Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Games Entertainment

Bungie Vs. Miyamoto - Fight! 379

Last week Gamehead's Geoff Keighley interviewed Shigeru Miyamoto, and the well-known designer tossed off a mildly controversial comment. Keighley asked him if he felt as though he was losing touch with the American audience as a result of the popularity of games like Halo. GameDaily reports on Miyamoto's response: "I could make Halo. It's not that I couldn't design that game. It's just that I choose not to. One thing about my game design is that I never try to look for what people want and then try to make that game design. I always try to create new experiences that are fun to play." Bungie took exception to that, and Frank Connor retorted in his interview with Joystiq: "Yeah, well. I just want to go on the record and say that Bungie is hard at work on a side-scrolling platform game featuring some plumbers -- I'm not going to say what their ethnicity is, it's none of anyone's business -- but we took that as a gauntlet, a sort of glove slap, and we're going to respond in 2D scrolling style. That's all I'm saying." We discussed that article, along with several other pieces of Halo 3 coverage, this past Saturday.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bungie Vs. Miyamoto - Fight!

Comments Filter:
  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by j0nkatz ( 315168 ) <anon@memphisgEIN ... minus physicist> on Monday May 14, 2007 @12:39PM (#19115877) Homepage
    This this story is about trolling let me be the first to say HI!
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Detaer ( 562863 )
      Good thing Square wasn't mentioned, with their tight dev schedule it would be a shame for them to make anything but over inflated graphics demos you sort of "lead" through combat. /troll
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by teflaime ( 738532 )
      This this story is about trolling let me be the first to say HI!

      It's Hai!
    • Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)

      by ranjix ( 892606 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @03:46PM (#19119713)
      ok, since we are trolling here, let me tell you that the translation was a poor one. He originally said "I could make Duke Nukem Forever" but for some reason things here always get a microsoft spin..
  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday May 14, 2007 @12:39PM (#19115885) Homepage Journal
    Halo is not a revolutionary game by any stretch of the imagination. One could have had the same result trivially by starting with any of the common first person shooter engines, and working from there. The fact that the same is true of Super Mario Brothers, a game made years and years ago (an eternity in video game land) is not even interesting.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Halo isn't really even new. It's very much a lot like the game Marathon, only with better graphics and physics. In fact if you look at the design of the Master Chief, he bears a striking resemblance to the cy borg you play in Marathon. They even left the words SPNKR on the side of the rocket launcher, another Marathon weapon.
      • by OECD ( 639690 )

        They even left the words SPNKR on the side of the rocket launcher...

        Added them, actually. The graphics weren't good enough to show it in the original Marathon. It was shown in the accompanying booklet, IIRC.

        That said, I would totally love to see a Halo done side-scrolling style. That could be a hoot.

      • by ePhil_One ( 634771 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @01:51PM (#19117445) Journal
        Halo isn't really even new. It's very much a lot like the game Marathon, only with better graphics and physics.

        It is by and large Marathon 4/5/6, there's plenty of evidence it takes place in the same Universe, etc, and is only separated by a large amount of time. Since they also created Marathon, this isn't a huge shock. Marathon was groundbreaking mostly in that it brought an interesting storyline to a FPS game, other than that it was really Mac;s answer to Doom. Of course, Doom was just a revampled Castle Wolfenstien 3-D, which was a 3-D version of an old Apple II game, which probably traced its roots back to the old Bezerker game (which never bothered to explain why you were in a maze running from deadly robots), which probably draws inspiration from an old movie, which was inspired by an old story, which was...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, 2007 @01:02PM (#19116385)
      I'd say that Pikmin was pretty original (a modern Miyamoto creation). Not to mention that SMB, much like Donkey Kong, Zelda, and a lot of other Nintendo properties were original when they were created.

      Speaking ill of a legend like Miyamoto is not something I would do, and I think the guy at Bungie comes off a little arrogant for doing so.

      Disclaimer: The last Nintendo console I bought was an SNES, so I don't think I could be counted as a Nintendo fanboy.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Disclaimer: The last Nintendo console I bought was an SNES, so I don't think I could be counted as a Nintendo fanboy.

        Well you could just be looking at the question through the lens of nostalgia.
      • by omeomi ( 675045 )
        Speaking ill of a legend like Miyamoto is not something I would do, and I think the guy at Bungie comes off a little arrogant for doing so.

        It's not like this is a startling comment from Miyamoto. He's said similar things in the past, although perhaps not about a specific game. He's always been more of a proponent of "games the whole family can enjoy", and not a big fan of first person shooters. He's welcome to his opinions, as far as I'm concerned...they've served him well enough in the past.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by BeansBaxter ( 918704 )

        Speaking ill of a legend like Miyamoto is not something I would do, and I think the guy at Bungie comes off a little arrogant for doing so.

        Here is his job title.

        I lead a small writing department that does game script, combat dialog, some of the Marvel graphic novel, the comic book series, the books, the marketing, whatever. Anything that involves writing.

        So who cares if a writer from Bungie pokes fun at making a side scrolling game involving unknown ethnicity plumbers? I think it is freek'n hilarious and I only buy Nintendo systems so I'm a fan boy.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by aichpvee ( 631243 )
      Halo isn't even particularly good. The multiplayer is rather uninspired, filled with tiny levels, uninteresting weapons, a pitiful player cap, and run-of-the-mill game modes. The single player is simply horrid with some of the most lazy, pedestrian level design ever put in a game that lasted more than a week outside the bargain bin.

      The fact that Miyamoto, clearly one of the most inspired game designers to ever live, even bothered to compare his work to theirs should be more than they could ever want. Fro
      • *cough* Metroid? *cough*

        But seriously, Bungie does make very good games. The Marathon series is proof, and laid the groundwork for the likes of Half-Life.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 7Prime ( 871679 )
          Miyamoto has never had any dealings with Metroid... original series or Prime.

          And seriously, MP is NOT a first person shooter. It may technically fit the bill, but that's only a technicality. The types of skills it requires and the fanbase are nothing like Halo or Counterstrike. It's basically a sci-fi Zelda where the camera happens to be first person... One look at the tastes of its fanbase will cue you in.

          Here's a clue, if something's commonly called "the first-person shooter for people who hate first-pers
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      It's true, and the reason Halo has become so widely popular is because it's x-box platform release and simple controls/interface has made it more easily accessable to a larger and more diverse audience than superior (or regarded by critics as such) PC FPS games.

      It's a similar situation to the Final Fantasy franchise, more specifically FF 7. While everybody and their sister who grew up in the 90's will swear that FF 7 was the greatest RPG ever made, they probably never even heard of Baulders Gate, Fallout, o

      • by arodland ( 127775 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @01:20PM (#19116781)
        Actually I suspect that most people who care about RPGs not only have heard of Baldur's Gate, but can actually spell it.
      • by 7Prime ( 871679 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @01:32PM (#19117027) Homepage Journal
        Different genre. There are really two different RPG genres out there and they have almost COMPLETELY different fanbases. Trying to compare the two is really absurred. I'm not particularly defending FF7 here (I think it's highly overrated, myself... although I am a fan of the rest of the series).

        Where you might say, "Think FF7 is a real RPG? Try playing Baulder's Gate or Nethack", I might say, "Think FF7 is a real RPG? Try playing Tales of the Abyss or Ar Tonelico". Seriously, we're talking apple's and oranges here.

        East vs. West, Console vs. PC, RPG vs. jRPG... each side takes a different spin on tabletop gaming... jRPGs concentrate on the story element, western RPGs capitalize on non-linearity. Whichever you think works better is up to the audience.

        I personally would fall asleep 10 minutes into Baulder's gate. Ar Tonelico might make you do the same.
        • East vs. West, Console vs. PC, RPG vs. jRPG... each side takes a different spin on tabletop gaming... jRPGs concentrate on the story element, western RPGs capitalize on non-linearity. Whichever you think works better is up to the audience.

          Excellent observation.

          And for what it's worth, I'd like to point out that popularity is a pretty complex issue. We seem to operate under the assumption that it's some kind of direct relationship to quality or some other simplistic explanation (e.g. like how good the controls are). The modern narrative about popularity when it comes to art is that blockbusters are kind of mundane and inoffensive with enough explosions/sex/(pick your easily reproduced element to look down on) while the *real* talent shows up in indie/niche creations that you have to be intelligent/free-thinking/(pick your vaguely cool counter-cultural trait) enough to really get.

          And while I'll agree that Creed and Nickelback basically suck, the Beatles and Pink Floyd were really good. So sometimes the popular stuff really is good, and sometimes the niche stuff really isn't (no example here: not looking for a flamewar).

          FWIW, Halo is my favorite game of all time on any system. From NES, Sega, SNES, PS, XBOX, GC, Wii, 360 (consoles I've played) and over a decade of PCs, I prefer Halo. Why? The story. Just visit ILoveBees.com and you'll get a glimpse of the thought and talent that goes into the world creation. Does this have anything to do with how popular the game is? There's no way to know. Did they get the gameplay just right? Hit the market at just the right time? Was the story good enough to develop an initial core of fans who pushed the game to the frat boys that made it a blockbuster? We'll never know, in my opinion, and the only lesson is that oversimplifying popularity is for fanbois and trolls.

          Now go listen to "Indier than Thou."
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by 7Prime ( 871679 )
            Bingo. Sometimes things are popular because they appeal to the lowest common denominator, and sometimes things are popular because they're good. But many times, the popular things that are good are NOT popular because they're good... they're popular because of something else, but they just happen to be good, too. Beattles or Radiohead for instance (take your pick, they both follow similar paths), both started out as pretty generic brit pop bands, that got popular simply because they gave the audience exactl
      • I'm sure the X box is part of it, but Halo is just a great game, whatever platform we're talking about- I played it on the PC. No, Halo isn't original. The one man army against an overwhelming force has been done hundreds of times in video games, alien invasion is one of the most clichéd scenarios out there, the alien force is ripped off from Bungie's own Marathon series, the ring structure is ripped off from Ringworld, and the Flood are basically just space zombies. So it's a walking cliché... bu
    • by jma05 ( 897351 )
      OK! Obligatory question. Was Donkey Kong revolutionary?
    • Halo is not a revolutionary game by any stretch of the imagination.

      True. Halo isn't a bad game per se, but it isn't very imaginative compared to the FPS coming out these days. When it came out a few years ago, it was quite interesting to a game that used a vehicle system not seen since Tribes.

      But these days, we've got games out the wazoo with vehicles and lots of fire power.

      However, games like Crysis [wikipedia.org] make me actually want to go out and buy a new computer just to play it while Halo 3 just looks like it is ju
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Bob-taro ( 996889 )
      Halo is not a revolutionary game by any stretch of the imagination.

      Not the graphics, or story, or control scheme, but as I understand it the physics engine was pretty advanced. I was following Halo 1 development and one of their mottos was "better gaming through physics". I was very disappointed when Bungie was bought by MS. I didn't play Halo until it came out for the PC and by then it was definitely nothing new. I just can't bring myself to play a FPS with a gamepad. I mean, that's just WRONG!

      • by iocat ( 572367 )
        Halo wasn't revolutionary in any area, except having best in class controls, graphics, story, multiplayer, VO, weapons, level design, physics, etc.

        No ONE element of Halo stands out against the competition, but Halo taken as a whole is a masterpiece, especially compared to what was available when it first shipped. Once that first game is the sweetness, people are into the franchise, and that's why we're talking about it still.

        • by Chosen Reject ( 842143 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @02:47PM (#19118515)
          What are you even talking about? I played Halo before I had even heard of any hype for it. I did it solo, and co-op. The ONLY thing I liked about it better than any other game I had played was the co-op. It wasn't that spectacular, it still isn't that spectacular. There is ONLY one thing that make it so big, and that is the hype. I know people who will prattle on about it forever like it was God's gift to mankind. They can never tell me what's good about it. Every time they try I tell them about lots of other games that have what they are talking about. You want story, go to Half-Life, you want multi-player, see Counter-Strike. You might say that Halo combined those two, but I would say that when you are playing Halo for story, you are not playing multi-player and vice versa, so that point is irrelevant.

          The graphics on Halo suck. At the time Halo 1 was getting really popular I got into a discussion about the graphics with a roommate. He was comparing Jedi Outcast at 1600x1200 with Halo at 640x480 and saying that Halo was better. This is the kind of mentality that most Halo fans have. To them, Halo is "Just Better(TM)." I had to just ignore him, as I've had to do with everyone else who says anything about Halo's graphics being good at all. Jedi Outcast was not even trying to be a graphics power house, it was running off an old engine and it still looked better with a Radeon 7200.

          Level Design? My goodness, man, what are you smoking. Have you even played the library level? After about two minutes you don't even know which direction you're going, which direction you came from, and you can't even count how many times you've seen the exact same stuff over and over again and again. The maps on the ships aren't much better. Sure there are big areas outdoors, but those are repetitive as well, they just don't feel like it when compared to the monotony you just sustained from every indoor environment.

          I don't know how the control scheme compares with other console FPS, but I didn't think it was all that great. It was fine, but the only thing I thought even worth mentioning about it was that you could throw a grenade without having to switch to that weapon. I won't get into a comparison between control schemes for PC-based and console-based games, because that's been done, and is somewhat irrelevant to why Halo was popular on a console, but there wasn't anything special about the controls.

          Multi-player is kind of hard to judge. There are lots of games that have better. Comparing time played, as of right now, Counter-Strike has over 5 billion minutes of play logged each month. Adding in CS:S and CS:CZ nets closer to 7.5 billion minutes each month. Since it's inception, Xbox live has logged a total of 2.3 billion hours, or to put it in similar units, 138 billion minutes. Let's be generous and pretend that Halo 2 accounted for every last minute (Halo 1 wasn't on Xbox Live so we can't include it). It would take Counter-Strike 18 months to equal that. IOW, one game does in 18 months what an entire service does in 72. Yet we don't have Counter-strike in the headlines every couple of days do we?

          That's somewhat off-topic however. The thing Halo has going for it, I conjecture, might be that it has no bots. People are forced to play with others if they are going to do it at all. But then you'd be crazy to play it on the same box. You get 640x480 divided by 4. A whopping 320x240 in all of its interlaced glory. I did that once, every one talked about how cool it was. I was too busy trying to adjust my eyes to being able to see what I was even looking at. I must say that I enjoyed my time despite the screen size, but that's called a party. It wasn't because of Halo. I would have had a much more enjoyable experience playing UT, Trackmania, or any other game where we each have our own screen, or where the screen is shared more efficiently, such as Wii sports or something. I hate to be a poor sport, but the reason we have Halo stories all the time is beca
    • by rjung2k ( 576317 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @03:00PM (#19118767) Homepage
      "Halo is not a revolutionary game by any stretch of the imagination... The fact that the same is true of Super Mario Brothers, a game made years and years ago (an eternity in video game land) is not even interesting."

      True, but the difference is that Super Mario Bros. was revolutionary when it was first introduced, as evident by the numerous SMB clones that followed in its wake. I'm hard-pressed to think of a popular game that played like SMB before SMB was introduced.

      Halo, on the other hand, was just the latest iteration of a long line of FPS inspired by Doom and Wolfenstein 3D.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Blakey Rat ( 99501 )
        Halo, on the other hand, was just the latest iteration of a long line of FPS inspired by Doom and Wolfenstein 3D.

        But that's not to say it's not very, very influential. Look at how many post-Halo games restrict you to a realistic amount of weapons? Look at how many post-Halo games have a 'recharging' HP mechanism of some sort. Not to mention, Halo was the first game to really, really, truly nail down vehicle physics.

        Halo isn't a revolutionary game in the ecosystem of "all videogames." In the ecosystem of "fi
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by bryan1945 ( 301828 )
          I think the word you want is "evolutionary". Refining things like how many weapons you can carry (say Resident Evil with it's 6 item inventory bag) is not revolutionary. Don't know about the HP charging, so this may be revolutionary. Changing aspects of a genre is not revolutionary, normally. If the new aspect completely reworks how you approach and play the game, then yes, but for the most part the improvement just evolve how the genre works.

          Disclaimer- I have not played Halo a lot.
  • Not news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @12:46PM (#19116051) Journal
    Stuff like this belongs in drivel like "Hello" and over celebrity gossip magazines, NOT Slashdot.

    It has no merit what so ever.
    • by RingDev ( 879105 )
      Oh come on now, it was funny in that 'look at the retards fighting on the internet' way. That counts for something, right?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      So, since you don't like it, it doesn't belong here? Since its already got a couple hundred comments, I think others would disagree. If you don't like it, why bother reading it and commenting on it? Just move on next time.
  • Lost in transaltion (Score:5, Informative)

    by HappySqurriel ( 1010623 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @12:46PM (#19116053)
    This story is "old" (as in a couple of days) and from what I have seen the general consensus is that what Miyamoto said was poorly translated and taken out of context.

    Essentially, when Miyamoto said he could "make Halo" what he meant was "He could make a game like Halo" ...

    I could be wrong but I think Miyamoto was saying he makes the games he does because they're the kinds of games he wants to make; he is not influenced by the popularity of a genre or series to attempt to make games like them.

  • by Swordsmanus ( 921213 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @12:48PM (#19116091) Homepage
    If Miyamoto has heard Connor's "retort", I'm sure he laughed. Connor could be taken seriously if he said he was coming up with something new and fun that will sell just as well as Halo. Instead he said he intends to make something that he already knows people want, by implying he's going to copy Miyamoto's years-old idea, Super Mario Bros. Given the sales of New Super Mario Bros., I don't blame him. But he reaffirmed Miaymoto's comment, not countered it.
  • by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @12:50PM (#19116123)
    Bungie was compromised after Microsoft bought it out. Microsoft's design theory is to copy everyone else, re-package it as something brand new, and get it right in version three.
  • by Anarchysoft ( 1100393 ) <anarchy@anarchy s o f t .com> on Monday May 14, 2007 @12:52PM (#19116181) Homepage
    I played Halo and Halo 2 to completion and I don't understand why they are held up as excellent FPS games. They were good, but I don't recall a single innovation and even where they were good, they were not great. The original Half-life, FarCry, Deus Ex and several others were much better. That's totally just an opinion and it doesn't mean much, but I'd like to know why Halo is considered by a fairly large population to be a great game. Perhaps more useful: would they have been considered great games if they were released on the PC but not the XBox?
    • I played them also, good games, but not breakthrough games, What I find MORE interesting about Halo is the whole back story and universe continuity that has been created for Halo. While the games are OK to play, I find reading about the fictional universe even more interesting.
    • by Canthros ( 5769 )
      Halo, at least, is very polished. The interface is a bit stripped down and the controls simplified to facilitate playing on a console, but the gameplay is very smooth and well-refined, at least in the single player portion. The story was nice (not great, but nice), the graphics were very good for the day, and the gameplay, as I said, very polished and refined. Because it was designed for a console, the interface and interaction are simpler, and the depth of gameplay doesn't stack up well in my memory to, sa
      • Because it was designed for a console

        Halo was designed for the PC. It was dumbed down to console level when MS purchased Bungie.
        • re-designed, not dumbed down. Halo started out as a RTS/3rd person shooter for the mac. It was fundamentally changed at least twice in it's twisted development cycle. (From 3rd to 1st person, then from desktop to console)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      For me, it's the multiplayer. It's easier to get some of your boys and their XBox's together on 2-3 tv's than a LAN party where you have to tote around a PC or worry over a laptop. Setup and takedown are faster on a console.

      Gameplay is relatively easy, cheating is minimal, and there are TONS of customizable options to set up whatever competition you want to do easily (the BIGGEST bonus).
      • You're right on that. Besides being one of the first console FPS that was comfortably playable, it was one of the first console games with a really well designed and integrated online play. That aspect was mostly old news to much of the PC gaming crowd, but it was definitely a big step for consoles.
    • by Knuckles ( 8964 ) <knuckles@danti a n .org> on Monday May 14, 2007 @01:23PM (#19116857)
      but I'd like to know why Halo is considered by a fairly large population to be a great game

      It came out for the Xbox and found a large population of teens that never had played another FPS.
      • Well, duh. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mattgreen ( 701203 )
        What should they have played? Doom? Quake? Your favorite FPS game? But what difference would it have made? What happened is gaming went mainstream, and Halo is one of the titles that did it. It was lucky, but it is a solid title on its own. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out, but somehow, this discussion comes up every time Halo is discussed here. I don't think people really want to discuss it, but rather complain to an audience that is likely to identify with their gaming angst. It is as if there
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by grumbel ( 592662 )
      Halo added the automatic recharging shild to the FPS genre, so no more collecting health packs, it also added a realistic limit on how many weapons you can carry, vehicles and separate buttons for melee attacks and grenades, thus making them actually usable instead of rotting in your inventory as in so many games before. It also was also a very important title for console network gaming and had a nice original setting (no WWII, no hell with monster). You might not like Halo and I am not a big fan of it eith
  • by mjbinon ( 1099409 )
    What did he say that's supposedly so controversial? He spoke the truth, nothing more.

    All but the most diehard fanboys will admit that Halo was never anything truly revolutionary, but rather just a so-so generic sci-fi FPS that just happened to come out for hotly hyped up-and-coming new console. The first game suffered from HORRIBLE interior design and bland gameplay, and the second had a nearly-universally decried terrible ending.

    If not for the fact that the Halo series succeeded so well in making t
  • Interesting comments from Bungie, considering one of their early projects was porting the side-scrolling platform game Abuse [wikipedia.org] to the Mac...
    • one of [Bungie's] early projects was porting the side-scrolling platform game Abuse to the Mac...

      Now that would make for one badass Mario!

  • by _bug_ ( 112702 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @12:58PM (#19116281) Journal
    Halo is like the Porsche 911 [wikipedia.org]. The next incarnation will feature a few new tricks to give the die-hards something to talk about, but to the average Joe they just look like the same thing over and over. If you've played one Halo you know what the experience is going to be like for all the others. It's just being tweaked a bit here and there to improve the performance.

    Bungie is the Porsche of the gaming world.

    Miyamoto seems to look for something new with each game. Trying to find new ways to engage the user. He comes at each one with a flair and a passion. He's not doing the same thing over and over. Some games work. Some don't. But you do have a wide variety of games to choose from that caters to your particular interests.

    Miyamoto (Nintendo) is the Ferrari of the gaming world.

    Rounding out the analogy Blizzard is the TVR [wikipedia.org] of the gaming world. Love-it or hate-it design, completely insane and riddled with problems, yet you can't help but keep playing.
    • I think you have a very poor analogy on your hands. Cars are as different from video games as they are from movies and books.

      It's even less appropriate considering we've been producing cars, books and movies a lot longer than video games. Repetition with slight variation is not enough to make a "great" game this stage.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Miyamoto is Da Vinci to Bungie's Bob Ross - both do excellent work, and while Bungie has much better hair, Miyamoto's work is more varied.
    • by Sciros ( 986030 )
      Nah bro TEAM NINJA (Ninja Gaiden, DOA) is the TVR of the gaming world. Blizzard is so popular, it's more like Toyota.
  • It sounds like that he's really trying to say is that he doesn't want to change his style just to please a particular audience. It doesn't sound to me like he's saying Halo is poorly made or easy to pull off, but that he won't make games like that because it's not his thing.
  • by orclevegam ( 940336 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @01:04PM (#19116437) Journal

    All the game companies are good at certain things, it's just that the markets are reflective of what each company is basing their priorities on.

    Microsoft was intialy trying to make the X-Box into a platform to try to force the convergence of console and PC gaming. Later when it became clear that they were really on to something with X-Box Live, they switched tactics and focused on providing top shelf online content (although the latest half hearted attempt to bring Live to Vista bodes poorly for Microsofts learning abilities).

    Sony on the other hand has always been focused primarily on graphics performance. Yes they had some good games, but nothing ever revolutionary, but pretty and often fun. The primary hallmark of the Playstation platform is a shotgun approach to game development. They make as many games as they can, throw them out there and see what sticks. This approach can lead to some very good games, but also leads to some very very bad games. The primary failing of Sony is in not providing any new innovation in the latest generation of consoles. The Playstation 3 was positioned to be a multimedia convergence device, but so far the market for said devices has proved to be rather poor, and what little there is is primarily dominated by inexpensive PCs. The good news for Sony is that historically the Playstation consoles really only hit their stride after a year or two on the market, so it has the potential to outperform the competition in terms of raw power. There is also some rumbling of Sony taking online content more seriously, although whether or not they can provide a credible challenge to Live remains to be seen.

    The last player on the market, and the most relevant to this article is Nintendo. Nintendo realized a long time ago that fun games, and innovative systems will out sell fancy graphics. A clear cut example of this is the origional Gameboy versus the graphically superior Gamegear. The Gamegear had a color screen and more processing power, but was more expensive, slightly bulkier, and was much more demanding on power (which resulted in it eating batteries left and right, I should know, I had one). Nintendo has always been middle of the road in terms of graphics and processing power, but what has set them aside has traditionally been their willingness to try new and innovative controls and games. Sometimes this has hurt them, and they have made more than a few products that failed spectactularly (Virtualboy anyone?), but on the other hand they have released a number of products that show some genuine innovation. I think the relative failure of the Gamecube served as a wakeup call to Nintendo, they realized that they weren't able to compete on graphics and if they were going to survive they needed to embrace the creative aspects of their game and console design more fully (prior to the DS and Wii most Nintendo products were less daring in departure from the norm of console gaming). It will be interesting to see if Nintendo can pull off the online portion of the gaming puzzle (which will be critical for all three consoles) sufficiently to keep Wii ahead of X-Box 360 and Playstation 3, of if they will fumble it and have to settle for second place.

    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      Actually from what I heard the GC had better graphics performance than the PS2. I could be wrong but the GC, PS2, and the Dreamcast all look close to me in graphics performance.
      I think that the GC suffered more from that fact that the N64 ended up loosing to the PS1 then anything having to do with performance. That and the infatuation with "adult" content games. When you think of Games for the PS2 people in the US tend to think of things like GTA. When people think of Games for the GC people think of Mario.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Dwedit ( 232252 )
      Game Boy (4.194MHz "GB-Z80") actually had more processing power than the Game Gear (3.58MHz Z80). This is true even after factoring in that Game Boy instruction timings are rounded up to the nearest 4 cycles.
  • by u-bend ( 1095729 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @01:08PM (#19116527) Homepage Journal
    Wow, he really comes off as downright peevish, no? I mean, even if Miyamoto's comment wasn't out of context, and he meant exactly what he said, the response turns out feeling really childish. Get a grip, dude. Your game's *really* popular. Just because somebody else says he wouldn't make it, doesn't mean you need to get your panties in a twist. And then, as a previous poster says, he basically affirms Miyamoto by saying he's going to copy an old design. Huh. I guess his PR fluffer didn't have him ready.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Osty ( 16825 )

      Wow, he really comes off as downright peevish, no? I mean, even if Miyamoto's comment wasn't out of context, and he meant exactly what he said, the response turns out feeling really childish.

      Holy crap! It was a joke, people. A joke! He was essentially saying that they don't care, and was having a little bit of fun with it, having a little bit of fun with people like you who take this crap so seriously.

      Frankie is the guy who draws Mister Chief [wikipedia.org] as a parody of Master Chief. He's the guy who usually do

  • by aztektum ( 170569 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @01:08PM (#19116543)
    I would imagine Miyamoto's games do appeal to a more broad audience. I have a hard time imagining my parents playing Halo for any period of time. However, they did sit and take a stab at Mario back when I got my NES (which I still have).

    Bungie's response sounds like, "Oh yeah well... You're a poopy head!" Given cultural differences and the possibility of a hokey translation, I wouldn't take this as a slam. Just another persons opinion.

    Sounds like Bungie has been an MS company for too long. If it's not the MS way, it's wrong, you suck. Look out, flying chair!
    • by MS-06FZ ( 832329 )

      Bungie's response sounds like, "Oh yeah well... You're a poopy head!" Given cultural differences and the possibility of a hokey translation, I wouldn't take this as a slam. Just another persons opinion.

      Well, to Bungie, Halo isn't just some 3-D FPS out there, a game that happens to sell quite well. They made it - and it's done damn well. Design decisions that may seem unimportant to outsiders are issues that must have been the subject of a lot of careful consideration within the development group. For someone to write all that off as pandering to the audience is a bit of an insult.

      Personally, I think Miyamoto was just saying that he's not out to specifically create popular games - games that sell large

  • by Gogo0 ( 877020 )
    Im sure that with all the rabid halo/anti-nintendo kids on the net, the bungie mario bros clone will be better than any mario game.
    Mario is for kids, bungie games arent -and all that.

    It also seems kind of unbalanced.
    Miyamoto claiming he can make something like a complicated "next-gen" fps, and bungie guy claiming he can make something like an uncomplicated-by-design sidescroller that could be just as easily done on an NES.
    yeah, i would take that challenge too.
    • by nomadic ( 141991 ) *
      Im sure that with all the rabid halo/anti-nintendo kids on the net,

      Uhhh...huh? The pro-Nintendo crowd vastly outnumbers the anti-nintendo crowd on the net right now.
  • by Rakishi ( 759894 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @01:39PM (#19117199)
    I mean how else can you take that comment except that Bungie owned themselves. They essentially admitted that the best they could do as a response is to remake a 20 (?) year old game that's been remade more time than I could even count. I mean who in god's name responds to being called unoriginal by saying they will do something unoriginal.

    I mean it's like watching some idiot try to debate online.
  • by Sciros ( 986030 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @01:45PM (#19117333) Journal
    Psh! *I* can make Halo. I can probably make Halo with an added-in gatling gun that fires ninja bees.

    Miyamoto is talking small potatoes here with his "I can make Halo" boast. Miyamoto can probably make Ocarina of Time if he tries hard enough.
  • I'm no fanboy (owned consoles from multiple companies each generation) but I think the Bungie team is getting their panties in a bunch over nothing.

    Miyamoto never said Halo was bad, nor did he ever say that it wasn't a great game. He simply said that he could have made it, but chose not to. He wasn't necessarily refering to Halo SPECIFICALLY, what (IMHO) he meant was he makes his games the way that he thinks they should be made, which is not always based on what the public wants or thinks they want. He
  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @01:52PM (#19117473)
    I read this as.. Bungle vs Miamoto.

    I hope Zippy and George get to kick some ass too.

    Any Brits will know what I'm talking about.
  • by MaWeiTao ( 908546 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @02:13PM (#19117825)
    I completely understand both Nintendo and Bungie's position. They're in the business of selling games and they need to come off as confident about what they do. Some of these guys have too big an ego and deserve to be taken down a few notches, but the fact remains that they do need to convey a certain level of confidence.

    I'll start by pointing out that I'd choose almost any game Nintendo has produced over Halo or anything else Bungie has developed. That said, I don't think Nintendo is the pinnacle of innovation like some incessantly claim. I like Nintendo's games not because they're innovative but because they're fun as hell. Nintendo knows what's fun almost better than anyone else. They know how to make a game that's balanced and engaging.

    But to call their games innovative is a stretch. The DS and Wii both have unique control devices, and I agree that some level of innovation was involved. However, I see both more as evolutions of the mouse and I think many of the games available for those platforms reflect that. Many of these feel like glorified Flash games.

    In fact, one of the reasons I like Nintendo is because of a sense of familiarity. Super Mario Bros, Mario Kart, Pokemon, etc don't really provide any innovation over past games, but I like that. I know what to expect and I know it's going to be good. If we're going to start looking at innovative games I think the best console to look at is the PS2. That system has countless innovative games some of which have even spurred the development of new genres.

    I think this is an important point because ultimately the implication behind Miyamoto's comment is that Halo is not innovative; it's a game anyone could make if they felt like it. Well, anyone could make that argument about anything Nintendo has made. Developing a good FPS isn't something that can just be cobbled together on a whim. Hell, Nintendo didn't even develop their own FPS, Metroid Prime. They had Retro Studios develop that game. So apparently, for one reason or another, they couldn't do it themselves even if they wanted to.

    I myself don't think Halo is anything special, in terms of gameplay anyway. But I will give them credit where it's due. One thing they did well is presentation. The game is well-paced and presents a story that's involving. And it provides a pleasant contrast to most other FPSs which are mono-chromatic and bland, at least visually. Bungie offered an FPS that didn't involve blasting demons, gang members or nazis.

    Perhaps anyone could make Halo, but the fact is that nobody else did. Just like anyone could make a Wiimote but nobody else did.
  • I've never been into FPS. I've played Doom, Quake, and a few others, and I came to the conclusion that I suck at them. Halo may be popular with some people, but that crowd isn't the target market for main course of Wii games. Um, is Halo popluar compared to any game played with a deck of cards? Not really. I like video games as much as the next person, but really I have to admit that games like Halo aren't popular. Games like Tetris are popular. My mom, my wife and my kids will all happily play tetris and a
  • by johncadengo ( 940343 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @03:22PM (#19119165) Homepage
    I lot of people are pointing out that Frank mistook Miyamoto's comment.

    I think a lot of people are mistaking Frank's comment. It doesn't seem like he's retorting, as people put it, but instead making a sly-sarcastic remark. He not affirming Miyamoto's point (that he just finds what people like and makes that), he's replying to Miyamoto's remark (I can make Halo, but choose not to) with his own remark: I could('ve) made Mario, but choose not to.

    Yes, he states, "We are hard at work on a side-scrolling platform game..." But we know he's not. It's obviously a joke. He could be hard at work on that side-scroller, but he chooses not to. He's hard at work on Halo. And that's that.
  • // Step off, bitch.
    bool isMoreBaddassThanShiggy(Developer *dev)
        return false;
  • If he made an FPS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Captain Spam ( 66120 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @05:24PM (#19121467) Homepage
    Well, of course Miyamoto could make Halo. It's an FPS. Follow them back to History. getMisterIKnowMoreOldGamesThanYou(). getOldestFPSInMemory() and trace them forward through Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, Unreal, and Halo, and you can pick out a fairly predictable evolutionary pattern. More graphics, "cooler" weapons, advance the engine a bit, make it more badass, good, print it, you've got a new FPS. That's not how Miyamoto does things.

    Of course, if he were to make an FPS, it'd probably wind up with an engine that supported jumping puzzles in a non-intrusive way (somehow he would; I'm not the design god here). And have a quirky sense of design, not the normal "I R SPACE MERC I KILL U" layout. And the weapons would be strange and unconventional, requiring more strategy than "get the biggest gun and kill things fasterer". And...

    Hang on a sec. That might rock. Miyamoto, please do design an FPS! That might be interesting!

The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. The haves get more, the have-nots die.