Fungi Forums

Video Games => Video Game Chat => Topic started by: ShadowBrain on January 12, 2008, 05:09:38 PM

Title: Industry Lunacy
Post by: ShadowBrain on January 12, 2008, 05:09:38 PM
For all the games they produce and represent, the heads of the videogame industry have said and do say some phenomenally stupid things. Be they overblown salespitches, grossly innacurate statements, or just plain bizarre ramblings, there's always something to shake our heads at. So, basically, what do you think are some of the top dumb things that have come out of the mouths of videogame up-and-ups? Post a direct quote if you want, or just paraphrase.

"Well, I think a lot of people who bought the Wii are not necessarily the types of people who are interested in playing that kind of game. And a lot of the people who would want to play it [due to chronic shortages of the console] can't find a Wii! But mostly, I think it's that there are fewer and fewer people who are interested in playing a big role-playing game like Zelda."
--Shiguru Miyamoto, responding to low Japanese sales of Twilight Princess

Yeah. ...You know what? Just... just... yeah. Okay, yeah......
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: MEGAߥTE on January 12, 2008, 05:26:22 PM
But sales indicate that this is true... in Japan.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: Suffix on January 12, 2008, 05:34:31 PM
Yeah, Miyamoto wasn't joking. 90% of what Kaz Hirai says, however, is madness.

"Our decision to include the Blu-ray player ... in all of our PlayStation 3s was the right decision. Look at the massive amounts of data that's required to provide a truly immersive gaming experience in true HD. If you only have a DVD ROM drive, which can only go up to about 9GB or so, you're going to end up with a game that's going to have two or possibly even three discs..."

Can anyone tell me how many PS3 games take up at least half of a Blu-ray disk's capacity?
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: MaxVance on January 12, 2008, 05:57:13 PM
None, because PS3 has no games. </troll>
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: MEGAߥTE on January 12, 2008, 06:02:32 PM
That reasoning is also pretty valid.  Even if a PS3 game took up only half of a Blu-ray disc, that's still over 2.5 DVDs.  There are concerns of content getting cut on Xbox 360 games, and these problems will only increase as the years go by and developers get more ambitious.

If you want ridiculous quotes, try Ken Kutaragi.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: MaxVance on January 12, 2008, 06:05:09 PM
Are you sure developers will get more ambitious in the future? It seems like they just keep making the same types of games out of fear of failure.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: Suffix on January 12, 2008, 06:17:00 PM
More importantly, video games will probably not take up that much space unless they way they are made inefficiently, or are in development for ages. Actually, I can't quite think of how video games would take up that much space, exactly. Any other thoughts on the subject?
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: Glorb on January 12, 2008, 06:41:28 PM
Yeah, Miyamoto wasn't joking. 90% of what Kaz Hirai says, however, is madness.

Truer words were never spoken. Before he left/got kicked out, I remember him saying something about PlayStations 4, 5 and 6. Wow.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: MEGAߥTE on January 12, 2008, 09:02:55 PM
Truer words were never spoken. Before he left/got kicked out, I remember him saying something about PlayStations 4, 5 and 6. Wow.
Like I said, that's Ken Kutaragi, not Kaz Hirai.
More importantly, video games will probably not take up that much space unless they way they are made inefficiently, or are in development for ages. Actually, I can't quite think of how video games would take up that much space, exactly. Any other thoughts on the subject?
Developers will always find ways to use the space.  Often inefficiently, yes.  I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's true.  Square often put games on 4 CDs (well over 2GB) when the generation before only used <7MB.  The more space to use, the more detailed the environments can be (remember, we're not talking Wii games here).
Are you sure developers will get more ambitious in the future? It seems like they just keep making the same types of games out of fear of failure.
Ambitious in regards to size of content, not necessarily creativity.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: Glorb on January 12, 2008, 09:20:04 PM
Like I said, that's Ken Kutaragi, not Kaz Hirai.

Oh, right. Gotta pay attention.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: ShadowBrain on January 12, 2008, 10:42:51 PM
But sales indicate that this is true... in Japan.
Yeah, I know that's true, but I think that Japan is slowly losing its aura as the country by which the official quality and popularity of all games is judged. Their society is structured so that they really do only have time to play whatever the newest iteration of sudoku is on the DS, and, intentionally or not, I think Nintendo is slowly fostering that kind of lifestyle in the US.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: MaxVance on January 12, 2008, 11:21:00 PM
You mean Nintendo is trying to shift our attitudes from "work to live" to "live to work"? Bah.

(If you want to see how life really is in Japan, "former" Fungi Forums member Watoad is currently in Japan as an intern for a photography company. His blog can be found here (http://watoad.com/japan/blaug/blaug.html).)
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: Vidgmchtr on January 13, 2008, 12:02:15 AM
Odd, Max, that blog of his hasn't been updated in a few months.

Maybe he was too busy with his work there to make a new entry. But how? Japan is a land where all workers play video games all day.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: ShadowBrain on January 13, 2008, 12:07:10 AM
You mean Nintendo is trying to shift our attitudes from "work to live" to "live to work"? Bah.
What I mean is that... well... take movies, for example; most people have busy lives these days, but do the studios make forty-minute movies about a boy and his dog? Do record labels do one-minute showtunes? When you dumb-down games to make them more accesible to the average joe, they lose what makes them videogames.

I mean, here's a point I've been trying to get off my chest for some time: "Casual gamers" already have their systems of choice, and that's the "Games" section on Windows, cellphone solitaire, and whatever is on iPods these days. The point is, most of those Bejeweled and Brick Breaker and Pac-Man-type games didn't bother me until they started showing up on consoles in lieu of AAA titles. Do you consider Wordjong a videogame in the same way that you might consider Super Mario 64 a videogame? Didn't think so.
I guess what I'm really saying here is that so-called casual gamers just play what's already on the multi-purpose gadgets they already own--no one mildly interested in videogames (which the aforementioned "casual" titles only are in the literal sense) is going to pay $250 for a machine that solely plays games. In fact, the motion control has actually scared off a few of my relatives--seems complicated from the outside looking in, right? Heck, my mom's hooked on this touch-screen electronic sudoku handheld she got for Christmas, but I doubt she'd touch it if I got her a DS with the same thing in "game" form! Wasting genuine gamers' time with flash-in-the-pan quickie games on the Wii/DS is an insult to the intelligence of casuals and gamers alike.

I'm having a really hard time conveying exactly what I mean here, so bear with me.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: BP on January 13, 2008, 12:25:57 AM
A lot of my family is anti-gaming so I don't really care if my games are attractive to them. But my dad played Wii Bowling with me once and enjoyed it.

What is a "casual gamer?" Whenever I try to visualize one I picture a loser who tries to look like a gamer but thinks Link's name is Zelda or asks, "When do I run out of fireballs?" But now that I'm thinking, are they supposed to be the kinds of people who only play other people's games at parties? But those are the kinds of people who don't buy consoles of their own--Super Smash Bros. should take care of the parties. EVERYONE. Knows how to play Super Smash Bros. My cousin's to-be-born baby knows how to play Super Smash Bros. But I'm all for Wii Play-like games when people get bored of being mercilessly crushed beneath your Smashing feet.

Anyway... Things don't really seem too different to me. Galaxy was every bit as "hardcore" as Super Mario 64. Twilight Princess retains Ocarina of Time's power as well.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: WarpRattler on January 13, 2008, 01:32:49 AM
whatever is on iPods these days
Off the top of my head, I can think of Peggle, Bomberman, and Sonic the Hedgehog. Are you implying that Bomberman is intended for "casual" gamers?
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: Chupperson Weird on January 13, 2008, 02:15:02 AM
What I mean is that... well... take movies, for example; most people have busy lives these days, but do the studios make forty-minute movies about a boy and his dog? Do record labels do one-minute showtunes? When you dumb-down games to make them more accesible to the average joe, they lose what makes them videogames.
For your much-needed information, the length of CDs by most artists has been steadily decreasing (while at the same time the price has been going up) as well as the fact that songs are designed to be disposable and sound horrible on anything better quality than iPod earbuds. So yes. The degradation of music is pretty intense at this moment. However, this is a bad thing, unlike the situation with video games, which is turning a sometimes-intimidating industry into something friendly to even more people in the world. And I'm going to play Wii Bowling with my grandma and enjoy it and there's nothing you can think to stop me.

I mean, here's a point I've been trying to get off my chest for some time: "Casual gamers" already have their systems of choice, and that's the "Games" section on Windows, cellphone solitaire, and whatever is on iPods these days. The point is, most of those Bejeweled and Brick Breaker and Pac-Man-type games didn't bother me until they started showing up on consoles in lieu of AAA titles. Do you consider Wordjong a videogame in the same way that you might consider Super Mario 64 a videogame? Didn't think so.
Again, you have no idea what you're actually talking about. Do you realize how many casual gamers bought a PS1 and a PS2? That's the reason for Sony's immense success the past two generations. I sell video games to people at my job. You have no idea how many people just want a PS2 and some cheap Madden game or Guitar Hero. That is the definition of casual gaming.

I guess what I'm really saying here is that so-called casual gamers just play what's already on the multi-purpose gadgets they already own--no one mildly interested in videogames (which the aforementioned "casual" titles only are in the literal sense) is going to pay $250 for a machine that solely plays games. In fact, the motion control has actually scared off a few of my relatives--seems complicated from the outside looking in, right? Heck, my mom's hooked on this touch-screen electronic sudoku handheld she got for Christmas, but I doubt she'd touch it if I got her a DS with the same thing in "game" form! Wasting genuine gamers' time with flash-in-the-pan quickie games on the Wii/DS is an insult to the intelligence of casuals and gamers alike.

I'm having a really hard time conveying exactly what I mean here, so bear with me.

You must be. Pretty much all non-gamers I know of think the Wii and DS are great bridges to something they didn't understand before. The general reaction is much closer to "wow, all you have to do is move and there aren't a bunch of buttons to remember!" Which means it actually looks much less complicated.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: Glorb on January 13, 2008, 10:08:22 AM
The problem isn't with casual gamers themselves, it's with companies spending more effort on casual games than on serious ones. Right now it's hip and mainstream to play ObbleUzzleJong on your cell phone, so more people are buying them, so more companies are making them. The only company I've seen this happen to is Nintendo, who now seems to put out one triple-A title a year for every seven hundred quirky casual minigame collections with a retro-chic aesthetic. I love the idea of old folks and non-gamers playing games, but if that means forgetting to make full-length games, then there's a problem. So far, that hasn't really happened, but we're dangerously close.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: ShadowBrain on January 13, 2008, 10:26:35 AM
Off the top of my head, I can think of Peggle, Bomberman, and Sonic the Hedgehog. Are you implying that Bomberman is intended for "casual" gamers?
What I mean is that casual gamers (a term which seems to have a definition in roughly the same way that "love" or "the meaning of life" have definitions), in most cases, would prefer to play games already on the things they own. Heck, I'm sure if you could squeeze Link to the Past on someone's Razr they'd play it in-between calls whether they're 15 or 55.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: Chupperson Weird on January 13, 2008, 12:05:12 PM
Miyamoto doesn't like full-length games. People in Japan don't have time to play full-length games, and a lot of people over high-school age in America don't either. I'm not saying there shouldn't be long games, but that isn't really where the market is at right now. It's more of an arcade-style mentality, where you have short or unbeatable games you keep going back to. I guess that might happen when more people are playing them.

P.S. what is a full-length game anyway? Portal seemed just the right length at about 6 hours. Xenogears seems just right at 40+ hours. You know?
Title: "OHSNP"
Post by: DeadAwake on January 13, 2008, 01:55:04 PM
Chup hit the nail on the head.  As part of the post-high-school population, not only do I agree with his analysis--but I enjoy the practical outcome:  games that are satisfying even if you don't have hours to dedicate.  Why someone who does have hours to dedicate to games would be incapable of similarly enjoying such creations is beyond me.  Maybe there's a ratio of free time vs. game time that produces optimal satisfaction.

Oh, but I'd amend "over high school" to "over high school non-pot-smokers."
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: Glorb on January 13, 2008, 02:34:33 PM
To me, "full-length" means "just as long as the main story needs to be, with no missing plot holes, and also with a couple extra side missions". A good example is RE4, even if the El Gigante fight was overused. You could enjoy the game without spending time in the target range, the Ada scenarios, or The Mercenaries, and still have tons of fun. I don't want to be told what to like; just because hip twentysomethings don't like 40+ hour games doesn't mean I don't. In fact, once I'm a hip twnetysomething, I'll still like long games; it'll just take me even longer to beat it.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: AbercrombieBaseball on January 13, 2008, 02:47:05 PM
I'm one of these casual gamers, although I tend to play more in the winter because the weather around here is horribly cold.

I'm also one of those "hip 20-somethings" you mention--I'm 21. What I usually will do is get sports games almost exclusively but I also like Mario games. I will play a little bit at a time to make it last me until the next one comes out. For example, I got Mario Galaxy at Christmas and so far have something like eight stars, but I've only had two long sessions with it. With all my old high school buddies back at college now, I won't be out every night anymore so I'll be able to play maybe one or two times each week if I don't have much coursework and am not going anywhere with my college friends. I have time to play them because I don't go to bars or anything if my other friends do. No way I get myself in that mess, so I spend it with Mario instead.

Games like Madden, though, are marketed right up the alley for a guy like me. I love sports and when there isn't a game on and I'm not playing a game of something (usually baseball, sometimes fall intramural basketball or swimming, maybe soccer) I'm playing them electronically. The Wii has been a godsend for me--I can golf any time I want now and actually use real motion to do it! (It's nothing like the real deal but it's closer than Mario Golf on the Nintendo 64 was...and I always thought that was a pretty good golf game).

I've actually liked this new trend in marketing. It used to be they would market only to those guys who played shoot-em-up games where you killed draggons and blew up cars and stuff. Now they actually market the games for people who normally wouldn't be playing video games but want to add them to their party or something (like me), especially the ones based on sports (like the Wii Sports game that comes with the system).
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: Glorb on January 13, 2008, 03:06:50 PM
Well, this whole thing reminds me of the Mountain Dew era of marketing (2001-2006, according to my data). Basically, this was where all games were marketed to buff, 25-year-old, Mountain Dew-guzzling, Doritoes-gorging, Xtreme sports-playing jocks who primarily played games with carjacking and peoplesmashing. Problem was, few people who play games are like that, no matter how much Spike TV said otherwise. I always found it puzzling, because the games themselves were still the same. But now the demographic shift has also caused a shift in the types of games out now, and this deeply concerns me.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: AbercrombieBaseball on January 13, 2008, 03:26:28 PM
Another classic marketing technique with the Mountain Dew. The intended audience may have thought those guys were "cool". Sort of like how they always use 8 year olds in ads for toys targeted to 5 year olds.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: Chupperson Weird on January 13, 2008, 04:29:16 PM
just because hip twentysomethings don't like 40+ hour games doesn't mean I don't.
Nice job completely evading my point. I love RPGs and long games. And, due to the amount of time and the amount of games I own, I also like satisfyingly short games. Part of why people like video games is that they help fulfill your basic need for a feeling of progress. But if you aren't able to stick with a game for months, that gets sort of lost.
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: Lizard Dude on January 14, 2008, 11:52:16 PM
Maybe Nintendo likes making brain trainers on DS because the target audience actually buys them instead of downloading them to a flash card and playing them weeks before US release.

:o
Title: Re: Industry Lunacy
Post by: BP on January 15, 2008, 12:31:25 AM
Yeah! And people outside the target audience enjoy Brain Age, too!

Brain Age 2 is 10 MB more than the original, after both are trimmed. :O