Has the art of games died or is it merely in hibernation? I've played games since a vaguely remembered He-Man game on an Atari so while I wouldn't use the term "hard core," I have seen a fair amount of the timeline first hand. Maybe it's just an idealized memory, but I seem to remember such a huge diversity in the nature of games. Even the platform game rivals Sonic and Mario had unique qualities. Since then, some gameplay mechanics and plots have started blurring together.

I can't entirely blame them. Creating new and interesting concepts are certainly exhausting and flaws in the application can easily ruin them. If something works, it might work again; however, it usually leads to a sequel which is either too similar or too different--either of which could end the franchise. In the worst case scenario, the concept works so well that it leads into a legacy in which there is no such thing as another game that doesn't use this concept, suppressing the search for something new.

And yet, there are still anomalies in which a newcomer is accepted. They astound me and maintain a hope for the industry. They are the Katamaris, the Electroplanktons, the Lumines's, and less recently, the DDR's. But then those too can become legacies as seen by DDR.

So what do you think? Is this merely part of an ebb and flow nature that I should have accepted, or is there a legitimate issue that too few people have challenged?

--"Loki"

There is a legitimate problem of "sequelitis", in which games spawn less creative imitators (whether actual sequels or not). But this problem has been around for longer than you think, even back in the days of the Atari 2600. It may have gotten worse as consoles gained computing power and developers became overwhelmed by the possibilities. When you're faced with such an blank slate of creative freedom, there is a natural tendency to stick close to what you know and what others have done. There are plenty of highly creative people in the game industry, but their ideas don't always make it into real games, thanks to the necessary evils of publisher (and developer) bureaucracy.

I'm a big fan of the mailbags and all but why so many as of late? In the past week you've done more than in the past 6 months! Also when is the next time we will hear more on Animal Crossing DS, and the announcement of the revolution controller? Will they have a spaceworld-esq event?

-Vic Z

This is how I've wanted our mailbag to be for a while, but we had some trouble finding someone who could do it so consistently, and there were some technical problems with spam that we're now actively trying to get around. As for Spaceworld, I really doubt Nintendo wants to do a large scale event like that. They're not even participating at the Tokyo Games Show, although I think that's a mistake. More info on Animal Crossing DS could come any day; the game was hardly veiled in secrecy at E3, but with the very basic demo on display and Nintendo seemingly aiming for a sequel without many major differences from the last game (other than the online feature, of course), there's only so much meaningful information they can release until the game is nearing completion. I think we'll see the Revolution controller before Christmas, but my only basis for that prediction is the launch of Xbox 360, which Nintendo will want to steal thunder from.

Hi,

This isn’t a question but more of an answer to the latest mailbag.

The reason that Nintendo is refocusing on Japan makes more sense in the light of the following:

1) Historically the console leader in Japan has generally “won” the world wide sales.

2) Compared to the other regions populations, statistically sales are far higher for Japan; it makes more sense to milk a market you have higher success in per head of population than it does to try and focus on markets that don’t respond so well.

3) Japanese consumers better ‘understand’ or enjoy the ‘unique’ games Nintendo makes.

4) Japanese 3rd parties still hold the most influence on the console market, getting them onside with a strong Japanese install base is vital if Nintendo really wants to regain market share. You can look at Xbox and see that even though it outsold the Cube, its miles behind PS2 and you can’t put that down to just a later release date.

5) Japanese pride.

6) It’s their last bastion against Xbox, and in some ways Sony’s handheld ambitions, if they lose Japan its all over.

7) Localisation takes ages for Europe, and the European market is a lot more fragmented and fickle than the Japanese market.

8) It’s a lot easier to start a craze or fad for a franchise in Japan than it is in Europe or the US. Just look at Pokemon or at how Manga, and Animie is catching on now in the West. Once Nintendo has created a craze or fad in Japan it makes it much easier to market to other regions.

If I were Nintendo I’d be doing a lot of things differently but that’s an entirely different story.

Kind Regards,

Chris

These points are more or less on the right track, though like you, I don't think they're sufficient grounds to support Nintendo's practices. I don't put much stock in the "sales by percentage" argument, which someone else tried to make (less eloquently) after yesterday's mailbag. Your comment about Japanese third-parties is well put, although Microsoft's lag behind Sony is the result of many more factors than simply the Xbox's lack of success in Japan.

when is nintendo gonna release some solid specs. and info regarding the

revolution,we are fast approaching the 4th quarter here, are they gonna

punt or run a play! I think if they expect to generate enough buzz for

a successfull 1st quarter launch (as we've come to undestand )then they

better start the the "revolution" now ! I also think that the other two

(MS &sony )are far to deep into their development cycle to steal idea's

and totally restucture their consoles at the point ,and that consumers

need time to weigh the options and make a solid decision at least a

couple of months (if not 6)prior to launch,before droppping cash on a

mystery product.I for one will hold out mainly for my major dislike of the

other to competitors business approach (see steamroller) ,but if they

are to get people really excited about this product then nintendo should

start the buzz soon.

p.s. lovin the daily mailbag

BALLZ86ED

At this point, a Q1 2006 launch for Revolution is highly unlikely. Since E3, Nintendo has been sticking to a generic "2006" window, and the longer they wait to start really hyping the system, the later in the year you can expect them to realistically schedule the launch. I think it would be worth their effort to beat Sony to the market by at least a month, but most people are now expecting the Revolution to arrive at least a couple of months after PS3, especially with Nintendo no longer explicitly promising to match Sony's release date as they were doing for a couple of years earlier.

Ok, so the Revolution is very likely to hit the shelves for $200. Now, how

much does it actually cost Nintendo to make the system? Will they lose money

on it? Also, how much does it cost Nintendo to produce a Gamecube, and a

Nintendo DS?

Nintendo revolutionarily yours,

NRevolutionR

First, any price point for Revolution is purely speculative at this point. Not even the Xbox 360 has a confirmed price yet, and it's coming out at least several months before the Revolution does. Any estimate of Nintendo's actual cost to manufacture the Revolution is even more spurious at this stage, given that they haven't even publicly revealed all of the components being built into the system. Sony and Microsoft have given mostly complete lists of their hardware components, thus the analyst estimates of the manufacturing costs for PS3 and Xbox 360. Even for currently released systems, it can be difficult to figure out how much the hardware costs to make. That's because the manufacturers generally don't release that information publicly, so it has to be estimated from the parts and facilities required in the manufacturing process. The costs also change quite a bit over a system's life. For instance, the GameCube likely costs Nintendo about half as much per unit to build as it did when the system first launched. The natural cost reductions of mass production are one reason that hardware retail prices tend to drop over time.

hey, love the site, visit lots, keep it up! ok now my question....

the "revolution", yes it will be able to play games from Nintendo's previous

consoles, but my question is, do you think that they might get

developers to develop new games that are easy, innovative, and cheap, yet fun, in

say...8 bits, 16 bits, and so on?

do you think the big N has even thought about this or in this day and

age of technology is this idea obsolete?

thanks

-scott-

Nintendo may indeed offer developers the chance to create new games for the old systems to be played on Revolution, but I doubt many developers would see doing so as a viable business decision. I can, however, see a huge homebrew community springing up around Revolution, since the system will come with built in, likely perfect emulators of some of the most popular consoles of all time. Nintendo will probably take steps to keep hobbyist programmers from running their programs on the system, but such measures never last forever. It would be very cool if Nintendo would make the old development tools available (for a price) to homebrew programmers and give them legitimate access to the Revolution emulators, but realistically, that's not going to happen.

Love me do.