Theres no such thing as new or old maelstrom, they are the same person.

'old maelstrom'= articles, which are professional

'new maelstrom'=blog posts.

The problem is you expected the blog posts to be articles, blog posts are like random spur of the moment personal posts, not carefully researched annotated reports.

i have read maelstrom long before any of you have and im to the point where i dont care about his opinion when it comes to games. he likes the old school way more than the new school and thats his problem on the gaming front.

now when he gos and rants about such a little thing like the new Wii cases i just have to walk away. im holding it (crystal bearers) in my hand and its not much different than the original Wii cases. now hes threatening to place put nintendo in the same "industry" category? lol! NO!

@Rol: Well i agree that it would have been quite a mess, but it still could have been done that way. This in no way contradicts that the current way is much better.

@KungKras: Well the payback time is quite long, depending on the source, even two decades, but still shorter than the time it takes to pay back the loan you took for the house.

In a bigger scale use, for example Yellowstone has so much geothermal potential it could be used to provide all the electricity USA needs. Though, i don't think Malstrom thread is the right thread for the topic.

@vanatos: The difference is that Malstroms idea was to write about disruption and there's not much "disruptive" happening so he can't point to something disruptive. NSMBWii has been the "most disruptive" thing happened in a while. But even with his rants he has made lately, he's still been making as good notions as earlier.
Before the blog, Malstrom didn't write anything when nothing happened. With the blog, he writes even if nothing happens. This may lead into frustration waiting for the next move to happen.
It's also hard to disagree him with the UGC direction and the lack of "revolutionary" games from Nintendo just by looking the first half of 2009. Before WSR there was no big titles that make something "new". This hadn't been a problem if Wii Music and Animal Crossing had delivered.

"It's also hard to disagree him with the UGC direction and the lack of "revolutionary" games from Nintendo just by looking the first half of 2009. Before WSR there was no big titles that make something "new". This hadn't been a problem if Wii Music and Animal Crossing had delivered."

Even if some don't agree it was UGC specifically, there was something that caused Nintendo to not have games ready in that time.

What I -and I suspect other readers- find disturbing is not his specific opinions on the practical, general issues at hand such as longevity of games, need for more attention to the customer, need for more variety in the catering to different submarkets. Not even when his opinions are completely opposite to mine.

What I despise is his method of trying to fit a complex reality into an oversimplified theatre of the mind complete of a few magic rules, an incarnate evil industry, a paladin of the gaming movement and so on.

This bad habit of him, that I called ideologism but might be a leftover from his political analyst career, is only exacerbated by the form of the blog because he forces a lot of minor daily details into his grand theories. And he never seems to refine or doubt the theories themselves, or at least he's never willing to show the process.

That's how a populist politician works, but not how a supposedly scientifical analyst works.

I would love to see more in-depth articles on disruption, maybe trying to understand how to apply a concept that was born about physical products and techs to cultural artifacts such as games are. I would like to read discussions about world coherency and content in videogames, maybe without bending the sales data according to a preconstitued theory. I would like to see more about the short-circuiting of technology and public needs, as his "technocrati" article was deeply flawed.

In brief, I've always agreed or -mostly- disagreed with the guy by the means of reasoning. I'm afraid a lot of people like or dislike what he writes for all the wrong reasons -identity issues, mainly- and I wish that he himself gave more space to the mind, less to the guts. The trouble is that it's the less popular option, of course.

@LordTheNightKnight: Indeed. I was expecting it to be lots of M+ games, but obviously that wasn't the case.

@WereKitten: Well, he is very stubborn in few aspects.

The technocrati was a blog post, if i recall, but it wasn't flawed. It had a message that technocrati thinks tech changes the world, when in reality it's the customer that changes the tech. That's why we have lots of "tech stuff" that are DOA, while every successful gadget succeeds because it was what the customer needed.
What he's pointing out with the customer-developer relation is correct. That is what history have proven.

If you look at the context he's writing, himself as a lapsed gamer, you could find his opinions to make more sense to you. He didn't play console games for a decade and there likely is a reason for it. I tend to believe that lots of other people in the same situation share the same view.

But, he could write more analytical posts, since they are the most enjoyable post to read.

And, it's not how populist politican works, it's how ideologic politican works. Simplified: ideology is about "left" or "right", while populism isn't about either.

^The "technocrati" blog post was deeply flawed, not in saying that tech has to satisfy users needs to be successful -which is obvious- but because it stated that every successfully applied tech must originate from an explicit consumer request, implying that consumers are always entirely conscious of their eventual needs.

I'd say that's naive and that's not how technology works, nor how people work. Sometimes you have to show people for the first time the glimpse of something new to have them become consumers of a new product, users of a new tool, interested in a new idea.

People are complicated things, they aren't born as consumers with holes in their souls shaped as products.

Again, that would be an interesting point for him to discuss if he elaborated more about the actual story of technology adoption and tried a little less to shoehorn everything in the "users come first" disruption business rule. And, mind you, if he didn't tag people who have a different opinion on the subject as tecnocrati, regardless of the word's real meaning.

Once more, it's not about his opinion. It can be debated over, argumentation and data can be presented. That would be good. Reducing every argument to the strawmen, with idealized tecnocrati and an evil industry who express extreme opinions nobody can agree with? Not a good method.

Of course that's ideological, that's how I called it myself. But it's also populistic in the measure in which for the sake of the direct contact with his readers he often talks to their guts, not to their minds. It's easier, and playing some roles makes you popular. Popularity doesn't add an ounce of validity to some ideas, though.

@WereKitten: He actually points out in numerous occations that the consumers don't know what they want before they see it (that's why there's a lot of failed "disruptive" products). That's one of the basis in disruption.

The technocrati believes that they know that the consumers want new tech. When consumers want new tech only if it gives them benefits. Look at the Wii and how much opposition its new tech, the controller, got from the industrys customers. This is also why the technocrati thinks Wii Remote is a gimmick, because all they see are gimmicks, what all new tech is to them, when they themselves run from one gimmick (new tech) to another.

I do agree that he could have a little different take, but it's a lot easier to understand what he's talking about if you read the articles first. It also gives you a proper background.

I don't think it's about "having his readers read what they want to read", since in that case i don't think he would be so hard when it comes to Nintendo.

First of all, he's basically stating he's just stopping the blog because he wants to move onto something else that's still game related.

Second of all, the big thing I agree with here is the game industry being in trouble, specifically because costs are rising (in both development and marketing), while sales in general have not been for these big games. Last gen, only the biggest games would not be able to sell a million and not be quaranteed to make a profit (and most were hit series that would sell more than that anyway). That's now the norm with HD games.

Email: Some final questions

Hello

I was defiantly taken aback by you suddenly ending your blog. It came out of left field, however, I see your point. I had some questions burring in the back of my mind, but I’d like to ask you them before it’s too late. I hope you will take the time to answer these.

1)I have a lot of friend who play Street Fighter. I noticed that a lot of the more recent games have not done well. Then, you mentioned that Street Fighter 2 was a phenomenon. It got me wondering how there was a shape turn from being an entertainment success to being a niche series. Since you know a lot more from that time period, why did Street Fighter collapse after 2?

I haven’t really played Street Fighter 3 and 4 and all the little spin-offs in between to give you a definite answer. But Street Fighter 2, when it came out, was red hot. People were buying consoles just for that game. Neo Geo’s fighting games were all because of the huge craze over Street Fighter 2.

I think Street Fighter 2 faded because it became “industrialized”. You bought Street Fighter 2. Awesome! But then comes out Street Fighter 2: Championship Edition where you can play the bosses. OK, not a sequel, but still cool! Then comes out Street Fighter 2 Turbo which is everything sped up. Pretty cool, but where the hell is Street Fighter 3 at this point? And then comes out Super Street Fighter 2 which is some tweaks and four more characters. Disappointment sets in since it is clear Capcom is milking this  (though, Super Street Fighter 2 has been forgiven due to Cammy being made of awesomeness).

Street Fighter 3 never did have the same impact. Neither did 4.

You’d be better to ask a longtime Street Fighter fan more as to why Capcom cannot recapture the magic. One problem has to be increased competition. Street Fighter 2 had nothing like it before. There were fighting games but they were very clunky. Street Fighter games since Street Fighter 2 has had to compete against other fighting games. So you could say the genre has turned into a red ocean of a sort.

Smash Brothers was a fighting game that did everything differently and attracted a very different audience. You could, perhaps, say that Smash Brothers was a ‘Blue Ocean’ type of game in a genre saturated with Street Fighter 2 clones.

In order for Street Fighter series to regain that phenomenon, someone is going to have to successfully backwards engineer the fun and the spark that lit the fire for the second one. And then they are going to have to take it a step further somehow.

I do recall that prior to Street Fighter 2’s release, there was no such thing as a ‘fighting genre’. If there was, it was more like Double Dragon or Streets of Rage.

I also remember how much of the impact the characters and the content of the game had on the imagination of players. The characters really fire up the imagination from Ryu to Blanka to Zangeif to Chun-Li and others. I guess the idea of a martial artist putting his hands together, chant something in Japanese, and a blue fireball flies out was intoxicating to people at the time. Most fighting games prior were ‘realistic’ and didn’t use ‘magical abilities’. But Street Fighter 2 never felt ‘absurd’ with those abilities or like a ‘fantasy game’. It felt consistent to the game world Street Fighter 2 was portraying.

The difference between Street Fighter 1 and 2 is astronomical!

2)You mentioned before that New Super Mario Bros Wii was disruptive. What are some examples of games being disruptive, and how might a series go about being disruptive.

What I mean by this is that the game loves the ‘low end’ of consumers. Most games fight for the ‘high end’ of consumers. Also, Mario 5 focused on a different context for its game series. The classic Mario series (and even the 3d Mario games) all have relied on sustaining values of greater graphics and vaster worlds. Mario 5 does do some of that. But Mario 5’s focus was on multiplayer which put classic Mario games into a new context of play.

What is Mario 5 disrupting? The 3d Mario games as well as other games that focus on increasing the product through graphics and world size.

Now, suddenly, people are looking at series like Mega Man and thinking, “Wouldn’t this be cool if it were multiplayer like Mario 5?” Mario 5 is opening these type of games into a new context of use.

Wii Sports is a good example of such a ‘disruptive game’. Wii Sports has crap graphics, has very little features, but focuses on ease and accessibility with the motion controls. Wii Sports placed video games into an entirely new context. What did this game disrupt? Other sports type games. I’d rather play tennis with Wii Sports than with any other tennis game.

Tetris is another good example. Tetris came from Russia because it could not come from Japan or the West at the time. Tetris was a game of blocks that came out when all of gaming was roaring to go 16-bit.

3)I think Nintendo is banking a lot on Zelda Wii, but from hat you mentioned, and the current state of Spirit Tracks, it looks like it could take a turn for the worse. What do you think will happen if Zelda Wii ends up like Wii Music or Animal Crossing?

Well, what do you think will happen if Zelda ends up like Wind Waker? Or Majora’s Mask? Or Twilight Princess? Nintendo developers will just declare themselves geniuses and make the next Zelda to be “unlike any game we have ever seen before!”

One criticism I am hearing from fans is that Aonuma should read fantasy novels. They are saying this because Zelda doesn’t seem to be an exploration of fantasy anymore but an exploration of bizarre gameplay mechanics such as the train.

These fans’ criticism is a criticism of content. They are saying, “Stop trying to re-invent the gameplay wheel. Make new content.” When fans say they are tired of the formula, they mean they are tired of the first dungeon always being a forest temple, they are tired that the first three dungeons always leads to the Master Sword, and that the Overworld always sucks.

It would make logical sense for a maker of a fantasy game to read about fantasy. It makes sense for a maker of a historical game to read about history, for a game about submarines to read up on submarines, for a game on penguins to learn about penguins, and so on.

You have to understand that Nintendo does not believe gaming is in the content business. From a Nintendo perspective, their focus is on the gameplay mechanics first. Content is just warped around whatever mechanics they throw in.

No one is saying gameplay isn’t important. But like shoes on your feet, a game travels further with both good gameplay mechanics and good content rather than with one shoe.

Customers do not perceive games from a lens of gameplay mechanics (developers do). They perceive games from a lens of content. I’ve seen the board game of Monopoly trashed by some developers by saying the gameplay is ‘flawed’. So what? The content of Monopoly is quite marvelous in that you are running around, buying lands, selling four green houses for a red hotel, and is far more about real life than people suspect. Content is the spirit of the game. Without quality content, the greatest gameplay mechanics makes the player feel like a monkey in an obstacle course. You have to excite the player’s imagination.

4)Lastly, would aliens in the latest Indian Jones movies (The Crystal Skull) be out of place similar to how trains are out of place in The Legend of Zelda?

I’d say so. People do not want science fiction elements in their Indiana Jones movies.

Thank you for your time. I really hope you reconsider ending your blog because I love reading your post. In fact, for Christmas, I got “Blue Ocean Strategy” and it is really interesting. I also think I might get Moster Hunter Tri, and I’m hoping Zelda Wii will be like it (in terms of action). Either way, I wish you luck in your endeavors and a Merry Christmas.

P.S.Do you think you’ll ever write that article on the state of Zelda?

Yes, it will be written.

The blog and the main site I consider two different creatures. The blog was started more to comment on things in the news, to laugh at analysts, that type of thing. But the blog grew at such a rate that many people don’t even know there is another site! They think “Malstrom’s Articles” is the blog! It has been difficult to write articles when the blog keeps sapping the well dry.

There will be some sort of conclusion for the Disruption Chronicles. Whether Nintendo follows disruption or not, this Industry is being disrupted by forces completely outside the Industry.

I suspect the insistence of the “Industry” to call the disruption as “casual gaming” is massive, massive damage control. For all its existence, the “Industry” has painted itself to investors and to everyone else as always growing, always evolving, ready to take over the world. Now, the “Industry” is shocked that it is now an entity in decline. The decline has been in effect for years, of course, but the “Industry” can no longer spin them. The decline has become that severe. The passengers of the Titanic could also ignore the decline until water began to pour into their beds. Hardcore gamers could also ignore the decline until the number of games began to shrink and game companies began to squeeze as much money as possible from existing consumers. There will be less games in 2011 than in 2010. That is an unspinnable indicator of “Industry” decline.

What is called “casual gaming” will ultimately replace all of gaming. The games of today will be considered “games for old men” years from now. The hardcore will become those old men playing “old men games” from that surviving niche.

I interpret the crap game cases as the structure of the Titanic boat beginning to rapidly deteriorate. In other words, gaming is going to worse rather than better for the consumers. It is less and less reason to buy a game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJy6X2noABs&feature=player_embedded

Above: The “It Can’t Sink!” was swallowed by the Blue Ocean not slowly but suddenly to people’s total surprise.

Keep in mind that I have disappeared before and returned doing something slightly different. After the Wiikly, I disappeared and did the Blue Ocean articles. After that, I disappeared and came back to do Birdman and the Disruption articles. After that, I kinda disappeared here and there and made this blog. Now, I will disappear and something else will appear.

It is a new year! It is a time to shift gears. I’ve been presented with a choice: I can either nurse and tend the sick “Industry” as it lies fading away in its high definition hospice. Or I can bring gifts and celebrate the birth of a new baby industry who no one suspects.

Write the tombstone of one industry or the birth certificate of another industry? I’ll choose the baby industry.

Nintendo is not ‘destroying’ gaming. Gaming is dying already from its bloated sick style. Instead of the “Industry” marshaling its energy in spinning this, they should be spending its energy in trying to switch over to the New Generation of Gaming. The sickness in Core Gaming is fatal. The boat of “Cinema Gaming” cannot magically rise from the waters it finds itself sinking deeper into. It is time to get on the lifeboat while you still can. Another boat is out there, another ‘industry’, but it is much smaller than the current “Cinema Gaming” boat. But the destination of the smaller boat is far more interesting.

The old boat only knew how to go in circles and travel to Hollywood. But this new boat is out on an unknown course that might lead to the New World.

Do. Not. Bring. Politics. Into. My. Gaming.