sourceThis might come as something of a shock to the gaming world, but Shigeru Miyamoto – the man who created Mario, Donkey Kong and Zelda – really doesn't feel like playing games these days.
"There's not a lot I want to play now," he told me recently. "A lot of the games out there are just too long. Of course, there are games, such as 'Halo' or 'Grand Theft Auto,' that are big and expansive. But if you're not interested in spending that time with them, you're not going to play."
What he misses, he said, are games you can pick up and play – something the company hopes to accomplish with its next generation home console, currently code-named "Revolution".
Nintendo deliberately avoided giving too many details about the Revolution at the E3 conference this year, frustrating some fans who felt the company did not fight back against the PR onslaught of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.
Miyamoto didn't offer any firm details either, though he did offer a few more vague hints about how the system would be different.
"The Revolution will use cutting edge technology, but it's ultimately about how that technology is used," he said. "We asked ourselves 'why would a family need or want to have a gaming console?' The answer is what's driving development of the Revolution."
While Miyamoto insists the Revolution will have advanced graphics and features, he doesn't want that to be the focus of the machine.
Instead, he's trying to encourage developers to think outside of the genres that have become so well known in the industry. In other words, there's more to gaming than role playing, simulation, strategy and action.
"Rather than thinking we have a new console, let's make epic games, I want [developers] to make more unique products," he said.
That's the school of thought behind some of the upcoming games for the Nintendo DS. "Nintendogs," a Tamigachi-like canine simulator lets you experience the joy of raising a pup with none of the house-training. Whether U.S. audiences will embrace it is a mystery, but Japan has gone crazy for the game, buying more than 400,000 copies, according to Nintendo. "ElectroPlankton," meanwhile, blends music and art, letting owners mix their own tunes.
Less likely to make it to Western shores is "Touch Dic". (Really, that's the name.) This dictionary application for the DS is a bit different than standard electronic dictionaries, turning learning a new language into a game. For example, one person, using the DS' stylus, can draw Kanji characters onto their Picto-chat screen while others try to guess their meaning.
There have even been whispers of a PDA application for the DS in the works, though Nintendo declined to comment on that.
Of course, the Revolution and the DS will continue to primarily be game machines. (Nintendo's not straying that far from its roots.) And company president Satoru Iwata has indicated established franchises, such as "Super Smash Bros." and "Metroid" will be ready at or near launch.
How much support Nintendo will get from third-party publishers remains to be seen. Though they used a lot of smoke and mirrors, Sony and Microsoft both turned heads at E3. Nintendo's next-gen device was barely an afterthought for most developers.
If Miyamoto is concerned, though, he didn't show it. He said he wasn't overly impressed with what he saw from Sony (Research) and Microsoft (Research) at the show – particularly in their pre-show press conferences.
"Most of what you're seeing are not even the first projections of games," he said. "They're just shiny computer graphics. They're things anyone using a computer can do. ... It's how we're going to use the technology that separates us. What we want to do is different – and we're happy with the road we're taking. When you have a Revolution, you're not going to have the same experience as you would with the other home consoles."
Discuss.
Here are my thoughts on the subject (and I hope you brought your reading glasses).
I agree with Miyamoto. Today's games are too long.
In most games of any length (15 hours or so) there is a great deal of fun to be had, but chances are there are also parts of the game that seem to drag on - whether it's forced leveling, fetch quests, or wandering around a map to get to the next place or whatever.
Developers are under the illusion that added gameplay equates to added value, and it's just not true.
Because when I buy a video game, I've paid for fun. Every part where I'm not having fun is just wasting my time and thus subtracting value from the game. Some games' fun parts are so much fun that it makes up for these dull parts, but others really try my patience
By removing these fluff parts that nobody likes (sailing in Wind Waker, for example) and focusing on the core that people do, you'll shorten the game, but I believe you'll add more value as well by not forcing people to eat dirt to get to their steak.
But when games focus on the core, it also means the developers didn't have to waste their time and resources adding the fluff, so they could release it at a lower price point. Take Gradius V for example. As is typical of a good Treasure game, there's almost nothing extraneous to detract from the game.
Of course when done right, even waiting and doing nothing can be fun. For an example, look at how popular stealth action games are - sure there's lots of killing, but half the fun is waiting for the right moment to strike.
So why do developers keep adding the fluff?
Well, there's some merit to the argument that steak tastes that much better after a mouthful of dirt.
The point of my post isn't that games should be forced into being shorter - just that they should minimize the parts that nobody likes. Is there anyone who has beaten Wind Waker that still likes the sailing parts?
If a game wants to last for 100 hours, that's fine as long as it's 100 hours of fun. But if it's 50 hours of fun and 50 hours of mind-numbing boredom, there's something wrong with that formula.
I've played well over a thousand hours of NiGHTS into Dreams on the Saturn. It's not a particularly long game, but to me it has infinite replay value. Considering I bought it almost ten years ago (with the controller) for about $30, I'd say I've gotten (and still continue to get) my money's worth.
I think possibly the only genre to consistently get the formula right is the sports genre. Most sports games nowadays give you the option to play a game, play the playoffs, play a season, play a career or a franchise. People who just watched their team lose in real life and want to make them win can do so in a single game. People who start watching sports late in the season are free to simply skip ahead to the playoffs. People who buy the sports games on release day every year can play the season mode and bring their favorite team all the way through to victory. And people who play nothing but sports games might enjoy the career mode. People who like getting into the nitty gritty details of everything would probably enjoy the Franchise mode.
The point is, the games are customized for maximum enjoyment no matter who is playing them. And people may find that they move up the ladder - maybe switching from a playoff guy to a season guy. Of course if you don't like sports, you won't have fun but the same goes for any genre.
So this poses another interesting question. How do we customize other genres to fit the player?
Well, what's dull for one person may be an absolute delight for someone else. So why would you take it out of the game if someone enjoys it?
The answer? You don't take it out. You make it optional.
Every versus fighting game already does this. We'll pick on Street Fighter 2 today though. Let's say you can't stand playing as Zangief. He's big, he's hairy, and the bulge in his speedo makes you uncomfortable. Well, thanks to the miracle of technology, you have fully seven other characters to choose from! You could play the game for years, and not once have to play as Zangief.
While this may seem like a bit of a trite example, the same can hold true for other genres.
Racing games always give you the option of using automatic or manual transmission. The manual may be more immersive, but not everyone likes it - so it's optional.
Still too simple? Here's another example.
Take a look at Threads of Fate, an Action RPG for the Playstation. There are two playable characters in the game, Mint and Rue. Mint is a magician who gets to cast all sorts of spells. Rue can change his form into those of enemies he's defeated. Two completely different play styles in the same game. If you don't like one, play the other.
The point is that it's possible to make a game that caters to the needs of the individual player. I just think it needs to be spread to more genres.
Do I want all games to cater to everyone? Not in the least. There's no need to add massive over the top violence to Tetris - it doesn't fit the game. Likewise, block puzzles would probably be pretty unwelcome in Tekken.
I DO want the games that try to cater to everyone to try a little harder.
Whoops, but the Aussies got jack. Sorry, should've checked that.
