Finally. Someone in Japan understands what's gone wrong with their industry. Inafune couldn't have laid it out any plainer.
I think the problem is inherently cultural. Japanese don't like admitting fault when they have been in a dominant position for so long. That would be an enormous loss of face for them, and saving face matters greatly to Japanese. In their minds it is better to ignore the truth and just pretend nothing is wrong than own up to their decline. It will be very difficult to break themselves out of this cycle.
I call BS. An always on connection and a mandatory Kinect (assuming its included with the system at a higher price) would put Microsoft in a very disadvantageous position next to Sony's PS4. They have to know that. Maybe this rumor is just a feeler to gauge public reaction and no decisions have been made.
This decision by Konami and Kojima makes little sense, especially seeing that the Japanese voice actor is being retained - if reports are accurate. It makes as much sense as having someone else voice Master Chief or Cortana, and Halo is much less character driven than MGS.
Sadly, I suspect the reason for this is money. Hayter is a bigger deal now than he was in 1998, and his price would accordingly go up. Even if this is the case, it's still bad form for Konami not to even approach Hayter and make him an offer. If the offer was too low, Hayter was under no obligation to take it. Fans should not take this snub lightly, as Hayter was no small part of the success of MGS.
I appreciate the unrivaled charm of this game within a game, but after playing through a few levels you come to realize how much time you've wasted standing in front of the gate to the next level - hoping that your less-skilled platforming companions can arrive before you grow old. (Everyone must get to the gate to advance.) Unlike waiting for a meta-event to start, there is no real reward waiting for the players who tough it out in this way.
That said, the experience, on balance, is pretty darn fun. The jumping mechanics are solid, and aside from the occasional unintended dodge, you'll rarely make any accidental missteps. I especially like the chaos that ensues in the main game when you open a treasure chest full of the pixelated baddies and watch them attack everything and send them flying. You'll come to respect those darned monkeys in a hurry, at least if you rely on melee. Fighting them in "The Box" is quite challenging with only a pointy stick for a weapon.
If this event is intended as something of an April Fool's joke, it's one of the best I've ever seen. Kudos to ArenaNet for this wildly original idea in a retro guise.
Whatever the politics behind this decision, it cannot be denied that Nintendo has made some mystifying and foolish business decisions for several console generations now, starting with the Nintendo 64. Sure, they continued to make excellent first-party titles through those years, but those haven't been enough to sustain their systems beyond keeping them in the game. They have consistently lagged behind Sony and Microsoft. The reason why is no mystery to those of us who grew up in the 8-bit and 16-bit eras. In those days, Mario and Zelda weren't the only acts in town. The NES and its immediate successor boasted hundreds of quality third-party titles, due largely to the fact that Nintendo had the most advanced console of the day. Third-party developers didn't care what Nintendo could do with their own hardware. They didn't care about Mario or Zelda. They cared about the games they themselves could make on the system. At the start of the 32-bit generation, Nintendo no longer had the most cutting-edge hardware, so third-party developers began to bolt; most notably Squaresoft. They have been shedding developers ever since, and more importantly, new developers haven't been jumping on board. What would they have to gain by showcasing their talents on a less advanced platform?
The Wii is a case in point. Despite being wildly innovative at the time of its launch, it was unable to keep up with Sony and Microsoft for very long. Once the casual game craze began to die down, and the limitations of motion-control gaming became apparent, the Wii was just a standard-definition platform in a high-definition era. There was nothing for developers, other than Nintendo, to be excited about. Those developers who remained with Nintendo damaged the system's prospects even further by releasing poor-quality titles that highlighted the system's limitations. Hence the term "shovelware".
So now we come to the Wii-U, a platform that might have been considered cutting-edge five years ago. This is what the original Wii should have been. Now? It can only effectively compete with the current-generation platforms that are nearing the end of their shelf-life, not the upcoming generation. This fact is obvious to every developer in the industry, except, apparently, Nintendo.
What's mystifying is that Nintendo developed this system at all. They clearly don't have the inclination, or perhaps the means, to develop a top-line platform, so why do it? Nintendo has a strong position in the portable gaming market, and clearly knows how to compete in that venue. They should concentrate on bettering Sony's Vita rather than their Playstation 4. Epic's decision not to support the Wii-U only reinforces the fact that Nintendo has made another major mistake. I don't think Mario and Zelda will be able to save them this time. Not in the mainline console market.
Nintendo won't go bankrupt over this, but their influence as a high-end hardware developer will probably disappear. It's sad, but there are only so many mistakes you can make in this business before it buries you. Ask Sega.
I think it's bad form to criticize Final Fantasy VII. Yes, it started what would later become an unwelcome trend in gaming, but FF7 itself was a balanced and complete experience. It evolved the art of gaming in a way few other titles have. Would the gaming world be a better place if FF7 never came out? I doubt the gaming world as we know it would exist at all. Video games would probably be considered merely a nostalgic pastime instead of the mainstream experience they have become.
You cannot be afraid to succeed out of fear of what will happen when everyone else tries to imitate what you have done and saturate the market with lower-quality goods. History is replete with examples of industries that had to evolve in order to survive. Gaming is no different. Atari didn't evolve, so Nintendo moved in to take their place at the top of the heap. Then it was Nintendo who didn't evolve, and they were surpassed by Sony. If Square/Enix cannot replicate the ground-breaking experience that Final Fantasy VII was, then someone else will. And the industry will be better for it.
JRLennis' comments