What if I was wrong about Nintendo? What If a lot of us were?
As a reporter my job is to ask questions, observe and share my findings. In the process I develop an understanding of facts, a sense of the patterns I see. Sometimes, though, I realize what I think I’ve figured out is incorrect.
That’s how I’m feeling about Nintendo these days. I’m ready to chuck one of my main ideas about the Wii. I see a different pattern than I used to, a new understanding, one that suggests a much more radical aspect of the Wii than I had previously considered.
My old Wii idea: Nintendo’s console is a party console, destined to by full of party games — mini-games. Hence this blog’s running tally, in the right hand margin of total mini-games on the Wii.
My new Wii idea: Nintendo’s console is a party console, destined to mark the end of Nintendo-crafted single-player game designs. I fully expect the next “Zelda,” the next “Donkey Kong,” even the next “Mario” role-playing game to be designed in such a way that at least two players will be able to enjoy the main game mode simultaneously.
I’ve got sales figures, analysis of old games, advertising hints and more to back this up. Let’s see if you agree.
The Set-Up…
Is it really bold to say that Nintendo will leave solo-only game design?
Maybe not. Perhaps the trend is obvious? I am writing this piece barely a week before the North American release of “Super Mario Galaxy” — the first “Mario” console game since 1990’s “Super Mario Brothers 3” to include multiplayer. “Galaxy” multiplayer allows one gamer to control Mario while the other uses a second Wii remote to point out areas of interest, shoot enemies, collect gems and hold moving platforms steady.
Solid as I think my theory is, it is open to doubt. Look at Nintendo’s “Zelda” franchise: single-player since the first of more than a dozen installments, with just a few exceptions. One Game Boy Advance “Zelda” had a multiplayer mode as does the most recent, “Phantom Hourglass.” But neither of those games showed that Nintendo knew how to integrate multiplayer design into the core “Zelda” formula. That idea was last attempted with 2004’s “Four Swords Adventures” on the GameCube.
There are other signs that Nintendo could actually have already moved past the idea of making multiplayer the company’s key design focus. Note the apparently dropped co-op “Mario Kart” concept that was implemented for the 2003 “Double Dash” edition of the series on the GameCube but not brought back for the comprehensive 2005 DS installment. Nintendo let “Metroid Prime” go multiplayer in that series’ second game but didn’t include it in the just-released third. Just this week Nintendo will release a “Fire Emblem” Wii game that is solo-only.
The Reasons…
So on what exactly am I basing my theory?
Advertising: Nintendo markets Wii games as multi-player games, even when there is little, if any, multiplayer in a given game. The main mode of “Battalion Wars 2,” for example is single-player only. The game offers no split-screen multiplayer option. Yet the official trailer shows groups of people on couches experiencing the game together. “Metroid Prime 3” has no multiplayer at all; yet Nintendo’s commercial for it suggests that sessions of the game should be experienced by crowds. Not since pre-release concept videos have I seen Nintendo promoting the image of a single person playing a Wii game alone. Instead, the Nintendo image of Wii gaming has consistently included at least two people in front of the TV, playing together or, at least, taking turns.
Development Trends: Anyone who has been playing a lot of Nintendo games must see the multi-player patten taking shape. The days of new single-player ideas such as “Pikmin” and “Luigi’s Mansion” have given way to family-play to the long-term dominance of “Animal Crossing” and “Wii Sports.” Recent, ostensibly single-player Nintendo ideas have been designed to encourage the group-play characteristics masterfully designed in the “Pokemon” series: consider “Nintendogs“’s Bark Mode and “Brain Age“’s multi-user scoreboards.
To be honest, I fudged the “Zelda” analysis above. “Wind Waker” actually did show that Nintendo designers were figuring out how to integrate a second player into the classic “Zelda” structure. That game let a second player ride shotgun as Tingle, using a GBA to navigate levels rendered in 3D on the GameCube. The multi-user control concept disappeared in “Twilight Princess,” but the actual adventures of Link late in that game and in the dungeons of both “Wind Waker” and “Phantom Hourglass” have featured partner characters for our hero. I see the signs that co-op adventuring could soon be the “Zelda” norm.
Nintendo’s Announcements: The company’s announced slate of post”Galaxy” Wii games include the online multiplayer games “Super Smash Brothers Brawl” and “Mario Kart.” They include expected multiplayer title “Super Mario Stadium Baseball” and two “Wii Sports”-style games in “Wii Fit” and “Wii Music.” While that’s not a line-up exclusively comprised of mini-game collections — a fear some Wii gamers had about the system when Nintendo rolled out “Wii Sports,” “Wii Play,” “Wario Ware: Smooth Moves” and “Mario Party 8” in the system’s first six months — there is not a lock-yourself-in-the-basement-and-play-it-on-your-own game in the bunch (well… maybe “Disaster Day of Crisis,” but we know so little about it, that who can say?).
Sales: The future I’m predicting may have already been affirmed by the market. In September, Microsoft led key cross-platform American sales charts. “Halo 3” was the dominant top-selling game at 3.3 million copies to the 282,000 of the number two title, “Wii Play,” according to the NPD sales-tracking group. The Xbox 360 was the top-selling console, with 527,000 to the Wii’s 501,000. But Nintendo actually trumped Microsoft on one other cross-platform chart: accessories. The Wii Nunchuk topped the chart, beating the Wii remote and the Xbox 360 controller. Why would the Nunchuk win, and what does it mean? Every Wii owners’ first remote and nunchuk are packaged with theirnew console. The consistently strong sales for the Februray-launched “Wii Play” suggest that people are buying the title in order to get its packed-in remote. If they get it, they’re left one nunchuk short of a second set. That makes the need to buy a standalone nunchuk greater than the need to buy a standalone remote.
But in a month that the multiplayer-centric “Halo 3″ dominates the charts, you might expect that the Xbox 360 controller would trump any Nintendo one. Apparently not. There are two possible reasons why. One is that the 360 controller sales were split across a few different colors: the standard white one was number three on the list; and the black one was number four. But the other thing I’m reading from the numbers is that the Xbox 360’s brand of multiplayer may be largely an online, one-controller-per-console one, whereas the Wii’s multiplayer seems to involve a one-room party set-up. Is there a stat for number of people playing a console in front of a single TV? If so, I bet the Wii tops that average.
In Closing…
Where I’m going with all of this is the idea that “The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess” may be a relic of a previous era. When the Wii is old, I expect that game to look like an aberration: a freakishly lonely experience offered in a library of titles designed primarily for group indulgence.
I used to think we’d be getting a lot of mini-games on the Wii. And to be honest, I wasn’t thrilled as a gamer. Now the gamer in me has a new question and concern: how would — how will — the single-player game designs I’ve been familiar with since the NES be morphed into multi-player games of my predicted Nintendo future? Are we in store for more “Super Mario Galaxy”s, more instances of a second player controlling the fairy-cursor, the sparkling follower? Will Samus get a player-two-controlled partner drone? Will Kirby gain a Jiminy Cricket friend? “Super Paper Mario” already had a partner butterfly for Mario. Will someone else be controlling that butterfly for me if and when Nintendo produces a sequel?
I wouldn’t be too worried. A few weekends ago, I was showing a pair of the great single-player “Zelda” games to my friend N’Gai Croal. I showed him the milk-bar side-quest in “Majora’s Mask.” The quest requires the player to transform Link into different creatures, each of whom has a different musical instrument. N’Gai was surprised that Link’s Zora form wielded a guitar.
We started talking about the theory behind this post and an idea sprang upon us. Co-op “Zelda” without the second player controlling a cursor-fairy: I control Link the way I always do. N’Gai wields the “Guitar Hero III” Wii guitar. I adventure my way through dungeons. N’Gai plays guitar riffs to raise my health, weaken my enemies or warp me out of trouble. N’Gai’s role could be optional, like the second player’s in “Super Mario Galaxy.” But I liked our idea. It would be more fun than just having him watch me play “Zelda.”
In February 2006, game designer Raph Koster posted an essay on his blog about the demise of single-player gaming. He said, in part, that “The single-player game is a strange mutant monster which has only existed for 21 years and is about to go away because it is unnatural and abnormal.” He declared the solo format doomed.
Was someone at Nintendo taking notes?
I could get into Nintendo’s killing-off of solo-only gaming. But right now Nintendo is announcing no such thing. It’s just my theory.
Let’s see if I’m right.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:57 am
See, now I look for single player adventures over multiplayer any day. I just don’t have any local friends who are gamers, so I tend to miss out on Zelda: Four Swords and other games that just plain demand additional players. I’m looking forward to Smash Bros. Brawl’s adventure mode much more than I am the multiplayer battles. Give me a solo quest and I’ll keep coming back for more.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
[…] Article here […]
November 5th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I don’t personally think gaming HAS to be a group activity any more than reading or watching a movie or talking a walk. We might as well pretend one player board games and card games don’t exist at that rate.
A lot of these examples don’t strike me as ENDING anything, which is kind of a major point here. So much so that it’s in the title.
We’re talking largely about one player having a major role and the second having, well, a secondary role.. If something is optional, one can assume that probably half the time the secondary role won’t even be filled by someone. I mean, is being able to wiggle an icon around and do some random things for Mario really replacing the single player focus of the game? I don’t think so.
I just don’t think games having options for other players to do things signals the death of anything. It’s more an expansion, it’s giving other people in the room something to do aside from watching you. This isn’t a new concept. And certainly adding minor components and optional things like this to games of this sort doesn’t really kill off the fact that the single player mode still exists. If Nintendo was pushing games that absolutely required a second player and people were eating that concept up, then I think something more could be theorized.
I wouldn’t say single player is ‘ending’ as much as multiplayer gaming is becoming more and more viable and inexpensive. I’d have to argue that most people with an N64 considered that system very much the same way. I don’t know anyone who didn’t own 4 controllers for the thing and all any of us bought were games we could play together. Years later, we’re still at the same point. Nothing really changed except the abundance of split screen and party games since then…. and really, given Nintendo’s push for an “everybody” system this concept makes most sense on Wii and will likely be pushed farther and farther.
Personally, I don’t really require 4 360 controllers because a friend could just bring one over. The thing is that Halo 3 isn’t getting my family together, it’s getting together my gaming friends. And if we get together to play games, we know it ahead of time. Although, again, everyone I know with a 360 has 3 or 4 controllers too.
At least at my parents’ place, this is a very different thing. I think it has a lot to do with some of the demographic and the point of the Wii to them. No one is thinking “I better bring my Wii controller!” because it’s almost always a more spontaneous decision for something fun to do. Much in the way people break out a board game. It would be stupid if we all needed our own dice.
Without online play with a lot of the biggest Wii games so far and the simple fact that Wii Sports and its ilk suck by yourself, it only really makes sense to me that these things would be purchased at a higher rate. Wii Play is sometimes honestly even easier to find than a stand alone remote and I know I’d rather get a little mini-game collection for $10 more.
Really, I almost feel like this is way too much correlation to prove causation and it doesn’t necessarily work.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
So now it’s Nintendo’s fault that games are leaning towards multiplayer? WTF?
Where is your scathing article on Microsoft and their forcing of online gaming and micropayments down gamer’s throats?
I know that there are a lot of Wiiphobes out there, but all of this biased anti-nintendo garbage that gets pumped out everyday by the gaming media needs to stop.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Super Mario — Where did you get the idea that I was blaming Nintendo for anything? I see a pattern in their marketing and development priorities. If you think I’m reading the situation wrong, let me know.
Tony — You DO think I’m reading the situation wrong. I agree that we’re seeing a rise of co-op game designs and that that’s what’s going on in “Zelda” and “Mario.”
And you’re right that many people who play something like “Super Mario Galaxy” will play it as a single-player game, with no one at their side.
But on the eve of the first console “Super Mario” game in 17 years to have co-op of any sort, I don’t think it’s outrageous to suggest that solo-only gaming, pure single-player design is falling out of favor with Nintendo.
Flip this around the other way: if you were to argue that Nintendo is clearly going to emphasize single-player gaming in the future, what would you point to? Which games on the horizon back that up?
I certainly could be wrong, as I said in my post. In fact, someone at Nintendo may be having a good laugh at all this right now.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I’m more inclined to think that rather than eliminating single player games, they are expanding single player games to include the option of 2 players.
Zelda 4 swords was a single-player game, with the option of 4 players, you didn’t need to have them to play the game, and it didn’t add a whole lot.
Galaxy’s multiplayer (though obviously i haven’t played it yet) seems to be more of a way to get your video game-inexperienced friends to play, by telling them that you can help them if they get into any trouble. This is no Super Mario Bros. 3 mario and lugi take turns sort of a thing. There is a player and a helper, with distinctly different roles, but one is definitely just a support role, not a major playing role.
Zack and Wiki is a good example of this… there aren’t really 4 people playing, but you have that option of including anyone that might be sitting on the couch.
Ultimately these are single player games, but with the option of multiplayer input. The people on controllers 2-4 only have tertiary input; they aren’t really playing the game… they have very limited control, which is what a game is all about. I think these ideas are more about an expansion of interactive media than an elimination of single player games.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Not sure if you can really go by Nintendo’s advertising. Here is an NES commercial that features Zelda (the original. quote: “WHOA!!! GREAT GRAPHICS!”) and seems to imply that you can play it “together”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwgNnhM20TI
This SNES commercial (Admittedly by Sears, not sure if Nintendo ok’d it) stresses how SNES can be played by the entire family. Doesn’t look much different than some WII commercials.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRUoFu4k8bU
I for one (pun intended) still think story is key. Not every game’s story makes it a good multiplayer game. It just depends on the game if multiplayer adds to or rather dilutes the gamers experience.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
@Super Mario
Since when is leaning towards multiplayer a bad thing? Personally, if Nintendo decided to make a 2 player co-op Zelda game, I would be all over that. Heck, one of the main reasons why I love Tales of Symphonia so much is that I can play through an RPG with my friends, and all of us can have a meaningful contribution to the game, unlike other RPGs like Final Fantasy, where they can give advice (oh, use this attack, it’s better against this enemy) but ultimately are no more involved than if they were just talking to me about the game over the phone. Now, I don’t think that getting rid of solo adventures entirely would be a great idea (one of the things that makes Metroid Prime wonderful is the feeling of it’s-just-me-versus-the-world solitude), but co-op is nothing to be afraid of, and should be welcomed with open arms wherever it is done well.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I wouldn’t say that the points you hane made really indicate a move away from sinle player games. Nintendo’s marketing campaign certainly hints towards that but i would argue that this is done purely to hook in new consumers for nintendo.
Divorcing themselves form the image of the lone gamer and leaning more towards a group dynamic makes it seem that there are less barriers between non-gamers and gaming.
If the sales of Halo 3 show anything its that the hobbyist gamer is still a very powerfull market. Nintendo focusing their marketing on them would seem pointless, the nintendo faithfull, such as myself, aren’t going anywhere. Nintendo surely recognise this and will hopefullycontinue to make engrossing solitary experiences.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
[…] } )() Continuing my apparent love affair with linking to Stephen Totilo, I give you Totilo’s prognostication on the Wii’s multiplayer strategy. In short, Totilo thinks that, rather than simply being a […]
November 5th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
You got a few details wrong in your analysis.
1. Multiplayer Mario: The last Mario game with a multiplayer aspect was Super Mario World, not Super Mario 3 (unless you are talking about Mario 3’s simultaneous minigames, a throwback to the arcade/NES Mario Bros.)
2. As a series, Animal Crossing came before Pikmin and Luigi’s Mansion. The first (Japanese only) game was developed for the Nintendo 64.
3. Kirby has played around with 2-player co-op for years–see Kirby’s Super Star, which allows Kirby to split off his current super-power into an autonomous (and human- or computer-controllable) ally. There’s no need for a “new” cricket partner.
That all said, it definitely seems like Nintendo (and Microsoft, and many other game devs) is focusing more resources on Co-op play in what would otherwise be a single player experience. It should be fascinating to see what all they come up with!
November 5th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Jaymark,
I’ll give you points 1 and 3, though your clarification on point 1 doesn’t really change the argument. (Why don’t I remember multiplayer in SMW at all, even though I remember the trade-off multiplayer mode of SMB3 quite well?).
On point 2, I know Animal Crossing preceded Pikmin and Luigi’s, which is why I cited AC’s “long-term dominance” over the other two games — in terms of sales and clearly in terms of Nintendo’s development priorities. We’ve seen Luigi’s Mansion and Pikmin (sadly) get left in the past, while AC was brought to the U.S. on the GameCube, then to the DS and now is coming in some form to the Wii. And come to think of it, didn’t they make a multiplayer mode in Pikmin 2? And tweak the single-player campaign in such a way that clearly set it up for co-op potential?
November 5th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Ok, If they really were going for multiplayer experiences I think they would need 3 types of multiplayer games to cater to all there demographics. Most people relate the wii to casual gamers but SSBB, MP3, BWii and SMG support the idea of a lot of hardcore wii owners. So this demographic will go with such games both in solo and multiplayer fashion. The multiplayer could go as hardcore coop and competitive a la Halo 3. The other type of hardcore multiplayer could become MMRPGs just like in the PC. For the casual player they definately have to go with the offline multiplayer type of games. Let it be minigames or the Super Mario Galaxy style. What is interesting to me is that my previous analysis groups people into demographics, so the cool thing about the wii is that this demographics are crossing each other, so the tough assignement on Nintendo and what would be so cool is how they could mix the hardcore game with a casual role, so that both types of players can have a pleasant experience together.
As a PC Game Center owner I can tell you multiplay is very cool online, but nothing rivals a local multiplayer match with your buddies. Where I want to go with this is nothing surpasses the experience of playing with someone next to you, this is what Nintendo can and is capitalizing right now.
What do you think Stephen?
November 5th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
jaymark,
Are you absolutely sure there was multiplayer in SMW? I can’t remember any such thing.
I remember being able to switch to a Luigi appearance in the GBA version of SMW, but there was no player-switching in-game.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:56 am
[…] destined to mark the end of Nintendo-crafted single-player game designs,” Totilo wrote on his blog earlier today. “I fully expect the next Zelda, the next Donkey Kong, even the next Mario role-playing game […]
November 6th, 2007 at 8:35 am
[…] an interesting piece up at MTV of all places about where Nintendo is going with all this multiplayer malarkey. Seems they’re […]
November 6th, 2007 at 10:10 am
There was 2 Player in Mario World. Luigi was the usual green color swap. In the GBA version, Luigi had his trademark thinner look and a new jump mechanic.
I agree that Nintendo was as many ppl around their system as possible. They want more money. So they think it’s best to target more than just a certain age group. They want them all.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Vera Shorter Is An Artist…
Mr. and Mrs. Shorter moved into an apartment in Brooklyn and had two daughters. With the birth of her children,…