Iwata: Sales Low Due To Boring Games

I say stop simplifying games, reducing content and taking out dimensions and replacing them with gimmicks like 'achievements', 'morality engines' and quicktime events. Bring back platformers, story driven games, FPSs with depth rather than trying to simulate the 'epic' films.

GTA:IV. Not one of the best games ever, but certainly one I enjoyed and played recently. It was story driven, had many dimensions, it didn't abuse quicktime events and didn't waste time trying to be epic (admittedly at times it was tedious).

Not many games achieve GTA quality, or even Half Life quality. They're stuck trying to be Halo. Halo was good, not great, but the genre of 'epics' it spawned suck.

Also, Donkey Kong was awesome.

I haven't seen a single game released since WoW that I really wanted. Of course, there are a few in development that might be, but they haven't been released yet.

STO had so much promise, only to be utterly screwed. So that one's boring. I'm so sick of first person shooters, I don't want to see another one for the rest of my life. No good combat flight sims or strategy games, either. The games market just sucks right now.

There is a pretty steep price-tag on a lot of these games.

60 for a game that you could rent, and beat the campaign within the rental time.

Doesn't seem to add up to me.

Also, Donkey Kong was awesome.

At least someone in the game industry realizes the problem...too bad it's Nintendo...

I seem to have a hard time getting into games these days. They either feel boring with uninteresting characters, unpolished, or like I'm not really in control. Maybe it is a result of having seen most of it all already. I certainly wouldn't be apposed to remakes of some classics.

That is part of it. The only game I would say that was a 'good buy' recently was Assassin's Creed II.

Iwata has no idea what he's talking abo...

Oh wait for once he's right. There are no good games out FOR THE NINTENDO PLATFORM.

Sony has some great ones right now. Maybe all Nintendo needs is better hardware...

He is right. There are two games I am eyeballing. Fallout 3 New Vegas is a must have, PC version. The second is possible if it turns out good for the PC, Dues Ex 3.

The next element that video games need (and eventually will have) will be spectators gambling their paychecks on who will win. Virtual "cockfights" in a Mortal Kombat fashion, with Go Go dancers, booze, and bookies.

I cant choose my own server anymore. I cant kick out idiots who want to ruin my online gaming experience. All games are now dumbed down for the casual user forgetting that the hardcore needs more. Some genres are being totally ignored while others are being flooded with junk.

Also agree with Clintonio

The problem now is Video Games are considered a legitimate entertainment medium,so most of the games that get press are created for the express purpose to achieve blockbuster status. Think of what Halo did, and how Halo 2 got more money than the major box office gross that weekend. The Production values on games went up, and with people like the head of Activision only wanting games he can milk sequels from, diverse games are not being made because they probably won't make the money spent back. Usually, that is the fault of the Publisher with lack of marketing and decent pricing. Back in the day when you had smaller teams of maybe(and I stress maybe) 10-15 people, and more likely 5-10, there was no pressure from shareholders to release copies of other hit games and a dozen sequels. Unfortunately, I do not think we will get the general quality we enjoyed in games just before the demise of the Xbox and Gamecube. Too many people see dollar signs, rather than well thought out games that dont always have to be B-movie scripts.

BTW, Games have gotten ALOT easier in the past decade or so. Playing Q3 and UT, ghosts and Goblins, Contra...hard games. Now for the price of $50 you get essentially an 8 hour tech demo.

seriously, games aren't selling? I've bought 3 already this year, and I plan on buying 3 to 4 more before the end of the year. What's wrong with everyone else?

"Games are too boring"
Says the company that has a habit of releasing nearly entirely sequels. Nintendo has had some innovative ideas and great games, but they've also shoveled out some stinkers based entirely on namesake. Any decent Nintendo game is going to have 4 sequels milking the same idea. How many times has Mario thrown a party, or decided to take up a new sport? OBESE PLUMBERS ARE NOT GOOD TENNIS PLAYERS.

Meanwhile, most other companies focus entirely on graphics. Graphics are cool, I like things looking like the things they're supposed to look like. But they seem to entirely ignore any enjoyable gameplay in favor of these graphics. You're making a game, not a motion picture. If you can't turn the graphics off and play that game as a wireframe, you're doin it wrong.
Oh, and let's see some difficulty. "Accomplishments" are not accomplishments when they take 5 minutes of button holding. I mean real difficulty, things that take thought and skill, not thumb endurance.

The first step to solving a problem is recognizing it exists.

Since Nintendo are part of the problem, they should be taking steps to fix it, lest we have another crash of '83.

I'd like to hear what Ubisoft, Activision, EA and countless startups who produce shovelware have to say about this.

Oh, and Facebook games. No-one's going to pay $50 for a game when they can hop on Facebook and play for free.

Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3, Hearts of Iron 3, Batman Arkham Asylum and ArmA 2 are some of the games I enjoyed playing in the last 12 months, each for at least 40 hours. I've been playing computer games since the late eighties and games have never been better... at least on the PC.

I'd say Nintendo is one of the offenders, always rehashing old names like Super Mario, Donkey Kong and whatnot. Sure, it might be a gaming icon but honestly I think it's time to let the man rest in his pipes for a bit.

ONE game so far in the past few years that's had my attention on EVERYTHING in the game and kept me up all hours of the night like old games on the PS2 did.

Red dead redemption.

Games that are fun and good are truly few and far between.

I agree with Clintonio and IFLATLINEI.

Graphics development has grinded to a halt. X-bawx and PS3 are ruining good games and holding back the evolution of computer games. Look at how many lame 3. person games that are made on a outdated version of the Unreal engine....

Good things can be made with this engine - Batman Arkham Asylum is one, but that game is far deeper than 90% of the crap developers feed us.

Good games in 2009/2010:
Mass Effect 2
Batman Arkham Asylum
Battlefield Bad Company 2
Torchlight
Trine

I think this is market saturation. Back in the 80's and 90's I'm sure sales of SNES and Genesis consoles didn't reach the numbers achieved by today's consoles. There are only so much people today who want to play video games. Heck, if they told us there's a slump in the market for food, THEN I'd be surprised.

Donkey Kong, Mario 64, Zelda etc.
All epics, even today. Were did you ever go wrong Nintendo?

I believe this guy with regards to low quality games!
Earlier this month I tried out about 10 high profile games. Not one of them was interesting enough to buy or even pirate. They sort of all fealt week or unfinished.
In fact I went and dug up my old need for speed 5 game to play instead. Even though it is a bit silly in german, it's a better game than any of the new ones I tried (including the newest gta4 thing, shattered horizon, cnc4, alien breed and others).

In fact the only game I tried in the last months without being complete disappointed was the dragon age expansion - and even that was a bit bland in comparison to the original.

I dont know about nintendo nor i care about their games, but what they said fits the rest of the market pretty well. I mean, sure there are good games released once in awhile, but they are still not so "capturing" as some of the oldies were...imo biggest problem now is the huge price of making games look good, you need huge investment to buy/develop engine, make the graphics etc, even if you have funds/time to properly do the rest of the game - you still cant make a "risky" game, because people who invest in you wouldnt like it. Only the big game studios can do something good, because they already have funds (bioware for example with their awesome mass effect etc), but there arent too many of those...

my answer....
there's too much games and people just don't game all day.
the gaming industry is super saturated.

I think you may have forgot to add "/Sarcasm".

Most of the gamers I know supplements/replace their movie going experience with video games - it is the Hollywood experiment of interactive movies realized.

However, look at the market. Most people in the US only want to pay around $10 to buy a 1.5-2.5 hour movie, with many choosing the even cheaper rental route instead. People don't really want to pay more than $20 for a Blu-ray movie (and still feel that too high priced, but acceptable).

So what does that mean for a game? If it can be beat in a single rental period, then perhaps it is only as good as a movie. If it has replay value, then the game value goes up.

However, many of the gamers I know typically drop out at $30 to $40 unless they think it is a really awesome need-to-have game (which tend to be in the style that Iwata labels as the "problem").

It's simple. Make a game that has variable difficulty, like Halo. The graphics weren't 'stellar' or anything like Crysis, or something like Dirt 2, but it was a fun and easy game to get into. Halo isn't too fast or too slow. I get frustrated everytime I attempt any version of Call of Duty. Really, would any other game last as long as Halo did? World of Warcraft, yes, although I hate that game.

Yeah, 99999 orcs vs humans and 99999 zombie games won't make me feel like buying a game.
Also Nintendo should realize that they have crappy hardware that is out-of-date and only boring games can be made for it.

I think this image sums it up well: The State of the Video Game Industry.

Really, Cracked.com got it dead-on; people here are ranting about Nintendo sequels, but really, the big problem is those targetting the supposedly more "mature" and "more tasteful" FPS-playing crowd on the Xbox 360 and PS3. We just have constant re-hashes of Tom Clancy/Modern Warfare games. We kinda had this problem a few years back, only then, it was all World War II games, rather than modern-era shooters. And we have the perrenial "grizzled space marine vs. aliens/zombies" shooters. (bonus points if the marine's last name is "Shepard")

Iwata has a lot of truth to his words... Most developers miss the point in their games; they focus on specifics, insisting on making sure they have X bloom and Y gun done in Z manner. As a result, they miss the big picture on having a game that's fun to play and lasts. Bungie recognized this: this is why Halo games sit at the top of the console FPS pile. Everyone seeking to emulate them has failed pretty hard. In reality, making a good game can be broken down to following through with a simple plan:

1-Put in a good atmospheric or gimmick hook to draw people in.
2-Base the gameplay around well-polished, addictive mechanics.
3-Give the game enough content/replay value to capitalize on the above addictiveness.
4-Lay out content in a manner that players can select how much time they want to commit per session.

It's surprising how often developers fail on the above. They somehow think that lots of bloom will make do for #1, when in reality, even low-end graphics can do this. I'm not talking just Nintendo that makes it work; I immediately think of the 2005 game Indigo Prophecy, which in spite of the Xbox 360 being the new kid on the block, made do with PS2 graphics (and didn't give any upgrades for the Xbox or PC versions) yet still was easily one of the most alluring games ever made.

Similarly, #2 often goes way out the window; mechanics are usually done through naive idealism, yielding contrived systems that make many players ask if the developers bothered to even test the game.

#3 is a major failing of most top-shelf titles; they spend all their development budget on flashy effects, and leave too little substance to merit buying instead of renting over the weekend. (or even overnight!) Multiplayer can be a quick fix, but only if #2 is done well.

#4 is a tricky one as well... Though often enough, usually done pretty decently; frequent checkpoints, and the short duration of multiplayer matches allow for players to easily select how long they play at a time. The main issue is making the transition from one "chunk" of play to the next smooth.

This sort of graphics argument never ceases to amaze me. I mean, seriously... If the Wii's "not powerful enough for an interesting game," then what about the Playstation 2? I suppose all of its ~2,000 games are "boring," because it just plain isn't powerful enough?

No, the answer is that some people are a strange form of graphics whore, and whatever console they're told is "latest and greatest" is all that's enough... Even though it lags badly behind PC capabilities, and it'll be completely obsoleted by the next console soon enough anyway.

nottheking's points are all good.
I'm 50. Yeah, sometimes on a weekend I can play games much of a day, but most often I can't any more. Being able to cut up gaming time into variable-sized chunks is important, as is replayability. I don't have time to constantly learn new games, and new mechanics. I still play a lot of Guild Wars and even older titles like Diablo II. And, I play casual games, like Mah Jongg or Bejeweled because they are quick and easy. Add a standard (or at least intuitive) interface (like WASD for movement) to the list of important characteristics.

A good game for me is probably something I would still pick up and play even after its story or campaign mode has ended - simply because the depth of gameplay is... deep. A lot of games give you no sense of purpose other than to run around a barren map, compelling you to do nothing but twitch your trigger finger because that is all it will allow you to accomplish.

I agree Red Dead Redemption is still fun after the story is done and even after the 100% completion is achieved.

Mass Effect not so much. You just collect things in crates, shoot enemies, and raise boring statistics.

Patapon, now that's something with ultimate replay value.

For me I am not ready to update a machine just for a better graphics experience. If it's a really good game I might.
So I'm still playing bf2 (fh2) after at least 3 years.

Also I can get a new game experience by buying an old game, but new to me (cod4).

With a lot of FPS games, the fun is playing against real-ish people.
Newer games do not seem to improve on the old always, so why buy a newer game.