Putting the word “Adventure” in a Sonic game is a kiss of death. Sonic Rush did well because DS owners wanted a new 2D Sonic game and it was good and sold well because it was to Sonic was NSMB was to Mario. It’s sequel shot itself in the foot by calling itself Sonic Rush Adventure. People saw the word “Adventure” and cringed at the thought of more frog fishing or hub world wandering and the game tried to shoehorn “adventure” elements into a 2D Sonic game, namely having to repeat stages to get enough supplies for Tails. Also it had terrible box art.
At least Sonic 4 is finally correcting the mess caused by “Adventure Sonic” and Dimps seems to have an idea of what consumers actually want they even delayed it to tweak the physics a bit more and removed some of the more gimmicky elements like the much lauded mine cart. And you’ll be happy to know that Sega does plan to release it as a full disc once all episodes are out and many gamers feel Sonic 4 should be a full disc release. NSMBWii proved that 2D platformers can sell as standalone games and don’t have to be reduced to handhelds or downloads only.
I guess what I”m getting at is that game companies spend too much time listening to the “wrong” fans aka fanboys. Sega tried giving them what they wanted such as all these characters and guns and swords and people hated it and the series started selling less and less. Sega complains that if all they made was a high speed, run to the finish Sonic game that everyone would complain it was too short. Where on Earth did we all get this mindset that a game needs to have so many hours of gameplay to be good? Once upon a time we were content with games that took 2 hours to beat mainly because they had endless replay value. Newer games don’t have the replay value hence why companies are looking to online multiplayer, DLC and achievements to try to prevent them from ending up in used bins instead of, you know, making them good. For the record I don’t see a lot of copies of Mario 5 on used racks and the ones that ended up there were turned in by so called “hardcores” because it was too short and had no online multiplayer.
_________________________________________
I don’t disagree with what you’ve said, but I want to offer an alternative explanation for games (like Sonic) that continue the road of mediocrity. And for the example I will use Super Mario Galaxy 2.
You see this guy?
I don’t mean Yoshi but that big purple piece of ****. His name is ‘Lubba’, one of Mario’s “new friends”. He reminds me of…
Above: Durp, durp, durp…
In Super Mario Galaxy 2, why is there so much talking? Why do you have to keep going to the spaceship to get to the map instead of just going to the map? Why are power-ups required for levels in puzzle like fashion? Working more on the development side, sometimes a new lens of thinking can be shown on subjects such as these.
So let me ask you a question, reader.
“Oh boy!” giggles the reader. “I am going to be asked a question!”
Yes, you are. It is actually a series of questions.
“Oh goody!”
Is it not true that Super Mario Brothers line of games has sold a ton?
“Very true.”
And is it not also true that non-Mario platformers have sold a freaking ton as well? Examples of non-Mario 2d platformers that were hits include Sonic, Donkey Kong Country, Bonk, and Jazz Jackrabbit.
“It cannot be denied.”
And does not sales of Mario 5 on Wii and NSMB on the DS show that there is a vast market today willing to buy 2d platformers?
“Of course, of course.”
And does not the rise of flash games and other small internet games on the Internet, such as Robot Unicorn Attack demonstrate that 2d platformers are still in demand everywhere?
“That looks to be the case.”
Then why don’t indie developers see this as pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Why don’t big studios see this as a way to make easy money? If money is the prime motivator in making games, then why are not more 2d platformers made?
“This is why you are Malstrom, and I am the reader. What is your theory?”
I think game developers no longer believe their role is to make video games. I believe game developers (indie or industry, talented or untalented) all suffer the notion that their role is to express their creativity.
It is a reversing of the cart and the horse. The purpose of ‘creativity’ was to make a better video game. Now, it appears video games are nothing more than vehicles for people to ‘express their creativity’. Absurd things will occur such as Metroid games being a vehicle to explore ‘maternal instincts’.
“Such a thing would never occur!” cried the reader. “Nintendo is too professional to let something that insane occur.”
Ahh, innocent reader. But let me use another real example from Super Mario Galaxy 2 to prove the point.
This is from Iwata Asks on Super Mario Galaxy 2. Miyamoto is referring to Koizuma who is said to be ‘a romantic’. Miyamoto says:
And he’s also good at animation. I’ve always watched over him to make sure he used those strengths but didn’t go overboard. Ever since Super Mario Sunshine, however, I’d felt there was something not quite natural about certain developments. I had, of course, talked about that with him all along, but when it came to certain central elements, there were areas we had each somehow avoided bringing up.
Super Mario Sunshine was definitely a low spot in the Mario franchise and the sales reflect it. Incredibly, the issue of ‘story’ Miyamoto is something he avoided talking to Koizuma about.
When making the first Super Mario Galaxy, I had said Mario games didn’t need a story or movies, but before I knew it, there were quite a few movies and a substantial amount of story. When it comes to movies, you can pretty much stick them in at the end of development.
Gamers do not disagree with this. Miyamoto’s instincts are right on that Mario games do not need cutscenes and operas.
Because I’d had that experience with the first Super Mario Galaxy, we talked beforehand this time about cutting out such elements, but I began to get the feeling during development that those things were not sufficiently cut off.
In other words, Koizuma was, once again, putting in cutscenes and a story. Now listen to this part:
I showed a version of the game to Tezuka-san and Nakago-san partway through development and they both said something was wrong.
These two, plus Miyamoto, make up the Mario Triad. They are the three core members responsible for the original Super Mario Brothers line of games. If all of them have a problem with the game, then there is definitely a problem.
Listen…
And then they begin talking about ‘resonance’. What they are actually doing is coming up with corkscrew dodges as to somehow justify the cutscenes and dialogue.
But unknown to Miyamoto and Iwata, Malstrom was also sitting at the table and he said…
Malstrom: Resonance? Talk about goof-juice! The problem with cutscenes and constant dialogue is that it takes control away from the player. When a player has no control, he is no longer playing a game. He is watching an extremely bad movie. The absolutely worst thing a video game can do to harm ‘resonance’ is to take control away from the player.
Iwata: What the…? How’d the hell did you get in here? Guards! Guards! Arrest this madman!
Miyamoto: He ruined our meeting! That does it, no more 2d Mario games for you!
Malstrom: So it will be like the last 18 years…
I have learned that game developers, who are very smart people and could have good careers in other industries, go into gaming for one single purpose: to be creative. That is their overarching reason for being in the ‘games industry’ in the first place.
Do software developers for Microsoft Office get to be ‘creative’? How about making software for the oil industry, or applications for academics and science industries? People who are very good at computers do not get to be ‘creative’ in their fields. They see gaming as their way to use their strong computer skills and get to be ‘creative’.
Here is a question for you reader.
“Go ahead,” the reader shyly answers.
Why did Koizun keep defying Miyamoto? If you were a game developer, and your boss happened to be Shigeru Miyamoto, and Shigeru Miyamoto told you to stop doing something, and then the rest of the Mario Triad agreed with him on it, would you just put your palm up and say:
What annoys me so much about 3d Mario is not 3d Mario but the defiance expressed by Nintendo developers. For almost two decades, we’ve wanted more classic Mario and we got, as response, defiance. The market is clearly showing which way leads to the mass market, and I interpret Super Mario Galaxy 2 (and its ‘now it will really sell to 2d Mario this time’!) as more defiance. When the market rejects their ‘amazing stories’ and their ‘crappy new friends’, we get defiance and get more ‘amazing stories’ with ‘crappy new friends’. Now, Nintendo is free to defy the market if it wishes. But the result will be that of the Gamecube.
What I read from that Iwata Asks is a Nintendo developer in absolute defiance. Even five hours or so talking with Shigeru Miyamoto is not enough to persuade him. Miyamoto, being an older guy, is looking at the more ‘getting along’. But I can see why Miyamoto backed down (and Galaxy 2 got its theatrics).
The cause of ‘creativity’ is like religion to those who fashion themselves ‘artists’. People want a platformer, not constant discussions with a big fat purple guy named Lubba (“durp, durp”).
Remember when Wii mania was on and everyone was rushing to get Wii Sports?
“Of course.”
Remember all the hate coming at Wii Sports and ‘casual games’ from game developers?
“Yes.”
I believe the reason for the hate was because these so-called “casual games” removed the outlet for these developers to be ‘creative’. In other words, Wii Sports does not need a ‘story’ or a ‘plot’. If it had them, it would mar the game. Mario 5 is better off not having ‘crappy friends’ like Lubba. No one plays a Mario game for the dialogue. Now, there is ample room for ‘creativity’ in the sense of cleverness, of inventing new types of gameplay with motion controls, and applying motion controls to already established genres. But this ‘creativity’ was rejected. Why? Because it was ‘too mechanical’?
While we all have noticed the trend to add more cutscenes and ‘story’ into a video game, have you noticed the trend to make every game into a RPG?
Now why make every game into an RPG or adventure game?
“Because then the developers can express their creativity of incredible plot and amazing characters.”
Exactly. The focus is no longer to make a video game, the focus is to ‘express their creativity’.
What is so bad is that this ‘creativity’ always sucks. Lubba, that big purple POS in Super Mario Galaxy 2, sucks. It isn’t a good character in any way, shape, or form. It amazes me how Nintendo could create all these interesting universes and characters back during the 8-bit and 16-bit days, but ever since then their imaginary output has been awful. Who cares about Petey Piranha or Bowser Jr. and some of the other characters? My point is that the more focused someone gets at creativity, the worse the output becomes.
It is my notion that, like any other people desiring the most pleasant work experience, game developers routinely look for ways to ‘express their creativity’ in video games they are working on. After all, work is more fun when you get to ‘be creative’, right? Work becomes less boring.
One of the red flags that I think confirms this notion is how the game company refuses to hire professionals for these ‘creative parts’. They hire artists to make art, musicians to make music, game designers to make game design, but they let rank amateurs write the ‘story’ or design the ‘characters’. Granted, most writers are horrible and can be risky to hire one. But they are very cheap. Fans of the Mother series have to acknowledge its good dialogue/story was because of its writer. Classics like Ultima 7 had an established playwright write the dialogue.
Has anyone hired a movie director to make the cutscenes in a video game? I cannot think of any off hand. What happens instead is that a game maker thinks he can become a movie director because he made a video game (Chris Roberts and Wing Commander).
Entertainment is an extremely tough and competitive market. Each area, from movies to novelists to artists to game makers, all have a distinct and complicated craft that takes a decade or more to learn. A movie studio does not know how to make a video game even though they think it looks easy. A video game studio does not know how to make a good movie even though they think it looks easy.
What I am seeing is people becoming game developers in order to vomit their ‘creativity’. Making a game is not their priority. Only their ‘creativity’ is.
This is why I believe we keep seeing ‘Sonic and his crappy friends’ sequels over and over. And from that Iwata Asks interview, you can see that is why we keep seeing ‘Mario and his crappy friends’ over and over again, and why cutscenes keep getting thrown in.
And this is the reason why I believe is the true reason why you do not see 2d platformers. How can developers ‘express their creativity’ in a 2d platformer? It might also be the reason why we haven’t seen a 2d Mario game in almost a couple of decades. Nintendo developers were more interested in being ‘romantic’ than actually creating a video game.
This is also the affliction that is plaguing Zelda. I would like Zelda to be more about substance than about the style. Zelda is not about story or cutscenes. At least, the first decade of the series wasn’t about that at all.
And here is what annoys me. Even though it is true that story and cutscenes did not make up the Zelda experience in its first decade, Nintendo developers have ‘proclaimed’ it to be essential to the Zelda experience. As absurd as that is, when everyone knows Mario games are not about story or cutscenes, they are still added in despite Miyamoto’s wishes.
This is a more specific microscope to Iwata’s “Are we making games for ourselves?” ‘Heart of the Gamer’ speech. I want Mario and Zelda (and Metroid) back without all the Koizuma ‘romance’.
Why is it that this ‘romance’ and ‘creative visions’ are never made into games themselves? Why is it always injected, like a virus, into Mario, Zelda, and Metroid?
What annoys me with Metroid: Other M is that it seems to be following the same exact pattern of ‘Creativity Cult Worship’. I do not wish to turn gaming back to the 1980s as you can never turn the dial back. I understand games like the original Metroid, Metroid 2, as well as Zelda 1 and Zelda 2, are too difficult and frustrating for today’s audiences. But there is a happy medium such as Link to the Past or Super Metroid.
I ask you, the invisible crowd out there, who would enjoy a game like Super Metroid for the home console except bigger and more awesome with 2010 graphics and sound instead of 1994 graphics and sound.
The invisible crowd all raises their hands.
So why aren’t we getting this game? Why are we getting a game with tons of cutscenes, dialogue, and discussions of Samus’s ‘maternal instincts’? The answer why has nothing to do about a quality video game. It has everything to do with developers wishing to ‘express their creativity’.
“But Malstrom! What about Fusion and Zero Mission?”
Fusion was totally all story. And Zero Mission appears to be made only to ret-con the very first Metroid as a ‘big story’ with the maker unable to control himself at even that as the end of Zero Mission turns into a full ninja stealth mission (which is not Metroid).
It is said that earlier games were better because limited technology squeezed creativity from developers. Perhaps we have that backwards. Perhaps it was because of the limited technology creating better games because it shielded us from the developers’ creativity. Give this creative person a large budget and unlimited time, and you get something crazy like the latter Final Fantasy games.
While I know it may sound mad to point out that the developers’ creativity has a deleterious effect on a video game, but consider the recent video game phenomenons.
-Wii Sports
-The two 2d Marios
-Nintendogs
-Brain Age
-Wii Fit
None of these are showcases of ‘creativity’ in the story or character sense. Even the ‘realistic’ games like Modern Warfare or Grand Theft Auto (add Red Dead Redemption if you want) are admired because of their attention to detail and realistic type settings. People don’t buy these games for the characters and storyline.
Creativity, as we know it, is a very modern notion. No one spoke of ‘creativity’ as they do today seventy or so years ago. This could also explain that despite the population explosion, that more people writing, painting, making movies, there is less and less ‘art’.
Now, how can the Cult of Creativity lead to less ‘art’? It is because art, at its core, is holding a mirror up to Nature. The Cult of Creativity sees no Nature. Nature, itself, goes against the modern notion of ‘creativity’. How can you ‘create’ something if you have to obey the rules of Nature?
The reason why I keep pointing back to business as very important for artists to acknowledge is because business obeys certain rules (such as sales and cashflow). Business has to obey the laws of Nature, the laws of Humanity (of which many businessmen know these laws are still unexplained). The entire discussion of disruption is Clayton Christenson recognizing a law of Nature that businesses can now apply and use as a compass to constant creative destruction.
Engineers have to follow the laws of Nature or else their bridges won’t hold. Scientists have to follow the laws of Nature or else it would turn into a form of mysticism. Political rights must follow the laws of Nature or else it turns into a form of tyranny. History must follow the laws of Nature in interpretation or else it turns into a form of fiction. Even fiction must follow the laws of Nature or else the fictional universe will not resonate. Entertainment must also follow the laws of Nature or else it turns into self-indulgence.
What I am saying here is what was believed by all poets, musicians, and artists for most of time up until the recent day. Shakespeare and Mozart never believed they were ‘creating’ anything as Shakespeare, himself, coined the term of holding a mirror up to Nature.
What is most striking is the zealotry by those who cannot abide even the thoughts or words that could suggest that ‘creativity’ is not the be-all, end-all in Human art or entertainment. Someone like a movie director, an author, a musician, or even a game developer, are given the status of a god by these people. And what do ‘gods’ do? Gods ‘create things’. Gods are ‘creators’. In the 19th and 18th centuries, the scientist was the esteemed type of person. In the 20th and 21st, the artist is now considered the esteemed archetype. Since everyone wants to become a living and breathing ‘god’, everyone rushes for the chance to become a game designer, a movie director, a novel writer, or something else.
Let me end this passage with a colorful metaphor. When a video game was made in the past, the focus was how to get the game to break into the market and float like boat breaking into the ocean and floating. Things that are necessary to the game are added like sturdiness of the hull, sails, and things that are not needed are removed such as horses and flamingos. The game floats on the market pretty well. As time goes on, new people come by and seek to improve the boat. They add in things that do not belong such as adding a unicorn to the bow of the ship. They decide to place an elephant in the back. Then they decide to place some strange obelisk by the captain’s wheel. “We are being creative,” they said. No one dared to question them because they were creative, and only gods can be creative. Who are you to question a mortal god? The boat may still float, but it doesn’t move around as swiftly as it did. More ‘game gods’ appear and they move things around. The unicorn goes in the back. The elephant is now at the captain’s wheel. The obelisk is now on top of the mast which, alas, broke under its weight.
“It is the end of the market!” the people cry as they watch the Great Gaming Boat weave back and forth creakily and the boat begin to sink. “You know what the problem is?” commented gamers on a nearby message forum. “You aren’t allowing the developers to explore their creativity. More creativity is needed!” So flamingos-wearing-hats and giraffes-wearing-necklaces (all these creative ideas) are brought on the boat. “It is sinking faster! More creativity! More!”
“Stop!” commanded a voice. The people turned to look and saw Captain Malstrom. “The requirements enforced by Nature are good. Do not seek to think you know more than Nature. Just as boats need hulls that float and sails to propel, so too do games need good gameplay to addict and content to spark fire in the people’s imagination. And just as boats do not need obelisks or elephants or flamingos (with or without hats), so too do games do not need cutscenes, operas, character exploration, and Facebook integration. Just as the purpose of the boat is to travel across the waters, the purpose of the game is to travel across the boredom.”
Malstrom commanded the elephants, obelisk, and flamingos be thrown overboard. “Now, gentlemen, we have new technology before us. Instead of wood hulls, we can have steel hulls. Instead of sails, we can use a motor.”
The game gods gathered and said, “But with additional technology of the boat, we can now add more elephants, more obelisks, and more flamingos wearing even more hats. Stand aside and let us add our creativity to the boat.”
“What do you think this boat is, the Sonic franchise? Are you intentionally trying to sink the boat?”
“Boats are not about moving on the water. Boats are about expressing our creativity,” they answered. “And games are not about moving over the ocean of boredom. Games are about expressing our creativity.”
Malstrom summoned the cavalry and pushed them all to the sea. “Away, then, with artists and romantics! Away with their stories, operas, and character explorations, their cut-scenes, their bad character design, their cliches, and their creativity.
“And now that the game gods and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so much creativity upon gaming, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all creativity, and try Nature; for Nature is the compass of choice for any artist of the past.
“Blast the trumpet! Bring in the sailors! This ship is about to head out!”
But then an analyst appeared next to Malstrom.
“Dear sir,” he beseeched in a soothing tone. “Where do you intend to take the Great Gaming Boat?”
Malstrom pointed to the horizon. “Out there. To the open sea.”
“To loop around to come back to somewhere near here?”
“No. We’re going straight into the blue ocean and not stopping.”
The analyst chuckled in his mealy mouthed way. “Oh, you cannot do that! Ho ho ho! There is no market out there! If you go that way, you will surely sink and leave the console market entirely.”
“We’re going to the New World.”
The analyst exploded with laughter. “You believe that? Everyone knows the market is flat. There is no New World. You must compete with the markets here…”
Malstrom pushes the scrawny analyst off the boat. “Forward gaming!” Malstrom gave the command. “Human Nature is an exciting place. Let’s go exploring.”