It came out a year after Halo 2, if you can believe it. Geist was a weird game for Nintendo to take on, especially since n-Space originally wanted it to be more of a traditional FPS and Nintendo was pushing for it to have more puzzles, which explains a lot about how disjointed the final game feels. It was one of those games that really should not have been in development for as long as it was.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Struggles of Marketing GameCube (NotEnoughShaders)
- Thread starter javac
- Start date
It came out a year after Halo 2, if you can believe it. Geist was a weird game for Nintendo to take on, especially since n-Space originally wanted it to be more of a traditional FPS and Nintendo was pushing for it to have more puzzles, which explains a lot about how disjointed the final game feels. It was one of those games that really should not have been in development for as long as it was.
Again the point isn't to take this as gospel but to get an understanding of the atmosphere and situation Nintendo was in from the perspective of a man that was largely in charge of marketing side of things.
I for one don't think Nintendo disregard their core audience. They wouldn't be making games like Fire Emblem and TW101 and other games with love and care if they hated us. Nintendo games ooze with fan-service. But its obvious they were disgruntled.
I for one don't think Nintendo disregard their core audience. They wouldn't be making games like Fire Emblem and TW101 and other games with love and care if they hated us. Nintendo games ooze with fan-service. But its obvious they were disgruntled.
Emily clearly has a passion for this stuff and her heart is in the right place. It's very interesting to read an interview with someone who worked for NOA, which in and of itself is a very rare thing.
That being said, the guy's narrative has him in a room full of obvious idiots, the lone voice standing up for what is clearly true--and then he follows it up with a second stroke of genius. Especially with the lurid detail on Reggie's expressions. It's the kind of blustery story that someone tells. I have no doubt that this guy had a role to play in Nintendo, and quite possibly that he made those suggestions to Reggie. And certainly the allegations of myopia and blindness register true based on the external evidence we have. But the story reads like one guy's boasting.
Like when the junior staffer of the political campaign quits and writes a book about how close he was and all the meetings he was in on and all the great ideas he has and then the candidate and the actual inner circle say "Who? Oh yeah, that guy. He seemed okay, I guess?". I'm not saying that these events did not occur... it's possible they occurred exactly how he said them... but typically when presenting one person's personal narrative, especially one that self-elevates, it's important to be critical and skeptical of it. Maybe there were multiple meetings. Maybe the marketing idiots weren't quite so uniform as they expected. Maybe multiple people had suggestions.
That's also why journalists typically don't run single-source interviews as history or descriptive pieces. If you keep it in interview format, you're saying "that is what he said". If you make it the basis for your story--which this clearly is, given that it has a history piece preceding it--you're endorsing it. Obviously it is labeled as an interview, so there is that, but still I think distance is a good thing. Typically a journalist gets a second source to confirm, corroborate, extend, or refute the first source in order to construct a more holistic picture. I'm sure any of the journalists on GAF would be happy to tell what industry best practices are for handling single-source information like this.
And basically everything post-his departure is just "asking a guy what he thinks". Which is common for interviews, but not super productive. There are a lot more people who want to play inside baseball than those who are actually on the inside
This.
Violence outshines the fun in "modern" games. Yes these games are violent, but they are still very fun.
I remember doing a thousand of taxi driver missions in GTAIII and exploring the city, driving like a normal driver haha.
Or this year, Far Cry 3 is extremely violent, but it's an awesome and incredible fun journey. I had a smile every minute i played it.
Emily clearly has a passion for this stuff and her heart is in the right place. It's very interesting to read an interview with someone who worked for NOA, which in and of itself is a very rare thing.
That being said, the guy's narrative has him in a room full of obvious idiots, the lone voice standing up for what is clearly true--and then he follows it up with a second stroke of genius. Especially with the lurid detail on Reggie's expressions. It's the kind of blustery story that someone tells. I have no doubt that this guy had a role to play in Nintendo, and quite possibly that he made those suggestions to Reggie. And certainly the allegations of myopia and blindness register true based on the bUexternal evidence we have. But the story reads like one guy's boasting.
Like when the junior staffer of the political campaign quits and writes a book about how close he was and all the meetings he was in on and all the great ideas he has and then the candidate and the actual inner circle say "Who? Oh yeah, that guy. He seemed okay, I guess?". I'm not saying that these events did not occur... it's possible they occurred exactly how he said them... but typically when presenting one person's personal narrative, especially one that self-elevates, it's important to be critical and skeptical of it. Maybe there were multiple meetings. Maybe the marketing idiots weren't quite so uniform as they expected. Maybe multiple people had suggestions.
That's also why journalists typically don't run single-source interviews as history or descriptive pieces. If you keep it in interview format, you're saying "that is what he said". If you make it the basis for your story--which this clearly is, given that it has a history piece preceding it--you're endorsing it. Obviously it is labeled as an interview, so there is that, but still I think distance is a good thing. Typically a journalist gets a second source to confirm, corroborate, extend, or refute the first source in order to construct a more holistic picture. I'm sure any of the journalists on GAF would be happy to tell what industry best practices nare for handling single-source information like this.
And basically everything post-his departure is just "asking a guy what he thinks". Which is common for interviews, but not super productive. There are a lot more people who want to play inside baseball than those who are actually on the inside
NES is my site and I agree with all of this
Keep in kind though that Emily does this in her spare time and that it's only because if her unique position as an amateur making connections in the backwaters of twitter that she can get interviews like this at all. She has no mandated narrative set by an editorial staff like big game sites so she can write stitch like this without fear of reprimand.Napalm_Frank
Member
I know what the Conduit is but what the fuck is Geist? I don't think I have ever heard of that one :lol.
Emily clearly has a passion for this stuff and her heart is in the right place. It's very interesting to read an interview with someone who worked for NOA, which in and of itself is a very rare thing.
That being said, the guy's narrative has him in a room full of obvious idiots, the lone voice standing up for what is clearly true--and then he follows it up with a second stroke of genius. Especially with the lurid detail on Reggie's expressions. It's the kind of blustery story that someone tells. I have no doubt that this guy had a role to play in Nintendo, and quite possibly that he made those suggestions to Reggie. And certainly the allegations of myopia and blindness register true based on the external evidence we have. But the story reads like one guy's boasting.
Like when the junior staffer of the political campaign quits and writes a book about how close he was and all the meetings he was in on and all the great ideas he has and then the candidate and the actual inner circle say "Who? Oh yeah, that guy. He seemed okay, I guess?". I'm not saying that these events did not occur... it's possible they occurred exactly how he said them... but typically when presenting one person's personal narrative, especially one that self-elevates, it's important to be critical and skeptical of it. Maybe there were multiple meetings. Maybe the marketing idiots weren't quite so uniform as they expected. Maybe multiple people had suggestions.
That's also why journalists typically don't run single-source interviews as history or descriptive pieces. If you keep it in interview format, you're saying "that is what he said". If you make it the basis for your story--which this clearly is, given that it has a history piece preceding it--you're endorsing it. Obviously it is labeled as an interview, so there is that, but still I think distance is a good thing. Typically a journalist gets a second source to confirm, corroborate, extend, or refute the first source in order to construct a more holistic picture. I'm sure any of the journalists on GAF would be happy to tell what industry best practices are for handling single-source information like this.
And basically everything post-his departure is just "asking a guy what he thinks". Which is common for interviews, but not super productive. There are a lot more people who want to play inside baseball than those who are actually on the inside
I totally agree with what you are saying with this, but I remain enthusiastic about this type of coverage just because it is a view we rarely get to see. Even if the stories are embellished, it's great that in this industry of secrets on top of secrets that this kind of information gets out there.
I can't wait to read all the books from industry insiders when they eventually decide to retire someday!
Refreshment.01
Member
I just read the quotes... article seems strange, possibly made up for the most part. Besides what's up with the Nintendo actitude, they were already displaced from the first spot in the previous cycle and they did already know shooters were becoming the biggest market grabbers since they sort of popularised the genre in the N64 days with Golden Eye.
So the article is suspect to me.
So the article is suspect to me.
metalslimer
Member
That's the weirdest part. Nintendo was very active in making goldeneye such a huge success. And then they put effort in with violent games like Eternal Darkness. The guy also seems like he probably had a terrible experience there. I would pay 100 dollars at least for a tell all book of nintendo 1996-2010
It is also strange the article claims he was at Nintendo from 2001 to 2007 while the Kyle Mercury on LinkedIn - who has the same profile pictures as the Kyle Mercury on the sites linked by Emily - says he started in 2003 and quit in 2006. Using other dates it would be October 2003 to May 2006, hardly the seven years the article claims. In that period he was 'Nintendo Fusion' project manager which doesn't seem like a position in which you'd talk to Nintendo of Japan.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kylemercury
It was an FPS for the GC. You played this ghost like character that possessed people.
I think its the fact that they did things like that and still didn't get that 'Halo audience'. Like they felt they put the effort in but never reaped the benefits. Queue Reggie's "Whats wrong with you?" gif
Starwolf_UK
Member
You could possess objects too (early in the game you have to
possess a bowl of dog food
Oh yeah, I forgot that part. Been a long time since I played it.
Jack Scofield
Member
Man, I didn't realize I was never having fun while playing games like Halo and Call of Duty. Because "violence" and "fun" are two mutually exclusive elements.
D.Lo
Member
Quoted one more time, because I was halfway through typing pretty much the exact same thing.
Lots of factual/logical errors as well - Nintendo couldn't believe they weren't #1 when they'd already been knocked off twice in the US (early Genesis and PS1)? 'More powerful consoles' - like the PS2 which was less powerful? And Halo being some kind of surprise when it didn't even sell as much as Goldeneye?
And the picture it paints of Reggie - who was new at Nintendo at the time so wasn't 'part of the machine' - makes no sense either.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
No it wasn't, and no it hasn't. It's been getting older, and is older.
For those of you who didn't frequent game sites or were just too young during Gen 6, this was legion back then. Most were reguared as crazy, or were crazy.
meh, I actually think Nintendo is/was right in a lot of ways. It's a shame where AAA development has sunk to. Only shining light in gaming right now are indies for the most part.
gaming used to be about variety. Now it's about chasing the dudebro's dollars.
Right in the wrong ways. They dodged the Dudebro Storm by completely divesting themselves of relying upon it with the vaunted Wii/DS combo of printing money.* Thing is, that juke is landing them in another frying pan they're in at the moment.
*Keep in mind, everyone, how successful they juked out of this mess with waggle/Blue Ocean/handhelds. In fact, I'd rather have another article about the hubris of later Gen 7 that got them caught napping (cartridge allotment monkeybusiness on the DS, poor fit 'n finish/UI in the Wii U, dud clever ideas with 3D and TV-less play on the pad, and clumsy account practices).
CorporateClown
Member
I think this is where the Nintendo disconnect is. They're seeing these things as mutually exclusive when they are not. I remember playing SMB as a kid and thinking it was fun, but tastes change over time. I need an engaging story and characters, with solid gameplay. Of course, wanting it to be "fun" never changed. Most of the time (unless I'm trophy whoring), I'm playing a game purely for fun and if a slightly more violent game with a compelling narrative comes along, I'm going to choose it over other Nintendo properties that don't cater to my tastes.
Except Zelda. I'll always enjoy those.
Diablohead
Member
Nothing seems too shocking to me, that article is nintendo alright.
Problem is my generation the NES generation grew up Nintendo didn't. They had Rare which made mature titles like the excellent Perfect Dark & Conker.
When Nintendo got rid of Rare they had nothing to fill the void. Damn I miss Rare Ware. How odd what become of them under the more "mature"Xbox brand.
I always had a feeling Nintendo felt this way about us, they need to evolve what they do. Mario & company are great but one needs more meat to their gaming diet. Nintendo were a main course. Now they are secondary, supplementary to Sony & Microsofts Consoles/ gaming libraries.
In the 80's they had a couple of gimmicks ROB the robot & powerglove they were barely supported. Now weak hardware & gimmicks are their MO & they live & die on there gimmicks.
Also mature games and themes are more than the ultraviolet games you suggested. Just like I can't play Shooters all the time I get sick of cartoonish Nintendo games as well. What's don't you understand no adult wants to watch G rated & only G rated movies thats all Nintendo offers it's elementary.
stuminus3
Member
Interview is a bit one sided but this is hitting the nail on the head right here.
The bit with all the quotes at the end is interesting because so much of it could be applied to the current Wii U situation.
I know a lot of you guys are intensely bitter with Nintendo for what the Wii represented and what you think they did to your hobby, but holy hell the identity crisis Nintendo had during the GC years was infuriating (see: all the FMV in Mario Sunshine).
Also - huh, I own Geist. Maybe I should play it one day.
Pretty much.
Rare developed Golden Eye, & Perfect Dark
Silicon Knights developed Eternal Darkness Nintendo published them exclusively for their consoles as a second party deal.
When those dev houses were gone so were those types of games & it has been over a decade.
Give credit where it is due, name one M rated game Nintendo developed solely themselves?
They refuse to thus the ever shrinking market share they outright ignore a n enormous segment of the market.
Mature and Conker, now that's funny.
SlowRevolution
Member
Nice article, thanks for posting.
Would've been nice to hear more perspectives, though.
Would've been nice to hear more perspectives, though.
Is South Park Mature? Yes Conker is a M rated for Mature game & it is hilarious.
Nice job taking a snippet from everything I said & using it out of context. Would you want a 5 year old playing Conker?
It's M rating is age appropriate. Do not be a bitter Nintentoadie....
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Pride turned to arrogance. Ugly arrogance. Nintendo started to develop contempt for the gaming community. They felt as if they were being betrayed by the gamers they created
Come again?
Come again?
Shadow Hog
Member
No, it really isn't. It's incredibly crass and classless. Hell, that's part of what got it as popular as it is - the notoriety of just how brazen its humor was.
That isn't a bad thing, mind, but "mature" is probably the last thing I'd associate South Park with - and the same goes for Conker. You can be highly immature and still be M-rated, after all.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
You can tell you're playing a fun game if the clouds and trees have smiley faces. That's the sign of a fun game.
I hear ya but I used mature in context of M rated. I stand by my point that Nintendo is not bold enough to in house an M rated game.
Remember the time Miyamoto (who is an all time great) said that he could make Halo but chooses not to. He could never reach that quality & it was an ignorant, arrogant thing for someone so seemingly humble to say. I believe it was said out of envy or he truly doesn't respect the work put into an A tier shooter.
UncleSporky
Member
I really want to know what Reggie is like behind closed doors. I don't dislike him, but the guy we get is a brick wall of marketing.
Does he go him and flop on the couch and bitch to his wife about the assholes who make him act cute for the internet with the "my body is ready" stuff, or does he actually think that's fun?
Does he feel intense anxiety from living a life that is dictated to him out of Japan, though he believes he has good ideas that could help his consoles thrive in the US?
Is he coasting, or is he trying really hard?
If he could drop his guard and forget about all NDAs and speak candidly about his entire experience, what would he say?
Does he go him and flop on the couch and bitch to his wife about the assholes who make him act cute for the internet with the "my body is ready" stuff, or does he actually think that's fun?
Does he feel intense anxiety from living a life that is dictated to him out of Japan, though he believes he has good ideas that could help his consoles thrive in the US?
Is he coasting, or is he trying really hard?
If he could drop his guard and forget about all NDAs and speak candidly about his entire experience, what would he say?
Conker is a cartoony game with juvenile humor geared toward teenagers.
Yes it got the M rating, yet despite the swearing, dark humor, pop culture references and the boobs follows closely the tone of many previous cartoony games by Rare on N64.
Conker , as an IP, wouldn't cover Nintendo lack of "realistic" franchises for 25 or older guys.
More in general Rare rarely did it (sorry for the pun), they preferred adapting to the audience built by Nintendo.
As for the last question I wouldn't want a 5 year old to play VG in general (but that's just my opinion).
I don't think at that age they would grasp Conker humor and there are games with better 3D platforming on N64.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I can see it now, the tell-all autobiography:
My Body Was Ready, My Spirit Was Not: The Reggie Fils-Aime Story
That made me laugh out loud on the can at work, I hope you're happy.
What a bunch of bullshit.
Blaming people...for not being Peter Pans?
And it's not like Nintendo didn't change.
They are a shell of their former selves and they know it.
Funny thing is that, most of those people, are still interested in playing a truly mind-blowing Mario, Zelda, Metroid or F-Zero game.
They just want the whole package in a console, including a diverse library that has games for people who are 30 years old now.
Btw, if Nintendo is so concerned about "killing in HD", they should try to shift the consciousness of what a mature game really is.
Why don't they make games with actual mature themes, aesthetics, stories, settings and characters?
You won't find many people in their 30s who consider games like Call of Duty mature anyway.
A mature game doesn't even need to be about killing...
timetokill
Banned
It's been quoted a bunch already, but stump dropping truth. Agreed.
RumblingRosco
Member
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
Being Reggie sounds like pure torture man, I really feel for the poor guy.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Nintendo of Japan (NOJ) doesn't exist. I don't know this site very well, but is this supposed to be a researched article?
It rubs me the wrong way because Nintendo is one of the companies that care the most about their games, hence their games are always being delayed. Should they think this way we would have had Pikmin 3 and TW101 by launch window and maybe a few patches later.
A lot of those quotes read like someone who was really looking forward to being quoted. Oh yeah, marketing guy. Yeah, so let's take it all as gospel.
And then there's those of us focusing on the real problems with it
And then there's those of us focusing on the real problems with it
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
It's an easy way to reference Nintendo Global HQ which so happens to be the japan offices. I wouldn't get too caught up with the semantics. I've seen the term used a bunch.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I just think it's odd considering it's supposed to be a quote from someone who worked with Nintendo for a very long time. I'm not saying it's misquoting, but I'm just suspicious is all.
And that term is NCL. Nintendo of Japan has never existed as far as I can tell. Oh well, not a big deal. Just found it strange.
SporeCrawler
Member
hah i knew that reggie is a misunderstood genius
jokes aside. its pretty much what i expected. too bad that they tried to come back into the hardcore crowd (at least marketing speech wise) with wiiu rather than going full on casual with wii sports u as a launch title.
jokes aside. its pretty much what i expected. too bad that they tried to come back into the hardcore crowd (at least marketing speech wise) with wiiu rather than going full on casual with wii sports u as a launch title.
eddfromtheriver
Banned
Wow... just wow... and unfortunately it's true. (not me though)
chickdigger802
Banned
man where would gcn have gone if RE4 wasn't marketed or pushed at all...
Emily clearly has a passion for this stuff and her heart is in the right place. It's very interesting to read an interview with someone who worked for NOA, which in and of itself is a very rare thing.
That being said, the guy's narrative has him in a room full of obvious idiots, the lone voice standing up for what is clearly true--and then he follows it up with a second stroke of genius. Especially with the lurid detail on Reggie's expressions. It's the kind of blustery story that someone tells. I have no doubt that this guy had a role to play in Nintendo, and quite possibly that he made those suggestions to Reggie. And certainly the allegations of myopia and blindness register true based on the external evidence we have. But the story reads like one guy's boasting.
Like when the junior staffer of the political campaign quits and writes a book about how close he was and all the meetings he was in on and all the great ideas he has and then the candidate and the actual inner circle say "Who? Oh yeah, that guy. He seemed okay, I guess?". I'm not saying that these events did not occur... it's possible they occurred exactly how he said them... but typically when presenting one person's personal narrative, especially one that self-elevates, it's important to be critical and skeptical of it. Maybe there were multiple meetings. Maybe the marketing idiots weren't quite so uniform as they expected. Maybe multiple people had suggestions.
That's also why journalists typically don't run single-source interviews as history or descriptive pieces. If you keep it in interview format, you're saying "that is what he said". If you make it the basis for your story--which this clearly is, given that it has a history piece preceding it--you're endorsing it. Obviously it is labeled as an interview, so there is that, but still I think distance is a good thing. Typically a journalist gets a second source to confirm, corroborate, extend, or refute the first source in order to construct a more holistic picture. I'm sure any of the journalists on GAF would be happy to tell what industry best practices are for handling single-source information like this.
And basically everything post-his departure is just "asking a guy what he thinks". Which is common for interviews, but not super productive. There are a lot more people who want to play inside baseball than those who are actually on the inside
This is exactly the impression I'm left with after looking through the article.
I have also noticed Emily Rogers tends to write all of her articles in a single narrative, with no other points of view presented.