Satoru Iwata: The honest topic

[darkjak]

Some time has passed since the early passing of Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata and I believe it's appropriate to speak of him in a more factual manner than before.

That's because right around the time of his death, there was a whole lot of hyperboles about how great he was, many exaggerations.

 

I wish to start this topic off making a statement as clear as possible: this is not supposed to be a hate topic. He was a great programmer which had a major part in the development of many classic games. The puropse is instead have a more sober discussion on what Iwata did and did not achieve as the head of Nintendo.

 

After reading up on Iwatas tenure as CEO, I'd say he's been excellent at acheiving short-term success, but terrible in the long term. Before becoming the CEO of Nintendo he helped in shortening the development cycles and cost of making games. Something he's received praise for, since it considerably increased profits during the Gamecube years. He also acheived great success with the Wii and DS.

 

HOWEVER, then there's the flipside: while Nintendos first party content was AT LEAST on par with the competition until the very end of the N64's lifespan, Nintendo started to lag behind by the time he started to effectivise development. Instead of improving the technical standards of their games, increasing the ammount of content and options to the same level of the competition, Iwata decided to paint Nintendo into a corner by focusing on gimmics. Seriously, the three championships were fine in Waverace for the N64, but by the time Mario Kart 8 came out, this was ridiculously inadequate, even if there actually were 8 championships. Not to mention that we haven't seen a no fuss, no gimmicks 3D Mario in 19 years!

The Wii earned Nintendo a lot of money, however, that console completely killed Nintendo as a serious competitor in the console market. It seems to me that he firstly saw games and consoles as seperate businesses and secondly had no interrest whatsoever in the rest of the game industry.

 

Anyways, that's my quick review of Iwata's tenure. What do you think?

[Serebii]

I truly take exception at the statement that Nintendo didn't focus on amount of content in games and focused on gimmicks. That couldn't be further from the truth. Their games are rammed with content.

 

The Wii also didn't completely kill Nintendo as a serious competitor, if it did then the other parties wouldn't have tried to jump onboard the blue ocean Nintendo created. The misfires of the Wii U are what damaged them, not the Wii.

 

Plus a "no gimmicks" 3D Mario? You do realise that new features and new ideas are what stops series and games stagnate, right? You're putting down some of the best 3D platform games (Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario 3D World) of all time just because they have a "gimmick".

 

You shouldn't use the term "gimmick" as a negative. This is an issue I see with gaming fandoms. Here is the dictionary definition:

a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.

 

Basically, any new feature used to advertise something or get attention is a gimmick. If a game is released as a sequel without a "gimmick", then we'll end up with annual stagnation.

 

Sorry, but in my view at least, your negative argument is fundamentally flawed. Yes, Nintendo have made some mis-steps under Iwata's tenure, nobody in their right mind would say otherwise, but to talk down their successes and complain when they bring new things to franchises to prevent them stagnating, that's just not cool.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Serebii

[Ronnie]

Seriously, the three championships were fine in Waverace for the N64, but by the time Mario Kart 8 came out, this was ridiculously inadequate, even if there actually were 8 championships. Not to mention that we haven't seen a no fuss, no gimmicks 3D Mario in 19 years

 

Is that really the best you can do, when it comes to reviewing Iwata's tenure?

 

There was no hyperbole around the time of his passing, it was genuine and deserved praise. If you're going to stick the knife in at least come up with insightful comments about his handling of Nintendo.

[Ashley]

The Wii also didn't completely kill Nintendo as a serious competitor, if it did then the other parties wouldn't have tried to jump onboard the blue ocean Nintendo created. The misfires of the Wii U are what damaged them, not the Wii.

 

Questionable. Their approach to the Wii during the last few years of its life were harmful to their reputation amongst many.

[Serebii]

Questionable. Their approach to the Wii during the last few years of its life were harmful to their reputation amongst many.

Only in that they let it die because they weren't ready with its successor. It caused a vacuum briefly. However, that's more in the vocal minority who complained at that. That wasn't really that big a factor in the Wii U's issues.

[Ashley]

Only in that they let it die because they weren't ready with its successor. It caused a vacuum briefly. However, that's more in the vocal minority who complained at that. That wasn't really that big a factor in the Wii U's issues.

 

What are you even...

 

I wasn't saying it had any impact on the Wii U's failures. You said "[t]he misfires of the Wii U are what damaged them, not the Wii" and I was pointing out how the misfires of the Wii, by creating a vacuum, caused damage to them as a company.

 

Things may have turned out different for the Wii U if the last few years of the Wii didn't become increasingly barren. All those that bought the Wii on impulse might have got the Wii U. Instead I imagine a lot of people gave up.

[Glen-i]

Not to mention that we haven't seen a no fuss, no gimmicks 3D Mario in 19 years!

 

This sentence just confuses me...

Isn't Super Mario 64's 3D movement one big massive gimmick in the first place?

[Serebii]

What are you even...

 

I wasn't saying it had any impact on the Wii U's failures. You said "[t]he misfires of the Wii U are what damaged them, not the Wii" and I was pointing out how the misfires of the Wii, by creating a vacuum, caused damage to them as a company.

 

Things may have turned out different for the Wii U if the last few years of the Wii didn't become increasingly barren. All those that bought the Wii on impulse might have got the Wii U. Instead I imagine a lot of people gave up.

Perhaps, but it was far from any of the fundamental issues that caused Nintendo's downfall in the home console space.

[Serebii]

Can we just jump to the inevitable conclusion that all Nintendo fans are over defensive and all people with criticism of Nintendo are out of their minds and wrong? Maybe ban a random member too?

 

Would save us all a lot of time.

Hey, I'm fine with criticism of Nintendo, some of which I do agree with, but when one of the criticisms is "no "non-gimmick" Mario game in 19 years", you have to question the validity of the argument

Edited September 7, 2015 by Serebii

[darkjak]

I truly take exception at the statement that Nintendo didn't focus on amount of content in games and focused on gimmicks. That couldn't be further from the truth. Their games are rammed with content.

Depends on what you compare with. Skyward Sword was hardly as full of side-missions and optional unlockables as Assassins Creed or Red Dead Redemption. Mario Kart 8

 

The Wii also didn't completely kill Nintendo as a serious competitor, if it did then the other parties wouldn't have tried to jump onboard the blue ocean Nintendo created. The misfires of the Wii U are what damaged them, not the Wii.

Publishers will always try out new systems to some extent. Probe the market, so to speak. You could tell from the very early on that third parties weren't taking the Wii U seriously, espescially EA. Releasing Need for Speed for the console a full six months after everyone else got it? Releasing Mass Effect 3 as a standalone game while the other systems got a trilogy compilation? No Battlefield at all?

The Wii was dead in 2010, because third parties saw that the stuff they did port didn't sell.

Plus a "no gimmicks" 3D Mario? You do realise that new features and new ideas are what stops series and games stagnate, right? You're putting down some of the best 3D platform games (Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario 3D World) of all time just because they have a "gimmick".

 

You shouldn't use the term "gimmick" as a negative. This is an issue I see with gaming fandoms. Here is the dictionary definition:

a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.

 

Basically, any new feature used to advertise something or get attention is a gimmick. If a game is released as a sequel without a "gimmick", then we'll end up with annual stagnation.

There's a considerable difference between innovation and gimmicks.

An innovation is something which improves the gaming experience, something that can be carried over into future releases in the franchise. Gimmicks are loud bells and whistles which will make the game feel "different", but when we've finished a game containing that feature, we never want to see it again. As was the case with Fludd, boats and trains, as was with the drawing of paths in Starfox.

I'm not dismissing any of those games. All are finely crafted games which deserve their positive reviews.

 

If we look at the most popular and highly revered franchises, they evolve and innovate, but they never use gimmicks. As is the case with Grand Theft Auto, Elder Scrolls and the Witcher. And that also applied to Zelda, back in the day when Zelda belonged in that category of excellent franchises.

 

Annual stagnation is only ever a problem if you release annual games. Nintendo release 1-2 Zeldas for every home console and only 1 3D Mario.

Sorry, but in my view at least, your negative argument is fundamentally flawed. Yes, Nintendo have made some mis-steps under Iwata's tenure, nobody in their right mind would say otherwise, but to talk down their successes and complain when they bring new things to franchises to prevent them stagnating, that's just not cool.

I don't want Nintendo to stop changing things up. But I do expect them to change the RIGHT things. Giving Mario Kart a more modern and robust singleplayer campaign instead of stupid antigravity mode.

Giving Zelda more side missions, voice acting and an opening is great, making you ride a boat from Scooby Doo isn't.

 

This sentence just confuses me...

Isn't Super Mario 64's 3D movement one big massive gimmick in the first place?

 

Did Nintendo decide to not have 3D movement anymore after SM64? No? Then that's innovation. It's pure and simple natural progression which Nintendo HAD TO do. Did FLUDD return in any subsequent games? Does anyone want to see it make a return? Then it's a gimmick.

[Serebii]

Depends on what you compare with. Skyward Sword was hardly as full of side-missions and optional unlockables as Assassins Creed or Red Dead Redemption. Mario Kart 8

 

 

Publishers will always try out new systems to some extent. Probe the market, so to speak. You could tell from the very early on that third parties weren't taking the Wii U seriously, espescially EA. Releasing Need for Speed for the console a full six months after everyone else got it? Releasing Mass Effect 3 as a standalone game while the other systems got a trilogy compilation? No Battlefield at all?

The Wii was dead in 2010, because third parties saw that the stuff they did port didn't sell.

 

There's a considerable difference between innovation and gimmicks.

An innovation is something which improves the gaming experience, something that can be carried over into future releases in the franchise. Gimmicks are loud bells and whistles which will make the game feel "different", but when we've finished a game containing that feature, we never want to see it again. As was the case with Fludd, boats and trains, as was with the drawing of paths in Starfox.

I'm not dismissing any of those games. All are finely crafted games which deserve their positive reviews.

 

If we look at the most popular and highly revered franchises, they evolve and innovate, but they never use gimmicks. As is the case with Grand Theft Auto, Elder Scrolls and the Witcher. And that also applied to Zelda, back in the day when Zelda belonged in that category of excellent franchises.

 

Annual stagnation is only ever a problem if you release annual games. Nintendo release 1-2 Zeldas for every home console and only 1 3D Mario.

 

I don't want Nintendo to stop changing things up. But I do expect them to change the RIGHT things. Giving Mario Kart a more modern and robust singleplayer campaign instead of stupid antigravity mode.

Giving Zelda more side missions, voice acting and an opening is great, making you ride a boat from Scooby Doo isn't.

 

 

 

Did Nintendo decide to not have 3D movement anymore after SM64? No? Then that's innovation. It's pure and simple natural progression which Nintendo HAD TO do. Did FLUDD return in any subsequent games? Does anyone want to see it make a return? Then it's a gimmick.

You're just dismissing all the new changes for Nintendo games as gimmicks and saying the other games evolve and innovate. Can you not see how flawed that argument is? Take the three character play in GTA V. That's an "evolution" and innovative to you, but what makes that innovative and four characters in Super Mario 3D World a gimmick?

 

The fact you compare the king of the red lions in Wind Waker to a poor gimmick over voice acting just makes it quite clear that perhaps Nintendo isn't for you. You are making differentiations between "gimmicks (negative connotation)" with "new features & innovations" just to suit your argument against Nintendo when frankly there's little difference in form between the innovations of say GTA V and the "gimmicks" of say Wind Waker.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Serebii

[Ashley]

You're just dismissing all the new changes for Nintendo games as gimmicks and saying the other games evolve and innovate. Can you not see how flawed that argument is? Take the three character play in GTA V. That's an "evolution" and innovative to you, but what makes that innovative and four characters in Super Mario 3D World a gimmick?

 

At what point did he give this as the reason GTA V is (in his opinion) an evolution?

[Serebii]

At what point did he give this as the reason GTA V is (in his opinion) an evolution?

It's an example of one of the much touted innovations/evolutions of GTA V. I worded it poorly

 

But yeah, thanks for just focusing on that bit :p

[Ashley]

It's an example of one of the much touted innovations/evolutions of GTA V. I worded it poorly

 

But yeah, thanks for just focusing on that bit :p

 

At least I focused on something that was said by the person I was quoting instead of being said by "the internet".

[Serebii]

At least I focused on something that was said by the person I was quoting instead of being said by "the internet".

Well I'm open to his interpretations of innovative and evolved for GTA V and then I'll levy them into my statement as it'd still be valid. Happy? :P

[Ashley]

Well I'm open to his interpretations of innovative and evolved for GTA V and then I'll levy them into my statement as it'd still be valid. Happy? :P

 

Haven't you said on a number of occasions "don't put words into my mouth" and aren't you doing just that though?

 

And yeah I suppose you can interpret it how you wish, but it hardly makes for a strong argument. "Oh I'm guessing you mean this and that's why you're wrong!" holds a lot less ground than asking for an elaboration and then making an educated response to that.

 

Anyway, we're kind of going off the rails here.

 

tl;dr Iwata made some great decisions and some less than great ones.

[Ronnie]

If we look at the most popular and highly revered franchises, they evolve and innovate, but they never use gimmicks

 

This makes no sense. In what way does Creed or COD evolve and innovate with their yearly, iterative sequels?

 

What does it matter if a game has supposed gimmicks, if that game is great fun to play? What gimmicks are present in Splatoon or Captain Toad or Pikmin 3 that stopped them from being great games?

 

I also object to this thread being called "the honest topic". There was nothing dishonest about the previous Iwata thread.

[darksnowman]

He was just a guy who worked his butt off as a programmer and then as the big boss. He genuinely wanted everyone to enjoy games. This is a problem? So many people said they were getting fed up and bored of games before the DS and then the Wii came along and breathed new life into our hobby.

 

other parties wouldn't have tried to jump onboard the blue ocean Nintendo created.

 

Jumping onboard a blue ocean just conjures all kinds of strangeness in my head.

[Nolan]

 

 

Jumping onboard a blue ocean just conjures all kinds of strangeness in my head.

 

I envision someone jumping from a ship on to a surf board. And then someone on the ship yells do a sweet flip.

[Sheikah]

The Wii also didn't completely kill Nintendo as a serious competitor, if it did then the other parties wouldn't have tried to jump onboard the blue ocean Nintendo created. The misfires of the Wii U are what damaged them, not the Wii.

 

But in respect to this part, if you look at darkjak's argument again, he commented that there was short term success (which is what I believe you are referring to, above) in place of the long term.

 

As you said; people rushed to copy Nintendo in terms of motion controls to skim some of that hype cream off the top while it lasted.

 

In respect of darkjak's comments about the Wii and long term, he is right; the Wii is where they took the generational leap backwards, in terms of power. That decision in part closed third party doors (at the very least, many of the games that were multiformat on other consoles stopped coming to Nintendo's home consoles). The console just couldn't run them.

 

Worst of all though was the image. It separated Nintendo's console from the rest; it was no longer seen as a similar product, or competitor, to the other consoles. That worked for them while they were popular with the Wii, but now it doesn't. Again, that's the long term effects of it.

[Ashley]

I also object to this thread being called "the honest topic". There was nothing dishonest about the previous Iwata thread.

 

You can't say whether others may not have been as critical as they would have perhaps wanted to be at the time for fear of seeming disrespectful of a recently deceased individual.

[Ronnie]

You can't say whether others may not have been as critical as they would have perhaps wanted to be at the time for fear of seeming disrespectful of a recently deceased individual.

 

Not being as critical isn't the same as being dishonest. I suspect he's very wrong if he thinks people were lying in their tributes to Iwata last time around.

[darkjak]

Well I'm open to his interpretations of innovative and evolved for GTA V and then I'll levy them into my statement as it'd still be valid. Happy? :P

First off, I'd like to ask you: do you not think that GTA V is a clear as day, undoubtable evolution over GTA IV? Do you think the GTA formula has become monotonous?

In all likelyhood not. Fans know what to expect from a GTA game and Rockstar earn billions just by delivering. No stupid experiments with outlandish art styles. No game mechanics the developers KNEW would never be seen again. Just take what was wrong in the last game and fix it. Take what was good and make it better.

 

To me the difference between innovation and gimmicks is as clear as a summer day in the desert. An innovation is something you can and most often do carry on to subsequent entries in the franchise. A good innovation will even be copied by competing companies. A good innovation is natural, something that improves the gaming experience in such a way that you can't imagine playing a similar game without it again. Such was Z-targeting, which in an evolved form is present in GTA V. Such were the camera controls in SM64 which have been copied and improved upon by frankly every third person game out there.

 

And as for your previous question, Serebii: yes, I am starting to think Nintendo aren't for me. Or for any of my friends who have been loyal Nintendo consumers for sometimes over 20 years or more. I even wonder if Nintendo are for ANYONE anymore.

Who can afford to gamble on buying an expensive, underpowered console which will only have games from one specific developer, who very rarely deliver what you expect? Espescially at times when people are weary of buying any console at all.

That's my whole point. If Nintendo are to be more successful with the NX, they must bring their A-game. Don't make the people question how they feel about how "unique" or "different" the new games are. Give them no choice but to say "WOW!" at how amazing they are.

If Nintendo make good games, progress with the rest of the industry and simply give everyone what they want, they have a shot at making a comeback.

[Ronnie]

No stupid experiments with outlandish art styles

 

I stopped reading there.

[Serebii]

First off, I'd like to ask you: do you not think that GTA V is a clear as day, undoubtable evolution over GTA IV? Do you think the GTA formula has become monotonous?

In all likelyhood not. Fans know what to expect from a GTA game and Rockstar earn billions just by delivering. No stupid experiments with outlandish art styles. No game mechanics the developers KNEW would never be seen again. Just take what was wrong in the last game and fix it. Take what was good and make it better.

 

To me the difference between innovation and gimmicks is as clear as a summer day in the desert. An innovation is something you can and most often do carry on to subsequent entries in the franchise. A good innovation will even be copied by competing companies. A good innovation is natural, something that improves the gaming experience in such a way that you can't imagine playing a similar game without it again. Such was Z-targeting, which in an evolved form is present in GTA V. Such were the camera controls in SM64 which have been copied and improved upon by frankly every third person game out there.

 

And as for your previous question, Serebii: yes, I am starting to think Nintendo aren't for me. Or for any of my friends who have been loyal Nintendo consumers for sometimes over 20 years or more. I even wonder if Nintendo are for ANYONE anymore.

Who can afford to gamble on buying an expensive, underpowered console which will only have games from one specific developer, who very rarely deliver what you expect? Espescially at times when people are weary of buying any console at all.

That's my whole point. If Nintendo are to be more successful with the NX, they must bring their A-game. Don't make the people question how they feel about how "unique" or "different" the new games are. Give them no choice but to say "WOW!" at how amazing they are.

If Nintendo make good games, progress with the rest of the industry and simply give everyone what they want, they have a shot at making a comeback.

From what I can discern from your post, it's only a gimmick because you don't like it. I noticed this at E3 last year with Tearaway Unfolded. They were demonstrating the controls with the touchpad on the Dualshock 4 controller, and people, many of whom I know are anti-Nintendo, were going on about how innovative it is. And yet if Nintendo were doing the same, they'd be trashing Nintendo saying how gimmicky it is.

 

Nintendo doesn't just drop their innovations. That's one of the most absurd things ever. These gimmicks, as you call them, are a big part of the games and when successful, carry on to their successors as seen with the gliding in Mario Kart series. As seen with motion control in Zelda from TP to Skyward Sword and so forth.

 

For the record, Nintendo do make good games still. Despite them "failing", their games are still among the most critically appraised games each year. How's that them just focusing on gimmicks? It's them making damned good games. Earlier you made the claim that they didn't put enough content in them, which is absurd.

 

Also, no. Very little about GTA V felt innovative to me. It felt newer, sure. More polished, absolutely. Innovative? No.

 

ALSO, really? You're complaining about art styles? Are you actually serious with that complaint? Do you really want everything to be homogenised, with everything going for realism or one set art style for each series? That's stagnation to the max.