Official Nintendo Fanboy Smugness & Gloating Thread

[Darkflame]

Snakey~ Your last post at me didnt make sense.

You said Nintendo didnt spend much on R&D, I countered it by saying that just because the sensor was offtheshelf, didnt make that overall statement true.

So where was the "me not reading you" in that? :-/

Your logic seems to be

"Nintendo didnt invent this bit, therefor it was cheap"

No? Sorry if I missunderstood what did you really mean?



oh, and quotes for the GDC would be nice, I never managed to get a download of it.

Just shorten it to the quote where nintendo says they spend a fortune on the controller, its the quickest and easiest method to prove me wrong..

[Roobarb]

Mr Iwata's keynote is on IGN:
http://uk.revolution.ign.com/articles/698/698588p1.html

Not sure if that is what Snakey was referring to, but he speaks about the design process they went through with the controller on page 4:

The third story I have to share is the answer to a question people ask me all the time: how did we get the idea for the Revolution free-hand controller?

Well, we started out with a very simple question: why is it that anyone feels comfortable picking up a remote control for a TV, but many people are afraid to even touch the controller for a video game system? This was our starting point.

Our first controller meetings began early in 2004, and from that initial thought we added two other requirements. First, the controller must be wireless. We need to give players freedom to move. And second, the look of the controller had to be simple and non-threatening. But of course, at the same time, it had to be sophisticated enough to serve the needs of complex games.

And yes, we also wanted it to be revolutionary.

Finding an answer to all of this was not easy. For more than six months, two people at NCL did nothing but produce sketch after sketch with new ideas. Each sketch caused more discussion, and the discussions led us to create dozens of prototype designs. In all, about 15 people were involved trying to figure out an answer.

At the same time, I was considering technologies which would incorporate a direct pointing device, something that would show direct visual contact between the controller and the screen. In fact, many good ideas were floating around, but nothing yet felt revolutionary.

Early last year a young team leader of the controller development group came up with a disruptive idea: what if you could play with just one hand?

Mr. Miyamoto quickly imagined a small, simple, wireless device. That intrigued us, but we realized an immediate problem. Considering our plans, how would we allow backward compatibility to all the previous Nintendo games that required two-hand control?

Again, Mr. Miyamoto had an answer: make the small wireless controller detachable from a larger, traditional controller both using the same wireless interface.

This sounded good, but when we shared the idea with our Metroid Prime producers, they objected. They said their games would not work with what we invented. They added another idea: Why not keep the simple one-hand controller, but also add a secondary device for the other hand if the game required it? Something like a nunchuck device. We think this is something that will entirely change first-person shooter games. By separately using the joystick device to control position and the direct pointing device to target enemies the experience truly feels more intuitive.

Now, we really went to work. There were dozens of models and prototypes fabricated until we came up with the final result.

And what did it look like?

Well, it looked exactly like the same TV remote control that we first imagined more than a year earlier. Sometimes ideas are like good wine in that they just need time. After all the designs and mockups, we were happy with the final result. It met our goals. It was wireless. It was inviting to new players. It offered something brand new for core players. And, it was also a new interface we could offer to every player.

But, it also represented something else. As you can imagine, this was a very expensive process. Not only in terms of the research and development costs, but also the manufacturing expense of producing such an elaborate control system, and including it as part of every hardware purchase.

Some people put their money on the screen, but we decided to spend ours on the game experience. It is an investment in actual market disruption. Not simply to improve the market but disrupt it. We believe a truly new kind of game entertainment will not be realized unless there is a new way to connect a player to his game.

If that is what Snakey's referring to, i'd agree with him that Mr. Iwata certainly said it was expensive to produce. A two year project with 15 people + cost of producing prototypes + NRE* paid to PixArt and possibly other candidate suppliers is a pretty big chunk of R&D.

Based on Mr. Iwata's description, i'd put labour and materials on the order of magnitude of $10M. For a controller i'm guessing that's a pretty huge chunk of money to spend. I bet Sony or MS didn't spend anywhere near that. On the other hand, non of what was said implied they created their own sensor devices from scratch themselves. Given the staffing levels described there's no way that could have been the case.

Some of the controller designs:



NRE: 'Non-recurring expenditure'. If you're asking a company to make a customised piece of hardware/software for you, it is common to pay them to do the customisation work as a one-off expense. It might be paid as a lump sum, or factored into pricing of the first 'n' number of units purchased.

[Darkflame]

Thanks for posting that
Cheers.
Reminds me, I hope see some of those alternative controller (texture) designs at some point.

Seriously, though, maybe I am deluded, but that speach and the context of that "expensive" seems pretty honest to me.

[Snakey]

Snakey~ Your last post at me didnt make sense.

Well then lets recap

I commented that Nintendo had led everyone to believe they spent a fortune on R&D, and you replied that they hadn't.

As you can imagine, this was a very expensive process. Not only in terms of the research and development costs, but also the manufacturing expense of producing such an elaborate control system

.. which kinda says that I was absolutely correct

In fact I think it's fair to say that everybody came out of that thing with the distinct impression that very little had been spent on the console itself, and most of the available budget was spent on the controller. It's exactly what they WANTED everybody to think.

Now, read that statement again.

It specifically mentions the 'elaborate control system', which they didn't design, they just bought an already working system. So there was no 'manufacturing expense' or 'research and development costs' involved in that.

They may well have spent a lot of time trying to come up with the perfect box to fit it all in, and that may well not have been cheap. But I bet they spent far less on that than they did on the DS.

There should be no doubt that the above statement was designed to make everybody think that they were talking about the internal components of the controller, not the external, and that the implication was they'd spent huge amounts on it.

No problem with that at all. As Roobarb says, they were 'Playing Poker'.

Only one thing I don't get is why they chose the design they did. The Nunchuck thing is simple but superb. The remote itself is far less impressive. It's not BAD, but if they've really spent so much time and effort on the design of the thing, I'd have expected better.

[Anders]

Maybe they did spend a lot of time and money on trying to do it right and then gave up one day. Miyamoto said "Sod this. Let's just buy something off the shelf"..?

[Marius]

The only thing I don't like about Zelda was Majora's Mask. But we've had that argument before so I'll shush

Woot? I enjoyed Majora's Mask almost more than I did Ocarina, it was an improvement in almost every regard.

*hides behind the couch*

[Samus]

Btw. Snakey, regarding the stuff you've posted in the past, which of these games did you play or had been shown weeks / months before E3?

Mario Galaxy?
WiiTennis?
RedSteel?
Excite Truck?

[marf]

Am I the only one who can't get onto IGN?
I haven't been able to in two days...

[Samus]

Zelda has always been about charm, playability and subtle touches of depth. Give us a new story, some new baddies and some great new levels and environments, gamers will be more than happy.

Agreed.

Imo, Zelda is one of the best series ever and I'm not at all worried abt the overall quality of TP.

But....why bother putting pointless stuff like "drag and push four statues into four holes in the ground" or finding keys / maps / compasses in every new dungeon, etc. time after time after time? It's not great design, it feels artificial and it's been like this from the first Zelda on the NES. Really, the game doesn't need these "traditional" and overly simple solutions to be a "real Zelda game". At least to me, things like this hurt the atmosphere of an otherwise almost perfectly working game. Almost every other similar game is on the same boat. So what, it sucks and it's time to move on. It's not that difficult to evolve these basic gameplay mechanics, small things maybe, but it can make a big difference.

Fortunately Miyamoto said that TP is going to be the last Zelda game of "this kind", who knows what he meant, but I'm willing to bet that one big factor in this is that he doesn't seem to be the kind of guy who enjoys being a 'factory worker'.

[merman]

Zelda has always been about charm, playability and subtle touches of depth. Give us a new story, some new baddies and some great new levels and environments, gamers will be more than happy.

Agreed.

Imo, Zelda is one of the best series ever and I'm not at all worried abt the overall quality of TP.

But....why bother putting pointless stuff like "drag and push four statues into four holes in the ground" or finding keys / maps / compasses in every new dungeon, etc. time after time after time? It's not great design, it feels artificial and it's been like this from the first Zelda on the NES. Really, the game doesn't need these "traditional" and overly simple solutions to be a "real Zelda game". At least to me, things like this hurt the atmosphere of an otherwise almost perfectly working game. Almost every other similar game is on the same boat. So what, it sucks and it's time to move on. It's not that difficult to evolve these basic gameplay mechanics, small things maybe, but it can make a big difference.

Fortunately Miyamoto said that TP is going to be the last Zelda game of "this kind", who knows what he meant, but I'm willing to bet that one big factor in this is that he doesn't seem to be the kind of guy who enjoys being a 'factory worker'.

Ah, but Zelda (and Metroid) are "progressive" - the first dungeon/area you have to drag one statue, the next dungeon you have to blow up one statue and press the switch... as you gain abilities, the puzzles change. I love that style of gameplay, the only thing I'm not keen on is when it's not clear what you have to do next (as in Metroid Prime)

[Samus]

Ah, but Zelda (and Metroid) are "progressive" - the first dungeon/area you have to drag one statue, the next dungeon you have to blow up one statue and press the switch... as you gain abilities, the puzzles change. I love that style of gameplay, the only thing I'm not keen on is when it's not clear what you have to do next (as in Metroid Prime)

I'm well aware of their nature :)

My main gripe is that many of the puzzles and situations in Zelda (and countless of other games as well) feel artificial. Mostly because the puzzles are too simple or that they feel out of place, or both -> Drag nicely placed statues in nicely placed holes and a door opens? -> A bunch of out of place enemies circling around blindlessly in random rooms? Just why are the statues / enemies there? The problem is that in many games that's explained by dialogue and not so much seen or felt in-game. For me, stuff like this lessens the feel of immersion. It makes it feel like "only a game", if you know what I mean.

You could do all this differently and more smoothly. Metroid Prime 1 is a good example of this in modern games. Every "enemy" looks and feels more like a creature living in it's natural surroundings, even the end of level bosses. Majority of the puzzles look and feel like they're long unused technology of an ancient race, etc. The dialogue or writing only enhances the feeling, as opposed to explaining it and leaving it there. Zelda is not even close to being the worst (or even a bad) example of this, but the contrast is so big when everything else works pretty much perfectly. As a big fan of the series, I hope a change is finally coming.

Btw. funnily enough, to me, one thing that's great in most of the Metroid games (including MP1) is the fact that you could get lost, but the answer was always in there if you just paid attention -> the morph ball ramps in the jungle! The invisible platform in the rain, etc..! Genius.

[Ratsoap]

Fuckin' get in

[Alarm]

Fuckin' get in

Not that excited personally, but when it eventually happens it should sell quite a few Wiis...

[Sir_LANs-a-lot]

Fuckin' get in

Not that excited personally, but when it eventually happens it should sell quite a few Wiis...

I'd be very excited if the Wii controller emitted a beam of light like a proper light sabre as well as making the noise

[A Black Falcon]

Um, so it's impossible that they both spent a lot of money on development and liscenced some technology from others? It doesn't seem like that's likely to me... even if some technology pre-existed, Nintendo had to put it all together and give it this form, and that required time and money as the 'controller prototypes' pictures show. I very highly doubt that they are lying when they say that controller development costs were quite a bit higher for this than they are for most controllers...