5 ms·

Agreed, got some good insights in the article and I will be reading more as well. Also explains the sequelitis of the video game industry: while new ideas/IP c

Agreed, got some good insights in the article and I will be reading more as well. Also explains the sequelitis of the video game industry: while new ideas/IP can succeed, it's a risk. People really want more of what they know. Consider a random platformer, or the exact same game reskinned as Super Mario.

aikinai 6y ago
A tangent, but this is one reason Nintendo is so successful; they know the characters sell, while at the same time understanding it’s not the characters but the quality of the game and that really matters and brings customers back for more. That’s why they first experiment and develop a lot of game ideas looking for the most fun mechanics. Then after something is shaping up into a great game, they look at the IP catalogue and see what skin to put on top. Edit: In general, but not 100% of the time. The Zelda team is mostly consistently the Zelda team and does set out with intent to make the next Zelda game, for example.
- gumby 6y ago
  > A tangent, but this is one reason Nintendo is so successful; they know the characters sell, while at the same time understanding it’s not the characters but the quality of the game and that really matters and brings customers back for more. I think you undersell this comment: it’s far more than a tangent. Nintendo and Bandai the only companies I’ve worked with who I’ve Consistently heard the term “fun” discussed at the executive suite level, or a level below. Back in the Ken Kutaragi days at Playstation (SCEI in those days) this was true as well. Hasbro seems to value playfulness, but in my more limited experience The higher up the chain the less relevant it was. Could be that the execs took it as a given? Never came up in any AAA titles I talked with folks about at the companies (but big disclaimer: I never worked on one!) You don’t have to be Marvin Acme, but “fun” seems like a pretty basic value, while objectives like “engagement” I’d see as a consequence,not a primary goal. I think understanding this is what has made Nintendo so successful for decades, and has allowed them to survive flops.
  - aikinai 6y ago
    Oh, I just meant a tangent in the discussion. It’s definitely critical to Nintendo’s success! Also, very interesting to hear your experience with the other companies.
- blackrock 6y ago
  I used to love reading those Nintendo Power magazines when I was a kid. I can't believe they actually got people to subscribe to it. Most likely, it was parents who bought a subscription for their kids. As a kid, I always marveled about video games. The wizardry behind it was always fascinating to me. And Nintendo elevated video games to an art form. Decades later, I finally built my own basic video game, and I finally unraveled the mysteries behind it all. It's like you finally saw the true structure of the The Matrix in its coded form. And you said to yourself, there is no spoon.
wincy 6y ago
Like Doki Doki Panic was reskinned to become Super Mario Bros. 2.
heavenlyblue 6y ago
Isn’t there also a limited set of genres of games anyway? Why would you rebrand Starcraft if the players only want a reskinned version of Starcraft 1? There’s probably not much new you can invent by trying a totally new RTS anyway. We don’t reinvent football for example. Reinventing it would get rid of the whole industry around the watching of football.
- brutus1213 6y ago
  I think that is where creativity and imagination come in. I'll give an example I encountered recently. Northgard by Shivo Games. It is absolutely brilliant, thematically and mechanism wise, a re-take on the traditional RTS.
- lacker 6y ago
  New genres appear reasonably often. For example the “battle royale” genre, e.g. Fortnite, was only developed in the past few years.
  - heavenlyblue 6y ago
    You could call that a full genre, but it’s nowhere near the creation of RTS or FPS genres themselves. “Battle royale” is simply a recent development because up until recently we barely had any 3D shooters which had maps huge enough to allow for this style of play.
    - erik 6y ago
      > “Battle royale” is simply a recent development because up until recently we barely had any 3D shooters which had maps huge enough to allow for this style of play. It's often surprising how long it can take for things to become mainstream. The first Battle Royale mod dates from 2013. And Planetside supported hundreds of players in a single match back in 2003.
    - KONAir 6y ago
      UT2k4's Onslauth and every Delta Force games disagree. Especially the ARMAs, which this "new genre" had been there for about a decade (even more with Last man standing mod/es).
chillee 6y ago
I think this is doing a massive disservice to Nintendo. Certainly, they have their "cash grab" franchises, like Pokemon, "New Super Mario Bros <x>", and arguably, Mario Kart/Mario Party. However, Nintendo has always done a phenomenal job in reinventing their franchises - sometimes to the dismay of fans of that franchise. For example, take the 3D Mario games. They have continually reinvented the series, from Mario 64, to Mario Sunshine, to Mario Galaxy, to Mario Odyssey. Or take Zelda. Breath of the Wild is a massive departure from the traditional Zelda formula. An example where they've reinvented to fans' dismay has been Paper Mario. After Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door, fans just wanted more of the same formula. Unfortunately, they've often take the series in a direction that long time fans don't appreciate.
- dhosek 6y ago
  I recently read Mac B Cracks the Code (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1338594230/donhosek http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1338594230/donhosek ) to my kids and there's a history of Nintendo as part of the story. They began as a playing card company in 1889, entered into businesses like making instant rice and offering taxi service before getting into toys in 1969 and releasing their first video game in 1973. They've got a long history of reinvention.

aikinai 6y ago

A tangent, but this is one reason Nintendo is so successful; they know the characters sell, while at the same time understanding it’s not the characters but the quality of the game and that really matters and brings customers back for more. That’s why they first experiment and develop a lot of game ideas looking for the most fun mechanics. Then after something is shaping up into a great game, they look at the IP catalogue and see what skin to put on top. Edit: In general, but not 100% of the time. The Zelda team is mostly consistently the Zelda team and does set out with intent to make the next Zelda game, for example.

gumby 6y ago
> A tangent, but this is one reason Nintendo is so successful; they know the characters sell, while at the same time understanding it’s not the characters but the quality of the game and that really matters and brings customers back for more. I think you undersell this comment: it’s far more than a tangent. Nintendo and Bandai the only companies I’ve worked with who I’ve Consistently heard the term “fun” discussed at the executive suite level, or a level below. Back in the Ken Kutaragi days at Playstation (SCEI in those days) this was true as well. Hasbro seems to value playfulness, but in my more limited experience The higher up the chain the less relevant it was. Could be that the execs took it as a given? Never came up in any AAA titles I talked with folks about at the companies (but big disclaimer: I never worked on one!) You don’t have to be Marvin Acme, but “fun” seems like a pretty basic value, while objectives like “engagement” I’d see as a consequence,not a primary goal. I think understanding this is what has made Nintendo so successful for decades, and has allowed them to survive flops.
- aikinai 6y ago
  Oh, I just meant a tangent in the discussion. It’s definitely critical to Nintendo’s success! Also, very interesting to hear your experience with the other companies.
blackrock 6y ago
I used to love reading those Nintendo Power magazines when I was a kid. I can't believe they actually got people to subscribe to it. Most likely, it was parents who bought a subscription for their kids. As a kid, I always marveled about video games. The wizardry behind it was always fascinating to me. And Nintendo elevated video games to an art form. Decades later, I finally built my own basic video game, and I finally unraveled the mysteries behind it all. It's like you finally saw the true structure of the The Matrix in its coded form. And you said to yourself, there is no spoon.

wincy 6y ago

Like Doki Doki Panic was reskinned to become Super Mario Bros. 2.

heavenlyblue 6y ago

Isn’t there also a limited set of genres of games anyway? Why would you rebrand Starcraft if the players only want a reskinned version of Starcraft 1? There’s probably not much new you can invent by trying a totally new RTS anyway. We don’t reinvent football for example. Reinventing it would get rid of the whole industry around the watching of football.

brutus1213 6y ago
I think that is where creativity and imagination come in. I'll give an example I encountered recently. Northgard by Shivo Games. It is absolutely brilliant, thematically and mechanism wise, a re-take on the traditional RTS.
lacker 6y ago
New genres appear reasonably often. For example the “battle royale” genre, e.g. Fortnite, was only developed in the past few years.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  You could call that a full genre, but it’s nowhere near the creation of RTS or FPS genres themselves. “Battle royale” is simply a recent development because up until recently we barely had any 3D shooters which had maps huge enough to allow for this style of play.
  - erik 6y ago
    > “Battle royale” is simply a recent development because up until recently we barely had any 3D shooters which had maps huge enough to allow for this style of play. It's often surprising how long it can take for things to become mainstream. The first Battle Royale mod dates from 2013. And Planetside supported hundreds of players in a single match back in 2003.
  - KONAir 6y ago
    UT2k4's Onslauth and every Delta Force games disagree. Especially the ARMAs, which this "new genre" had been there for about a decade (even more with Last man standing mod/es).

chillee 6y ago

I think this is doing a massive disservice to Nintendo. Certainly, they have their "cash grab" franchises, like Pokemon, "New Super Mario Bros <x>", and arguably, Mario Kart/Mario Party. However, Nintendo has always done a phenomenal job in reinventing their franchises - sometimes to the dismay of fans of that franchise. For example, take the 3D Mario games. They have continually reinvented the series, from Mario 64, to Mario Sunshine, to Mario Galaxy, to Mario Odyssey. Or take Zelda. Breath of the Wild is a massive departure from the traditional Zelda formula. An example where they've reinvented to fans' dismay has been Paper Mario. After Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door, fans just wanted more of the same formula. Unfortunately, they've often take the series in a direction that long time fans don't appreciate.

dhosek 6y ago
I recently read Mac B Cracks the Code (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1338594230/donhosek http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1338594230/donhosek ) to my kids and there's a history of Nintendo as part of the story. They began as a playing card company in 1889, entered into businesses like making instant rice and offering taxi service before getting into toys in 1969 and releasing their first video game in 1973. They've got a long history of reinvention.