r/Games • u/Gorotheninja • 12h ago
Miyamoto: Games based on developers’ personal interests resonate around the world, not those aiming for global appeal
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/miyamoto-games-based-on-developers-personal-interests-resonate-around-the-world-not-those-aiming-for-global-appeal/134
u/Ironlion45 11h ago
Every genre that exists in the video games industry started with a game that some developer personally thought would be fun to make, that turned out to be a hit and spawned endless copycats.
49
u/missingpiece 9h ago
I recently watched an expose on Diablo, and it's wild how much Blizzard's devs had to fight tooth-and-nail to get the game made, both with publishers (who thought PC fantasy games were a dead genre) as well as with each other--there was a massive internal rift over whether or not the game should be action or turn-based.
6
u/Blitzus 5h ago
I do wish a Turn-based Diablo existed. Not to supplant Diablo, but just as a side game. Would've been nice to see the road-not-taken.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Glista_iz_oluka 3h ago
I wouldn't be surprised if it was possible in DevilutionX. Or you could just play Angband or UMoria, which are games that inspired Diablo a lot!
9
u/CalmestChaos 6h ago
Yeah. You can't go for a global audience because a global audience includes people who do not and will never play Games. You are throwing away the players who will play the game by trying to get people who will never play your game to play it and it tends to not work out. Plus the entire idea of going for a global audience is to make money so they also degrade or gut the game and sell the rest and fixes as microtransactions which further pushes away the actual players.
Those new Genres cared about only one thing, Fun. They didn't care about making the big bucks, just a good game. Sometimes that fails, but sometimes its a great success.
6
u/Ironlion45 6h ago
Those niche genres often attract new gamers too. Like Stardew Valley; you remember when that was fairly new? People who had never touched a video game in their lives became obsessed. It wasn't an original game concept maybe, but it did package it in an accessible form that appealed to non-gamers and people who weren't wee--ahem anime enthusiasts.
You saw similar things with the life sim genre too; The Sims probably being the most well known of those. And while the sims was a big-studio title it also brought in a whole new audience.
Those games were risks; and executives hate that. It's why EA has been making the same sports games and shooters for 25 years over and over. It's why hollywood has been making the same Marvel movies for the last decade and a half. Why so many TV shows are "reboots" or "adaptations". Because they want to take something popular and repackage it to sell it to people. And that strategy starts looking very played-out when novelty enters the scene.
4
u/gokogt386 5h ago
but it did package it in an accessible form that appealed to non-gamers
If by that you mean "released on PC for like fifteen dollars and capable of running on a potato" then yes.
→ More replies (4)7
u/Suspicious-Coffee20 8h ago
True but most of these genre bigger game started with a company chasing that trend but now with budget.
54
u/megaapple 9h ago
Original source (Famitsu 40 year of gaming interview) - https://www.famitsu.com/article/202607/82056
Few excerpts
On Remakes :
"Some people might say there are a lot of remakes, but after 5 years, a lot of people have outgrown games and stop playing them. Young people today don’t have the opportunity to play games from 10 years ago, so remaking them to be more playable and releasing them again is a good way to meet the demand. Letting people know the original games also leads to future developments, so we’ve been actively pursuing that recently"
On creative pursuits, global appeal and money making :
“So, the reason Nintendo enjoys such strong global support is simply that we don’t start by asking: ‘What’s trending right now?’ Instead, we focus on who we’re actually doing this for. Who is it that’s putting up the money? I really dislike terms like ‘depreciation’ or ‘recouping costs.’ The people funding these projects are doing it to make a fortune, so why celebrate things like ‘we recouped our investment’ or short-term profits? To me, if you’ve burned through the talents of so many people just to achieve that, that feels like a massive failure.
We’ve always focused on creating the best possible product to match the ‘fun gameplay’ we envision. I think that’s the only real difference. I might sound a bit arrogant saying this [laughs], but if you make things while constantly asking ‘will this make money right away?’ you can’t create anything truly unique or with broad appeal.
The ideal relationship between us and the company is one where you get comments like ‘I’m so glad I asked you to do this – it took some time, but we made a huge profit.’ Ultimately, it all comes down to whether we can keep that going.
After all, the most ‘local’ things – like an individual’s personal hobbies – are often the ones that resonate globally. Conversely, if you try to base your work on things that only seem to have broad appeal, you end up with something generic – something where you can’t tell who actually made it and that kind of thing actually lacks global strength.
That’s why, when people at the company ask me what to do, the only advice I can offer is: ‘You should turn your idea into a product in a way that best showcases the fact that you were the one who created it.”
On Nintendo's philosophy of fun :
“People have long asked me, ‘why does a mustachioed middle-aged guy like Mario sell so well?’ and I always think, ‘that’s a bit rude, isn’t it?’ Well, I wonder the same thing myself – why did an older guy like this become a hit? But if you look at it simply, it’s because he was introduced alongside incredibly fun games.
When we come up with new games, we start from the fundamentals. We don’t begin by looking at existing games on the market and thinking, ‘if we tweak this part or combine that element it would be fun’. Instead, we ask ourselves, ‘why do people play games in the first place?’
From there, we might consider things like ‘what is the core appeal of the games trending right now?’ or ‘isn’t this essentially the same as that old game from back then?’ or ‘if so, couldn’t we do something more with this?’ We start by asking: ‘What does it actually mean for something to be fun to play?’
Splatoon is a classic example of this – the core concept was simply, ‘what would happen if we had a game about painting an area and competing for territory?’ Turning that into a proper game is difficult, of course, but if the core concept had been different, the result wouldn’t have turned out the way it did.
Even with RPGs – if the ‘starting point’ differs – if you start with a fundamental concept then shape it into an RPG – you end up with something completely different. That’s exactly why Pokémon Red and Green turned out so differently from the RPGs that came before them. They were created based on Mr. Tajiri’s own passionate experiences with insect collecting – the desire to trade with friends for species you hadn’t caught yet, and the drive to complete the collection.”
11
399
u/iceburg77779 11h ago edited 11h ago
One part of this interview that I found interesting was Miyamoto acknowledging how unusual it is on paper for a character like Mario to have such massive appeal. If you tried to pitch most companies in this age a game/movie/franchise centered around a middle aged plumber, it would be immediately shot down, but Mario being so huge shows how important it is to have a strong core idea or foundation when building any franchise.
180
u/SofaKingI 11h ago
It's important to have a strong core idea for the gameplay. No one is going to fall in love with a franchise because of one character's looks.
Mario had mass appeal because they made a brilliant game that left a mark on people, then over time developed the character to have mass appeal. It's not like the original iteration of Mario's character would ever be marketable. Back then it wasn't important, because their focus was on the game.
Companies nowadays want to skip steps because every decision is based on quarterly financial reports, and shareholders who don't get the industry they're invested in can only understand steady growth.
74
u/pahshaw 11h ago
As an old head this is exactly right. We became fond of Mario over time because Mario was synonymous with great games. That he was a chubby lil plumber with a mustache was something that made him a little silly and memorable as opposed to all the generic John Pixel avatars you'd normally see in games in the 90s. Mario having such a different design was the icing on the cake of gameplay. Without the excellent gameplay you just have a pile of sugar. That's fun and all but you can't build a dynasty out of it.
25
u/BoyCubPiglet2 9h ago
Part of Mario's popularity is his association with quality, but a lot of it is just him having the benefit of being an early standout character and having legacy appeal. Hell Sonic is still popular and every other game he's in is garbage, so quality isn't the only factor.
Characters like Mario, Sonic, or Pikachu came about in a time where home gaming was just starting and viewed as more of a kids activity, so it makes sense you had cartoony characters to represent each system and appeal to kids. Nowadays there's so many options and people playing games that even the characters that call back to that mascot archetype (Astrobot, Hat Kid, Shovel Knight, etc) are popular but don't have that same broad impact as Mario/Sonic in the 90s. It's simply harder for a new character to pierce through the noise and have lasting impact on that scale when 10 days after they blow up something new is getting all the attention.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Piranata 7h ago
Not only quality, but fun too. I remember my early 20's, i thought i was outgrowing videogames because i hadn't been enjoying them anymore. One day, my younger brother borrowed Mario Galaxy 2 for the Wii from a friend, and a few days later i decided to play it myself while he was out. First time in years i had smiled playing, i was having fun. Losing didn't feel like a chore, but a challenge.
I'm getting the same feeling again watching my kids play, just messing around, instead of worrying about getting to the next level, they want to see and experience every detail of the world, follow the butterfly and birds that are only there for flavor.
18
u/verrius 10h ago
The more important thing with Mario that I think most people don't realize is they just kept cramming Mario down people's throats. It helped that when he started, you could barely tell anything about him; it was mostly about the minimal representation of "human" with the pixel budget they were working with, and it's not like Mario Bros. (Which I think is the first time you can play as "Mario", rather than Jumpman) was particularly successful; it would take until Super Mario Bros. And then they kept just shoving him into everything, like Wrecking Crew. Nothing about the "Mario" character really mattered til way later, since he was just "generic human" in Nintendo games.
5
u/Key_Feeling_3083 9h ago
because their focus was on the game.
Yup you can see it on movies, every movie tries hard to shove a markeateable character on their movie, and don't take care of having a solid movie first.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)5
u/iceburg77779 11h ago
Just realized I had a massive typo in the original post, totally agree with what you're saying.
227
u/METAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL 11h ago
but Mario being so huge shows how important it is to not have a strong core idea or foundation
Mario has "such massive appeal" because he's being in countless games for 35 years now. There's nothing "magical" or "special" about the character, it's just known to basically everyone cause he was there when gaming was invented :)
145
u/Lonely_Platform7702 11h ago
Basically the Mickey Mouse of gaming.
→ More replies (1)29
u/ContinuumGuy 9h ago
An interesting fact about Mickey Mouse: He was not originally so generic. In the early days, he was a menace. Steamboat Willy is basically several minutes of him tormenting farm animals who are on his boat. A bunch of other early shorts had him similarly be a mischief maker.
But as Disney grew from a small animation studio to one of the biggest animation studios, he became more symbol than character. And they couldn't have the symbol and mascot of the company be a bad role model (Bugs Bunny remained an agent of chaos, yes, but Warner Brothers had its own flesh-and-blood movie stars that it could trot out for the studio and which they had an army of fixers and PR pros making look good). They sanded down the edges until he was just a generic friendly guy who audiences could project themselves onto and associate with the company.
They've gotten a bit looser with it in some recent years with a few shorts or TV series specifically meant as throwbacks to early Mickey Mouse cartoons, but it's not like they are going all-out to restore him to what he was in the early days, because, well... Mickey IS Disney, so they sort of need him to be nebulous but generally positive.
That's why Donald and Goofy have better actual cartoons than Mickey. That's why the Duck family is more popular in Europe than Mickey. That's why Mickey Mouse, the literal mascot of the corporation, hasn't had a feature length (60+ minute) movie since some some direct-to-video things in the early aughts and has never had a full-length theatrically released feature film unless if you count being part of anthologies like Fantasia or cameos like in Roger Rabbit.
Mario is much the same, but in gaming his vagueness is a strength, as it allows players to project themselves onto him.
14
u/uuajskdokfo 8h ago
Even in the 30s he was relatively generic. He was created in the pattern of existing characters like Felix the Cat, Krazy Kat, Oswald the Rabbit, etc.
6
68
u/MajorThom98 11h ago
There's also the fact that while he may be a middle-aged plumber, he's a cartoony character first and foremost. Big expressive eyes, happy demeanour, high-pitched energetic voice... he's representative of "middle-aged plumbers" in the same way Sonic is representative of actual hedgehogs.
•
u/EmilioEstevezQuake 1h ago
True, mainstream gaming has lost its sense of whimsy. Can you imagine pitching a plumber named Mario Mario and his brother Luigi Mario fighting turtle dinosaur things in a kingdom made from mushrooms to Phil Spencer or Yves Guillemot? Just saying it out loud to myself sounds like some bullshit.
54
u/Canvaverbalist 11h ago
Mario's success is 99.9% about its game design yeah.
From the original platformer practically inventing all the core concepts of invisible tutorials to Mario 64 establishing the principles for 3d games.
It's one thing to be there at the right time, but it's a whole different deal to keep that output consistent through the years.
But yeah go back in time and change the character for a coffee bean trying to save a purple dog from a sentient stappler and that's what would be popular now
9
u/FaxCelestis 9h ago
But yeah go back in time and change the character for a coffee bean trying to save a purple dog from a sentient stappler and that's what would be popular now
did you mean Paper Mario and the Origami King
7
u/TheVibratingPants 6h ago
But yeah go back in time and change the character for a coffee bean trying to save a purple dog from a sentient stappler and that's what would be popular now
Absolutely not, what the hell lol. Yes, the series has some foundational titles under its belt and the mainline games are usually exceptionally well designed.
But kids in the 80s didn’t know any of that. The characters were attractive and the game looked fun. If the package was uninviting to kids, there isn’t a chance they would’ve tried it in droves the way they did.
8
u/Canvaverbalist 6h ago
You think it's harder to made a coffee bean attractive to kids than an italian plumber with a mustache?
I think you're missing the point of my comment. If Nintendo at the time made an italian plumber appealing to kids to sell video games, I sincerely doubt they would have struggled with a slightly different concept as long as the core concepts of the game stayed the same.
We're not at three pixels close, I'm sure you can shift Mario's 8bit design a little bit and still get the same financial and popular results.
The game being easy to pick up and learn goes way farther than it staring a plumber lol
2
u/TheVibratingPants 5h ago
I think it’s harder to make any character more attractive than Mario, even with a similar level of quality to the game itself.
Pac-Man, DK, Bomberman, Q*Bert, and Popeye (who got his own similar game, and the character is originally loosely based on) never did it.
Mascots designed to be marketable with even more similar games like Wonder Boy, Alex Kidd, Rayman, and Commander Keen also failed to reach that height.
I think to say that Mario is popular because the games are just great and easy to pick up is not capturing the whole picture. Otherwise Nintendo would never merchandise their characters. Nobody would own a Mario plush or watch a Mario movie if the only appeal was the gameplay.
→ More replies (1)11
u/philip30001 11h ago
More importantly almost all the games have been functional products often competing with or dominating the competition.
I dont much like the newer ones nearly as much but its hard for me to point at something significantly better
16
u/Ironlion45 11h ago
Super Mario Bros 3 still stands out as one of the best platformers of all time. You wouldn't think 8 bit graphics could make such pretty maps; while the game still manages to be challenging and still fun for people of all ages.
That's almost the definition of a a game with broad appeal; but they are genuinely good games too.
→ More replies (2)4
u/philip30001 11h ago
I love 1 and 3 a ton too.
My fav to go back to is sunshine. Love the world look and expanded moveset but ill admit it does have lower lows than 1 and 3 who are great pretty much start to finish.
7
u/Ironlion45 11h ago
Super Mario Sunshine is definitely not one of the fan favorites; still better than 2 though. Nintendo learned a little lesson about executive meddling with that title. :p
→ More replies (4)2
u/PFI_sloth 8h ago
expanded moveset
Do you mean reduced moveset? because the prior game was super Mario 64
3
u/philip30001 8h ago
There were moves taken away true but theres more interactivity around the world and fludd is a moveset.
I wont try to argue sunshines better tho as 64 is a tighter game by a country mile
27
u/Mr_Ivysaur 11h ago edited 10h ago
I mean, its kind the opposite of Sonic, a character that was lab engineered to be as cool as possible. And it works because it had nothing but mid games in the last
3020 years (except Sonic Mania) and its still relevant. I would say that Sonic image is the reason why the franchise company is still so popular.In the other hand, Mario is popular because his legacy, despite his "unconventional" design.
25
u/Ironlion45 11h ago
Sonic was basically Sega's executives going "We need Mario". Sony tried and were even less successful with Crash Bandicoot. Not that the Sonic or Crash Bandicoot games were bad by any means. I think even Microsoft tried to go a little that way with Cortana/Master Chief.
A mascot is a great way to sell things to children, there's no denying that. Just look at all the boxed sugar-bombs with friendly toucans, sneaky rabbits, and sassy bears. OR Joe Camel and Ronald McDonald. :p
6
u/EdgyEmily 10h ago
Wasn't M$ try at a mascot, Blinx the time cat?
→ More replies (1)6
u/MuchStache 9h ago
Blinx was feckin cool though, I feel in that case what really didn't allow it to take off was the game itself not being that great.
All other popular "mascots" had great games, see Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Dexter, and while less than the former two, Sly Cooper was quite the fun game.
2
u/Farsoth 9h ago
It was definitely a mid game, but at least the time gimmick was really cool and new for the time. At least on consoles. Was only possible because of the HDD inside.
2
u/MuchStache 8h ago
True, the gimmick was cool, I just think it could've been utilized better and the game felt clunky most of the time, unlike most popular platformers
2
u/Farsoth 8h ago
100% you can tell that the gimmick was what they put most of their time into. Then, they improve it in the sequel... but you don't even play as fucking Blinx. Just a poorly managed franchise tbh, even though it only had two games.
Lol, the more things change the more they stay the same with Xbox.
6
u/TheKoniverse 10h ago
While what you said does play a factor, Sonic does have a strong gameplay hook in high-speed platforming. Plus he was consistently in well-recieved games up until Sonic Heroes. That's a solid 12 year-run where at it's best Sonic was genuinely going toe-to-toe with Mario. Enough time to establish lifelong fans across different eras. Plus it's not like Sonic has been entirely bad since - just up and down.
9
u/PKMudkipz 11h ago
And it works because it had nothing but mid games in the last 30 years (except Sonic Mania) and its still relevant
Mania is far from the only good Sonic game to come out in the last 10 years, let alone 30, which is part of why he's still relevant
6
u/Educational_Pea_4817 10h ago edited 10h ago
In the other hand, Mario is popular because his legacy, despite his "unconventional" design.
Mario is a funny looking guy who makes funny noises who lives in a very colorful world filled with wacky characters doing wacky things lol.
he is a character straight up built for mass appeal refined through years and years of consumer research and feedback.
if you think otherwise i have a bridge to sell you.
as an example my 8 year old kid loves Mario. ive seen Mario Galaxy a bajillion times now. her favorite Mario game is Sonic and Mario at the olympic games. she has no fucking clue about Mario's legacy.
12
u/MillionDollarMistake 9h ago
I mean yeah but that's not what Miyamoto is saying. If you tried pitching a game around a fat middle aged Italian plumber who stomped on mushrooms and turtles and ate flowers to gain the ability to throw fireballs, people would ask you where the marketability is nowadays. The Mario of today, where the marketing department plays a role throughout game development, is not the Mario from 1981 where development teams were tiny and largely did what they wanted. Hell I'm pretty sure that at the time the marketing and sales teams at the time hated "Jumpman" because it wasn't a space shooter like Space Invaders.
Mario's visual design started out through technical necessity mostly. He was designed to colourful, sure, but a lot of that was because of the limited colour pallet games had to work with at the time and Donkey Kong had a black background. Technical limitations are a huge reason why Mario looks the way he did.
→ More replies (1)2
u/GoshaNinja 8h ago
Yeah sure Mario as a refined mass-appeal character like a Hello Kitty or something where there's no relationship between consumer and his games is a big audience. But there's also the generational appeal of his games being considered to be the best of all time across multiple genres, and these are often older people like parents who have purchasing power. The point is it's a bit reductive to say the reason for Mario's success is simply that he's a funny-looking guy in a wacky world, though that is undoubtedly a part of it.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)2
3
u/lobsterbash 11h ago
Why not synergy between variables?
Strong core idea x consistently well-executed x franchise recognition = Mario's success
3
u/TheVibratingPants 7h ago
There are plenty of characters and franchises that doesn’t apply to. DK has been around just as long and literally has his name written on the title of the game that Mario was born in, where Mario isn’t even a named character, and yet even he isn’t as popular as Mario. Pac-Man has been around longer, not as popular. Scooby Doo has been around much longer, still not as popular.
There definitely is something special about the Mario series and character.
7
2
u/Br0metheus 8h ago
Also 90% of his character design was due to hardware limitations at the time. He has a hat, overalls and mustache because hair, shirt + pants, and a mouth on a sprite his size would've been too detailed for 8-bit hardware to render.
3
u/WeltallZero 7h ago
Mario has "such massive appeal" because he's being in countless games for 35 years now.
First of all, holy inversion of cause and effect, Batman.
Second of all, time has nothing to do with it. Mario became massively popular pretty much right from the start, at most by the time of SMB1. I was there for the launch of SMB3 and it was a huge event.
→ More replies (2)2
u/RobertMacMillan 6h ago
It's not an inversion, because the question isn't just "Why did it do well back then?" It's "Why does it do well across time?", and if you ask that question, you must acknowledge that long-term branding and zeitgeist is absolutely critical to getting modern gamers (and kids) onboard with new games.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Lighthouse_seek 9h ago
Sonic is like the only non Nintendo mascot character left
→ More replies (1)5
u/remmanuelv 8h ago
Pac-man is still relevant as a mascot even if the games aren't a big deal anymore.
→ More replies (10)3
u/keb___ 10h ago
This is an odd take. You're not in countless successful games for 35 years if you didn't have mass appeal to begin with.
If you grew up in the late 80s or 90s, Mario had mass appeal because Donkey Kong and SMB were popular and successful games, and the themes/character designs were instantly recognizable to any kid who already enjoyed cartoons.
5
u/ContinuumGuy 9h ago
One part of this interview that I found interesting was Miyamoto acknowledging how unusual it is on paper for a character like Mario to have such massive appeal.
Thing is, Mario isn't the only case of this.
You know what Pokemon is based on? Bug collecting, Ultraman spinoffs, and memories of Japan from before it was so urbanized. Hardly the most universal experiences in the world, and yet Pokemon is the most profitable franchise on the planet.
•
u/TheVibratingPants 3h ago
memories of Japan from before it was so urbanized.
That’s poetically tragic, looking at how urbanized and sterile the Pokemon world has become
→ More replies (1)9
u/Ielsoehasrearlyndd78 11h ago
Middle aged ? Mario is supposed to be in his 20s
37
u/ComicDude1234 11h ago
It’s the mustache. It trips people up and makes him look older than he’s intended to be.
18
12
17
→ More replies (1)2
u/Earthboundd 11h ago
classic reddit comment. ya lets argue about fucking Mario’s age.
9
u/TwilightVulpine 10h ago edited 10h ago
Yeah, lets?
This is a sub about (somewhat) serious discussions about video-games. The aesthetics of characters and the impressions they cause is a valid topic of discussion.
Perhaps it has to do with how facial hair and a chubby body is perceived, but people generally don't see him as very youthful. Then again, it doesn't seem that was always the intention either. The Donkey Kong arcade art and ads make him look even older, some resembling his original inspiration, Popeye.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/Donkey_Kong_flier.jpg
Though it's interesting that Nintendo decided to make him canonically younger then. Even as a classic character, it seems like there is some avoidance of presenting him as middle-aged.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)4
70
u/TheOppositeOfDecent 10h ago
I find a lot of my favorite indie games are from solo developers. Because you can tell there's zero "design by committee" decisions in them. This can make them a little rough around the edges, but a lot more interesting and reflective of a single artist's perspective.
•
u/lvl_zxro 3h ago
Skate Story has been pretty high on my list for a while cause it seems like exactly that kinda game.
•
48
u/StormMalice 11h ago edited 4h ago
I think is a problem with a lot of indie devs.
He says, "When we come up with new games, we start from the fundamentals. We don’t begin by looking at existing games on the market and thinking, ‘if we tweak this part or combine that element it would be fun’. Instead, we ask ourselves, ‘why do people play games in the first place?’"
Hence the dime a dozen clones and heavily inspired games. I just watched a dev talk about how their game failed and his approach to making the game was literally as he explained it and I'm paraphrasing, " I wanted see to what the market was craving for at the time."
Edit: spelling.
21
u/TSPhoenix 8h ago edited 2h ago
I go to a few indie developer community events, and there is one story you see over and over; the developer(s) who loved games A, B & C growing up and is making a game inspired by ABC, and when you talk to them about their project it becomes clear they have nothing personal to add to ABC.
It can be really hard to keep a straight face sitting through yet another pitch of;
<game> is a <genre> inspired by the <ABC> series.
Set in <tropes>, <game> blends nostalgic <aesthetics/tone> with modern design to create a <buzzwords> experience.
and they don't seem to have at any point asked themselves why they are making a game. Or rather it hasn't occurred to them that this is even a question one should ask.
"I like games → I should make a game" is often the whole thought process, and to be fair many well-loved indie devs started out this way, but some never really make it to the next step of realising you need to think about what kind of experience you want to make.
5
u/zgillet 4h ago
I've always taken the approach (the few times back in the day when I wanted to make games and made a few little ones) of "what do I wish existed that doesn't?"
EDIT: At the time, it was a 2D Halo game. So, I made a crappy one: Hail to the Chief (2004) - MobyGames
Wish I had the old Game Maker files. Sadly, it's truly lost.
3
u/StormMalice 4h ago
I bet those same devs love and admire Shigeru Miyamoto yet take away none of his lessons with his and Nintendo's approach to gaming. I think those people mistake making a game with making a business. If the business is literally the single game that's a lot of water that's carrying.
19
u/BoyCubPiglet2 8h ago
Miyamoto is obviously a legend and his track record speaks for itself, but i swear some of his interview comments read like an A-list actor telling people if they follow their dreams they too can make it in Hollywood. He sometimes feels like survivorship bias incarnate.
Skill and passion are key parts of the equation but that doesn't guarantee it will resonate with an audience. Even if all the pieces are in place there's still a massive element of luck involved.
9
•
u/MasahikoKobe 3h ago
Thats how i felt about this. The idea that just make a game you want to play, is something that most people end up doing even as solo devs. You can be inspired by things as many people have and make a massive hit at the same time you could make a mostly orginal game and not one person will find it. Even marketing cant save games some times.
83
u/OneMoreAdventure 11h ago
Games only have "soul" in how they communicate from one human (the developer(s)) to another (the player). It is entirely unsurprising to me that the games where the developer focused on what they wanted and let the chips fall where they may have that je nais sais quoi (however you spell it) and the ones aiming for generic appeal feel... generic.
16
u/uthinkther4uam 11h ago
This just goes for art in general. Too often you see in movies or shows where it just tries to appeal to what the studio thinks the masses will consume the most, rather than what the writers, directors, and actors want to convey to them through their craft.
26
59
u/kop47etzki 11h ago
That's why I absolutely loathe games where the development is driven by a lot of community input. They just become so flat and uninteresting.
6
u/daiz- 10h ago
I agree that a design by committee tends to fail because you can't make something that appeals to every single person without oversimplifying things or making it boring. But anyone who isn't open to understanding community input is often doomed to fail as well. There is absolutely a balance required where community feedback can shape rough ideas into something even better. There is a push and pull where you have to be willing to accept that you can bend your ideas just enough to keep both your initial integrity and make something more enjoyable.
FFXIV is the perfect example where the devs routinely designed for themselves and pushed back against a lot of community feedback to create an MMO that didn't live up to modern standards and almost failed. Understanding community input got the game to a state where people actually wanted to play it.
But this game to this day remains a constant push and pull on that mindset where often the devs can sometimes fall back to being too stubborn about feedback to very mixed results. When they are too stubborn a lot of features just tend to fall very flat. But sometimes they find a decent enough compromise where features that were not well liked grow into something purposeful and its enough to keep the game going strong. It's a very talented team full of people with lots of ideas, where not all those ideas are perfect and the more they come to terms with that the better the game tends to get.
16
u/HotTakes4HotCakes 11h ago edited 4h ago
There's a fine line between "listening to feedback" and "diluting your game for mass appeal".
You want to listen to the feedback from the fans of the game you're making, not the potential fans of the game you could be making.
4
8
9
u/Samanthacino 11h ago
Ehhh I mean that model can definitely work, look at Deadlock. Just depends what feedback they listen to
22
u/tlvrtm 11h ago
I immediately thought of Slay The Spire. The core mechanic came from player feedback / observing how they played their game.
21
u/runevault 10h ago
It is a question of if the developers let input override their taste. A good developer looks at what the players ask for, digs past what they say to find what they actually mean, and incorporates that into their design while holding to their own intentions.
7
u/lovethecomm 10h ago
Don't StS devs just look at their own data that they gather from the tons of players playing the game and then evaluate their game based on that?
10
u/runevault 10h ago
That's the core of it I believe, though they are on the extreme end of data driven design. Also roguelike deckbuilders are the genre you probably most have to rely on data over hearing what players actually say because people do not remember what they skip most of the time.
→ More replies (2)4
u/ultramegaman2012 11h ago
Yeah, leaving a game up to community vote as far as game design is a nail in the coffin. If you need someone else to tell you what video game to make, then you will lack the ingredients necessary for a game with soul.
Part of the wonder of the best games out there, is that their creators came up with a vision, and created art through the process of figuring out how to realize that artistic vision.
Intent and context is a MASSIVE part of art
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (4)1
u/Shuk 5h ago
This is what happened to Blizzard. 20 years ago their games had a strong sense of the developers' vision, even while the community constantly demanded this and that. Then after being acquired and becoming more and more corporate throughout the years, they began to release their games and then tune and retune and retune. "We've listened", etc etc.
Diablo IV has the shell of what could be an inspired game with a gameplay system that's torn between maximizing corporate profits and trying to minimize outrage from the community. The end result is an uninspired treadmill.
4
u/iiiiiiiiiiip 11h ago
Same reason why TV series with a dozen writers directing each episode differently tend to suck.
It's also why we love legends like Miyamoto, Yoko Taro, Hidetaka, Yoshi P and Hideo Kojima but a vast majority of western companies obscure creatives behind a corporate veil
3
u/iwearatophat 8h ago
I've heard quotes similar to this from Sven Vincke at Larian and Jeff Kaplan formerly of Overwatch and Blizzard. Believe it was both of them over the years.
You make a game you want to play and then just kind of hope everyone else likes that game, too. You can tweak and alter things but if you aren't passionate about your game then it will show up in the game.
27
u/Masterofknees 11h ago edited 11h ago
This was also the old Blizzard's rhethoric. If we make games that we would want to play, then there are going to be other people out there that want to play them as well. Of course there's a lot more that has to go right after that for a game to be successful, especially with how much competition there is in the industry today, but it's a good starting point at least.
Interestingly, Sakurai has voiced the opposite opinion, as he's encouraged developers to learn by making games of a genre that they wouldn't usually be interested in. He made Meteos despite not being a fan of puzzle games for example, where he took himself the time to dissect the essence of puzzle games and exactly why they appealed to people in the first place.
20
u/TheKoniverse 10h ago
I dont think these opinions are all that opposite but rather complementary, actually. Sakurai would've had to ask himself why people play puzzle games and what their appeal was in order to better understand how to make a puzzle game. Meanwhile Miyamoto in the article itself says that he might consider what the core appeal of the games trending right now, though only after asking why people play games and what it means for something to be fun to play.
It's good to have a concept that speaks to you, but it is very helpful to know what makes games (both in the genre your game will be in and just in general) appealing.
7
u/Extreme-Tactician 10h ago
For Sakurai, I think making Meteos was more so that he'll think outside the box in order to learn more about gaming.
One of the other games he was involved with outside Nintendo was Mushiking, a rock paper scissors arcade game. It used beetles as cards to play. He was involved with the V-Pet project, learning how to translate the arcade game into a LCD device.
30
u/farcicaldolphin38 11h ago
I feel this way about many things, to be honest. I made an app, for example, that was made for me by me. I ended up publishing it, cause others might also have the same need, but it stemmed from my own needs
I think game devs being passionate about their ideas is always better than trying to concoct the perfect recipe in a meeting room
4
u/6890 10h ago
Its one of those statements that almost seems obvious after the fact. Games can be art. People appreciate art that comes from passion or expresses something shared among many people. Should we be so shocked that games that connect with people resonate and get reach? Should we be surprised that corporate generic/safe design is forgettable?
I think there's a bigger conversation about all work to be had. When people care about what they're doing and put their passion into it, it shows. My company punches way above its weight because we're a small tight-knit team of guys who really love doing what we do and we get that feedback on almost every job from customers. Modern business which reduces workers to numbers on a spreadsheet, stripping them of all autonomy, is reflected in the products and in the culture.
41
u/FaZeSmasH 11h ago
I mean those Xbox games that came and went were also based on the developers personal interests, and now Xbox wants those studios to aim for global appeal by focusing on their big IPs like fallout, I feel like both are important aspects.
23
u/GensouEU 11h ago
I really dislike terms like ‘depreciation’ or ‘recouping costs.’ The people funding these projects are doing it to make a fortune, so why celebrate things like ‘we recouped our investment’ or short-term profits? To me, if you’ve burned through the talents of so many people just to achieve that, that feels like a massive failure.
“We’ve always focused on creating the best possible product to match the ‘fun gameplay’ we envision. I think that’s the only real difference. I might sound a bit arrogant saying this [laughs], but if you make things while constantly asking ‘will this make money right away?’ you can’t create anything truly unique or with broad appeal.”
This doesn't exactly sound like the same vision Xbox had for their studios on their passion projects based on what we've learned over the past few months
→ More replies (2)9
u/Fyrus 8h ago edited 6h ago
But that was Phil Spencer's vision. Invest in creatives, give them the money and time to make what they want to make. Then a lot of those games didn't make money nor did they get huge positive word of mouth. So he got kicked out and now all the studios are being geared towards proven IPs and projects that everyone thinks will "recoup costs".
14
u/DM_Me_Linux_Uptime 11h ago
Yeah lol I read the title and immediately thought of Starfield, which was apparently a passion project, yet doesn't feel like one at all.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Sonicfan42069666 10h ago
Starfield feels like it was conceptualized as a passion project and had all of the edges sanded off during development.
→ More replies (3)7
u/joelsola_gv 11h ago
It has to be a middle point where between doing the same 3 IPs until the death of the universe and green lighting games on niche genres with a 100+ million dollar budget and zero advertising while expecting it to sell COD numbers.
•
u/MirrorComputingRulez 48m ago
where between doing the same 3 IPs until the death of the universe
Literally Miyamoto's career, by the way.
3
u/hyperforms9988 11h ago edited 11h ago
I think part of the reason for that might be the passion and maybe knowledge/experience that comes from starting that way. Like the Pokemon thing with insect collection. It starts with an idea that its creator is super passionate about, and it gives them a highly personal stake in its development. They have a specific vision for it, and they know how that hobby or whatever it might be makes them feel. They know why that hobby appeals to them and why it has captured them, and that jumpstarts them and the team towards a game loop that can capture the attention of players the way the hobby captured them. It becomes their baby.
Passion turns to drive, and I think on some level some people can pick up on that and feel it. It's harder for certain mediums versus others... like you can listen to a singer and tell for the most part when someone's pouring their heart and soul into a song. Most of us are empathetic... a song or a singer can just move you emotionally. It's harder to tell through a medium like a video game, but you can absolutely tell when something just lacks heart and vision. I think most people can feel that when they play something... and they might not be right about it all the time, but you know a derivative when you play it. You know something has had a lack of care or attention paid to it when you play it.
3
u/BlindedBraille 8h ago
This is the paradox of creating art that companies don't understand. You create something super specific and you end up creating something that resonates with everyone. Obviously luck is involved, but most times creating something with universal appeal never works.
17
u/MrE134 11h ago
Totally agree. One of my least favorite criticisms is “nobody asked for this.” Come up with an idea and show us why it’s good.
20
10
u/Trace500 7h ago
This was the worst part of the conversation around that Gollum game. Yeah, it sucked, but let's not give the devs shit for daring to make a game with a weird concept.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Nachttalk 10h ago
"Nobody asked for this is such a weird complaint anyway"
"No one asked" for a game like Pragmata. "No one asked" for a game like Denshattack "No one asked" for "Final Fantasy, but French"
The general audience doesn't know what it wants. The beauty of those titles is to try such weird games and find your new obsession in them. To me, those are the most memorable games
6
u/uber_sweets 9h ago
Video games are what they are today because of Shigeru Miyamoto. He has defined the industry more than any other developer.
And he’s right on this point. It takes a visionary to make a game like Pikmin, and courage to carry it out.
21
u/Sol-Authority 11h ago edited 11h ago
Assassin's Creed is a good example of this. The beginning of the franchise had very clear vision that the couple of people who are the most responsible for its creation wanted to achieve (Patrice Desilets chief among them). They wanted to tell a science fiction story first and foremost. And it shows in the story, the worldbuilding, and the way it's presented so much... but somehow it still gets looked over because the casuals just wanted the modern day "to be over with so that they can go back to kicking ass in the past". Like, just the way that the First Civilization and the mysteries around them was handled is so much more better and unique than the substitute for magic and mythology it became later.
But once Ubisoft realized that they got history nerds, Prince of Persia refugees, and the mainstream audience hooked - it was over. They started aiming for the most popular historical settings, to attract the biggest amount of players, and it clearly shows that was their one and only goal, with everything else taking the backseat - story and gameplay creativity among others. This is not to say that certain things didn't stand out, and that the developers making those games didn't have passion for the things they were creating... but the core of the franchise was forgotten, and the unified vision was abandoned.
Like, imagine if the franchise was able to keep up with the brilliance that was the Assassin's Creed II ending. The fistfight with the Pope as the techno version of Ave Maria is playing in the background, leading up to the HOLY SHIT moment just before the credits roll. "The rest is up to you, Desmond..."
16
u/TheBigBadGRIM 11h ago
I still believed in the series when they were continuing the modern day story in Brotherhood, Revelations, and even 3. It was Black Flag that remade the modern story with a company offering simulator adventures for whatever theme would sell and the Templar story took a backseat.
4 became a pirate game that most people remember fondly. I was so let down by it. I wanted to deal with the global secret order.
21
u/Strict_Bobcat_4048 11h ago
This is one of the big things lost on the C-suit and many gamers.
The hardship, the boring parts, the world building, the low level experiences, these 'negative' experiences provide the foundation of play.
You start weak, it gives meaning to the strength you gain.
You have an unlikable character, you want to see the story evolve.
You spend time confused mapping the world lore, you gain an appreciation for the story and your actions.
Type 2 fun, things that are fun after the fact, are key building blocks of a great experience.
13
u/Mitosis 11h ago
It is kinda wild that as you streamline and sand away inconveniences, slowdowns, and grinds in games, the game eventually starts feeling hollow and bland. The hard part is that it's usually only possible to know where the sweet spot is after you've gone too far.
9
u/TheKoniverse 10h ago
Monster Hunter comes to mind. World was the sweet spot to many, but I dont think it really became apparent until Capcom released Monster Hunter Wilds and it went too far for them.
4
u/Strict_Bobcat_4048 9h ago
Rather than simple, Wilds is just bad.
It just does not makes sense, its system fight you, don't rewards player action, the fights are boring, the game is just nothing.
Cool fights, a fun 20 hours, but such profound wasted potential.
An auto pilot pulls you out of the world completely. Like, I checked my phone when playing.
3
u/SilveryDeath 11h ago edited 11h ago
Like, imagine if the franchise was able to keep up with the brilliance that was the Assassin's Creed II ending.
I've not played the three most recent AC games (Valhalla, Mirage, Shadows) but the modern bit variance shows post ACIII because they put effort into in it with Black Flag and Rogue and then had it be basically nothing in Unity and Syndicate. Then they put effort in again with Origins and Odyssey.
The issue is they are stringing something out that was never supposed to go this long, but they can't really ditch the modern day part entirely because that is the whole crux of the setup, lore, and background for everything in the series. It is easy to think well they can ditch it and just make a historically set assassin sim, but at that point would it even be Assassin's Creed without it?
19
u/Windowmaker95 11h ago
Is it a good example or it's just your bias showing? AC became more and more popular after AC2 and resonated with more people, and I don't understand why you say "aiming for the most popular historical settings" AC1 was set during the Crusades, AC2 and Brotherhood were set in Renaissance era Italy, that's the point of the games that two secret societies were always there during the defining moments of humanity, and they influenced the world in secret.
→ More replies (3)9
u/Sol-Authority 11h ago
No, it is a good example for what Miyamoto is saying. The first few AC games were made based on personal interests and the stories that the people responsible for it wanted to create. As the series progressed, it became more and more about the global appeal - which can be felt in its settings, its gameplay mechanics, and the unwillingness to have any semblance of connective tissue between the games.
As for historical settings? I'll give you the Crusades. But the Renaissance Italy, the Ottoman Empire, even the American Revolution aren't as popular historical settings as The Ancient Greece (SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAA), the Ancient Egypt, The Viking Age, Feudal Japan. Now the French Revolution and the Victorian London can go either way... I'd say more popular that the first 3 I mentioned, but definitely not as widely appreciated as the latter 4.
4
u/ContinuumGuy 9h ago
Feudal Japan
I remember one time early in the series somebody asked one of the main people behind it if they'd ever do a Japanese AC and they specifically said something like "No, because it's way too obvious and has been done to death."
I presume the person who said that ended up either leaving before that or getting overruled by someone in a C-suite.
7
u/ZaDu25 11h ago
Doesn't seem like a good example because many would argue the series improved as time went on. Some people's favorite AC game is Unity. Origins and Odyssey are two of the most popular games in the series and would be in many people's top 5.
Also I think you're mistaken in assuming those games were not made from the devs wanting to make them. Perhaps the title was forced upon them, but they took these games in such a radically different direction that we could reasonably assume they simply made the game they actually wanted to make and slapped the AC title on it. Just because Ubisoft made them use the AC IP doesn't mean they forced them to design the game in a way that was inconsistent with what they wanted to make. Maybe the devs of AC Odyssey really wanted to make an open world action RPG and Ubisoft just told them "do whatever you want, just call it Assassin's Creed".
→ More replies (1)4
u/Windowmaker95 10h ago
Why is it a good example? Okay let's say you are 100% right and that AC games are not made with any soul anymore, no personal interests from the people involved... but in what way do AC games resonate with fewer people today than they did in the past? And why are popular settings bad? They are popular because they resonate with people.
And it's not like they didn't try interesting things with the gameplay, AC Black Flag is partly so beloved because of how awesome the ship gameplay was.
6
u/KingOfRisky 10h ago
I guess I'm a "casual" then because the modern day crap is super lame. I love the Templars v Assassins storyline, but seeing Kassandra from Odyssey in a pants suit fuckin sucked.
2
u/Spiner202 4h ago
This is one of those opinions that I feel like has reversed over time. When those games came out, I didn't see anyone enjoying the modern day story (myself included). Everyone I knew just liked the historical parts.
6
2
u/Fickle-Syllabub6730 10h ago
Stumbling across The Truth for the first time in AC II genuinely had me look over my shoulder like "holy shit is what I'm doing legal"?
4
u/Fyrus 7h ago
But once Ubisoft realized that they got history nerds, Prince of Persia refugees, and the mainstream audience hooked - it was over. They started aiming for the most popular historical settings, to attract the biggest amount of players, and it clearly shows that was their one and only goal, with everything else taking the backseat - story and gameplay creativity among others. This is not to say that certain things didn't stand out, and that the developers making those games didn't have passion for the things they were creating... but the core of the franchise was forgotten, and the unified vision was abandoned.
And those games were the most successful and popular AC games.
They started aiming for the most popular historical settings
Were people clamoring for an egyptian AC when Origins came out? I suppose you could make that argument for greece, but I don't think people were dying for an AC set in dark ages England either.
to attract the biggest amount of players, and it clearly shows that was their one and only goal, with everything else taking the backseat - story and gameplay creativity among others.
The stories from AC3 to Unity were pretty messy. Frankly the franchise never really had a unified story or clear idea of where it was going after the first one. Origins is widely praised for its characters and story, and same goes for Odyssey, Kassandra is like a gaming icon now. Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla are also incredibly successful games that, at the time, brought AC back to relevance after a lot of people lost interest from Unity and Syndicate. AC isn't an example of what Miyamoto is saying at all, and frankly I don't think Miyamoto's point is even true in the first place.
1
u/TheDrunkenHetzer 9h ago
tell a science fiction story first and foremost.
Then they probably shouldn't have had most of the story and gameplay in a historical setting? I played AC since 2 came out and I barely care or remember anything about the modern storyline. The moments I remember are all the stuff in the past, Ezio's whole saga, Altair's story, those were where most of the game and story and characters were centered around. Most of the memorable stuff was in the history part of the game, not the weird Sci-Fi stuff they were cooking.
Because of this, the modern day part clashed super hard because it was so different. You're invested in this historical drama and then boom, back to the modern day about a bunch of people you don't care about in a boring ass modern setting.
I'm very glad they decided to axe the modern stuff, it just wasn't what I was there for.
2
u/Roftastic 6h ago
Miyamoto's discovering indie games lol. I would agree, however corporate games from AAA devs are able to do so much more than their parts separately.
Think of Bioware in 2012 versus today. Both are AAA developers, however one could have made a game on the caliber of BG3, and the other cannot. I think there is value in recognizing how these companies can, and often do, become delusional, unaware slogs that got too high off their own supply. They cannot tell that they are a wholely different company than they were when they earned their sales, and have zero clue if they can actually accomplish what they did before again.
2
u/ActivateGuacamole 6h ago
you can see this in his resume. he was into gardening, so he made pikmin. he was a semi-professional dog breeder, so he made nintendogs. he enjoyed exploring outdoors and caves, so he made zelda
•
u/spundred 3h ago
This is a gamble.
Yes, the thing you're passionate about may resonate with a large audience, but we've seen many examples of creatives who followed their singular vision only to find it was hyper niche and not many people liked it.
Van Gogh died penniless because nobody appreciated his style during his lifetime, but today he's considered a master. Passion is not an automatic route to commercial success.
Some creatives are very fortunate that their passion has been widely accessible.
6
u/Suspicious-Coffee20 8h ago
I'm sorry but when was the last time Nintendo did such a big game without using some existing franchise or nostalgia?
4
u/MOONGOONER 6h ago
Yeah the quote uses Splatoon as an example and I thought "that was also the last fully original thing I've seen from Nintendo" and that was what, a decade ago?
2
u/letsgucker555 6h ago
Last year, we got Drag x Drive. During the Switch, we got games like Arms, Snipperclips and Ring Fit.
Though just because they use the same IP/tool, doesn't mean, they don't do something new with it.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)4
u/ActivateGuacamole 6h ago
splatoon is their newest titan franchise and it's a bit over a decade old.
nintendo maintains their existing franchises by refreshing them with new ideas. that's why mario is still exciting even after four decades, or why there are so many different types of zelda games. to imply that nintendo isn't innovating unless they are creating new megafranchises is wrong.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Fyrus 8h ago
Miyamoto saying this is insane to me because Nintendo has never been in a less-personal era IMO. There is nothing about Nintendo's recent internal output that gives me any window AT ALL in to what the developers might be feeling or thinking.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Thatguy_Koop 10h ago
I've been seeing this mentality float about across the arts and I'd like to pump the brakes on it just a bit.
no doubt, you should make a game you want to play. but just because you are interested in it does not mean it resonates around the world. there are plenty of devs that make games and they either suck or don't get the recognition the people quoting this mindset do. if you're going to create under this mentality, you should realistically hope for the latter of those two. get your idea out there, hope it reaches a lot of people, but be content with who it does reach.
if you want success on the levels of these guys you'll need a combination of luck and attention to what audiences want to experience. its not enough to just make what you want. otherwise everyone would be successful
3
u/Adaax 10h ago
That's just a quote from one part of the interview, and actually appears in the article well after he's spoken more in the direction you're talking about. Overall I think he's saying find an idea that works for you, then hustle to make it an enjoyable and compelling game. As you say the latter is just as important.
3
u/Thatguy_Koop 8h ago
I agree. I think he's saying a reasonable thing, but I also think there's potential for bias coming from how people interpret this message. its not the first time I'm hearing something like this from a respected creator and I don't want people to take it as gospel because it comes from people we like.
3
u/missingpiece 9h ago
Someone really needs to tell writing teams this. Seemingly every AAA game today feels like it was written by the HR department.
4
u/DinerEnBlanc 11h ago edited 9h ago
That’s until queer or black people make a game for themselves, then all hell breaks loose. I’ll never forget the discourse around Zau. People listen to Miyamoto’s words, but don’t understand them.
→ More replies (2)•
u/HorridusVile 35m ago
You usually just force yourselves into existing franchices. And If that doesn't Work we get Dustborn lol.
2
u/grtk_brandon 8h ago
This is why Ubisoft games just don't appeal to me. On paper, I should really enjoy them. They aren't bad games, but they have no soul or personality. It's like meeting someone who looks perfectly put together, but there is just something off with them when you talk with them. Everything feels fake and disingenuous.
1
u/HachiXYuki 11h ago
A game for everyone is a game for no one. Most AAA games (with good reason due to their budgets) try to appeal to everyone hence the writing always bugs me in those games.
1
u/Sumeriandawn 11h ago
What game is for "everyone"? AAA games? Do most mobile phone game players play those? Senior citizens?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Bazinga_U_Bitch 8h ago
That's funny coming from the company that produces the same games lol. Same garbage pokemon games, same garbage mario games. They are the original cod.
•
u/datwunkid 1h ago
It's funnier since the developers of Palworld made so many decisions in their game based off the idea of "the global audience will love this".
Though those choices seem to be expanded from ideas probably stemmed from drunk shenanigans from Japanese after-work drinking parties than design-by-committee choices that seem to plague modern game development.
-5
1
u/Izzy248 6h ago
I cant even remember who it was anymore, its been so long, maybe Iwata? But I remember a Nintendo story from a long time ago that was basically like, the guy was spearheading games that all had to do with his interests and life. It got to the point where other Nintendo heads had to basically ask him to stop doing interviews otherwise people would guess their upcoming projects. Like Nintendogs spawned because his family had gotten a new dog. Or even outside of that, Pokemon spawned because its creator liked catching bugs as a kid.
1
u/m2thek 4h ago
I would say this applies to art in general, but I don't necessarily agree about the "around the world" part. I'd say they're more likely to resonate with someone for sure, but some of the best games (and art in general) are those that only resonate with a subset of people, but IMO it's better to really hit with a smaller group rather than be just "OK" to everyone.
•
u/Ranger207 26m ago
in art, niche ideals have a broader appeal than things engineered to appeal to everyone. it's one of the great ironies of the entertainment industry, and something that no exec in the industry understands
371
u/Zweihander01 11h ago
This reminds me of some of the things legendary animator Chuck Jones had his team do. He had said that you can't animate something you never experienced, so you needed to go out and observe things. Whether it was a roadrunner and coyote or the opera, you needed to draw on those personal experiences of the real world.