|
BS: Where did the CD-ROM² [pronounced
"CD rom-rom"] branding come from?
TT: Well, our main audience were gamers who already had a lot of HuCARDs
and Famicom cartridges, so that naming was meant to communicate that this is
more than just another ROM-based medium -- it was something bigger, better,
more powerful.
CN: Something I read is that at the
time, you couldn't burn CDs the way you can today, so the developer kits
actually had to emulate CDs via interlinked hard drives. Was that the case at
the time?
TT: The development kit? Well, you see home servers and so on these days
that have terabytes and terabytes of storage, but back then hard drives were
more like 80MB or 40MB.
If I'm remembering it right, we would connect eight
80MB hard disks together and used that as our CD-ROM development platform. As
time went on 120MB and 240MB drives came on sale, so the number of drives you
needed eventually went down.
BS: One risk you took with the PC
Engine system was the Multitap. I think Hudson was the
first company to have five-player support, and I think that was important, to
have the whole family playing.
TT: I'd say we weren't the first with the idea of multiplayer gaming so
much as we were the first to produce Bomberman.
We wanted to have five people -- well, it could've been four, really, but --
all lined up in front of a single screen playing together, and it just so
happened that the Multitap made that possible.
BS: What do you think of Xbox Live? You
could call it the logical conclusion of Hudson's idea.
TT: Yeah. Whether you're all in the same room or you're playing over the
net, the fact that you're all playing together naturally doesn't change. I
don't think the concept is all that different; it's all in the method.
BS: Did Hudson have any
online-play ideas at the time? Via modem or something?
TT: Not at the time, no. Later on, we made a version of Bomberman for the Game Boy that let you
connect two or four GBs with cables and enjoy multiplayer that way.
Even with
the cables, though, the communication speed between consoles was really slow;
keeping things in sync was a huge pain. You'd only get a few updates per
second, and the program would sort of have to bluff the other players' movements
on each individual screen. That was what we dealt with even with dedicated
hardware, so the conventional wisdom was that gaming via modem in realtime was
even more impossible.
BS: The CD-ROM System was an add-on to
the Core System. Hudson and NEC managed to make that work, but other companies
like Sega and Nintendo had a much more difficult time making its own
peripherals, like the Disk System and the Sega CD, popular. Why did that
succeed on the PCE? Or was it a problem? (laughs)
TT: Well, it was mostly Hudson making these requests for new hardware -- they'd
come up with ideas for games, then formulate the hardware they needed to make
it happen. The Arcade Card came about because the programmers asked for more
internal RAM to work with. Hudson
discussed these concepts with NEC, of course, but it was largely Hudson that conceived and prototyped these peripherals, so
the whole process was pretty smooth.
BS: In my mind, Hudson's add-ons
were largely driven by software. For example, if you wanted to play Fatal Fury 2, you needed an Arcade Card.
TT: Right, and if you wanted to play Tengai
Makyo 2, you needed a Super CD-ROM System. The projects were really based
off the needs for the programmer. In the case of Tengai Makyo 2, the programmer would say "To implement this,
I'd need to load four times on a single map, and I don't want to do that. I
wanna do it in a single load, so give me four times the RAM I have now."
The negotiations that would result from requests like that is what ultimately
led to the final product. So Hudson was usually the outfit that conceived the add-ons,
and for the most part those add-ons were inspired by the programmers' needs.
CN: I was 13 when I got a Turbo CD, and
since I was getting a little older, I thought that this is cooler, more
technically advanced than the NES. Was that intentional? Were you trying to get
the same audience as the NES?
TT: Our target audience at first was kids from five to 10 and up. Later
on that got expanded, though. The real goal for us, though, was to create a
console that would make it much easier for a programmer to take whatever idea
he had and put it into action.
CN: Back when Hudson was
getting its first popularity with the Famicom and the PC Engine, the market was
mostly for kids, like you said, but there were a lot more original games.
Now, it's a lot harder for original
kids' games; it's much more based around licenses. Hudson still does
some, but what do you think about the transformation of the market? It seems
like the drive's been toward doing original games for adults and then kids'
games based on movies or whatever.
TT: I think it's really a shame, yeah. I think it'd be nice to see more
original characters getting debuted in games and then moving on to other forms
of media. I'd like to see that happen, but -- and this is as true in the U.S.
as it is in Japan -- the sales department is primarily interested in whatever
character sold the most product last year
No matter what you do with an
original character, it's always going to have an uphill battle in this respect.
Developers want to put out all kinds of new characters, of course, but the
marketplace is just not ready to accept them. That's the way things have
become, and it is a disappointment.
|
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?