Slashdot Mirror
Bungie Vs. Miyamoto - Fight!
Last week Gamehead's Geoff Keighley interviewed Shigeru Miyamoto, and the well-known designer tossed off a mildly controversial comment. Keighley asked him if he felt as though he was losing touch with the American audience as a result of the popularity of games like Halo. GameDaily reports on Miyamoto's response: "I could make Halo. It's not that I couldn't design that game. It's just that I choose not to. One thing about my game design is that I never try to look for what people want and then try to make that game design. I always try to create new experiences that are fun to play." Bungie took exception to that, and Frank Connor retorted in his interview with Joystiq: "Yeah, well. I just want to go on the record and say that Bungie is hard at work on a side-scrolling platform game featuring some plumbers -- I'm not going to say what their ethnicity is, it's none of anyone's business -- but we took that as a gauntlet, a sort of glove slap, and we're going to respond in 2D scrolling style. That's all I'm saying." We discussed that article, along with several other pieces of Halo 3 coverage, this past Saturday.
Halo is not a revolutionary game by any stretch of the imagination. One could have had the same result trivially by starting with any of the common first person shooter engines, and working from there. The fact that the same is true of Super Mario Brothers, a game made years and years ago (an eternity in video game land) is not even interesting.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Stuff like this belongs in drivel like "Hello" and over celebrity gossip magazines, NOT Slashdot.
It has no merit what so ever.
I like muppets.
If Miyamoto has heard Connor's "retort", I'm sure he laughed. Connor could be taken seriously if he said he was coming up with something new and fun that will sell just as well as Halo. Instead he said he intends to make something that he already knows people want, by implying he's going to copy Miyamoto's years-old idea, Super Mario Bros. Given the sales of New Super Mario Bros., I don't blame him. But he reaffirmed Miaymoto's comment, not countered it.
Bungie was compromised after Microsoft bought it out. Microsoft's design theory is to copy everyone else, re-package it as something brand new, and get it right in version three.
What did he say that's supposedly so controversial? He spoke the truth, nothing more.
All but the most diehard fanboys will admit that Halo was never anything truly revolutionary, but rather just a so-so generic sci-fi FPS that just happened to come out for hotly hyped up-and-coming new console. The first game suffered from HORRIBLE interior design and bland gameplay, and the second had a nearly-universally decried terrible ending.
If not for the fact that the Halo series succeeded so well in making the first enjoyable console FPS multiplayer experience since Goldeneye, complete with fairly (compared to some games) balanced multiplay, and the fortunate happenstance of colliding with the excellent idea that was XboxLive!, the games would have been destined to be little more than a footnote in gaming history, rather than the sales juggernaut into which obscenity-screaming 12-year old gamers have turned it.
Personally, I'd rather play Half-Life 2 or its multiplayer components on my PC, but that's just me, and I don't begrudge Halo for the successful niche it has carved for itself.
Halo is like the Porsche 911. The next incarnation will feature a few new tricks to give the die-hards something to talk about, but to the average Joe they just look like the same thing over and over. If you've played one Halo you know what the experience is going to be like for all the others. It's just being tweaked a bit here and there to improve the performance.
Bungie is the Porsche of the gaming world.
Miyamoto seems to look for something new with each game. Trying to find new ways to engage the user. He comes at each one with a flair and a passion. He's not doing the same thing over and over. Some games work. Some don't. But you do have a wide variety of games to choose from that caters to your particular interests.
Miyamoto (Nintendo) is the Ferrari of the gaming world.
Rounding out the analogy Blizzard is the TVR of the gaming world. Love-it or hate-it design, completely insane and riddled with problems, yet you can't help but keep playing.
For me, it's the multiplayer. It's easier to get some of your boys and their XBox's together on 2-3 tv's than a LAN party where you have to tote around a PC or worry over a laptop. Setup and takedown are faster on a console.
Gameplay is relatively easy, cheating is minimal, and there are TONS of customizable options to set up whatever competition you want to do easily (the BIGGEST bonus).
Wow, he really comes off as downright peevish, no? I mean, even if Miyamoto's comment wasn't out of context, and he meant exactly what he said, the response turns out feeling really childish. Get a grip, dude. Your game's *really* popular. Just because somebody else says he wouldn't make it, doesn't mean you need to get your panties in a twist. And then, as a previous poster says, he basically affirms Miyamoto by saying he's going to copy an old design. Huh. I guess his PR fluffer didn't have him ready.
u-bend
2. Before Halo there wasn't a single decent FPS on a console, just a whole bunch of shitty ports of PC FPS games.
Except, of course, for Goldeneye.
but I'd like to know why Halo is considered by a fairly large population to be a great game
It came out for the Xbox and found a large population of teens that never had played another FPS.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Halo added the automatic recharging shild to the FPS genre, so no more collecting health packs, it also added a realistic limit on how many weapons you can carry, vehicles and separate buttons for melee attacks and grenades, thus making them actually usable instead of rotting in your inventory as in so many games before. It also was also a very important title for console network gaming and had a nice original setting (no WWII, no hell with monster). You might not like Halo and I am not a big fan of it either, but it did add plenty to the FPS genre, some of which are considered standard elements today, which they however weren't back then when Halo was released.
Compared to HalfLife2 I found Halo pretty original and innovative, compared to the likes of DeusEx, OperationFlashpoint, Riddick or HalfLife1 not so much, but its still far from the shovelware WWII shooter.
Actually, Goldeneye had a number of different control schemes you could choose from. There was one where you could use the C-buttons for movement and the analog stick for aiming, the same scheme that had been done before in Turok. It worked extremely well for me, and honestly I think its probably the best controlling FPS I have ever played on a console. When you get into halo and such, you are dealing with having to work 2 analog sticks which I guess might work for some, but I just cant do it. It's kinda like trying to pat your head and rub your stomach at the same time. But basically what I'm saying is I don't feel like Halo revolutionized console FPS controls in any way, because the same basic schemes were around before, just having to use buttons instead of a second stick.
The greatness of Halo is equivalent to the greatness of a summer movie blockbuster. It's designed to get your $50, entertain you for 10+ hours then leave you waiting for the sequel.
Halo is not a great game, it's a great console game because it was the first console FPS to come close to the quality and presention of a PC FPS. Anyone who's played Quake/Unreal Tournament knows what true FPS action but anyone who's only played console games, Halo is the best you'll ever get.
Despite how hyped up this story would seem to be, as others have noted, it does not appear that Miyamoto was, in fact, attempting to insult Bungie or suggest that Halo is easy to design; he was simply saying that he could make something similar, but he chooses not to do so. Different game developers have different styles: As Miyamoto has shown with titles like Pikmin and others, he likes to experiment with new ideas, when he has inspiration. Sega, while it was once more so like this, during its more quirky Saturn-Dreamcast era, also tends to take this hit-or-miss approach. The result is, like with most basic, original research, ingenious ideas with a sometimes flawed, immature result. Take Mario Sunshine, for example, on the Nintendo end, or Shenmue, on the Sega end. Every once in awhile, one will strike gold, with a Pikmin, a Zelda, a Panzer Dragoon, or a Rez. While following convention may result in a less flawed game, it will not be anything revolutionary. For better or for worse, the innovators in the game industry are often lambasted because of their "flawed" games, when their less creative counterparts later take the concept, refine it, and receive heaps of praise. I think that Miyamoto, fortunately, has the credibility to be given the benefit of the doubt, unlike less-known experimentalists. Even if he weren't so disposed, it would seem that he would rather be creative and true to his own artistic sensibilities than pander to game reviewers who pounce on anything which is not completely mature.
I lot of people are pointing out that Frank mistook Miyamoto's comment.
I think a lot of people are mistaking Frank's comment. It doesn't seem like he's retorting, as people put it, but instead making a sly-sarcastic remark. He not affirming Miyamoto's point (that he just finds what people like and makes that), he's replying to Miyamoto's remark (I can make Halo, but choose not to) with his own remark: I could('ve) made Mario, but choose not to.
Yes, he states, "We are hard at work on a side-scrolling platform game..." But we know he's not. It's obviously a joke. He could be hard at work on that side-scroller, but he chooses not to. He's hard at work on Halo. And that's that.
My page.
What should they have played? Doom? Quake? Your favorite FPS game? But what difference would it have made? What happened is gaming went mainstream, and Halo is one of the titles that did it. It was lucky, but it is a solid title on its own. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out, but somehow, this discussion comes up every time Halo is discussed here. I don't think people really want to discuss it, but rather complain to an audience that is likely to identify with their gaming angst. It is as if there is this unspoken dislike of something that hit the mainstream that you personally didn't approve of.
Me, I haven't found a FPS game that I like as much as Tribes 1, which is quite old. I can still have some fun in other FPS games, though. Video games are so meaningless, however, that I find it hard to be engrossed in them, and really have to wonder why people get so worked up over how good they are, or which game is popular.
I've said this in a previous comment, but Halo wasn't some universally popular hit. For some reason, it was very heavily hyped by the gaming press to give that impression, but the original Xbox tied with the Gamecube at only 15% of the market, so not that many have played it. Probably as many who have played Metroid Prime.
Maybe Halo 3 will be different, but if there's a relatively small fanbase waiting for it (compared to, say, Grand Theft Auto), how big could the third one be?
Off-topic question--has anyone asked Bungie if they're out of touch with Japanese audiences? The 360 is essentially dead there.
"Sufferin' succotash."
You havn't played halo I think. Or if you did, you didn't pay much attention.
Level Design: Yes, the library sucked. Most of the game was quite good, but lets ignore that because 2-3 levels were repetitive. It's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Halo and Half-Life are both on a rail, and both fairly obvious about it.
Weapons: The only innovation is the gravity gun. Crowbar? Melee weapon. Crossbow? Functionally a sniper rifle. However, Halo let you use a weapon, melee, and grenades without inventory switching. The weapons themselves were stock, (And HL2 has the generic pistol, rifle, etc too) but the usage was fundamentally different in a way noone else had done before. Also, Halo rockets were guided against vehicles, just not real-time. (Lock on, fire)
Story: None of Halo, and only 10% of Halo 2 take place on Earth. Halo = Running like hell from Aliens 'A', crashing on unknown object, releasing Aliens 'B', then dealing with A and B (and A gets to deal with B too) while trying to prevent Mysterious Race 'C' from blowing up the galaxy to clean up your mess. At some points you have 4 factions going at it in Halo. Humans, Covenant, Flood, Forerunner. It's alot more complex than you pretend it is.
Half Life = Aliens take over world, resistance fights back. Cliche. (To give it the same treatment you gave Halo)
Storytelling: Both are advanced with ingame cutscenes. Half Life gives you camera control for some of them, Halo gives you camera control for some of them. Halo had some cinematic breaks in the action. Thats called 'different' not 'better'.
Multiplayer: I won't disagree with using the gravity gun + heavy objects. But a plasma grenade to the face is incredibly satisfying. And I didn't have to put away my gun to do it.
Both great games, both brought new stuff to the table. It's sad that your fanboyism blinded you. One thing I will give Halo, it didn't interrupt my gameplay for obvious physics puzzles.