Skrevet 10-11-2011 23:26 - Redigeret 05-06-2012 23:24
#1 - Skrevet 10-11-2011 23:26 - Redigeret 10-11-2011 23:28
The Differentiation of Content and Value
From the Investor Q and A from Activision Blizzard we hear:
And so we want to make sure we continue to offer our players, not only the best content but also the best value.
The comment is made in a reply to the Diablo 3 and WoW promotion (“Subscribe for WoW for a year and get Diablo 3 free”).
Why am I mentioning this?
Two reasons. One, people think I made up this word called ‘content’. But it is a term that has always been used in entertainment. Content is to entertainment as food is to a restaurant. A restaurant can attempt to sell through environments, through friendly staff, cheap prices, but at the end of the day it is all about the food. In the same way, entertainment can try to sell itself with jingles, pretty ladies, and grand introductions, but at the end of the day it is about the content. People do not read books because of their covers. The cover is not the content of the book.
Second, Reggie Fils-Aime said that ‘by content, he means value’ which is not the case. Nintendo does not believe in content. They only believe in the process of the gameplay, not the big picture of what that gameplay represents. Nintendo would be unable to make Super Mario Brothers today.
Gasps go out from the audience.
Content was the primary reason why Super Mario Brothers, Legend of Zelda, and Metroid sold so well back in the 1980s. With Zelda and Metroid, it is obvious. There is so much game in there. Zelda and Metroid had vast, vast worlds hidden in their cartridges unlike any other game.
Super Mario Brothers had a massive number of stages at the time (1985) with eight worlds with four stages each being 32 levels! And there was so much diversity among the levels! One stage, you are underground. Another, you are in the sky. And yet another, you are underwater. Or you are on bridges dodging flying fish. Or you’re in a castle. While the game mechanics were very important, it is undeniable that Super Mario Brothers kept tickling one’s imagination. Where did those pipes go? Did they lead to interesting rooms or lands like that one pipe did? What is this Mushroom Kingdom? Just by using sprites hinting at more, Nintendo made a billion dollars. It was hinting at a coherent universe. Super Mario Brothers 3 is loved not because of the tanooki suit but because it clarified this coherent universe with maps and better exploration of the unique worlds. Games like Ocarina of Time also are so loved because it hinted at a coherent universe. As Nintendo games deal only with ‘gameplay processes’ and away from content, the universe disintegrates as does fans’ passion. Zelda is going the way of bargain bin PC adventure games (mostly because the director loves those type of games). Metroid has disintegrated. And Mario is moving in that direction with things that do not make sense in the Mario Universe like ‘Miis’ or games set in space.
I’d honestly like to know why Miyamoto is hostile to the idea that games are about content. What does the huge success of GTA 3 show? Or World of Warcraft? It is that players go crazy over much quality content. It is no different when we first played Legend of Zelda for the first time and saw this HUGE WORLD on the NES (it may not seem that way today, but compare Zelda to any other NES game or any video game prior made to that. And there were TWO QUESTS). Metroid seemed to scroll on forever and we were convinced there was a secret world in it. Super Mario Brothers was just massive.
But once upon a time, Miyamoto sold the idea of Super Mario Brothers using five worlds when he actually wanted eight. And once upon a time, Miyamoto said in an interview published by Nintendo Power that Super Mario Brothers 3 was about the further exploration of the Mushroom Worlds introduced in Mario 1. So at the height of his career, Miyamoto thought content was very important.
Iwata interrupts the blog post to say, “But content is very expensive.”
No, it isn’t. It is only expensive if you try to detail every blade of grass and every snot in a pig’s snout. Artists are the biggest enemies to content. Artists always want ‘more detail, more detail’ where it is better for a game to have more content even if it isn’t as detailed.
“But what about Twilight Princess? Certainly, it has much content.”
No, it doesn’t. Empty fields and boring dungeons are an example not of content but of diluted content. The final dungeon was so disappointingly small. Content is the substance. Pouring water into a drink does not make more of a drink. It just dilutes it. It becomes ‘watered down’. Everyone would rather have a drink that isn’t watered down than a drink, that has more liquid in it, that had water placed in it.
“Why does content matter?”
If you wish to prosper, you must allow the customer to prosper. Content feels like the customer is prospering. They feel they got so much for so little. They then tell all their friends, and it spreads.
Jeg er fuldstændig enig i, at Nintendo har et kæmpe problem med at levere (nyt) content. Som jeg ser det, tror Nintendo, at de er et teknologisk firma, der hovedsageligt - ved at lege med teknologien - skal udvikle gameplay-mekanismer. Men gameplay er ikke nok i sig selv. Man skal have en motivation for at spille et spil. Der skal være interessante ting at lave og der skal være et univers, der kan stimulere ens fantasi.
Siden afslutningen af SNES-generationen har Nintendo haft problemer med at skabe content. De har stort set ikke været i stand til at skabe nye spilserier (der bygger på fiktion og mytologi) og ydermere har de ikke formået at tilføre nyt og spændende content til de etablerede serier. Der er ekstrem meget genbrug af det samme content og ellers er fokus på en eller anden teknologisk gameplay innovation (læs: gimmick). Nintendo tror, at de skal differentiere sine spil ud fra konstante skift i gameplay gimmicks i hver serie. De vil konstant genopfinde den dybe tallerken selv i etablerede serier med fantastisk gameplay som Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda, Smash etc. I stedet burde Nintendo differentiere sine spil ved at tilføje nyt og bedre content til fremtidige udgivelser, som jeg ser det.
#2 - Skrevet 11-11-2011 00:05
Hmm, ja, jeg er nok også ret enig. Men gad vide hvad man skulle lave af nyt content til et nyt NSBM...#3 - Skrevet 11-11-2011 00:10 - Redigeret 11-11-2011 00:14
Nye verdener, nye fjender, nye sammehænge. Jeg er ikke spildesigner, men selv jeg har masser af ideer til, hvad man kunne gøre.#4 - Skrevet 11-11-2011 00:43
Hvad med en 'Factory World'. Det er set i spil som DKC, men jeg mener ikke det har været med i et Mario-spil? Men det er så også det - hvornår bryder vi med Mario-universets regler? F.eks. ville en fabrik aldrig passe ind i et Zelda-spil, men Mario er efterhånden blevet ret moderniseret i serierne udenfor SMB, så måske det ville virke.#5 - Skrevet 11-11-2011 01:07 - Redigeret 11-11-2011 01:08
Det afhænger af implementeringen, men umiddelbart vil jeg sige no-go. I øvrigt har Nintendo udforsket så lidt af det originale Mushroom Kingdom content, at der slet ikke er behov for at bevæge sig så langt ud.#6 - Skrevet 11-11-2011 01:18
Ja, det er selvfølgelig rigtigt nok... Hmm, jeg synes det er svært at finde på nyt content, godt jeg ikke skal gøre det. x) Men når du siger udforske det oprindelige Mushroom Kingdom, mener du så med at skabe nye områder indenfor de allerede kendte verdener, med alt det der hører med (fjender, figurer, power-ups, interaktion)? Eller hvordan?#7 - Skrevet 11-11-2011 01:22
Nemlig - udforsk verdenen. Ligesom Nintendo gjorde fra SMB1 til SMB3.#8 - Skrevet 11-11-2011 01:24
Det kunne være fedt nok med random encounters, der ikke kun foregik på World Mappen, men også i selve banerne. Således at der lige pludselig dukkede nye fjender op i ellers velkendte baner. Jeg skal dog ikke gøre mig klog på, om det ville bryde med formlen for meget - det ville også lidt ødelægge highscoreaspektet, da det ville gøre det svært at sammenligne scores, når man i nogle playthroughs ville møde flere fjender etc.#9 - Skrevet 11-11-2011 01:26
Jeg snakker ikke om random encounters, men bare om ideen om, at en boss godt kunne være placeret midt i en normal bane fremfor altid til sidst i et lille eller stort slot. Om ideen vil være god i praksis skal jeg ikke kunne sige. Det er ikke mig, der får en fantastisk hyre for at udvikle spillene - det er Nintendos egne udviklere. Men det er blot for at understrege, at der er mange måder man kan forsøge at gøre et nyt Super Mario Bros.-spil interessant på. Nintendo virker bare ikke til at have nogen ideer. De kan kun finde ud af lave lamme gimmicks som brug af waggle eller Mii's.#10 - Skrevet 11-11-2011 01:33
Det kunne da også være sejt, hvis man blev jagtet efterhånden som man klarede flere baner. Efterhånden bliver Bowser mere og mere sur, og lige pludselig bliver man overfaldet af et luftskib midt i en bane, hvor den så bliver endnu sværere, fordi man så skal undgå kanonkugler fra oven osv.#11 - Skrevet 14-11-2011 20:30
Denne artikel er ret sjov. Lidt lang, men underholdende. Det får en til at spekulere lidt over, hvad Nintendo egentlig laver og hvilke tanker de gør sig om de gamle spil:#12 - Skrevet 14-11-2011 22:41
De fleste af Malstroms parodier er ekstrem underholdende, men også fyldt med gode pointer.#13 - Skrevet 14-11-2011 23:06
Forudså han også New Super Mario Bros.?#14 - Skrevet 14-11-2011 23:13 - Redigeret 14-11-2011 23:14
LOL, hvad tror du selv? Manden har ønsket et nyt Super Mario Bros. siden 1991 - ligesom alle os andre med god smag.#15 - Skrevet 14-11-2011 23:17
Ja, jeg ved godt at han efterspørger det. Hvad jeg mente var, om han forudså at der ville komme et til Wii - ikke at det betyder så meget, though.