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."

71 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. *Innovate or DIE!* by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why do I suddenly have this mental image of a swarm of bees chasing down a game designer?

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:*Innovate or DIE!* by mekkab · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because there hasn't been enough innovation since 720 the arcade game.

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    2. Re:*Innovate or DIE!* by ironghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:*Innovate or DIE!* by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny, your first half of your message was the exact opposite of my problem - games have gotten _too_ non-linear. I find that in many modern games I spend far, far too much time wandering around lost, hoping for some indication of anything that will help me progress. If a game is an action game, then I want action. I want to move forward into the next room and fight something exciting. Not wander around retracing my steps hoping to find something I missed because I've exausted all the possible action in the region.

      IMHO, if gamedevs want to innovate, include more easy to use design tools within the game. Either as part of the gameplay (robot construction kits between missions) or outside (a nice, easy map editor for making deathmatch maps).

      Star Craft had the best of this IMHO - the gameplay allows players to be very creative, and the mapping tool was easy to use, polished, and powerful enough for most amateurs (hardcore modders preferred Total Annihilation, as they should).

      As networking gets better and the industry moves more towards easy design tools due to the insane effort needed to make modern game content, I expect to see more games like Second Life, where the player is surrounded and embellished in player-generated content from his peers.

      IMHO, I want to see multiplayer online games where all you need to mod is patience, webspace to host, and imagination (and no, relying on text-editors and consoles are not acceptable options).

    4. Re:*Innovate or DIE!* by advance512 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:*Innovate or DIE!* by ironghost · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.
      This is what I think should happen, but I think that the story should not be linear cut and dry. I like multiple endings, I like being able to change the character/story as time progresses/the mood I'm in. Game developers I feel should be less story tellers, and more of environment builders allowing us to progress with the tools they allow us under our own intellect and capabilities. Let us create the story in the world that they give us.
      --
      the IronGhost
    6. Re:*Innovate or DIE!* by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    7. Re:*Innovate or DIE!* by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bertold Brecht proclaimed around 1930 that everything that can be said has been said (he justified plagiarism with that, but that's another topic). Yet, new books still appeared after 1930 and not all of them were rehashes of older books. Proclaiming that all possible ideas have been done just means that your imagination is too limited. Yes, you're saying "most", but what exactly is "most"? 51%? 99%? Even more? If we define "most" as too many you're too unimaginative, if we understand it as 51% or something your point is void (since that'd leave quite a few ideas).

      Just look at the past. Do you think twenty years ago people would have thought of most of the games produced nowadays?

      Games don't make total changes, yes. Most games can be filed into a genre, yes. But that doesn't mean change doesn't happen. Games evolve gradually. Try comparing, say, Doom and Unreal Tournament 2004. That's a big difference. Yet, if you look through the FPS history there weren't any big revolutions in between. It's like continental drift. You might not notice it, but it's there and it totally changed the layout of the Earth.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:*Innovate or DIE!* by sampowers · · Score: 4, Funny

      What are you talking about? 1080 was released on the n64!

    9. Re:*Innovate or DIE!* by mikael_j · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I find that in many modern games I spend far, far too much time wandering around lost, hoping for some indication of anything that will help me progress. If a game is an action game, then I want action. I want to move forward into the next room and fight something exciting. Not wander around retracing my steps hoping to find something I missed because I've exausted all the possible action in the region.

      I'd like to somewhat disagree with you here, I think it's not that games are too non-linear but rather that they are still linear but allow you not to go in the right direction. This is why you end up wandering around aimlessly for ages just wanting to find a way past your current problem, in a truly non-linear game you could wander off and find something else to do, a completely different solution to your problem or just some mindless fun..

      But I agree that action games should be linear although I think being able to choose which line to follow (so to say..) is a nice thing since sometimes you just don't want to go head to head with that guy with double flak-jackets and a grenade launcher, it might suit you better to gun down a dozen or so ordinary enemies.. (This is what I kind of miss in Max Payne 2, the ability to find alternate paths that still have the same result in the end.)

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    10. Re:*Innovate or DIE!* by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      The problem with changing outcome or environment is that it increases the amount of possible paths through the gameworld. If, for example, there's 3 possible paths through each area, it triples the amount of content needed in the game. If there's eight choices you can make during an adventure game, and each choice has two possible paths you can take, it means that there's 256 possible routes through the gameworld. If some or all of these choices lead back to the main plot (so they are side quests), then there's an uncountable number of different paths through the game - and the plot has to be exiting and coherent no matter what path you take. And if there's a destroyable wall in an FPS game, the enemies must reach sensibly to the wall blowing up and the level can't become too easy just because you blew the wall up.

      The more choice the player has, the harder it is to keep the plot or action coherent and exiting, and the more likely the game will get to a state the designer didn't anticipate and crashes or exhibits weird behaviour as a result.

      So, it isn't a question of imagination, it's a question of ability.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    11. Re:*Innovate or DIE!* by Macgrrl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a RPG designer I would agree that one of the key differences between a CRPG and a tabletop game at a game convention is that the CRPG is often linear in it's resolution (often only one viable solution), whereas a tabletop game has to accomodate anything the players come up with. Players are extremely scathing about "fishhook" modules - game that drag you along a set path as if their was a fishhook in your mouth.

      I have no idea what would be involved in giving a CRPG the degree of flexibility you can get in a table top game, there would need to be character AIs which change their actions based on past actions and behaviours of the PCs. The biggest problem would be writing all the branches to emulate the way a tabletop GM can ad lib.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  2. Waste of time? by MisterP · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    Things are even worse now that games are getting to be so complicated. Unless I can pick up a game, figure it out in 10 minutes, I don't want to play it. I refuse to commit large chunks of time to games anymore. Which is why I still play Tetris and all the classics on a Game Boy when I have a few minutes to kill on a commute or something.

    It seems like the lack of innovation has simply spawned more and more complicated games that people don't want to bother with.

    1. Re:Waste of time? by Troed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Waste of time? by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

      Having fun sure is a waste of time, not a day goes by that I'm not thankful I stayed away from as much enjoyment as I could growing up. Everyone should stop wasting time enjoing themselves and just take up stamp collecting like us normal people.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:Waste of time? by Jotaigna · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree, but also can suck in younger minds. When i was little i played heaps of Atari. Moctezuma, Bruce Lee and the like, and all we could comment with my friends was, thats a cool game.

      I have listened to my younger cousins conversations regarding games and its like a subculture where they describe places they've been, weapons they own and monsters they kill. "How do you get super magic level 3 armor without the money?, you must first talk to the wizard and bla bla bla....". Ive only seen such avid and complex talks between chess and go players, so basically games as we know them have reached their growth curve.

      --
      "The quality of life is inversely proportional to the number of keys on your keyring."
    4. Re:Waste of time? by rupert2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Theoretically the cost per hour of console gaming is quite low. Especially if you buy your games used and resell them someplace like half.com. Considering the cost of other forms of entertainment like watching movies and computer gaming it is relatively cheap.

      Of course in practice this is often not the case :-)

    5. Re:Waste of time? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!
    6. Re:Waste of time? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:Waste of time? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Sounds like they're suffering from the same market fragmentation as the War Gaming (tabletop wargaming, of course) industry did once upon a time.

      Many games, each requiring a significant time to master, means that fewer people will play each one. And as the games get more expensive to make (as they try ever harder to attract an audience share), they require more players to be profitably made.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:Waste of time? by DrEldarion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why is entertainment a waste of time? TV, movies, games, reading, etc. They're all "wastes of time" if you consider the fact that you could be doing something productive with that time. You could spend it building something or learning new things, but would you really want to live your life without any entertainment in it?

    9. Re:Waste of time? by steveb964 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I never win more than a certain amount until I inevitably start to lose everything, which makes me want to throw the damn phone against the floor of the bus.

      1. Play game on phone
      2. Get mad at game
      3. Throw and break phone
      4. Buy new phone
      5. (Cell phone maker) Profit!!!

    10. Re:Waste of time? by slackerboy · · Score: 4, Funny

      You probably enjoy the time you spend collecting stamps too! Hypocrite.

      --
      Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
    11. Re:Waste of time? by ryanwright · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    12. Re:Waste of time? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Eh? And which games are "too complicated"?

      Excluding more advanced and in depth MMORPGs (Everquest, FF11, etc), single player RPGs (Morrowind), or an RTS game (Warcraft, Starcraft, etc.), games, for the most part, aren't complicated at all.

      GTA: You have a button for gettin in a car, running, jumping, and switching weapons. Not too complex there. Get in a car, drive to your destination, get a mission.

      Fighting games? Not very complex. Most are designed around the Tekken/Virtua Fighter modes where you have weak/medium/strong attacks. That's it. Unlike earlier fighting games, moves, combos, and finishing moves are listed for you within the game.

      Survival Horror? Every one I've played is pretty simple to figure out. You pretty much walk, shoot, and solve puzzles. What about FPS games like Halo and Unreal? Not much to them aside from knowing where the move/shoot buttons are.

      RPGs like Diablo are pure hack & slash. Yeah, you can incorporate strategy into it, but it takes a whopping 5 minutes to read up on how to socket your items.

      Sure, you have your occasional game that takes a while to figure out, but those aren't geared toward those who'd rather flip blocks for 20 minutes then call it a day.

      But one thing is for certain: game today are NOT too complicated by any means. I think you must be gettin old ;)

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    13. Re:Waste of time? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is all this complain about today's games sucks? People posting here are obsessed with lame ass platform games. No one plays that anymore.

      Try dropping Gran Turismo 4 and go back to NES rad racer. People always bring up some puzzle game like tetris to compare the ENTIRE gaming industry.

      I am sure I can't sit thru tetris for an hour, but I'll sit thru wolfenstein for 8 hrs straight.

  3. DS by mix_master_mike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been thinking about the new DS for a long time and haven't thought of many gaming methods to take advantage of the dual screen. Alright, this is off-topic.. Anyway - the donkey kong mario racer game that the last pic showed had your location on the track... big deal... the next innovation for them should be making the gamboy thinner with a larger screen, not fatter with two.

    --

    mix_master_mike
    vafrous

  4. That's because the new games suck! by junkymailbox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I dont play any more console games cause they just plain suck. I dont care much for the improved graphics if the gameplay is horrible and rehashing another horrible game yet again. I would rather play a text game on my palm that's fun than play some impressive looking game that sucks.

    1. Re:That's because the new games suck! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whine whine.

      There are tons of good innovative games out there, the problem is that nobody buys them. (Sometimes.)

      For instance, look at a title like Beyond Good and Evil. This is one of the most compelling games I've seen in a long time and, only a few months after it's initial release, it's $20 in the bargain bin because nobody bought it. Or how about Syberia, an excellent adventure game recently released for XBox and PC? Crimson Skies for XBox? That's pretty innovative. Or Prince of Persia, which is a rehash of an older game, but done so well that you just can't hate it. Or even James Bond 007: Everything Or Nothing, the best 'playing a movie' game I've seen in a long while.

      Did you, Mr. All Games Suck buy a copy of Beyond Good and Evil? If not, then you're part of the problem and not part of the solution! If you don't seek out the innovative and fun games, then you're contributing to the 'just make a sequel' attitude that the games industry currently has.

      In short, all games do not suck. People who say all games suck suck.

  5. Kids these days... by Mz6 · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Consider this: Older gamers have fond memories of games like "Tetris," "Space Invaders" and "Pong." But when Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine put them in the hands of a group of 10-13 year olds last year, the results weren't pretty. Rather than seeing the games' charms, the kids were bored - and mocked the titles mercilessly."

    Sweet merciful crap! If it wasn't for these games, nobody would have wanted to grow up to be a game designer and create some of the games we see today. Some of those kids' parents need to just slap those brats across the face!

    Reminds me of the scene in Back to the Future II, "You mean you have to use your hands? Aww, that's a baby's toy!"

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:Kids these days... by DrEldarion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can maybe understand Space Invaders and Pong, but TETRIS? That game is a classic time-waster and anybody I've ever shown it to couldn't put it down. People at my high school would play it on their calculator during math class. I see kids with brand new GBA SPs with a classic GB tetris cart in it (or the GBC tetris). It could quite possibly be the most popular game of all time.

      The new versions of it are cool as well. I highly recommend that any tetris fan download Tetrinet.

  6. Great. by Raindance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. No innovation??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What does he mean there's no innovation in the game industry? I mean, looking at my shelf, I've got Madden 2003, Gran Turismo 3, Tekken 3, Onimusha 3, Super Mario 3...Oh, wait, I think I get it...

  8. Offtopic mod down by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 3, Funny
    this may be a little offtopic, but I was just reading about the Nintendo DS, Video Games and the Alpha Release of Windows Longhorn.

    Then I thought wow Microsoft has been releasing a popular game for years, and nobody realized it. No I'm Not talking about Flight Simulator. I am talking about THIS

  9. Seriously, innovate guys. by stephenisu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most companies won't though.

    Pushing the same crap over and over is fairly risk free.

    God knows I own every Zelda game (excluding the 3D0 crap).

    --
    Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
  10. I blame EA by FortKnox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  11. Focus on Handhelds by lake2112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is why all the new innovations are geared towards handheld devices. For over a decade Nintendo has been pushing handheld devices which really did not live up to the technology of the time. Their leadership in the market enabled them to curb innovation. But I view console gaming to be like the Slam Dunk Contest in the NBA. It's all been done, what else is there?

  12. It comes down to the Three Gs... by Millennium · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Guns, Girls, and Graphics.

    This is the formula used (depressingly successfully) by many game companies nowadays. Everything else can be sacrificed by these three.

    GUNS: Actually, violence in general. More violence is good, but quality ("realism", meaning extra gore) can make up for a lack of quantity.

    GIRLS: The more women and the less clothing, the better. Any kind of implied sexuality is better than nothing, however.

    GRAPHICS: Photorealism = good, any other graphics style = bad. This is mostly an extension of Guns and Girls, since "realism" (actually pandering to a perverse fantasy, but your average gamer has a hard time telling the difference) is key to these areas.

    These three factors contribute to what is sometimes called PPLQ, "Perceived Penis Length Quotient". The higher the PPLQ, the better the game will sell, because it is perceived as a Manly Game. Nintendo's problems as of late stem mostly from the fact that it refuses to satisfy PPLQ, under the deluded impression that innovation and gameplay are actually important to the average modern gamer. Thus, we get games like Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles and The Legend of Zelda: the Wind Waker, games doomed before they ever hit shelves because they were not deemed Manly enough.

    1. Re:It comes down to the Three Gs... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 3, Informative

      >>Thus, we get games like Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles and The Legend of Zelda: the Wind Waker, games doomed before they ever hit shelves because they were not deemed Manly enough.

      I would point out, that "Legend of Zelda: the Wind Waker" is one of the highest selling games in US History. No game before or after has hit as many preorders as Wind Waker did. (In the US.)

  13. DDR? by digitalsushi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    from the article: "Dance Dance Revolution," which U.S. officials strongly resisted bringing over from Japan, has proven to be a lasting change to gameplay.

    then it doesnt say why they resisted it. And who the officials are.

    --
    slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
  14. Doesn't surprise me by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Doesn't surprise me by prockcore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Well, Nintendo has learned that lesson several times.. but at least they keep trying. Some of their innovations were just too ahead of their time. The Power-Pad didn't do too well, but 10 years later, the Power-Pad has been re-invented for DDR. On the other hand, the Power Glove will probably always be a bad idea.

  15. good. by chachob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    its great that Nintendo is really trying to do this, because they have been one of the largest victims of this anti-innovation, perfect example being their relentless release of mario-themed games. (i know its practically their mascot, but maybe its time for a new one...)

  16. Why? by astrokid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's tough for developers to sell a new innovative game because few publishers want to take the risk. It is much easier to take a successful franchise and develop sequel after sequel.

    Rinse, lather, repeat ... ie: All of EA's sport franchises.

    --

    Chewie does not get a medal. Come on, George. Can a Wookie get a medal?
  17. Too expensive by ardor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  18. Pure fud... lazy inovators by KillerCow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the gaming industry is in the midst of a crisis of innovation

    Two words: online gaming

    If we continue down the same path as we have in the past, people may become tired of gaming

    In economics they call this Diminishing Marginal Utility. The more you consume something, the less gain you experience from consuming one more unit of that thing. To combat this, marketers need to offer you something novel. I don't know why anyone would think that video-games are imune to this...

  19. Re:Software, Not Hardware by KeeperS · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Gamers will "tolerate" it as long as the games are good. Tired or not, they're still fun to play, which is really the point. It's not as if Nintendo is alone here... what are the new big games everyone else is putting out? Halo 2? Doom 3? GTA: San Andreas? The next sports game? As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with sequels. If you don't like them, there's plenty of other games out there for you to buy.

    I'd also like to point out that sequels can be innovative. Just because it has Mario in the title doesn't automatically mean that it's the same old thing.

  20. This is a common technique by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When a company's financial situation is worsening, one tactic is to make it appear that it is the market as a whole that is suffering or shrinking and not the particular company's individual performance. Its a simple play to artificially hold up your company's stock, or at least drag everyone else down with you. You'll find that many American publishers have just announced significant profits for this past fiscal year or for the coming fiscal year while Nintendo posted their first quarterly loss in decades.

    All I have ever said, and have been brutalized repeatedly for on this site, is that the American/Eurpoean markets are different from the Japanese. It is easy to show that the gamers have different tastes, a number of recent slashdot articles have proven that, and that the Japanese market is shrinking overall while the western markets continue to show growth. As soon as NoA starts treating American's as special again (as it did with the significant difference between the NES and FamiCom) they have a chance to recover. If they continue resting on their laurels and giving us the exact same hardware and software as is released Japan, their western market share will continue to shrink until they are totally irrelevent. My prediction all along has been the fragment of the market into one worldwide success and a different second place in Region 1 and 4 from Region 2. If the current trend continues the big winner will still be Sony, with MS and Nintendo ceasing to compete directly and each taking second in different parts of the world. The only question in my mind is will Nintendo be too stubborn to port their software to Playstation or Xbox when the Americans finally boot them out of the hardware business.

    1. Re:This is a common technique by phatsharpie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to your post, shouldn't PlayStation 2 be failing big time in markets outside of Japan? AFAIK, there are no differences between the Japanese PS2 and the American one - other than what is necessary (PAL versus NTSC and the like).

      Also, I believe the Xbox is the same in the US and world markets.

      The articles your referred to regarding differences in Japanese, European, and American markets talked about the gaming titles themselves (i.e. what genre of games each market like), and didn't really refer to the gaming hardware themselves.

      In fact, if Nintendo manufactured different hardware for each of its regional markets, they probably can't take advantage of lowering manufacturing costs in terms of scale, so it would probably lead to a higher retail price and damage its market share.

      P.S. the NES and the FamiCom had very little differences outside of appearance. It was purely a marketing decision to make them "different".

      -B

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Re:Don't think too much of this by Grrr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good point. There's few things more suspicious than a focus group... ;)

    <grrr>

  23. Bottomless Pits... by Reason58 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think Penny Arcade hit the nail on the head in their article on the recently launched City of Heroes, when they said the game had plenty of depth, but lacked width. That is the increasing problem with electronic games; they may be complex, but they lack any real sense of immersion. Goto area A, fight monster B, retrieve item C, rinse and repeat. It's the same formula we've seen a million times before, only with a shinnier wrapper and new kung fu grip.

  24. Re:Sequels, sequels, sequels by simoniker · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think someone should tell Dr. Gupta's secretary that they've been transcribing from a GameSpot interview with Michael Pachter, instead of the great doctor's notes. Whoops.

  25. Developer Platforms are the problem by CiXeL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's like this: Developer platforms are the problem. Much innovation was created by reinventing the tools everytime they made a game. Its alot like the loss of innovation that occurred in typing or writing many versions of a page of a book verses typing and deleting on a computer. The process of doing something over and over again allows your brain to rework the problem and come up with better solutions.

  26. Sega innovates! Didn't help them much! by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the Saturn and dreamcast ereas we saw some of the most innovative and fun games ever -- Sega had to put out fun games they couldn't compete on anything else. But then Sega got crushed by nintendo and sony who were pumping out the same games we played last year but with better graphics and more advertising. To be honest I really haven't been all that interested in games since the dreamcast died and I am not surprised the industry is hurting now. I don't care what your advertising budget is or how many polygons your GPU can push yesturday's gameplay is still yesturday's game!

  27. Nintendo DS innovative? by obsid1an · · Score: 3, Funny
  28. Re:Sequels, sequels, sequels by BTWR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  29. History is Repeating by VonGuard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's almost repeating to an exact year.

    1984: Game industry is bloated with too many consoles with too many accessories created ahead of demand (Intellivision2), the same games being re-branded and resold, too many boring tie-ins (E.T.), and a saturated market that was fed up with it.

    Result:
    Industry colapses.

    1994: Game industry is bloated with too many consoles with too many accessories created ahead of demand (Sega Genesis, 32X, CD, Saturn, Game Gear), the same games being re-branded and resold, too many boring tie-ins (Captain Novolin), and a saturated market that was fed up with it.

    Result:
    Industry implodes.

    2004: Game industry is blaoted with too many consoles with too many accessories (PS2 + HD + Network card + microphone + eyetoy = Jesus Fucking Christ!), the same games being re-branded and resold, too many boring tie-ins (Fight Club, the game?), an a saturated market that is getting poorer every day thanks to these wonderful tough times.

    Result:
    Who knows, but you can bet your buttons that the Nokia nGage is going to die.

    Well, maybe it won't happen till next year. But sooner would make such wonderful symetry.

    --
    Don't Crease the Weasel!
  30. Hrmm, you know.... by ShadowRage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  31. I may have missed one or two... by Symbha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    but honestly I think that there hasn't been a fresh new game type in a really long time.

    I really think the last truly innovative game type may have been the Battlezone remake of 6 or 7 years ago. That was an evolution of game types.

    Since then, all we've gotten are refinements on the typical, RTS, SPRPG, MMRPG, FPS Shooter, and F/TP Adventure games.

  32. Re:Are prices killing the industry? by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Funny
    Prices need to be lowered on games as do development cycles, its inevitable. Someone will eventually come along and say "We're sticking with this engine and going to churn out 1 game every 6 months for $20 bucks a pop

    We're talking to YOU here, Bioware! You evil swines! You sold me Neverwinter Nights no less than THREE TIMES! You sold me FOUR of Baldur's Gate! Do you have any IDEA how many hours of my precious life you've taken up with those things?

    Gah. I don't know how they get away with it, really I don't.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  33. If only they took a chance. by solarwolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I like to play games on my PS2. Being a girl, I really don't like the "popular" categories of Guns, Driving, and Sports. I'm not into real violence but I like a challenge.

    It takes work, but it is possible to find creative games from companies willing to put out something somewhat unique. Kya: Dark Lineage is a good game from Eden with fighting, puzzles, and stealth. Sly Cooper (Sucker Punch games) is an awesome looking game also involving some intelligence to get through.

    I am disappointed in most of the sequels they are putting out now. The original Jak & Daxter was a fun game, but Jak 2 and the rumors about Jak 3 follow the formula of guns and hijaking vehicles. Yawn. Sure it's safer to crank out a tried and true character sequel, but at least put some thought into what the gamer wants to see. However I will not expect it to change, and I'll keep up my feeble search of quality games.

  34. Re:Sequels, sequels, sequels by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 3, Informative

    Gupta, buddy! How ya been? Better practice the trolling a bit more often, as you're getting a bit rusty.

    Anyone who doesn't know this guy yet, read his post history, or check here. Known troll who always falsely claims to be working at Nintendo, Sega, etc.

  35. Re:Well, a good start.. by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're working on that, it's currently scheduled for a release on the 24th of September

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  36. The sky is falling... by sterno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Quoting from the article:
    While there were some very promising titles on display at this year's show, there were very few games that were truly unique. Most, instead, rehashed familiar genres, tossing in a few new elements or simply polishing gameplay.

    If you take out the "simply polishing gameplay" phrase, this statement would apply to movies as well. Most movies are pretty much just rehashes of existing concepts, with different actors and special effects. Yet, the movie industry thrives and makes billions of dollars.

    So my sense is that the game industry isn't going anywhere, it's just maturing as a creative medium. That means that, over time, you're going to see less innovation, just like you do in most creative media. Doesn't mean people are going to stop buying.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  37. The future will be decided by the crap games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    while Nintendo posted their first quarterly loss in decades.

    I think the word you were looking for wasn't "decades", it was "ever". And while they are of course trying to hold up their recent loses in a positive light, the overall game/console sales in the Japanese market has declined. Even Sony has felt the burn in that respect.

    Nintendo is having problems not because of the localization thing, but because they don't want powerful 3rd party developers and they do their damndest to keep those they do embrace on a very short leash.

    Take GTA3, sold more copies than grains of sand on the beach right? But if you add up all the crap 3rd party stuff released on the PS2 you will see that GTA3 is not even 10% of all the software sold on the PS2. What does this mean? It means that there are people that will buy anything, even what you or I may think is crap, not because they are stupid but because given a large enough group of people, there is a good chance that someone will like your game.

    More selection equals more games that any given person is going to want, and this equals more systems sold. Nintendo (and MS to a point) are in a spot where the 3rd party shovelware makers are not all that interested in porting to their system because they don't have a strong enough user-base to buy their games. MS kisses ass and throws money at the problem, and eventually this will work. Nintendo on the otherhand holds it's nose up and is content with their 1st party line ups.

  38. Of course Japan's market is shrinking... by Rayonic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...because Japan's population has been shrinking. And getting older, on average. And that economic slump isn't helping things.

    Until someone comes out with some real polling results, you can't say that the Japanese populace is becoming "disenchanted" with video gaming. There could be many other factors at work.

  39. Again, Ender's Game by ignipotentis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I again find myself referenceing Uncle Orson. What about "The Game?" This is the type of game I would love to play. The game adjusts itself depending on how you react and it is different for everyone!

    --
    Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
  40. Self-serving by madmaxmedia · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This seems like a bunch of self-serving PR BS to tout their "innovative" new handheld. Wow, a year ago there was nothing wrong with the GBA, now gaming is at the edge of a crisis so you better buy the innovative Nintendo DS instead of the Sony PSP or gaming will die!!!

    I think these attempts at innovation by Nintendo have more to do with internal company factors than truly revolutionizing the state of gaming. Like pushing the revolutionary GBA-Gamecube link, which IMO had more to do with Nintendo trying to leverage their handheld dominance in the console market (the results speak for themselves, maybe a couple of decent games, the rest being unlockable content that did nothing but force Gamecube owners to buy a GBA to play a Gamecube game.)

    Nintendo sees the writing on the wall- they can't compete head-on with Sony and Microsoft (it's tough competing against a consumer electronics giant on one hand, and the Evil Empire on the other), so they are trying to change the game. Which is fine by me, it's just all the self-serving PR that annoys- Nintendo, the company that cares.

    If Nintendo really wanted to innovate, they might have actually tried to enable online play with the Gamecube.

    That being said, the Nintendo DS at least looks better and has some potential (but really so does the PSP to some degree). I look forward to seeing if any DS games are able to capitalize on the new hardware and really offer truly significantly new gameplay experiences. If those games don't come out, the DS dual-screen and touchscree will be all for naught, leaving the PSP with the significant hardware advantage.

  41. Re:Gupta, Gupta, Gupta by madmaxmedia · · Score: 2, Informative
    Once you read the original article about "sequels, sequels, sequels" (that someone else pointed out), you realize what an awesome post this was.

    Is he doing this to be ironic? Who knows, it's still funny as hell.

  42. Support the innovators! by Psychochild · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of the biggest things you can do is to support independent developers. There are a number of smaller developers out there that are trying to push the envelope in gameplay. Of course, with limited resources the smaller developers can't provide the flash and dazzle of the larger games.

    I'm part of one of those smaller game development houses; we develop online RPGs. Our current game, Meridian 59, is a classic online RPG with open PvP. Yes, open PvP isn't for everyone, but many people wish to have this in their game. Our game is smaller and not as well-known as the larger online RPGs, but we get by.

    Of course, the first reaction of most people is to judge the game by the graphics. Unfortunately for them, the graphics do not indicate the quality of gameplay. The combat is fun, there is not much of the "treadmill" you see in other games, and the PvP has been carefully balanced over the years. Meridian 59's gameplay is very fun, and we even charge less than most other games requiring no box purchase to play the game in the first place. But, people who judge games only on screenshots will never enjoy these finer aspects of Meridian 59.

    Really, this is why many games go for the flash instead of substance; it sells more games. We're working on an engine upgrade to Meridian 59, but this is not going to affect the gameplay, it will only make the game look better in screenshots. And, we have many other upgrades in store as the game grows. However, think of the time and effort we could have poured into gameplay....

    The point of this ramble is that if you want to see more innovative games, then start searching them out and playing (and paying for!) them. There are a number of great independent online games (I'm more familiar with them given that I work with online games), and there's a good number of quality single-player games out there as well. It's just a question of going a little bit off the beaten path and finding them for yourself.

    My thoughts,

    --
    Brian "Psychochild" Green
    MMO developer's blog