This editorial was done as a direct response to the "editorial" written by Stephen Hopkins. I have used the same article offered in his editorial. It can be found at http://gamersmark.com/editorials/view/140.
Nintendo president Satoru Iwata recently did an interview with BBC news online. In this interview, he offers some perspective on what lies ahead for Nintendo and the video game industry as a whole.
Some may question the validity of the claims offered by Iwata and Nintendo as a whole given their less than stellar position in the current "console war". However, Nintendo probably knows the industry as well as anyone else, given that they easily have the longest tenure in the console industry. Furthermore, despite having the worst selling console, they manage to gross the most money and dominate the handheld industry. Seeing as the main focus of the interview is the handheld industry, Nintendo and their president are in an excellent position to offer commentary.
Nintendo has one of the longest tenures in the industry, but they haven’t been doing anything correct in the console business in over a decade. If this were 1984 or 1990, they would be the correct people to talk to about the state of the industry. In todays world, however, Nintendo is the last company you would want to talk to concerning the industry. They are not in touch with the average, adult gamer. They do not understand the importance of online gaming. They do not understand the importance of consoles that do more than play games. They do not understand the importance of deep, complex and challenging games. They believe quick, shallow and simple games, fun for all ages, is what the market wants. That’s fine, for Nintendos market. And that is what Iwata should be discussing, Nintendos market, because Nintendos market differs pretty widely from the other two consoles.
One of the most shocking of his predictions is that people would tire of games given their current direction. Many may see this as a feeble attempt to complain that Nintendo is no longer the head of the industry, but the point is valid. The fact of the matter is that we are quickly approaching the technological limit in the traditional sense. Games like Team Ninja’s Ninja Gained achieve graphics close enough to be mistaken with reality. Given the vast capabilities of the current hardware, it’s a logical assumption that such graphics will soon become common place.
If Mr. Hopkins believes Gaidens graphics can be mistaken with reality, he clearly needs his eyes checked. We are a long ways off from reaching the peak of what technology can offer. As high on innovation as Nintendo claims to be, I would think they would keep their mouths shut and keep churning out "innovative" titles no matter how high-end the current medium is. Consoles aren’t even as good as PC’s yet, and PC’s still have a ways to go for graphics that can be mistaken for reality. Iwata and Nintendo are simply wrong here.
With this, the gaming industry will be met with a frightening prospect that it has never met. What next? Since the humble beginnings of Pong, gaming has followed a logical progression. First it was developing complexity in 2D games, next it was moving gaming out of costly arcades into people’s homes. Next was establishing highly advanced 2D software. After that it was inevitable that gaming would move into the third dimension. But what after that realm has been perfected? That is what Nintendo is trying to figure out. It took nearly 30 years to go from Pong to the SNES, but it has taken less than a decade to go from the primitive blocky graphics of the Sega Saturn to the photo-realism of the Xbox.
Photo-realism, haha. 3-D graphics have not been perfected yet, and won’t be for years. What next? Graphics aren’t the only things that have been improving with each generation, so have games. As technology gets better and better, the chances for innovation are higher and higher. You can do things now with games people could only dream about 10 years ago. Who is Nintendo to say the same won’t be true in another ten years?
One note of interest is that Nintendo led (thus far) the only successful tangent from traditional console gaming, and industry which now is more popular and widespread than consoles, portable gaming. As 2D was reaching it’s plateau, Nintendo decided to take a chance and attempt to move gaming wherever the gamer went with its Gameboy. The rest is history, as now well over ten million people enjoy a Gameboy Advance, the latest iteration of this hardware and quite possibly the pinnacle of 2D gaming.
I wouldn’t think a console with mostly ports from older consoles would be a "pinnacle" of anything. The portable market is one thing, the traditional market is another. Iwata spoke of nothing but the console market in his interview. It will be interesting to see how people react to Sony’s entry in the handheld market and if they can smother another Nintendo dominated business.
Nintendo recently joined Sony in taking the next obvious step, moving 3D to the portable realm. However, Nintendo isn’t simply make a 3D portable system, they’re attempting to innovate the industry once again by providing two screens rather than one. Along with the extra screen comes voice recognition and a new stylus for the bottom screen.
Yes, because afterall, none of us has ever used voice recognition, and the Dreamcast didn’t have the same dual-screen innovation with the VMU in the controller. Slapping something onto a handheld console that has been in traditional gaming for years is not innovation.
At a passing thought, these innovations may seem negligible. After all, how much difference can another screen, a stylus and voice recognition make? But what is intriguing about these additions is that they can be used for both complexity and simplicity. Two screens could be used to double the amount of data a players brain must process quickly, and with voice recognition, one may have to talk out their challenges as well. This is obviously much more complex than focusing on a single goal and only having to press a few buttons to get there. On the other side of the coin, a second screen may merely display additional information to help the help player along. The stylus could be used to shorten tedious processes such as navigating menus and typing in information. Voice recognition could also save players lots of hassle by simply asking for the information they need, rather than scrolling though endless menus. This offers the DS something which no system has ever really had (or needed up to this point, as a new one could be released to adjust) adaptability. Should the market become more complex, developers can produce highly complex games on the DS. If the market returns to its roots, the DS can be used as a very simple system.
Of course voice recognition is going to make a game less complex. Complex isn’t even the right word, tedious is a more correct term. Without needing to go to a menu or press a button combination to get a teammate to do something because you can simply tell them to do it would require much less time and repetition. Two screens would do nothing but make the game more simple as well. Instead of pausing for a moves list in a fighter it can display it on the second screen. Show extra plays in a sports title. Just like the VMU years ago. The DS will all come down to how developers use it and if the support the GBA is getting is any indication, developers aren’t going to care. Unless their name is Nintendo.
But what is the point in predicting the gaming industry in a decade if Nintendo won’t be around to see it? Nintendo recently dispelled rumors of its demise by confirming that their next console codenamed "Revolution" would be present at next year’s E3. Many have rightfully accused Nintendo of being slow to react to the change in media devices from cartridges to disks, but Nintendo’s refusal to become part of the online revolution is predictable. I will be covering why this is in a future editorial, and do not have time to delve further into it now, but let me say that Nintendo has some very good reasons for avoiding the online market at the moment. Nintendo is not anti-technology. The Gamecube has first party games just as complex and pretty as the Xbox, but they also offer variety.
Nintendo is slow to get with the times in multiple areas, but thats already been covered.
It’s undeniable that that the gaming industry is quickly maturing, and Nintendo is offering plenty of quality games to the older demograph, but still maintain a focus on the younger generation. Some have taken this as a sign that Nintendo has failed to adjust to the changing climate of the gaming industry, and that this behavior is dooming the industry. It’s clear, however, that Nintendo is doing more to save the gaming industry than any other company. Right now, the gaming industry is rapidly alienating new gamers, younger ones in particular. In an era of controllers the size of bricks, and where almost half of the top 10 games are rated M, it would be damn near impossible for new gamers to break in if not for Nintendo. Back in the day, horse racing was the major sport of the time, but then it became so enveloped with betting that it completely alienated any young audience. Result is fifty years later no one gives a shit. If you don’t try to attract a new audience, then your medium will die.
Sorry to burst your bubble but plenty of people still care about horse racing. Comparing sports to videogames? There are plenty of games for the younger audience in todays market. How you or Nintendo believes they somehow know potential gamers aren’t buying games, is beyond me. For every GTA and Manhunt there is a Disney title or a "My Street". Nintendo isn’t the only company that caters to the younger crowd. And if all these mature games were alienating potential gamers, the logical assumption is that they would be flocking to Nintendo’s console, with its Fish Price joystick and treasure chest of simple games. But they aren’t. The average gamer is over 20, that is why most of the top 10 games are rated M. The industry has moved on, gamers are older. Younger people are still playing, they just aren’t the majority anymore, like they were in the SNES days.
Nintendo consistently dominates the under 13 demograph, and this is where Nintendo "fan-boys" are bred. They become attached to the impeccable quality associated with every game in the Mario, Metroid and Zelda series, and want to continue to enjoy these series. The fact of the matter is that Nintendo has lost almost all of its mainstream appeal in the US, and first party games alone are keeping the Gamecube going.
If I was to say this on the forums, I would be flamed.
One can already see the process of gamers returning the roots of gaming beginning. Simple games on the GBA that are relatively inexpensive to make outsell well crafted masterpieces like Ninja Gaiden that cost millions to produce. Furthermore, "retro" gaming is very in right, and ports of many classics outsell their more complex brothers from this generation.
The GBA also has many many more units sold than the XBox. That’s about as relevant as me saying gamers don’t care about Zelda or Mario or Metroid anymore, because Madden on PS2 outsold all of them on GCN. Also, of course ports are going to sell like hotcakes on the GBA. Aside from ports and crappy licensed shovelware, there is hardly anything on the GBA. Comparing the two console markets is stupid. As I said above, they are vastly different.
I think that in the end gamers will have a choice between complexity and simplicity, but both must survive in order for the gaming industry to survive. If you prefer complexity, great, but don’t fault Nintendo for offering an alternative.
I wasn’t complaining that Nintendo offers simplicity, they just shouldn’t try to tell me that simplicity is what I want. They are too far on the simplicity side of the spectrum.
