Hey Sean. I happened to go through some posts on NeoGAF that linked to your “Toast” blog post back in 2008, and I read on from there. This led me to come across another old blog post called Grasroots Gaming.
What amazes me about this blog post is that it still applies to reality, even today when entire new pieces of hardware have been shown off (like the Kinect and Move, or the 3DS and NGP). Amazingly, two years later this logic still stands tall, and people (like, say, Nintendo) still don’t see it. I’ll be picking out some quotes and put out my thoughts around them:
“I like games sticking to their roots. I love the simple arcade action, the precise 2d gameplay, and how games were about ‘fun’. Lately, games have been going off in other directions such as cinematic experiences, games with ‘message’ (oh geez, what fun), games with super-serious stories (ugh), and gaming has de-evolved more into a competition between developers/publishers of which game can have the ‘best’ graphics or be the most ‘artistic’ (according to THEIR standards. They forgot to notice the customers stopped caring).”
What I find very funny about this is that, while this blog post was made in November 2008, at E3 2009 Nintendo proceeded to show off probably the most offensive, sorry excuse of a manga-game, Metroid: Other M. It certainly wasn’t a game about fun, and almost ironically contradicted everything Nintendo had been putting out on the Wii, with the only exception being Wii Music (which also ended up being ‘not fun’ and uninteresting to consumers).
“I think the idea that Nintendo has ‘abandoned’ Core Gamers with the Wii is ridiculous. What is more likely to be true is that Nintendo ‘abandoned’ Core Gamers with the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube. After the Super Nintendo, Nintendo’s home console market just went into steep decline.
And the reason for the fault can be placed entirely on one man: Shigeru Miyamoto.”
It was very interesting to see Miyamoto’s name raised as the person responsible for Nintendo’s console decline already here; for some reason you’ve maintained an image as a ‘Nintard’ (translated; Nintendo fanboy) to this very day, despite crticizing them as much as anyone else (recently even more than Sony or Microsoft, or even Michael Pacther). It’s amazing how so many people on forums can be so ignorant that they will adamantly hang on to an ill-informed, misrepresenting and downright FALSE impression of something as simple as another person’s opinion.
Looking a little further into this:
“Who is the Nintendo Core gamer? Nintendo defines it as someone who plays the Mario and Zelda type games and other games that require time invested and large amount of skills to play. The Mario and Zelda games have been in large decline since the Super Nintendo era (for Zelda, the decline began after Ocarina of Time).
Once upon a time, Mario was the biggest hit ever and people would rush to buy the Nintendo system just to play Mario. It is undeniable that Mario catapulted the NES to success and very much carried similar impact with the Super NES. People rushed to buy the SNES because of Super Mario World. Mario 64 did not have the same impact, at least, not outside America. N64 sold well only in America and lagged elseware. Gamecube, like the N64, sold mostly in America but at lesser numbers. Super Mario Sunshine did not bring in the Core Gamers as Super Mario World or even Mario 64 did. Zelda Windwaker did not bring in the Core Zelda fans as Ocarina of Time did for N64.
Nintendo didn’t piss off their Core Market with the Wii. They did it with the N64 and Gamecube.”
A year after this blog post, the notion of Mario’s decline would be lampshaded, ironically, by Mario’s revival. Super Mario Bros. 5 proved that a 2D Mario truly COULD exist on a modern home console and wasn’t old or ‘retro’ at all – in fact it was every bit as phenomenal as huge Wii hitters like Mario Kart Wii and Wii Sports Resort.
Super Mario Bros. 5 also provided a valuable lesson that I’m not sure Nintendo really picked up – there is a fundamental difference between 2D and 3D Mario that makes one much more appealing to gamers – both new and old – than the other. One thing we saw more of after SMB5 was 2D platformers (more specifically platformers with co-op) like Donkey Kong Country Returns and Kirby’s Epic Yarn, so evidently Nintendo picked up SOMETHING from 2D Mario’s grand return to a home console. Yet despite being confronted with these cold, hard numbers, Iwata’s keynote included footage of a 3D Mario for the 3DS, not 2D Mario. “Finally we can hit a block accurately”, indeed. And we know a 2D Mario is being made for the 3DS, so why not show that?
It makes you wonder how things would be if they treated 2D Mario with the same conviction, passion and stubbornness as they’re currently treating 3D Mario.
“So how can I blame the lovable Shigeru Miyamoto for destroying Nintendo’s Core Market with the Mario and Zelda franchises? It is because we know Miyamoto has absolute control over those two franchises. No one is going to make a Mario or Zelda game without Miyamoto closely examining what is done. Mario and Zelda are HIS babies.
Since my chair broke, I was playing more of the core Mario and Zelda titles. A frustrating pattern emerged as I realized why I dislike the later Mario and Zelda titles. They are polished, well made games, no doubt. But they are still dislikable compared to the earlier classics.
Miyamoto looks at gaming in an industrial arts way. In Zelda: Twilight Princess, he couldn’t just have a wolf link. He had to make it ‘interesting’ by throwing in a rider on top of Link (which ended up being Midna) as well as adding a chain around his foot (which poor Wolf Link never can take off). Ever since ‘Donkey Kong’, Miyamoto focuses on creating an ‘interesting character’. From Miyamoto’s perspective, the Mario and Zelda franchises revolve around the icons.
To many Core Gamers’ frustration, the Mario ‘icons’ have been placed in almost every Nintendo sports game.”
Looking at Zelda today, isn’t it funny how there are STILL “interesting characters”? And how Nintendo tries to make games “interesting” by creating surprises? Just look at the trailer of Skyward Sword from GDC 2011 to see Nintendo’s latest examples of such “interesting characters” (notice how it shows exactly ONE new character – you’d never see a Zelda trailer put emphasis on some game character back in the day) and “surprises” with the MotionPlus-based gameplay.
More interestingly, the subject of ‘icons’ in gaming has been quite prominent this generation. Previous to the Wii, Nintendo’s ‘icons’ were the recurring sequels (Mario, Zelda, Star Fox), and the recurring ‘icons’ within these franchises. By the time Twilight Princess hit the market, Zelda was riddled with these icons (and they will likely return in Skyward Sword).
“In Miyamoto’s world, people play Mario games because they like Mario. So we now see Mario more animated, he now ‘talks’ with the annoying voice. But Miyamoto is clearly wrong on this. People never played Mario games because of Mario per se. If a 2d platformer was just as compelling, it was embraced with equal fever. See Sonic. See Donkey Kong Country. The 3d Marios are a very different game than the 2d Marios. This doesn’t mean they are *bad*. It means that the Core Market of Mario really got abandoned when every Mario game became 3d Mario.”
This is nothing new, but I’m still amazed by how this is being twisted around by people to try and make you look like you’re basically calling 3D Mario bad games. It says right there that they’re not neccessarily bad games (something you’ve reinforced with later statements more than once, I’m fairly certain). What was bad was the mindset that this was Mario’s “evolution”. A 2D Mario wasn’t created for a home console for 18 years – people have been born and grown up to become adults in that time! Whether 3D Mario is good or not is an entirely different matter – the problem being addressed here is that 2D Mario was CLEARLY neglected in favor of 3D Mario.
Nintendo has learned to make more 2D Mario, but it’s still clear which game they’d rather be making.
“The Zelda franchise feels stale because it has become a franchise about previous icons reassembled in a new way. Instead of being a non-linear hack-and-slash game that challenges one’s mind and reflexes, Zelda has become a linear adventure game that challenges one’s puzzle solving skills. Despite the saturation of Zelda icons, the Zelda franchise no longer feels like Zelda anymore. Even worse, Miyamoto said he ‘up ended the tea table’ to redo the first part of Twilight Princess. Alas, the first part of the game is the ABSOLUTE WORST and the most boring exercise of any Nintendo game I have ever had to endured. Twilight Princess’s first three dungeons all seem trapped in the recycling the ‘icons’ as Link goes to the ‘Dark Realm’ and back, goes to Forest Temple, Fire Dungeon, and then Water Temple. Oooohhhh. How thrilling! How boring! And then goes through Sacred Grove to get the Master Sword. Yes, we have done this how many times now? Twilight Princess becomes much more fun once at Arbiter’s Grounds where fresh content comes in and the game ceases to be so narrowly linear (but still stays linear until the end).”
While I personally enjoyed the first half of Twilight Princess, this probably rings more true than ever before as we’ve witnessed Skyward Sword’s general direction displayed before us. I quite liked Skyward Sword’s E3 demo; it had elements I’d not seen in Zelda for a long time. It had no set path, no reliance on “icons”, and every single playthrough that appeared on Youtube was WIDELY different from the other ones. One guy used only the swordbeams to fight the enemies, which required more timing and skill. Another guy preferred to play it defensively by using the shield and time his shield bashes so he could stun the enemies and then lay down the smack on them.
Let’s look at the scorpion boss. There was only one thing you needed to do – attack the weak spots in its claws. This is widely different from, say, the boss fight against Gohma in TWW (you don’t even hit it ONCE with the sword!) or Fyrus in Twilight Princess. Seriously, here’s the rundown for Fyrus’ boss battle:
1) Shoot big red glowing eye
2) Put on iron boots and pull chain
3) Go over and hit weak spot
4) Rinse and repeat
And what about Skyward Sword’s GDC trailer? I see less of this kind of non-linear action-based combat, and more of the same, linear puzzle-combat we’ve put up with for several years now. You MUST slash in this direction to slay the enemy! You MUST flip this spider up to attack its belly! You MUST balance on this line and make the enemy fall down (seriously, how does that even work?).
“I think the call from Core Gamers for Nintendo to make a more ‘core’ game on a new intellectual property is because of the absolute disgust the Core Market has of Nintendo’s franchises revolving around icons and not the gameplay.
I have no confidence in a new Mario or Zelda game that will spark fire among consumers again due to Nintendo’s pattern. The new Mario and Zelda games will alter the gameplay but revolve around the same tired icons and routines.
Perhaps Nintendo will learn from New Super Mario Brothers (which, to my knowledge, has outsold all Mario games): it is that the Core Market wants the GAMEPLAY, not the CHARACTERS. Keeping the same characters and putting them in different gameplay is just pissing off the Core Market.”
If there’s something Nintendo’s own franchises has shown, it’s this. Zelda has revolved around the same icons, and has never reached beyond Ocarina of Time. Mario’s step from 2D to 3D was a general decline, despite having the same “characters” and “icons”. And Metroid: Other M not only brought back the “icons”; it butchered them and actually offendedfans of the series.
At the same time, Wii Sports and Wii Fit break records in sales, despite having no “icons” to draw upon. Super Mario Bros. 5 and Mario Kart Wii maintain the same general gameplay that was established well before their time, and yet they too break sales records.
Amazing how a blast from the past can resonate strongly even after more than two years, huh?
What’s interesting to me is that you find old blog posts interesting. In the Malstrom Parody, I am the ‘Most Interesting’ gamer in the world. Note that it does not say the ‘most handsome’ or ‘smartest’ or ‘most happy’ or anything like that. Just the ‘most interesting’.
Have you ever read books or columns and thought, “I disagree with everything that person says. But what he says is interesting. I will keep reading because of it.”? I find those to be the BEST things to read. And they are pretty rare. I decided long ago, I wanted to try to be like those people.
So how do you become interesting? You could go for a ‘shock jock’ route. While that calls attention to oneself, it isn’t really interesting. No one listens if you are just trying to make noise. One becomes interesting by being authentic. This is why politicians are the least interesting people because nothing they say is authentic. This is also why so much Internet traffic goes through message forums. Message forums tend to have a sense of authenticity that big websites do not.
But why do some things remain interesting over time while other things do not? It is a question I ask myself everyday. For example, why did Shakespeare remain interesting while his contemporaries did not? A big reason why is because Shakespeare kept mocking Nature and Human Nature. Since Nature and Human Nature never changes and repeats every generation, every Spring, the mockery remains fresh. However, other poets were mocking a particular politician or an institution. Perhaps they were exciting in their day. But today, they are not interesting because that politician or institution no longer exists today. So if one wishes to be interesting, one needs to ground oneself on a subject that will remain interesting years, decades, centuries to come.
This explains my approach to this site and also my approach on observing the video game market. With the first, I am not so much writing about Mario, Zelda, or a particular game. The real focus is a theme I see constantly repeated. For example, a theme could be a game developer believing he is a genius and forgets that his job is actually to make a product that sells. If I complained about Metroid: Other M or Master of Orion 3, it is saying the same general theme. As for the second part, in observing the video game market, I believe what sells a video game does not change with the time but remains a constant. Once upon a time, a video game named PONG, which is tennis, created new gamers as it was sold from the sporting department from Sears. More recently, another video game named Wii Sports, which contained a simple tennis game, created new gamers. To me, I see a theme repeating itself. Too often, the video game industry says, “This is new! This has never been done before!” Yet, it has all been done before. There is nothing new under the sun.
A reader interrupts this post: “Why are you talking about yourself, Malstrom? Get on with the good stuff!” Well, the emailer wondered why he found some old blog posts interesting. What I’m saying is that it is likely because they are based more on a general theme, which still applies to this day, than they were about current events in their time.
Let’s go through your email more carefully.
“I like games sticking to their roots. I love the simple arcade action, the precise 2d gameplay, and how games were about ‘fun’. Lately, games have been going off in other directions such as cinematic experiences, games with ‘message’ (oh geez, what fun), games with super-serious stories (ugh), and gaming has de-evolved more into a competition between developers/publishers of which game can have the ‘best’ graphics or be the most ‘artistic’ (according to THEIR standards. They forgot to notice the customers stopped caring).”
What I find very funny about this is that, while this blog post was made in November 2008, at E3 2009 Nintendo proceeded to show off probably the most offensive, sorry excuse of a manga-game, Metroid: Other M. It certainly wasn’t a game about fun, and almost ironically contradicted everything Nintendo had been putting out on the Wii, with the only exception being Wii Music (which also ended up being ‘not fun’ and uninteresting to consumers).
I believe that the Gamecube’s failure and the threat of the PSP in the handheld market forced a correction in Nintendo’s behavior. Suddenly, almost overnight, they discovered they needed to appeal to the ‘masses’ (people like old Malstrom). The software they put out for the DS and Wii in 2005, 2006, and 2007 were the reasons why those platforms exploded. Nintendogs. Mario Kart DS. Mario Kart Wii. New Super Mario Brothers. Animal Crossing DS. Brain Age. Wii Sports. Wii Fit.
Once Nintendo became successful (more successful than they ever have before), they lost their minds. They became arrogant. They actually believed they ‘invented’ new rules to the gaming business (instead of fulfilling the old rules). Prior to the Wii being launched, Nintendo described development of the Wii as looking back at consoles such as the NES and even the PlayStation to see how and why they sold. Wii Sports golf courses even were the NES golf ones. After the success, Nintendo declared their success came due, not to following the rules of the past, but due to their ‘genius innovation’ of hardware and software and general synergy (oh that word!). This is why all the bad software and bad ideas were released or began in 2008. Wii Music would never have been released if the old rules of video games were followed as the game had no gameplay whatsoever (unlike say Brain Age or Wii Fit). But because Nintendo now saw themselves as genius innovators, they lost sight of those old rules and released the game as their main flagship product for the Wii holiday in 2008. It was then that the Wii mania died. After three years, Wii suddenly became in stock in America. And very, very soon, almost too rapidly, sales became ‘unhealthy’.
From an observer’s point of view, it is quite amazing how quickly a console company can go from a humble ‘please like us’ to a ‘we are geniuses’ shift. Any signs of ‘wrong direction’ will be ignored by Nintendo as they march on. It took a Gamecube in order to get Nintendo to make a Wii. Therefore, we can assume it will take another Gamecube for Nintendo straighten up to make another Wii.
“I think the idea that Nintendo has ‘abandoned’ Core Gamers with the Wii is ridiculous. What is more likely to be true is that Nintendo ‘abandoned’ Core Gamers with the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube. After the Super Nintendo, Nintendo’s home console market just went into steep decline.
And the reason for the fault can be placed entirely on one man: Shigeru Miyamoto.”
It was very interesting to see Miyamoto’s name raised as the person responsible for Nintendo’s console decline already here; for some reason you’ve maintained an image as a ‘Nintard’ (translated; Nintendo fanboy) to this very day, despite criticizing them as much as anyone else (recently even more than Sony or Microsoft, or even Michael Pachter). It’s amazing how so many people on forums can be so ignorant that they will adamantly hang on to an ill-informed, misrepresenting and downright FALSE impression of something as simple as another person’s opinion.
Half of the readership of this site tend to generally agree with what is said. Half of the readership of this tend to disagree with what is said. Of course, someone disagreeing with you doesn’t matter so long as they find you interesting.
Young men, have you ever wondered why the typical hot babe HATES some ‘jerk’? Yet, next day she is in ‘love’ with the ‘jerk’? The answer is the same. In the world of women, a few men are interesting and most men are not. If you become interesting to women (various ways to do that), you will be both loved and loathed by them. Being hated isn’t the problem. The only problem is if they find you boring. And this is the same general rule for entertainment.
The reason why people call me ‘nintard’ or other nonsense has, actually, nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with them. There are two ways to be ‘awesome’. One is to actually be awesome. The other is to constantly declare everyone but you is not awesome. Since you mentioned Neogaf, here is an example post. Any true ‘smart’ person would know what the Oracle said to Socrates that Socrates was ‘smart’ because Socrates understood that he understood nothing. Smart people do not declare themselves smart because someone else is stupid. Smart people declare themselves smart because they hang around and keep measuring themselves to smarter people.
About Miyamoto, there is clearly a decline in Nintendo consoles and a large drop-off with the N64 and Gamecube. For too long, the Nintendo fan has been identified with someone who buys Nintendo consoles and Nintendo games. But we’ve forgotten about the original Nintendo fan. The one who used to buy Nintendo products but no longer does. These Nintendo fans tend to have identical histories up to the SNES and N64. Then, the time lines split (Zelda fans are very familiar with this concept). If you bought a Nintendo console to play Super Mario Brothers but didn’t like 3d Mario, YOU WERE SCREWED. If you didn’t like every game franchise becoming 3d and totally playing with different gameplay, YOU WERE SCREWED. You were the Lost Generation.
And while Miyamoto might play the role of constant hero to the usual Nintendo fan, he plays the role of the villain to the Lost Generation. Instead of bringing us exciting games, to the Lost Generation he takes them away. He took away 2d Mario. He took away that arcade/rpg hybrid that was Zelda. He’s allowed the F-Zero and Starfox series to be destroyed.
As you can imagine, Iwata was seen as a sort of savior. After becoming president, his first consoles were the DS and Wii. While the ‘hardcore’ were going bonkers crying about the ‘end of gaming’, no one noticed the Lost Generation coming back (arguably, I don’t think the Lost Generation ever left the handhelds). However, now Iwata will be given a different reception due to the 3DS. If the 3DS repels the Lost Generation, as I suspect it will, then Iwata will somehow find himself in the role of the villain. Instead of bringing gaming to these people, he is taking gaming they enjoyed and removing it. Every game for the 3DS will be in 3d. Every. Single. One. The main feature is a 3d output that does nothing for the gameplay. And it forces the system to be extremely expensive to boot. If you are this sort of gamer, you will feel nothing but despair. Sure, there might be a couple of games that are made the way you want. But they are just a couple. Why invest in a console when you know no one wants to make games for you?
There is a reason why Nintendo has dropped the ‘make gaming for the masses’ line. You never hear them say that in any of their speeches anymore. In order to make the games for the masses, they have to make games they do not want to make (like 2d Mario). So Nintendo has changed it to be ‘make 3d gaming more accessible’.
From my vantage point, the 3DS is the N64 all over again. It’s a nightmare all over again. There is one small difference though. I can give Nintendo hell about it on my little site! I think many of the problems with the N64 direction resulted in many of us not speaking up. Disinterest speaks with silence while the niche interest speaks with triumphant applause. Who is the victor? The niche. Hell, to this day Nintendo still believes their N64 games were ‘very successful’ when they were actually ‘very destructive’ and took a wrecking ball to the Nintendo Empire.
One of the obstacles for gaming to go to the masses is developers thinking they are geniuses. And this problem cannot be corrected, despite low sales, because of the ‘Game God’ complex. Young gamers worship a game developer as if he were a sort of demi-god. It is absurd no matter how you slice it. A developer knows he is good when everyone buys his game. By throwing praise on developers whose games do not sell, we are harming the cause of gaming.
One of the big issues I had over the course of this website was being allowed to criticize a ‘game god’. And the criticism wasn’t mean spirited so much as it was ‘He keeps making the games I do not want to play’. Like for someone like myself, it would be ‘yet more 3d Mario’. I even received hell for criticizing Sakamoto for why people played Super Metroid was for ‘maternal instincts’. I was there during that time period. I know maternal instincts was, in no shape, way, or form, even remotely in my head or in any gamer’s head when we played through Super Metroid. But since he was a ‘game god’, he got a pass on anything he said no matter how ridiculous.
Another reason why the ‘game god’ is a threat to gaming is because of what occurred to the ‘director god’ in movies. There was a movie director who was convicted of child rape in France. Convicted. Hollywood’s response was to shrug it off and say, “it doesn’t matter because he made some good movies.” It is why Hollywood is in non-reversible decline.
Gaming for the masses means everyone, both games and their developers, get held up to a tougher standard. I think this is one reason why most game makers, including Nintendo, prefer their niche. At least there they get treated like gods. But out there, in the real world, they lose that worship.
“Who is the Nintendo Core gamer? Nintendo defines it as someone who plays the Mario and Zelda type games and other games that require time invested and large amount of skills to play. The Mario and Zelda games have been in large decline since the Super Nintendo era (for Zelda, the decline began after Ocarina of Time).
Once upon a time, Mario was the biggest hit ever and people would rush to buy the Nintendo system just to play Mario. It is undeniable that Mario catapulted the NES to success and very much carried similar impact with the Super NES. People rushed to buy the SNES because of Super Mario World. Mario 64 did not have the same impact, at least, not outside America. N64 sold well only in America and lagged elseware. Gamecube, like the N64, sold mostly in America but at lesser numbers. Super Mario Sunshine did not bring in the Core Gamers as Super Mario World or even Mario 64 did. Zelda Windwaker did not bring in the Core Zelda fans as Ocarina of Time did for N64.
Nintendo didn’t piss off their Core Market with the Wii. They did it with the N64 and Gamecube.”
A year after this blog post, the notion of Mario’s decline would be lampshaded, ironically, by Mario’s revival. Super Mario Bros. 5 proved that a 2D Mario truly COULD exist on a modern home console and wasn’t old or ‘retro’ at all – in fact it was every bit as phenomenal as huge Wii hitters like Mario Kart Wii and Wii Sports Resort.
Super Mario Bros. 5 also provided a valuable lesson that I’m not sure Nintendo really picked up – there is a fundamental difference between 2D and 3D Mario that makes one much more appealing to gamers – both new and old – than the other.
But this is not how Nintendo sees it. They see 2d Mario fans as a problem that needs to be ‘solved’, not a clue as to why we buy video games.
The Lost Generation and Nintendo have been at a stand-off. The Lost Generation assumed, wrongly, that because all games were going 3d in the 90s and transforming away from their arcade roots that video games were no longer for them. As time went on, many of us began to be very curious as to what the true selling power of one of ‘our’ games would be in today’s world. It is also clear that such games also are the doorway where new gamers are born. All the games I like on the Wii are called ‘bridge’ games by Iwata. In almost every case, they have those arcade roots. The Nintendo Wii games that are not ‘bridge’ games all look to ‘3d technology’ as their foundation for the gameplay.
I’m now beginning to think the ‘Lost Generation’ are not a ‘market’ or a ‘group’ out there so much as they were the first wave of older gamers to peel away and more will follow soon. To the more modern gamers, their despair with Sakamoto’s Other M echoes our own. Even those raised on Ocarina of Time are growing weary of the formula.
Nintendo is looking at this from an entirely different perspective… from an entirely different world. In Nintendo’s world, the N64, Gamecube, and even Virtual Boy were the correct direction for gaming. The problem? They didn’t succeed because of an X reason. The numerous possibilities for X we’ve heard from Nintendo include:
Accessibility.
Art Style.
Camera
Controller
Density
Enemies
Surprise
Nostalgia
Price
Third Party Games
Timing
And even more. Nintendo ridiculously scrambles to figure out ‘X’ which would somehow, as if by magic, make their 3d orientated games ‘mainstream’. When Miyamoto views the success of Mario 5, he does not say, “Wow, perhaps we should rethink this 3d thing.” Instead, he says, “Damn it! We still haven’t figured out how to get 3d Mario to sell like 2d Mario.” Why else was Mario Galaxy 2 made? Why is Mario 3DS going to go all tanooki on us? Anything to get 3d Mario to replace 2d Mario. Anything.
With the 8th Generation, Nintendo was given a choice. If they did the 3DS, they would have to throw out their strategy book of the previous generation. 3DS could not be ‘for the masses’ not with that high price tag and transforming every handheld game into a 3d game. But Nintendo is so emotionally invested in 3d, they jumped that way anyway.
Have you ever wondered how the hell a smart company like Nintendo would put out the Virtual Boy? What were they thinking!? I’m not saying that the 3DS will be a Virtual Boy, but I’m saying that Nintendo’s weakness for 3d technologies causes the company to make crappy business decisions.
Customers like ourselves are seen as a problem to Nintendo. Look no further than how they analyze why we weren’t ‘overjoyed’ with Metroid: Other M: “the audience imagined Samus Aran to be different than how she actually is, the way how Sakamoto envisions.” The blame, somehow, goes to the audience but not to the director.
Instead of trying to discover ‘X’ or blame the audience, Nintendo should abandon this ‘special effect’ direction they keep trying to go on. They should, instead, make games for the masses.
One thing we saw more of after SMB5 was 2D platformers (more specifically platformers with co-op) like Donkey Kong Country Returns and Kirby’s Epic Yarn, so evidently Nintendo picked up SOMETHING from 2D Mario’s grand return to a home console. Yet despite being confronted with these cold, hard numbers, Iwata’s keynote included footage of a 3D Mario for the 3DS, not 2D Mario. “Finally we can hit a block accurately”, indeed. And we know a 2D Mario is being made for the 3DS, so why not show that?
It makes you wonder how things would be if they treated 2D Mario with the same conviction, passion and stubbornness as they’re currently treating 3D Mario.
Indeed. When Galaxy 2 was shown off at E3 2009, I figured something was up. Mario Galaxy 2 is an expensive game (the included orchestra should show it cost serious money to make the game). When it was revealed that the mission of Galaxy 2 was to sell to ‘2d Mario fans’, it was clear what was going on. There is a reason why Galaxy 2 threw in all these 2d sidescroller levels (which seem out of place) and even included an instructional DVD in Japan so ‘stupid 2d Mario people’ will be able to experience the bliss that is 3d Mario.
I don’t hate 3d Mario. What I hate is 3d Mario trying to drive 2d Mario away from existence. 3D Mario isn’t even designed for 3d Mario fans anymore. It is designed today with one purpose: to destroy the 2d Mario market. Nintendo ‘says’ 3d Mario and 2d Mario co-exist side by side, but I don’t see it. 3D Mario, which doesn’t sell as much, gets an insane budget and symphonic orchestra. 2D Mario gets a much smaller budget and ‘wah wah’ for its music. And 3d Mario keeps being designed in such a way to eliminate the need for 2d Mario on the market. I suspect future 2d Mario games will be made only half-baked, like an actor phoning in his performance. Certainly, there isn’t the same degree of passion.
As for DKC Returns, that game can’t be placed as a response to Mario 5 because it was started before Nintendo knew of Mario 5’s success. This is why DKC Returns doesn’t exactly perform the same job. DKC Returns seems more akin to Mega Man 9 in terms of how it was made (e.g.: old school must mean hard! Here are frustration jumps and enemies!).
“So how can I blame the lovable Shigeru Miyamoto for destroying Nintendo’s Core Market with the Mario and Zelda franchises? It is because we know Miyamoto has absolute control over those two franchises. No one is going to make a Mario or Zelda game without Miyamoto closely examining what is done. Mario and Zelda are HIS babies.
Since my chair broke, I was playing more of the core Mario and Zelda titles. A frustrating pattern emerged as I realized why I dislike the later Mario and Zelda titles. They are polished, well made games, no doubt. But they are still dislikable compared to the earlier classics.
Miyamoto looks at gaming in an industrial arts way. In Zelda: Twilight Princess, he couldn’t just have a wolf link. He had to make it ‘interesting’ by throwing in a rider on top of Link (which ended up being Midna) as well as adding a chain around his foot (which poor Wolf Link never can take off). Ever since ‘Donkey Kong’, Miyamoto focuses on creating an ‘interesting character’. From Miyamoto’s perspective, the Mario and Zelda franchises revolve around the icons.
To many Core Gamers’ frustration, the Mario ‘icons’ have been placed in almost every Nintendo sports game.”
Looking at Zelda today, isn’t it funny how there are STILL “interesting characters”? And how Nintendo tries to make games “interesting” by creating surprises? Just look at the trailer of Skyward Sword from GDC 2011 to see Nintendo’s latest examples of such “interesting characters” (notice how it shows exactly ONE new character – you’d never see a Zelda trailer put emphasis on some game character back in the day) and “surprises” with the MotionPlus-based gameplay.
More interestingly, the subject of ‘icons’ in gaming has been quite prominent this generation. Previous to the Wii, Nintendo’s ‘icons’ were the recurring sequels (Mario, Zelda, Star Fox), and the recurring ‘icons’ within these franchises. By the time Twilight Princess hit the market, Zelda was riddled with these icons (and they will likely return in Skyward Sword).
Remember how the Sonic franchise kept adding more and more shitty friends? It’s the identical process to Nintendo except Nintendo is more polished about it. Nintendo’s N64/Gamecube direction will end up with the sewer level reputation that Sonic currently enjoys. The only difference is that the rate of decay is slower on Nintendo’s more polished products. More and more people eventually come to see through the polish that the games are in constant circles. Nintendo’s core games are old fish with special effects perfume.
“In Miyamoto’s world, people play Mario games because they like Mario. So we now see Mario more animated, he now ‘talks’ with the annoying voice. But Miyamoto is clearly wrong on this. People never played Mario games because of Mario per se. If a 2d platformer was just as compelling, it was embraced with equal fever. See Sonic. See Donkey Kong Country. The 3d Marios are a very different game than the 2d Marios. This doesn’t mean they are *bad*. It means that the Core Market of Mario really got abandoned when every Mario game became 3d Mario.”
This is nothing new, but I’m still amazed by how this is being twisted around by people to try and make you look like you’re basically calling 3D Mario bad games. It says right there that they’re not necessarily bad games (something you’ve reinforced with later statements more than once, I’m fairly certain). What was bad was the mindset that this was Mario’s “evolution”. A 2D Mario wasn’t created for a home console for 18 years – people have been born and grown up to become adults in that time! Whether 3D Mario is good or not is an entirely different matter – the problem being addressed here is that 2D Mario was CLEARLY neglected in favor of 3D Mario.
Nintendo has learned to make more 2D Mario, but it’s still clear which game they’d rather be making.
Right. The hostility some gamers have to 3d Mario is a reaction to how Miyamoto is trying to wipe 2d Mario from existence. Imagine 2d Mario and 3d Mario coexisting. The 2d Mario people would just shrug and not say anything. But now watch what happens if you say, “2d Mario is obsolete. 3D Mario will forever replace 2d Mario,” those quiet 2d Mario suddenly explode in an uproar.
The problem with 3d Mario is that it was trying to replace 2d Mario. It’s the same issue with Metroid: Other M. Sakamoto was not making Other M as a spin-off but to completely eliminate old school Metroid. Naturally, old school Metroid fans were not pleased.
If Super Mario Kart replaced 2d Mario and Nintendo said, “Why you want more Mario? You can get all your Mario in Super Mario Kart,” there would be unhappy people. Super Mario Kart is as absurd as successor to Super Mario Brothers as 3d Mario is. But it doesn’t mean they are bad games at all.
“The Zelda franchise feels stale because it has become a franchise about previous icons reassembled in a new way. Instead of being a non-linear hack-and-slash game that challenges one’s mind and reflexes, Zelda has become a linear adventure game that challenges one’s puzzle solving skills. Despite the saturation of Zelda icons, the Zelda franchise no longer feels like Zelda anymore. Even worse, Miyamoto said he ‘up ended the tea table’ to redo the first part of Twilight Princess. Alas, the first part of the game is the ABSOLUTE WORST and the most boring exercise of any Nintendo game I have ever had to endured. Twilight Princess’s first three dungeons all seem trapped in the recycling the ‘icons’ as Link goes to the ‘Dark Realm’ and back, goes to Forest Temple, Fire Dungeon, and then Water Temple. Oooohhhh. How thrilling! How boring! And then goes through Sacred Grove to get the Master Sword. Yes, we have done this how many times now? Twilight Princess becomes much more fun once at Arbiter’s Grounds where fresh content comes in and the game ceases to be so narrowly linear (but still stays linear until the end).”
While I personally enjoyed the first half of Twilight Princess, this probably rings more true than ever before as we’ve witnessed Skyward Sword’s general direction displayed before us. I quite liked Skyward Sword’s E3 demo; it had elements I’d not seen in Zelda for a long time. It had no set path, no reliance on “icons”, and every single playthrough that appeared on Youtube was WIDELY different from the other ones. One guy used only the swordbeams to fight the enemies, which required more timing and skill. Another guy preferred to play it defensively by using the shield and time his shield bashes so he could stun the enemies and then lay down the smack on them.
Let’s look at the scorpion boss. There was only one thing you needed to do – attack the weak spots in its claws. This is widely different from, say, the boss fight against Gohma in TWW (you don’t even hit it ONCE with the sword!) or Fyrus in Twilight Princess. Seriously, here’s the rundown for Fyrus’ boss battle:
1) Shoot big red glowing eye
2) Put on iron boots and pull chain
3) Go over and hit weak spot
4) Rinse and repeat
Right. I was getting my hopes up for Skyward Sword based on reports that you could go through the E3 area very differently depending on the person’s personality. I was hoping Skyward Sword would lean away from the lame puzzle/cutscene approach and go more toward how Zelda played in LTTP, Ocarina, or the earliest Zeldas.
And what about Skyward Sword’s GDC trailer? I see less of this kind of non-linear action-based combat, and more of the same, linear puzzle-combat we’ve put up with for several years now. You MUST slash in this direction to slay the enemy! You MUST flip this spider up to attack its belly! You MUST balance on this line and make the enemy fall down (seriously, how does that even work?).
An arcade game, as well as any multiplayer game today, requires a precision of balance. The reason why the market keeps drifting towards multiplayer games is not necessarily because everyone wants to play multiplayer games. It is because multiplayer games tend to be balanced. And balance creates fun. Ask Blizzard who used this approach to become one of the biggest game companies on Earth.
The earlier you go in Zelda, the more you can see the balance working underneath the surface. Enemies have a certain amount of hitpoints. They do a certain amount of damage. The levels are molded in such a way to be balanced. The reason I suspect Nintendo loves puzzles and ‘story’ is that none of it requires craftsmanship or balance. A puzzle can only be solved one way. There is no need to balance it unlike an actual gameplay system.
I don’t think Nintendo is capable of making such a game. This is why they must fall back on the puzzles and stories. It is also why indie game makers and bargain bin games tend to focus heavily on puzzles and stories. Puzzles and stories do not require talent to create.
“I think the call from Core Gamers for Nintendo to make a more ‘core’ game on a new intellectual property is because of the absolute disgust the Core Market has of Nintendo’s franchises revolving around icons and not the gameplay.
I have no confidence in a new Mario or Zelda game that will spark fire among consumers again due to Nintendo’s pattern. The new Mario and Zelda games will alter the gameplay but revolve around the same tired icons and routines.
Perhaps Nintendo will learn from New Super Mario Brothers (which, to my knowledge, has outsold all Mario games): it is that the Core Market wants the GAMEPLAY, not the CHARACTERS. Keeping the same characters and putting them in different gameplay is just pissing off the Core Market.”
If there’s something Nintendo’s own franchises has shown, it’s this. Zelda has revolved around the same icons, and has never reached beyond Ocarina of Time. Mario’s step from 2D to 3D was a general decline, despite having the same “characters” and “icons”. And Metroid: Other M not only brought back the “icons”; it butchered them and actually offendedfans of the series.
At the same time, Wii Sports and Wii Fit break records in sales, despite having no “icons” to draw upon. Super Mario Bros. 5 and Mario Kart Wii maintain the same general gameplay that was established well before their time, and yet they too break sales records.
It has to be driving Nintendo insane that their path to revival included everything BUT their Gamecube-ish pattern concerning Mario and Zelda. I’d never dream that Nintendo, after the success of the Wii and DS, would jettison that path to resume their Gamecube direction in the 3DS.