Jesus… I know Reggie is a smart man, and I know that he has to spin any type of Nintendo failure into a positive light somehow, but I just don’t know what to say about these statements he made:
“First off, [I have] nothing but the greatest respect for the development team,” Fils-Aime said. “Mr. Sakamoto [co-creator of Metoid] did a wonderful job. His partnership with us in promoting the game was stellar. Team Ninja [is] absolutely fabulous. I’m not going to sit here and criticize a style of the game, but have I read the same feedback that said, broadly, that the portrayal of Samus felt different than how the player in the past had internalized the character? I’ve heard and read the same feedback. Do I think it’s warranted or not? I’m not quite sure yet… I don’t yet believe that that is the driving factor to the performance of the game.”
– http://kotaku.com/5688617/nintendo-trying-to-figure-out-what-went-wrong-with-newest-metroid
You know what’s really amazing here? Kotaku just flat-out told Reggie what the problem was, and usually journalists are way off the mark on stuff like that. Now, I don’t know if Reggie dismissing Kotaku’s suggestions was a way to protect the integrity (ha!) of Sakamoto, but he needs to come to grips with this (actually, Iwata does) if he hasn’t already.
Reggie knows why Other M didn’t sell. It wouldn’t be professional for him to state it in public. Someone in Reggie’s position would never say anything negative about any of the software developers.
Here is what my gut instinct is telling me…
Around a decade or more so ago, Sakamoto began having ‘visions’. These involved “stories” in Metroid revolving around the “character” of Samus Aran. You can see he was moving toward Other M by how Fusion and Zero Mission were made [Zero Mission was Sakamoto rebooting Metroid so he could inject his own ‘spin’ on it]. Also, Sakamoto was very obstinate to Retro doing anything interesting with Samus Aran in the Prime series (such as the earlier plan in Metroid Prime 3 to have Samus be a ‘bounty hunter’ who did missions for credits).
When Sakamoto made Other M and its ‘story’, I am confident that they were planning many more such ‘stories’ told (i.e. sequels to Other M). How do I know this? Being a content creator myself, it is very common for any maker of any work to have thoughts of multiple sequels or other side stories. Sakamoto somewhat let the cat out of the bag in one late interview where he said it was being discussed whether or not Other M would be the future of the Metroid franchise. In other words, Metroid: Other M was made for the intention of it becoming the new ‘normal’ for Metroid.
You would think low sales and hostile feedback from customers would have a say in this manner. But you would be wrong.
My gut instinct is telling me that Nintendo plans to go on ahead with Other M sequels and is looking to blame the low sales on something other than the content. And by content, I do mean the story but the overall substance of the game. Not how the game is but what the game is.
This is not the first time Nintendo has done it. Wind Waker had a poor reception. The game has some serious problems such as the bland overworld and nonsensical plot. But these are issues of substance, are issues of content. In fact, these are issues we hear everyone complaining about with Zelda these days. Zelda’s world feels like blah and the game seems ‘lame’. These are not trivial complaints but major complaints at the skeleton of these games.
To my knowledge, Nintendo has never acknowledged problems with their games’ content. In every single instance, the problem is declared to be something else. The problem is the art style. The problem is the controls. The problem is the accessibility. The problem is the marketing. The problem is never the actual substance of the game.
In the example like Wind Waker, Nintendo said the issue was the art style. So the next Zelda game, Twilight Princess, has a different art style and people were still unhappy with it. Again, it had the identical complaint of the blah world and complaints of the gameplay. Nintendo’s response was that ‘perhaps it is time to change the formula’ which translated to Aonuma removing the overworld completely and replacing it with something like trains. In this example of Zelda, Nintendo wasn’t acknowledging complains on the substance of the game, but only on trivial things such as the art style or controls or ‘changing the formula’ (which correlated to doing what Aonuma wanted to do all along. Amazing how that works…).
Another example is 3d Mario. Miyamoto refuses to acknowledge that 2d Mario fans prefer 2d Mario because of the substance, of the gameplay skeleton, of the games. Instead, he keeps saying things like ‘the camera’ or ‘accessibility’ or ‘controls’ or something else trivial is the only reason why 3d Mario doesn’t sell like 2d Mario. He keeps beating around the bush. Why?
Here is my hypothesis:
At E3 2006, Reggie said, “Do you know anyone who has never read a book or watched a movie? Of course not! Do you know anyone who has never played a video game? I bet you do. If we want gaming to grow, this has to change.”
Take the inverse of this and look at it from a development point of view.
Do you know anyone who cannot read and write? Do you know anyone who cannot point a camera and record things? Of course not!
But do you know anyone who cannot program a computer? I bet you do.
Content creation is a very, very, very rare skill to have. Very few people have it. In all the book authors, only like 1% of them actually make solid content (and gets the sales). And with movie makers, there are very few who can make a substantive movie, i.e. a movie with content. (And no, I do not mean VALUE by this.)
Not making Super Mario Brothers for 20 years in favor to make a, by far, less selling 3d Mario game? Check.
Not making the rich overworld game of Zelda in favor of the less selling empty overworld but many puzzles Zelda? Check.
Not making explore-a-maze Metroid in favor for making a cinematic Metroid with maternal instincts? Check.
When I was more naïve, I used to think Nintendo’s main objective was to make customers, to satisfy current customers, to expand gaming, etc. But over the past twenty years, only one main objective explains Nintendo’s actions. The primary objective is for Nintendo to have a fun development process.
Why does Nintendo not make the games we want? It is because they are hard to make and doesn’t have a fun development process. Classic Zelda? That is too tough! Let us just make a linear game with puzzle dungeons instead. Super Mario Brothers? Too hard! Let us just keep doing that 3d game where you collect stars and put Mario as a character. Metroid? Such a game would be too hard. It is much more fun to make little movies about Samus Aran and chain them together as a ‘game’. More games with motion control? Too hard! It is much more fun to keep making Gamecube games and just use motion control to replace a button (shake to spin for example).
Inside Nintendo, I bet the developers are very upset that the “ignorant” masses are not allowing them to have their ‘fun’. I wouldn’t be surprised that Sakamoto is thinking customers are the problem because, if you listen to the Reggie quote, they have already ‘internalized an image of Samus’. I guarantee you Nintendo is thinking, “Hmm, if they didn’t internalize an image already, Metroid: Other M would be very popular! Therefore, let us start making sequels immediately!”
I am sure Nintendo had much fun developing Wii Music. Unfortunately, no one had fun playing it. Nintendo’s response will be to make another Wii Music, because they had so much fun developing it, but ‘tweak it’ so perhaps customers will like.
Note the priority. Fun for developers first. Customer fun is secondary. In fact, the entire plan is get customers to buy things that have fun development processes. If a game is not fun to develop and sells 20 million units and spawn countless TV shows, a movie, and fanfare unlike anything we’ve seen, Nintendo will stop making it. Hello Super Mario Brothers. Or rather, goodbye.
Let us say I am at Cafe Nintendo and I ordered a pizza (i.e. Super Mario Brothers as both pizza and Super Mario Brothers never gets old!). When the waiter comes back, he gives me a plate full of sushi. “This is not what I ordered,” I said. The waiter would shake his finger at me and say, “What does it matter what you want? The chef got bored making pizza and decided to give you a ‘surprise’.” “I am not interested in this ‘surprise’. I want my pizza!” If the chef refuses to make a pizza, I have no interest at eating at Cafe Nintendo. If the waiter comes back and says the chef says, “OK! OK! The chef will make your pizza. But the toppings will be sushi,” I would grab the shirt of the waiter and say, “You don’t get it, bub. If I’m paying you money, you won’t be able to do it your way. Give me my pizza the way I want it or I’ll leave the cafe.” The waiter returns telling me that the chef angrily has accepted making a pizza without any trace of sushi on it. However, when I get my pizza, it seems half-assed and as if the chef spit in it.
For over a decade, it seemed as if Nintendo has an amputation style with their first party software. Anything they didn’t like to develop was chopped off. If you liked Super Mario Brothers, there was no reason to buy a N64 or Gamecube. If liked the fundamental rich 2d games in general, you were just plain out of luck as everything HAD to be 3d. Is it any wonder why Nintendo’s handheld line was very popular while their console line was not?
Currently, it seems as if Nintendo has switched to a fusion style with their first party software. What this means instead of just doing 3d Mario, Nintendo would do both 2d Mario and 3d Mario. If you liked classic Zelda, perhaps Nintendo would make that AND make puzzle dungeon Zelda.
This fusion style only works so far because people can choose which software they want to buy. However, the fusion style is incompatible with the hardware development since everyone must buy the same exact hardware to play First Party Nintendo games. Hardware cannot follow the fusion style because it would become too expensive. Console hardware cannot be everything to everyone and still be affordable. Something must be cut.
Any normal business would cut off the feature that connects to the least customers. However, Nintendo is not a normal business. Nintendo apparently seems to make the choice where the hardware will focus on what the software developers want to make. And since software developers live games, breathe games, and are always immersed in games, the direction will always lean more toward the hardcore which means the sales future leans toward decline.
Longterm, the fusion-style isn’t going to cut it. The first party software cannot lead a console in two separate directions. The choices are not Casual and Hardcore. The choices are Expand or Die.
When Nintendo goes ahead and makes sequels to Other M and Wii Music, do not be surprised. Nintendo would be acting as they have been for the past fifteen years. The only thing I wish is that Iwata would stand up in front of his investors and say, “You know all that stuff I said about ‘expanding gaming’? Haha! I was just saying stuff. What this business is about is doing whatever our developers have fun with. We’re not interested in getting increased sales because we believe our developers having fun will lead to mass-market sales (even though this hasn’t worked for Nintendo and hasn’t worked at all throughout the entire game industry). Forget about expanding gaming. Meanwhile, here are sequels to games no one wants to buy but boy oh boy did our developers have fun in making them! That is what is important! Hahaha!”
Expect Metroid: Other M 2 to come to a retailer near you in the next couple of years. After all, what else is Team Ninja going to do?
Malstrom's Articles News 