Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo's Iwata - Innovate or Die
Linker writes "CNN/Money has interviewed Satoru Iwata, where the president of Nintendo Ltd. says the gaming industry is in the midst of a crisis of innovation, which could lead to its demise. The idea, of course, is to justify the existence of the upcoming Nintendo DS, but Iwata does point out that the gaming market in Japan has been shrinking in the past few years - and the U.S. and Europe may do so soon."
Frankly, I think it's great that the game industry (at least Nintendo) is trying to innovate itself out of this potential problem.
Yay free market.
I'd like it even more if certain other industries could be made to feel this same pressure.
Seriously. If the 'big gaming company' took more risks (hell, they are big enough to take risks) on innovative games instead of working on sequels to games or the latest shooter, the gaming industry would be more exciting.
Instead, we are fed the same old games.
But can you blame them? Works in hollywood like a charm.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
It's because people are stuck in these linear games with absolutely minimal amounts of ability to change the outcome or environment. Game devlopers have lost their ability to let the imagination of the gamer come through. It's sad that people haven't pushed enough to cause some changes. I don't blame the developers, they're giving what the majority of the consumers want...MINDLESS GAMES.
If we all pushed a little we could get games that are bleeding edge and innovative, but the number of these titles will be limited as long as every joe schome dishes out his 50$USD for some mindless point and click linearly story driven boxed pile of horse *!@#!
Just my thoughts
the IronGhost
The above is why I have more fun with Nintendo games than any other games, as a whole. Sure - I own an Xbox and a PS2 as well, but the bulk of my games are for the Gamecube. Nintendo just makes games that are fun playing, and that you don't need to read the manual to understand.
However, playing PGR2 on XboxLive is _really_ fun, I'll admit to that.
it's in my head
Take a look at a game made by, say, the Gamecube, the Xbox, and a PC. Quick, which one looks the best?
Now, odds are you'll say "The PC". Which, at $1000 - $2000 for the hardware, that's certainly true.
For the Gamecube and the Xbox, the systems are pretty well matched. From what I've seen, the Xbox can do lighting better thanks to the shaders, while the Gamecube seems to have better anti-aliasing (take a look at Super Monkey Ball 2).
Fast forward 18 months when the Xbox 2, PS3, and Gamecube 2 come out, all with chips made by IBM, 2 of which have chips made by ATI. Now which look better?
Once we reach a point of technical ability, all of the consoles will start to look the same in graphical and processing power. So then it's going to come down to one thing:
Who has the better games?
PS2 still has the most, though I imagine most PC developers will continue the trend of "PC/Xbox" hybrids (though with the Xbox 2 it will be curious to see how possible this will still be, though XNA should help with the tranferral).
Nintendo at least is trying some new things. Using a stylus to "draw" Pac-Man on a screen, or to "shoot" in Metroid. Or using Congo drums for a Donkey Kong platform game (and, of course, the upcoming Donkey Konga itself).
Will most of these works? Probably not. There's a good chance that most people will think that playing a platform game with drums will suck donkey balls (pun intended), or that drawing on a screen won't be fun. But in an a realm where Final Fantasy XII seems to play like Final Fantasy XI only with a blond in a hoochie skirt (for Pete's sake, woman, put on some tights and have some dignity instead of letting it all hang out like you're going to walk down Prostitute Avenue), and every first person shooter looks the same, it's going to the ones that are different that will pull it out.
Personally, I'm betting that the Xbox will continue to be big on the FPS and Sports games, PS2 will rock the RPG and "everything else", while Nintendo will grab those "Games you must have or die" kind of things (Nintendo, new Mario, and of course GBA games).
I'll withhold judgement on Nintendo's innovation until I see sales rise (remember the lesson from SEGA: different doesn't always mean $$$), but if nothing else, you've got to give them credit for at least doing something different than the other guys.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I grew up playing video games (mostly during the winter months). I had a Coleco, NES, Genesis and later played a lot of PC games at college. (Doom, Quake, etc). Looking back at it now, I just can't believe I wasted as much time as I did.
Wasted? A moment enjoyed is never wasted.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I have piles of Systems at home. Sega origional system ,saturn, dreamcast.... every nintendo machine made, and a couple of atari systems. as well as all the Sony creations. except for a couple of games on the PS2 and MarioKart on the Gamecube... the N64 and the supernintendo get most of the use.
Sorry, but southpark for N64, goldeneye and alot of the other classics are simply more fun to play. New games coming out simply suck. I go and shop every month, nothing for the PS2, even the $19.00 cheapie "classics" interest me, the Gamecube has no new games that I dont already have that are of any interest. I try, I rent things that might be interesting and end up dissapointed every time.
Games today just plain suck. I love Ut2004 on the pc, but that kind of game (FPS that is) sucks big time on a system withough a mouse and only 10 buttons, same as a flight sim without a real yoke and throttle controller.
They could work on making games that are actually fun and addictive instead of the same old crap over and over and over.
having 90,000 polygons per object and realistic shading is worthless if the games just plain suck.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The current crisis in the gaming industry does not surprise me. Today, games are primarily a product, not an entertainment. It costs a hell of a lot of money to develop a state-of-the-art game; this leads to a lack of creativity, since it is cheaper to rely on tried and true gameplay concepts than to innovate. With innovation, there is always the risk of people not accepting it. However, this leads to many similar games, people get used to this similarity, and become even less tolerant to new concepts. At the same time, the technology advances, games become more complex, costs raise etc. I guess somewhere in there the industry lost the concept of joy. A game is .... well, a game! :) A game is supposed to be funny. I think things changed when the CEOs and lead designers in the game companies were no longer creative minds who created several games before (like Sid Meier), but managers and professional designers drilled to create "an economic and reliable video game product". And hey - I'm sick of playing games that feel primarily like a product, and not like a game.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
The problem is that most of the game concepts have been done already..
Now, I'm not trying to get myself a Bill Gates style quote ("640k is..."), but seriously - there isn't much more to do, and what there is to do - is very very hard to think of or implement.
It's just like cinema. What new genre has the cinema introduced in the last decade or more? There are some ground breaking technical movies who have interesting stories that combine thanks to technology - Pulp Fiction, Memento are two examples I can think of. Fight Club was amazing. LOTR improved on the fantasy genre. But in the end, I can't think of anything totally new.
Games will eventually start being more and more similar to movies or to real-life. Better AI, better graphics, interesting ways of presentation and good stories. But the genres will remain the same, with rarely any innovation - if any at all.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Looking back at it now, I just can't believe I wasted as much time as I did.
Agreed. I haven't been big into gaming since Starcraft. The wife and I filled our living room with computers when that came out and spent the large bulk of our time gaming with friends. Looking back, we spent 2-4 hours on almost a nightly basis. Fridays would start by 6:00pm and continue until 1:00am or later; we played until our wrists just couldn't move the mouse any more.
Sure, we had fun, but what a waste of time. I could have been developing some cool piece of software, or building something, really anything but sitting on my butt doing what amounts to nothing.
So here I am surfing Slashdot instead. Hmmm... maybe I shouldn't submit this. Oh well.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Matrix 3 "bombed?"
Sorry, but it did far from bomb. The two matrix sequels were filmed together for a budget of $200 million. That's pretty expensive plus a marketing campaign of about $50-75 million for the two. However, Matrix 2 has taken in over $281 million in the USA alone, covering the costs of both movies (that is WITHOUT dvd/vhs/tv rights sales). Worldwide, it has taken in $457 million.
Therefore, by definition, ANYTHING matrix 3 made was in essense a profit. It was impossible to bomb as the movie was already in the black (i.e. proifiting). That being said, Matrix Revolutions has made $285 million worldwide (again, minus dvd, tv, tie-ins, etc).
If that's a bomb, then that's a bomb i'd love to be responsible for...
Thus you see probably the biggest potential in the ONLINE gaming market.
Granted, they still have to figure out a paradigm solution to the "how can Joe Sixpack (who plays a few hours a week) have fun in the same world as l33t g4m3rZ (who play 30+ hours per week)", but the interest value, the innovation, and sheer unpredictability of human opponents will outweigh that of even top-notch AI's for many years to come.
A developer has a choice:
1) Spend $5 million building a complex, detailed storyline single player game with multiple solutions and plot branchings, detailed character interaction and clever 'learning' AI. Most people (who actually play 3d Magnum Deer Hunter XXVI) won't even buy it, some will play it for an hour or two before hunting for the walkthrough online, and only a very teeny % will actually play through and enjoy 90% of the investment.
2) Spend $3 million making an online game where you can continually input content over time, you can get players to pay $15/month to play it as long as you're willing to pay the continuing bandwidth, server, and staff costs to support it, and let THEM pretty much create the interactions and plotlines internally.
#2 looks like a pretty good option.
-Styopa
I was just thinking about this the other day.
how, since SEGA (who have been the leg-up for innovation in the gaming industry) stopped making consoles, we havent seen any attempts towards any next-generation systems, only little plastic boxes that hook up to the TV.
Now the DS is coming out, which may start a future of systems that can easily replace the systems that hook to TV's (though I dont see it happening)
but it throws the handheld market out of the repetitive 2d-only market.
Now there's the PSP, but I honestly wouldnt want to buy that, it's neither innovation, or really something that can be called handheld or portable.
all it is is a PSone with games that are incompatible with all of sony's other products.
the only selling point is the mp3 player, which will attract the sony fanboys right away. but you can just buy a psone with a monitor, and you got a fairly portable system, with pre-existing games.
The DS will have its own games, yes, but they'll have their own unique features that take advantage of the DS' power, people may make fun of the DS, but it's a system with a hell lot more innovation and potential than anyone has done to date, and is something nintendo hasnt done before to date.
but with all that, we need more innovation, and the only real innovator left is nintendo, really.. Sony just copies the innovation and adds a tacky feature here or there to make it sell like hotcakes. and Microsoft.. well we dont need to go there. Sega and nintendo used to be the main innovators back in the 90's and now that Sega no longer makes systems, it's really up to nintendo now to do it, or else we're facing a dark age for console gaming. Because if Sony and Microsoft get their way with the industry, console gaming will mostly die for the most part. and any innovations will be minor details, nothing new, since they wouldnt have competition except each other, and they leech, so nothing would really come up.
I say, go nintendo.