Slashdot Mirror
Shigeru Miyamoto, The Walt Disney of Our Time
circletimessquare writes "The New York Times has a gushing portrait of Shigeru Miyamoto. His creative successes have spanned almost 30 years, from Donkey Kong, to Mario (as well known as Mickey Mouse around the world, the story notes), to Zelda, to the Wii, and now to Wii Fit — which according to some initial rumors is selling out across the globe in its debut. The article has some gems of insight into the man's thinking, including that his iconic characters are an afterthought. Gameplay comes first, and the characters are designed around that. Additionally, his fame and finances and ego are refreshingly modest for someone of his high regard and creative stature: 'despite being royalty at Nintendo and a cult figure, he almost comes across as just another salaryman (though a particularly creative and happy one) with a wife and two school-age children at home near Kyoto. He is not tabloid fodder, and he seems to maintain a relatively nondescript lifestyle.'"
If I recall correctly, Disney wasn't particularly well-liked by his employees or colleagues.
A creative force to be reckoned with, to be sure. However, not a terribly ethical individual on the other hand.
I can easily see how the analogy works, though I'm not quite sure I'd like to be compared to Walt Disney....
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Hayao Miyazaki?
It fits in nicely with the reason the Wii works -- it's about gameplay, and everything else is secondary.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Starting with the N64/Playstation era, games have become much, MUCH easier, as a whole. Realistic save features, in-game tutorials, and more coherent hints at how to accomplish certain tasks make these newer games easier, to name a few reasons. Basically, a game doesn't have to be impossible anymore to give the player a decent amount of time with the game. Also, companies realized more people will be satisfied with a game when they can actually beat it.
True, some old games were not tough-as-nails difficult (especially from the SNES era, like Super Mario World, as you mentioned -- they started getting easier, already, then), but many of them were. These games have already lost their appeal, mostly. The more accessible games have not, but the younger generation of gamers are not as turned on by these games as they are newer games.
I think the original poster has a point that in 50 years people will not want to play these games. Some people will, but not the mainstream. Games will probably be similar to other media, like music and (as the OP alluded to) movies. For instance, I like music from when my parents were kids, but not much before that. There are a lot of people who are into classical music, and silent films, and old media, but these people are very niche. In 50 years, there will be people who enjoy playing Pacman, Super Mario World, and Grand Theft Auto IV, but this will not be mainstream taste among gamers.
As a side note, I will add my prediction that games like GTA IV and Guitar Hero will probably be even less recognized than Pacman or Mario games, in the distant future. The GTA series is very much a reflection of modern pop-culture, and thus, I would argue, has more of a time-stamp on it. Pong, Pacman, Space Invaders, Zelda, and Spore, for example, will age better, as the concepts behind them do not bear such a time-stamp.
This is one reason Miyamoto is reasonably heralded as such a genius. Not only is he responsible for resurrecting the industry, as well as ushering it into the mainstream, but the concepts he creates are enduring. They are not to be bogged down by ties to what is now modern and soon to be outmoded. His ideas are quite timeless, although clearly the technology that delivers them is not.
My old officemate from Singapore, who only lived here (Japan) 3 years as opposed to my 7, figured it out, I think.
Historically, Japan has had a highly connected, functioning, modern economy for much longer than most places. Even though they were technologically backward when the West came chugging in, socially, they may have been better developed. This might explain why they were able to retool and thrive even as the world political landscape changed in the late 1800s. It was a matter of acquiring new physical tools, not new values (there were some radical changes in values as well--but not to the extent that, say, Papua New Guinea faces).
Because of this, part of the culture is an understanding that you are just a cog in a machine. The downside to that is that I find that people are generally incompetent, by my standards. BUT, get them in their field, and they are often stunning. They know absolutely everything about it, and it consumes their mental life. I mean, if they care. The mean is just kinda plodding along, same as anywhere.
So, whereas we conceptualize creativity as a trait which will manifest itself everywhere, it may be that the Japanese simply focus on one single thing. This would explain a lot, like how a nation where seemingly no one knows how an internal combustion engine works, even conceptually, can be the unchallenged master of the world automotive industry...