Jay520 said: Kresnik said: Naughty Dog didn't start out as a team that were 'skilled' at hardcore/mature gameplay, but they just built on it over time to become the company they are today.  You can physically see the progression through the Jak franchise into Uncharted, from a studio that started making mascot platformers. Nintendo would be more than capable of doing it if they gave it a chance, it just sounds like they're too happy with the rut they're stuck in.  Like APM says, it's certainly the right decision from a business perspective, but as a consumer I wish they'd just give it a try. The difference is that ND has never publicly said that they couldn't make hardcore games. Unlike Nintendo who has said so on multiple occasions. I don't think they would say such a thing if they didn't believe. I could understand if they were confident that they could pull off hardcore gameplay, but they don't. Why use resources on something you don't even have confidence in when you could use those resources for what has proven to work? And besides, they have their brand to uphold. So that's two reasons: Brand and lack of confidence.

By Nintendo do you mean Iwata and Miyamoto? The CEO concerned with business first and 1 (granted very important) game designer? What about the hundreds if not thousands of developers at Nintendo's studios? We can't know what ideas they've had and maybe even discussed internally only to be shot down by higher ups. There could be one lead game designer or group of developers who have a lot of faith in a game that happens to explore mature themes, but it isn't a good business decision so it doesn't get considered. 

"Why use resources on something you don't even have confidence in when you could use those resources for what has proven to work?"  More or less addressed the confidence part, but again, I'm not speaking from a business perspective. Of course that would be the clear decision from the point of view of someone trying to make a profit out of the company, but as a consumer that's becoming less and less interested in Nintendo's IP but sees the potential of their studios, I'd like them to try something new, including something mature.

Jay520 said: If a developer comes put and says "we can't do XYZ very well" is say its likely they can't do XYZ very well. And as a gamer, I wouldn't want them doing those things when they already have am excellent strategy going on. And I'm not saying, I wouldn't want new experiences. They could still work on new IPs with new gameplay but I wouldn't want them to go the mature route. You don't have be mature for yhe gameplay to be as best ad of can be. Maturiy is just a covering of the deeper gameplay. And I wouldn't want a company dramtically risking risking quality for element that doesn't dramtically improve quality, even if the element is mplemented correctly.

I've covered this in my latest reply (to yours and kresniks discussion)

Andrespetmonkey said: Jay520 said: Kresnik said: Naughty Dog didn't start out as a team that were 'skilled' at hardcore/mature gameplay, but they just built on it over time to become the company they are today.  You can physically see the progression through the Jak franchise into Uncharted, from a studio that started making mascot platformers. Nintendo would be more than capable of doing it if they gave it a chance, it just sounds like they're too happy with the rut they're stuck in.  Like APM says, it's certainly the right decision from a business perspective, but as a consumer I wish they'd just give it a try. The difference is that ND has never publicly said that they couldn't make hardcore games. Unlike Nintendo who has said so on multiple occasions. I don't think they would say such a thing if they didn't believe. I could understand if they were confident that they could pull off hardcore gameplay, but they don't. Why use resources on something you don't even have confidence in when you could use those resources for what has proven to work? And besides, they have their brand to uphold. So that's two reasons: Brand and lack of confidence. By Nintendo do you mean Iwata and Miyamoto? The CEO concerned with business first and 1 (granted very important) game designer? What about the hundreds if not thousands of developers at Nintendo's studios? We can't know what ideas they've had and maybe even discussed internally only to be shot down by higher ups. There could be one lead game designer or group of developers who have a lot of faith in a game that happens to explore mature themes, but it isn't a good business decision so it doesn't get considered.  "Why use resources on something you don't even have confidence in when you could use those resources for what has proven to work?"  More or less addressed the confidence part, but again, I'm not speaking from a business perspective. Of course that would be the clear decision from the point of view of someone trying to make a profit out of the company, but as a consumer that's becoming less and less interested in Nintendo's IP but sees the potential of their studios, I'd like them to try something new, including something mature.

You keep saying there 'could' be this & that. Again, it doesn't make since to risk your very high level of quality for an element that doesn't help gameplay that much anyway, for a developer that 'could' have some good ideas.

I'm not talking about sales either. I'm talking about quality. You say you want them to try something new. I'm fine with that. But I don't agree with them trying something mature because it can cause large drops in quality if implemented poorly, yet only small rises in quality if implemented well. Maturity isn't required for new experiences. Experiences without maturity can be just as good as experiences with maturity. I really don't see the benefit in being mature for the sake of being mature.

Jay520 said: You keep saying there 'could' be this & that. Again, it doesn't make since to risk your very high level of quality for an element that doesn't help gameplay that much anyway, for a developer that 'could' have some good ideas. I'm not talking about sales either. I'm talking about quality. You say you want them to try something new. I'm fine with that. But I don't agree with them trying something mature because it can cause large drops in quality if implemented poorly, yet only small rises in quality if implemented well

They don't really have to risk anything, though.  I'm not sure I understand this quality part either.  I agree, yes, across the board their studios make stunning game after stunning game.  But that doesn't mean that a Link's Crossbow Training, Wii Music or Steel Diver can't fall through the net.

But anyway, the reward is great.  Since APM is using the same example as me, I'll use it again - Naughty Dog.  If they were stuck making Crash Bandicoot games now, I'd probably be happy and I'd proabably still play them.  But Uncharted - and to a lesser extent Jak - challenged what they could do, pushed them forward, and they were all the better for it. 

Nintendo have so many development studios, they only need to put one onto a new project.  They can have the others keep all the other franchises ticking over/keeping up the quality while they're working on a new one.

For a company who - for all intents and purposes - have always tried to do things a little bit differently than the competition (especially in terms of hardware, for example), it's a shame to see them stuck on making games in a certain style.  There's always going to be limitations on it.  I'm not saying they should just give up what they're doing and focus on making hardcore games, but just having a go would be nice.  I'd love to see Nintendo's take on a mature themed game.

Jay520 said: Andrespetmonkey said:   By Nintendo do you mean Iwata and Miyamoto? The CEO concerned with business first and 1 (granted very important) game designer? What about the hundreds if not thousands of developers at Nintendo's studios? We can't know what ideas they've had and maybe even discussed internally only to be shot down by higher ups. There could be one lead game designer or group of developers who have a lot of faith in a game that happens to explore mature themes, but it isn't a good business decision so it doesn't get considered.  "Why use resources on something you don't even have confidence in when you could use those resources for what has proven to work?"  More or less addressed the confidence part, but again, I'm not speaking from a business perspective. Of course that would be the clear decision from the point of view of someone trying to make a profit out of the company, but as a consumer that's becoming less and less interested in Nintendo's IP but sees the potential of their studios, I'd like them to try something new, including something mature.   You keep saying there 'could' be this & that. Again, it doesn't make since to risk your very high level of quality for an element that doesn't help gameplay that much anyway, for a developer that 'could' have some good ideas. I'm not talking about sales either. I'm talking about quality. You say you want them to try something new. I'm fine with that. But I don't agree with them trying something mature because it can cause large drops in quality if implemented poorly, yet only small rises in quality if implemented well. Maturity isn't required for new experiences. Experiences without maturity can be just as good as experiences with maturity. I really don't see the benefit in being mature for the sake of being mature.

So it doesn't make sense for me, a person with very little interest in Nintendo's existing IP, to want them to create new IP exploring themes I enjoy instead of themes I have no interest in? 

It wouldn't be a small rise in quality for me. It would make a massive difference for me, i.e. actually wanting to play the game. I can look at Super Mario Galaxy, for example, objectively and see why others find it enjoyable, and I can see how it is a quality game. But what use is that to me when I have 0 interest in that kind of gameplay and character? If there's a chance that that same amount of quality and polish could be in a game that I'd be interested in, I would love it to exist. And I don't believe it to be a small chance, out of the hundreds of creative minds they have there's bound to be some great concepts for mature games, and Nintendo could always hire a few other developers with experience in creating mature games that could help direct their existing talented devs.

I think you're being a little hypocritical, you say " it can cause large drops in quality" just like I'm "saying there 'could' be this & that." It's a risk, and as I said it's a risk I'd love them to take.

 

Kresnik said: Jay520 said: You keep saying there 'could' be this & that. Again, it doesn't make since to risk your very high level of quality for an element that doesn't help gameplay that much anyway, for a developer that 'could' have some good ideas. I'm not talking about sales either. I'm talking about quality. You say you want them to try something new. I'm fine with that. But I don't agree with them trying something mature because it can cause large drops in quality if implemented poorly, yet only small rises in quality if implemented well They don't really have to risk anything, though.  I'm not sure I understand this quality part either.  I agree, yes, across the board their studios make stunning game after stunning game.  But that doesn't mean that a Link's Crossbow Training, Wii Music or Steel Diver can't fall through the net. But anyway, the reward is great.  Since APM is using the same example as me, I'll use it again - Naughty Dog.  If they were stuck making Crash Bandicoot games now, I'd probably be happy and I'd proabably still play them.  But Uncharted - and to a lesser extent Jak - challenged what they could do, pushed them forward, and they were all the better for it.  Nintendo have so many development studios, they only need to put one onto a new project.  They can have the others keep all the other franchises ticking over/keeping up the quality while they're working on a new one. For a company who - for all intents and purposes - have always tried to do things a little bit differently than the competition (especially in terms of hardware, for example), it's a shame to see them stuck on making games in a certain style.  There's always going to be limitations on it.  I'm not saying they should just give up what they're doing and focus on making hardcore games, but just having a go would be nice.  I'd love to see Nintendo's take on a mature themed game.

The thing is maturity is really a tiny factor in gameplay quality. It's really only the superficial layering of the game. Why do you want them to go for maturity so badly if maturity wouldn't change much. What would you want? For them to add blood in the game? Make the characters look realistic? How would this help gameplay? Would it make you enjoy the game more? No, its just being mature for the sake of being mature.

There are still infinitely many gameplay ideas for developers and you don't need to be mature to implement them. The mature element of a game is really just aesthetics. Not being mature doesn't prevent them from trying any new gameplay experiences.

There already is too many games like Call of Duty out there so I don't mind this. I am still going to buy the Wii U regardless.

Andrespetmonkey said: Jay520 said: Andrespetmonkey said:   By Nintendo do you mean Iwata and Miyamoto? The CEO concerned with business first and 1 (granted very important) game designer? What about the hundreds if not thousands of developers at Nintendo's studios? We can't know what ideas they've had and maybe even discussed internally only to be shot down by higher ups. There could be one lead game designer or group of developers who have a lot of faith in a game that happens to explore mature themes, but it isn't a good business decision so it doesn't get considered.  "Why use resources on something you don't even have confidence in when you could use those resources for what has proven to work?"  More or less addressed the confidence part, but again, I'm not speaking from a business perspective. Of course that would be the clear decision from the point of view of someone trying to make a profit out of the company, but as a consumer that's becoming less and less interested in Nintendo's IP but sees the potential of their studios, I'd like them to try something new, including something mature.   You keep saying there 'could' be this & that. Again, it doesn't make since to risk your very high level of quality for an element that doesn't help gameplay that much anyway, for a developer that 'could' have some good ideas. I'm not talking about sales either. I'm talking about quality. You say you want them to try something new. I'm fine with that. But I don't agree with them trying something mature because it can cause large drops in quality if implemented poorly, yet only small rises in quality if implemented well. Maturity isn't required for new experiences. Experiences without maturity can be just as good as experiences with maturity. I really don't see the benefit in being mature for the sake of being mature. So it doesn't make sense for me, a person with very little interest in Nintendo's existing IP, to want them to create new IP exploring themes I enjoy instead of themes I have no interest in?  It wouldn't be a small rise in quality for me. It would make a massive difference for me, i.e. actually wanting to play the game. I can look at Super Mario Galaxy, for example, objectively and see why others find it enjoyable, and I can see how it is a quality game. But what use is that to me when I have 0 interest in that kind of gameplay and character? If there's a chance that that same amount of quality and polish could be in a game that I'd be interested in, I would love it to exist. And I don't believe it to be a small chance, out of the hundreds of creative minds they have there's bound to be some great concepts for mature games, and Nintendo could always hire a few other developers with experience in creating mature games that could help direct their existing talented devs. I think you're being a little hypocritical, you say " it can cause large drops in quality" just like I'm "saying there 'could' be this & that." It's a risk, and as I said it's a risk I'd love them to take.

What are these mature 'themes' that will supposedly help you enjoy the game so much more? Realistic characters? Foul language? Blood? I don't think, and I'm just assuming here, that these shallow elements will help you enjoy a game more. So what specifically are these mature elements that you speak of? Because all the mature 'themes' I can think of are shallow and have little affect on gameplay.

Jay520 said: What are these mature 'themes' that will supposedly help you enjoy the game so much more? Realistic characters? Foul language? Blood? I don't think, and I'm just assuming here, that these shallow elements will help you enjoy a game more. So what specifically are these mature elements that you speak of? Because all the mature 'themes' I can think of are shallow and have little affect on gameplay.

A few of my favourite games are Portal 2, Heavy Rain, Uncharted 2, Resistance. So here we have dark humor, advanced puzzling, a plethora of mature themes in HR, cinematic and realistic action and drama, alternate history, horror...

So no, I'm not just interested in "fucks" and headshots.

They may have little affect on the quality of the gameplay, but they have tremendous affect on my motivation to play the game and interest in the fiction.

Jay520 said: The thing is maturity is really a tiny factor in gameplay quality. It's really only the superficial layering of the game. Why do you want them to go for maturity so badly if maturity wouldn't change much. What would you want? For them to add blood in the game? Make the characters look realistic? How would this help gameplay? Would it make you enjoy the game more? No, its just being mature for the sake of being mature. There are still infinitely many gameplay ideas for developers and you don't need to be mature to implement them. The mature element of a game is really just aesthetics. Not being mature doesn't prevent them from trying any new gameplay experiences.

I remember around the time PS2 coming out, hearing that Insomniac had dropped the Spyro licence and were making something new.  I was distraught, and I remember reading a quote from Ted Price which said something like "Spyro was limiting us, we'd reached the end of what we could do with him, I mean he didn't even have hands so he couldn't hold a gun!" [something like that, I can't remember the exact quote]

Along came Ratchet and Clank which I was all poised to hate and - to my surprise, this was Spyro.  It was Spyro 2.0.  It had all the collecting that I'd come to love, the platforming, the wacky characters, the colourful worlds and on top of all that it just had some really silly and enjoyable shooting sections.

This isn't the most drastic example of maturing gameplay because obviously, it's Ratchet, it's still a cartoony platformer.  But can you imagine Nintendo moving away from the Mario franchise for a year to make a platformer with guns, just because it would add another gameplay element to the ones they already have?

I'm not saying Nintendo should be mature for the sake of being mature.  But I don't think they should ignore it altogether either, it has a place in the forumla but it doesn't have to be the main focus.

Their strategy is working, obviously.  People aren't tired of rescuing Peach from Bowser for the umpteenth time with little more motivation than that.  But for every 3 fans they gain for sticking to it, there's a person like me who grows a little weary of it.  Obviously, I'm the minority so I matter less and am probably not going to get catered to, but that doesn't mean I can't wish - and hope - for something to change.