Why does he think it is old?

Back during 2006, I only really had one question for Mr. Miyamoto. It was this: “Why do you hate us?” Clearly, he didn’t like customers like us if he stopped making Super Mario Brothers games.

Recently, Miyamoto said in an Iwata Asks interview that he was confirming that Nintendo was making another Super Mario Brothers game for the 3DS. There wasn’t much need for this confirmation as Miyamoto confirmed it earlier during an investor conference. Any software that sells 20 million plus units is going to be continued.

But Miyamoto’s reasoning for continuing Super Mario Brothers is quite puzzling. He likened it to putting new lights and displays on old Japanese temples.

If I am given one question every generation, for this generation I wish the question to be,

“Why do you think it is old?”

Seriously. Where did this premise come forth that Super Mario Brothers is ‘old’? I mean the original games, when they were made, of course are a certain date. I’m talking about the gameplay. Why does he think that is old? Nintendo just sold millions of copies of Super Mario All-Stars which are glitzed up NES games. Why are millions of people buying it? Because it is old? Or because it remains fresh?

The above is footage from Call of Duty: Black Ops. It sold eight million on release around several months ago.

Why is Call of Duty not considered a retro game? It is using the same FPS core that is decades old.

The above is some gameplay footage of Mario Kart Wii. Is Mario Kart Wii a retro game? It is selling better than ever. Mario Kart consistently sells strongly. Yet, no one calls it a retro game.

The above is Gran Turismo 5. Why is it not considered a retro game? Its gameplay is extremely old. It is as old as Pole Position.

Pole Position came out almost 30 years ago. Sure, I admit there are some differences with Pole Position and Gran Turismo 5. But most of those changes are aesthetics. The gameplay is quite identical.

Why does the modern side scroller get tagged with ‘retro’ or ‘old’  when the modern FPS or modern racer does not? Anyone want to explain that?

I believe there is a difference in reality between the actual market audience and the people in the game industry. The market does not look at the modern side scroller and say, “Oh noes! This is old! This is retro! Run away! Flee! Away with me!” For some reason, those inside the game industry and even Miyamoto himself believe the side scroller is ‘old’.

The only thing different about the modern side scroller and the modern racer or modern FPS is that the lack of 3d perspective.

Who decided that a game not being in 3d is somehow ‘retro’ or ‘old’? Certainly not the audience.

During the Fifth and Six Generations, many of us were watching in horror as many game series were moved into 3d when there was no need. So if you enjoyed a game like Contra, you were out of luck for another such game. Instead, you got Contra in 3d. If you liked Mega Man, again, you were out of luck. You got Mega Man in 3d instead. Realizing that the move to 3d was disastrous, that the original audience didn’t follow, games like Contra 4 and Mega Man 9 are made similar to the old style. Yet, even then, they still don’t get it. They made those games under a cliche of ‘old school’ meaning “cheap deaths” so filled the games with ‘cheap deaths’. Did these people not remember Battletoads?

There is some incorrect bias that any video game that doesn’t use the 3d perspective is somehow ‘old’ or ‘retro’.

While the above game came out a couple generations ago, it isn’t ‘old’ or ‘retro’. It is ridiculous how any and all shmups get tagged with being ‘old’, even if they are new, because they are not using a 3d perspective.

Are all strategy games now ‘old’ and ‘retro’ because they do not use a 3d perspective?

I believe 3d has created two different realities for the development side and the customer side. The development side LOVES 3d, as 3d has totally revolutionized how game development is done. 3d also allows the developer a camera which they can swing around and pretend they are a movie director (which they frequently do).

But on the consumer side, 3d is a mixed bag. It works well when 3d doesn’t interfere with the gameplay such as with racing games or First Person Shooters. One of the worst things 3d has done is create cameras which is annoying for the player to control. If you look at the controllers, the move to 3d broke the controller. Gaming became inaccessible. Too many sticks. Too many buttons.

The ‘decline of console gaming’ Nintendo kept talking about prior to the Wii launch interestingly coincides with the decline of the arcades. And the decline of the arcades coincides with the advent of 3d technology. In so many ways, 3d technology destroyed the arcades.

If any of what is said in this post is true, then one would be greatly concerned with Nintendo looking to terraform their ever reliable handheld market into a 3d one. And one would be concerned with Miyamoto thinking that the side scroller is an old type of game (likely because it doesn’t use 3d).

One of the fundamental beliefs behind the Wii was that consumers were growing tired of gaming because games were becoming ‘too complicated’ and the controller was inaccessible. What caused games to become ‘too complicated’? What caused the controller to become ‘inaccessible’?

When game developers’ “visions” and “3d dreams” are loose in the market, it is well time for the old school gamer to lock doors, pull out an old console from the closet, and lie low until the wrath has passed. For there is often a monstrous incongruity between the developer’s ‘visions’, however ambitious, and the actual game product which follows them.

We are days away from the beginning of the 8th Generation, days away from the release of the 3DS. All the white and colorful 3DS machines are all lined up with software promising to show off the flowery graphics. It is as if ivied maidens and garland youths were to herald the four horsemen of a ‘declining sales’ apocalypse.