The Story Of The GameCube: Emily Rodgers Article

http://www.dromble.com/2014/01/07/dolphin-tale-story-of-gamecube/

Man, this article is fantastic. It shows the arrogance of Nintendo during these years, how they dismissed 3rd parties and a lot of the stuff that happened back then bears a remarkable resemblance to the situation they are facing now with the Wii U.

It's a VERY lengthy article but I urge all to give it a read. I'm not even halfway through it and already I'm blown away by just how wrong and arrogant Nintendo were.

I was literally about to post this. The stupidity from some of Nintendo's higher ups is simply ridiculous.

Some gems:

“Nintendo’s position is that we are going to sell our hardware with our own software titles, and if consumers buy a number of Gamecubes, then licensees would become interesting in making games for Nintendo Gamecube. That’s the general idea in Nintendo’s business. So we are not actually approaching them [third parties] and asking them to make software for Nintendo. Already there are a number of requests [from publishers] who would like to make the software for Gamecube, so probably in September we will start explaining the technology and delivering the development kits to them. Once again, it’s their decision. If they would like to make Gamecube software, that’s fine, but we will never demand them to make games for Gamecube.”

“In meetings it was clear NoJ [Nintendo of Japan] could not understand why the brand had fallen so far here in North America or comprehend why the mature titles, and more powerful consoles, were so successful. Nintendo represented fun, in the purest sense of the word, they always have. When you play Nintendo games you laugh, you yell, you smile, and you jump around. You have FUN. Someone, sadly I forget who, would later quote in one of those meetings that “Consumers don’t want fun anymore; they just want to kill people… in HD.” It was actually kind of true, and with the cultural differences between Japan and the US, it was easy to understand the confusion. The problem, though, was that NoA wasn’t confused by the situation at all, they understood those cultural differences quite well, but even if they could defy the marching orders from [Nintendo of Japan], I’m not sure they even would have. Gaming was growing up. This is when things started to get real ugly for a while inside those hallowed walls.”

DERP DERP DERP.

Also, replace Gamecube with Wii U and a lot of it still applies.

An article that consists almost purely of regurgitated quotes from age old interviews, taken out of context? Yep, it's another Emily Rogers article

Nevermind the fact that Nintendo's attitude towards 3rd parties DID actually change dramatically after the N64 era (especially after Iwata took over - the most immediately noticeable effect being the mending of their relationship with Square; and the moneyhatting of the Capcom 5).

When reading the article, you need to take into account 3 things. Firstly, Yamauchi was a very outspoken man who was not afraid to speak his mind with little tact for who got caught in the crossfire - something that was certainly not carried over to Iwata's reign. Secondly, many of these quotes come from interviews where the respondents are getting grilled; think about the situation that the respondent was in when they made their statement and how they may have needed to put on a brave face at the time (This is something that Emily doesn't ever do in her typical "expose" articles, perhaps purposely, because it would weaken her usual one sided narrative). Finally, don't forget that many of these quotes were made over a decade ago: While it might be funny to look at Iwata's famous "consumers don't want online games" quib and laugh at their position now, back then he was certainly right; broadband penetration was hilariously low and online gaming wasn't really feasible for them back then (MS lost literally billions with the original Xbox and never came close to the subscription numbers they hoped for). What was said back in the past is often not relevant today and not necessarily representative of their current stance (unless you really think that Bill Gates and Microsoft still believe that 640kb of RAM is enough for any computer today )

An article that consists almost purely of regurgitated quotes from age old interviews, taken out of context? Yep, it's another Emily Rogers article

 

Nevermind the fact that Nintendo's attitude towards 3rd parties DID actually change dramatically after the N64 era (especially after Iwata took over - the most immediately noticeable effect being the mending of their relationship with Square; and the moneyhatting of the Capcom 5).

 

When reading the article, you need to take into account 3 things. Firstly, Yamauchi was a very outspoken man who was not afraid to speak his mind with little tact for who got caught in the crossfire - something that was certainly not carried over to Iwata's reign. Secondly, many of these quotes come from interviews where the respondents are getting grilled; think about the situation that the respondent was in when they made their statement and how they may have needed to put on a brave face at the time (This is something that Emily doesn't ever do in her typical "expose" articles, perhaps purposely, because it would weaken her usual one sided narrative). Finally, don't forget that many of these quotes were made over a decade ago: While it might be funny to look at Iwata's famous "consumers don't want online games" quib and laugh at their position now, back then he was certainly right; broadband penetration was hilariously low and online gaming wasn't really feasible for them back then (MS lost literally billions with the original Xbox and never came close to the subscription numbers they hoped for). What was said back in the past is often not relevant today and not necessarily representative of their current stance (unless you really think that Bill Gates and Microsoft still believe that 640kb of RAM is enough for any computer today )

I don't think many will have a problem with the online quotes as they could easily justify it, however some of the quotes in there are incredible and highlight how (and why) the GameCube was dead before it arrived.

An article that consists almost purely of regurgitated quotes from age old interviews, taken out of context? Yep, it's another Emily Rogers article

 

Nevermind the fact that Nintendo's attitude towards 3rd parties DID actually change dramatically after the N64 era (especially after Iwata took over - the most immediately noticeable effect being the mending of their relationship with Square; and the moneyhatting of the Capcom 5).

 

When reading the article, you need to take into account 3 things. Firstly, Yamauchi was a very outspoken man who was not afraid to speak his mind with little tact for who got caught in the crossfire - something that was certainly not carried over to Iwata's reign. Secondly, many of these quotes come from interviews where the respondents are getting grilled; think about the situation that the respondent was in when they made their statement and how they may have needed to put on a brave face at the time (This is something that Emily doesn't ever do in her typical "expose" articles, perhaps purposely, because it would weaken her usual one sided narrative). Finally, don't forget that many of these quotes were made over a decade ago: While it might be funny to look at Iwata's famous "consumers don't want online games" quib and laugh at their position now, back then he was certainly right; broadband penetration was hilariously low and online gaming wasn't really feasible for them back then (MS lost literally billions with the original Xbox and never came close to the subscription numbers they hoped for). What was said back in the past is often not relevant today and not necessarily representative of their current stance (unless you really think that Bill Gates and Microsoft still believe that 640kb of RAM is enough for any computer today )

I don't see how anyone can not see that the same mistakes are being made all over again. This article is a real eye opener. Yes, these quotes are from over a decade ago but is scary seeing the same things happening again now.

Your online gaming quote you used is a great example. Yes, it wasn't a big deal back then but it has been for at least 7 years or so, yet Nintendo still refuse to really embrace it.

It also doesn't matter how outspoken Yamauchi was, it's comments like these...

Behind the scenes, Nintendo was planning to make a strong comeback and unseat Sony from it’s dominant position. Unfortunately, Nintendo would have quite a mountain to climb if they wanted to be the top dog again. Hiroshi Yamauchi’s policies in the 1990′s lead many third parties to rally behind Sony and abandon their support for Nintendo. However, even after the success of the first PlayStation, Yamauchi remained adamant about his position on quality over quantity.

 

“I’ve been told that Sony won over Nintendo by surrounding itself with software companies, and I will admit that situation was there in the past. However, times have changed, and it’s no longer a race to see how many useless companies you can get on your side.” said Yamauchi.

...that paint the picture of why 3rd party games aren't on Nintendo machines.

I mean this...

In the December 2000 issue of Next Gen Magazine, approximately 7 months after GDC, Imanishi says they are not approaching third parties to make games for GameCube. Instead, they expect third parties to come to them once the GameCube starts growing their install base.

 

“Nintendo’s position is that we are going to sell our hardware with our own software titles, and if consumers buy a number of Gamecubes, then licensees would become interested in making games for Nintendo Gamecube. That’s the general idea in Nintendo’s business. So we are not actually approaching them [third parties] and asking them to make software for Nintendo. Already there are a number of requests [from publishers] who would like to make the software for Gamecube, so probably in September we will start explaining the technology and delivering the development kits to them. Once again, it’s their decision. If they would like to make Gamecube software, that’s fine, but we will never demand them to make games for Gamecube.”

... is just crazy. They were essentially saying that they didn't need 3rd parties.

I also like this comment from Iwata.

Satoru Iwata, Nintendo’s Director of Planning in 2001, criticized Microsoft for focusing more attention on their marketing budget than actual software. In his opinion, a true entertainment company understands that marketing doesn’t work if the product is undesirable

I take it that's why we see very little marketing for the Wii U.

I take it that's why we see very little marketing for the Wii U.

Ahhh, is that who she's writing for now? Can't read the article as I'm at work, but been wondering why there hasn't been anything over on NES by her for a while!

EDIT:Well ignore me, it's her bloody site!

While there might be some truth to be found in this rather long-winded article and in comparison to Nintendo's situation today there are definitely certain parallels which can be drawn from it, I also agree that a lot of it is massively out of context so I certainly don't agree with it completely but then I can't deny that it does raise some interesting points even just scanning through but I certainly won't be reading it from start to finish.

I have no problem with the article existing but probably only 20% of it is worth reading so just so long as it's not taken as 'gospel' then that's fine. : peace:

But I'll definitely be popping back into this thread to read any more choice quotes that anyone happens to repost, I love the Gamecube a great deal as it's a fantastic console but it certainly had more than its fair share of problems despite it having a fantastic library of first and limited third-party titles.

An article that consists almost purely of regurgitated quotes from age old interviews, taken out of context? Yep, it's another Emily Rogers article

 

Nevermind the fact that Nintendo's attitude towards 3rd parties DID actually change dramatically after the N64 era (especially after Iwata took over - the most immediately noticeable effect being the mending of their relationship with Square; and the moneyhatting of the Capcom 5).

 

When reading the article, you need to take into account 3 things. Firstly, Yamauchi was a very outspoken man who was not afraid to speak his mind with little tact for who got caught in the crossfire - something that was certainly not carried over to Iwata's reign. Secondly, many of these quotes come from interviews where the respondents are getting grilled; think about the situation that the respondent was in when they made their statement and how they may have needed to put on a brave face at the time (This is something that Emily doesn't ever do in her typical "expose" articles, perhaps purposely, because it would weaken her usual one sided narrative). Finally, don't forget that many of these quotes were made over a decade ago: While it might be funny to look at Iwata's famous "consumers don't want online games" quib and laugh at their position now, back then he was certainly right; broadband penetration was hilariously low and online gaming wasn't really feasible for them back then (MS lost literally billions with the original Xbox and never came close to the subscription numbers they hoped for). What was said back in the past is often not relevant today and not necessarily representative of their current stance (unless you really think that Bill Gates and Microsoft still believe that 640kb of RAM is enough for any computer today )

I think there is a generous portion of denial about these forums, and the defensiveness throughout this post pretty much highlights it.

If Nintendo changed their attitude towards third parties since the N64 era it was from really bad to bad, and then bad to utterly attrocious. Which isn't really a change, truth be told.

I think the main thing to take from this article is that whatever was said 10 years ago almost still seems to be believed/in effect this present day, or maybe even the present day situation could be blamed on these choices made/beliefs held back then.

I have to admit, I never knew about the d-pad nearly bring scrapped on the Cube controller. I suppose it kind explains why it's so small and felt very much like it was tacked on. Still, I loved the Cube pad.

Also, Nintendo contemplating staying with the cartridge format for the Cube was crazy!

This is certainly an interesting read, i'm in the area around the Gamecube controller designs and how it's evolved over a few months/years. Same as you H.o.T, i didn't know Ninty were planning on getting rid of the D-Pad and keeping to carts for the next-generation. That's bloomin insane.

A very interesting read. Portrays Nintendo very much as a loner in the industry - always wanting to do their own thing and not caring about the rest of the industry. Personally I feel they need to be more accommodating of other developers, while achieving a balance with the values that have always made Nintendo unique.

We all look back at the GameCube and see a console that was more comparable with the competition and failed, but quotes from this article show that was largely down to Nintendo's attitude towards 3rd parties rather than the power of their hardware -why the hell didn't most devs have GC dev kits before launch!?

Would a console with similar specs to XBOX one and PS4 struggle like the GameCube did? I don't necessarily think so if Nintendo had corrected its mistakes in terms of third party relations in the past. We now have a console that many third parties aren't interested in. It's a hard dilemma - go unique and risk consumers not being interested, a la Wii U; or conform and risk being overshadowed.

These Emily Rogers articles are always interesting and lead to great discussion, but I do wish she put some analysis into it - they're largely quote dumps!

Also, it's disappointing to read about the decline of Nintendo of America. It seems like they used to have a lot more power and actual input in developing games and consoles, but now things are controlled from Japan even more.

I do also kinda agree with their philosophy that games consoles should provide unique experiences rather than just conform, which was what was great about the Wii, despite its lack of power. Thinking about it, I would've liked Nintendo to stick with the wii remote. I like the gamepad, but even Nintendo aren't really using it to its full potential.

A very interesting read. Portrays Nintendo very much as a loner in the industry - always wanting to do their own thing and not caring about the rest of the industry. Personally I feel they need to be more accommodating of other developers, while achieving a balance with the values that have always made Nintendo unique.

 

We all look back at the GameCube and see a console that was more comparable with the competition and failed, but quotes from this article show that was largely down to Nintendo's attitude towards 3rd parties rather than the power of their hardware -why the hell didn't most devs have GC dev kits before launch!?

 

Would a console with similar specs to XBOX one and PS4 struggle like the GameCube did? I don't necessarily think so if Nintendo had corrected its mistakes in terms of third party relations in the past. We now have a console that many third parties aren't interested in. It's a hard dilemma - go unique and risk consumers not being interested, a la Wii U; or conform and risk being overshadowed.

 

These Emily Rogers articles are always interesting and lead to great discussion, but I do wish she put some analysis into it - they're largely quote dumps!

 

Also, it's disappointing to read about the decline of Nintendo of America. It seems like they used to have a lot more power and actual input in developing games and consoles, but now things are controlled from Japan even more.

 

I do also kinda agree with their philosophy that games consoles should provide unique experiences rather than just conform, which was what was great about the Wii, despite its lack of power. Thinking about it, I would've liked Nintendo to stick with the wii remote. I like the gamepad, but even Nintendo aren't really using it to its full potential.

Agreed. I find it hugely frustrating when people say 'Nintendo tried to make a powerful console and it failed'. The N64 and Gamecube did not fail because they were powerful, they failed despite the fact that they were. Nintendo made a lot of mistakes, even before the console launched, and this article is a great insight into that.

People laughed at Sony when the PS3 struggled but even then it was literally the first time since in PS history that they really made a lot of mistakes, and they clearly learnt from the experience.

Nintendo just don't learn unfortunately, and they need a huge culture change within the organisation before they can consistently be at the front without having to rely on 'lightning in a bottle'.

I think the main thing to take from this article is that whatever was said 10 years ago almost still seems to be believed/in effect this present day, or maybe even the present day situation could be blamed on these choices made/beliefs held back then.

Spot on. It is exactly these mistakes that they made back then that continue to haunt them to this very day. If there's anything that should be taken away from this piece, it's this.

Anyone who truly believes that Nintendo's current attitude towards 3rd parties is anything like the N64-GCN era is insane. Yamauchi would never have bent over backwards to get support from Square or Capcom (insert Yamauchi's famous "[RPG players are]depressed gamers who like to sit alone in their dark rooms and play slow games." quote here). It's not that Nintendo don't want 3rd party support or don't try to get it, but rather it is that legacy of hostility towards 3rd parties (and that age old Kiddy image that has stuck ever since the SNES era) that continues to stop them from getting the support they need.

Hell Nintendo even designed some of their controllers specifically for the needs of 3rd parties (the Classic Controller Pro and the Circle Pad were designed specifically for Capcom's Monster Hunter team - who co-designed them to suit their needs - while the Wii U Pro Controller was designed to replicate the 360 controller in order to make 3rd parties happy and give them as few excuses as possible to not port their games to Wii U). Do you really think that the Nintendo of the 1990-2000 era would have even remotely considered doing that!? No chance!

But Nintendo's 3rd party problems of today still stem from that legacy that Yamauchi left behind. Add on the significant issues of demographic reach (with how Nintendo have focused on attracting a wider audience of "non-gamers" in recent years, as well as younger people and a large number of female players), poor Wii U sales (though their issues with EA, Take Two, Deep Silver, Kojima Productions, Epic and Zenimax in particular were un-related to that; as their actions were not made in reaction to the Wii U's poor performance), their reluctance to outright pay for support en-masse like Microsoft do and the fact that Nintendo's development philosophy and desired direction for which they want to see take is completely at odds with what the majority of publishers want (Nintendo wants to cultivate a market that accepts all types of games, while most major publishers are only interested in easily marketable, violent AAA blockbusters) and it starts to become clear why Nintendo have such trouble garnering 3rd party support.

It's not the lack of hardware grunt in their consoles that prevents Nintendo from getting 3rd party support; it's everything else!

It's not that Nintendo don't want 3rd party support or don't try to get it, but rather it is that legacy of hostility towards 3rd parties (and that age old Kiddy image that has stuck ever since the SNES era) that continues to stop them from getting the support they need.

If Nintendo really wanted third party support they'd have made a console that third parties wanted to develop for, and they'd have asked third parties what they wanted in a console.

Even if they're not saying totally outrageous things about third parties anymore, their actions are still not those of a company that really want third party support.

If Nintendo really wanted third party support they'd have made a console that third parties wanted to develop for, and they'd have asked third parties what they wanted in a console.

 

Even if they're not saying totally outrageous things about third parties anymore, their actions are still not those of a company that really want third party support.

I think the most accurate way of putting it is that Nintendo want 3rd party support without having to give up their company culture and who they are, in favour of cloning their competition, in order to get it..

Whether of not that is possible though...

I think Nintendo are in their own little world somewhat with regards to their philosophies and pracitces, whether you call them arrogant, stubborn or out of touch. But there's also something quite badass about the fact they just don't give a fuck. They're like "Yeah our new console is a purple Fisher Price lunchbox... deal with it."

I know they have to make money and stay in business and all that, but it doesn't really bother me personally that Nintendo aren't always number one. I'm sure they know all they have to do to compete is make a high-spec 'regular' console, but I like that their attitude seems to be "That's too simple, where's the challenge in that?"

I wouldn't like to see consoles manufacturers homogenised. Nintendo might make some 'weird' decisions sometimes, but there is at least a method to the madness, and there's always something quirky and different about them. When I buy a Nintendo console or handheld, it feels like I really am getting something a little bit strange and exotic from a far away land, for better or worse.

I have to admit, I never knew about the d-pad nearly bring scrapped on the Cube controller. I suppose it kind explains why it's so small and felt very much like it was tacked on. Still, I loved the Cube pad.

 

Also, Nintendo contemplating staying with the cartridge format for the Cube was crazy!

Loved Miyamoto blowing his own trumpet on creating the cube pad, the arrogant so and so! The best controller I've ever played with though

Perhaps this is a debate for another thread, but I wish they had kept cartridges...why?! Because of bloody loading times that's why! All the technological advancements this industry has seen, yet games still take ages to load up, Splinter Cell blacklist was a horror show on Wii U for that. Anyway...

Loved Miyamoto blowing his own trumpet on creating the cube pad, the arrogant so and so! The best controller I've ever played with though

 

Perhaps this is a debate for another thread, but I wish they had kept cartridges...why?! Because of bloody loading times that's why! All the technological advancements this industry has seen, yet games still take ages to load up, Splinter Cell blacklist was a horror show on Wii U for that. Anyway...

Nah, the next step would be SSDs used to store and run digital games (and they are getting cheaper all the time). In the future anyway.

I'm sure they know all they have to do to compete is make a high-spec 'regular' console, but I like that their attitude seems to be "That's too simple, where's the challenge in that?"

Surely when they made the Wii about as graphically powerful as the gamecube they were opting for the 'simple and cheap' approach? We can't pretend Nintendo like a challenge in that department when they seem content to stay how they are in terms of online and graphical horsepower, really.

No doubt they liked a challenge in creating the Wii remote and Gamepad, but they certainly weren't challenging themselves when creating the core consoles (and more recently: in game originality).

I've just re-read some of the quotes and this one stuck out:

'When asked why Nintendo chose smaller disks for GameCube instead of standard DVDs, Shigeru Miyamoto explained that smaller disks sends a message to developers that they don’t need to make long games with realistic graphics.'

I just don't understand what the hell they are thinking sometimes. I'm convinced Nintendo just live in their own world where they have this perfect idea of what 'gaming' is and just don't understand why 90% of the world think differently.

Another interesting quote was the one from the 'higher ups' at Nintendo to make games easier as 'Mario Sunshine was far too difficult'. Man, that really explains a lot.

One thing I don't understand though is that Miyamoto claimed that the Gamecube controller was too 'complicated' which is what led to the Wii, yet the Wii U Gamepad has even MORE buttons that the Gamecube controller and also features a camera, gyroscope etc. So inconsistent.

Surely when they made the Wii about as graphically powerful as the gamecube they were opting for the 'simple and cheap' approach? We can't pretend Nintendo like a challenge in that department when they seem content to stay how they are in terms of online and graphical horsepower, really.

 

No doubt they liked a challenge in creating the Wii remote and Gamepad, but they certainly weren't challenging themselves when creating the core consoles (and more recently: in game originality).

I think the graphics of the Wii and Wii-U are down to a deliberate strategic decision, rather than just being cheap and lazy, and technically not up to the challenge of making high end HD visuals. One of the Wii's plus points was it's relative affordibility, same with the Wii-U. This is important to Nintendo, they're obviously keen on the idea of making gaming accessible, and that includes affordable. Their games are as good looking as they need to be without needlessly pushing the price of the system up, lower development cost are of course a nice bonus to that.

As you say they challenged the norm in other respects. It's very clear Nintendo's philosophy is gameplay first, so high end graphics just aren't as big a priority. That said Nintendo's games generally look very nice, while their Wii games and Wii-U games aren't as flash as their more poweful rivals, they're not exactly ugly either. Typically Nintendo's games are arguably the best looking on their consoles, perhaps we could say they're actually pretty good at getting the most out of a system. If game originality is a concern, then I think challenging gameplay norms is more productive than challenging visuals.

On a side note, game originalty is an interesting topic. I think Nintendo's originality is often underappreciatred, it's not always obvious in the form of a new IP for example, sometimes it's creative level design, new controls, 4-way multiplayer platfrom games etc.

As for sequels seeming familiar, sometimes more of a good thing, is a good thing. Lets say both NSMB Wii and NSMB Wii-U had 50 levels, would we be angry if NSMB Wii had 100 levels instead? Not at all, but if we have those extra 50 levels via a sequel people cry rehash.

I've just re-read some of the quotes and this one stuck out:

 

'When asked why Nintendo chose smaller disks for GameCube instead of standard DVDs, Shigeru Miyamoto explained that smaller disks sends a message to developers that they don’t need to make long games with realistic graphics.'

 

I just don't understand what the hell they are thinking sometimes. I'm convinced Nintendo just live in their own world where they have this perfect idea of what 'gaming' is and just don't understand why 90% of the world think differently.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I think maybe people are misinterpreting this to be something like Miyamoto asking devlopers to make games like Pong or something. He actually says they can still make long, graphically impressive (striving for realism) games, and that they'll still accomodate them. But they set the example to developers that you can still make quality, good looking and well received games on a single disc.

Games like Resident Evil and Twin Snakes came on 2 discs, while equally good (if not better) games like Windwaker, Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime, Mario Sunshine only needed one, while those Nintendo games were more economic with storage space they weren't any worse off because of it. With regard specifically to length, a long story mode isn't necessary to give gamers value for money, even by themselves people played Smash Bros Melee for hours.

Another interesting quote was the one from the 'higher ups' at Nintendo to make games easier as 'Mario Sunshine was far too difficult'. Man, that really explains a lot.

But did Mario games become drastically easier? Again I think this is an acessability issue, and I think things like the optional level skips in games like DKCR are an ideal compromise.

One thing I don't understand though is that Miyamoto claimed that the Gamecube controller was too 'complicated' which is what led to the Wii, yet the Wii U Gamepad has even MORE buttons that the Gamecube controller and also features a camera, gyroscope etc. So inconsistent.

I can see what he meant, he's coming from a view point that people were once able to enjoy games with a d-pad and 2 buttons, games were simple, easier to pick up and play etc. Though I do think he realises as games inevitably become more complex, so do the controls. With the Wii he was attempting to simplify those complex controls with intuitive motion. I think rather than use the Wii-U Pad to point out an inconsistancy, we might say it's an example of him reacting to the consumer, that people can handle lots of buttons, and becoming more flexible, which is surely a good thing. Seems to me the idea of the Wii-U was to offer both control options where possible.

I just don't see why they can't challenge themselves to make a console both core and casual would like, rather than it usually being one or the other. Microsoft with the 360 and Kinect is a good example of having a relevant HD console while also satisfying the casuals.

Regarding the originality, I would say these days Nintendo are actually being over-appreciated. Many of their games closely ascribe to formulas carved out generations ago, but simply because other developers don't offer exactly the same type of games they are still considered original. I guess I'm questioning how many conserved sequels are needed until a game series is no longer considered imaginative. Perhaps stale is a better term to use than unoriginal.

I just don't see why they can't challenge themselves to make a console both core and casual would like, rather than it usually being one or the other. Microsoft with the 360 and Kinect is a good example of having a relevant HD console while also satisfying the casuals.

Isn't that what they're trying with the Wii-U? Sure they could have made the Wii-U a technical powerhouse, but no true casual is going to spend £400-£500 just to play Wii-U fit. Making a console that is everything to two opposite ends of the gaming spectrum is easier said than done.

I can't say I've followed things too closely but it seems that third parties abandoned Nintendo this gen rather than the other way round. It's unfortunate games like GTA5 didn't make it to the Wii-U, but at least Nintendo has their own big 1st party games, not too mention a few other 3rd party exclusives. And anybody who thinks games like Mario 3D World and Wonderful 101 are just for "casuals" needs to slap themselves.

I've heard people say the Wii and Wii-U should have been more like Sony and Microsoft's consoles, less kiddy, more mature games, less Mario etc, new IPs, higher specs, 'regular' controllers, better online and so on. As it happens the XBox and Sony do all that pretty well, I'm not sure why they want Nintendo specifically to fulfil that particular demand. I have the perfect solution, why don't people just buy a Playstation or Xbox and write "Nintendo" on it, all of a sudden you know have a "hardcore" Nintendo console.

Well obviously they shouldn't have made the gamepad. And without the technical overhaul they weren't appealing to the core. In fact they didn't really appeal that well to either with this.

Again third parties leaving Nintendo is entirely Nintendo's fault. Nintendo did not reach out to devs to make their console suit them, nor did they power it enough to allow easy cross platform porting.

Kinda fitting that this interview with Next Level Games should show up on Gamasutra today

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/205707/Next_Level_Games_Working_with_Nintendo_making_a_studio_great_for_developers.php?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GamasutraNews+%28Gamasutra+News%29

It's a good read. Goes over some of the issues they had in expanding their team and how the rapid expansion they underwent during the late 2000s ended up damaging their internal culture (upon which they cut down their staff numbers and are now back down to around 70 members of staff; which they're much happier with)

Some choice quotes...

KY: It's funny. I said this on one of the previous interviews... People always talk about Nintendo as "Nintendo," this one big great entity. From a production standpoint, they've got tons of teams. And just like any other company out there that has multiple teams, they all actually can run very differently.

 

So the experience on this last project was very different than the previous three that I worked on, because the group, the creative and production group at Nintendo that we worked with was different than the previous three. So it was markedly different. The standard things that you have to deal with are cultural differences, way of working -- you know, the standard type of things. So it's just about getting in a good dance step with them.

 

**

 

Jason Carr: Yeah. When we first started the company, about 10 years ago, we worked on NHL Hitz for Midway, and it was a very arcadey kind of hockey game. Canadians don't mind working on hockey games, it's kind of in our blood.

 

All the stuff that we really focused on was very gameplay-centric; it wasn't massive RPG storytelling and all that. It was really what feels good in your hand, you know what I mean? Nintendo has a very similar approach. So definitely we like to make the same sort of games, so that's a good fit.

 

***

 

KY: When we work with them, it is strictly about the game, throughout the entire process. Obviously, on the production side, we have to talk about that. But the focus, when you're talking about the game is driven by the quality of the game, and what is cool, and what feels good, not how much money is this going to cost or how long is it going to take.

JC: We did get bigger for a while. We got up to four teams. We were about 115, 120 people. We spread ourselves way too thin. We had heard from other developer friends, "You need to have at least three teams -- that's the magic number, blah blah, blah," just from a financial perspective.

 

JC: Totally. All that sort of stuff. We just ended up making shitty games, really. We spread ourselves way too thin. It wasn't fun. I didn't know everyone's name anymore. We lost a little bit of that family kind of culture feel, so it wasn't great for us. Paring back down to a two team company... one and a half, whatever... 70 people, depends on the game, right? For some games these days, that's half of a company.

 

I have no real interest in growing. If we did grow it would be small and because we're working on products that need more people. And in a lot of cases, there's so much talent that's up in Vancouver we hire contract people in, and we can grow that way as well.

JC: We have worked with a lot of other companies before, and we're super happy with our relationship with Nintendo. There's no reason to look anywhere else. They keep giving us better and better IP to work with, and as long as we do our job and make good games for them there's no reason for us to venture out.

 

Because we're still a small shop. We're under 70 people. We like that size. For us, we're like, why would you want to go and talk with these other guys? What's it doing for your business? The guys in the company are just really, really proud of the company and proud of the games they work on.

And for a lot of guys, when they come to work, they're fresh, they're immersed in it, they're excited by it. They want to come to work -- they're not dragged in. It's worked out really, really well. And it's the kind of place where people want to stay -- not all the time, but when they're there, they're happy.

 

Again, another Miyamoto-san quote, but he always asks us, "Is the team having fun? Are they having fun making the game?" It's really important that the team's enjoying themselves there, because they feel -- and I agree -- that if you're miserable it'll follow suit in your job. How are you supposed to make an engaging Nintendo game that's actually fun? We don't do the gimmicky stuff that you hear a lot.

 

JC: Yeah. And don't get me wrong. We have the odd late night here and there, and finally, it's still video games. [but] we're not set up to incent people just to stay and demand long hours.

 

KY: It's over the long term, what we've built. When I come into the company, the reason I was brought in was more about that, to help establish. They had a vision of the culture, what the culture was that they wanted the company to be about. I think we take care of people, more so.

So yeah, it just goes to show that it's not just about increasing your production capacity through a brute force hiring spree or just working with as many different companies as possible on your one project, it's about finding developers who will want to stick with you for the long term and establishing lasting relationships with them. This is why NLG has stuck with Nintendo for over a decade and has no desire to go elsewhere, unlike the likes of Silicon Knights who didn't have the same outlook on the industry as Nintendo and didn't want to follow the same path as them.

It's also why Nintendo does not do M&A for the most part because there's no point in doing so if the company culture of the developer in question does not match Nintendo's own; the staff will just up and leave, with nothing but an empty husk being left over. Letting Rare, Left Field, Silicon Knights and Factor 5 go was the right decision (as much as it pains me to say as I loved their games back then) and history has proven that to be the case.

Nintendo's approach to 3rd party relations is one of establishing long term relationships. Their partners are ones who Nintendo have worked closely with for a long time. Look at Tecmo-Koei for instance; they started getting chummy with them all the way back in 2008 when they helped revive the Project Zero series with Project Zero 4 (the issues with localisation being set aside for the moment - since it was actually Tecmo's reluctance to fix game breaking bugs that was the main cause there) and ever since, Nintendo and Tecmo (now Tecmo-Koei - that's two for the price of one for Nintendo there!) have continued to collaborate on many subsequent projects and Nintendo have continued to earn the grand majority of T-K's games onto their consoles - with their latest grab being the upcoming Hyrule Warriors.

Same goes with many other developers like Skip, Prope and Chunsoft (now Spike Chunsoft) - in particular Nintendo have been getting especially chummy with them as of late and their parent company Dwango (who owns the NicoNico Douga video service - Nintendo bought a 2% stake in them only just a few months back, watch this space here!) - Monster Games and more.

It's not that they don't do anything, it's just that they take a different approach to MS and Sony that is compatible with their own company culture and their desired path to take for the industry's future.