Expert Insight From Miyamoto, Todd Hollenshead 52
njkid1 writes "Nintendo's legendary Shigeru Miyamoto, id Software's Todd Hollenshead and BioWare's Ray Muzyka offer up their expert advice on how to rise to the top of the industry at GameDaily. Miyamoto says his secret to success is that he makes sure sequels are entirely new games rather than just minor updates to the same engine. From Muzkya's comments in the article: 'BioWare's success is based entirely on the fact that we have a lot of very humble, hard-working and smart people at our company who are allowed to take creative risks. We put quality as our number one studio priority, because we believe it leads to long-term success, and as a result we don't release a game until we've achieved and exceeded our high quality targets.'"
"Creative Risks" (Score:5, Insightful)
Nintendo takes a lot of them, too... Turning SMB into a 3D game... Then turning it into a 2D/3D hybrid RPG... Link went from a side scroller to a 3/4 overhead RPG to a fully 3d realistic-looking RPG... They've split just about every game off into side-games like Dr Mario and Yoshi's Cookie... They're masters of this.
It's also possible to fail utterly while taking the risks, of course. The other half of the secret of their success is strict quality control. You let your people take risks, but you let them know with no uncertainty if they fail one of them. And you don't ship the product until it's good.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The 3D jump had already started before N64. Nintendo just showed people how to do it *right.*
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As Sega demonstrated with Sonic the hard part is making the game actually work. You can slap 3d onto anything but often the gameplay needs a lot of adjustment after that change. Nintendo got it right and made what many consider the best games released while other developers failed and produced crappy games riddled with technical issues when the 2d games were among the better games out there.
Yeah. If you want to see how hard the switch from 2D to 3D is, look at Konami. They went from being the single best third-party developer for consoles to being a distributor of mainly crappy 3D games and DDR. I know this sounds a bit harsh; Konami does have franchises that made the jump (well, at least one: MGS), but this is no comparison to the NES/Gameboy/SNES days where you could go into a games shop, pick up any Konami game (even stupid spin-offs that should, by all rights, be crappy, such as Kid Drac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bioware guy makes more sense (Score:3, Interesting)
1) it has to do with the fact that these franchises started off SO AMAZINGLY HIGH-QUALITY (for their time, at the very least) and retained that quality regardless of whether they were "re-imagined" or not. More of the same (design-wise) is great if it was awesome to begin with.
2) it has to do with the fact that some of Nintendo's innovation is also VERY HIGH-QUALITY. When I say this I mostly think of Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time, but the Wii as a piece of technology is another example. (The Virtual Boy isn't, hence the "some innovation" ^_^)
A more rubbish developer/publisher can innovate within its franchises all it wants, but it won't reach any level of success unless the franchises start strong and the innovation keeps them strong by being well designed/executed. Likewise, a strong developer does not need to innovate within a franchise (to the degree that Miyamoto suggested) to remain successful. Halo, Ninja Gaiden, DMC, Pokemon, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, and even Zelda are examples of very strong franchises that remain[ed] strong even without massive innovation in successive titles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What was Miyamoto working on? (Score:2)
Wii Sports and Wii Fit perhaps? I think he was working on several Wii titles or concepts. Wii Music is another one.
Re: (Score:2)
Miyamoto pretty much is Nintendo QA, I don't believe that anything gets released without him signing off on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did Miyamoto make creative risks? (Score:2)
Super Mario Sunshine??? Take Mario 64 and give him a water pistol! Mario Galaxy, put Mario 64 in Space. hmm. There's not denying he makes great games, but they are hardly original.
NES Zelda 1 or NES Zelda 2? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Since when did Miyamoto make creative risks? (Score:4, Funny)
Ipod, shrink a boom box and add some headphones. Porsche, take a wagon and add an engine. Aircraft carrier, put a small village on a boat and add some guns.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're not at all.
Zelda 1 was about exploration.
Zelda 2 was a side scrolling game that added RPG elements.
Zelda 3 went back to the Zelda 1 core style, but took away much of the focus on exploration, and replaced it with an emphasis on story and puzzles.
Ocarina of Time shifted further towards story and had only minimal exploration.
Majora's Mask was basically the movie Groundhog Day turned into a video game.
Past that, they aren't as distinct. W
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I want plot, too, but not 'boy meets girl' crap that's been done a billion times. Since 'every possible story has already been told' (a mangled quote from a great philosopher whose name I forget now) and I read a -lot-, I don't expect to find much worthwhile in the plot of any new video game, or most movies and books.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I like the talk and the errands. Hyrule in Zelda 1 was kind of desolate. The entire country had a population of maybe twenty people; hardly worth going to all this effort to save the damn place! Adding more people to talk to with lives of their own gets you involved, it lets yo
Tingle! (Score:2)
You don't play Link, you play Zelda, and the game is basically all exploration. It's one of my favourite games right now, especially due to all the inside jokes about Zelda.
Correction (Score:2)
Damn, I meant to write "You don't play as Link, you play as Tingle."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, "Majora's Mask" was "Donnie Darko" turned into a video game.
Besides the fact that Donnie Darko came out later (so if anything it would have been DD was MM turned into a movie) the similarity between Groundhog Day and Majora's Mask was the redoing of the same day or three again and again and again. Bill Murray (the dude in GD) saves a kid from falling out a tree, makes new friends and does other good things, and the next morning he wakes up and the kid's still climbing up the tree and all the people he talked to don't remember him. Link rescues a princess and kill
Re: (Score:1)
As for not innovating, you're talking about the man
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Every Zelda game has followed the same formula since the nes.
I beg to differ. Majora's Mask was a very different formula than the other Zeldas. There was no Master Sword. There was no Triforce. Zelda didn't need rescuing, and only existed in a dream sequence. There was no Gannon. It had some of the best dungeon design to date (the dungeon that flips upside down was awesome!) NPCs didn't just wander around aimlessly. They all had specific schedules they followed and the NPCs took a more interactive role in this story than in any other Zelda. The game's ending s
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point there. Miyamoto has taken no risks at all with Nintendo's central franchises. That's why Mario Galaxy is just the same as the previous games, but in space. You'd think they'd at least go 3D, or maybe try to come up with an innovative control system, or something... All this old-fashioned 'run-to-the-left' gaming is getting old.
From the Todd Hollenshead Book of Success: (Score:5, Funny)
Step 2) Feed him lots of junk food and soda
Step 3) Harness his creative energy to publish some tech demos thinly disguised as games
Step 4) Sell the engine to someone who can make a game better than you can
Step 5) Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Step 2) Feed him lots of junk food and soda
Step 3) Harness his creative energy to publish some tech demos thinly disguised as games
Step 4) Sell the engine to someone who can make a game better than you can
Step 5) Profit!
The physics of this universe could not possibly cope with 2 John Carmacks. The concentration of genius would overload the known universe and we'd have a 2nd big bang expanding into 144 D Branes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/8/ [beyond3d.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, had to be an ass.
There's Always the Rockstar Way (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And yet Doom 3... (Score:1)