Miyamoto Scrutinizes Mario, Zelda, Hails Portal

eldavojohn writes "Nintendo icon Shigeru Miyamoto stated in an interview that 'What I've been saying to our development teams recently is that The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess was not a bad game, by any means. But, still, it felt like there was something missing. And while, personally, I feel like Super Mario Galaxy was able to do some things that were very unique, at the same time, from another perspective, certain elements of it do feel somewhat conservative. This is something I've been talking to both of those teams about ... hopefully [the next Mario and Zelda] will feel newer and fresher than their most recent versions.' MTV Multiplayer also commented on Portal's mechanics and gameplay, to which Miyamoto responded, 'I think Portal was an amazing game, too.' GameSetWatch has a related article criticizing Nintendo for relying on the Wii's input devices to develop game franchises rather than improving actual gameplay."

Comments

Un peu de poids.

[Sulix]

Miyamoto is someone who has a lot of weight behind what he says. You can bet that Valve are grinning like idiots and that the teams working on the next Zelda and Mario are breaking a sweat.

Re:Un peu de poids.

[enderjsv]

Eh. I don't know. I'm sure Valve appreciates the compliment, but I doubt they'll be gushing over it. Valve's a fairly successfull company itself with a very solid reputation. Besides, you gotta take some compliments at face value. What was Miyamoto going to say, that Portal sucks balls?

Re:Un peu de poids.

[Spacelem]

The N64 wasn't really a blunder. It had Mario 64 and Zelda: Ocarina of Time, which were both considered masters of the genre, and OoT is still considered one of the best games in the world. This was before people started commenting that the series were getting a little stale. Oh, and GoldenEye, and a whole pile of games done by Rare who were so good that Microsoft bought them after Nintendo were found guilty of price fixing and had to sell them off.

In fact I'd say that there were a lot of really awesome games on the N64, just none of them were Final Fantasy. Meanwhile, the N64 had a control stick, and managed to pack an awful lot into those cartridges. It was done to prevent long load times, which it managed. I still love my N64. The worst thing I can say about it is that my control stick got a bit crusty after all these years, and some of games had too low framerates, and it didn't help being in the UK with PAL's higher resolution (although that became less of an issue towards the end of the N64's lifecycle).

The GameCube had the world's most comfortable controller, and I still prefer it to the Wii Remote. It had graphics which were perfectly functional, maybe not as flashy as the other consoles, but I hold that graphics are only a very small part of what makes a game good (proof: if graphics were important, then all older games would suck, and they don't). Nintendo experimented with gameplay, and they came up with some fantastic ideas. They used a very easy SDK, so it was much easier to produce games for the NGC than the PS2, and the X-Box made it too easy to just port PC games.

The N64 and NGC were successful and good consoles, and Nintendo is still in the videogame business despite the heavy competition they faced, and growing stronger than ever. They'd have never made the Wii otherwise.

Re:Un peu de poids.

[notrandomly]

The Wii was a gimmick with little benefit than a then-unique input method

And the 360 and PS3 were gimmicks with little benefit than HD graphics.

They make games based around the input

Wait, like Sony and Microsoft make games based around the capabilities of their respective systems?

Miyamoto has every right to complain about lack of originality at Nintendo.

For those games, maybe. But stuff like Wii Sports, Wii Fit, etc. was pulled of very nicely indeed.

Re:Un peu de poids.

[KDR_11k]

Miyamoto has full veto power on any game he participates in AFAIK. Still, the recent Zelda games were led by Aonuma instead who seems to be mostly about emulating what Miyamoto did instead of defining his own game. Well, if he's taking it in any direction it's more story heavy, kinda like Final Fantasy with a different gameplay between the cutscenes. This is the antithesis of the new generation gaming the Wii has started (short, hard, instant-fun games you can fit into a coffee break or play all day).

Super Mario Galaxy wasn't a primary Wii game, it was a regular game that ran on the Wii, just a sequel to an old franchise. The Wii's main games are the likes of Wii Sports and Wii Fit.

The Wii was not a gimmick, it was a component in a business strategy that had its main focus on a new kind of gaming (that being gaming that ANYONE can partake in*) and had motion sensing and such added in order to perform its role in the strategy. The sales numbers confirm that the strategy worked flawlessly and the responses from the former competition (they had a chance to compete, they chose to let the Wii run away with the new market instead) were just as expected in a best case scenario. The Wii is neither motion sensing nor "casual" games, it is the combination of both and only in that combination is it able to work.

*=No, regular games don't cut it and neither do dumbed down regular games. The new customer is neither stupid nor incompetent, just unwilling to deal with the interface and rules of regular games.

Re:Un peu de poids.

[Drinking Bleach]

Eh, huh? What blunder?

PlayStation massively outsold the N64.

Do you mean the market introduction and standardization of real 3D, analog sticks, 4 player gaming, trigger buttons, 3rd person camera controls, rumble, controller extension ports, and real 3D first person shooters?

Real 3D, like the Saturn and PSX were doing 2 years prior? Analog sticks, like several 2nd/3rd generation consoles? 4 player gaming like the NES (hey, Nintendo had prior art from an earlier system)? Trigger buttons like the SNES? 3rd person camera controls like many PSX/Saturn games? You have rumble dead-on, but controller extension ports weren't new. As for "real 3D first person shooters", do you mean like Doom (1993), or are you strictly talking consoles (which never got a half-decent FPS until Halo for Xbox)? And for the games you listed, I would argue against your list, but that'd be purely opinion. (I think Mario 64 is great, the rest suck except for Starfox, but that was just an updated version of the original Starfox.)

Fair comments

[sleeponthemic]

He's right on both counts and it doesn't take anything away from either game to point out they could have been better/more adventurous. I doubt that guy got to where he is "settling" for the level of his games. There is always a new level to reach. I own both and from an end user point of view, they were awesome. No complaints.

I hope this means there will be another Mario game for Wii. It has been a disappointing feature of the latest Nintendo consoles, that only one Mario is released per generation. With the absolute crap that is mostly coming out for the Wii, they really need to step up and rely on the strong franchises to maintain interest.

Re:Fair comments

[enderjsv]

"I hope this means there will be another Mario game for Wii. It has been a disappointing feature of the latest Nintendo consoles, that only one Mario is released per generation."

You know what, I actually kind of have to disagree with that sentiment. I mean, I guess I really wouldn't have anything against a new Mario, but in truth, I really just want to see something new from Nintendo. Looking at the games they've released for the Wii, you have a lot of sequels: Metroid, Smash Bros., Mario Kart, Zelda. I don't have anything against sequels, as long as they're good (and they are), but also I'd really like to see them expand into new IPs.

I'm aware that they have some new IPs, like Wii Fit, Wii Music and Wii Sports, but these are really just novelty IPs, not quite the kind of games I'm into.

I love Mario. Always will. But sometimes, Mario should sit it out.

Re:Fair comments

[enderjsv]

I don't know how much blame to put on Nintendo for that. Honestly, Nintendo is one of the best game developers in the world. Despite the fact that they seem to rely a lot on established IPs (as I mentioned earlier), they still manage to crank out good games at an alarming rate. I honestly can't think of any other developer as successful as they have been.

The problem, obviously, is the same problem Nintendo has had ever since Sony went CD format with the PS1, and Nintendo stuck with its proprietary cartridge format. They are unable to attract 3rd party developers willing to make good 3rd party games. It's something that they've never been able to truly come back from.

So what's the problem? The Wii is a very successful system, outselling the Xbox and the PS3 significantly. Why are the 3rd party developers so weary? Well, I can think of two reasons.

1. The system was made and is still being marketed towards the casual crowd. The casual crowd is much less discerning than the core gamers. As such, a 3rd party developer really has little motivation to spend time and money developing something good, and instead can shovel some cheap mini-game, perhaps with some movie license attached to it, and rake in easy dollars. That kind of thing doesn't fly as well on the PS3 or Xbox 360.

2. The system is significantly underpowered when compared to the other two systems. This means that when a developer is choosing which systems to design their games for, they kind of have two options. Develop it for the Wii, or develop it simultaneously for the 360 and the ps3. Even if the Wii matched the total sales of the other two systems combined (which it doesn't), any game would still probably reach higher sales figures if it was released on two platforms instead of one. In fact, now that I think about it, the Wii is kind of competing with the PC as well. Not many games for the wii are released simultaneously on the 360, the ps3, or the PC, but I can think of several games that have come out on all three of those platforms and missed the Wii entirely.

It's been two years, and the Wii is still going strong. I think we've gone past the point where we can wonder if the Wii is just a fad. Apparently, the casual gaming market CAN sustain a system. And sustain it they have. Who'd have thought? But until casual gamers become more discerning, I don't think the Wii is really the system of choice for more prevalent gamers like myself. Or, maybe the casual gamers will grow bored of it, and then Nintendo will be forced once again to appeal to the core crowd. Who knows?

Question-

[moniker127]

Why do gaming companies have to make 100 versions of the same franchise? I loved zelda, sure... infact, I still have the gold cartridge for it. But, its not the 80s anymore. Come up with something else.

Re:Question-

[Chris Burke]

Meh. As long as they keep making games in the same genre, I see no reason not to keep making games for that genre be part of the same franchise. I still love the Action/Adventure genre as much now as I did in the 80s when The Legend of Zelda basically invented it, so what purpose does it serve for Nintendo to make a new action-adventure game that doesn't use the Zelda brand?

Beyond Good and Evil is an action/adventure that I recommend to friends by calling it "a better Zelda that Zelda", but that wasn't because it didn't feature Zelda characters. It was because it had excellent gameplay in exploration, combat, and sneaking sequences, tightly integrated dungeons, and a lack of time-killing hunt-and-find quests. Okay, the story was also significantly better than your average action-adventure too, but there's nothing that says a Zelda can't have a good story either (and some do).

If StarFox Adventures had been whatever it was before being getting slapped with the license, would it still have been a piece of crap? Most likely, though getting to play as the female character for more than an intro sequence as originally planned might have taken the edge off the suck.

Mario Kart would be an ever better example for a genre where having it be the same franchise makes little to no difference to me.

So, I guess my point is... As long as I like the genre, I don't mind a franchise in that genre. Of course it's very nice when they inject originality into the franchise... But honestly, did Twilight Princess disappoint Miyamoto because the Zelda franchise locks the developers into certain cliches of gameplay (which are equally well cliches in nearly all other games in the genre), or because coming up with completely original gameplay is hard regardless of whether or not you call your game "Zelda", and the dev team just failed to be creative enough?

Re:Question-

[Tjebbe]

While I do agree with you, I must say I think that the Zelda and Mario franchises are bad examples, at least in the earlier iterations. Mario 1, 2, 3, and 64 were completely different games, as were the Zelda's up to and including Ocarina of Time.

IMHO staying within the setting but building a completely new game around it is no problem at all.

Repeating the same game but with fancier graphics or two added gimmicks is a whole different thing. And that is where the newer versions probably went wrong. Although I still liked them :p

Re:Question-

[enderjsv]

The gameplay is radically different? Which game are you referring to?

Mario Galaxy radically different than Super Mario Sunshine?
Mario Kart Wii radically different than Mario Kart DS?
Metroid?
Zelda?
Smash Bros?

I guess it's a matter of opinion, but to me, the radical changes to Nintendo IPs mostly happened during the N64 era, and to a lesser extent, the Gamecube era, when games were making the switch from 2d to 3d. All of the games I've mentioned above share quite a bit in common with their N64 and Gamecube counterparts.

Finally, I ask, what's so wrong with wanting original IP's? Why do some people get so defensive when this is asked for?

Re:Question-

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Mario Galaxy radically different than Super Mario Sunshine?

Yes, absolutely. Although I see your point with the others. (I say this despite personally having a lot of affection for Twilight Princess.)

Finally, I ask, what's so wrong with wanting original IP's? Why do some people get so defensive when this is asked for?

It was this line: "Why do gaming companies have to make 100 versions of the same franchise?"

Nintendo in particular is pretty darned good at making a compelling sequel. In a world where the vast majority of sequels are, at best, expansion packs of the original game, Nintendo still finds ways to keep them compelling. I never would have thought I'd prefer a Tetris game over the original Game Boy version. But Tetris DS came along and blew me away. Multiplayer Tetris, over the internet, on a portable system. Suh-weeet. Mario Kart DS? Same deal. Zelda? Do a search for GameTrailers Zelda Retrospective. The epic scale of that franchise is mind-boggling. Compare all that to say Grand Theft Auto. Now, I love Grand Theft Auto. I've played the heck out of all the non-portable versions, even before it went 3D. But when I look back, yeah the sequels were fun, but honestly I don't see that big of difference between them. The stories are different, that's what keeps me coming back, but fundamentally we were given a few trivial upgrades to the original premise. I won't be waiting in line for the next GTA game anymore. Even Bully could be considered an unofficial GTA sequel. It's just so... tried and true. It's hard to look at a series like that then criticize Nintendo for their sequels.

Even then, I really don't have a problem with criticism of Nintendo's games. Not every game works with everybody. But you wouldn't seriously say that Nintendo doesn't try new things, would you? Wii Fit? Wii Sports? (The best selling game of 2007 and it's.. bowling?!) Brain Age? Strikers? Seriously man, when you say things like you did, it sounds like somebody who read the title and jumped to conclusions about what the game is. You're going to receive criticism for that by people who know better. It's like saying: "I don't like vegetables because I hate spinach, give me something original." I'm not sure what else you'd expect, honestly.

Re:Question-

[caution live frogs]

You don't see a reason to own a Wii? My wife is not a gamer by any means, but I have a Wii because my wife wanted one after playing it at a friend's house. This is why they are selling. Nintendo figured out that "looking like a fool" while playing can actually be fun for non-gamers. The Wii is in high demand in senior citizens homes, for pete's sake, because using the controller is so simple and natural that even your grandma can see the appeal.

To make this platform successful Nintendo doesn't need a huge number of amazing games. All they need are a small number of good games that appeal to the target audience. Guess what: You and I aren't it. Your grandma and my wife are the target here, and it's working.

On a personal note, I'm quite pleased with the machine. I don't feel that it's underpowered for the games I play (if I want real computing power I look to PC games anyway). I really like that the majority of the popular games for the platform are balanced well enough to allow me to play on an approximately equal level with my peers, or with non-gamers or novice gamers such as my wife, or my nephews, or even my parents and in-laws. The fact that it can play my old GameCube disks, and that the majority of the Nintendo, Sega and TurboGrafx back catalog can be downloaded to the device, well for me that's just gravy.

Re:I love Miyamoto's insight

[FornaxChemica]

At least he's no Nintendo fanboy, he still has some critical sense left. And it's indeed interesting he's criticizing a little Twilight Princess and Mario Galaxy, both of which have been hugely successful in the press, especially Mario (highest-scored Wii game in most websites).

I just hope I'm understanding his remark correctly... that he's not actually thinking those two games should have been more similar in spirit to Wii Sports/Fit/Music. Because when you come to think of it, he's quite enthusiastic about those shallow titles.

Weird, I disagree with him (sort of)

[7Prime]

While I applaud his candid response, I wouldn't have had anything against him saying, "well folks, we've put out the two best games in their respective series"... because I feel both were. Twilight Princess combind the timeless epic quality of Ocarina of Time, but gave it the drama and heart that I feel that the series has lacked. Mario Galaxy may not quite beat out Mario 3 in my book, but both felt eerily similar in their inspired quality, and I think that Mario Galaxy is the best game since Mario 3. Now, all I feel they need to do with Zelda is do to TP, what Majora's Mask did to OoT, ie: fuck with it, do something out of left field that's not "normal" for Zelda. MM was my favorite game in the series until TP came along. TP is now probably my favorite game... period.

Portal was wonderful, don't get me wrong. However, it didn't present me with a full emotional and gameplay spectrum the way that Zelda or Mario do... it was a short vignette of a game, a very perfect one, for that matter. Don't know why I can put ICO at the top of my list but not Portal (similarly short), but something keeps Portal from reaching that high eschellon for me.

Re:devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that his reply would be: why? Whether a game is good or not depends on its gameplay, not what franchise it's associated with. It doesn't matter if a game has Mario or Zelda games in it as long as it's a good game, so if you're making a new game, why not re-use existing, popular characters if they fit into the game's style?

Oh, and some of Nintendo's newer "franchises" include Animal Crossing and Pikmin.

Re:I love Miyamoto's insight

[jonaskoelker]

Or, to illustrate it with videogames;

And as a more modern example, Guitar Hero is just as shallow when you think about it: hit the subset of buttons indicated by the dots when the dots cross the time line up to a certain tolerance. That's all the conceptual "moving parts" in the game; the rest is presentation.

And shallow with good presentation is good; it's a damn fun game, and it's the first game where I've ever replayed a level I've already completed perfectly just for that level's background music :)

Re:devil's advocate

[MrMista_B]

What the hell are you talking about? Ever heard of something like Wii Fit? Wii Music? The entire Wii console?

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Re:I love Miyamoto's insight

[4D6963]

Ha, ironically and as funny as your comment is, it points out what's wrong with some of the nearly systematic modern era game design decisions.

Who in this day and age would content themselves with designing something as simple without power-ups, boss levels and so forth?

Re:I love Miyamoto's insight

[Gulthek]

That's only because you grew up on Asteroids.

Similar to the Mega Man 9 effect.

Shallow is as shallow does, sir.

Re:Mod parent up

[notrandomly]

Let's face it, processor-wise and capability-wise the Wii is little more than a slightly improved Gamecube. The whole console was built around the controller, as has every game for the system.

And controller-wise, the other consoles are little more than same old, same old. Why are better graphics better than a new controller exactly?

But it would still be more than fair to call it a "gimmick,"

Just like the focus on graphics in the other consoles is just a "gimmick"?

You have an interesting definition of "gimmick". Wii is a lot more mainstream and reaches a lot more people than the other consoles with its controller, which makes it easier for people to pick up and play a game. That's not a gimmick.

underpowered performance (look at Yahtzee's recent review of the Wii version of The Force Unleashed for a pretty good summary of this problem).

And the other consoles have "underpowered" controllers.