Quantcast
When will we see Shuntaro Furukawa's influence take hold at Nintendo?

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - When will we see Shuntaro Furukawa's influence take hold at Nintendo?

The_Liquid_Laser said:
We won't know what Furukawa is really about until Switch gets a successor.

Iwata became CEO during the Gamecube years, but we didn't really know what he was about until the DS and Wii released. This is why I still say that Switch will be the best selling console of all time. It is still basically an Iwata console. He figured out his previous mistakes with the Wii and realized how to make a console thayt is a great fit for both Nintendo and the marketplace: the Switch.

The Switch's successor will be Furukawa's first console where he had a say in the design of it. That is when we will learn what he is really about.

You mean Wii U?



Around the Network

I don't know if Kimishima had no effect on the company. He did bring in paid online which is pretty un-nintendo like.



Because Japanese companies are well known for radical changes.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

TheMisterManGuy said:
RolStoppable said:

Gameplay and level design have been stellar in the NSMB games, but the rest has to be lifted to the same level. That's basically it. It's something that Nintendo refused to do when Shigeru Douchebag Miyamoto was general producer. His mission was to make 3D Mario games sell better than 2D Mario ones, so new ideas and production values were reserved for 3D Mario to convince the market that 3D Mario is the superior Mario. However, the influence that those decisions had on sales were first and foremost a reduction in 2D Mario sales while 3D Mario sold hardly better than before, so the mission failed because significant damage was done to hardware sales by handicapping a big system seller IP.

If Furukawa wants to demonstrate that he has a clue, he will tell the developers to make a 2D Mario game as good as they can because the market (read: the historic sales data) demands it that way. Whereas Iwata was both a developer and businessman, and therefore his developer roots made him sympathize with developers too much at times, Furukawa is only a businessman and should therefore tell the developers who is the boss. The market is the boss. If Nintendo wants to continue to sell lots of hardware and software, they'll have to serve the boss. That will be Furukawa's big challenge, that he keeps his best developers in check and doesn't allow them to make Sunshines, Wind Wakers and Pikmins.

Technically, Furukawa doesn't oversee the developers directly, Shinya Takahashi is in charge of software development. Granted Takahashi answers to Furukawa, but he seems pretty hands off in that regard. Also what's wrong with Pikmin?

What's wrong with Pikmin is that its sales numbers provided no justification to have Nintendo's in-house teams work on game 2 and 3. It's a waste of resources to have the best developers work on a niche IP when it's key for Nintendo that their best developers work on projects that can sell hardware.

If someone wonders what's wrong with the other games I mentioned, it's that Nintendo has repeatedly used an established IP to sell different ideas. This has created valleys in the sales history of various IPs because Nintendo simply didn't meet the expectations that the market had for the IPs. When you compare that to the Pokémon series which doesn't engage in any wild experiments, but rather keeps making the same overall experience again, and then see how stable sales of the IP have been, then it should be pretty obvious what the more reasonable approach is. Whenever a development team comes with a different idea, it should be turned into its own IP, because if the idea is supposedly good, then the whole thing should be able to stand on its own feet. Case in point here is Splatoon.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Never. He is just a puppet controlled by Miyamoto



German YouTuber and Streamer:
StarCraft and Fallout 4 currently.

Me trying to write reviews:
Octopath Traveler

Amazon June 2019 thread

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
TheMisterManGuy said:

Technically, Furukawa doesn't oversee the developers directly, Shinya Takahashi is in charge of software development. Granted Takahashi answers to Furukawa, but he seems pretty hands off in that regard. Also what's wrong with Pikmin?

What's wrong with Pikmin is that its sales numbers provided no justification to have Nintendo's in-house teams work on game 2 and 3. It's a waste of resources to have the best developers work on a niche IP when it's key for Nintendo that their best developers work on projects that can sell hardware.

If someone wonders what's wrong with the other games I mentioned, it's that Nintendo has repeatedly used an established IP to sell different ideas. This has created valleys in the sales history of various IPs because Nintendo simply didn't meet the expectations that the market had for the IPs. When you compare that to the Pokémon series which doesn't engage in any wild experiments, but rather keeps making the same overall experience again, and then see how stable sales of the IP have been, then it should be pretty obvious what the more reasonable approach is. Whenever a development team comes with a different idea, it should be turned into its own IP, because if the idea is supposedly good, then the whole thing should be able to stand on its own feet. Case in point here is Splatoon.

This brings up the interesting thought experiment of trying to figure out where Mario Kart would be if it was instead "Kart Racers" with original characters, Splatoon was instead "Mario Soakers."



RolStoppable said:

What's wrong with Pikmin is that its sales numbers provided no justification to have Nintendo's in-house teams work on game 2 and 3. It's a waste of resources to have the best developers work on a niche IP when it's key for Nintendo that their best developers work on projects that can sell hardware.

Pikmin isn't a system seller, but it still does a solid 1 million copies with each main entry. That's enough for Nintendo to continue doing it. Not every game needs 50 million sales to be considered successful.

If someone wonders what's wrong with the other games I mentioned, it's that Nintendo has repeatedly used an established IP to sell different ideas. This has created valleys in the sales history of various IPs because Nintendo simply didn't meet the expectations that the market had for the IPs. When you compare that to the Pokémon series which doesn't engage in any wild experiments, but rather keeps making the same overall experience again, and then see how stable sales of the IP have been, then it should be pretty obvious what the more reasonable approach is. Whenever a development team comes with a different idea, it should be turned into its own IP, because if the idea is supposedly good, then the whole thing should be able to stand on its own feet. Case in point here is Splatoon.

I Think experimenting with both new and traditional IP are both equally important. It all depends on whether it fits with the IP or not. For example, Cappy in Super Mario Odyssey works because it's a natural extension of the Mario Power up mechanic, just without the actual power-ups. I like New IPs, but I also like expanding upon existing ones as well. That's why I also want Nintendo to start taking more risks with the Mario universe again, in addition to completely new concepts. The Mario universe has a lot of room to explore, so why not explore some of it?



TheMisterManGuy said:

Pikmin isn't a system seller, but it still does a solid 1 million copies with each main entry. That's enough for Nintendo to continue doing it. Not every game needs 50 million sales to be considered successful.

I Think experimenting with both new and traditional IP are both equally important. It all depends on whether it fits with the IP or not. For example, Cappy in Super Mario Odyssey works because it's a natural extension of the Mario Power up mechanic, just without the actual power-ups. I like New IPs, but I also like expanding upon existing ones as well. That's why I also want Nintendo to start taking more risks with the Mario universe again, in addition to completely new concepts. The Mario universe has a lot of room to explore, so why not explore some of it?

I said nothing about not continuing Pikmin. My point is that an IP with such sales shouldn't occupy a top development team. If Nintendo really feels like there needs more Pikmin, they can outsource the IP to a studio that has nothing better to do.

The second part of your post reads like another disagreement where there shouldn't be one. But on the topic of more Mario games, I will say that there are already so many spinoff series that some of them are dormant for a long time because Nintendo doesn't have enough teams to make a sequel to everything. Beyond that, I'd rather have Nintendo make a multiplayer Zelda game that is worthy of the Zelda name unlike the previous attempts Four Swords Adventures and Triforce Heroes where the fundamental mistake was too much emphasis on puzzles instead of slaying and upgrading which such a game should be about.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

TheMisterManGuy said:

Pikmin isn't a system seller, but it still does a solid 1 million copies with each main entry. That's enough for Nintendo to continue doing it. Not every game needs 50 million sales to be considered successful.

I Think experimenting with both new and traditional IP are both equally important. It all depends on whether it fits with the IP or not. For example, Cappy in Super Mario Odyssey works because it's a natural extension of the Mario Power up mechanic, just without the actual power-ups. I like New IPs, but I also like expanding upon existing ones as well. That's why I also want Nintendo to start taking more risks with the Mario universe again, in addition to completely new concepts. The Mario universe has a lot of room to explore, so why not explore some of it?

I think his point on Pikmin is that even though it's a million seller it's not a game that will be prioritized when a platform still needs to be pushed Nintendo will obviously keep doing games like Pikmin but likely later on in a platform's life when the system sellers are out or alongside a system seller.

They are experimenting with both new and traditional IPs it's just as he said the ideas that can stand on their own are made into new IPs, it's better this way tbh because taking risks with an establish IP can lead to situations like with DmC Reboot and DMC where even though the former is still a good game it's hated by many of the usual fanbase because they feel it should never have been part of the franchise so even when a risk is executed right you can still draw a blank the result is it's better to do a new IP for such risks and expand your library with them.



RolStoppable said:

I said nothing about not continuing Pikmin. My point is that an IP with such sales shouldn't occupy a top development team. If Nintendo really feels like there needs more Pikmin, they can outsource the IP to a studio that has nothing better to do.

Nintendo doesn't need to outsource though. Just because Pikmin is being developed by an internal team, that doesn't mean they can't still continue working on it. Like I said, it still does well enough to justify it being done internally. Same with games like ARMS and Labo. They're not mega sellers sure, but they have an audience, and if the teams still want to make more games in those series, well they should be able to. I'd understand outsourcing if the development team simply has no ideas or feels somebody else can do what they're looking for better, like what happened to F-Zero after X. But I think outsourcing a game just because it's not a system selling mega hit is a very shallow mindset.

The second part of your post reads like another disagreement where there shouldn't be one. But on the topic of more Mario games, I will say that there are already so many spinoff series that some of them are dormant for a long time because Nintendo doesn't have enough teams to make a sequel to everything. Beyond that, I'd rather have Nintendo make a multiplayer Zelda game that is worthy of the Zelda name unlike the previous attempts Four Swords Adventures and Triforce Heroes where the fundamental mistake was too much emphasis on puzzles instead of slaying and upgrading which such a game should be about.

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, I even mentioned that I also want New IPs regularly from Nintendo. I was just making a point that you can experiment with existing IP as well. As for your other part, I agree that I would love to see another multiplayer Zelda that doesn't fallow the arcade-style format of FSA or Triforce Heroes.