BusinessWeek Interviews Miyamoto

TecnaDigit writes "This week, BusinessWeek Online features a short but sophisticated interview with Shigeru Miyamoto. Mr. Miyamoto discusses the past, present, and future of gaming (concerning both his games and games in general) as well a few interesting tidbits of his personal life." From the article: "Whether it's a new game or a sequel, we want anyone to be able to play right away. That's why I think Rubik's Cube was so brilliant. I saw it for the first time at a toy convention in Japan in the early 1980s. The moment you see a Rubik's Cube, you know you're supposed to twist the pieces. And it's beautifully designed. Even if you've never handled one, you want to pick it up and try it. And once you do that, it's hard to walk away until you've solved it. "

Comments

Error in linked article

[I(rispee_I(reme]

I quote:

his Super Mario Bros. -- the world's hottest-selling game ever -- was the first with a scrolling screen, which expanded the playing space vertically, not just horizontally

End quote. I don't believe Super Mario Brothers ever scrolled vertically. Perhaps my copy was defective. Or maybe they're talking about 2 or 3...

Re:Error in linked article

[XenoRyet]

As I recall a few of the levels had some vertical scrolling involved. The swimming levels in particular come to mind. I could be wrong though, it's been quite a while.

Re:Error in linked article

[Swimmin' Pants]

The article also claims that Super Mario 64 was the first console title with 3D graphics.

Oops!

Re:Error in linked article

[I(rispee_I(reme]

Heh, Donkey Kong didn't scroll at all...

Re:Error in linked article

[inio]

It didn't scroll vertically, but there was up/down movement facilitated by pipes and beanstalks.

Re:Error in linked article

[earthbound kid]

You are. I was surprised when I went back and played Mario 1 too, but it only scrolls horizontally. I think part of the genius is that you're so engrossed that you never notice. Before I went back and played it again, I could have swore it was different. Mario 2 had either horizontal or vertical scrolling depending on where you are, but never both at the same time. Mario 3 had both, which allowed for flying and whatnot.

Re:Error in linked article

[alphaseven]

I've heard Defender (1980) being called the first game with a scrolling screen, so that gameplay didn't take place in just one screen, and Rally-X from that same year had a screen that scrolled both horizontally and vertically... they both predate Mario Brothers by a few years so I don't know what the article is talking about.

Re:Error in linked article

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Do they mean super mario as in the SNES game? because it did have verticle. Mario Bros for NES did not.

Re:Error in linked article

[Breakfast Pants]

They also said that mario 64 was the first 3d console game... not true.

Re:Error in linked article

[Phisbut]

The article also claims that Super Mario 64 was the first console title with 3D graphics.

If it was not Super Mario 64, which one was it then?

Re:Error in linked article

[Phisbut]

They also said that mario 64 was the first 3d console game... not true.

As I asked just a little earlier, if Mario 64 wasn't the first, which game was?

Re:Error in linked article

[alphaseven]

As I asked just a little earlier, if Mario 64 wasn't the first, which game was?

There where quite a few 3d console games that where earlier, the SNES and Genesis with the 32x could do rudimentary 3d graphics, Starfox is a good example, and the Playstation came out over a year before the N64. I'm sure there are even earlier 3d console games depending on your definition of 3d. Mario 64 is considered a seminal 3d platformer, even though there where some games like Jumping Flash and Clockwork Knight out before, Mario 64 played a lot differently and a lot of 3d games base their controls on Mario 64.

Re:Error in linked article

[Anonymous Coward]

those games weren't fully 3D. Name one that was. Starfox? I mean come on. Go back and play it.

I have it on the SNES and it's not a 3D game. Just because the ships kinda look 3D doesn't make it 3D.

Nothing else in the game is 3D

Re:Error in linked article

[Breakfast Pants]

Starfox for SNES is one good example. There were also a few for genesis, some F1 racing game, using a chip similar to the "superFX" chip.

Re:Error in linked article

[KDR_11k]

Elite?

Re:Error in linked article

[Norfair]

Either Starfox or Dirt Trax FX.

A Legend

[November 1, 2005]

On a somewhat related note, the new Mario game for the DS looks great! I hadn't thought about buying a PSP or a DS but seeing this video of it running, I am tempted to run out and buy one. Miyamoto is a master of making games that are simple enough to just sit down and play but engaging enough to keep your attention for hours. That's why I think the Nintendo Revolution is going to be such a great system - the new controller is going to open up so many new options, that I have no doubt Miyamoto will take full advantage of.

I know, I sound like a fanboy here but this is the first time in a long time that I've been really excited about video games. It felt like this generation of consoles weren't anything we hadn't seen before - just brighter colors, flashier logos, nothing really new. I'm thinking that the Revolution is going to feel significantly different.

Re:A Legend

[Colourspace]

Yeah I know - please have a look at Colourspace comment below?

Preparing for the Next Revolution (or 3 or 4?)

[blckbllr]

Here's an interesting tidbit:

From TFA:

I've always thought that games would eventually break free of the confines of a TV screen to fill an entire room. But I would rather not say anything more about that.

Unless he meant the Virtual Boy, I wonder what he has in mind?

Re:Preparing for the Next Revolution (or 3 or 4?)

[-kertrats-]

Reminds me of the hoax Nintendo On from E3 time.

Re:Preparing for the Next Revolution (or 3 or 4?)

[Pichu0102]

Possibly a projector or virtual reality?
All in all, virtual reality and a roomwide projector seem like possibilities not too far off.
Imagine it, you're playing Metroid Prime and look at the wall behind and get the crap scared out of you by a monster that was sneaking up on you.

Re:Preparing for the Next Revolution (or 3 or 4?)

[Colourspace]

Help me Obi Won Kenobi - You're our only hope - Help me....

Re:Preparing for the Next Revolution (or 3 or 4?)

[Castar]

I was wondering about that too. One thing that came to mind (although I'm not certain it was what he meant) was a technology I saw in a video on the web recently. I can't find a link, but basically this company had technology that could get a lot of information from (multiple?) cameras in a room, and then insert moving 3d objects in real time. They said that with a HUD display, you could basically superimpose renders over real life (assuming you had the cameras in place, I guess).

I thought that would make an excellent, fairly-cheap VR experience. It could only occur in prepared rooms (holodecks?) but still, it would be really excellent for gaming, especially if you could do it with cheap cameras in your living room.

Does anyone have a link to the video I'm talking about?

Re:Preparing for the Next Revolution (or 3 or 4?)

[jx100]

That would be the nintendo on hoax mentioned earlier in this thread. I don't have a link handy, but google should help.

Re:Preparing for the Next Revolution (or 3 or 4?)

[Breakfast Pants]

No. He is referring to the tech demo where 3d images are imposed on camera images with full understanding of being "behind" or "infront" of the objects in the images. It was on slashdot a while back, it wasn't the nintendo ON thing, and in fact it had nothing to do with nintendo. I can't remember the name of it or I would search.

Re:Preparing for the Next Revolution (or 3 or 4?)

[steveo777]

More likely projector screens and the like. More likely customized or something along those lines. I'm not a designer, but I think that designers could come up with some pretty cool visuals if they weren't confined to rectangles all the time. One the other hand, rectangles are the easiest way to process a picture.

If you saw Nintendo's video of the controller, than you may remember the part where the two kids were using thier controllers like flashlights. What if you're wall was the screen (easy enough. Projector plus white walls)? I imagine it would be creepy as hell to have the 'flashlight' reveal the only part that is projected. What if there was four projectors in a room designed for such games. Just a 10x10 room. That's really pushing it, but it would be an incredible experiance, no?

Re:Preparing for the Next Revolution (or 3 or 4?)

[Pxtl]

I'm guessing he means Augmented Reality. Really, think about the detailed positioners they have on the Revolution gamepads.

Now, imagine using a lot more positional transmitters so you have precise position information on the "wands", anwhere in the whole room. Now give each player a VR headset with similar positioning.

At that point, you effectively can create and position 3D objects within the room that players can walk around and maniupate with the wand. This can be used for FPS/deathmatch titles, or just for a puzzle game where you physically have to drag the blocks into position. Even for conventional titles, you can play them with a screen that's as big as the room, with players walking around and looking around to see what's happening in various corners of the room - consider playing a fighting game with a giant table in the middle of the room showing the battle.

Basic Augmented Reality gaming has already been implemented. First was a simple shooter done by some Japanese researchers, then some simple sporting games. Recently, a university team ported Quake.

Given Miyamoto's thoughts, plus there experience with both 3D positioning technology and VR, I wouldn't be surprised if this is where Nintendo is headed.

I, for one, welcome our Live Action Quake overlords.

Re:Preparing for the Next Revolution (or 3 or 4?)

[PeelBoy]

except that you'd have to remove shit from your room to see better what if you got shit in the way? and also you would need projectors on all sides of you other wise your body might block the light and make a shadow on the wall..

I dunno... Sounds neat if you have an empty room for gaming and hang a projector on the ceiling....

Re:Preparing for the Next Revolution (or 3 or 4?)

[Valacosa]

Would it have been this?

Re:Preparing for the Next Revolution (or 3 or 4?)

[Castar]

No, what I was thinking of involved things like 3d car models driving around on a (real) tabletop, and having fairly accurate collisions with objects on the table. There was also a presenter holding polygon objects, that moved as he moved his hand, and a CGI helicopter and tanks that flew around the place. It looked really fascinating as a video, but I'm not sure how practical it would actually be.

Re:Preparing for the Next Revolution (or 3 or 4?)

[Castar]

Here's a link, although it's in Real Media format (the first version I saw wasn't).

http://www.digg.com/technology/The_future_of_the_V ideo_Games

Really, I don't think it matters now

[Colourspace]

Having had a few weeks to stew on this now I think I can make a few general statements (feel free to cut me down like the fool I am) The next gen fight is apparently now 'clearly' between Sony and Microsoft - Nintendo don't want to play (without taking the ball home) because they are not caught in this stupid fight about processing power, and that's why I think they may be the (suprise?) victors of the next gen I have owned pretty much EVERYTHING over my past 31 years (Ok I'm not that old - but old enough)- Spectrum/ Sega 1/2 SNES/ /nes/ N64/ Amiga/ Lynx/ GG/ GameBoy1 - 5 etc..etc I realy could go on but you get the idea). I'm not saying this here for bragging rights - I'm saying here because I have played a few games (I'll also just briefly mention the 7 years runnig a computer shop back when they were indie in North London - 'Logic Sales' anyone say hi if you remember!). Er so rusty gaming credentials aside... I am bored now. Every shiny new thing I have picked up in the past 4 years (after a five year hiatus away from the gaming scene 95-2000) has been exactly that - shiny and new with no depth to pull me back in like the days when I used to strap myself into the chair (!) to play F117A Interceptor - because it was such a fresh, engaging experience at the time. And I was 12 and had no girl... But I digress... Now it takes me about 20 seconds to work out the menu and despite the gorgeous grpahics and depth of the potential area to explore - I no longer feel the urge to explore anymore. PS2 games (currently own one amongst others) - great - games look great. But just the same as that shitty Spectrum/NES/GameBoy game I played 82-95 (the golden years for me lol) there's plenty of PS2 games that get the cursory look through the intro then get filed away for the next thing to grab my attention My favourite games at the moment? Bubble Bobble GBA/ Taito legends PS2/ Mercury (tragically, tragically underrated game). All simple (even cutesy - eurgggh!) games but all keep me coming back for more, even Phoenix, for F***k's sake! I don't get it - I drool over PS3/XBOX360 graphics just like the rest of you - I still yearn for realistic skin ('specially real life lol), realistic AI - Real immersive gameplay. But I think it's too far off from XBOX260 and PS3. If my local betting shop were up for it I woould put it on the Revolution (sticks head out). Why? Because so many are going to buy PS3/360 looking for this awesome new experience that will turn out to be better graphics and more awesome cutscenes - not something that will truly engage them. I'm no fanboy of anyone - each system since the 2600 has had its own special allure (I even still fancy a Colecovision - I think it has the perfect LadyBug conversion - say a prayer for me). But I'm really hoping the Revolution is going to give us all something new and special and FUN!!!!! to play with. Otherwise - ... N64 10 games perfect condition... Timex.....

Re:Really, I don't think it matters now

[RoadDoggFL]

The only thing I disagree with here (before I trailed off and clicked Reply) is that people seem to think that Nintendo has decided to stop compteting for the "top spot" of the console wars or that they've abandoned the hordcore/traditional gamer.

No, the only thing Nintendo has abandoned or stopped doing is playing Sony's game. They're going for the same market and more and they have their sights set on the #1 spot, only they're going after it from a different angle. I think it's refreshing to see Nintendo thinking up a completely new and original mentality to use in approaching the next generation of consoles to match with whatever new and original content they come up with this time around that the other guys will no doubt copy next time around.

Re:Really, I don't think it matters now

[FLAGGR]

It's not that Nintendo doesn't want to compete - it's that they're not playing cat and mouse with Sony and MS. Honestly, all this talk about specs, throwing out random numbers people are woo-ed by but don't mean much to them in reality (ooo my machine has 3 cores, ooo well mine has 1 core +7 spe thingies, beat that!)

Honestly, all the theoretical numbers, the teraflops, the floatingpoint-operations-per-second's, it mean's nothing. Well okay it means somthing, but remember the GCN launch? Nintendo didn't go into the nitty gritty about the hardware because the consumers don't need to know. Developers don't even need to know. Why? Theoretical limits are just that: theoretical. When Nintendo released benchmarks of the GCN, did they do what the ps2 and xbox did, for example releasing a polygon-per-second count of just rendering nothing but flat triangles? No. They released numbers based on what you could achieve in a game, with AI, sound, texturing etc, i.e. realistic numbers. The hardware platforms are so different, that one measure means virtually nothing. Sure, the PS2 can kick all the consoles and pretty much any PC at flat polygon fillrate, but it has pretty shitty graphics compared to the gamecube (metroid prime, or for a crossplatform example, RE4)

Nintendo is simply better at engineering things anyways. The GCN had something like a 400mhz cpu, and probably the lowest "numbers" of all the consoles, yet it is equal to the xbox (well, some parts not so much (shaders), but other things its better at (particles is a good example, but thats based on a lot of factors, namely its FP performance)) It's also in a much smaller housing, and doesn't sound like a windtunnel like the xbox. How did they manage this? They engineered it better. Microsoft took PC parts, threw them in a black box and called it a days work (hell, the controllers are USB, the connection has just been physically changed to not fit into normal USB slots)

Sony and MS are going for the whole shebang, all of digital entertainment. Sony has their music and movie divisions influencing it, and their consumer tech (mp3 players etc) all fighting to make the ps3 a super DRM convergance machine. Microsoft has their Windows Media Centre to sell, and whats to be the software king (things like their music store, the xbl store etc) What does Nintendo want to do? Make games. Their online model doesn't have a music store. It has demo's you can download for your DS. Old school roms you can buy (please let them be cheap) etc etc. Nintendo is focused squarely on games. The Revolution won't be a multimedia powerhouse. I doubt it'll play DVD's out of the box. Nintendo is appealing to developers, by offering them a new (awesome) method of control, but letting them use the old one (the classic controller shell) if they are too afraid. The devkit enviroment is supposedly nearly the same as the GCN, which if you've ever programmed for a console (I did a bit of DS) you know is a very good thing. The PS3 and xbox360, with their new architectures supposedly are hard to develop for (and to add to that, the current devkits for the ps3 are supposedly horrid, typical Sony style)


So, is Nintendo backing away from competition and trying to find a niche market, or find a new group of consumers? No. Although they still want the new consumers, they want the old crowd too. They just are more focused on the gaming aspect of consoles than their competitors, which I believe will let them win out in the end.

Re:Really, I don't think it matters now

[jchenx]

I agree. It's really all about the games. Although Xbox (and now 360) will have vastly superior online services to the other consoles, I still find myself playing mostly PS2 titles because that's the only place where I can get my Squeenix fix (FF games, etc.). I think the Xbox Live Arcade service is cool, not because of its features, but because it gets me access to great casual games like Geometry Wars (which is amazingly cool, I call it "modern retro").

That said, though, how each company designs and markets its consoles DOES affect who develops for them. Granted, each of the big three can make great first party games (Mario, Halo, Gran Turismo) ... but in the end, they rely on the Capcoms, Konamis, Nacmos, and Square-Enixes of the world to bring in the bulk of the audience.

If Nintendo isn't able to convince developers that the Revolution is worth making games for, then they have a problem. Unfortunately, it's already an issue with the GameCube. Yet, since they rule the handheld universe, they have no problem with the GBA or DS.

Re:Really, I don't think it matters now

[urbaer]

(I even still fancy a Colecovision - I think it has the perfect LadyBug conversion - say a prayer for me).

What's wrong with ladybug on the Coleco? I'd probably say that MouseTrap is a better game for the Coleco though. The first time I read your post I thought you were claiming the 2600 was superior to the Coleco, but my misunderstanding.

But look, I think what you desire is gameplay (and posibly of the pick up and play variety). And thus I suggest you buy a DS. Get Warioware (Touched! or the original) Tatio Revolution when it comes out, Retro Atari Classics, Dig Dug, Puyo Pop and so on.

Otherwise - ... N64 10 games perfect condition...

Wait, wait. If the next-gen games suck your going to sell your N64? erm... Or are you going to go back and purchase all the games you loved back then (okay 1 gen ago..). Or are you going to start a retro store?

Re:Really, I don't think it matters now

[mrgreen4242]

I think you are right on this one... Nintendo wants to be number 1 not by beating the competition, but rather by not being in the same category as they are. I think they would like to win by having a different enough experience and a good enough product with a nice range of must have exclusive apps (not hard to do with a unique and original control scheme and what is promising to be a healthy online experience) that every one has a Revolution AND EITHER an XBox or a PS3.

The GameCube was almost that product. People generally had an XBox or a PS2 along with their GC. They just failed to reach the critical mass they needed for everyone to have to have one. The Revolution has a good shot at that, though.

Re:Really, I don't think it matters now

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a growing realization being made by many third party publishers and developers that may end up helping Nintendo attract a decent ammount of development. What developers have realized is that there is essentially two strategies that you can use to make a successful game, you can produce a conventional (standard) genre game (FPS) and throw money and development resources at it to simply make a better game then your competition, or you can make a far more unique game (either through making a new genre or making a hybrid game) at a lower cost with less development resources; the conventional game will usually generate higher revinues and larger profits when measured in dollars, the unique game will generate a much higher return on investment.

What does this mean?

Well large developers (like Sega) will attempt to balance their risk/returns by making both unique and conventional games; the conventional games will likely be multiplatform whereas the more original games may be exclusive to a given platform. How this could benefit Nintendo is that (because development costs are so high) a large number of conventional games will still probably be ported to the Revolution (at least as many games as there is on the gamecube, probably more) and at the same time they could attract the lion's share of the unconventional games (because the controller opens up possiblities).

Ultimately, how this benefits Nintendo is that even if they don't have as much third party support as Microsoft and Sony they may not need it; a person could look at the Revolution line up and see that they don't have Metal Gear but they do have Spliter Cell, at the same time they would notice that neither the PS3 nor XBox 360 have anything like 'Kirby's wacky Revolution Adventures' or 'Monkey Ball Revolution'.

Re:Really, I don't think it matters now

[jchenx]

If I had mod points (and were allowed to mod conversations where I've posted), I'd mod you up. :)

Yup, a lot of folks don't realize that even though Nintendo isn't considered top dog anymore (in terms of console market share, etc.), they still make a hefty profit, due to shrewd strategies like you mentioned above.

On the other hand, you've got Sony who almost seems to bully developers (a platform that's hard to design for, lack of documentation, etc.), simply because they know they have an enormous user base and can almost get away with anything.

Re:Really, I don't think it matters now

[Jacius]

Nintendo wants to be number 1 not by beating the competition, but rather by not being in the same category as they are.

I think it's more like this:

Nintendo wants to win being the smart, nice, fairly attractive brunette that ends up in a meaningful, committed relationship with someone who shares a mutual love; Sony and Microsoft are the false-blond sluts with breast implants and whoreish outfits trying to get the attention of any slobbering sack of testosterone who walks by, and end up married with 2 kids to a deadbeat dad (because she got pregnant), collecting welfare checks to support her own drinking habit.

Put another way:

Nintendo wants to ensure a robust future for the video game market (and their own relevence to that market) by actually competing via flexible and innovative hardware and software; Sony and Microsoft want to milk whatever fad is popular until the market runs dry.

Put another way:

Nintendo is about games, and wants, nay, needs, a sustainable and robust revenue stream from the game market, and is acting to maintain and expand that market; Sony and Microsoft are about consumer electronics and computer software respectively, and are only in the games market to make as much money as they can before their policies run the market aground.

Re:Really, I don't think it matters now

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nintendo wants to win being the smart, nice, fairly attractive brunette that ends up in a meaningful, committed relationship with someone who shares a mutual love; Sony and Microsoft are the false-blond sluts with breast implants and whoreish outfits trying to get the attention of any slobbering sack of testosterone who walks by, and end up married with 2 kids to a deadbeat dad (because she got pregnant), collecting welfare checks to support her own drinking habit."

So you're saying the best course of action is to buy a Gamecube, but play your friend's PS2 when he's at work?

Other tidbits

[hackwrench]

It only scrolled one way, to the right.
There was multiscreen vertical travel, but that was through a pipe or vine. One screen disappeared and the new horizontal level on a new vertical plane appeared. Always thought it would be neat to have a version with the same levels but you could go to the left.

Re:Other tidbits

[earthbound kid]

I believe that you could in the Game Boy Color rerelease. The GBA rerelease, which I have, stays true to the original, and does not allow scrolling backwards.

Re:Other tidbits

[falcon5768]

the GBC didnt allow it either, what it was was that the screen didnt have the entire area in it like it did in the original, so it let you scroll back the normal screen length, but not any further

Re:Other tidbits

[earthbound kid]

Oh OK. I thought I remembered it scrolling back when played it in the store, but when I looked it up on Wikipedia after posting, they didn't mention it, so I was wondering what my memory was of. Thanks for explaining it.

Re:Other tidbits

[goodenoughnickname]

Always thought it would be neat to have a version with the same levels but you could go to the left.

But then everyone would go back and get the hidden green mushroom after the pipe before the hole. Where's the fun in that?

Re:Other tidbits

[I(rispee_I(reme]

Oh, c'mon man, you can't get both?

Maybe he means handhelds?

[MMaestro]

Maybe he's referring to handhelds since they break away from the "video games = must be played on TV screen" ideology. After all video games have always been heavily restricted from mobility before the Gameboy (PCs were immobile until laptops, consoles until recently needed a TV or 3rd party mini-screen add-on and arcade games and mobility are like oxymorons.)

Oh, GOD....

[bitwiseNomad]

Enter key... Please.... Use it....

The Genius of Miyamoto...

[Not-a-Neg]

"I also redesigned the Revolution's controller to look more like a regular TV remote, so anyone who saw it would know instantly how to use it, and so they wouldn't think they had to always stash it away."

It all makes since now. I understood the part about it being like a remote to provide a familiar control method for non/new-gamers, but the intention of making something people won't be ashamed of and hide away when not in use is pure genius. I have remotes lying all around, but stow gamepads away in a drawer, even though they're wireless.

Re:The Genius of Miyamoto...

[PeelBoy]

not a neg? do you play subspace? heh..

You heard it here first!

[NereusRen]

- In the future, what do you think video games will be like?
- It's convenient to make games that are played on TVs. But I always wanted to have a custom-sized screen that wasn't the typical four-cornered cathode-ray-tube TV. I've always thought that games would eventually break free of the confines of a TV screen to fill an entire room. But I would rather not say anything more about that.

Nintendo's next console: the holodeck!

Re:You heard it here first!

[Killjoy_NL]

It is something I would sell multiple family members for, yeah.

Especially if it came with authoring tools for your own personal enviroment :)

Re:You heard it here first!

[fbjon]

Or perhaps a six-cornered cathode-ray-tube. It'll be great for Hexxagon at least...

If only...

[mthornton]

..Nintendo would come out with some Viva La Revolution! shirts with Mario as Che.

Re:If only...

[|/|/|||]

I can't believe you haven't seen these.

Software Makes the Machine!!!

[TheZorch]

You could have a console with the greatest specs on the planet but if the games made for it are below average or just plain bad then it won't sell.

Case in point the NEC Turbografx-16 (aka the PC-Engine), possibly one of the most successful game consoles in Asia with a game library exceeding 800+ titles "failed" in the United States. This is because the company released only the more average or mediocre titles in the US instead of the more groundbreaking titles that made the system a success back in Japan. For a time the PC-Engine was beating the Famicom (NES) in sales. The TG-16/PCE was a 8/16-bit hybrid with an 8-bit CPU and a 16-bit GPU capable of antialiasing. It was the first console to offer Stereo sound, some say the Sega Genesis was but the PCE came out a few years before it. The PCE was the first with CD-ROM which you added onto the console like the Sega-CD addon. For its time the TG-16/PCE was revolutionary in a day when the NES/Famicom was consider the highest in videogame technology. If only NEC and their development partner Hudson Soft used better judgement on what games to bring over to the US, the system probably would have done much better.

The same analogy goes for the next-gen system. They can be the fastest with the most powerful GPUs on the market but if the games are dull or just plain bad they won't sell well at all. The most fatal mistake companies can make is to underestimate the intellegence of their customers, and we gamers are very very smart.

disturbing...

[solomonrex]

I found his love for his rubik's cube a little disturbing, but at least that explains the name of the Gamecube...