Miyamoto Versus Bungie, Bungie Versus Miyamoto

So I thought this was something jokes to talk about.
Now last week Miyamoto went on the record and said he could have made Halo, but didn't feel like it.


And now bungie's shot back
http://gonintendo.com/?p=17768

WHO WILL WIN IN MIYAMOTO VERUS BUNGIE!

;p Anyways, I dunno I thought the comment was sorta "a slap in the face" myself.

 

Yet another reason why I don't like Miyamoto.

 

you cannot compare the genius behind nintendo to Bungie. Bungie have only made one very popular game (halo), and their older stuff was limited to macs anyway.

Shiggsy > Bungie .

That said, Miyamoto isn't known to be cocky unlike some Sony employees who are called Ken -he did get quite pissed off with donkey kong country though.

 

I think the "Could've made Halo, but didn't" comment was more like a;


"I could've made a game that would play like Halo (The 2nd game to more or less set the rules/standard for console FPS gaming), but instead we decided to do things 'our way', like Nintendo often does"

And absolutely not meant as a "LOL, HARO SUCKO BIG TIMU-DESU, WE NOT WANT BAD GAME!" from Shigeru

 

But, didn't the guy have a pretty large say in Metriod Prime?

I mean I'll admit I haven't played through any Halo through on single player. Of course I've played Metroid Prime 1,2.

But, when you look at both games the style is certainly somewhat similar
.

 

metroid prime is nothing like halo actually.

I d say that prime is "incidentally" in first person - it doesn't share common FPS trades, such as precise aiming for example - which is achieved by a lock-on mechanism.

Art direction is also very different.

 

What is it with these Japanese games devs all of a sudden? Suddenly they think they can go around like they're cock of the coop saying whatever they like about other studios and their games. Too much mercury in the sushi, I am predicting.

I just realised that this might not be PC. Oh well.

 

Remeber of course Nintendo's current mammoth project is Metroid Prime 3, the game that will set the gold standard for precision aiming on Wii... Still of course "light gun" aiming and the halo style aiming is quite different, but I'd say the gap gets closer.

I definitely agree with art direction being completely different... but, they are still so-called hightech futuristic blockbuster FPS games.

But, I'm not a liberty to argue here because I obviously have hardly played halo and have only seen it from an observers point of view.

but, back to the comment I think miyamoto just meant that at nintendo they don't do what the public wants but instead what he thinks will be the game that makes the player happier.

But, of course the shot at Halo is unfair in that, I don't think there really was that much pressure to make a game like Halo... Or at least I never felt like the mainstream was calling out for it. So that shot is abit unfair.

 

he was reffering to halo 2 more than halo 1.

Bungie wanted to "satisfy" players with halo 2, and from what I gather they failed to a certain degree.

On the other hand, Miyamoto would take a risk - as see in Super Mario Sunshine- even if it wasn't well accepted.

On the topic of the Sunshine, I must say that the part of the game I enjoyed the most, was the secret warp-pipe levels were u didnt have fludd. That's the mario I like =)

 

I bet Miyamoto wouldn't have said this about a Japanese developer, like say, Team Ico.

 

I don't think Miyamoto really takes risks. He makes small changes each iteration and they aren't always well received, that is all. The games don't change much - the biggest was the move to 3D.

 

Team ICO made games of higher calibur compared to what halo is. Halo is an FPS variant, like Goldeneye, not matter how good they are - Ico and shadow of the colossus are games that are pieces of art , but any sequels to them would be down-right boring.

 

Er.. I thought Shadows Of The Colossus was the sequel to Ico?

 

I think spiritual sequel more like it they aren't that close game-play wise from what I know (I haven't played SotC)

 

Well, those mentioned titles may be considered art, but I didn't buy my video game system for art, I bought it to play video games... fun ones at that, and neither Ico nor SotC were fun games. They were horrible. Ico was a long ass escort mission, and SotC was boring as hell and had very little to keep me going (find giant, figure out formula, kill giant, travel for five years to find next giant, repeat). The Halo games were a hell of a lot more fun than Ico or SotC, weather or not it was just an "FPS variant", though I don't see the point in judging a game strictly on its genre. Who's to say an FPS can't be epic or engrossing?

If being art makes a game "high caliber" as opposed to being fun and engrossing, then I don't think I want anything to do with "high caliber" games. Give me the fun ones, because at the end of the day that's what I'll be playing. Who gives a shit if it's art? I know I don't.

 

no offence to halo, the discussion was turning on the subject of "innovation" , not "fun".

Some of the most repetative games are extreme fun, such as Tetris for example.

 

The idea of whats "Fun" or not means different things to different people. Its pretty subjective, like art. I don't think I'd call any Video game a work of art, though some have a great Art style.

Not everyone is going to like FPSs, just like not everyone is going to like Adventure games. I don't like sports titles or racers, but thats just me.

Some people like games like Ico or SOTC, some don't. Never really played my copy of Ico, but I do hear nice things. The idea of it being an entire escort mission is a little worrying, however. I can see why some people don't like SOTC, though. I think it all boils down the people who want overworld enemies or more Colossi, to the people who think it was a work of art. I liked it, but I know its got some big flaws. Some may not even consider them flaws, but for a game, I think everything should be brought out. One of the main things I liked was how it felt to take the fight up close and personal, other than having a stun weapon knock the giant down, then run over and slice his head, and repeat 3 times, like so many bosses in other games, with Kingdom Hearts 2 being particularly bad, as well as a button masher, too.

There's a reason some people call SOTC a "Glorified tech demo":lol:

I think more games should start putting more than 15 minutes in the overall design of the overworld in other games as well. I like Morrowind, but the overworld = Ass, imo. Swamps and mountains, oh my! Another good feature would be incorporating dungeons and buildings into the landscape, and entering them without load screens. I know the tech involved would be somewhat high for this, but it may be a better possibility on one of the current gen systems.

 

I faced the same problem (ie boring landscape) with Kameo.

Unlike Ocarina of Time's relatively "empty" field , which for some reason was fun to explore, the Kameo overworld was just dull - especially so when the game was finished and the battle was over.

The key is a "living-breathing" world - and a bunch of good NPCs to inject a fair amount of character into the game.

 

The whole point of SotC is the colossi though. It's the experience, the awe of seeing such massive beasts and the satisfaction of taking them down. Anything else would be pointless window dressing.

Also the emptiness is all part of the atmosphere and to encourage the feeling of a timeless dream-like world.

 

Thats what I always thought. When you first see one of the Colossi, you instantly think "How am I going to take THAT guy down?" Well, maybe for the first Colossus, anyway. The Knight one swinging his sword from about 50 feet back and almost hitting me was also a pretty crazy part that had me in awe of how big those dudes really were. I once watched his whole attack animation (and risked dying) just to see if he really did swing the sword that far, or some other thing (like the sword falling from the sky or whatever. I dunno.:lol:

This parts kind of a double edged sword for me. On the one hand, it empasizes the atmosphere, like you said. On the other hand, there was a little bit too many sparsely populated areas. They wouldn't even need regular enemies if they kept all the cut Colossi in the game. I don't know whether that was a design choice, something they had to cut due to problems, or whether they ran out of time, but I think more woulld have been better. They cut a lot of cool looking ones, too.:-( In the end, though, I'd emphasis Gameplay over Atmosphere. Would you go to a restaraunt with a lavish high class atmosphere, if they had subpar food?