Viewing Thread:
"Time after Time"

I can’t really placed my finger on it… I’m not sure whether it would be the desire to decrease development times or to concentrate on the more important issues like original ideas. Why have Nintendo adopted a short but sweet policy? First pointed out by NGC magazine and later confirmed by Shigeru Miyamoto who is more than happy to point out that his newer games are going for ‘re-play value’… rubbish none of his recent games have had me coming back for more (bar Mario… briefly). Those who are skeptical regarding Nintendo’s ‘short but sweet’ concept shouldn’t be… it exists. I was a previous skeptic as there are Nintendo games that are long, Animal Crossing and Zelda to name a few, but then we are missing the point… many are long but even more are short. Legendary Nintendo developer Shigeru Miyamoto seems to be the heart of this matter, Luigi’s Mansion a shockingly original game, all drawn up by that mastermind… the game lasted 4 hours. Pikmin, a complete revolution in terms of Nintendo gameplay meets classic serious PC point and click. It could be finished in a week. Super Mario Sunshine, whereas people point out it follows a similar pattern to Mario 64 and essentially feels the same, it does levitate Mario into a few different genres, the landscapes are now larger, which, thanks to the water cannon, can be accessed easily… play Mario 64 now… it doesn’t feel right. Yet there weren’t many levels, and where before finding everything took me nearly a year… this time took me under a month. It isn’t just Miyamoto’s titles, Eternal Darkness contrives hundreds of original ideas into a title that takes you around 15 hours… Starfox tries (being the operative word) to combine two Nintendo gameplay elements into one and is even shorter. But this isn’t a criticism; I actually like this attitude, yet I’m not entirely sure why the attitude has been adopted.

Well then I would just have to look at why I like this attitude, and it is for exactly the same reason Shigeru Miyamoto gives, I don’t have the time anymore to play long-winded games. Eternal Darkness and Mario felt like epic Nintendo quests to me but that was because I was so busy that although I played them more than any other game it was still far under the normal time I’d spend on them. Eternal Darkness took me over 2 months to complete… a 15 hour game. And so Nintendo can now release more original ideas, quicker. The begging question is, if I can only play short games now then why could I play long games before… surly the less busy people can play long games and they will surly feel deserted by Nintendo. But then I’ve been working very hard for over a year now… in fact now I’m growing up into the world where both work and social life is becoming increasingly demanding. I’ve discovered the reason why I am so busy these days is because I’m older. And now it all makes sense.

In a post I wrote a year and a half ago told the tale of Nintendo’s conversion from pure and good company to the adult, scary and mature company it is slowly becoming. The post told the story of Nintendo’s aqusition of Silicon knights, a development house who soley make mature games, why would Nintendo buy into them if they wanted to remain good clean fun? It was at the time of the Resident Evil announcement where a nice collection of a popular adult game was confirmed exclusive for the Gamecube. Since then Retro Studio’s have come up with the goods with an adult first person shooter, Nintendo of America have been pushing an Adult nintendo, advertisement wise, during the christmas period. In fact Capcom announced a large collection of mature Gamecube games only a few months ago. Now you must see that although Nintendo strongly desire to keep their already well established fan base they also desire to appear to the more casual gamer. And when I say that I don’t mean the teenager who is brainwashed into thinking SONY RULE, I mean the adults, those who only have time for a quick blast between dinner and tea… those who on several occasions I have heard claim that they aren’t attracted to Nintendo because the games take a while to play.

So is this shorter but sweeter attitude all that bad? For me it is great, increasing Nintendo’s profits with rolling out sequels much faster although slower than lets say FIFA, James Bond, GTA or Harry Potter and packed with more original ideas. The games take me as long as before and it means that Nintendo is growing up with me… and that for me rules.

Is the short but sweet attitude that bad?

Dringo.

Sony don't simply target Teenagers.

The Playstation brand is so popular that it's more the "clueless adults" who go for it.

Anyway, the fact that almost EVERYONE is saying that Nintendo's most recent games are shortlived shows that there's something wrong.
For most games, 15 hours is acceptable, but when it's something big you've been waiting for, I'd personally want it to last.

So far the only GC games that have really given me my money's worth are the multiplayer ones.

Pity really, Nintendo used to be only second to Squaresoft in their reputation for producing the biggest epics around!

Well I don't know... a younger gamer will find this games more accessable than before.

And older gamer will find they are actually finishing games rather than spending a year on one title.

The teenagers mainly go for sony, and those hardcore lot who are left will put up with it.

That's my look on it.

I still think I'd prefer my games a bit longer. Pikmin was just compulsive gaming - I sat down for 3 days and just nailed it, and have never gone back (now my housemates are plodding through it). It felt very short, and underused it's puzzle potential, almost like it was some kind of pilot for a series of Pikmin games. ED I never really got into very much, but I will probably finish it at some point. SMS is perfect - I sit down and plod through it a piece at a time when I can.

Dringo wrote:
> Oh and what fullfillment will i get for not finishing a game?

Well you COULD if you put a bit more time into it if the fullfillment was REALLY that important.

So because some adults can afford more games, Nintendo should alienate the rest of their audience?

I did come back to Mario a couple of times, and I did have fun with the sand diving, the football playing (with that fruit) and a bit of platforming for about half an hour, but then that was it.

Pikmin likewise.
Had a couple of laughs letting the Pikmin carry Olimar around and playing catch with blue Pikmin (put a group of them in the water and throw a red one in, they'll throw it out, you throw it back in again) which also kept me amused for a while... but it didn't last or make up for the game's shortness.


Now I understand that some people do like to get through lots of games, so not EVERY game should be huge, but I'd expect major titles to have that little more to them, otherwise they tend to be a little underwhelming.

Now if Nintendo is doing this because they want us to enjoy a variety of games rather than play through just one at a time, then why are they still charging the same price?

I'd like a game I've been waiting for/saving money for to last me.
If it's so big that I don't complete it fully (which very nearly happened to Perfect Dark...), so be it.




Perhaps they're trying to get us used to smaller games so when they release a massive one we truly appreciate it...

Oh and what fullfillment will i get for not finishing a game?

Flawed? It wasn't an argument, it was a point of view.

Most adult gamers can afford to buy more than 3 games a year. Mario sunshine for me was a stunning title, it took me about a month to finish and I played it WHENEVER I could. I wasn't a bad gamer, and I confess it was hardly the hardest game I ever played, nevertheless it had its difficult segments in it and it often used my greatest gaming skill to overcome certain tasks.

But I would still be playing it now if I had a game on the same level of Ocarina of Time, but Mario Sunshine for me was storming.

If Mario had no replay value for you try this... play it again.

I do not have the time but to attempt to find a flaw in your argument I did try it again. Naturally I didn't do the levels I didn't like, but for about 10 minutes i leaped from the lighthouse using the rocket nozzel and went head first into the sand. That made me laugh. I replayed some of those action stages, I re-did that ballon bursting roller coaster game, I zoomed around the water with my turbo nozzel.

I played for 2 hours. And really if it wasn't for Tony Hawks 4 and the other 6 games I really want to beat calling my name I would have continued.

I've also been helping my girlfriend play Pikmin, that was good fun to play again.

Luigi's Mansion might be fun to play on hidden mansion mode but I have yet to give it the time of day.

Although I feel the games have no re-play value is because I don't have the time to re-play them, I have other games to play. Resi took me 4 hours to do... if i played it as many times as I should would have taken me up to 20. Resi has a large re-play value though.

Go on Strafex, play Sunshine again... you know you want to.

Flawed argument.

If you don't have enough time for a big game, you don't HAVE to fully complete it, finding all it's secrets.

Pikmin was finished then left me bored.
I did come back to play a couple of times but it wasn't fun for too long - Mario Sunshine likewise.

They are too short and easy and don't quite last my money's worth.
Sure, not everyone has time to complete a long game but who says they have to. Why should more dedicated players be left short so casual players can have the satisfaction of knowing they beat a game?

I don't have time to play through loads of big games, but I don't have the money to buy loads of games. I've bought a total of 3 games over the last six months. I don't have the money to buy a new game every time I finish an old one.

Besides, there's more satisfaction from beating something big and challenging.


It would be silly to make EVERY game a giant, but big hitting epics (like Zelda and Mario) should show for it by being the behemoths the blow other games away, not a quick weeks blast of gaming.

I agree with Dringo, as since I've started my job as a shelf stacker, I've simply not had as much time to play games and have noticed quite a big difference in the time it takes me to play through them... so - taking into account that I'm only 18 years old and only work 20 hours a week - I also approve of Nintendo's short and sweet strategy, as the games themselves will last a lot longer.

ED does have replay value... I did not want to play Pikmin or Luigi's Mansion again as I don't have the time...

hmmmm, good point.

pop!