|
What is Nintendo really attempting to do with the Wii U? Game designer and researcher Ian Bogost, in the latest installment of Persuasive Games, looks for the answer.
For a century and a quarter, Nintendo has devoted itself to an unspoken mission: making games safe, stripping them of their risk and indecency. The company started as a hanafuda playing card manufacturer in the late nineteeth century. Like most gambling, hanafuda was closely tied to organized crime, and the term yakuza, the Japanese word for an organized crime mafia, finds its origin in that game. Nintendo set up shop just after hanafuda had been made legal in Japan, and the company seems to have remained embroiled in gambling and organized crime even as its products sanitized that practice for a newly enfranchised general public.
But even after 70 years in business, Nintendo still struggled to turn the proverbial tables on playing cards. Finally, in the late 1950s, a licensing deal with Disney allowed Nintendo to produce a series of family-oriented card decks and instructional books, changing its fortunes, and marking its second great taming of the medium of games.
After diversifying into electronic toys in the 1970s, the company imported video games to Japan -- it was a distinctly American form of entertainment that had been commercialized by Magnavox and Atari. Nintendo's first video game products, the TV Game 6 and TV Game 15, were based on Odyssey technology licensed from Magnavox.
But by 1981, original handheld and coin-op games made their way out of Nintendo's factories -- the Game & Watch series and the Donkey Kong cabinet being the most notable of these.
A Bittersweet Savior
Nintendo's attempt to re-commercialize home console gaming in the West marks the company's third redemption of games. In the wake of the industry crash of 1983, Nintendo devised an ingenious response that would set the pace for the next three decades -- for better and for worse.
First, Nintendo returned video games to the toy marketplace. The Robotic Operating Buddy (R.O.B.) first bundled with the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) helped sell this pitch to American toy retailers, most of whom had been badly burned by the '83 crash and had lost their taste for video games.
Second, having learned from its own experiences as a licensor, Nintendo introduced what we now know as the first-party licensing model. A "Seal of Quality" would insure that retailers and consumers knew a product was worthy of their investment. Such a label would have to be licensed from Nintendo by publishers, which Nintendo itself would select and approve. Nintendo would also manufacture all the games at a mark-up commensurate to its influence among retail buyers. Everybody wins -- so long as everybody is Nintendo.
The result surely saved the video game retail market in the West, and for that gift anyone who makes a living or a pastime from video games owes Nintendo its gratitude. But this bailout came with a price. It also changed games, reducing them to a children's medium sold in toy departments and toy stores, rather than a burgeoning form capable of many different uses and experiences.
Popular opinion blames the crash of '83 on a flood of poor-quality games -- not just scapegoats like Pac-Man and E.T. for Atari 2600, but a whole mess of absurd and unplayable games hacked together by speculators attempting to cash in on the latest fad. But this is an unfair -- or at least an incomplete -- characterization. Terrible though many games might have been in the Atari/Intellivision era, they were also diverse and distinct, in a way we have only begun to recover in the last half-decade.
The earliest NES games represented familiar genres: mostly sports (10-Yard Fight, Excitebike, Golf) and fantasy adventure (Super Mario Bros., Clu Clu Land, Hogan's Alley), along with the curious puzzle games made to work with R.O.B. (Gyromite and Stack-Up).
By contrast, in the leading up to the 1983 crash, players could find Atari games that took up the rodeo (Stampede), aeronautic acrobatics (Barnstorming), tax strategy (Tax Avoiders), masturbation (Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em), advertisement (Kool-Aid Man) -- even adaptations of raunchy, R-rated movies (Porky's). In the 1970s and early 1980s, games were made for adults as often as they were made for kids -- played in bars and bowling alleys as frequently as arcades and basements. Video games might have been new, but they weren't immature.

Kids Become Teenagers
Before Nintendo came around to rescue video games, the industry was well on its way to becoming just the sort of general-purpose mass medium today's developers and critics like to think they are inventing anew. Ironically, many of those creators are too young to know what came before, and thus see themselves as saviors contributing to a long-withheld maturity, not realizing that such effort is only necessary thanks to their childhood video game idol.
A similar self-contradiction can be found in Nintendo's own success. In the 25 years ending in 1985, Nintendo went from an obscure licensor to a major entertainment company with its own intellectual property. But those properties -- Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and so on -- remained yoked to toy culture. They are children's characters and children's games that have persisted long enough that the children who first bought them have become adults with their own children. Thus Nintendo's reputation: wholesome, yet juvenile. Profitable, but harmless. Pop culture, not art.
The Return to Family Play
In the 30 years since the NES, the rest of the video games industry has "matured," for certain values of maturity. By the mid-1990s, Nintendo had just released Donkey Kong Country for its purple-and-lavender-clad Super Nintendo. Meanwhile, thanks to the advent of the first-person shooter and the Sony PlayStation, video games became an adolescent's distraction more than a kiddie toy -- something like the statistical average of the 1970s bar and the 1980s basement.
In 2006 Nintendo finally offered a definitive response: the Wii, whose novel physical controls and simplified graphics and interaction models mimicked forgotten aspects of Atari's business thirty years earlier, and Nintendo's own business of a hundred years prior -- making games safe for families to play together.
The Wii wasn't so much a "revolution" in interaction design, to invoke the platform's famous code name, as it was a return to prior ideas: the television as hearth, accessible and appealing family or group play, quick game sessions, lower-cost hardware -- all ideas Atari had addressed in the late 1970s. For Nintendo, the Wii was to video games what Disney playing cards had been to hanafuda. But once again, the only reason the Wii had to take on such a role is because Nintendo had inadvertently poisoned adults to video games with the NES two decades earlier.
|
First let me say that I'm in the UK, and therefore haven't played with the system yet, so this is somewhat of an uninformed view, but I'm basing my thoughts on the same information that most people have seen and will use to make a buying decision or not.
The problem I have with the Wii U is that it feels misplaced. I've got a 360, and a Wii. I hardly played on the Wii, although in the past I spent a lot of time on the SNES and the Game Cube. These days I spend my gaming time between COD on the xbox and an assortment of games on the iPhone.
Like millions I'm waiting with baited breath at the next instalment of the XBox, as I'm sure most playstation owners are with their machine. Everyone I know who has a Xbox, will buy whatever new machine Microsoft have up their sleeves. The Wii U doesn't register on anyones radar as far as I can see.
I like the games that I see on the Wii U, not so much in terms that they look better then what's already available on the xbox/ps3 but in terms of them being games you don't really see on those 2 consoles.
The problem I see is that the new Microsoft/Sony machines are simply going to swamp the Wii U when they are released. The Wii U, regardless of what it does well, and no doubt some good games will just get eclipsed in the rush and excitement around those new machines.
The Wii had something which made it stand out, so even though the games looked dated, it could stand up and say "Hey look I can do this! you other consoles can't!" but then Sony and Microsoft jumped on that bandwagon and of course interest in the Wii faded.
The Wii also grabbed a whole new audience (not really new but anyway) which was casual gamers on consoles, but this audience then mostly migrated away to Facebook and then mobile.
I was looking forward to the next Nintendo machine, I was hoping of something which would finally bring Nintendo back into the console battle and allow it to compete, not against the current crop of machines but whatever Microsoft and Sony had coming up next. I think the pad/screen/controller thing is interesting and might well lead to some unique gaming experiences but I just don't see how the Wii U is going to fit in between the Xbox 720/PS4 and casual gaming on phones/tablets.
Of course, I'm unlikely to purchase the new xbox either, more than enough unplayed catalog for me to milk the 360 for years.
I used to have a Wii but now we have a Playstation 3 and they only play the Lego (Batman, Pirates of Caribbean, Star wars,etc) games...
They also play on our their Nintendo DSL (when the other son is using the iPad), and on iPad a lot of Social/Farming games and for Christmas they wan't a Wii U and a iPad Mini .. hahaha, I don't know if Santa has money for all of those hardware, but let's see how Wii U Mario games will affect them (because they played only Mario games on Wii and NDS)
The part about Nintendo Land saying "we don't know, either" rings true, but maybe to me it feels more like "show us", directed to third party developers. This is not entirely unlike the DS, which was/is a smorgasbord of features you may or may not want to use. In the end, the best games ended up being (theoretically) playable on a SNES, but I kind of like that idea of versatility.
In my opinion, Nintendo merely took an idea that had previously produced sales, i.e. the touch-sensitive second screen, and investigated whether it would be viable for integration with a console. This decision had little to do with "growing up," and wasn't centered around the idea of uncertainty. It may have produced a feeling of uncertainty, but I'd argue that that's due to the dissonance between design elements to this point reserved for handheld games being featured in the console; this feeling certainly isn't a conscious response on the part of Nintendo for the purpose of producing "art."
I also feel that the "no-screen effect" you described would at the most severe diminish over time and at the least severe be entirely temporary, fading completely as you became accustomed to the console. The fact of the matter is that you're never truly expected to divide your attention between two separate gaming events*, one on each screen. Even if you control via the touch screen, and occasionally reference the television screen, your attention is essentially divided between an event and that same event. It doesn't face the same problems as phone use while watching television, for instance.
*Even if you were required to focus on two separate gaming events, a la The World Ends with You, I'd argue that would still not truly face the same difficulties as true instances of the second-screen experience. A crucial element of the gaming experience in situations like that is that attention-switching is not only required but encouraged by both elements of the game. Focusing on element A exclusively is detrimental not only to performance in element B, but due to the connection between the elements of the game, is also detrimental to performance in element A. On the other hand, in the TV-phone conflict, if I focus on an email on my phone, this is detrimental to my understanding of the TV show, but advantageous to my understanding of the email. The two screens in the latter scenario are competitive and so give rise to the second-screen experience (and, if you prefer to address this subject, the no-screen experience). The two screens in The World Ends with You or of the Wii U are complimentary, and so give rise to either an attenuated form of the second-screen experience or no second-screen experience at all.
Overall, I found your article illuminating and interesting.
I often think of the Wii as the game of Monopoly, everyone seems to have it, but when is the last time you played it? With its focus on "living room" multi-player, I wonder if WiiU will fall to the same fate.
In 1983 I was a senior at my university. We played games on apple-IIs in the comp-sci lab. We made games on a mainframe and tektronics manual refresh displays. We were not Nintendo kids. Some of us were homebrew computer kids, or Commodore kids, and some were well-to-do, Apple kids.
Atari crap may have caused the downfall of consoles but not computer games. The glut of crap crushed the game industry but not people who loved to make games. The mainstream may have become disenchanted with consoles, but computer games defined the core. Nintendo was vital to re-establishing the industry and the mainstream, but without them, computer games would have continued to spread.
Unfortunately, their childish game themes entrenched a cultural meme, that games should not be taken seriously. Whereas, computer games continued to produce a variety of mature content. I think Nintendo was good for the industry, but not for game culture. We're still knocking down the doors that Nintendo erected to cordon games that are safe, profitable, fun.
If what you say is true, about the potential cultural impact of the Wii U, then they are just returning from a journey where they discovered, PCs are where the heart and soul of gaming remain.
Regarding PC game sales, Wil Wright gave an interesting talk at the 2011 GDC about Raid on Bungling Bay. It struck me at the time how Nintendo's approach also helped decrease piracy by forcing the Seal of Quality on everyone. From the Gamasutra write-up:
"Piracy was a bad problem on computers, and he spent a lot of time fighting hackers, “which was a waste of time, because it just delayed them about 2 days,” he said. On the Commodore, the game sold 20k units, but Broderbund also reprogrammed the game for the NES and MSX. “Because of the cartridge system, piracy wasn’t really a problem,” he said, revealing that on the NES the game sold some 800,000 units."
Leaving the piracy issue aside, that 40:1 ratio of NES to PC sales I think was a big success for Nintendo and a big win for developers and the game industry.
You're right about the Seal of Quality. It worked! But it also had consequences, the worst of which are the ones we don't see at all because they relate to things undone rather than things done.
I really enjoyed the article.
It was thoughtful and thought-provoking.
Thanks for taking the time to write it :).
So so true. I have had arguments with many of my gaming friends about this repeatedly. Let's compare, say, Gears of War with Kirby Epic Yarn. Gears is "cool" because it's "mature" and "for adults" while Epic Yarn is not, because it's "for children". But as far as I'm concerned almost the opposite is true. Epic Yarn, sweet and understated, is not "for" children - but it's accessible to them. Meanwhile Gears of War is like the childishly violent fantasies of a 12 year old boy and only other 12 year old boys could like it.
As for the childishness of Nintendo games, sure I loved my NES as a kid, but many of the games I couldn't really handle until much later. The *themes* may have been childish in many cases, but the gameplay sure wasn't. Childish gameplay came later, when quick rewards for little or no effort became standard, and focus shifted to impressive presentation rather than the relation between input and output.
The advantage for Apple is (and has been since 2008) their ecosystem.
It's almost identical to the way Nintendo marketed the Wii.
What we are seeing here are the very gradual beginnings of an assault on reality. First one window into a virtual world, now two disconnected but connected views into a virtual world. Just as one house is qualitatively different from two houses together, and so with two computers in one room, or two cars in one household, so two views onto a virtual reality is qualitatively novel.
Soon enough we will not have to limit ourselves to two views onto one reality. Our view will be first populated by virtual windows, then real reality will slowly be ghettoized and perhaps finally balkanized. The virtual will become dominant for most human lives just as buildings have overcome countryside for most human lives, or so I believe and expect.
I don't have a problem with this.
I think this is based a lot on observational data about how Nintendo considers people to play its handhelds (socially with other family members who aren't participating.) I've heard a Miyamoto anecdote about the latter, if I recall correctly. The question to me then becomes: does this appeal enough to people to be a factor?
I think Nintendo knows alot about videogames and the business of videogames.
I think Nintendo isn't responding to trends exactly. I mean they have have experimented with 2 screens before - Pacman Vs and Zelda Four Swords. And did 2 screens and a touchscreen on the DS 3 years before the iPHone came out.
And wiimote is still a part of the Wii U for multiplayer gaming. I don't think they shunned it. I think they took it as far as they thought they could. And as always need to keep the way consumers play games new and fresh.
However, all of that won't matter if Nintendo can produce fun software.
"We've all been assuming that games "growing up" means growing up in theme, tackling adult issues, achieving the aesthetic feats of literature and painting and film -- even if by "film" we usually mean "summer tent-pole movies.""
I've talked about this a lot, and I'm glad to see you touch on it.
I felt myself getting very defensive at the suggestions that Nintendo kiddified the market :) like a game can't just be enjoyable it has to have blood to be fun? Or sex or tax evasion? Well if that's what you want why didn't you play mortal combat on the snes, didn't they have Doom? Certainly had turok on the N64 and Golden eye pioneered modern FPS. Want a Sim? I first played Sim City on the snes and many an RTS. I even watched a review on college humor a while back of dating sims on the Wii if you need some depravity.
I think the Seal elevated games to a better standard and I would compare the eco-system it created to Apples App Store, which isn't perfect but a lot better than the Google Play (Atari or homebrew?) crap fest.
For Nintendo Land, you're right these aren't games but I wouldn't say they don't know what they are though, I think Nintendo very purposefully crafted 'experiences' that can be enjoyed, experiences that will help people (and developers) understand what the wii u is and what it enables. Overall that makes me think of an impressionist painting.
From a business point of view I can understand why ppl would think the controller is a reaction to tablets 'eroding' the console share but you only have to look at Nintendos history to see a theme, from the overly ambitious (and ill advised) Virtual Boy, to the dual screen/touch/microphone etc of the DS, to the motion control of the Wii. Nintendo have been blurring the line of reality and the game world to create more absorbing experiences, this is why Link has no voice in Zelda, because you are his voice and giving him 1 would force that disconnect between you and 'Link'. It is the same reason that you can relate your persona more to a stick man than a detailed 3d character. You see valve do similar with Mr Freeman.
The controller is not a 2nd screen it is a window into the game world, either directly (have you played with the VR cards on 3DS?? So much fun and i hate augmented reality normally) or as a virtual prop for immersion (I love the experience of using the controller as a shield or for throwing stars, even a teleprompter in singing but I haven't pkayed this).
It's great that we can have such different views but I do feel the Wii U enables much more fluid experiences than the awkward 2nd screen (or null space between screens) desceibed. The devices are flexible enough to create experiences, if designers can't exploit that potential correctly then the fault is theirs.
Last word, every year I find solace after watching E3 because everyone else is saying the same thing as me, 'ugh just more of the same crap', 'there were maybe 2 good games'. In the hands of MS and Sony and ppl who design for 12 year olds who want 'mature' content our industry stagnates, kinect, PS Move and smart glass only strengthen that point. Thank god some are innovating to elevate us above that whether it's Nintendo, Apple or real designers I don't think it matters as long as we make headway into realizing that games are so much more than what the market has devolved into, some selectively inbred shadow of it's potential glory
Right, because "Beat 'Em and Eat 'Em" and "Porky's" are benchmarks of maturity.
In fact, let's say this was an open platform ... how long before someone set up the system as a way to play by d20 rules for example? The GamePad is used to expose the map and control monsters, etc.; players use their controllers to move around and perform actions, etc. Or has this already been done? I wouldn't know.
Great article, thanks.