@Jag85:
Not true. That's not how the development process went down. There was no physics concept when they first began working on the BOTW project. The original concept was to make an open-world Zelda that offered a similar level of freedom as the original Zelda on the NES, an idea which they previously explored to some extent with A Link Between Worlds on the 3DS. They then designed a 2D prototype for a new Zelda, which looked just like the NES Zelda, and started experimenting with it. And while experimenting, at some point they decided to add physics-based puzzles. And then further expanded the physics possibilities within the 2D prototype, before eventually creating a 3D version and taking it further, leading to BOTW.
In other words, they never began BOTW with the goal of creating a physics-based game. It's the other way around. They started with an open-world formula similar to the original Zelda, expanded and experimented with it, and then eventually made a breakthrough with the physics. In other words, your criticism is not applicable to BOTW.
The entire reason they created a prototype before they even began production was because they weren't creating the world of Hyrule, but instead the gameplay that would dictate it. That they were able to even place the prototype in an already existing franchise to help experiment in its creation and evolution proves my point that they begin with the gameplay idea first. There may not have been a physics concept, but there was a concept. From Miyamoto:
"Whenever I start working on something I always start with creating new gameplay. After that gameplay becomes more concrete, we look at which character is best suited to the gameplay".
Aside, using Zelda as an example against my point is a bit disingenuous, as that's an already established property that's beholden to particular design tenets, but even then, that doesn't mean the gameplay concept didn't take precedence over the context in which it would eventually be placed.
It's neither laziness nor fear. The reason is simple: business. Or more specifically: franchises sell. Most media industries are dominated by franchises, for better or for worse. Nintendo's business model is, likewise, also heavily franchise-driven. And it makes sense, because Nintendo has some of the world's biggest media franchises under its belt. In fact, Pokemon is the biggest media franchise on the planet, and Mario is also one of the top ten biggest media franchises. When Nintendo has huge lucrative franchises like these, it makes no sense to throw it away for the sake of new IPs, when they can just fit their new gameplay concepts into existing IPs. This not only drives game sales, but also drive merchandise sales, which is where the real money at.
I'd be willing to grant more to this point if we didn't have companies like Disney, one that has taken steps throughout the years to vastly broaden their catalog by not only creating new properties, but also one that has taken huge initiative to acquire new studios to assist in this endevour. They are the ones I consider who are running a business dependent on franchises competently and aggressively (love them or hate them for it). Nintendo's done this to an extent, but considering how much bank they have, they could be doing a lot more.
I'm not arguing that Nintendo should be throwing their big franchises away, I'm arguing that they are far too overly-reliant upon them. They are well known to be an exceptionally conservatively run company. That should be factored into critiquing their business and design philosophies, and I believe it is this conservatism that heavily dictates such an adherence to their established properties and not simply by virtue of smart business. Other businesses do what they're doing, and then some.
On the other hand, Sony is very much the opposite. They come up with new IPs, yet don't come up with new gameplay concepts, instead recycling the same gameplay concepts in new IP packages. Which also makes sense for Sony's business model. Unlike Nintendo's huge franchises, Sony doesn't have any established game franchises that are anywhere near as huge as Nintendo's franchises. And Sony's game franchises don't sell much merchandise either. So instead, they're relying on the "Sony" brand itself, along the third-person cinematic action-adventure formula heavily associated with that brand. This allows Sony to create new IPs, as it's the "Sony" brand that's selling them, but it also means they have to stick to the same third-person cinematic action-adventure formula, as that's what the "Sony" brand is heavily associated with.
Don't disagree, and again I prefer Sony's games as I'm fatigued of Nintendo's franchises and their new ones don't do much for me. Gaming's a creative medium as well as an interactive one, and I'll take a tad more shallowness and formulaic structure in my gameplay that offer me new experiences and worlds over decades old IPs dressed up with a new innovation and coat of paint every iteration, but I realize I'm in the minority here.
But I don't agree that all Sony's games are carbon copies as some imply. Yes they are formulaic, but they hold enough gameplay distinction in each to be enjoyable and unique in their own right.
Not true. The average arcade-style game typically has more mechanical gameplay depth than the average "AAA" game. For example, arcade-style games like Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden, Street Fighter, etc. easily beat the crap out of "AAA" games like GTA, Witcher, GOW, etc. when it comes to mechanical gameplay depth.
I'm not speaking strictly on mechanical depth, but of systemic gameplay that is cumulative; systems that take player investment to build upon and evolve through time, such as skills and item procurement (Zelda), world exploration (Mario), and character development (Witcher). Arcade experiences, by their fleeting design, do not allow for this.
Log in to comment