Ken Kutaragi - Thanks for the late nights Posted by XanTium | 9-5-2007 23:53 EST

From threespeech.com (FYI: Sony owned blog): [QUOTE] When Ken Kutaragi announced his retirement recently, it seemed the desire for people to score a quick ‘gotcha' managed to hide the fact that one of the most important men in the history of gaming had laid aside his analogue sticks. OK, so it's fair to say he was a tad eccentric at times, but it was his insistence on implementing a big idea that got Sony into gaming in the first place. Of course it helped that Sony only developed their own console after Nintendo betrayed them on their joint SNES-CD project by going with Phillips the night before the Sony-Nintendo collaboration was officially announced, but Kutaragi correctly noticed that cartridge games systems were on their last legs, and that Sony had the knowledge to go it on their own without Nintendo. Anyone who isn't a businessman probably won't care much about that, though, and even the numbers of PlayStations sold is pretty irrelevant as well, though each sale represents a gamer who probably had an incredible experience with their console, if me and my friends' experience is anything to go by. In fact, the one thing that makes the PlayStation stand out for me is that I've probably wasted more time playing various iterations of the PlayStation than any other console series, and that's against some pretty stiff competition, from every other major hardware manufacturer. Ken Kutaragi might be the father of the PlayStation, but to me he was the father of a thousand ill-advised late nights, nearly-missed assignment deadlines and supposedly ‘wasted' time. Would I take any of them back? Not for a second, and for that Three Speech salutes you Kutaragi-san. [/QUOTE] Full Story: threespeech.com

I still think that Kutaragi will end up at Nintendo...

Hats off to a man who has done great things, he did go a little kooky at the end though

I still don't like him.

He helped bring about the original playstation ---> which brought casuals to the market (also in part due to Sony's massive advertising campaigns) ---> which is what has been destroying console gaming for the last few years (casuals and the shallow, flashy games marketed towards them).

How do you mean it destroyed it, It brought in another 60-80mil gamers, if developers know there are 60-80mil more gamers they will make more games, of all flavours even those aiming for the hardcore crowd.

People that complain about gaming going mainstream are whiners, and for the most part stupid enough to entirely miss the point.

Agreed; making gaming "mainstream" is nothing to brag about, imo.

More is not necessarily a good thing. I also said "destroying", not "destroyed".

I think Swahili is right. Games are EXPENSIVE to develop these days. Who do you think pays for these games? Yeah, the mainstream.... not the crowds buying niche games. Also, you complain about the PS, but both the PS1 and PS2 had MANY stellar games. Sure, there was a sea of crap, but the good games were still there.

Have you ever gone back and looked at games on old systems? Seriously, how many NES ROMS are out there? And how many are actually worth playing? A very tiny percentage are worth anything at all. I get tired of people acting like gaming has gone in the crapper and there aren't as many good games are there used to be. That's just flat out false. There are still a few gems, some really good games, and a whole bunch of crap... just as there's always been. The only difference is the cost to develop the games is much higher these days. So without the oh-so-dreaded mainstream there wouldn't be many games at all... your precious niche/AAA games included.

[edit] spelling

What you did now its what people call anachronism, you take something from its time and put it out of context in another time trying to justify your means. Back there you could find lots of fun games, lots of experimentations, almost anybody could with a little budget develop a game, and, thus, lots of interesting things could reach the shelves.

What we have now with this system that you desperately try to defend? A platform really hard to work on that cost lots of money to put something running into it. So by your logic, if it costs too much to develop it'll just be developed to the mainstream who'll pay for it, and, in this process the really inovative games will come out? How? This companies do not put their precious money on something that "could" sell and risk lose money, they'll spend on something that's guaranteed of sale, as you can see right now in these endless continuations and clones of mainstream hits, and, most of them are basically the same boring thing with different clothes. And why they need the mainstream? Because games right now are expensive to develop for. And what Sony did to turn things easy? Build a machine that's a hell to develop for and costs lots of money to do so. And, to you, this is good! Because there's a mainstream angry for boring games to pay for it! Hummm... wouldn't be easy if they just build something more easy to work on, more cheap to develop for, with more tools to help creators? Like, let's say, Microsoft and Nintendo?

The problem is not the mainstream, the problem is a company that build a console that kills the possibility of precious AAA titles to come by from independent houses because they do not have the money to do so. In what Sony was thinking when they develop the PS3? Surely it was not in games, gamers or developers.

Acctually the only console this generation that can't handle cheap independently developed games are the wii. Both MS and Sony have worked out a way to get cheaply made smaller games into the hands of gamers (live arcade, PSN). Hopefully we soon will see a independent chanel on the wii for new games and not just VC titles

I also find it funny how If someone says PS1 or PS2 are good console, every xbot known to man thinks they automaticly think the ps3 is good. Thraxen didn't mention ps3 at all in his post, yet he gets attacked for stating his opinion about the ps1-2.

I find it funny how after 10 days, you can make blanket statements like that. Thraxen has spoken many times stating the PS3 is a good console. And, he has backed it up. Noone attacked him for liking the Sony console family. The point was made that developing games (or movies or music) for the masses takes away creativity. Because with creativity, comes games that are failures. It is too expensive to create games that are not guaranteed to sell.

PSN and Live Arcade are not proper avenues for a small company to break into the scene. The entire games family has been lacking an innovative daring game company. It is my opinion, the Wii is selling so well, because Nintendo gave hope to people that they are innovative once again. Only time will tell.
Mainstream throttles the creative process. All platforms are guilty.

For any platform to have stellar games, there is gonna be an extremely large amount of failures to back it up. Case in point, the NES. Tons of horrible games, but the platform that started Mario, Zelda, etc.
Of the top 20 franchises there are 3 that are not from the Nintendo family. Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo, and Final Fantasy. Nintendo wasn't scared to take chances. And, it paid off. Now, it is again. DS and Wii, new innovations, record sales. Break from the norm.

Ken Kutaragi helped bring gaming to the masses. But every positive contains a negative. Bringing gaming to the masses by definition throttles creativity.

Ummm... you simply reinforced my point. Didn't I state that games were more expensive to develop these days? Yup. Didn't you just state the exact same thing? Yup... you just worded it differently. My point was that we need the mainstream buying games to help fund ALL game development. I honestly don't think there are fewer good games now than there was back in the Atari/NES/SNES eras. Sure, we may have some developers focusing more on eye candy now than back then, but a crap game is a crap game.... and there are literally hundreds of crap games in each of those eras. Think about it, the fact that it was cheap to produce a game back and almost anyone could get a game on the shelf is a double edged sword. That also allowed people to produce crap cheaply and with little risk.

Anyway, you claim there was all these great fun games back then, so name them. Let's really see if there were more good games. Maybe that's not an entirely fair challenge to make since I doubt any of us have played every game from these various eras, but I do know that I personally owned more games from the PS1 and PS2 eras than previous eras. Some of that has to do with my ability to buy more, but it also has to do with the fact that those eras had a lot of good games. That's why I take offense when people try to claim that the PS and Sony have ruined gaming. IMO, the PS reinvigorated the gaming market.

As for the rest of your post... as Swahili pointed out, I wasn't attempting to defend the PS3. But you again only help my point. Sony now is like Nintendo back at the end of the SNES days. Nintendo was conceited and had an iron grip on developers. They refused to give up their cart format because they didn't want to give up the control and money that produced for them. So along comes Sony, after being stabbed in the back by Nintendo, and produces the PS1. An easy to develop for system with ample storage. They crushed Nintendo at their own game. Sega, at the same time, produced the Saturn... a very difficult system for which to develop games and one with the typical piss poor Sega advertising. They were crushed too. The market NEEDED this to happen. The whipping Nintendo took in the last two generations are the reasons we have the Wii as it is today. But now Sony has become conceited and they are now being taught a lesson.

I do like the PS3... though I will admit it is too expensive and there are not enough games right now. In the long run I think it will be OK.



Why not? Those seem like perfect places to get your feet wet for fairly cheap. Also, what do you consider 'daring'? IMO, you are blaming things on the mainstream that are actually a result of technology. Back in the early days lots of things hadn't been done before and it was cheap to try something. Then the fairly quick ramp up in power along with the transition from 2D to 3D opened more avenues. But now it is harder to find a truly new idea and technology isn't really opening up as many new doors as before. That's not to say there can't be improvement, but most of the improvement seems to be in boosting existing ideas.



As stated above, I don't really agree with this. Creative games are still being produced. Again, I think you are blaming the mainstream for the limitation of technology and the shrinking pool of ideas that haven't been tried.

^ Take for example Psychonauts on the Xbox. It is a cult hit. One of the most creative games on the Xbox. But, there is no talk of even a sequel simply because noone is sure if the demand is there. XSN was an amazing idea, but EA shattered that. All for money.

Anytime you conform to the norm, you are not breaking away from it. Pioneers are the ones that break new ground and also put it all on the line. More times than not, they fail. Big companies don't like failed products, for obvious reasons. So they stick with what works instead of taking a chance. But with chance taking, you can potentially get that gem that will define a genre or gaming era.

There are avenues you can go with current genres, and there are different genres to be explored. I think this has nothing to do with the physical power of a console. The Wii is about as powerful as the original Xbox, but right now is the lead runner because of stirring up the pot a little bit.

The reason I am saying PSN and Live Arcade are not good places, is the general (dumb) population won't even look there. They look for the prettiest box on a shelf, or a name they have heard of before. PSN nor Xbox Live offers the opportunity for either. I think it is great for aspiring programmers, to build a resume. But, not good enough for a company trying to get off the ground.

The counter to that would be the DS and Wii. Given the sales, they are as mainstream as it gets. Maybe people are buying the Wii because of the innovation... I'm sure the newness of it has a lot to do with it (I also think price plays an equally big factor). But doesn't that go against the very anti-mainstream argument you are making? Doesn't it show that the mainstream is willing to adopt new ideas? Honestly, most of the Wii games are average to bad right now. The controller is innovative, but most of the games are simply innovative junk. Innovative != good... a point many seem to ignore when a debate like this comes up. Anyway, I think the 360 has the best games right now. A couple of innovative games like Viva Pinata, but most are using tried and true formulas. So which is really better? Innovative junk, or good games sticking with traditional good game formulas? I know which I'd rather play.

But all that really just confuses the issue. I do think people need to innovate and comes up with new ideas. They may fail, but many deserve to fail. Because, again, innovation doesn't automatically a good game make.

I also think you are wrong about the power of the console having nothing to do with innovation. Clearly, before the advent of 3D, there were many genres (namely every 3D game in existence) that simply could not be done. Power clearly plays a part by opening up more avenues to explore. That's not to say you can't come up with creative ideas given less power, but more power at your disposal can't be considered a hindrance. After all, if the 360 was using a Wiimote the exact same games could be done, but also be prettier, with better physics, better AI, etc... Nintendo just went the cheap route to keep it affordable. Price is the penalty for power, not lack of innovation.

To sum it up... I don't think gaming being mainstream has anything to do with lack of innovation. A bigger pool of potential customers is a good thing. I also don't think there are fewer good games now than at any other time. Nostalgia clouds people's judgment about generations gone by. People also seem to forget that they were much younger in those days. Games that may have seemed good as a young kid may not have been that great. Just throwing popular movie/cartoon characters in a average/bad game can entertain young kids. We were the same when we were young. Don't fool yourself into thinking you knew better at that age... because you didn't. Go fire up an emulator and play some of those games. Outside of a small group of games I think you will find that most of them simply aren't as good as you remember them to be.