Nintendo's Fils-Aime Speaks Out

[Shawn Andrich]

Nintendo's Fils-Aime Speaks Out

Reggie Fils-Aime, the Nintendo of America president, called out the competition as "arrogant", some reviewers as "hypercritical" and discussed game release plans for Super Mario Galaxy and more.

Presumably taking a shot at Sony, Fils-Aime came out swinging in an interview with MTV. "I do think that highlights a difference between us and our competitors: We're not arrogant. We don't view success as a right. We feel we need to earn success every day. And we're going to do that by being true to the gamer."

Being true to gamers is a fine ideal, but looking at the release list for the coming months, some gamers worry that Nintendo is falling into the same trap the Gamecube landed itself in, not releasing enough games to appease fans. "I disagree with the comparison," he said. "I wasn't here for the GameCube launch, but there was a time period when there were no titles. There wasn't even titles you could or could not sink your teeth into. 'Wii Play' and 'WarioWare' are going to be hugely fun titles."

Looking past March, Fils-Aime says to expect the new Metroid and Super Mario Galaxy sometime between March and Christmas, 2007.

Moving on to reviews, Fils-Aime criticized sites like IGN for bing overly harsh on games like Red Steel and Wii Sports. "Does it take you a few minutes to get used to the control scheme? Yes. Once you get used to it does it play extremely well? Absolutely. I think a lot of those reviews are overly harsh," said Fils-Aime, jumping to Red Steel's defense. "Just like the, what was it, the IGN review of Wii Sports. They're negative on the graphics of the game, but we always said what the graphics would be. I think that's people just being hypercritical."

After promising online gameplay in early 2007, Fils-Aime alluded to a Virtual Console release of GoldenEye if the stars were to align and various publishers signed on. "Would I love to see it on virtual console? Absolutely. But there are a lot of issues there," he claimed. "Suffice it to say we would love to see it, so we're exploring all the rights issues."

Fils-Aime finished up by promising some special content in the Wii channels before Christmas, but he didn't want to spoil the surprise.

Source: MTV [http://www.mtv.com/news/?source=TLD_mtvnews.com#/news/articles/1546730/20061128/index.jhtml]

Permalink

 

[player66 [deprecated]]

It's about time someone in the top position dropped the macho BS and cut to the point - innovation and quality will win out in the end. Consumers ARE smart enough to support an innovative game system. I'm no Nintendo fanboy, but when almost every visitor to my place has to play a couple rounds of Wii Sports every time they drop by, I think Nintendo did something right for once in a long while.

 

[heavyfeul]

Please. I am getting sick and tired of people, particularly those associated with the gaming industry, touting the revolution in gaming that the Wii will usher in. While some of these games look like they are fun and the Wii's control system does set it apart from the competition, I see no compelling reason to buy the Wii. I think its a gimic. As an avid gamer I want stellar gameplay, pyhsics, and graphics. Period. I don't want to settle for "fun" gameplay with poor graphics and static environments. As these systems mature, the Wii will look more and more antiquated in its graphics and physics processing. The Gamecube failed because gamers are getting older and they demand technological innovation. The Wii still may be successful, but serious gamers will not be able to live without one of the big dogs from Sony or MS. While I am emptying a minigun into a concrete wall that crumbles, falls on, and kills the two enemies ducking for cover behind it, you Wiiers can have your fun shooting rabbits with plungers or bouncing monkey balls.

 

[Bongo Bill]

Please. I am getting sick and tired of people, particularly those associated with the gaming industry, touting the revolution in gaming that the Wii will usher in. While some of these games look like they are fun and the Wii's control system does set it apart from the competition, I see no compelling reason to buy the Wii. I think its a gimic. As an avid gamer I want stellar gameplay, pyhsics, and graphics. Period. I don't want to settle for "fun" gameplay with poor graphics and static environments. As these systems mature, the Wii will look more and more antiquated in its graphics and physics processing. The Gamecube failed because gamers are getting older and they demand technological innovation. The Wii still may be successful, but serious gamers will not be able to live without one of the big dogs from Sony or MS. While I am emptying a minigun into a concrete wall that crumbles, falls on, and kills the two enemies ducking for cover behind it, you Wiiers can have your fun shooting rabbits with plungers or bouncing monkey balls.

The PS2 - the clear winner in the last generation - possessed by far the least muscle of the three. So I'm not quite sure where you're drawing these conclusions. It's all well and good to think that way yourself, but studies conducted by the University of My Ass aren't good enough when you want to try to predict what other people will want, not when there are obvious counterexamples.

 

[heavyfeul]

The PS2 - the clear winner in the last generation - possessed by far the least muscle of the three. So I'm not quite sure where you're drawing these conclusions. It's all well and good to think that way yourself, but studies conducted by the University of My Ass aren't good enough when you want to try to predict what other people will want, not when there are obvious counterexamples.

My statements are my opinion. I may not be a market research guru, but anyone can see, that while people have been carving skillfully through the MS and Sony hype machines with vicious abandon for the last year, no one has come out vocally to cut through the Nintendo hype machine. In my opinion they are selling a gimmicky control scheme as a "revolution" and getting pissed when reviewers point out how poor their graphics are. 'But we already told people the graphics were going to suck. Not fair! Whine Whine Whine! Everyone seems to get goo goo eyed every time Nintendo farts and I am tired of it. Its high some us put the Nintendo fan-boys to task and start bringing people down to earth. The Wii is a last-gen console with a new controller for $250. That is it. The PS3 and the XB360 actually offer gamers the kind of things we drool over. Near photo realistic graphics, real world like physics, and opportunity to paly in different ways besides waving our arms back and forth. If your a DDR fan and can't live without playing every Mario and Zelda game in existence, pick up a Wii. If you want cutting edge technology at less than wholesale prices, pick up a PS3 or a 360.

 

[Bongo Bill]

Can't believe I'm having this conversation here, of all places. All I'm saying is, last generation, the Gamecube and the Xbox were the ones offering the kind of things that gamers drool over, and look how much good it did them.

Not that Nintendo's marketing sewer isn't clogged with similar levels of bullshit to Microsoft's and Sony's. Oh, heavens no. That's what video game marketing is. But it's hard to deny that Sony's been the most arrogant about it this time around.

 

[heavyfeul]

Can't believe I'm having this conversation here, of all places.

Why not? I have been to cocktail parties with professors and doctors and seen less than highbrow arguments over things from lawnmowers to baseball teams. While the Escapist encourages thoughtful intelligent discussion, it doesn't mean a good console bashing can't occur once in a while. The Wii is just so cute and sweet and lovable that I want to punch it in the face! What can i say I'm in a mood.

All I'm saying is, last generation, the Gamecube and the Xbox were the ones offering the kind of things that gamers drool over, and look how much good it did them.

Your right, but they were late to the game. Sony was smart. They got into the market and developed a following with the PS1, then improved the hardware, then released the next gen earlier than the competition. Hmmm...what other company is using that strategy?

The Wii is a neat little toy, that looks fun for a few hours, but serious gamers need serious hardware to run games with mind blowing graphics and physics. Gameplay is always an important component in every game on every platform. You can't have a great game without it. I just don't see how a gimmicky controller fundamentally changes gameplay. I have used tons of different control devices in my time and none of them made a game any better or worse. The Wiimote, or whatever, is a trick, a gimmick, a marketing sleight of hand. But, for some reason, just about every comment I here coming from people involved in the game biz look on the Wii controller as a possible "revolution" in gaming when all it is really is a different control scheme and nothing more. Personally, I do not see the innovation. If innovation comes, it will come from game design, not a controller.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Can't believe I'm having this conversation here, of all places.

Honestly folks, this was my initial reaction as well. But you can't draw lines everywhere all the time. Nobody's insulted anyone else or used any naughty language yet. So if y'all wanna go after the console war debate here, have at it. I am watching, however, and I will call foul if need be.

Consider it debate practice, if that helps. We all need one slow and up the middle every once in a while. So ... play ball.

 

[Bongo Bill]

If innovation comes, it will come from game design, not a controller.

The whole idea is that, as with the DS, the new control scheme will enable innovative game design to occur more easily by giving it new ways to work, and keeping the barrier to entry low. Great graphics and all the rest are wonderful, but they prevent a lot of talent from entering into console development, and if you read this magazine you know why.

If your console is the same as the last one, only prettier, then developers feel perfectly justified in making their game the same as the last one, only prettier. The more risk they'd be taking in trying something new, the more likely they are to think this way. Developers can't just rip each other off when they're confronted with a target platform that functions differently than anything they're used to. They have to go back to their original instincts, the ones that brought them into the industry in the first place: their creativity.

Additionally, it's never good for a market to have all the major competitors offering products that are essentially identical, while other types of product are completely ignored. Two ultra-high-end machines are enough. Really. We don't need a third. We need some middle-of-the-road hardware out there. The industry needs a space for experimental design, and it has to be pretty enough to sell but cheap enough to be used as intended.

 

[player66 [deprecated]]

...some of these games look like they are fun and the Wii's control system does set it apart from the competition, I see no compelling reason to buy the Wii. I think its a gimic.

I'm personally glad that so many "hardcore" gamers have this opinion of the Wii. heavyfeul has a soulmate in Greg Vederman, EIC of PC Gamer. On their podcast from last week, Greg and Gary Whitta (Gaz) had it out over the Wii's appeal as a gaming platform. Greg's entire argument could be summed up in three points:

1. Your arms will get tired.
2. Nintendo only makes kiddie games.
3. Teh graphics suck.

Most of the negative points I can pick from above seem to mirror these main points in some form or another. I think Gaz carried the show and in my mind is the more open-minded gamer out there.

If the Wii doesn't appeal to you, please don't buy one. Don't play one. Don't even look at them when you are walking down your local big-box store's gaming section. Just avert your eyes and look to the "next-generation" consoles or the PC section ONLY. Those of us who are open to new gaming experiences will enjoy having the extra consoles on store shelves so our friends, family and acquaintances (many of whom are non-gamers in my case) can easily walk into the local Wal-Mart and pick one up. I've converted two couples and several skeptical friends already and am looking forward to all of the exciting multiplayer, on-your-feet-gaming that will be coming my way over the next several years.

 

[heavyfeul]

I see the console market as moving closer and closer to what a PC can do in terms of processing power, online multiplayer, and quality first person shooters; all things that are still the staples of PC gaming. This is what attracts me to the market. If I can get a high end PC type of experience on a console for $400 dollars or less I will become a die hard console only convert. I love PC gaming, but lugging around my computer to LAN parties is a chore, constantly dealing with firmware, hardware, and OS incompatibilities, having to install 3-6 discs, etc., etc. is a pain. The only thing that the PS3 and 360 are missing is a Nostromo speed pad and a mouse.

So maybe we see the appeal of the console differently. I, and I think most gamers, want a high end experience on the cheap, when it comes to consoles. The PS3 and the 360 give me that.

I see the appeal of the Wii and the DS. I am owner of a DS myself. But, Nintendo has failed, IMO, to adapt to the cutting edge of video game innovation. Thats why I have not bought a Nintendo console since the NES. I went from the NES->Genesis->PS1->PS2->Xbox. I just outgrew them. While I enjoy playing the New SMBs while waiting in the doctors office or something, it is not much more than an expensive time killer.

 

[heavyfeul]

I think the recent lack of success Nintendo has had since the PS2 came out sums it up. Their strategy of "Fun" with a capital "F" doesn't appeal to most gamers. You can't tell me that Nintendo would not love to be the top North American dog again? Then why have they failed to innovate and compete. They seem perfectly happy to languish in mediocrity. Why can't we have a motion sensitive controller AND a quad core processor?

 

[player66 [deprecated]]

They seem perfectly happy to languish in mediocrity. Why can't we have a motion sensitive controller AND a quad core processor?

Combining motion sensing controllers with anything has been troublesome lately, or at least Sony definitely thinks so (rumble anyone?). But in theory, I agree with you. It would be fantastic to have a truly powerful CPU/GPU/Control Scheme on the market at this point. Maybe Nintendo is trying to take the risk out of the equation for this round. While they produce and sell Wii systems for a nice profit, they may be solidifying their motion-sensing control scheme as the must-have in gaming technology, so that when the next generation rolls around they can put out a machine that is both innovative in user interaction and high-spec, as you would like.

Ever since Nintendo lost to the Playstation in the realms of 3rd party support and technology, they have gone the path of least resistance. They may never purposefully go head to head with Sony or M$oft with the most expensive or cutting edge hardware, but they will continue to survive and make oodles of money by profitizing the hardware and churning out AAA 1st party titles.

I grew up playing games on the PC. Most of my favorite game experiences have been played on a keyboard and mouse, but it's hard to deny the shift in development focus that has happened in the past 5 years. My PC will ALWAYS be superior both in accuracy of control and overall performance to consoles, but that's not to say that I don't have a blast playing Wii Sports, Zelda: TP, Gears of War or any other console-only title.

 

[te2rx [deprecated]]

As an avid gamer I want stellar gameplay, pyhsics, and graphics.

so by "innovate" you apparently mean "quad core processor". We've reached the point in games a while ago where we're mostly unconstrained by the hardware to design the games we want... more like we're now constrained by production value instead. The differences in processing power between the wii and the ps2/360 won't make fundimentally different games, but wii's controller will (or at least it's more likely to). It seems to me that the Wii is filling a decent niche by using ass-cheap hardware to make an ass-cheap console... I'm guessing owners of the 360 (or even a PC gamer like myself) are more likely to buy the wii as a funky secondary console as opposed to yet another overly expensive high-tech thing that's basically the same as what they already have. Also, graphics smraphics. I stopped being wowed by evolutionary high tech graphics years ago... I'm more impressed by inspired art/design & animation and you can achieve that on any current-generation console.

Although you're right that "cheap + fun" is the same rhetoric & philosophy behind the unstellar GameCube. But as opposed to just being the "lesser ___ with Zelda and Mario" the differences between the wii and ps3/360 are more fundimental (yeah, controller, etc.) so I don't think it's time to write it off as Teh Failure yet.

edit: and yeah, as the above dude said you'll see your high tech controllers w/ high tech consoles in the next generation for sure, if the wii catches on

 

[Bongo Bill]

I personally am of the opinion that the games industry ought to be doing as much as it can to keep low-cost games viable. Game developers need to be allowed to take risks, or innovation won't happen. Not reliably, anyway. Nothing a commercialized art form can do will strangle itself quite as quickly as raising the barrier of entry. The harder it is to turn a profit on a game, the harder it will be for upcoming visionaries to get their ideas made. It will certainly turn more of them away, as they languish in junior-programming positions with fewer opportunities for advancement than normal software development, with less pay, harsher hours, and ever-decreasing creative input.

As a gamer, I want to see these would-be visionaries make the games they want to make. As a gamer, I demand that consistent originality not be excluded from any game platform. As a gamer, I believe that the art form of electronic interactivity promises so much more than what we've even imagined, and nothing about this business concerns me more than the possibility that this might be impeded by the very people who want it most. And as a gamer, I believe that discouraging the next Will Wright, Dan Bunten, or Shigeru Miyamoto is simply too great a price to pay for another incremental step up in graphics. A committee cannot create something truly inspired, but the more the game costs to make, the harder it will be for an inspired individual to bypass the needs of Marketing.

I'm glad that the PS3 and 360 exist. It's wonderful to have options, and they do indeed look great. Certain types of game might never be executed better than they will be this generation. But it is my opinion that I am far more likely to see what I am looking for - new ideas executed with passion - coming the lower-cost, innovation-encouraging development environment that the Wii produces. (Obviously the PC is going to be better still for that sort of thing, but I'm just talking consoles here).

 

[heavyfeul]

Everyone has been stressing the importance of game design over specs. I agree, design is fundamental, but so is processing power. In my opinion, all of the different components that go into making a game need to be executed to near perfection to make a truly great game. Because the Wii lacks the processing power, developers will inevitably hit a brick wall much sooner when trying to implement detailed graphics and complex physics, then they will developing for the 360 or PS3. Thus, the Wii will always have a handicap. One that will become more and more apparent as this generation ages.

 

[Bongo Bill]

One might argue that for those who don't have HDTVs (and there are more of us than I think you realize), improvements in graphical output will simply be too marginal to notice. And until you start including dedicated physics processors, an increase in CPU power from 700-odd MHz to 2 GHz does not produce enough a real difference in the complexity of the physics that your machine can handle. Physics is just math. RAM is the only bottleneck there, due to how many objects you'd be making physics calculations on, and by the time you get to so many objects that the physics engine is taking up all your RAM, you'll have long since hit your GPU's limit, unless you keep the polycount so low that you might as well just not use a dedicated gaming machine. (Disclaimer: I used some very rough math for this, so feel free to prove me wrong) The only possible exception I can think of to this is if you want the individual limbs on a few hundred actors to have varying plasticity in your ragdoll and/or breast physics, or you want every bullet to have its own gravitational field, or something. There's a thing called overkill. The boundaries of what is considered "too much" are constantly being pushed back as the software and the hardware overtake each other, but at this time I believe the only way the software can affordably (key word) keep up with the hardware is with some innovations in the design process that simply haven't hit yet.

 

[Ajar]

Because the Wii lacks the processing power, developers will inevitably hit a brick wall much sooner when trying to implement detailed graphics and complex physics...

That's true. I think the Wii is, in a large part, Nintendo's solution to the problem posed by spiralling game development costs. Look at the Newsroom -- Namco has to sell 500,000 copies each of Gundam and the new Ridge Racer to break even on the development, manufacturing, and marketing costs; there aren't even 500,000 PS3s in people's homes yet, and by the time there are, gamers may not be interested in launch titles anymore. I know that when I bought my 360 in April, I didn't buy any of the launch window titles. If the Wii is commercially successful, it will be extremely attractive to developers.

My concern is actually not that the Wii will fail, but that it will be too successful. If Nintendo hits this one out of the park and the installed base gets up into the high tens of millions, the "high-end" consoles may be reduced to a niche market in much the same way that PC gaming has been. That doesn't seem to have happened in the DS/PSP battle, which is somewhat heartening; hopefully there's room for at least two successful competitors in the market.

 

[player66 [deprecated]]

My concern is actually not that the Wii will fail, but that it will be too successful. If Nintendo hits this one out of the park and the installed base gets up into the high tens of millions, the "high-end" consoles may be reduced to a niche market in much the same way that PC gaming has been.

I am willing to venture that, at least within this generation, we don't have to worry about consoles becoming too high end for their own good. Even if that were the case, a $400 Xbox 360 is a pretty cheap mid-range gaming PC. It is 100% up to publishers and developers to reign in their development costs by either developing better use of their artists and programmers, pulling back on the "graphics" and bumping up the aesthetic (Katamari Damacy, Guitar Hero) or outsourcing portions of development costs.

My dream for the industry is that it will wake up from this adolescent fantasy that games need to eclipse the Hollywood Blockbuster. Personally, I don't care if I can tell wither or not Sam Fisher has shaved or how many real-time post processing effects have been added to a scene. Graphics can pull you into a game, but innovative gameplay will keep you playing and in the best cases, excite your imagination.

 

[generalissimofurioso [deprecated]]

All I can say in the massive argument is this...

When you can replicate the feeling I got performing surgery on my TV in Trauma Center: Second Opinion on any other system, that will be when I admit the Wii is just a toy...

WHY COULDN'T I SAVE HIM!? WHY!? WHY!!!!????