Slashdot Mirror
Sega Boss Stresses Fun Factor, Simpler Games
Thanks to Video-Fenky for their translation of an interview with Hisao Oguchi, the new boss of Sega. In it, Oguchi argues that less "grandiose games" are the way to rejuvenate the games market, referencing titles such as The Sims, Animal Crossing and Namco's Taiko no Tatsujin as good models for doing this, and saying: "Developers can't force their game worlds and huge stories on users. We can't have people balk at sitting in front of the TV and playing games because it's too tiring. All games are made to be fun for the people playing them, so in the next generation especially, making content that doesn't feel tiring to gamers will be very important."
Now someone pass this on to squaresoft...Why they won't allow you to skip the 5 minute spell-casting screens...How many times do I need to see Knights of the Round??? Once!
Steven V.
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
We're actively developing our business overseas, of course. The North American marketplace, especially, is twice the size of Japan's. The first fundamental of our overseas strategy is: if the title's meant for North America, then it's Americans that make it. There will always be a culture barrier that we can't completely bury. For example, Japanese people wouldn't understand what a player should say when he's tackled in a football game.
OMFG! Someone over there gets it. I'd expect no less from the Japanese company founded by an American.
See, all joking about Nintendo aside, they don't make things with Americans in mind. They make products, then decide what the Americans are likely to buy. And that is why they are increasingly niche in this country. (Ok fanboys, please notice increasingly, compare the NES to today...) See, when they made the NES, it was designed largely by Nintendo of America. It was significantly different from the Famicom because the markets are significantly different. Today there is no difference between a Japanese and an American Gamecube outside of region encoding. The result? The Gamecube is a non-standard size and does not fit in the standard American entertainment unit slot. And thats just one example, but it isn't my main point in this post...
I'm concerned because he ackowledges the differences and explains Sega's solution (different developers for different regions as appropriate), but goes back on it when talking about simpler gameplay. The thing is, the numbers indicate Americans want more complex gameplay. A sampling from the PS2 SCEA greatest hits list:
THPS3
Metal Gear Solid 2
WWE Smackdown
SOCOM
Max Payne
NBA 2k2
NFL 2k2
Grand Theft Auto 3
Not a dance title in the bunch. Sure there are a few examples of Japanese style games in the whole list, but these are really the exception that proves the rule. The fact is, that as the American mainstream embraces gaming more and more, the Japanese and American markets are becoming more different than ever. And thats ok. I just hope Sega and Nintendo and the others can learn to embrace it like Konami has (they make MGS even though it only ever does well Stateside) and target completely different games for the two completely different audiences.
One wouldn't expect the games on the list above to do well in Japan, why does one expect that their games will go over well with the US mainstream? Sure Nintendo will always have its fans. And thats ok. But if they want to hit the mainstream, they might want to consider thinking different.
Games should be.... fun?
HERESY!!
Complicated games mean a stable audience, however this is not what game companies want. It's important to keep this article in context.
Sega is in quite a precarious position at the moment. The road to becoming a strictly software company has been rough, and stems from the fundamental problem that no one is playing their games. Quite logically, a company with a small market share wants to expand its audience. The simplest way to do this is to create simple games that have mass appeal. Now, this is not some geek-elitist opinion of mine; I am not calling the masses "simple." However, it's much easier to capture a customer by giving them a simple challenge that doesn't take much learning.
Despite Sega's new "design philosophy," there will always, always be a place for complicated and difficult games. Despite the fact that the population-at-large will statistically prefer the "easy" game to the "hard" one, there will always be a sect of hardcore gamers: people with experience on many consoles that enjoy controller-busting challenges. Just as the game industry needs to grow, it also needs its zealots, too. These are the people that are more open to trying new concepts, and will eventually show companies which direction they ought to follow. While a new gamer may be scared by difficult controls, or a non-standard interface, a more mature gamer can look past the learning phase into the real meat of the game, seeing the experience for what it's really worth. This is evolution at work within the game industry, and natural selection has given us analog controls, lock-on targeting in 3d games, and even standard mouse and keyboard controls for first-person shooters.
Really, it is not the games themselves that are complicated, but rather their interfaces. This is something Nintendo understands quite well, and they've taken a lot of flack for it. The Gamecube's controller design oozes simplicity. (Simplicity in that your fingers know precisely where to go.) Certain buttons makes themselves very clear that they are important, and to what degree that importance is. While this works well when all your games follow this standard, third party titles can (unintentionally) muck this whole system up. When playing a Gamecube game, it's very clear whether the game was designed with Nintendo's system in mind, or simply as a cross-platform port. A perfect example is Madden, or any football game, for that matter. When your quarterback goes to pass on your PS2 or X-Box, the buttons for each receiver are very obvious and equally important. A quick glance at either system's controller shows that, clearly, all of the face buttons are just as important as one another, just as each receiver is equally important on the field. Nintendo's pad, however, while perfect for Metroid Prime or Super Smash Bros., simply sucks as a football controller.
Now, the paradox has become apparent. At what point does game simplicity break down from lack of control? When does complicated become too complicated? Who, exactly, is to blame for shoddy control? Is Sony responsible for making a pad that's very open-ended as to which buttons are considered important to a game? Is Nintendo responsible for not giving developers enough freedom in their controls? Is Electronic Arts responsible for not using the Gamecube controller to its fullest extent?
"Come on, let's go drink till we can't feel feelings anymore."
"Developers can't force their game worlds and huge stories on users."
Say that you like to play games, say that you would like to play online because playing with/against other human being is more fun/challenging/whateveryouwant... say that maybe you also have a life... would you really log once in a while in some ultima online or diablo server and hang around as the very weak guy that could be crushed anytime by any hardcore semipro online gaming addicted who can and usually do stay in the game 24/7?
Donthinkso, just let people log in and start having fun as fast as a coin slips in an arcade machine... call me old fashioned
Surely we need both? I play "simple" games (such as "Wario Ware"), or games with a good save-function for those spare ten minutes waiting for the bus, or for a break from work. When I happen to have a spare weekend, I like something more complex that will draw me in Friday evening and not spit me out until Monday morning. Yes, the "just one more go" type game could do that, but something slightly less repetetive is more fun in the long run. I *like* a good story and a huge and strange world to explore (and/or conquer). Then again, my game-tastes and I don't fit into any demographic aimed for by games-producers. :-) I can understand that the majority may cherish simplicity as a feature. Most people probably don't play games to be challenged, thus it is more profitable to make that sort of game. I just hope that enough game-makers find the time and the finances to produce the occasional quirky and fun game.
I do agree that the controls shouldn't be the complex bit, they don't have to be easy to master, but need some sort of logic.