted to ask if you could edit out ‘masterbating’ in the “Idustry has Lost Respect for Its Existence (paragraph 7)” section of the May 14 article, as well as a couple of the other ugly(er) words (‘f*cking’ comes to mind in “Games Industry No Longer Celebrates Passion (1st quote)”)?
I’m surprised you took offense to the word (‘masturbating’ ) especially since it was used more in a metaphorical context, not literal. It is a common way to illustrate someone, who thinks they are creating a great achievement, but are really wasting their time. For example, an academic who just keeps spewing paper after paper, hiding behind a mountain of ‘theory’, could be said to be committing ‘intellectual masturbation’. I don’t know any other way to say the same thing without the insulting tone (which is intended!).
As for the IGA quote, that has to stay. The reason why is because I didn’t say it, he did, and I want to shame him. Someone, who has no grievance, who is cussing someone out like that, who is head of a game industry organization, should be spotlighted in all its rawness.
It leads to the question, “Why is this person so angry?” This sudden burst of anger is something I only see when someone in the political class realizes he is not going to get his way. I suspect that there are members, or people who want to be members, of the political class who have a desire to unionize the games industry. When they read something like the ‘Letter from an EA Employee’s Wife’, they do not see what we see. Instead, they see political opportunity.
The IGA’s outburst was a fantastic way to illustrate that someone was trying to guide the IGA toward a political course, something the members are likely unaware of. If people want to work long hours, what is wrong with that? If people love what they are doing so much and don’t want to go home, what is wrong with that? Most people wish they had a job where they wanted to never stop working! Yet, that IGA guy had a very big problem with it. A very big one, indeed.
My biggest fear about the games industry is intrusion from the political sphere. For example, let us say the games industry keeps making money when a recession and then a depression hits. The result will be that the political sphere will just take many companies’ money. They will say how video games are ‘harmful’, adopt a ‘sin tax’, or they will say that it harms children, and since there can be never too many laws to protect the children, they will pass some laws designed to fail so they can make a revenue stream from game companies.
One of the great things about games is that they are, reasonably, still free from political correctness. Unlike many movies these days, video games have clear heroes and villains. Interestingly, it has become an insult to these fools that if a movie has such clear divisions of good and bad, and is full of action or adventure, or good masculine values, the movie is declared to be ‘video game’. So they called movies like The Dark Knight, 300, and Gladiator as ‘video games’ (which, no surprisingly, are some of the few recent films I’ve liked). I fear the day when video games become ‘bland’ and ‘soulless’ due to political correctness.
Malstrom's Articles News 