Miyamoto: "...To not be thinking about retirement would be strange."

#51DesperateMonkeyPosted 3/7/2013 9:58:26 AM
Quote:DesperateMoney, bolding your posts doesn't make you any more correct...

I should also point out that Nintendo wasn't the first to attempt to re-vitalize the North American video game market, though they were the first to succeed, and would remain the only ones to succeed in the market until Sega released the Genesis.


First paragraph makes no sense.

Second paragraph is a silly case of determinism. Quality control may have helped, On the other hand it may have hindered.

It is undeniable that technological advancement was integral to the success of Mario. At the time Mario was a huge graphical leap.

It is completely subjective that what nintendo did it was positive for everyone. It was simply positive for those gamers who grew up liking Nintendo. This is like claiming that Final Fantasy has a universally positive affect. Even though I like cinematic gameplay and nice fmvs, This is not the case for all gamers. Similarly not everyone thought the obsession with 2-D side scrolling was a positive. In fact the video game industry has grown several times since the NES and SNES days.
---
Sent from my iPhone via PowerGuides 1.10
#52XoarWinsPosted 3/7/2013 10:35:21 AM
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/719011/wired-sticks-by-miyamoto-retirement-story/
No more retirement rumors, 'Moto! You're killing Ninendo's stock value.

and I'm still waiting for a remake of Zelda III, because it's just gold.
#53crowe_1Posted 3/7/2013 10:43:18 AM
DesperateMonkey posted...
Quote:DesperateMoney, bolding your posts doesn't make you any more correct...

I should also point out that Nintendo wasn't the first to attempt to re-vitalize the North American video game market, though they were the first to succeed, and would remain the only ones to succeed in the market until Sega released the Genesis.


First paragraph makes no sense.

Second paragraph is a silly case of determinism. Quality control may have helped, On the other hand it may have hindered.

It is undeniable that technological advancement was integral to the success of Mario. At the time Mario was a huge graphical leap.

It is completely subjective that what nintendo did it was positive for everyone. It was simply positive for those gamers who grew up liking Nintendo. This is like claiming that Final Fantasy has a universally positive affect. Even though I like cinematic gameplay and nice fmvs, This is not the case for all gamers. Similarly not everyone thought the obsession with 2-D side scrolling was a positive. In fact the video game industry has grown several times since the NES and SNES days.


It is not subjective that the declining gaming industry in the 80s was revitalized after the success of Mario and the NES. Nintendo's/Myamoto's involvement caused the industry to grow, which I think can universally be considered positive. Perhaps another company COULD have advanced things further than Nintendo did, but we'll never know. Competitors existed, but what the masses wanted was NES/Mario and not the competition. Without Miyamoto's IPs, the industry could very well be much smaller than it is right now.

Or it might be near-non-existent as far as consoles go. The market WAS crashing, and that's because people were no longer interested enough in what was available, largely due to low quality control. Nothing says definitively that anything else would have grabbed the public interest at that crucial point to revitalize the industry. Investors, seeing a failing business venture, could have taken their money elsewhere and let the ship sink. It may have been years before anyone else stepped up and got people buying again, if at all. And if no one else stepped up, the industry would probably not have advanced as far as it has. Which was the point of the first guy you quoted.
---
My SSBM combo vids:
http://www.youtube.com/user/crowe1
#54SlimeSwayzePosted 3/7/2013 10:55:11 AM
I don't see the point in arguing about alternate realities. The fact is that Miyamoto created some of the greatest and most inventive and imaginative titles in the history of gaming. Not only have his games brought positive innovation and advances in gameplay, but he has helped inspire and push others over the last 20-30 years. And some of the best young developers working today would likely not be in the industry if not for him and the inspiration his games provided.
---
Currently Playing: Too many to report.
#55DesperateMonkeyPosted 3/7/2013 1:17:04 PM
It is not subjective that the declining gaming industry in the 80s was revitalized after the success of Mario and the NES.

I don't think subjective is the word you're looking for. It is pure speculation That if Nintendo did not arrive no one else would have. The extinction of video games is also possible but a very ill logical and unlikely.

Nintendo's/Myamoto's involvement caused the industry to grow, which I think can universally be considered positive.

It is considered positive To those who grew up enjoying those games. But what if another developer came along and took gaming in a completely different direction? It could also be positive but it might benefit a different demographic.

Perhaps another company COULD have advanced things further than Nintendo did, but we'll never know.

My point exactly. This is exactly the historical problem with Ethnocentrism. Historians tend to make up explanations for why something was the only way it could happen and why it was better for everyone. Video game history is no different. You can choose to only see how gaming was saved by Nintendo. Or you can see that Nintendo succeeded due to a critical point in technological advancement and affordability And that their monopoly may have hindered other genres and platforms.

Competitors existed, but what the masses wanted was NES/Mario and not the competition. Without Miyamoto's IPs, the industry could very well be much smaller than it is right now.

Yet it could also be much bigger As evidenced by the PSX and PS2 generation and even the current generation.

Or it might be near-non-existent as far as consoles go.

a scenario as possible as the opposite.

The market WAS crashing, and that's because people were no longer interested enough in what was available, largely due to low quality control.

Your belief that it was quality-control alone is an extremely rudimentary view of history.

Nothing says definitively that anything else would have grabbed the public interest at that crucial point to revitalize the industry.

I believe you are making an assumption to fit your conclusion. The best majority of what was special about Mario had to do with technology.

Investors, seeing a failing business venture, could have taken their money elsewhere and let the ship sink.

That just means a new company would come in Like Nintendo did.

It may have been years before anyone else stepped up and got people buying again, if at all.

A few years delay is neither predetermined or overwhelmingly important in videogame history.

And if no one else stepped up, the industry would probably not have advanced as far as it has. Which was the point of the first guy you quoted.

And the point of my argument is that you guys view what happened as the only way something could have happened. A common mistake of those who wish to extract simplicity from history.
---
Sent from my iPhone via PowerGuides 1.10
#56Luigi4PresidentPosted 3/7/2013 1:47:27 PM
I hope his last Mario game goes out with such a big bang. It needs to be everything and anything.
---
There's no radical -1 in team!
Official Jiggs of the Pokemon X/Y Boards
#57excitebike64Posted 3/7/2013 2:01:45 PM
What I find strange is the paradox.

Japanese tend to change the gaming formula. It's the culture. Yet, change is old?

Then you get people who don't change anything, and yet they are representing the future? Redone, FPS for example.

You people make no sense, and are the one's being old school. Miyamoto has changed over time, even if with a bit of stubbornness.
#58uberking422Posted 3/7/2013 4:16:21 PM
Tsutarja495 posted...
DTY3 posted...
Also no exp so why even battle?


To get coins, which are used to buy stickers and activate the Battle Spinner. Not just the coins at the end of a specific battle, at the end of the stage you get more coins based on how many enemies you beat in the stage. So there is a purpose to battles even if there isn't experience, and everything is based on your equipment.


YES. Thank you. I was honestly beginning to worry that I was the only person that had figured this out. Lord knows I've seen far too many people talk about battles being pointless, then whine about Thing Stickers being too expensive.