Miyamoto says easier games are the future

[Shpeshal Ed]

Originally Posted by vrrroom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...igeru_Miyamoto
Most games of his after 2000 SUCK.

Really? MOST? I spotted about 5 that flat out SUCKED, the rest were all good to great.

[Ark]

easy games would end the game quicker...

[MasterSword]

Originally Posted by vrrroom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...igeru_Miyamoto
Most games of his after 2000 SUCK.

The only games I would possibly consider sucky after 2000 are the Donkey Konga games, Luigi's Mansion, Star Fox Adventures, and maybe a few others. The rest range from good to godly.

[vrrroom]

fuck i got owned

[Icemage]

Originally Posted by Shpeshal Ed

Really? MOST? I spotted about 5 that flat out SUCKED, the rest were all good to great.

Have to agree. Tons of great games on that list, though as the Producer on many of those games, he's not nearly so influential IMO.

As for difficulty level coming down, I don't read that from the interview article at all. All Miyamoto is saying is that games don't have to be hard to be fun, and he's right. Karaoke games aren't hard, people generally suck at them, but they're great fun in groups. Most successful casual games aren't hard at the base level either.

I think what we, as hardcore gamers, are afraid of is that games will end up getting dumbed down to the point where there's no challenge, and I don't see that as what Miyamoto is referring to at all.

Personally, as long as a game has decent replayability I don't much care about how easy the base level is. Games that are too hard for their own good at the base level turn people off (Ninja Gaiden skirts the borders of this, for instance). Games that are too easy and can be strolled through in a handful of hours are the same way (read: most movie-themed spinoff games). I think the sweet spot is games that are approachable at the entry level and have decent complexity and challenge at higher difficulty settings (Halo, God of War, Devil May Cry, etc.).

[Descendency]

Miyamoto doesn't always create games for just one group of people.

He often designs for many different groups. Nintendogs is obviously not designed for FPS gamers nor Zelda gamers.

Just because you don't like his game doesn't mean it isn't a classic/master piece. If you value your own personal opinion that much about someone who is quite legendary (a word that is thrown around far too much - Miyamoto and a few others are actually "legendary" while the other "legendary" people are just mediocre in comparison), at least make sure to set your font to the background color.

On that list, there may be 1 bad game (I really didn't see it). Almost EVERY single game on that list would be in the "Gaming Hall of Fame" if it existed. This is not be a subjectivist who believe that all games are good because they will have some following. It would be the point of view from the point of a developer, designer, etc where the game is fundamentally sound, expanding on elements of gaming that were often standards of the past.

If I were a developer, producer, designer, director, etc the ultimate compliment to any of my games would be to be mentioned in the same thought as any of Miyamoto's games. (Yes, even the recent ones too)

I really believe Miyamoto could develop any game you ask him. He obviously knows what people like. He's only made 20 years of AAAA games. His games are the FACE of Nintendo.

Sony/MS would sacrifice some of their own children if they could have Miyamoto working for them.

[X51]

Originally Posted by Descendency

Miyamoto doesn't always create games for just one group of people.

He often designs for many different groups. Nintendogs is obviously not designed for FPS gamers nor Zelda gamers.

Just because you don't like his game doesn't mean it isn't a classic/master piece. If you value your own personal opinion that much about someone who is quite legendary (a word that is thrown around far too much - Miyamoto and a few others are actually "legendary" while the other "legendary" people are just mediocre in comparison), at least make sure to set your font to the background color.

On that list, there may be 1 bad game (I really didn't see it). Almost EVERY single game on that list would be in the "Gaming Hall of Fame" if it existed. This is not be a subjectivist who believe that all games are good because they will have some following. It would be the point of view from the point of a developer, designer, etc where the game is fundamentally sound, expanding on elements of gaming that were often standards of the past.

If I were a developer, producer, designer, director, etc the ultimate compliment to any of my games would be to be mentioned in the same thought as any of Miyamoto's games. (Yes, even the recent ones too)

I really believe Miyamoto could develop any game you ask him. He obviously knows what people like. He's only made 20 years of AAAA games. His games are the FACE of Nintendo.

Sony/MS would sacrifice some of their own children if they could have Miyamoto working for them.

You keep drinking that kool-aid.

[MasterSword]

Sony and Microsoft have children! :JokingTurret:

BTW, notice the dramatic decline in difficulty in Zelda games.

[Descendency]

Originally Posted by X51

You keep drinking that kool-aid.

Bad game please?

Originally Posted by MasterSword

Sony and Microsoft have children! :JokingTurret:

BTW, notice the dramatic decline in difficulty in Zelda games.

Unfortunately, that seems to be one of the problems that a lot of Nintendo's games are suffering. They refuse to use difficulty settings to at least allow for gamers of all "levels" to experience the game's challenges. Although I enjoyed Twilight Princess, it was never a dramatically challenging game, yet it did seem very fun and rewarding.

I think where it really hurts is replay.

[X51]

Originally Posted by Descendency

Bad game please?

That's not my point.