So while I'm putting things into moving boxes and wondering how Zelda will tolerate taking a long subway trip inside a duffel bag thing that's made to carry cats, you should read Stephen Totilo's chat with Miyamoto. I can't say enough good things about the work Totilo does, especially as far as his interviews, which I tend to find the only ones worth reading out there. I especially like the way (you'll see if you read the piece) Totilo presses Miyamoto on a question he didn't exactly answer, which I dunno if many game journos would have the balls to do. Most interviews game journos do with him read like holy shit, it's Miyamoto, and I'm quite sure I wouldn't do any better.I did squeeze in an interview of my own lately, though. No, not with Miyamoto. You may or may not have noticed I've had survival horror on the brain all month, writing about the state of the genre, reviewing and discussing Silent Hill, chatting with Mitch and Michael on the Brainy Gamer podcast recently -- and most of that discussion ends up coming down to the combat issue. How much to have, how capable the player should be, whether there are better ways to create a horror mood than by attacking the player.
I've never played Frictional Games' Penumbra titles, which take the minimized-combat approach (since the nightmares of my brand-new PC continue, it's not hard to see how I'd rather put nails in my eyes than rely on computers for large games) -- but real survival-horror buffs always bring them up to me, and the games enjoy quite a loyal following online, from what I've always seen. I had a chance to interview the devs about their approach to the genre -- frightening without fighting -- and the new game they're working on now.
While we were talking Miyamoto walked in because he just wanted to hang out with us but he didn't really say anything interesting so I just left that part out.
...Yep. But anyway, back to Totilo's article. Was talking with him about it after it ran -- mostly about Miyamoto's most interesting question (he turned the tables and started interviewing the interviewer!): What's innovative about today's hardcore titles?
Just that question alone, and the things he says about his recent projects do provide a bit of insight into how he's seeing this casual-hardcore spectrum -- in other words, not as a spectrum. To Nintendo there's "different" and "not different." And I'm sort of torn about it; on one hand, you could call Nintendo "different" or "innovative" because its games are distinctly different than anything that's available on the other platforms, arguably with a more consistent vision and a stronger identity than any other developer's first-party stuff.
But that consistent vision and strong identity has been built by iterating very subtly, not by taking particularly high-risk moves. I've admired Nintendo most for the fact that, as technology evolves, they always manage to produce a franchise title that leverages the new tech while still keeping, say, Mario's literal formula straight. What impresses me most about Galaxy is that it's exactly what Super Mario Bros would be on spheres; it's a Super Mario Bros. made precisely for the Wii era, taking the "words" from the 1980's, so to speak, and translating them verbatim into the newer, more complex language of the new century's first decade.
But it's still the same words in newer language -- that's evolution, not revolution; it's iteration, not innovation.
I'm sure, though, when we look back in twenty years at Nintendo's innovations, it'll be things like motion controls and wide-appeal Wii Fit-style things that are more "products" than "video games" for which they're remembered. Point is, what I took away from Totilo's Miyamoto interview is that he simply doesn't see "casual" versus "hardcore" the way we do.
Which would probably explain a lot, huh?
