chalkitdown wrote:IAmTheSaladMan wrote:It was a Larry Bundy Jr vid, 4 times Miyamoto was an asshole... here it is again
Larry Bundy Jr is a massive shithead who likes to makes things up. A lot of that video was debunked in the corosponding GAF thread.
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1328992Please stop watching Larry Bundy Jr videos.
Interesting. I just read that entire thread and granted some of the knowledge I've memorialised isn't entirely true but there are elements of truth to it and more than 1 source (Larry) for it. Here's the best post from that thread with references:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.ph ... tcount=420 1. The camera systems from Starfox 2 were used in Mario 64 but they were implemented by a Japanese Nintendo programmer so that part isn't true. I'll remember that.
2. The 1 of several contractors for Nintendo at what was Argonaut is bitter because of a contractual technicality that meant they couldn't join Nintendo full time. The Super FX technology that was implemented in SF2 didn't receive payouts because the game was never released, but the code for the actual game aside from 3D technology was Nintendo IP. Only Super FX was licensed. Nintendo did not pay Argonaut for any royalties otherwise due for implementing SFX in SF2. The fact that the game largely
was developed by Nintendo seems evident in those celebratory drinks posted earlier, back when teams for games were still small.
3. The game was cancelled partly because it would be better PR for a new N64 game (Starfox 64) to be compared to PS1 and Saturn. Basically, Starfox 2 missed the mark. Miyamoto has no problems cancelling games, even if they are finished, if they're not going to perform as intended. Instead they cannibalised the game's assets for other games, so it's not necessarily marked down as a business loss. This happens all the time with unreleased products that don't make it to market but still exist in some form.
4. Miyamto did get upset about Nintendo internally comparing Yoshi's Island 2 to 3D renderings like DKC, he rebelled by making the game even more cartoon-like. Miyamoto never really pushed 3D graphics until Project Reality / Ultra 64 / N64 came about working with Silicon Graphics directly on the N64's video chip, after Rare and other industry segments started using SG technology (including Pixar, Universal Studios and architectural firms etc. in other sectors). That did make him upset with change because remember this is the guy who used to hand draw sprites on squared paper for the NES, but in other comments he did respect DKC and worked closely with Rare on it, albeit over e-mail etc. and not as intimately as you might think.
Miyamoto obviously embraced 3D more with Mario 64 (it took quite a long time for the N64 to actually come out, arguably to late - about a year later than PS1?) which is definitely a cartoon game, other developers produced the realistic games like WaveRace. Ocarina of Time spent quite long time in development for that time (3-4 years I think) and initially wasn't a very good looking game. I'm not sure when the realistic pre-rendered backgrounds came into it, but the Zelda artists (Art & Artifacts is quite a good reference) had quite a lot of creative control over the look of Zelda games and Miyamoto increasingly more hands-off. They were asked to create a "darker" version of Link as an experiment and they convinced Miyamoto it was a good direction, not the other way around.
It seems there existed a rift between Miyamoto style family colourful games etc. and more realistic games and other games from within Nintendo and its 2nd parties - amd that remains evident in Miyamoto's lovechildren like Wii Sports and his experimental Wii U games that aren't even getting released. He just doesn't think realism is that important - which is why he pushed back again with Wind Waker's style - that was absolutely Miyamoto's direction. He was speaking to the press at the time a lot about wanting more expression in link's face etc. Miyamoto is anti realism and pro
immersion and fluid gameplay. He considers hyper-real graphics a distraction which is why they barely feature in any of his games. Anouma took authority over Zelda direction at the very same point the game took a darker turn with Majora's Mask (and co-directed or produced Ocarina, I can't remember), using the Expansion Pack for better textures and richer colour depth. He pushed the more cinematic aspects, darker themes and more realistic link in the games since then. Miyamoto again threw in the watercolour style of Skyward Sword even though Twilight Princess was more realistic than that game. It all makes sense when you consider Nintendo's direction as a company with both recent CEOs Yamauchi and Iwata saying consumers aren't interested in more realistic graphics, even if they are (and weirdly Nintendo pushing graphics pretty hard in N64 and GameCube). But that's the old school of Nintendo and clearly things are moving a bit.
5. Not sure about the Starfox Adventures/sell stuff, but Nintendo definitely dropped their shares in the company because they didn't consider Rare a productive investment anymore. Why else would they? Investors also encouraged them to sell up to shore up their losses in the later N64/GC days. They took a really long time to release games and most of their pre-production work, various staff admit went nowhere very quickly. Grabbed by the Ghoulies, was a game created entirely to take the piss, by making a game based on a lunchtime joke, without worrying about it being good enough for once. And Nintendo weren't behind that. They wouldn't have OK'd that release. I have to this day no idea at all how Conker's Bad Fur Day ever made it out the door. That one's a big mystery - although I think Nintendo refused to publish it, so THQ did?
Rare obviously didn't bother with Starfox Adventures after Miyamoto shoehorned Starfox into it. Nintendo had no leverage any more so they just got it out the door and split their resources thinly with Kameo and PD0, which were both originally GameCube games, and by most critical accounts weren't as good as they could have been.
I think what's obvious from examples like Starfox 2 is Nintendo are a really conflicted company that were only recently restructured to include more than a handful of executive producers that can make decisions about different games at the same time and actually keep them on schedule (see ARMS and Splatoon 2 and the not massive wait for Oddysey that is being released earlier than the X-mas release people expected). Before it seemed to be the most senior/respected figures like Miyamoto marauding around flipping tables and gooseberry fool but they've finally given authority to more, younger developers that are like 5x Miyamotos. Honestly I look forward to Nintendo producing more original games and hopefully not waiting forever between Miyamoto releases of the same franchises or the same contracted out franchises like we thankfully got with Metroid and F-Zero but really those should be Nintendo games (Sega/AM2 smashed F-Zero though and who knows what the strawberry float happened to retro after they became basically Rare DK Factory 2).
That's a pretty good "problem" to have.
