PDA

View Full Version : CNN:Nintendo: Innovation is dying


RobertoOrtiz
06-05-2005, 03:39 AM
Quote:
"This might come as something of a shock to the gaming world, but Shigeru Miyamoto – the man who created Mario, Donkey Kong and Zelda – really doesn't feel like playing games these days.
"There's not a lot I want to play now," he told me recently. "A lot of the games out there are just too long. Of course, there are games, such as 'Halo' or 'Grand Theft Auto,' that are big and expansive. But if you're not interested in spending that time with them, you're not going to play." "

>>Link<< (http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/02/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm)
-R

PhilOsirus
06-05-2005, 04:33 AM
While I miss old school games (why don't they produce them by the dozen and make big compilations??) most games released are SHORT, around 8 to 12 hours to beat. What's really lacking is replay value.

Renderman_XSI
06-05-2005, 05:14 AM
funny, i prefer longer games. Especially RPGs that are 40+ hours. I like the feel of epic story telling, tie that with good story :D. Speaking of which, the Legend of Zelda has always been too short. We still dont know if third party games will be downloadable thru the revolution, this is important for me because, SNES had alot of good third party games..that i havent played. If it is possible..i'll probably buy the Revolution just for that alone :D

As for the article..if nintendo's idea of innovation is nintendogs, and music game...they can kiss my purchase of the revolution good bye.This is probably going to turn off alot of third party developer/publisher. Innovation is dying, maybe..thats because there isnt any no genre to work with, i dont except innovation to be refresh until we got VR.

ndat
06-05-2005, 05:51 AM
Yeah it would be awsome if the revolution was a like that that thing in lawnmower man, that would be so sweet.

LordShaitan
06-05-2005, 06:35 AM
Games are longer because we have the storage for it, i find it funny that a man that has created games that have had 4-8 sequels can say this.

They better do something new and innovative with this next system or it isnt in my hands. Adding downbloadable games from old systems is nothing new, nor exciting. Ive seen alot of their old games re-sold and re-sold on their systems and frankly it seems like their only gimick. For heck sake, make something new! (not mario, not link, not donkey kong not the same old stuff)

visionist
06-05-2005, 06:54 AM
I enjoy longer games but they are just too boring, I cant start turn based rgps cause i find it boring, I enjoy Zelda tho. I need something that has a twist and turns through out the game, but games dont have that, its the same thing for 8-12 hours and I usually put them down for a month or so the n pick it back up when there is nothing to do.



Games are longer because we have the storage for it, i find it funny that a man that has created games that have had 4-8 sequels can say this.

They better do something new and innovative with this next system or it isnt in my hands. Adding downloadable games from old systems is nothing new, nor exciting. Ive seen alot of their old games re-sold and re-sold on their systems and frankly it seems like their only gimick. For heck sake, make something new! (not mario, not link, not donkey kong not the same old stuff)



These games aren’t for us they are for the kid that where our age then these games first came out, and they do still sell. But i do agree that Nintendo need to create a new equally awesome franchise, but tis hard to do and Nintendo doesn’t seem in the mood to take risk at this time in creating one


LmB

Bonedaddy
06-05-2005, 07:58 AM
I don't have time to play long games anymore, so I can sort of agree with that. Heck, took me 2-3 months of sporadic gameplay to beat Resident Evil 4.

And for those of you who are complaining about lack of innovation on Nintendo:

Pikmin -- entirely new franchise, with new style of gameplay
Metroid Prime -- new style of gameplay for old concept
Donkey Konga -- owes something to DDR, it's true, but still
Odama -- Feudal military pinball. With voice recognition.
Eternal Darkness -- I ain't played nothin like it, at least...
Smash Bros -- again, a fighter, but way more kinetic and off-the-wall fun than most others
FF Crystal Chronicles -- new approach to multiplayer
Mario Kart Double Dash -- new approach to multiplayer
Link 4 Swords -- new approach to multiplayer
Elektroplankton -- It's... uh... different.
Nintendogs -- Very different.
Geist -- The whole gameplay mechanic is possessing things. Including bowls of dog food.
Phoenix Wright -- A lawyer court action game, on the game boy.
Wind Waker -- was ballsy enough to try a completely different graphical style
The entire Nintendo DS system -- a touch screen? That's certainly new...



Those are just the ones that came off the top of my head. Yes, they remake Mario/Zelda/whatever. Those are money makers. They enable them to make other games. And they are not bad games, for money makers. I don't complain when they make another GTA or another Final Fantasy.

I dunno, I am excited by all the new directions that Nintendo's pushing torward. More interesting to me than the DBZ-style "Now I'm at power level Ten Million!" that Xbox and PS3 seem to be touting.


...I want a little super-saiyan wig for the PS3.

Geta-Ve
06-05-2005, 10:02 AM
And for those of you who are complaining about lack of innovation on Nintendo:

Pikmin -- entirely new franchise, with new style of gameplay
Metroid Prime -- new style of gameplay for old concept
Donkey Konga -- owes something to DDR, it's true, but still
Odama -- Feudal military pinball. With voice recognition.
Eternal Darkness -- I ain't played nothin like it, at least...
Smash Bros -- again, a fighter, but way more kinetic and off-the-wall fun than most others
FF Crystal Chronicles -- new approach to multiplayer
Mario Kart Double Dash -- new approach to multiplayer
Link 4 Swords -- new approach to multiplayer
Elektroplankton -- It's... uh... different.
Nintendogs -- Very different.
Geist -- The whole gameplay mechanic is possessing things. Including bowls of dog food.
Phoenix Wright -- A lawyer court action game, on the game boy.
Wind Waker -- was ballsy enough to try a completely different graphical style
The entire Nintendo DS system -- a touch screen? That's certainly new...




however, not all of those are made by nintendo.. in fact most of them aren't so the innovation lies not with nintendo but the actual game makers.. (er.. companies)

Renderman_XSI
06-05-2005, 10:24 AM
Games are longer because we have the storage for it, i find it funny that a man that has created games that have had 4-8 sequels can say this.

They better do something new and innovative with this next system or it isnt in my hands. Adding downbloadable games from old systems is nothing new, nor exciting. Ive seen alot of their old games re-sold and re-sold on their systems and frankly it seems like their only gimick. For heck sake, make something new! (not mario, not link, not donkey kong not the same old stuff)


You forgot Pokemon red, blue, green, diamond, gold, silver, bronze, yellow, mercury,dash,double dash, triple dash,etc :P


"I enjoy longer games but they are just too boring, I cant start turn based rgps cause i find it boring, I enjoy Zelda tho. I need something that has a twist and turns through out the game, but games dont have that, its the same thing for 8-12 hours and I usually put them down for a month or so the n pick it back up when there is nothing to do."

IMO, having a game that last longer,due to story is great, more bang for your buck. I dont have time to play alot of RPGs either, but the nice thing is you can take your time on them. I personally hate turn base RPG(insert one here, FF series anyone!?), action RPGs are prefered, however im really keen on the Grandia Series, version 3 is coming out for the PS2. Its battle system can be classified as "time base", which is a step up IMO from turn base RPG(final fantasy).

" FF Crystal Chronicles -- new approach to multiplayer"

FF :CC was a joke IMO, Square Enix, didnt even bother to give the GC a TRUE FF series, they had to water it down, kiddy style. XBOX 1.5 would be lucky to see a TRUE FF game on its system also. Seems Square Enix has alot love for Sony.

" Elektroplankton -- It's... uh... different."

different?..try lame :D

" The entire Nintendo DS system -- a touch screen? That's certainly new..."

its not new in the world, but its the first excepted used of a touch screen in a game device. Nothing they or Sony/Microsoft can do would be consider revolutionary, unless its VR or something along those lines. DS is more of a gimmick to me, like the Sony Eye toy, it only works for some types of games..but not wide enough to make good used of it across the full spectrum of gaming genre.

" Eternal Darkness -- I ain't played nothin like it, at least..."

I did play this game, it wasnt at all bad in terms of gameplay, but things seem to go too smoothy to easy, which had it kinda corny in a way.

"I don't have time to play long games anymore, so I can sort of agree with that. Heck, took me 2-3 months of sporadic gameplay to beat Resident Evil 4."


RE4 looks like a awesome game, i was gonna buy that for my GC..but since its coming out for the PS2..i'll wait for that instead. Why? because i want to send a messege to Capcom, that the RE series should have never left the Playstation brand name from the beginning..its was born on the Playstation, it should stay on the Playstation. On top of that, PS3 is getting RE5..:D. Dont expect to see anymore RE series on future Nintendo consoles..

kemijo
06-05-2005, 11:23 AM
Let's not forget WarioWare. It's simple and brilliant, and insane fun with groups. My only problem with Nintendo is they rehash way too much. I mean, Mario Party 7? That's the kinda game that should really only exist online, where new content can simply be downloaded. While lots of fun, it's unfair to have to pay for essentially the same game, 7 times (if you want to play them all that is). Hopefully Rev will change that. The new Mario Kart was boring. They brought in a new concept that simply didn't work, IMO, and changed nothing else.

Even Metroid Prime 2 is too similar to the first. They need to take more chances on new IPs, they haven't missed yet. I agree with Renderman_XSI's opinion about FF:CC. It was not deserving of the name at all, and hearing that a new one is coming for Rev...lets hope they rework it.

JDex
06-05-2005, 11:28 AM
I agree with him... I could put aside 10-15 hours a week to have some fun playing video games... (sorry in advance to all the game making CGTers...) they are very rarely fun anymore...

Most are like ROTS... big, beautiful... and a woefully unenjoyable. Occasionally a good RTS or RPG will come out... the MMPORPGs have an appeal, but all of them require you to spend far to much time in them to get to the fun parts.

Consoles are lame... won't ever buy another one. Think I'm going to play softball and drink beer this summer.

mlmiller1983
06-05-2005, 01:39 PM
I haven't bought a console since SNES and its probably going to stay that way. I do buy portables like the GBA and probably will buy PSP when I drops in price and actually has decent games. PC games are just better to me. More innovative games and better graphics(if you have good hardware). I loved Nintendo back in the NES and SNES days but they seem to be loosing their touch.

t-toe
06-05-2005, 02:09 PM
...i find it funny that a man that has created games that have had 4-8 sequels can say this...

to be fair, every incarnation of games he's created each feel very different. compare Mario Sunshine to any other Mario game. even Mario 64. or compare Zelda: Ocarina of Time to A Link To The Past...

sure some of the explaination of the differences between these games is new technology. but that's certainly not all of it.

Bellorum
06-05-2005, 02:16 PM
Biggest mistake Nintendo ever made - when the scrapped the CD-drive for N64 and invited Sony in on the market. That's why they lost Square, and FF with them.

FrozenSun
06-05-2005, 02:30 PM
I haven't bought a console since SNES and its probably going to stay that way. I do buy portables like the GBA and probably will buy PSP when I drops in price and actually has decent games. PC games are just better to me. More innovative games and better graphics(if you have good hardware). I loved Nintendo back in the NES and SNES days but they seem to be loosing their touch.

Well i don't think they are loosing their touch. Just loosing 3rd party companies. Like Squaresoft and Enix first begin making games for nintendo but now they (for one merged together) but also don't make any games for Nintendo except for the FF Crystal Chronicles. Even Rare has left nintendo, so now no more Final Fantasy or DK games. I just hope Revolution will bring back the interest of Squareenix so we can have Final Fantasy back.

mikecarry
06-05-2005, 04:41 PM
I dunno, I am excited by all the new directions that Nintendo's pushing torward. More interesting to me than the DBZ-style "Now I'm at power level Ten Million!" that Xbox and PS3 seem to be touting.


...I want a little super-saiyan wig for the PS3.


New directions? Only news coming out of Revolutions so far is the ability to play old ass nintendo games. And you know in terms of new games, it'll be the same mix of Zelda, mario, and a whole bunch of genres with lames mario characters thrown into the mix. Why spend the time designing characters when you have a fat plumber and his dorky friends?

and by the way, Donkey Konga is basically Samba de amigo. Nintendog's isn't that revolutionary compared to Seaman.

Frank Lake
06-05-2005, 05:19 PM
He's, Shigeru Miyamoto, not talking about games perse but about how culture has changed and has continously raised the 'bar' to such high levels that it feels to him that there really isn't anything interesting to play. His age also doesn't help because as people get older their tastes change and other things because vastly more important. Hell I'm 34 and barely play VG's anymore, though Disgea had me putting several hundred hours into it, but I'm a jaded player with over 20 years experience.

Jaded culture, lack of replayability, or lemmingism. :shrug:

DevilHacker
06-05-2005, 05:26 PM
Nintendog's isn't that revolutionary compared to Seaman.
Seaman was very fun… Especially liked that game…
Probably the most original game that I ever played.

Bonedaddy
06-05-2005, 05:27 PM
Alright, culling out ones that aren't made specifically by Nintendo:


Pikmin :: -not- another rehash
Donkey Konga :: oh noes, it's Taiko Drum Master which was Samba de Amigo which was Amplitude which was Frequency which was DDR. Who cares?
Odama :: Feudal military pinball. Come ON.
Smash Bros :: Is unique
Mario Kart Double Dash :: Is unique as well. Wait, it's a rehash? Then why doesn't it play like any other racer...? I'm confused.
Elektroplankton :: Caters to a different audience than you all, apparently.
Nintendogs :: Also happens to cater to a different audience than you. Get over it.
Wind Waker :: Again, not status quo. And not a bad game.
Link 4 Swords :: Again, unique approach to multiplayer
The entire Nintendo DS system :: New, and lame! Har har har. Instead of, I don't know, trying something different.
Paper Mario and Mario Superstar Saga :: Mixing it up instead of same ol, same ol.

Also, games that wouldn't be possible without Nintendo:
FF Crystal Chronicles :: For its flaws (one of them being that it calls itself Final Fantasy), it was a new way to play the game. If it'd been done right, it would've been cool.
Phoenix Wright :: Has -anyone- else done a lawyer game? Anyone?
Eternal Darkness :: Nintendo shepherded this one through N64 and finally Gamecube. I don't know if it would've survived the transition otherwise.
Geist :: Again, would it have survived the transition?
Metroid Prime :: Could you see Microsoft being cool about turning Halo into a platformer? Permanently?

But whatever. If you want to buy a watered-down, crappy graphics version of RE4, that's your prerogative. Nintendo's shown a history of wanting to do new, neat things, and I'm excited to see what they do next.

I'm going to bow out of this thread. I'd be interested if anyone could come up with a similar list-o-innovation for any other company.

heavyness
06-05-2005, 06:20 PM
"There's not a lot I want to play now," he told me recently. "A lot of the games out there are just too long. Of course, there are games, such as 'Halo' or 'Grand Theft Auto,' that are big and expansive. But if you're not interested in spending that time with them, you're not going to play."

Miyamoto isn't talking about the length of games, but the fact games aren't that good anymore and can't hold people's interet as long. If a game that has over 17 levels and the game sucks, thats 17 levels to much.

rogfa
06-05-2005, 09:34 PM
I'm just a general fan of Nintendo's style. They are a video game company and... well, that's all they do -- and I'm thankful for that. Nintendo knows how to make great games and hardware. Microsoft and Sony still can't get it right. The Xbox was just a rip off (no dvd playback out of the box, no optical output, controller was too big so they made a smaller one, the power cord had safety issues and needed to be recalled) and the PSP is just nutty. I know guys who are on their 5th unit because of dead pixels. The screen looks like CSI just dusted it for fingerprints (didn't Sony know people are going to use their hands to play this thing?) and the UMD discs have a half inch opening because? dust and lint make it play better?

I'm looking forward to Nintendogs and Animal Crossing for the DS just because they are different. If you've never had a Gamecube consider picking one up because they are super cheap right now, new or used.

Ghostscape
06-05-2005, 10:12 PM
Miyamoto isn't talking about the length of games, but the fact games aren't that good anymore and can't hold people's interet as long. If a game that has over 17 levels and the game sucks, thats 17 levels to much.

Word. The problem with games is that we have short games with good content, or longer games with crappy, drawn-out content. Just because we can cram 100 levels into grand theft auto doesn't mean we should...about 85 of them are just filler crap (really, the only fun I have in those games is driving around/into things...and listening to the talk radio in GTA3 :) Games are either long and boring/repetitive, or too short, but full of content. I'd rather the latter than the former, personally...I felt Max Payne 2 was worth my $50, even though it was only 5 hours of gameplay (and Dead Man Walking, which is actually wicked fun and ate a couple of hours), plus it was replayable because it was constantly fun, whereas I've got Halo 2 collecting dust because my brother beat the single player without me and the game isn't as fun without other people.

PhilOsirus
06-05-2005, 10:54 PM
What Miyamoto said makes no sense! As much as I respect the guy, if a game is "too long" the only thing that will happen is that you won't finish it. Since when is it that finishing a game makes it fun?

JDex
06-05-2005, 11:08 PM
What Miyamoto said makes no sense! As much as I respect the guy, if a game is "too long" the only thing that will happen is that you won't finish it. Since when is it that finishing a game makes it fun?

Since Super Mario Bros.

greenj2
06-06-2005, 12:07 AM
Nintendo's shown a history of wanting to do new, neat things, and I'm excited to see what they do next.

Me too. I'm definatly buying a DS as soon as I can get my hands on the graphite colour in AUS. Electroplankton does look weird but at the same time very interesting. And while it's definatly not my style of game Nintendogs seems to be full of inovative features, and technically it looks pretty nice on the handheld system

My main reason for taking the DS over the PSP and possibly the Revolution over the PS3 or XBOX360 is that after playing games for years I prefer innovative games and interfaces to superior graphics and power. I was a bit disspointed when Nintendo revealed the Revolution prototype at E3 this year and it looked nothing like that 'mockup revolution' video (the one with a headband and such). While I knew that was probably a fake video, at the same time I was really hoping Nintendo would go for a highly innovative interface like that mockup offered. And while complete reverse compatability and a downloadable games library is a cool feature, it's just that, certainly not something you can build a successful next gen console on. Here's hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised when all the details of the Revolution surface.

heavyness
06-06-2005, 12:07 AM
the only fun I have in those games is driving around/into things...and listening to the talk radio in GTA3

ha! i would drive for hours in the GTA3 just jumping and taking corners as fast as possible. i never completed it because i was tired of doing the same thing over and over again. [never got involved with Vice City and San Andreas is a bit to "real" for me]


What Miyamoto said makes no sense! As much as I respect the guy, if a game is "too long" the only thing that will happen is that you won't finish it. Since when is it that finishing a game makes it fun?

did you read the article or any other posts. he isn't talking about the length of games, but the fact some games would be more enjoyable if they weren't so long because the game itself isn't that great. if GTA was a third of its size, i would enjoy it more. but i'm not going to put myself through 77 ok missions just for the good 23 missions that are sandwiched inbetween crap.

PhilOsirus
06-06-2005, 01:44 AM
but i'm not going to put myself through 77 ok missions just for the good 23 missions that are sandwiched inbetween crap.

Then it just means the game sucks, not that it sucks for it to be long. What Miyamoto said is that games are too long to finish hence you loose interest in them after some time, but like I said before finishing a game doesn't unlock fun magically, hence the fun is found in playing the game. When it gets boring, it's no longer fun, whether you finished it or not.

"A lot of the games out there are just too long. Of course, there are games, such as 'Halo' or 'Grand Theft Auto,' that are big and expansive. But if you're not interested in spending that time with them, you're not going to play."

Oh and I'll repeat this, if Nintendo likes making game so much rather than consoles they just stop making consoles and make games only.

Renderman_XSI
06-06-2005, 02:33 AM
What Miyamoto said makes no sense! As much as I respect the guy, if a game is "too long" the only thing that will happen is that you won't finish it. Since when is it that finishing a game makes it fun?

maybe his got ADD?rofl..i dunno..i didnt make sense to me either, i love long RPGs, more items,story,etc. The problem i had with Metal Gear Series , is they were usually too short in terms of gameplay time.

" But whatever. If you want to buy a watered-down, crappy graphics version of RE4, that's your prerogative."

Have you seen RE4 for PS2?(yes i seen it on GC also), IMO it isnt water down at all. the graphics arent as crisp as the GC, but still not bad considering PS2 is 5-6 years old hardware.All the content is there though, same improve gameplay, same character. So not water down IMO, unlike FF:CC. :D plus RE5 PS3 exclusive(for at least a year).

EpShot
06-06-2005, 03:02 AM
i agree generaly that there is waaay to much filler in games these days. Game designers are gettign lazy about adding length to games by makign areas rediculously hard when it doens't need to be. Having to replay the same level/boss constantly does make the game longer, but not more fun. I definitely think game play is often sacraficed in favor of makign the game longer, and it really kills replay value.

Its like writing a good story or script. Take whatever you have and cut out half. That doesn't mean i wanted NMN cut in half. Though it is funny, when i wasn't employed i migh tnot have agreed:deal: but now days i usualy just play desert combat or Painkiller because it give the best entertainment value vs time benifit. I tried GTA:SA but got bored of it. If i had progressed a bit faster i might have played it more. :shrug: personaly speaking, i think 10 15 hours for a quality game is good. i'm tired of pointless puzzles and rediculously hard scenerios trying to make a game longer. take these 5 bullets kill 20 guys. sweet we just added 5 hours to our game! <-- problem with current fps genre.

NanoGator
06-06-2005, 05:37 AM
Biggest mistake Nintendo ever made - when the scrapped the CD-drive for N64 and invited Sony in on the market. That's why they lost Square, and FF with them.

What's funny is Square ultimately ended up apologizing to Nintendo.

In any event, Nintendo made over a billion dollars. They're not going anywhere.

Para
06-06-2005, 07:49 AM
About game length...I'd say it doesn't matter how long the game is as long as it can be played in both 30 and 200 minute-long sessions so that the player still has a clue about the plot of the game. Also different ways of playing thru is important at least for me, for example I just started replaying Fallout 2, this time I'm using a character with a very low intelligence which is very hilarious. In Fallout 2 there's basically different play-through methods for several different character types from evil slaver killer with big guns to a young diplomat who just happens to like stealing stuff. If there's enough variation in the game itself, the replayability possibilities are almost infinite.

Schwinnz
06-06-2005, 07:53 AM
Since when is it that finishing a game makes it fun?

Psychologically speaking, people acquire self-esteem and fun when accomplishing things. Personally, I don't like not finishing up something.

That said, if games don't offer any challenge, what's the point ?

FlyByNight
06-06-2005, 11:58 AM
What Miyamoto said makes no sense! As much as I respect the guy, if a game is "too long" the only thing that will happen is that you won't finish it. Since when is it that finishing a game makes it fun?

i dont know where most of you are getting the gaul to question this guys opinion... he was probably programming games while u guys were sucking on ur nes controllers...

as soon as i read the thread header and paragraph, i was nodding my head with a very serious look on my face... i used to LOVE computer games.. i still do, yet for some reason?.. i NEVR play them??.... i probably have played like 4-5 hours gameplay in a month... wats the about??

games are far too long, involving and alienating to gamers that arent hardcore... games have been made too hardcore for casual gamers, meaning they look at the pad, see 60 buttons, and 5 directional sticks and think WTF....

doom 3 was waaaaay too long... it was kinda stupid... only reason i completed it was because I HAD TO... hope that makes sense phil,... it took me a long time but i was still frantically running through the game without looking at the level design because i could not be assed! it just dragged on and on, and u were never doing anything different aprt from shooting, shooting,,,,

i personally can not put my finger on what needs to be done.. we all want more realistic games but we dont want to spend our whole lives learning them and playing them... they are supposed to be games!! imagine u had to learn combos, moves etc.. for monopoly?! it just wouldnt work...

basically there is a big job ahead of the designer. Although it may have taken months and months to create certain things in a game, it may be more enjoyable to quickly see that area rather then have to play in it for hours just so it wont be a waste.... duno if that makes sense :-s

t-toe
06-06-2005, 02:57 PM
...I've got Halo 2 collecting dust because my brother beat the single player without me and the game isn't as fun without other people.

true; Halo 2 isn't as fun without other people. good thing there's a little something called... XBOX LIVE.

PhilOsirus
06-06-2005, 05:32 PM
i personally can not put my finger on what needs to be done..

Maybe everything is fine as it is? The only problem is that Nintendo is only good at making games, so they should stop making consoles and release their quality titles on consoles people actually buy.

coboman
06-06-2005, 05:59 PM
I miss Pacman. And Gallaga, and Asteroids and, of course, Tetris.

I think that 3D has killed the real innovation in games and now they are all the same. EVERY GAME is about some guy or gal running around finding stuff, killing the bad guys, opening doors and activating machanisms.

The only real new game that I love to play is DDR(Dance Dance Revolution). THAT is innovation in gaming.

I really hope that Nintendo brings the freshness of gameplay that they introduced with Mario when everything was becoming space invaders, and I think that innovation will have to come also from the controls.
The dancing mat was a great beginning, but what about a MIDI keyboard to play games where you learn to play the piano (like DDR, but for music)? The stylus idea is promising.

I think that REAL innovation will bring back the mass market, instead of the same fan base that keeps playing and buying the same Doom-Tomb Raider-Resident Evil spinoffs.

lovisx
06-06-2005, 06:00 PM
what's your definition of buying, because tons of people, including me have baught nintendo systems. Or perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "people"

Recursive
06-06-2005, 07:15 PM
Maybe everything is fine as it is? The only problem is that Nintendo is only good at making games, so they should stop making consoles and release their quality titles on consoles people actually buy.

Nintendo is:
1. Making more profit then Sony's game division
2. Making more profit then Microsoft's game division
3. Making more profit then the entire company of Sony
4. Making more profit then Microsoft and Sony's game divisions combined

Any way you stack it Nintendo comes out on top. And you want them to stop... because no-one is buying what they are selling?

You know, if I didnt know better I might say that you were wrong.
http://nintendoinsider.com/site/EEEZuAypVuTuOJPzyb.php

http://nintendoinsider.com/site/media/latestline4-1.jpg

FlyByNight
06-06-2005, 07:55 PM
lol!! its so true... people seem to think that nintendo is struggling... i saw nintendos recent figures shown sumwhere else around here, and their raking it in..!!

i think nintendo are being very clever in their stratagies, and its likely we will be seeing them for a long long time yet :)

Renderman_XSI
06-06-2005, 11:20 PM
Nintendo is:
1. Making more profit then Sony's game division
2. Making more profit then Microsoft's game division
3. Making more profit then the entire company of Sony
4. Making more profit then Microsoft and Sony's game divisions combined

Any way you stack it Nintendo comes out on top. And you want them to stop... because no-one is buying what they are selling?

You know, if I didnt know better I might say that you were wrong.
http://nintendoinsider.com/site/EEEZuAypVuTuOJPzyb.php

http://nintendoinsider.com/site/media/latestline4-1.jpg

Thats because Nintendo is the only company i know that can legal screw kids in the ass and get alway with it :D. You know what they say, ones born every minute(if your an adult and like Nintendo product, than statement doesnt apply to you). Now it looks like they are out for more of the kids money with their movie division :)

Neil
06-07-2005, 01:04 AM
Everyone crys about this lack of creativity but I wish that more of these japanese titles would make it over here. I've seen some crazy stuff that never gets a major release here (US).

PhilOsirus
06-07-2005, 01:24 AM
Nintendo is:
1. Making more profit then Sony's game division
2. Making more profit then Microsoft's game division
3. Making more profit then the entire company of Sony
4. Making more profit then Microsoft and Sony's game divisions combined

Any way you stack it Nintendo comes out on top. And you want them to stop... because no-one is buying what they are selling?

You know, if I didnt know better I might say that you were wrong.
http://nintendoinsider.com/site/EEEZuAypVuTuOJPzyb.php

http://nintendoinsider.com/site/media/latestline4-1.jpg

Nintendo makes good GAMES, lousy consoles. Hence they should make games only, not consoles, because their consoles don't sell enough. Their platform exists almost solely for their own games. Now explain me, would Nintendo sell less games because they would release them on PS and Xbox instead of their own console? No, they would sell more! So many people aren't buying their games because they don't want to buy their console just for those. They keep saying it's about the games, the games, the games. So what stops them from making those very games on other consoles instead anf maximize their software sales? Their console.

heavyness
06-07-2005, 02:05 AM
Thats because Nintendo is the only company i know that can legal screw kids in the ass and get alway with it :D. You know what they say, ones born every minute(if your an adult and like Nintendo product, than statement doesnt apply to you). Now it looks like they are out for more of the kids money with their movie division :)

can you explain how nintendo "screws" over kids? last time i checked, they make toys and games for them, just like Santa Claus. so does that mean Santa "screws" over kids too? i missed something.

Nintendo makes good GAMES, lousy consoles. Hence they should make games only, not consoles, because their consoles don't sell enough.

so how do they keep making profits year after year?

Their platform exists almost solely for their own games

as does the Xbox for Microsoft Game Studios and PS2 for Sony studios.

They keep saying it's about the games, the games, the games. So what stops them from making those very games on other consoles instead anf maximize their software sales? Their console.

they make the hardware for themselves so they can work on 1 system. they don't have to worry about porting and hiring programmers for 3 different systems. same reason George Lucas has all the freedom in the universe to do what he wants, he made his own hollywood for his movies. this way, they have complete freedom and answer to no one besides themselves.

PhilOsirus
06-07-2005, 02:33 AM
as does the Xbox for Microsoft Game Studios and PS2 for Sony studios.

Are you serious? Sony produces only a small % of all games released on the PS2 (same for MS in relation to the Xbox).

Neil
06-07-2005, 03:17 AM
Thats because Nintendo is the only company i know that can legal screw kids in the ass and get alway with it

I don't get what you're saying either :/

Recursive
06-07-2005, 05:41 AM
Nintendo makes good GAMES, lousy consoles. Hence they should make games only, not consoles, because their consoles don't sell enough. Their platform exists almost solely for their own games. Now explain me, would Nintendo sell less games because they would release them on PS and Xbox instead of their own console? No, they would sell more! So many people aren't buying their games because they don't want to buy their console just for those. They keep saying it's about the games, the games, the games. So what stops them from making those very games on other consoles instead anf maximize their software sales? Their console.

If their consoles are not selling enough then where does their profit comming from, are people buying their games and using them as coasters?

They would need to sell alot more games on ps and xbox since Sony and Microsoft would want licensing money for letting Nintendo release games for them. That said, playstation and xbox make sorry excuses for consoles, they should stop what they are doing and move their games to the gamecube and revolution, why? becouse they would sell more games by doing so, nevermind that competition in the industry stagnates! They would sell more games, and as we all know its all about volume, not about revenue, right?

Many people are not buying a playstation and xbox even though they want to play a game or two on those platforms. You know what, this is a good thing, for Ninty, Sony and Microsoft. Look at the pc, there is only one outlet there now, in the old days there used to be a very large amount of platforms for games there, dos, windows, mac, amiga etc. Then one by one they folded, and now all we have is a constant stream of fps games and console converts for pc. No originality to be found. It used to be different. Fair competition is always good for the consumer.

And lastly(again), its about profits, not sales. Sony's sales are through the roof, but are their profits through the roof? Microsoft is doing ok in sales, but their profits are horrible.

js33
06-07-2005, 05:47 AM
That said, playstation and xbox make sorry excuses for consoles, they should stop what they are doing and move their games to the gamecube and revolution, why? becouse they would sell more games by doing so, nevermind that competition in the industry stagnates! They would sell more games, and as we all know its all about volume, not about revenue, right?



Your kidding! Right? Sony and MS should move their games to the gamecube and revolution. Man that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Innovation is not dying Nintendo is dying.

So should MS and Sony make a SuperMario clone. Hehehehehee.

Cheers,
JS

Recursive
06-07-2005, 05:50 AM
Your kidding! Right? Sony and MS should move their games to the gamecube and revolution. Man that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Innovation is not dying Nintendo is dying.

So should MS and Sony make a SuperMario clone. Hehehehehee.

Cheers,
JS

It has been said that sarcasm doesnt work well on the internut. I think you just proved the point I was making though.

js33
06-07-2005, 05:53 AM
Well I hope you and your "Revolution" will be very happy playing the 25th version of SuperMario. :thumbsup:

Cheers,
JS

-Vormav-
06-07-2005, 05:59 AM
The elitist views of Nintendo execs has always kinda pissed me off. Games aren't being innovative enough...so let's make another Mario sequel, port older games to different systems, and put together a 7th Mario Party?
Miyamoto has always been bitching like that for years. I really wish they'd just get rid of him already. I can't say that I'll be stirring in my sleep knowing that old Shigeru doesn't play games anymore. :shrug:

Personally, I prefer games in the 10+ hour ranger. If a game is good enough to get me to play it, then I want the joy to last for awhile. With as much as we have to pay for new games, I expect the joy to last.

Recursive
06-07-2005, 06:01 AM
Well I hope you and your "Revolution" will be very happy playing the 25th version of SuperMario. :thumbsup:

Cheers,
JS

Likewise with your 25'th version of tekken, doa, doom, ff, megaman etc..

Nothing wrong with sequels, though its hardly the 25'th version.
SuperMario 1, 2, 3.
SuperMario World.
SuperMario64.
SuperMario Sunshine.

Only 6, what numbers are tekken and ff up to?

-Vormav-
06-07-2005, 06:05 AM
Likewise with your 25'th version of tekken, doa, doom, ff, megaman etc..
None of those were developed by Sony, though (Doesn't Namco do Tekken?). On the otherhand, all of those Mario sequels were developed directly by Nintendo, the ones that are constantly bitching about the lack of innovation in the industry. All of the console developers are hypocrites in this sense, so I see no justification for Nintendo to be so high and mighty when it comes to innovation.

Recursive
06-07-2005, 06:10 AM
None of those were developed by Sony, though (Doesn't Namco do Tekken?). On the otherhand, all of those Mario sequels were developed directly by Nintendo, the ones that are constantly bitching about the lack of innovation in the industry. All of the console developers are hypocrites in this sense, so I see no justification for Nintendo to be so high and mighty when it comes to innovation.

The comment was regarding platforms, not companies. Does anyone care if a game is made at Sony or Microsoft? I barely even have a clue what games they make.

So in your opinion constantly doing wild and crazy stuff is innovative. You cannot be innovative when having the same lead character? Or are you saying that SuperMario 64 wasnt innovative? Do you remember what platformers used to look like before it came out?

-Vormav-
06-07-2005, 06:21 AM
Innovative in terms of graphics, maybe. But the gameplay was mostly a 3d adaptation of the original gameplay, with some additional freedom. And Super Mario Sunshine certainly wasn't a giant leap, except perhaps when considering the graphics.
The point I was getting at is that it is completely hypocritical for Nintendo to constanly be whining about innovation when they're constantly doing the same thing that every other company is. Innovation deals with a lot more than gameplay. The environments and characters DO play a large role. That's why while Capcom may have (finally) been innovative with Resident Evil 4 in terms of gameplay, it's still pretty much more of the same.

I will give Nintendo credit for the DS (now they just need Rat Splat). But while they managed to come up with a unique system, they've failed to support it.

heavyness
06-07-2005, 06:32 AM
The elitist views of Nintendo execs has always kinda pissed me off. Games aren't being innovative enough...so let's make another Mario sequel, port older games to different systems, and put together a 7th Mario Party?


-Tomb Raider x7 [all same gameplay]
-Madden Football x15 [the last new thing for Madden was going from 2d to 3d, besides that, nothing new]
-Grand Theft Auto x3 [GTA 3 with new 'mods' called Vice City and San Andreas]
-Doom X3 [open door, shoot, find key, open door, shoot, find key... oh wait, add turn on/off flashlight]
-Syphon Filter x5 [have any of these got a good solid review or hold up enough to make a sequel to?]


Nintendo's turn

-Mario x6 [first 4 were 2d side scrollers, but Mario 64 invented the 3D platform and Sunshine is the only 3D Mario sequel]
-Zelda x6 [2 top down 2D, 1 side scrolling, and 3 3D Zeldas. Zelda Ocarina of Time invented the open, huge environment that lead way to GTA and others]

when you stack the numbers next to each other, they are about even...oh wait, no they're not. Mario and Zelda have been out since 1985. Tomb Raider wasn't released till late 1996 and Madden in 91. if your going to complain about companies using the same franchises over and over, look some where else. also, Mario 64 and Zelda OOT both went on to be 'Game of the Year' by many publications and some view Zelda OOT one of the best games of all time.


and don't count Mario Tennis or Mario Kart as sequels, those are completely different IPs [i won't count GTA:Ping Pong if its ever made].

Recursive
06-07-2005, 06:34 AM
Innovative in terms of graphics, maybe. But the gameplay was mostly a 3d adaptation of the original gameplay, with some additional freedom. And Super Mario Sunshine certainly wasn't a giant leap, except perhaps when considering the graphics.
The point I was getting at is that it is completely hypocritical for Nintendo to constanly be whining about innovation when they're constantly doing the same thing that every other company is. Innovation deals with a lot more than gameplay. The environments and characters DO play a large role. That's why while Capcom may have (finally) been innovative with Resident Evil 4 in terms of gameplay, it's still pretty much more of the same.

I will give Nintendo credit for the DS (now they just need Rat Splat). But while they managed to come up with a unique system, they've failed to support it.

I dont agree, I think the gameplay is very different. In the original game the gameplay is about collecting 100 coins to get a bonus life, you need them since you keep falling into hols and die. And getting to the end of the track, so you can kill the boss.

In the 64 gameplay you no longer collect coins like a madman since there are very few holes to fall into(you do collect coins still). There is still the "get to the end of the level and kill the boss" gameplay elements, but here comes the innovative part. You dont havto go to the end and kill the boss. You have freedom. You can do any number of different things instead. You can race penguins down a icetrack, or go diving for underwater tressure and so on. I wouldnt call that "some additional", its paramount to how platformers work today.
Before SM 64 the gameplay in 3d platformers were all alike, pure copies of sm 1 and 3. Run from point a to point b, jump over holes, and break as many crates as possible. To make things worse they all had a fixed camera, and you could not deviate from the set course.

Characters and envirenment graphics play no role at all in innovation, they are part of evolution. There is a large difference there.
However how you get the characters and characters to act and react can be innovative, and thats where re4 was innovative, and SM sunshine tried(but failed, though it hasto be said that sunshine wasnt Shigeru's game).

Neil
06-07-2005, 02:50 PM
This is a cool article:
http://gc.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=5136&pg=1
(no bias toward xbox or nintendo, just liked the POV)

t-toe
06-07-2005, 03:08 PM
...Ninty...

I'm officially calling Nintendo "Ninty" from now on.

and you honestly can't possibly say there was no innovation between Mario 64 and Sunshine. Sunshine was all about shooting and spraying water to jump higher, defeat more baddies and the like. 64 was a straight-up 3d platformer (common now, but innovative at the time).

heavyness
06-08-2005, 12:44 AM
I'm officially calling Nintendo "Ninty" from now on.

and you honestly can't possibly say there was no innovation between Mario 64 and Sunshine. Sunshine was all about shooting and spraying water to jump higher, defeat more baddies and the like. 64 was a straight-up 3d platformer (common now, but innovative at the time).

the water pack was ok, but i think the levels were to big and open. i liked Mario 64's level where everything it pilled on top of each other and you have to get to the top. still better then most platforms out there.

the best part of Mario Sunshine? when 'evil' Mario takes your water pack and you play the 'old school' levels.

lovisx
06-08-2005, 02:59 PM
all the mario games use the same characters but they are all really different and very entertaining. It's not a sequel just because its got better graphics.

Aaprt from Gameboy and old school Zelda. The zeldas for n64 and gamecube have had some pretty wild differences and innovations.

Anyway, my point is, you don't necessarily need new characters to have innovation. And saying that they aren't innovating because they always use the same characters is a pretty weak argument.

FlyByNight
06-08-2005, 07:13 PM
all the mario games use the same characters but they are all really different and very entertaining. It's not a sequel just because its got better graphics.

Aaprt from Gameboy and old school Zelda. The zeldas for n64 and gamecube have had some pretty wild differences and innovations.

Anyway, my point is, you don't necessarily need new characters to have innovation. And saying that they aren't innovating because they always use the same characters is a pretty weak argument.

execellent point.. i wanted to make the same myself... having the same mario characetr does not mean they lack innovation.... nintendo has got to be THE innovator when ot comes to games... mario is just their identity....

those characters have been in so many wacky weird and different incranations of game genres that i think its unfair to call them boring and safe...

smoothoperator
06-09-2005, 03:32 AM
I like the way Nintendo is thinking. Lead don't follow. Too many games out there that look and play the same. Not all of them..but most. I think Nintendo will create a new path in the gaming experience. maybe not to "replace" the other players...but to just be a little different and intuitive in the experience of entertainment.
Go Nintendo!

ashen
06-09-2005, 11:55 PM
Whoever truely played all these Mario games will never same they are same old material. How many times have we seen iconic characters appear in such a huge range of variations of games. Plus each "major" outcome of Mario (Bros, 64, SunShine) were never simply "part 2" of the other.

In Yoshi Touch&Go, one "draws" Yoshi around the map, and "blows" away the clouds through the microphone. In Yoshi Gravity,one physically "rotates" the GBA to move Yoshi through levels. Yes, both game features Yoshi, but talk about innovation in gaming...Nintendo is unparalled.

FrozenSun
06-10-2005, 02:14 AM
Hey you guy's forgot the "Paper Mario" series, surely it is different. Also about the comment of Zelda Ocarina Of Time being the best game, well i still think it is the best game ever made.

And Zelda: Windwaker can be "innovative" in a way, it had a new item system, different fighting styles and let's not forget the cell-shaded look. I actually wish Miyamoto would get back in creating the games, Zelda misses him ;)

NanoGator
06-10-2005, 02:34 AM
I can make this simpler: Compare SMB 1 through 3 to Sonic 1 through 3.

lovisx
06-10-2005, 02:37 PM
the ability to sail from one island to another in windwaker and explore a vast ocean is very original and innovative

private
06-10-2005, 03:05 PM
the ability to sail from one island to another in windwaker and explore a vast ocean is very original and innovative

A first person shooters are the prime example of originality etc? To say Nintendo wasn't innovative is silly.

ZebulonPi
06-10-2005, 08:05 PM
I think Nintendo can be wonderfully creative when they want to be... obviously some games like Pokemon aren't exactly revolutionary from game to game, but they also did Pokemon Snap, which was a lot of fun, and quite original.

IMHO, Nintendo should stop trying to be creative in the HW world (with Revolution), and simply turn to making software. That way, they could do what they do best, stop trying to compete with huge companies with deep pockets selling consoles at a loss, and ride the other consoles success right to the bank. Seriously, who wouldn't play Zelda on XBox 360 or PS3???

NanoGator
06-10-2005, 10:06 PM
One of the reasons that they create hardware is that it allows them to create more innovative games. I wouldn't play Zelda on a PS2 sans a gc controller

Subtle
06-10-2005, 10:24 PM
What Nintendo need is better storylines for their games. For example like zelda on the nintendo64. That will help them.

CGTalk Moderation
06-10-2005, 10:24 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.