Thinking Outside of the Cube

[Glenn2K4]

Long article, yet it is an incredibly great read.
Selected except given below but i suggest you read the whole article. It is worth it.

read whole article

exerpt:
"Capping off the weak holiday season was a recent Washington Post article that posed the opinion that the Gamecube was largely obsolete, and in October, Capcom announced that Resident Evil 4 would appear on the PS2 in late 2005, in a move that has reportedly not gone over well with Resident Evil creator - and the Gamecube's biggest third-party proponent - Shinji Mikami. Despite repeated rumors over the past year that RE 4 would end up on the PS2, staff associated with game publicly denied the charges, with Mikami himself going on record as saying if RE 4 would appear on the PS2, he would, quote, "cut his head off".

Hopefully that's not the truth.

A couple of days after RE 4 was released, the Japanese newspaper The Kyoto Journal published a lengthy interview with Nintendo President Satoru Iwata where he discussed some - albeit somewhat vague - details of Nintendo's future, including the fact that Nintendo did not intend to compete with Sony or Microsoft in the looming next-generation round of the console war.

When Iwata steps behind a microphone to talk to the press, diehard Nintendo fans cringe - and Nintendo detractors start to salivate - because his ability to say something incredibly inane is legendary, such as the oft-repeated statement that "gamers do not want great graphics." Many Nintendo-centered publications and websites will be quick to bemoan than Iwata is often 'mistranslated' or his quotes are intentionally taken out of context for sensationalistic, headline-friendly purposes . . . well, who knows, there might be some truth to that, but the fact remains that he certainly appears to be out-of-touch with the majority of the gaming audience and it often hammers home the image of Nintendo as a huge dinosaur flailing about in a tar pit when it comes to console gaming, unable to acknowledge or even consider what Sony and Microsoft are doing 'right' for so many gamers who feel the exact opposite about Nintendo.

We call it a console 'war', and that conjures up images of a traditional military conflict, where one force will eventually either decimate the other or force them to surrender. It's not necessarily the truth, though, since victory here simply means turning enough of a profit to continue - Nintendo doesn't need to be the industry leader, and even if they fall to third place overall - something that will almost inevitably happen if the current trends continue - that doesn't necessarily make them a 'loser'.

There are victims, though, in the sense that there are those gamers who bought into the Gamecube under the illusion that Nintendo was going to do exactly what they now claim they're not: compete with Sony and Microsoft. Early on, it did appear that Nintendo had learned a few lessons in the rout Sony handed to them in the previous generation of hardware and that they would attempt to make the Gamecube appealing to an older audience more interested in Resident Evil than Mario, that they would join both Sony and Microsoft in bringing online gaming to an audience that, if they weren't PC gamers, had never been exposed to it, and the promise of interesting and unique gameplay that it enables.

Yes, the Gamecube is online capable, but it didn't become clear until well after the 2001 hardware launch that Nintendo itself had no firm plans to support online gaming beyond including the technology for others to take advantage of, if they wished. Both Sony and Microsoft have provided the top draws in terms of the number of users involved for online gaming - SOCOM: U.S. Navy Seals and Halo 2 - on their respective consoles, and have always been supportive and nurturing of online gaming. Nintendo, meanwhile, took seemingly every opportunity to slam the idea of online gaming when the subject was brought up by the press, and there's little wonder why no third-party publishers beyond Sega -who had a pre-existing network already set up for the failed Dreamcast which was sitting idle, collecting dust - took advantage of the Gamecube's online abilities. "

more

[Vishus]

That was interesting.

[Eidorian]

Yeah, I have to agree with this article. If Nintendo turns a profit and continues to make great games, I'll be happy. I'd just be happier if they'd take back some of their old market share. Our interpretation of war and what the ends are just don't translate properly into the real context of the gaminng industry. Still, Nintendo and Microsoft both appear to be working this way. Sony, I'm not to sure about sometimes. They always seem to want to venture into new areas and dominate that market.

[BaldBastard]

I wish Nintendo would try to compete a little more. I don't like the fact that there are some games that will never be on a Nintendo system. Not because they are Sony or Microsoft IP's but rather because the developer knows it will tank in sales.

[pac4life]

sometimes i think nintendo should become a second party to microsoft or sony. but only sometimes.

[dork]

I love the idea of Nintendo becoming a third party. It'd probably be more profitable for them.

[tonic]

Nintendo, third-party? I would actually kill myself.

[Phoenix]

I love the idea of Nintendo becoming a third party. It'd probably be more profitable for them.

"The day we stop making systems is the day we go out of business."
-A Nintendo Executive (Iwata?)

[version2.0]

I agree with tonic and pheonixphire, they shouldn't become third party producers. Personally, I have far more fun playing games from the gamecube then I ever did play Halo/ Halo 2, and San Andreas, both of which I became bored with in a day or two. Besides, the nintendo console controllers have always been more comfortable!

[The Dude]

I really do not play many games outside of my Gamecube. There are only 3 exceptions, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, and Gran Turismo. Even 2/3 of those fromerly originated on a nintendo system. I was a nintendo fan first then a gamer second. It's jsut not video games without nintendo.

[Shade Valkyrie]

I love the idea of Nintendo becoming a third party. It'd probably be more profitable for them.

Isn't Nintendo profitable enough for the moment.
I don't think they have gotten past the point yet where they would profit more as a third party, they are still doing quite well economically.

Now about that editorial...
There is some truth in it, but I also disagree with some of the things said, more or less, so let me break down the details.

"I'm thinking of suggesting that [Nintendo] make movies, and to have them run in conjunction with game releases. ..."

It surprised me that he put this quote by Yamauchi among those other quotes who should point out Nintendo’s obvious arrogance true the times.
Isn't this a good move by Nintendo and a clever idea from Yamauchi?

Nintendo have already several times through the times licensed their franchises to other anime studious, most recently Pokemon who have now had about thousand if not more TV-show episodes created, and in addition a cluster of movies as well.
These animes have done quite well too and that is why this idea from Yamauchi is such a good idea. - Not only does this mean that Nintendo will get the profit from the animes all by themselves, but they also get a better control over the creations of the animes.
Maybe we will finally get to see Nintendo animes at an equal level or at least close to the quality of their games, let's hope.

When Iwata steps behind a microphone to talk to the press, diehard Nintendo fans cringe - and Nintendo detractors start to salivate - because his ability to say something incredibly inane is legendary, such as the oft-repeated statement that "gamers do not want great graphics." Many Nintendo-centered publications and websites will be quick to bemoan than Iwata is often 'mistranslated' or his quotes are intentionally taken out of context for sensationalistic, headline-friendly purposes . . .

Mistranslated? - No... Promoting? – Yes!
This is a business tactic Nintendo uses to promote the things they focus on about a system, it does not mean they don’t care about graphics and that we should expect Revolution to not be able to put out any better graphics than the Cube, not at all, I believe the Revolution will be on about equal power as the other systems in graphics.

But Iwata [Nintendo] want to get our attention away from that, better graphics, hardware etc. goes without saying when releasing a new system, but that is neither what he wants to promote with the Revolution or what makes the Revolution unique from the other systems. – Iwata is right, graphics are no longer important, we got 3D games that show quite realistic graphics already, there is always room for improvement though, but the graphical evolution will keep slowing down for each generation now until it reaches the point that games become as real as real can be.
This is the point Iwate stresses and wants to promote with the Revolution! – The Revolution will not just give us a more powerful hardware and better graphics, but also a new ways of playing and experiencing games.

What fans of Nintendo's software often fail to recognize is that there were people who saw the Gamecube as being something different than what it was - a console that was going to complete with Sony and Microsoft and have the added bonus of a stable of Nintendo-created exclusive software - and there is, to me, a huge question of whether or not Nintendo ever had a truly definite strategy to make that happen.

Nintendo have done a good job bettering their relations with third-parties this generation, Square and Nintendo have finally started co-operating in the same way they did during the SNES era, worked out several deals for third-party exclusives (not only RE like the writer of the editorial only seems to care about) and even let many of them use their franchises.

I do agree with the point that are being made in that quote, things could have been much better, but it’s a big difference in the situation [when it comes to third-parties] now compared to how the situation was in the early life-cycle of the N64, and really, it’s foolish to think that stuff like this can easily be worked out during one single generation, stuff takes time.

Nintendo may not have any intention of providing you with a similar experience that you may find on the PS3 or Xenon

Funny how he keeps promoting Sony and MS so often, those two companies have their issues as well, they are FAR from perfect.
But he is right, Nintendo are not giving us the similar experience with their systems as MS and Sony, they just give us excellent games, not movies, music and whatever else that most of us probably already are able to play with other hardware’s we got in our house.[/sarcastic]

Well, an overall good editorial though, could been better if he could have tuned down his promoting of MS and Sony through it, made it feel like I was reading a fanboy rant at times.

[Phoenix]

I really do not play many games outside of my Gamecube. There are only 3 exceptions, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, and Gran Turismo. Even 2/3 of those fromerly originated on a nintendo system. I was a nintendo fan first then a gamer second. It's jsut not video games without nintendo.

Wow that's surprisingly similar to my situation, except replace "Gran Turismo" with "DDR".

[koten]

^ thats how it works for me

I love the idea of Nintendo becoming a third party. It'd probably be more profitable for them.

The day that happens is the day I quite playing videogames.

[Hellmaster]

I agree with most of what that guy says. Hell, I've been saying that for a good while now.

However, I don't agree with him saying that Mario and Zelda are 'showing their age'. They're GC incarnations were half assed because nintendo intentionally did that. They thought it'd be 'hip' if mario has to do janitorial work instead of having awesome mystical powers, and making link appear to be the hellspawn of a keebler elf and powerpuff girl union. In other words, they weren't even on the same level as their N64 counterparts, but far more inferior, and not due to any 'age' shit.

[Phoenix]

Wind Waker wasn't inferior because it wasn't good, but instread because OoT was incredible. It's the graphics that looked like crap.

[Hellmaster]

Wind Waker wasn't inferior because it wasn't good, but instread because OoT was incredible. It's the graphics that looked like crap.

Oh, I agree. That's what I was getting at, I didn't approve much of the cel shading. WW was a good game and I did enjoy it, but it was also short and sailing was annoying as fuck.

[dork]

Neg repped by Outlaw Adidas 02-08-2005 05:21 PM "not cool"


LMAO. I guess Nintendo is for kiddies.