Miyamoto: Modern games are too long (Sigh)

[Acert93]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9318

Speaking in an interview with CNN, Miyamoto said: "There's not a lot I want to play now. A lot of the games out there are just too long.

"Of course, there are games, such as Halo or Grand Theft Auto, that are big and expansive. But if you're not interested in spending that time with them, you're not going to play," he observed.

1. Nintendo, and everyone else, really needs to get a hint: Gamers are varied. They should be preaching a message of diversity, not trying to cram a one-size fits all approach to the industry.

2. Halo big an expansive? The SP last 8 hours!

3. Taking a jab at GTA? If I remember right GTA3:VC sold like 12M copies; GTA:SA was projected to have a total of 16M total sales. If sales are an indication of customer satisifaction and desire (they are to a degree... always exceptions...) the expansive and long play cycle of GTA smacks this right in the face.

Look, I like quick pick me up games. But I also like epic quest games. OVERALL, I would have to say FAR to many games are too short. That is one of the biggest reasons I hardly every buy a SP game. I feel the companies are ripping me off. $50 for 8hr game? I can see 20hrs of new movies in the theater for that.

"Rather than thinking 'we have a new console, let's make epic games', I want [developers] to make more unique products."

Ok, more unique games is good. But unique does not equal better. Hardly. Many of the best games ever are refinements of a genre where all the pieces just fit perfectly. There is a reason people like certain genres: because they are well designed and thought out. Many "unique" games are ill devised, have horrid replay, and leave one thirsty for a higher quality experience.

Miyamoto went on to slam the Xbox 360 and PS3 demos presented at E3: "Most of what you're seeing are not even the first projections of games," he said.

"They're just shiny computer graphics. They're things anyone using a computer can do."

And Zelda at E3 2004 was any different? Nope.

"What we want to do is different - and we're happy with the road we're taking. When you have a Revolution, you're not going to have the same experience as you would with the other home consoles."

Not to be too cynical, but people buy consoles because they like the video game experience. Now that is not to say Nintendo shaking things up is bad, but Nintendo is notorious for sending mixed messages. Online anyone? How about graphics?

What they really need to be saying is, "Our console will not only be an evolution of the gameplay experience that you will see on Sony and MS's machines, but we are taking the next step. We will be introducing a new experience, a REVOLUTIONARY experience, that neither of those consoles are designed to immitate. You will walk away from playing the Nintendo Revolution feeling more than just having played a game, but that and so much more. It is that much better."

Instead they alienate 130M customers who bought current gen consoles by saying, "Long games [=value in most consumer minds] are not good." And "We want you to buy our *game console* but you wont have a *game console experience*. It will be something different".

That is a big unknown and Nintendo has been unable to deliver the difference they have promised with the N64 and GCN. Nintendo needs to stop trying to be "only different" but "Similar, but also unique".


Btw, I have a world of respect of Miyamoto. This is a rough estimate (but very close): For every $2 I spend on gaming, $1 is on a Miyamoto product.

I also believe Miyamoto is one of the BEST interviews in the industry. Check the recent IGN ones. He is honest, insightful, and does not spout a lot of BS. He says what he thinks, and if he cannot talk about something he politely says he cannot talk about it. He is a true embasidor of gaming. Truly a gaming genius.

But a console cannot thrive on one type of game or genre--no matter how great those games are. Consoles need epic long games, quick pick me ups, and everything in between. They need complex games and simple games. They need games for guys, gals, moms, and kids.

Whoever does Nintendo PR for the last 10 years just needs to be fired. The Nintendo On mockup is better than anything they have done in PR in 10 years. It is sad that their fanbase has a vision and can articulate it better than Nintendo.

Sony, and especially MS, have put Nintendo into a corner. I keep hearing MS call Nintendo a "Niche player" and not in the same competition. And Nintendo has basically bowed out. Instead of saying, "We built this industry, PUNK, let us tell you how this game is played" they continue on this self destructive path.

It is sad to me because Nintendo has great IPs and even better products. And Nintendo IS RIGHT. But they are too extreme and they tend to take extreme positions in the media. "Games are not about graphics". Uhhh did you see the Killzone reaction? "Games are too long" Uhhh core gamers have been maoning forever how games have gotten shorter and how outside of MP games, most games have very little replay value.

Anyhow, I hope someone tells Nintendo that they really need to stop sending mixed messages. Do voice your concerns about the industry, but stop trying to drag it to a place it is not. Gamers want huge epic worlds with great graphics. Embrace it... and then show everyone else how it is done. ZOoT, Mario 64, MP, etc... are some fabulous games that help set the standards in their genres for graphics and huge worlds. Nintendo is certainly up to the task. So don't back down Nintendo!

 

[jvd]

He is right , if the games suck it don't matter how long they are , no one will want to play them. I think u take offence to him listing two games instead of what his point really is

 

[Acert93]

He lists the 2 best selling games in 2004 jvd! Those games do not suck! So how could I misunderstand him? He is not talking about games "sucking" (no where does he say that). He says they are too long and if you are not interested in spending time with them you wont play them. He is saying that gamers want more "unique" games, not epic games. Those are his own words. The fact is the sales data shows people are after the epic games.

As for the 2 games he singles out:

1. A ton of people spent a ton of cash on these two games. They wanted them. No questions asked. MP2 did not even break 1M copies in 2004 sales. Halo and GTA combined broke 10M.

2. People piss and moaned over Halo 2 being too short. This directly contradicts his claim that gamers do not want short games.

3. And yes, *some* people will say it is too long because they are not interested in the game at all. But you do not turn Mario into GTA to make GTA fans happy. There is a balance there--and respecting that balance is important. Just beause a handful of gamers think a game is too long does not mean you should go out of your way to make them happy when millions think contrary. Instead, make a darn shorter/easier game for them.

Whenever someone, Miyamoto included, begins to make grand generalizations about what gamers want and don't want, especially when they smack in the face of the data, it needs to be question. I frequently support Nintendo, especially where it counts most: with my pocket book. But the way the promote their product, basically by bashing the industry that we all enjoy, gets old.

The bottom line is Miyamoto called out Halo 2 and GTA:SA. And even though 1 of those games I do not even like, I can say he is dead wrong. More people bought those 2 games than probably all of Nintendos holiday GCN game sales combined.

So if Miyamoto wants to call out the big dogs, I have a question: Name 1 Nintendo game this generation that has exceeded either of those games in sales? Xbox has a similar install base in numbers, so where is Nintendo's GCN title with 7M total sales?

Oh yeah, that game does not exist.

I think it might hypocrtical of Nintendo to be bashing on the top selling games this generation when their own consumers are not backing up their philosophy with off the hook sales. If sales are an indication of customer desire, sales are telling me consumers in general are siding much more strongly with MS and Sony's vision of gaming and compared to Nintendos. Not to say Nintendo has no place in the market (there is a market for non-epic, graphically inferior, non-complex, short titles), but it seems more consumers are looking for the epic quest that is a longer game. And the sales back that up.

 

[Goragoth]

I think that in a way Nintendo are becoming the art-house of the game industry. They produce great games, they just aren't necessarily popular games. There is a difference between a quality product and something that has popular appeal (look at the top grossing movies, most of them I would not consider great works of the movie industry but they are glitzy enough to attract viewers). Miyamoto is obviously all about game design and I think what he is articulating is his desire to make great games and like any true artist he doesn't give a damn if his vision is one that will have mass-appeal or not (well, I'm sure he wants his games to sell well, but that's not the central concern). Flash graphics and celebrities will sell a product but they don't (on their own) make it good.

Diversity will come from people having different visions anyway, its not really his place to advocate that as much as his own vision of what games should be about, even if that isn't representative of what the majority of gamers want. The market for boring clones with purty graphics is already big enough and doesn't need any special advocation.

I do agree that for the games industry as a whole diversity is good, the more different types of games there are the better for everybody. Long games, short games, flashy games, fun games, they all have their place.

 

[jvd]

You should really re read that then . Because he isn't making huge general statements

Speaking in an interview with CNN, Miyamoto said: "There's not a lot I want to play now. A lot of the games out there are just too long.

"Of course, there are games, such as Halo or Grand Theft Auto, that are big and expansive. But if you're not interested in spending that time with them, you're not going to play," he observed.

He is right , he says if your not interested in spending that time in the game you wont play it and I for one didn't want to spend that time in gta 3 and i stoped playing and didn't buy the others .

He never said that everyone will not be interested , he merely said that if your not interested in spending that time your not going to paly it .

"Rather than thinking 'we have a new console, let's make epic games', I want [developers] to make more unique products."

Whats wrong with this statement ? he wants more unique games . Look at what is happening with the industry. Gta 3 was popular now we have had 3 of them in what 4 years ? Then we started getting the clones , from simpsons to narc to godfather .

Its what happened to tomb raider , and its what happens in the movie industry.

"What we want to do is different - and we're happy with the road we're taking. When you have a Revolution, you're not going to have the same experience as you would with the other home consoles."

He is right . You can only have eveloution if you go down the same road . Now that gta 3 has been made none of the spin offs will be reveloutinary nor will any of the clones . Whats wrong with this comment ?




Really you take offence to the things he used instead of his point which is valid .

 

[PC-Engine]

And Zelda at E3 2004 was any different? Nope.

Well RE4 surpassed it graphically in more ways than one. Anyway Zelda didn't look like CGI, it looked like something achievable with enough time and effort on GCN. I'd say the Metroid CGI clip was more along the lines of "They're just shiny computer graphics. They're things anyone using a computer can do." so yeah Nintendo is guilty of this too. Hopefully they don't show any CGI at next years E3.

 

[Teasy]

Nintendo, and everyone else, really needs to get a hint: Gamers are varied. They should be preaching a message of diversity, not trying to cram a one-size fits all approach to the industry.

Are they trying to do that though? The new Zelda will be a very long game after all. I don't see him saying that all games are too long and only short games should be made. What I do see is a collection of answers from an interview with no context to them strung together with a sweeping statement planted in there that doesn't even come from Miyamoto himself. I mean just look at the title of this article. Miyamoto says modern games are "too long". What kind of supposed quote has 7 words in it with only 2 of them actually quoted from the source?..

Though obviously its clear that Miyamoto personally feels that some games are too long for him to play these days. So that undoubtedly will influence his own work. But thats quite far from saying that all games are too long and instead Nintendo will only make short games.

 

[London Geezer]

To me that sounds more like "Modern game can be long and uninteresting". Not "Modern games are too long".

If a good game is long, that's great. If a bad game is long, then it's not too long, it's just a bad game. :|

 

[PC-Engine]

Agree with Teasy.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I feel the companies are ripping me off. $50 for 8hr game? I can see 20hrs of new movies in the theater for that.

More like 10 hours of cinema viewing per game in the UK. Games are good value for money most of the time (as long as it's a good game!).

 

[one]

Cut 1 game into 3 and your profit triples!

 

[London Geezer]

Cut 1 game into 3 and your profit triples!

Kill Bill - LOTR style?

 

[jonnyp]

He is right , if the games suck it don't matter how long they are , no one will want to play them. I think u take offence to him listing two games instead of what his point really is

The point is just as much: even if a game is short, if it sucks then no-one will finish a short game either. So Miyamoto's point is moot IMO.

I agree with the thread starter. People are different. I for one think most games are way too short. I think it's pretty ignorant and not very revolutionary to ignore the fact that gamers are different and have differing opinions and tastes.

 

[Kolgar]

I think Teasy read it right: Miyamoto's saying there's not much HE likes to play today. He's speaking of his own personal game-playing preferences, and he's entitled to his opinion.

 

[Sandwich]

So Nintendo are going to sacrifice game length for better quality? That's reasonable enough.
Maybe Nintendo are witnessing a trend of decreasing attention spans in their player base.

 

[London Geezer]

So Nintendo are going to sacrifice game length for better quality? That's reasonable enough.
Maybe Nintendo are witnessing a trend of decreasing attention spans in their player base.

Or decreased IQs.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How short? 8-10 hours already seems short and that's not uncommon these days. Are Nntendo going to offer 4 hour games? For $50? Or just 'party' games without any 'meat'?

I'm worried about Nintendo at the moment. All they've offered for Revolution so far, apart from promises of a revolution though without showing anything such so far (I was hoping for Revolution controller(s) at E3), are old games. Many seem excited by this, but that's hardly next-gen gaming, nor providing a suitable base for the NEXT-gen after this upcoming one. When PS4 is out, what will Nintendo be doing? They'll have already provided their back catalogue...

I think this is just a rogue remark. They'll produce big games (RPGs and action adventures) and short games, same as everyone else. I think they're just trying to appeal to new gamers by saying 'you don't need to spend hours and hours to enjoy Nintendo games' though in the process they seem to be slighting the hard-core gamer.

 

[therealskywolf]

The guy sometimes forgets that we pay 50$ for this "Long" games.

He also forgets that we would pay 70$ in the backdays for simplier and shorter games.

He also forgets that the new Zelda is going to be a 30h game.

 

[ChryZ]

Maybe be it was meant like this: instead of using the dev budget ratio 20% engine (limited interaction, limited gameplay) : 80% content (doing the same stuff for 20h at different locations, story, art, story, etc) and shift it to 60-80% engine : 20-40% content, to just spend more on a more dynamic, less scripted, more interactive engine, environment or gameplay. Something where the gameplay in itself is entertaining enough to keep the gamer occupied ... without the need of 2000 missions or 60h worth of story. For example like the do-as-you-please gameplay of GTA, where it's also fun to just mess around the city, like the insane stunt stuff, openend gameplay, etc. Another example would be Crazy Taxi, very contained (content-wise) game, yet you are able to replay it for hours.

 

[sytaylor]

I think Teasy read it right: Miyamoto's saying there's not much HE likes to play today. He's speaking of his own personal game-playing preferences, and he's entitled to his opinion.

He said similar things about the Dreamcast, only noting that "Seaman" was quite interesting, and the whole fishing controller wasn't terrible. So he talks a good game, and obviously knows what he likes, but I wonder how Nintendo would fare if he were to mention their games and lack of originality? They're as guilty as anyone post '97 IMO...