A History Lesson
BS: What was the original drive from Hudson to put the
CD forth as a medium for game consoles?
TT: Well, there were two reasons. First off was manufacturing time. For
a PC Engine HuCARD, or for that matter a NES or Famicom cartridge, it took two
or three months to manufacture a batch for sale. If you wrapped up the
production of your game in May, then you'd send it to the factory, and even in
the best of situations, August would be the earliest you could put it on sale.
With a CD, meanwhile, all you have to do is run a pressing and you're
done -- if you've got the instruction manuals printed, then the turnaround time
was about a week. It was a huge difference in speed, and it also gave
developers the ability to use that former downtime to debug and polish their
work, which resulted in better games.
Also, in terms of memory space, a HuCARD could contain no more than eight
megabits -- and that was up from the four-megabit limit the year previous.
That's why R-Type had to be split up
into two separate releases [in Japan]; there wasn't enough space. [Ed. note: The original HuCARD size limit was 2Mbit, and so R-Type I and
II are 2Mbit each.]
CDs, meanwhile, can hold 640 megabytes, so really, a
programmer could implement pretty much whatever he thought of doing on that
medium.
CN: I read that NEC was more interested
in changing the format because they were a hardware manufacturer. Is that the
case? How do you remember it?
TT: Well, at the very beginning, CD-ROM wasn't even around -- we were
talking about audio CDs. When it first got its start, Hudson distributed its programs on cassette tape, and our
first idea was to use the medium in that sort of way [Ed. note: storing programs as analog audio data].
However, at the time, a CD drive would've just been way too expensive to
build a home system out of. Afterwards... I'm not exactly sure which side
brought it up first, but certainly one motivation behind NEC's support was that
they'd be the first company in the world to use CDs for games.
BS: This was also a time when CD-ROM
was moving from Red Book to Green Book, so there was another risk as well.
TT: Well, ahead of that, the initial discussion we had was whether we
might be able to simply use audio CDs as the storage medium by themselves. The
Red Book/Green Book formats are simply the format for storing audio and program
data on a CD, respectively, so from a technological standpoint that wasn't the
obstacle.
We took a pretty loose approach to it at the time; we figured that
either way would work in the end. Of course, once we actually got to work on
the tech, we realized that CDs can only store 70 minutes of music. Once we put
in the audio data we wanted, there was a lot less space available for program
content. That was something we didn't think about at first, so games wound up
having a fair bit less music than we originally intended.
BS: This reminds me of how every PC Engine
CD has track one explaining that this is a CD-ROM, so don't put it in your CD
player. Getting rid of that minute-and-a-half-long message, you could've freed
up a little more space.
TT: (laughs) Well, it's not that we wanted it to be that long; it just
took that long to lay out everything we needed to say. If we didn't put that
warning in, then people might actually put the disc in their CD players -- and
if they had the volume up high enough, the results had the possibility of
damaging their speakers.
The program track is just a stream of 0s and 1s, and there was no way
for us to ensure that the track wouldn't emit extreme high-decibel tones when
played as an audio CD. To prevent that -- to limit our liability, I guess you
could say -- we had to expressly put all this out, and that's why the message
went that long.
In terms of size, it really doesn't take up that much space. If this [meeting
room] table was a CD, then that warning would take up about as much space as
this business card. I'd need to check this, but I think the amount of RAM in
the PC Engine [CD-ROM system] was about half the size of this card.
BS: From a marketing standpoint, how
did you say "It's time to switch to CDs"? They were expensive, after
all.
TT: To put it simply, we made people think it was awesome. We talked
about how you could put the equivalent of 3000 Famicom games into a single
disc; that was how amazing this new piece of media was. The other thing was
that the games talked -- the characters actually spoke to you, creating this
movie-like effect that was really shocking.
|
So much low-end budget crap nowadays, built on milking popular trends and genres.
Can't wait for Bonk, though. Hope it will become Sonic of XBLA.
I think that the cell phone systems in Japan are a bit different than America and many other countries, so the capabilities and offerings there are perhaps a bit more varied and robust, not to mention the ease of access, etc. I was surprised that there wasn't a bit more stress on portable systems like the DS and PSP rather than cell phone gaming because I think that the Japanese market for portable gaming tends to use those systems even more than cell phones, at least for gaming. It might depend on what one considers a game, too, but that's semantics.
I feel that the original Hudson games are far superior to other offerings from other companies at the time, particularly on CD-ROM. Audio makes a huge difference to me. Even great games like Phantasy Star really suffered compared to something like Ys or Valis on the PC-Engine due to the audio (the music, not just the speaking characters). The first track being data for the game never bothered me; I still used the game CDs as audio CDs by just skipping the first track because the music is some of the best ever created. I still have the systems and games, and I still play them from time to time.
That brings up my next point: many of those games are far more enjoyable than the latest offerings with fancy graphics. Graphics are merely a visual lure, but they won't matter unless 1) they are aesthetically appealing (and the focus on "realism" today, especially for Western games, really kills the appeal for me and other gamers) and 2) the actual game is enjoyable to play. I'm really not where the comment about older works such as classic Disney films comes from because many classic works of various media are still enormously popular even with mainstream audiences, and not just with collectors. This is why you have constant re-releases of classic works, for example. In fact, many people find that newer works that rely on a lot of CG to be inferior in many ways. There are limitations to CG, after all, just as there are with older techniques. An analogy might be to other crafts such as carpentry - a mass produced chair might be convenient and cheap to buy, but a hand-carved chair made by a craftsperson trained in classic techniques is often far superior in overall quality and comfort.
Aside from these considerations, many of Hudon's older games were far superior in design than current offerings. For example, strategy games such as Military Madness and Vasteel are still some of the best strategy games ever created. Why? Because these products featured elements such as hexagonal map grids and environmental aspects (weather damage/impairment of functions, alien life forms in certain environments that could ruin your plans, etc). This is where modern offerings fall short by focusing on fancy graphics but ignoring the actual game design elements that need to be included for a well-rounded, sophisticated, enjoyable game experience. There's also far too much focus today on the idea of "challenge" as though it is necessary for a game to be difficult or challenging in order for it to be enjoyable. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Of course, a primary obstacle to achieving game content that is appealing is the sales and marketing departments. I think perhaps companies need to take their staff from these departments and force them to play many of the classic games for a couple of weeks in order for them to learn why those games are fun whereas the newer stuff often simply is not, regardless of how many fancy images you put into the game and on the cover in order to lure people to buy the product. In other words, look at releases as a long term sales project rather than look to garner sales within the first three months. You'd get much better games with a long term vision.
Plus, publishers can get away charging 3-4x the price of games on the DS or PSP, Chinatown Wars - DS/PSP $40 initial price. iPhone, same game, $9.99.
I think that sort of thing will take its toll on publishers more than piracy. Why pay $30 more for a game?