Understanding Nintendo

A friend pointed me towards a blog that really seems to get what Nintendo is all about -- its philosophies when it comes to innovating and how its business decisions make sense for them. Check it out...

here

Then come on back and let me know what you think!

--Chris

Industry opinions on Revolution Controller

Ch-ch-check it out... here

Revolution, Part 2

The Revolution discussion has continued over on Frosty's blog (http://www.stephenfrost.net/blog/)-- I figured I'd copy some of it back over here for you guys to check out.

The more I think about the Revolution, the more excited I get. I'm sold. At least, as sold as I can be without having played (or even seen) any actual games :)

From Nintendo's perspective, this is probably the best business direction for them. If they made a more traditional console, even if it was as powerful as the PS3, they'd likely go nowhere. Gamecube was more powerful than PS2, and it didn't help them with third-parties or any of their other problems. Sony just has too much momentum, and the ball's in their court until they drop it. So, by differenciating themselves, Nintendo has given us a reason to care/be interested/get excited about them. For some people Revolution may make sense as their only system; for hardcore gamers, it's likely a great second option behind the PS3 -- you get your quirky, innovative games and your great-looking standard types of games.

I don't think arm fatigue will be a problem, because the hands-on reports say that you only have to move the new controller just a little bit. One guy stated that the controller finally "clicked" for him when he quit waving it around like a maniac, sat down and rested it on his leg (the typical game-playing "couch poatato" position). Of course, waving it around like a maniac could be fun in small bursts.

I think that, to some degree, innovation has to be forced. It's a very valid argument that gamers already know what they like and want, and it's an uphill battle to try to sell them on something new. But, although it's risky, the upside is huge. Time and time again, Nintendo has redefined what gaming is. Hell, after Atari crashed, they brought gaming back with the NES when everyone thought they were crazy. While they haven't always been the first to try something (like an analog stick), they've certainly been the ones to popularize it. Every 3D action game today is based off of how the analog stick worked with Mario 64 and how the lock-on camera worked in Ocarina of Time.

Another important aspect of Revolution is that it's supposed to be very developer friendly. Nintendo has gone on and on about how the biggest problem facing developers and publishers is the enormous cost of making next-gen games, and that Revolution will be much simpler to create for. So, although designing games for the controller will require extra R&D, maybe that can be balanced out by a more affordable dev budget overall.

Nintendo has said that the analog stick attatchment will come packed with the system, which avoids any weird split there. But I think, what's good about the "remote" approach is that casual gamers (the type that love using the stylus with Nintendogs) likely won't ever need to use the stick. I imagine that Nintendo will create games aimed at casuals that can be played using only the remote, in which case I can totally see non-gamers that I know giving it a shot. When you add the analog stick, that's when you get into real gamer territory. And if the whole combo still isn't your idea of fun, Nintendo will be making a more traditional controller option for straight third-party ports and classic games. Hell, you'll probably be able to simply plug in an old wired Gamecube pad and use that, if the developer wants you to. Or the WaveBird.

I think that that giving developers the option to develop for a standard controller layout is a smart move -- it shows that Nintendo are being realists. They feel the need to blaze a trail, but they know that a lot of people won't want to -- or know how to -- follow them at first. When new technology is first introduced, it often has to bridge that awkward gap between the old and the new. For example, OSX macs had to support OS9 software, and Blu-Ray players will still play DVDs. Although the multiple controller option might send a somewhat muddied or confusing message to some people, I think Nintendo is smart to realize that it can't just push everyone in the direction they want all at once. At the same time, since the strange new controller is the pack in, developers will put more effort into supporting it. It's a pretty well-balanced plan.

Still though, Nintendo aren't likely to lure developers to make as many games for Revolution as they will for PS3 and 360. That might not matter, though. For better or worse, I think that Nintendo fans have become increasingly used to longer waits between the few big games that make owning their systems worthwhile. This isn't the best scenario for Nintendo or gamers, but it says something about Nintendo players. The ones that have stuck around want quality over quantity, and have proven to be a pretty patient bunch. Seriously, do most of Nintendo's current fans care if Prince of Persia 3 or Tony Hawk Whatever come out for their system or not? Most likely they only bought it for Nintendo's own games in the first place. Maybe this strategy won't topple Sony, but it might be good enough to sustain the profit-leading position Nintendo's always managed with its smaller audience. And, as a gamer, innovation is one of the things I demand of developers -- since I've got the dollars, I have that right. Should I be satisfied if presented with a scenario where game design always stays pretty much the same from now on, just to make it easy on the game makers?

Whether you think Nintendo's plan is an overall good or bad one, God bless 'em for pushing the envelope -- somebody has to. For the most part, the only true gaming innovations have come from them. It's great that PS3 and 360 will have HD graphics and all, but every once and awhile a true change is healthy.

Look at it this way:

ROUND 1: REVOLUTION (NES)
ROUND 2: EVOLUTION (SNES, Genesis)
ROUND 3: REVOLUTION (N64, PlayStation)
ROUND 4: EVOLUTION (Gamecube, PS2, Xbox)

NEXT ROUND: REVOLUTION (Nintendo Revolution) / EVOLUTION (PS3, Xbox 360)

If Nintendo *didn't* do something freaky, this would be the first time that we've ever gone three console generations in a row without a big shake up to keep games feeling fresh and new.

Personally, I think that the ideas behind Revolution are fantastic and I love Nintendo for trying it. It's really going to come down to actual games that can wow us with how the controls are used. That, and Nintendo is going to have to market this thing really carefully -- they have to get across the idea without making it seem overly alien or complex. That's going to be a much bigger challenge than simply making fun games, I think.

I could still see the system being a complete and total failure, but I can also imagine it really taking off, too. This isn't anything against developers at all, but I think that there's a real problem with the industry if it can't support fresh new ideas. Sometimes I do feel like Sony and Microsoft have taken the industry down the wrong road. I mean, I can't wait to play hyper-realistic games like MGS4, but if I'd never seen them, I wouldn't lust after them so much. People were pretty much happy with Game Boy for decades before PSP showed up with its super graphics. What I'm saying is, the industry keeps making things harder on itself. I think Nintendo has made a lot of sense in its arguments against the way things are being done. All this extra work to make prettier games, and what has it gotten the industry? Movie-sized budgets, longer and more complex development cycles, and a consumer base that's been taught to constantly demand better, faster. And yet, games cost roughly the same that they did back in the 16-bit era when they could be made by a handful of people in a fraction of the time, at a fraction of the cost. Is this smart business?

Anyway, I digress :)

Just for fun, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the Revolution will actually sell more than the Gamecube. Of course, I've yet to hold the controller in my own hand, but I look at it like this: Gamecube got its butt kicked by Sony because it offered essentailly the same product and the same experience, only not as good (no DVD playback, an overall weaker game lineup, etc.). There were other factors, too -- such as the "kiddy vs. cool" factor -- but essentailly, Nintendo was trying to sell a PlayStation that wasn't as compelling as the real PlayStation. With the Revolution, it's good that they're offering something unique and different. Even if you're buying it as a second system, at least there's still a reason to buy it. And also, I'm willing to trust Nintendo. They're not stupid -- they know how bold this move is. If they didn't have rock-solid games in the works, if they didn't believe in their hearts that this thing was going to be 100% fun, they wouldn't take this big of a risk.

Believe ;P

And There Came a Revolution

The Revolution controller...

WOW.

Don't really know what to think just yet; my mind is still sorting out the amazing problems from the amazing possibilities.

But... bottom line...

Nintendo are the crazy mad scientists of gaming, and whether you realize it or not, we NEED them to be nutty professors.

For those that can't imagine playing a game with that thing, just remember how odd the NES pad looked when we were used to joysticks... or how we had to learn to use an analog stick with Mario 64...

Yeah, there's always the Virtual Boy, but the reason that was such a spectacular failure was because it was Nintendo's *only* big stumble. Decades of risk-taking gaming innovations and just one big misstep? Who else has a track record that good? Who else has done more to earn our trust?

This won't be the console to play Madden, Grand Theft Auto, etc. on -- at least, not as we know those games today.

I'm as worried as the next guy that this won't work, that Zelda won't be as fun somehow, that Mario will be too weird... and how the hell will I play the new Smash Brothers?

But it's good that I'm worried. After seeing the new controller, we could've all gone "That's it? That's all?", or we could go "Holy crap, what the hell IS that thing?" Considering that Nintendo promised a revolution, I'm glad it was the latter.

I'd be concerned if every system was doing this, and the old ways of playing games were going away for good. But, I'll still have my PS3 and 360 for the types of games I already know and love.

Really, would we be better off with a third system doing the same things with the same third-party games?

It's hard to imagine how much we'll enjoy new types of games before we've had a chance to try them. It's an especially tough sell for hardcore gamers, who are a tough crowd. Everything in life that we enjoy, though -- there was always a first time. Everything was new once. Aren't we glad we gave these things a chance?

I read a post on a message board that made an excellent point: "Nintendo has the most to lose next generation, but they've still got the biggest balls to try something new."

I can't WAIT for Xbox 360 and, especially, PS3 (MGS4!). But the system I'm most excited/intrigued/compelled to pull out of the box? Revolution, hands-down.

Nintendo, God bless 'em -- crazy f'ing mad scientists. Let your freak flag fly, you glorious bastards :)

PSM Makin' Waves

For the past few issues we've been working extra hard to uncover as much new PS3 info as possible, and it looks like our efforts haven't gone unnoticed. Our stories have been repeated across many of the top internet sites, with most of them (if not all) giving us credit and hopefully turning a few more people onto the magazine.

Our latest issue (November) has reached some subscribers and has been scanned and copied word-for-word onto websites and message forums. I don't really care, personally, so long as proper credit is given.

However, as is expected online (where an increasingly jaded readership is used to sorting through lies and misinformation), some people have doubted our reports. I'd like to take a second to clear that up right now by saying that, unlike other less reputable sources, we don't print a story unless we've gotten solid confirmation on it. We don't sit around and make up stuff just to sound cool, or reprint things that we've only heard second- or third-hand. We do run some rumors, but we always clearly label them as such.

Botom line: we've been one of the top videogame magazines for 103 issues -- we've got great connections. We're constantly talking to people at Sony and publishers all over the world. We talk directly to the people making the games.

The funniest re-reporting of our latest PS3 story popped up this morning over at spong.com. Since they reprinted our story, I figured it would be okay to copy-and-paste the first part of theirs:

"SPOnG would never say that magazines just make things up, hiding in the accountability void afforded by the antiquated media of print and miniscule readerships. We also have to socialise with our print press colleagues and pretend to like them as they pretend to like us*. So it’s better to keep things smooth…"

Um, reprinting information that you question the validity of probably isn't the best way to showcase your higher journalistic standards. You're welcome for today's top story, by the way.

Anyways, I guess it's always nice to be noticed :)

--Chris

I think I've Spoiled the Revolution For Myself...

Maybe that headline is a bit too dramatic, but I'm so in love *my* idea of what the Revolution could be that I don't think I'll be satisfied by anything else.

Like many people, I'm pretty convinced that gyros are somehow a part of the system's "revolutionary" new feature. This would make sense for a number of reasons:

1) Nintendo has experimented with similar technology in Game Boy games like Kirby Tilt 'n' Tumble, Wario Ware: Twisted, and Yoshi: Topsy Turvy.

2) Nintendo supposedly has some kind of partnership with a company that has been working on new types of gyro applications (this was reported a while back, but I can't remember the exact details).

3) Being able to move a game character by simply tilting the controller could make it easy for non-gamers to play, which is a goal that Nintendo often stresses the importance of.

4) Gyros are by far the most feasible of the various wild rumors about the Revolution.

So, in imagining cool new ways to use gyros, I came up with an idea that I think would be so big that it would not only put Nintendo back on top, but also pull in scores of non-gamers.

Basically, it's virtual reality.

Imagine that you'd still use a standard controller to control a game, while using wrap-around LCD "shades" to *view* the game. The gyros would be built into the lightweight headset so that it could sense your head movements -- essentially, your head would take the place of the C-Stick for camera control.

For example, you would play Metroid Prime with the same controls as before, but now you'd be able to turn your head left to see what's there. You could look up to spot a hook for your Grapple Beam. In a racing game, you'd look to your side to see a car passing you. Or just imagine the beauty in standing on a cliff in Wind Waker, simply looking from the sky to the ocean to take in the view around you. The immersion would be unparalelled, especially in first-person games. Third-person games would work fine, too -- just think of Mario as an RC car. In real life, while steering an RC car you'll often take your eyes off it for a moment to look ahead at where you're going.

If done right, I think this headset could be one of those features that, once you experience it, there's no playing games without it. It'd be a little odd to wear with friends over, but then again, imagine how cool it'd be to look at a buddy sitting next to you and "see" his virtual self standing there. And the headset wouldn't have to be a heavy, clunky helmet; think wrap-around Oakleys with pods on the sides for the gyros.

The technology seems to be here. If there are Game Boy games now that can tell whether you're turning them to the side or tilting them up and down, then all you'd need to do is is marry that with an LCD screen. Of course, I'm no engineer so I could be over-simplifying things.

Another beautiful part of this idea is that it would make games easier for non-gamers to get into. Putting on a headset might be weird the first time, but think about it -- one of the most confusing things to get used to in a game is controlling the camera. With the headset, this problem would be removed completely.

The "wow" factor alone would get everyone to check it out. Nintendo could even offer peripherals -- like a glove or light gun -- that had built-in gyros, too. The peripherals and headset would know where each other are, so that if you raised the light gun in front of your visor, you'd see your virtual hand holding a virtual gun right in front of your face.

Well, that's pretty much all of it. Maybe now that I've shared this idea, I can put it to rest and just enjoy whatever it is Nintendo might unveil at the Tokyo Game Show next week. If anyone out there is a tech genius, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this idea -- is it possible, or what?

--Chris

Last Minute MGS4 Speculation

Along with the advanced AI I wrote about in my previous post, I've got one more guess about MGS4's true nature before the "big reveal" at TGS next week.

Okay, dig this --

At E3, MGS mastermind Hideo Kojima told me that he'd placed clues in the game's E3 teaser (you know, the funny one with everyone sitting in chairs?) -- clues that could be used to figure out what MGS4 is all about. After watching the teaser over and over, the only thing I can figure is that the game will take place in a warzone.

I mean a "soldiers are shooting at each other, bombs are falling and crap keeps blowing up all around me" type of setting. This would fit with the game's theme of "nowhere to hide", and it meshes well with Kojima's hints about an environment that can change, where you can't take anything for granted. Imagine trying to sneak around city streets and through rubble while fighting is going on all around you -- and if Snake is seen, then *he* becomes the target.

My reason for thinking this comes from the very beginning of the E3 teaser. Snake peeks around a wall at a group of soldiers that are *already in combat*, and they don't notice him until the wall Snake is hiding behind gets bombed away.

Well, I'll admit that it's a bit of a stretch, but I just had to put the idea up here, on the off chance that I'm onto something.

I'm so excited to see this game that I can't stand it anymore! :)

--Chris

Ten Years of PlayStation

Ten years ago on September 9th, 1995, Sony changed our lives forever with the introduction of the original PlayStation.

(Wow, has it been that long already?)

Weather or not you're a fan of Sony's consoles, you can't deny the impact they've had on gaming. Perhaps only Nintendo has been more influential in the industry's 30+ years. Just take a look at some of the market-defining changes Sony has introduced in just a decade:

- They knocked off Nintendo, which had been the unbeatable market leader for so long.

- They pushed the transition from 2D to 3D gaming, triggering what was arguably the most important turning point in gaming history.

- They took off the kids' gloves, made gaming "cool" to the older demographic, and grew the industry enormously.

- While Nintendo was still pressing cartridges, Sony made disc media the industry standard and ushered in bigger, broader games.

- They've started to move the games-only console towards an all-in-one entertainment hub for the living room, starting with CD music and eventually introducing DVD movie playback and a handheld that does pretty much everything.

I'm sure there's plenty more to add to this list -- what am I forgetting, guys?

Anyway, while I've sometimes been critical of Sony over the years, today I'd simply like to congratulate them on their many incredible achievements. It's no exaggeration to say that gaming as we know it would not exist if not for them.

Happy birthday, PlayStation -- I'm looking forward to your next ten years!

--Chris

Catching Up

Hey, what's up?

First of all, sorry for going so long without an update. While I don't imagine that anyone's been waiting on pins and needles for a new post, I did promise to put something new up much earlier.

What's worse is, most of my time lately has been spent playing Jump Superstars on the Nintendo DS. I know, I've got no excuses! :)

Catching up with current events, some big, big things are about to go down at next week's Tokyo Game Show:

- Playable Xbox 360s (according to Microsoft)
- Playable PS3s (according to Sony's Ken Kutaragi)
- The full unveiling of Nintendo's Revolution, complete with the next Mario (according to a report at Spong.com, which fits well with hints Nintendo have dropped)

Basically, TGS will be what last E3 was supposed to be. (Better late than never, I guess.)

Microsoft will probably announce some new partnerships with Japanese developers, and is sure to show off as many Japanese-friendly games it can muster (a retooled True Fantasy Live Online, anyone?). PS3 isn't likely to put as many games in the hands of show goers as the 360, if Kutaragi does indeed follow through with his promise to "let consumers experience the PS3." But Sony's system could still come out on top thanks to one game: Metal Gear Solid 4.

The buzz is -- and statements made by Konami's Hideo Kojima seem to support -- that the series' next installment will make its first true appearance via a trailer running on real PS3 hardware. Folks, unlike a lot of other developers who like to bait-and-switch pre-rendered footage with honest gameplay, Kojima always shoots straight with his Metal Gear trailers. The PS2 hype machine didn't really kick off until he debuted the trailer for MGS2, which just blew people's minds at the time. This MGS4 trailer will show us what the PS3 will truly be able to do in the hands of a top developer, and I get all tingly just thinking about it. And what did Kojima mean by saying that the theme of MGS4 is "no place to hide?" Just imagine the power of the PS3 being pushed to create environments and enemy AI so realistic that you can't predict what happens on the battlefield any more than a real soldier could in combat. If you can't always count on a guard to walk the same path over and over, or on a truck to stay parked long enough to provide cover, then how will you hide? You heard it here first, folks! :)

No matter what you guys might be up to late next week, be sure to keep a close eye on the gaming sites -- it's gonna be wild!

--Chris