Hello, Master Malstrom,
Well, you were right. I remember that in an article a few months back, you were talking about how Nintendo thinks that it needs to change gameplay formulas in order to keep the game “interesting”? And in this article I remember you mentioning Super Smash Bros. as a series that might be affected by this in the future. Well, take a look at this:
I admit it. You are amazing at predicting what will happen to Nintendo’s franchises. Listen to this quote:
“‘…there is a certain dead end we come to if we just expand the volume of the game,’ Sakurai told [the interviewer] in a recent e-mail interview…”
Precisely what you said. What do you think of this?
My instinct is to always look at the business side of it first. These game developers they have flapping their mouths at interviews can often be acting sock puppets for a business goal. It is effective marketing because people do not realize it is marketing. If Iwata gives an interview, everyone immediately parses his words in a business context. But if it is Sakurai, people do not. They should.
Just to give an example. The Nintendo game developer says, “We are releasing this game now because we believe it is finally ready!” That is always nonsense. Nintendo is releasing the game, at that moment, because Nintendo believes it will maximize momentum of hardware sales. The purpose of Nintendo’s software is to help sell the hardware. The reason why a certain Nintendo game is coming out at Christmas isn’t because “it is finally done” but because Nintendo believes it is the maximum time to increase hardware momentum.
So why would Nintendo want to tie together the 3DS and Wii-U versions of Smash Brothers in a central axis? If we ask the business oracle, puffs of smoke would appear as its booming voice answers: “It is to increase hardware sales of the Wii-U as well as the 3DS.” Another reply comes as “Making a game to tie both platforms together means similar game assets can be shared. This makes development much cheaper.”
Sakurai might be coming down off a visionary mountain with tablets of creativity to issue in the ‘new ways’. But before I consider that aspect, I believe the business mission took precedence before any ‘creative pilgrimage’. If the business mission cannot be justified, then I turn to the ‘wide eye creative artist’ as an answer. Or some other alternative.
With Metroid: Other M, I actually believe the business side of Nintendo saw that Metroid sales were dominated by males and thought that increasing its success would involve selling to females. Mario and Zelda both sell to males and females however Metroid is mostly bought by males. I believe the order came from high to Sakamoto to make a Metroid game that also sells to women. But as that fabulous X-Play review (was it X-Play?) of Metroid: Other M by a woman reveals, women could be very repulsed by the game. As she said, “There are tons of butt shots,” hahaha. I think Sakamoto might have gotten the business order to ‘make Metroid appeal to women’ and he just went looney toons with it. I don’t blame the business side on their goal but the person who implemented it in the manner it was.
It is a similar situation with Miyamoto (Miyamoto is an executive so he is essentially the business side as well). The order from the business side was for 3d Mario to sell like 2d Mario. So Miyamoto takes the order and applies all these strategies to get 2d Mario fans to want to buy 3d Mario (from Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2, to 3d Land, etc).
With the new Smash Brothers, the business side of Nintendo is worried that everyone will buy the 3DS version of Smash Brothers and not bother with the Wii U side (especially in Japan whose market is where most Nintendo business decisions seem concerned). They want to use the game as a bridge to get the large 3DS Japanese audience to buy the Wii U. At least, that is what I suspect at this point in time.
Malstrom's Articles News 