Support NeoGAF

[jariw]

A face that likes to meddle in current games.

Isn't that Miyamoto's job as general producer and supervisor of Nintendo console titles? Miyamoto initializes new projects, he cancels projects, he give advice on game design, and so on. Why shouldn't he do that?

During 2015 alone, Miyamoto was supervisor for 5 titles, and was producer or general producer for 4 titles. Should we go into detail about Miyamoto's input on each and every title?

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

SWERY failed with Deadly Premonition. He didn't implemented well the shooting mechanics.

Taro Yoko failed with Nier because the combat mechanics are lacking.

Miyazaki failed with Demon's Soul. He put in the game the world tendency but it was a mess.

We can go on with the nitpicking. Sure Miyamoto wanted to improve the story. He probably failed at that, but it should be obvious that creating a great story wasn't his main focus. His priority was to make an innovative control system that makes good use of the gamepad. I would say that despite the poor reviews and sales (I guess) the control system is a big success. Yeah, it requires a learning curve and is not super intuitive at first, but the dual screen system gives you a level of precision and of control on the game that wouldn't be possible with traditional controls systems.

The problem and difference is what those game makers set out to create.

Do you think that SWERY wanted to create the best TPS ever or just a moody, unique story with adventure elements? If I remember right the TPS aspect was basically forced on him.

He succeded then.

Same with Yoko Toro, he wanted to make the best Action RPG ever of just wanted to tell a story and focus on the characters and their storylines?

He succeded then.

Miyazaki came out late in the development of the game, he wanted to make an old school game, a game that looked at the past of the company an old game in it's difficulty and design, or did he wante to create the perfect world trending mechanic?

He succeded then.

Two of the major focus of Miyamoto on SFZ was to prove the value of the gamepad and the story.

Then he failed in this very regard. Is not nitpicking, is about looking what every one of these games tried to accomplish and see if they succeded. In all your examples it was a success, sometimes not just on critic and public reception but in both.

 

[Domaje]

I mean, those games fail on certain levels but from a holistic perspective they're gems. But we're not talking about a holistic view here. Miyamoto's goal was to justify the gamepad to the larger gaming audience with these controls, and by all observable metrics that has not hapoened. Simple as that.

...

It's not simple as that. You are observing the wrong metrics. Low sales and reviews doesn't necessarly mean that SF0's controls don't justify the gamepad to the larger gaming audience. They could mean something, but you can't base a critic on a gameplay system only on that.

If at some point in the video that guy told me also that "the controls failed because mechanic x and mechanic y don't work well" I would have a better opinion about that video. As is, I think that is pretty low quality critics, that tries to capitalize on a sensationalist title.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

It's not simple as that. You are observing the wrong metrics. Low sales and reviews doesn't necessarly mean that SF0's controls don't justify the gamepad to the larger gaming audience. They could mean something, but you can't base a critic on a gameplay system only on that.

If at some point in the video that guy told me also that "the controls failed because mechanic x and mechanic y don't work well" I would have a better opinion about that video. As is, I think that is pretty low quality critics, that tries to capitalize on a sensationalist title.

What other objective metric could we use then? There's not other one.

By those metrics, Miyamoto didn't succeed, and those has way more worth thab your personal one. Actually given the objective set up by Miyamoto, that's actually the ones that truly matters.

 

[Domaje]

What other objective metric could we use then? There's not other one.

By those metrics, Miyamoto didn't succeed, and those has way more worth thab your personal one. Actually given the objective set up by Miyamoto, that's actually the ones that truly matters.

There isn't a 100% objective metric. Sales and reviews mean something, but actually not that much. A game could sell badly because of bad marketing and could have bad reviews because of a steep learning curve, just to make an example.

I would suggest that the discussion could be more meaningful If we talked about actual game design instead of sales data and metacritic since the real question is "did Miyamoto succeeded with the SF0's unique control system or it was a failure?". You evaluate a control system with game design metrics, not with sales data.

If you ask me, it was a success. If you don't think so, tell me what doesn't work well in your opinion. I'll quote Neiteio since he wrote some posts on SF0's controls that I agree with.

(About the fact that controls are divisive) Some people are just slower learners than others. I was really slow to learn tank controls in old-school RE, for example — they only clicked for me this year after trying on/off for a decade. I'm glad I didn't dismiss them, though, because now that I understand them and love them, RE2 and RE3 are among my favorite games ever.

Stuff that is new to someone, stuff that isn't standardized, will affect different people in different ways. For some it'll be more of a struggle, for others it will be transcendent joy. And that's OK.

Having that extra perspective makes the levels feels so much larger, too, since the stuff offscreen and directly parallel to you is still active play space. It's not "pass it and forget it" like previous shooters. Here you can still deal with it if you wish. There may even be stuff in the periphery that doesn't ever appear on the TV, or stuff on the TV that will punish a head-on approach and encourage that extra perspective.

It's not about changing the tunnel form of on-rails, but enlarging what you can do within them at at given moment. Seeing something like S&P2 just feels so limited and 1D now by comparison.

Gyro is perfectly fast and precise for this game in my experience; the game throws a lot of stuff at me from all angles, but I keep pace just fine with subtle tweaks of my wrist. I don't feel "slower," and I don't feel this alleged "calibration drift." Also, after this game and Splatoon, I think I generally prefer gyro since IR always had a bit of a disconnected feeling where the cursor always felt a millisecond behind the pointer's movement — like it was a sliver above or below where I was pointing, trailing ever so slightly. Gyro doesn't have that issue for me.

Regarding the camera, having one viewpoint that turns to see stuff below, above or on the sides would then deprive you of seeing stuff that is coming at you, since you'd be turning away from one thing to look at another. With two perspectives — one close in the cockpit that can pivot any which way, and one focused ahead from a third-person perspective — you can account for everything, everywhere, at all times with quick glances. Nothing has to go un-shot, and hits can be milked from literally everything (as we're seeing with these 500-plus hit runs).

I feel Star Fox Zero has the best formula for advancing this genre. I just think it should have a few more options to accommodate those who are really struggling to rewire their brains for something new.

 

[nynt9]

There isn't a 100% objective metric. Sales and reviews mean something, but actually not that much. A game could sell badly because of bad marketing and could have bad reviews because of a steep learning curve, just to make an example.

I would suggest that the discussion could be more meaningful If we talked about actual game design instead of sales data and metacritic since the real question is "did Miyamoto succeeded with the SF0's unique control system or it was a failure?". You evaluate a control system with game design metrics, not with sales data.

If you ask me, it was a success. If you don't think so, tell me what doesn't work well in your opinion. I'll quote Neiteio since he wrote some posts on SF0's controls that I agree with.

Well, to a publicly owned company, success is pretty clearly defined. Did it sell well? Did it grow their brand?

Neiteio is very hyped on the controls and we've disagreed on that even though I generally agree with him on other under appreciated games. Maybe this depends on the physical setup of how people play games because for me the experience was absolutely miserable despite loving gyro controls in general. The on rails parts were tolerable at best but all range mode was a clusterfuck.

Considering many games have actually done spaceship/flight controls well, and that you can use a steam controller to play Elite or any other space sim with gyro and it's way better there, I'd call this a failure. The controls don't introduce additional complexity or uncover any depth. They just create the illusion of complexity by making basic tasks way harder than they should be. I invite people to play Eve Valkyrie or any other space sim on a VR headset with a steam controller if you want the true immersive gyro driven action packed flight experience.

More options should have been included with the game for sure, and not just non gyro options but options to tune the gyro and a picture in picture view for people who want to play on a single screen.

 

[jariw]

Well, to a publicly owned company, success is pretty clearly defined. Did it sell well? Did it grow their brand?

It's also about selling well compared to the expectations (both as a brand and as a "system seller") and budget. Sales wise, MK8 is probably a bigger failure than SF0, even though MK8 had an insane attach rate.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Isn't that Miyamoto's job as general producer and supervisor of Nintendo console titles? Miyamoto initializes new projects, he cancels projects, he give advice on game design, and so on. Why shouldn't he do that?

During 2015 alone, Miyamoto was supervisor for 5 titles, and was producer or general producer for 4 titles. Should we go into detail about Miyamoto's input on each and every title?

Given that Nintendo's games in 2015 did pretty poor critically overall, I think we should go into detail about it because Miyamoto could very well be a contributing factor to why. Perhaps he has more misses than hits nowadays.

 

[LordRaptor]

Given that Nintendo's games in 2015 did pretty poor critically overall, I think we should go into detail about it because Miyamoto could very well be a contributing factor to why. Perhaps he has more misses than hits nowadays.

Since the DS was released there has been a noticable divergence between what has been popular and what is a positive critical reception from the traditional press of Nintendo titles primarily, but to a lesser extent other series that have not catered to traditional audiences.

 

[BGBW]

Given that Nintendo's games in 2015 did pretty poor critically overall, I think we should go into detail about it because Miyamoto could very well be a contributing factor to why. Perhaps he has more misses than hits nowadays.

The problem here is that as General Producer he's going to be credited for lots of games he may have not had a big hand in. I don't recall Miyamoto's name being mentioned much when it came to Triforce Heroes but he's still credited as General Producer. Aonuma seems to come across as trying to be as independent as possible.

Then darlings for Nintendo's "poor" output for 2015, Ultra Smash and Amiibo Festival, had nothing to do with him.

The game Miyamoto's name was really pushed in front of, Mario Maker, on the other hand was received extremely well.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Obviously Kyle was waiting for Star Fox specifically to make this play, but you have to look at the period of time Miyamoto's been in charge of software and see he's no longer got it.

Objectively the games that have done the most for the WiiU were Splatoon and Mario Maker. Games Miyamoto wasnt spearheading. His were Pikmin 3 and Starfox, one of which is alright, the other a failure. Thats not a good batting average for the most senior director there that could enjoy complete development luxury and focus. Miyamoto could have whizzed out a new concept with a skeleton team for mobile or even 3DS to take the world by storm all over again, but hasn't. It honestly feels like he quite simply doesn't have any good ideas left. Thats also what Bosman's video nails: Guard and Giant Robot were shit. Thats a lot of whiffs consecutively.

We'll see what happens with the NX generation, but people are looking a lot more at the Splatoon team and Koizumi as the current creative 'heart' of Nintendo. Koizumi in particular should be allowed to shirk eternal Mario cycle duties to make a whole new set of IP like Miyamoto and co got to back in the NES/SNES era. I feel bad Aonuma was shackled to Zelda completely and may never get that chance now.

 

[A Link to the Past]

The problem here is that as General Producer he's going to be credited for lots of games he may have not had a big hand in. I don't recall Miyamoto's name being mentioned much when it came to Triforce Heroes but he's still credited as General Producer. Aonuma seems to come across as trying to be as independent as possible.

Then darlings for Nintendo's "poor" output for 2015, Ultra Smash and Amiibo Festival, had nothing to do with him.

The game Miyamoto's name was really pushed in front of, Mario Maker, on the other hand was received extremely well.

I ain't only talking about stuff like US and AF, but I'm also not trying to suggest that Nintendo didn't have some pretty solid 2015 games (Yoshi, Mario, and Splatoon to name a few). I also may have misunderstood the post I replied to, though in a way that I can't properly articulate what I thought it to mean right now

 

[Domaje]

Well, to a publicly owned company, success is pretty clearly defined. Did it sell well? Did it grow their brand?

Neiteio is very hyped on the controls and we've disagreed on that even though I generally agree with him on other under appreciated games. Maybe this depends on the physical setup of how people play games because for me the experience was absolutely miserable despite loving gyro controls in general. The on rails parts were tolerable at best but all range mode was a clusterfuck.

Considering many games have actually done spaceship/flight controls well, and that you can use a steam controller to play Elite or any other space sim with gyro and it's way better there, I'd call this a failure. The controls don't introduce additional complexity or uncover any depth. They just create the illusion of complexity by making basic tasks way harder than they should be. I invite people to play Eve Valkyrie or any other space sim on a VR headset with a steam controller if you want the true immersive gyro driven action packed flight experience.

More options should have been included with the game for sure, and not just non gyro options but options to tune the gyro and a picture in picture view for people who want to play on a single screen.

Go watch some of the high score videos and than come back here.

Spoiler

To a publicly owned company, success is pretty clearly defined. But we are talking about Miyamoto's new control system... Success, for a game designer, is creating great gameplay, and that doesn't always translates in awesome sales/reviews.

 

[Pokemaniac]

A face that likes to meddle in current games.

on DKCR:



http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20..._shigeru_miyamotos_role_in_the_games_downfall

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-more-friendly-steve-jobs-but-just-as-cutting

What's wrong with what the comments on the Project HAMMER cutscenes? The games never really got far along enough to be spending that kind of money on cutscenes.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Go watch some of the high score videos and than come back here.

Spoiler

To a publicly owned company, success is pretty clearly defined. But we are talking about Miyamoto's new control system... Success, for a game designer, is creating great gameplay, and that doesn't always translates in awesome sales/reviews.

Man, Silver Surfer for the nes was such an awesome game.

Go watch this high score video and come back here.

 

[Llyranor]

Go watch some of the high score videos and than come back here.

If you take into account the whole paragraph from which you quote, his main argument is that that type of gyro aiming has already been better implemented, and in a simpler way. And I'd say he's right. Controlling the cockpit view with the gamepad gyro while using that same gamepad to navigate the ship is more cumbersome than using a VR headset or any other head-tracking device to look around the cockpit + traditional controller or KB/M. In that sense, SF0's controls offer nothing new - it only does so in the context of not having access to those peripherals.

Another major thing those peripheral allow is OPTIONS. You can disable the Z-axis head zoom if you want, you can make the X axis much more sensitive so that you only need to tilt your head a little bit to look 180deg behind you. It's fully customizable. SF0 only gives you ONE limited setting you can change.

Though I will agree that SF0 offer superior gameplay to the old SF's once you get past the learning curve. It's just that the way it's implemented is because of the limitations of the hardware.

 

[SerTapTap]

Did it? When i played the game i never saw that as anything more than an stupid way to strip Samus powers. In earlier games that never had an explanation, it was just done. Now they tried to give an explanation, stupid as it is, for it.

Samus losing her powers has been explained in like half of the games or more. In prime the reactor explosion damages it. In prime 2 the Ing steal the upgrades. In prime 3 she has to use a special suit due to phason corruption. In fusion she has to be physically cut out of her suit due to X parasites.

None of them required samus to willingly act like a baby.

 

[jariw]

Given that Nintendo's games in 2015 did pretty poor critically overall, I think we should go into detail about it because Miyamoto could very well be a contributing factor to why. Perhaps he has more misses than hits nowadays.

How about Splatoon, where he was General Producer? The "garage" developers showed Miyamoto the "tofu" prototype, and Miyamoto didn't get the appeal for the game, because the characters couldn't jump (or hide in ink or anything that became the essential parts of Splatoon's gameplay).

Many Splatoon players today would probably agree that Miyamoto was right (that jumping and unique gameplay is essential for Splatoon), and that his remarks (that forced the developers back to the design table) was a part of Splatoon's later success. But one part of the internet of course interpreted his remarks as Miyamoto "not getting the appeal of Splatoon".

And of course we could also discuss why Splatoon wasn't a huge critical success. Don't know if that's related to Miyamoto, though.

 

[Domaje]

Man, Silver Surfer for the nes was such an awesome game.

Go watch this high score video and come back here.

I posted the high score videos just because from those it's clear that the double screen control system combined with the gyro aiming provides a big advantage (more precision) over traditional control and a wider and more tridimensional visual spectrum over a simple gyro control system like for example Splatoon's system.

If you take into account the whole paragraph from which you quote, his main argument is that that type of gyro aiming has already been better implemented, and in a simpler way. And I'd say he's right. Controlling the cockpit view with the gamepad gyro while using that same gamepad to navigate the ship is more cumbersome than using a VR headset or any other head-tracking device to look around the cockpit + traditional controller or KB/M. In that sense, SF0's controls offer nothing new - it only does so in the context of not having access to those peripherals.

Another major thing those peripheral allow is OPTIONS. You can disable the Z-axis head zoom if you want, you can make the X axis much more sensitive so that you only need to tilt your head a little bit to look 180deg behind you. It's fully customizable. SF0 only gives you ONE limited setting you can change.

Though I will agree that SF0 offer superior gameplay to the old SF's once you get past the learning curve. It's just that the way it's implemented is because of the limitations of the hardware.

I admit that I'm not familiar with the VR control systems, but from what I understand you use the VR headset to look around and the cotroller for the rest. I bet that this system works wonders, but I'm pretty sure that it's not comparable with SF0's one. A system that provides at the same time the 3rd person view to look around and the 1st person view to aim is a lot different than a simple 1st person view.

 

[nynt9]

I posted the high score videos just because from those it's clear that the double screen control system combined with the gyro aiming provides a big advantage (more precision) over traditional control and a wider and more tridimensional visual spectrum over a simple gyro control system like for example Splatoon's system.

A statement like this is meaningless without footage of the same game being played with normal controls and gyro aiming for comparison. Which you can't go in SFZ because you don't have the option.

Also my main problem with the gyro in this game is that it's not adjustable. It's ridiculously sensitive. I've played many games with gyro as I said in my other post, the problem is this game's implementation of the scheme. And there is really no meaningful argument against "they should have provided more control over the gyro settings so people can adjust it to their liking"

 

[Domaje]

A statement like this is meaningless without footage of the same game being played with normal controls and gyro aiming for comparison. Which you can't go in SFZ because you don't have the option.

Also my main problem with the gyro in this game is that it's not adjustable. It's ridiculously sensitive. I've played many games with gyro as I said in my other post, the problem is this game's implementation of the scheme. And there is really no meaningful argument against "they should have provided more control over the gyro settings so people can adjust it to their liking"

Well I can't give you the excact numbers, but I'm pretty sure that with a traditional controller you can't aim with the speed and precision that you see in the video. Also even if I can't give you the proofs I belive that it's not hard to imagine why the dual screen system offers a more tridimensional visual spectrum over a normal gyro system... I mean, you could probably have a similar amount of visual information with the gyro system if you keep moving the camera around like crazy, but than you couldn't aim that well.

While I never felt the need of more options (I don't even tried the alternative controls) I agree that a bit more settings customization could have been a good thing.

 

[brawly]

The Isabelle bit...genius.

 

[Refreshment.01]

If story doesn't matter in Star Fox then why did Miyamoto delay the game for half a year to work on the story? Obviously he thinks it's important. There's also a difference between story not mattering and making the game a scene-for-scene retread, the beginning and ending even have identical lines.

And how does it come across as bullying? Because it recognizes that Miyamoto failed? Even if you want to ignore the obvious story problems, he failed at his mission.

Bosman is a Nintendo fan, so if he does have a bone to pick he has a right. No one on GT errrr, Ez Allies talks about Nintendo as much as Bosman. If anything this is a fan that has become fed up.

Reading that second video makes it sound like you didn't even watch the video. Story doesn't matter in all games, but when you delay a game to work on story and cutscenes you don't expect it turn out like Star Fox.. Especially since this is a remake of the N64 story in the first place.

That narrative doesn't fool anyone that followed the game's develpment closely. Either people making the claim are been either purposefully misleading or naively becoming tools of propaganda.

The game got delayed for vairous other important reasons besides plot and cinematics, like overall quality/polish and gameplay oriented reasons like Level design, enemy AI, placment and pattern formations, tweaks.

Focusing soley on the story aspect as the reason for the game's delay is just reaching and a tactic to have more munition to attack the game. And repeating the same statement page after page while ignoring the people that has already adressed this is not conducting to good discussion or finding the truth.

I mean, those games fail on certain levels but from a holistic perspective they're gems. But we're not talking about a holistic view here. Miyamoto's goal was to justify the gamepad to the larger gaming audience with these controls, and by all observable metrics that has not hapoened. Simple as that.

Mr. Miyamoto's goal was to create a game that used he Gamepad's features. Like i already explained he selected 2 fitting choices for it: Vehicle game to inject some light sim aspects and a tower defense game.

That you think that: it's done solely to "justify the Gamepad to the larger gaming audience" is raher naive since both are super niche genres. Specially an On Rails shooter in 2016.

As for the controls themselves, I'm a big fan of gyro. I love it in Killzone mercenary, Splatoon and gravity rush and with the Steam controller, however SFZ's implementation of the gyro was horrible for me. I'm not arguing against gyro, I'm arguing for better gyro. This is one of the worst gyro based control systems I've encountered in a game.

That's a hollow comment since you are conditioning it with your opinion. It is possible to talk objectively about how a game's control system works just as much as you can talk about it's frame rate, resolution or mechanics.

Zero controls are not "horrible", they are not broken, they are responsive, precise and work correctly in the context of the game. i wouldn't dare to say StarFox 64 controls are "horrible" because they are less precise than Zero's, 64 controls worked well within the game's design.

Considering many games have actually done spaceship/flight controls well, and that you can use a steam controller to play Elite or any other space sim with gyro and it's way better there, I'd call this a failure. The controls don't introduce additional complexity or uncover any depth. They just create the illusion of complexity by making basic tasks way harder than they should be. I invite people to play Eve Valkyrie or any other space sim on a VR headset with a steam controller if you want the true immersive gyro driven action packed flight experience.

People complained about paying 300 U.S. in 2012 for a Wii U and you are directing us to experince true inmersion with 600/800 HMDs that became available in 2016.

Of course you speak the truth here, playing an Space Sim with an HMD is more immersive. However, playing Zero with the Gamepad is more immersive than doing it with a 360 controller, for example. Having a screen and audio closer to the user enhances the experience of looking through the cockpit of these vehicles.

The Wii U wasn't packed with VR HMD's, it was packed with the Wii U Gamepad and this is the interface that's been used to augment the experience.