Very insightful interview with Reggie Fils-Aime [Mobile/Archive]

View Full Version : Very insightful interview with Reggie Fils-Aime

RelentlessRolento

01-19-2006, 09:09 PM

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6142598.html

it's a good read and really puts into perspective what the future of gaming will possibly be comming closer to.

ObiWanShinobi

01-20-2006, 04:08 AM

I don't think he really mentions anything other than what can be considered conjecture. Telling us that Nintendo's first party titles are better than everyone else's is a HUGE generalization that isn't grounded in any concrete fact.

This was a largely uninspired effort on his part. I, personally, am not only unimpressed, but offended at the lack of any real thought put into this........ rant.

evanft

01-20-2006, 11:44 AM

I don't think he really mentions anything other than what can be considered conjecture. Telling us that Nintendo's first party titles are better than everyone else's is a HUGE generalization that isn't grounded in any concrete fact.

It IS a fact that they are better.

On the Reggie interview:

This industry has become more and more focused on the niche,

BULLSHIT. If anything, the complete opposite is true.

I can't wait for the Revolution. I mean, if the thing costs $150, launches with a new Mario, SSB, and/or Metroid Prime 3, and the games I want to download are reasonably price, I'm preordering one.

Vegan

01-20-2006, 01:05 PM

It IS a fact that they are better.

LOL. Though I agree with your OPINION, someone needs a lesson in the definition of a FACT.

Rig

01-20-2006, 03:01 PM

It IS a fact that they are better.

On the Reggie interview:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reggie
This industry has become more and more focused on the niche,

BULLSHIT. If anything, the complete opposite is true.

I believe he is correct. I think you are misinterpreting what he is saying. His idea of a 'niche' would be the 18-24 male gamer. (You probably though he meant niche games.) He then goes on to say they targeted females and older people with games like Animal Crossing and such. He wants to target every age range, not just the 18-24 male 'niche'.

evanft

01-20-2006, 03:27 PM

I believe he is correct. I think you are misinterpreting what he is saying. His idea of a 'niche' would be the 18-24 male gamer. (You probably though he meant niche games.) He then goes on to say they targeted females and older people with games like Animal Crossing and such. He wants to target every age range, not just the 18-24 male 'niche'.

Ah, gotcha. Well then I agree.

PittsburghAfterDark

01-20-2006, 04:30 PM

Nintendo's first party titles are only better if you like action RPG's (Zelda), platformers (Mario) and mascot sports titles and party games.

Even then you're guaranteed just one Zelda every 5 years, one Mario every 5 years and more mascot bullshit than you can handle each and every single year.

There are many gamers that just don't like that formula. For many people they'll swear by Microsoft; Crimson Skies, Mech Assault, Halo, Project Gotham, Pefect Dark. Many in the Sony camp will swear by Gran Turismo, God of War, Jak & Daxter, Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank.

It's all in what you want to play.

Nintendo's library for the Cube is wholly unimpressive IMHO. Zelda was good, Sunshine was a rehash of the 64 with a water pack, F-Zero they gave to Sega, no Pilotwings, Waverace was more of the same and Metroid was the only great new franchise/rebirth this generation. Of course, that's just my opnion. Nintendophiles will say the Cube was one of Nintendo's best efforts.

It's all in what you like to play.

PittsburghAfterDark

01-20-2006, 04:42 PM

I just can't help but make the comparison here....

Reggie
http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2006/news/01/18/reggie_screen001.jpg

The Surgeon General of Beverly Hills (Escape From LA)
http://www.theofficialjohncarpenter.com/data/movies/biopics/bpbcampb.jpg
http://pages.zdnet.com/xvpanterax/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/brucedoom.jpg

Seperated at birth, well, um....

ObiWanShinobi

01-20-2006, 04:51 PM

It IS a fact that they are better.

No, it's not. It's an assumption that is chalked up to subjective taste. He is telling me HIS personal opinion is right and anything else is wrong.

It's fanboy bullshit, and nothing more.

kakomu

01-20-2006, 05:46 PM

No, it's not. It's an assumption that is chalked up to subjective taste. He is telling me HIS personal opinion is right and anything else is wrong.

It's fanboy bullshit, and nothing more.
Or, he can take a gander at Metacritic, and find that Nintendo games are consistently rated very high. Can you name another company that has the same consistency as Nintendo?

Roufuss

01-20-2006, 05:48 PM

Or, he can take a gander at Metacritic, and find that Nintendo games are consistently rated very high. Can you name another company that has the same consistency as Nintendo?

Rockstar.

guardian_owl

01-20-2006, 06:02 PM

Actually what I think he was trying to say is Nintendo's first partytitles are better than any other system's first party titles, not any developer's titles.

kakomu

01-20-2006, 07:09 PM

Rockstar.
Consistent throughout their product lineup, not just 3 games. Many of their non-GTA games suck hardcore.

Strell

01-20-2006, 07:39 PM

Consistent throughout their product lineup, not just 3 games. Many of their non-GTA games suck hardcore.

Not to mention those three games are really just one game with new locals/people.

:p

It's a joke, people. Lighten up...

evanft

01-20-2006, 07:52 PM

ryanbph

01-20-2006, 07:52 PM

Or, he can take a gander at Metacritic, and find that Nintendo games are consistently rated very high. Can you name another company that has the same consistency as Nintendo?
while it is true the critics usually are very supportive of nintendo's first party games, that doesn't really mean anything. Reviews are just one person's opinion of a particular game. I would imagine a fps fan who is a pro reviewer, doesn't get the new copy of a mario party to review all that often. I love the zelda series, animal crossing I found fun to play as well, and imo metroid both old and new are great games to play. But I have never had any interest in any mario game. That is my tastes, so imo first party titles of nintendo might not be as high regarded as some mario fan, as I have no interest in playing a mario platformer, a party game, or any mario mascot sport game. Those games just don't interest me.

kakomu

01-20-2006, 07:58 PM

while it is true the critics usually are very supportive of nintendo's first party games, that doesn't really mean anything. Reviews are just one person's opinion of a particular game. I would imagine a fps fan who is a pro reviewer, doesn't get the new copy of a mario party to review all that often. I love the zelda series, animal crossing I found fun to play as well, and imo metroid both old and new are great games to play. But I have never had any interest in any mario game. That is my tastes, so imo first party titles of nintendo might not be as high regarded as some mario fan, as I have no interest in playing a mario platformer, a party game, or any mario mascot sport game. Those games just don't interest me.
That's why I said metacritic, which is a composite of MANY different views. It's quite rare not to find at LEAST a 20 point difference between the highest and lowest game, and most games having differences of around 40 points.

Vegan

01-20-2006, 08:28 PM

No it isn't. They are better.

You don't listen, do you?

What are you, 14 years old? If we asked you why you have this OPINION, would your only answer be something stupid, like, "Because...."?

FriskyTanuki

01-20-2006, 09:02 PM

Consistent throughout their product lineup, not just 3 games. Many of their non-GTA games suck hardcore.
Nintendo only has a 1.6% higher average rating than Rockstar does.

Rockstar (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/companydetails.asp?compid=13111)
Nintendo (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/companydetails.asp?compid=1143)

Strell

01-20-2006, 09:06 PM

Nintendo only has a 1.6% higher average rating than Rockstar does.

Rockstar (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/companydetails.asp?compid=13111)
Nintendo (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/companydetails.asp?compid=1143)

Nintendo also has 329 games, compared to Rockstar's 50.

So not quite a fair comparison - it would be harder to hold a higher score over time.

kakomu

01-20-2006, 10:16 PM

Nintendo also has 329 games, compared to Rockstar's 50.

So not quite a fair comparison - it would be harder to hold a higher score over time.
Not to mention, a lot of those games are the same game ported to different systems (no, not a re-release with some updates, I'm saying the same game).

FriskyTanuki

01-21-2006, 07:49 AM

Nintendo also has 329 games, compared to Rockstar's 50.

So not quite a fair comparison - it would be harder to hold a higher score over time.
If you're going to factor time or number of releases into this, there's not many that even would have a chance to be allowed to be compared. Time and volume was never mentioned as deciding factors, but just consistency. They're making roughly the same consistent quality of games.

Let's throw in some more companies with a little more experience:

Capcom - 72.7% (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/companydetails.asp?compid=2324)
Microsoft Game Studios - 76.4% (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/companydetails.asp?compid=44)
Activision - 71.7 (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/companydetails.asp?compid=1844)
Electronic Arts - 72.6% (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/companydetails.asp?compid=619)
EA Games - 74.4% (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/companydetails.asp?compid=44984)
Sega - 73.3% (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/companydetails.asp?compid=1432)
EA Sports - 78.3% (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/companydetails.asp?compid=4379)
SCEA - 72.6% (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/companydetails.asp?compid=10631)
LucasArts - 74.9% (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/companydetails.asp?compid=943)

kakomu

01-21-2006, 08:43 AM

meanwhile, looks like Regis is still correct.

mvega

01-21-2006, 09:55 AM

Yeah...I wonder who will succeed him...

Chuck Norris or the "Fro" Dude from "The Last Dragon"...Heck, where did "Fills-Aims" came from?

kakomu

01-21-2006, 10:08 AM

where did "Fills-Aims" came from?
Well, it's fils-aime. I know aime is french for Like (conjugate from Aimer). Fil = thread or wire, etc. So, if translated literally, it can be likes wire. However, it's probably like English names, ie, isn't translated literally. Does anyone know what a Camp Bell is? I don't, but we still call people Campbell.;)

Strell

01-21-2006, 11:14 AM

I don't think it's a fair comparison first off because Nintendo is both a software and a hardware company. That alone negates anything - you've got two companies, one who can focus solely on gaming, while the other is diverted a huge portion of its resources to hardware, research, and several other factors.

And yes, you do have to take at LEAST time into comparison. If that isn't the case, then certain companies look either much better than they really are or much worse, dependent on the number of releases and their relative scores. One company fires off a 90% game means they can automatically be compared to another company with 10 titles but averages 85%? I fail to see how that is not relevent.

You might also have to take into account variety of games and the number of platforms they've been published for.

It's not a fair comparison. Comparing Nintendo to, honestly, any other sw/hw company isn't worth it. The only honest comparisons are Sega, Microsoft, Sony, and maybe the older companies like NEC (or whoever made the TG16) and Atari and such. Well, half those companies have had their hardware die, half of them hardly make software anymore, so that takes them out of the running.

It's like comparing Sony to iRiver simply because iRiver also makes mp3 players. Sony has a lot more going on under their roofs, they've got to focus on tons of other things.

So when Nintendo is pulling triple duty across three platforms, making first party software for each, and researching new methods of interface, I think that gives them a bigger edge over a lot of other companies.

Otherwise it's apples to oranges. Or, rather, a fruit stand and someone selling oranges next to it, and trying to equate the two.

ObiWanShinobi

07-24-2007, 10:27 PM

PyroGamer

07-24-2007, 10:38 PM

Ancient thread, but I'm bumping it to prove a point:

SCEA: http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/CompanyDetails.asp

Nintendo: http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/CompanyDetails.asp

Too bad SCEA's PSN titles aren't counted.
Yeah... both those links are identical, buddy, and neither of them lead to anything.

Chacrana

07-24-2007, 10:50 PM

botticus

07-24-2007, 10:53 PM

You really haven't proven a point.Sure he has...

Or hasn't he?

ObiWanShinobi

07-24-2007, 10:58 PM

You really haven't proven a point.

Sure I have. Nintendo having a superior first party element is nothing more than opinion. The fact that as a Wii developer they have a lower score than Sony as a PS3 developer reinforces the notion that popularity and critical score really don't allow for something to be "superior" to another except in case of personal opinion. There is no "fact" in one company being superior to another.

Photomotoz

07-24-2007, 11:00 PM

Sure I have. Nintendo having a superior first party element is nothing more than opinion. The fact that as a Wii developer they have a lower score than Sony as a PS3 developer reinforces the notion that popularity and critical score really don't allow for something to be "superior" to another except in case of personal opinion. There is no "fact" in one company being superior to another.

Your science...

I like it.

botticus

07-24-2007, 11:00 PM

I guess if that's a point to be made, then you have made it. Any measure of a games "goodness" is subjective, yes.

furyk

07-24-2007, 11:04 PM

Or that people treated Wii Play like a full game even though it was actually a $10 game packaged with a $40 remote.

Strell

07-24-2007, 11:20 PM

Has SCEA made first party games on the PS3? I really don't keep up with it at all. Hence this question.

Chacrana

07-24-2007, 11:28 PM

ObiWanShinobi

07-24-2007, 11:29 PM

Has SCEA made first party games on the PS3? I really don't keep up with it at all. Hence this question.

Yes, they've published several games on the PS3.

Strell

07-24-2007, 11:30 PM

Yes, they've published several games on the PS3.

I'm not asking for published games, I'm asking for developed. Hence the word "made."

ObiWanShinobi

07-24-2007, 11:30 PM

Well the Wii is outselling the PS3 by an unbelievable rate, so the PS3's a piece of shit since nobody wants one. Afterall, majority rules if you're an Amurican, mirite?!?

First of all, excellent avatar. And by excellent avatar, I mean exceptional avatar.

And you're proving my point. Sony has better critically acclaimed games, but Nintendo is more popular. Neither can be determined to declare which is which on an objective scale.

ObiWanShinobi

07-24-2007, 11:31 PM

I'm not asking for published games, I'm asking for developed. Hence the word "made."

I don't see a difference between what Sony publishes and what Sony internally develops. Same Nintendo, same Microsoft.

FriskyTanuki

07-24-2007, 11:34 PM

I'm not asking for published games, I'm asking for developed. Hence the word "made."
Just SCEA themselves? Yeah, MLB 07, NBA 07, some PSN games right now with more in the future.

Strell

07-24-2007, 11:39 PM

I don't see a difference between what Sony publishes and what Sony internally develops. Same Nintendo, same Microsoft.

Sierra used to make games for the PC - King's Quest, for example.

Now they are just a placeholder subsidiary of Vivendi and publish games.

A game coming out on the Sierra label is just that - labeled as Sierra, where as the company has no hand in the development.

That's a pretty huge difference, and it's highly similar to what we have here. Saying the role of a publisher is the same as a developer is something like saying the producer of a movie and the director are the exact same thing. Or that any number of pop music artists actually write their material, when it's clearly manufactured by outside sources and given to them merely to perform, and even then it's handled almost entirely by a large group of people instead of the figurehead performer.

Chacrana

07-24-2007, 11:45 PM

And you're proving my point. Sony has better critically acclaimed games, but Nintendo is more popular. Neither can be determined to declare which is which on an objective scale.

So really... there is no point.

That's life, man.

ObiWanShinobi

07-24-2007, 11:47 PM

Sierra used to make games for the PC - King's Quest, for example.

Now they are just a placeholder subsidiary of Vivendi and publish games.

A game coming out on the Sierra label is just that - labeled as Sierra, where as the company has no hand in the development.

That's a pretty huge difference, and it's highly similar to what we have here. Saying the role of a publisher is the same as a developer is something like saying the producer of a movie and the director are the exact same thing. Or that any number of pop music artists actually write their material, when it's clearly manufactured by outside sources and given to them merely to perform, and even then it's handled almost entirely by a large group of people instead of the figurehead performer.

Again, I don't distinguish between what Sony owns and what Sony publishes. Naughty Dog, for instance, operates in almost exactly the same way as independents Insomniac and Sucker Punch. They operate on the same technology, have the same development techniques, share information freely between each other, and have comparable games. Yet, only Naughty Dog is owned by Sony. Does this mean that Sony made Naughty Dog's games while they only published Sucker Punch's and Insomniac's games?

ObiWanShinobi

07-24-2007, 11:48 PM

So really... there is no point.

That's life, man.

How can an avatar of your quality be hating? It's simply not possible.

evilmax17

07-24-2007, 11:58 PM

Q: Let's talk handhelds. Obviously, the Nintendo DS is doing well, with 13 million sold so far. But Sony's PSP seems to have more buzz.

RFA: I disagree. The DS is outselling [the] PSP across the world. The DS is also generating huge buzz in the blogosphere. The fact is, we have a number of not only worldwide but even US-centric million-unit-selling games, and Sony doesn't.

We have games that are successfully expanding the audience for gaming for [the] DS, and that's not true for Sony. The buzz for the DS is huge and growing, and the most anticipated handheld titles are on our platform, not on Sony's.
Ahh, back in the day when Gamespot was pimping the PSP pretty hard. Kind of funny to read this now.

Q: Terrific. Finally, can you tell me how Nintendo will reverse the perception that the console market is Sony and Microsoft and then Nintendo?

RFA: The fact is this: On a worldwide basis in the home console area, we are the number two player. Here in the United States, if you look at today, we are the number three player, so I understand where the perception comes from that we are not doing as well in the home console market as we are in the handheld business, where we dominate worldwide.

Our focus for [the] Nintendo Revolution is to provide real, meaningful differentiators versus our competition, and we believe that is what will drive our success. First, focusing on a single-minded gaming device. Second, bringing real innovation to the controller in the way consumers play the game. Third, a value orientation that certainly is not present with our competitors. Fourth, leveraging the power of our library with the virtual consoles.

So that's how we believe our success formula will play out in home consoles, and our focus is on executing that four-point program.
Hah, remember that? When it was "Microsoft and Sony, and then Nintendo"? It's all so foreign now...

Ahh...memories.

daroga

07-25-2007, 12:02 AM

Wait, why was this thread bumped again? For a non-point?

Strell

07-25-2007, 12:05 AM

Again, I don't distinguish between what Sony owns and what Sony publishes. Naughty Dog, for instance, operates in almost exactly the same way as independents Insomniac and Sucker Punch. They operate on the same technology, have the same development techniques, share information freely between each other, and have comparable games. Yet, only Naughty Dog is owned by Sony. Does this mean that Sony made Naughty Dog's games while they only published Sucker Punch's and Insomniac's games?

Sucker Punch and Naughty Dog are - at best or worst, depending on how you want to look at it - second parties to Sony (according to what I see on Wikipedia, which could very well be wrong). NST/Retro Studios/Monolith are the same re: Nintendo, just as Rare/Bungie are re: Microsoft. You could make the argument that they are developed by whoever owns them, but that's getting really technical on a gray area within the industry.

Insomniac - to my knowledge and what I could research - suggests that it is a second party to Sony in the most suggestive of ways, in that their games appear only on Sony systems, but they are still independent.

If you want to be brutally honest, Sony makes none of their games, just like Microsoft doesn't make Halo and Nintendo doesn't make Metroid Prime. The differences are subtle, however. Bungie - from what I understand - could always make a game for another system. Rare does exactly this on occasion with their own properties on the DS (Diddy Kong Racing). Metroid is a franchise IP owned by Nintendo, and they have some of their own people working on it at Retro.

The bigger point to be made is that there are games published by a company that they have nothing to do with, games that are published that they had a hand in, and games that are published that they fully developed. Since I know Nintendo properties the best, I can think of one for each: Forever Blue (Wii, from Arika), Metroid Prime (Gamecube/Wii, from Retro as a second party), and Zelda (fully developed internally).

That doesn't necessarily mean that Nintendo "made" all three. I don't think anyone who knows a thing or two about this industry thinks Microsoft makes Halo, because they probably know Bungie does. MS probably gives tons of financial backing and has some little say in the product, but I'm willing to bet they don't want to f*ck up their most valuable property, so they leave Bungie to their own devices.

There's a huge gap between a publisher and a developer, and then there are small places for argument when you throw in second parties and things like sharing game engines. Epic games isn't making Too Human, but Silicon Knights is using the Unreal Tournament 3 engine. However, at no time does Epic actually develop the game - they just handed someone some tools to make it.

Holding up a list of games and saying X made them requires some research and some clear distinctions on who actually developed it. If it's farmed out versus financially backed versus a joint endeavor versus internal. All of that has to come into consideration at some point, and it's going to make the list far harder to complete and maintain if you're really and truly trying to take it to the clear boundaries and criteria.

You can't make it as simple as publisher = developer, because that's a loaded equation that doesn't work out.

mykevermin

07-25-2007, 12:14 AM

Ancient thread, but I'm bumping it to prove a point:

SCEA's average rating is 76.9% for PS3 games.
Nintendo's average rating is 71.7% for Wii games.
http://www.gamerankings.com

Too bad SCEA's PSN titles aren't counted.

What's the old standard deviation on those? Got a chi-square figure, or perhaps ANOVA results, to prove statistical significance between those two means?

As for what the point Strell is *laboriously* trying to make, it seems like it boils down to this: Nintendo makes the best first-party games because *ONLY* Nintendo makes first-party games. #1 in a field of 1 is something to be proud of.

I'm still reeling from reading a front page forum thread where kids are using the word "Revolution." I guess Nintendo's branding strategy worked like gangbusters.

FriskyTanuki

07-25-2007, 12:58 AM

So what's Sony San Diego, Sony Bend, and all of the other Sony X location studios? How about the games that are labeled being developed by SCEJ, SCEE, or SCEA?

Gentlegamer

07-25-2007, 01:05 AM

Does anyone know what a Camp Bell is? I don't, but we still call people Campbell.;)From wikipedia: "Fanciful reconstructions derive it from the French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language) de Campo Bello, but the likely source is the Classical Gaelic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_Irish) caimbeul, meaning wry mouth or crooked mouth."

Please forgive responding to such an old post.

-Never4ever-

07-25-2007, 11:16 PM

Nintendo's library for the Cube is wholly unimpressive IMHO. Zelda was good, Sunshine was a rehash of the 64 with a water pack, F-Zero they gave to Sega, no Pilotwings, Waverace was more of the same and Metroid was the only great new franchise/rebirth this generation. Of course, that's just my opnion. Nintendophiles will say the Cube was one of Nintendo's best efforts.

I wholly agree, though I would say Zelda was easily one of the best in the entire series (only the horribly tedious fetch quest at the end & lack of difficulty keep it from being the out-and-out best), Sunshine was decent, if not uninspired, F-Zero was awesome and you completly forgot to mention Pikmin (which means you more than likely dislike the series) and SSBM (which is easily, in my opinion, one of the greatest games of all time, bar none.

I wouldn't call the Gamecube Nintendo's best effort, no that would be the SNES. It certainly was better than the N64.