The Triforce of Greatness

(I don’t not have this as a poster…Credit: Collider)

This week, the latest iteration in The Legend of Zelda franchise will hit store shelves. The game is titled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and has received copious amounts of praise at game shows prior to the official release. Regardless, I’ve learned very little about the game outside of the release trailers to keep some surprises for the game, as gaming journalism can reveal quite a bit of information. I have learned that the game will be enormous in size and scope, and has me extremely excited to try it out and dust off my dying Wii U[1]. Although Mega Man has been and always will be my favorite franchise, Zelda more often than not has held down the number 2 spot (occasionally Sonic makes a claim but usually lives in 3^rd place). I hold The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time as the greatest game ever made, and one of my cherished gaming memories. I was 10 when the game came out, and can still remember playing it on Christmas morning. My personal favorite is The Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask, which came out shortly after Ocarina of Time. With overwhelming themes of loneliness and isolation, Majora’s Mask transcends traditional storytelling for an enthralling experience. While the most recent console entry, Skyward Sword, lacked the awe and wonder of previous entries, the franchise has been largely established as a gaming cornerstone, and will look to reassert its dominance shortly.

                                                 

        (So close. Credit: Zelda.com)

First and foremost though, repeat after me: Zelda is the girl, you play as Link, the hero traditionally clad in green. This is undeniably the most common misconception regarding Zelda, so much so there’s a T shirt about it[2]!

So what is Zelda, and why has it been so successful? Simply put, the Zelda series puts players on adventures that define excellence at almost every step, and it is likely that each player has an individual favorite quality about the Zelda games. It redefined targeting in action games with its “Z Targeting” in Ocarina of Time, which has made for intense boss battles and tricky enemy encounters. It gave players a large world to explore in the original The Legend of Zelda, and gave little instructions. It typically utilizes the highest graphical output a system is capable of, and always brings forth puzzles that force players to think outside the box and use their arsenal of items and weapons. What’s kept it fresh though is that with each iteration there is always a unique theme to draw the player in: in A Link to the Past has players travel back and forth between the light world and dark world to complete dungeons, Majora’s Mask gives the player masks to change them into different species encountered such as the water based Zora, and Twilight Princess allowed Link to turn into a wolf for a different take on the formula. Each game has one very unique story mechanic to make it different from the others, but at the end of the day, Zelda revolves around core elements. Zelda is typically under duress or kidnapped by the evil Ganon, and it is up to the hero Link to save her[3]. To do so he needs to traverse the world known as Hyrule, entering dungeons of different elements to gather what is required of a final duel with Ganon. Dungeons are tricky, and a good test of the capabilities of the player.

                                        

                                       (Ocarina of Time, one of gaming’s finest. Credit: Forbes)

While this may sound like common fare in the gaming world today, starting in 1986 this was a huge movement. Players now had a world to explore with endless possibilities of what they could accomplish. Furthermore, given that each installment adds something new while refining what has made it great previously only adds to the fanfare. Add in the variety of dungeons, bosses, characters, etc. and you have the makings of a great franchise. Personally, I love the music of Zelda. Koji Kondo and his team have created themes that have been with me since childhood, ones that are difficult to tire of, even after you’ve heard them hundreds of times over. Critics and fans alike have agreed about Zelda’s excellence, the games have almost always been over 1 million in sales and the Metacritic scores above 90. See below for details.

                                         

              (This is just the front page, insane. Credit: Metacritic.com)

                                  

(It isn’t until #24 do we see a title dip below 1 million sales, incredible. Credit: Vgchartz.com)

Now while the validity of VGChartz is occasionally in question, what cannot be denied is how financially successful Zelda has been. Even more impressive are the Metacritic scores. Metacritic is known for compiling all reviews across the industry in a place for 1 singular total score, making it easy to decide whether to purchase or not. Naturally most games fall closer to the middle of the 0 – 100 spectrum, and for games anything above an 80 is listed as “Generally Favorable Reviews” while anything above 90 is listed as “Universal Acclaim”. Games that hit the 90+ rating are few and far between (there were 5 console games last year in what was considered an excellent year for gaming). To see Zelda have such a handle on these extremely rare scores further emphasizes its excellence, and if early reports hold true, it is likely that trend will continue with Breath of the Wild.

So I’ve heaped a lot of praise on Zelda at this point, are there any negatives? Well yes, in fact. Since Ocarina of Time, Zelda has largely fell prey to making games somewhat similar to landmark classic, with the exception of Majora’s Mask whose time travel and intricate storytelling created a vacuum of fun side quests and superb character development. Furthermore, Wind Waker which offered a fresh take on a water filled Hyrule, along with a more cartoon like Link loaded with personality. On the more critical side though, Twilight Princess, while refined in gameplay, lacked the pizzazz of Ocarina and the wolf mechanic was more of a chore in the early game than an exciting, fresh twist. It was the sequel Ocarina deserved in terms of dungeon quality but lacked the freedom. It’s still an excellent game, but it will never be my favorite. It sold exceptionally well too, launching it at the same time as the Wii was a brilliant move by Nintendo, which appears like it will pay off again with Breath of The Wild and the Switch. The handheld titles have largely been hit or miss for me as well. While I loved the first few (Link’s Awakening, Oracle of Seasons/Ages, The Minish Cap), I was extremely disappointed with both Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. Forcing me as the player to use stylus controls was frustrating, especially with no options to use a traditional control support. Furthermore, Phantom Hourglass had my second least favorite trope when it forced the player to return to the same dungeon over and over (plus, no new music for dungeons? Just cave themes? C’mon Nintendo, you’re better than that). Spirit Tracks was better, but with these games I felt like I was being forced to finish, less like I wanted to actually finish them. Again, the linearity played a role here.

                                                

                                                            (Sigh…Credit:WhatCulture)

This brings me to my main critique: linearity became a staple of the franchise after Ocarina of Time. The two exceptions notwithstanding, the linearity became my chief issue for a while, and there was no better example of how criminal it was than in Skyward Sword. The game used the Wii’s motion controls to have the player use Link’s sword 1:1, and it worked pretty well overall. The game sold nearly 4 million copies, indicating it was a huge success. However, this is by far my least favorite Zelda game. The game is entirely too linear, forcing the player to follow a strict path to go from objective to objective with very little in between. The gameplay is nice, but the dungeons are small, and a little overwhelming (Lanayru Mines and Sandship notwithstanding). The lack of optional activities cannot be underscored though, as the game left me wanting a lot more, despite a nearly 40 hour adventure. Furthermore, two of the bosses in the game you need to fight 3 times, including one which I consider one of the worst bosses ever, Zelda or otherwise[4]. Add to this the cartoon-like graphics that were not as animated as Wind Waker and not as realistic as Twilight Princess and you’re left in a boring middle ground. Finally, the music is uninspired in comparison to all other entries, and I struggle to recall a theme off the top of my head even now, even though I could think of any of the dungeon themes from earlier games. The game ends with a new boss that supposedly inspires Ganon, but it’s nonsensical and unnecessary. It was the first Zelda game I finished and didn’t think “OK, what did I miss, let’s see what else is out there”. Instead, I finished the game and moved on, and haven’t looked back. It’s too long for me to do another play through nowadays. Perhaps my disdain comes from my aging (I was 24 back then and had grown accustomed to Zelda) or perhaps I knew way too much about it prior to playing it, which is something I’ve tried very hard to avoid this time, but this game never clicked with me, and I doubt I’ll play it again.

 

                                              

                                 (A Link Between Worlds – A new beginning. Credit: Zelda.com)

Now I’m sure if you’re reading this and loved Skyward Sword you’re probably offended, and truth be told I might be wrong given the critical and commercial success, but I think Nintendo knew they were exhausting a bad path of linearity. I say this because in 2013 Nintendo said screw it and gave us A Link Between Worlds, a game that takes players to an updated world based on A Link to The Past as the environment and then turns the Zelda formula upside down. Instead of telling player where to go and what to do, it gives the individual all of the key items and weapons up front and allows them to figure it out on their own, and I for one, loved the change. I could go to any dungeon I wanted to right away, even if I was unprepared. You get punished for dying and lose all your weapons, but opening the landscape almost entirely from the start was brilliant. There were still certain items needed for maximum story progression, but the player could go at his or her own pace, and could explore the world in full if interested. Furthermore, the gameplay mechanic of turning into a painting on a wall added new puzzle elements and exploration motives, it was absolutely brilliant. Finally, the visuals looked great and the soundtrack was quality, while not as iconic as other games it still had individual dungeon themes, which I am a bit of a stickler about[5]. The game was another huge success, both commercially and critically. In my opinion it’s what inspired the huge open world in Breath of the Wild as the simple switch totally reinvigorated the series. Now as the wait finally comes to an end, the adventure begins. I’d be remiss to say I did not follow Breath of the Wild as closely as the last Zelda releases in the past 15 years, but honestly I’m looking forward to the surprise, the experience, the music, and the world the game has to offer. So cheers to Nintendo, which has been able to once again define excellence for over 30 years, and here’s to my next steps in Hyrule.

For those interested, I’ve listed below my favorite Zelda titles followed by my least favorite.

Favorite Zelda Games:

1.      Majora’s Mask

2.      Ocarina of Time

3.      A Link to the Past

4.      The Legend of Zelda

5.      A Link Between Worlds

Least Favorite Zelda Games:

1.      Skyward Sword

2.      Phantom Hourglass

3.      The Adventure of Link

Currently playing: Bloodborne, buying a system 3 years after its launch (PS4) left me with a bunch of cheap games to try, and I have to bring this game up because it’s incredible. It’s brutally difficult, but a joy to play.

 

---

[1] I purchased a PS4 Pro back in November so I’m going to wait a bit before I jump on the Nintendo Switch hype train

[2] http://www.bustedtees.com/zeldaisthegirl

[3] There are other main villains such as Vaati or Demise (ugh, the worst), but Ganon is the mainstay

[4] The Imprisoned, in case you were wondering.

[5] Also the Swamp Palace theme was awesome

JCR Hot Take: VR + Unfulfilled Expectations

Author's Note - Hi Everyone! Apologies for the hiatus, among finishing graduate school, finding a job and attempting to catch up on my backlog time has seemed to escape me. Regardless, I'm happy to be back up and running and working on new posts for 2017. I'm happy to kick things off with a JCR Hot Take, basically, my unfiltered opinion on a certain subject. My hope is to bring a few of these to the blog to incur discussion or interest outside of my case studies. If you have any interest in contributing to the blog please let me know, I'm always happy to add in other entries. Enjoy.

(Content or product? Credit: www.recode.com)

Over the past year, virtual reality has been continually hyped as the revolutionary product that would turn gaming and many other industries upside down. After reading through approximately 20 final exams on the subject as a Teaching Assistant for the core marketing course at school, I figured it was my turn to weigh in on the subject. Although receiving much hype and making promises, I believe that virtual reality at this point in time has landed with a resounding thud. I want to emphasize this point in time because I believe there is a lot of potential for the product, but currently it lacks intrigue or a distinct path forward.

The poster child for the product has to be the Oculus Rift or the Samsung Gear VR. Both are exceptionally different. Oculus Rift Kickstarter began back in 2012, it exceeded its expectations, and the general public waited to see how it would change the world. Sales were strong from the outset, but have since dropped off. Samsung was able to push its product through advertising and a lower price point to currently sit as the leader in VR sales. However, Samsung’s VR solution is little more than mobile technology, and it lacks the richness and depth that the Oculus has. Oculus meanwhile needs to be connected to an incredibly strong desktop computer, and has a relatively small cord connecting it to the unit. Sony has also entered the fray with a unit that connects to its PlayStation 4 in an attempt to leverage its over 50 million user base. These are just a few of the peripherals available. Clearly there is significant interest in the technology; however, there are numerous issues with the current state of the platforms.

                                     

(PlayStation VR – My guess for the likely sustainable system. Credit: Sony)

Issue 1 – The Absence of a Killer App – In my opinion, the platform lacks a true killer app, especially for consumers. Although there are definitely opportunities in the Business 2 Business segment, such as in defense, travel, or medical fields, there is nothing in the consumer field that makes VR a must have item. Yes, there have been entertaining games, movies, experiences, and more, but nothing that the platform offers makes you say I need to buy this item. Instead it’s a neat concept that is fun, but not worth the investment, especially in a gaming sense. There is currently nothing on the platform that made me think I should give up pursuing my PlayStation 4 Pro for a VR Headset. While I know that there is a lot of potential for the platform (Facebook did buy Oculus for that reason I think), I do know what it is at this point. Only time will tell whether or not it will enthrall gamers enough to make the move over, but given the fierce competition between Sony and Microsoft and a renewed fervor for Nintendo from the recent mobile work and the inception of the Switch, I do not believe gamers are going to flock away from current console mainstays.

Issue 2 – Price of Entry – Without question, one of the biggest roadblocks with consumers is the steep price point. It’s for that exact reason Samsung has been able to develop a market with its Gear VR system. For the higher end models such as Oculus or HTC’s Vive, the base platform costs at least $600. If that weren’t enough, there’s still more to deal with. These headsets are so far advanced that they need extremely strong computers to function, the average computer that can handle a VR headset goes for around $800. Therefore, before we even begin purchasing software there is nearly $1500 to obtain the product in the fullest, which is unquestionably a hard sell. I may be a hardcore gamer, but I do not have that kind of cash around, not to mention I prefer gaming on a console over a PC.

Issue 3 – Fragmentation – Finally, there are currently a lot of different platforms and different headsets, so much so, that there is not one singular one to rally around. If that sounds confusing, think of it this way: VR is currently like Android phones, the problem is that VR systems do not use the same operating platform and there is no iPhone. I mention the iPhone because as much as it pains me to say it as an Android user, the iPhone is the benchmark smartphone others try to measure up to. It has a huge install base and a platform in iOS that can be used across multiple peripherals (desktop, iPad, etc.). VR currently does not have that market leader. While I do believe something will inevitably have to break through, I have no idea how and where that will come from. Perhaps in the Samsung Gear VR due to the market leading status, but Gear VR versus PlayStation VR versus Oculus are 3 very different products with different segments and goals. That leaves us with an extremely muddy situation, one that will not be figured out in my estimation in the near future.

                                     

         (Is it really worth it? Credit: Geekologie.com)

In conclusion, VR represents a lot of potential, but that’s all it is currently. My fear for these platforms is that due to the relatively slow start that they will begin to fade quickly or take a backseat to tried and true games and television. Already I’ve read on Twitter about how individuals bought the product and have no idea what to do with it months later, that’s a terrible sign. I actually asked Blake Harris (the author of Console Wars) about whether or not VR would succeed or just become the next 3D TV. He seemed put off by my question (to be fair, he’s currently writing a book on Virtual Reality) which I felt bad about, but our conversation was back in March of 2016. Sitting now in January 2017 I feel even more emphatic that VR has been a massive disappointment. Perhaps one of the products that has not been released yet will be able to accomplish a breakthrough to the mainstream in the vein of what the Wii did for motion control. At this point though, I’m yet to be truly impressed.

Product Placement: The Good, the Bad, and the Pizza Command

Key Takeaways:

Product placement is at its best when it is harmless and helps drive the overall content of the game without irritating the player

Delivery of messaging can range in unique ways that may subtly address the brand

Blatant product placement, while not offensive, may be perplexing for a gamer to comprehend and potentially erode at brand equity of both the game and the company represented

             (Yup, this actually happened. Credit: MMOBomb.com)

Product placement has been a longtime mainstay in several forms of media. Not to be confused with Advergames (take a look here at 7-Up’s Cool Spot for a good example of advergaming done right), product placement refers to a company having its product specifically in a media, whether drawing attention to it or not remains up to the partnership. Since the early days of gaming, product placement has been able to carve out its own niche in gaming; however, there has been no perfect strategy for figuring out the proper way to utilize product placement in gaming, and as a result, the gaming industry has been left with some instances of success, some of failure, and a lot of random and unusual attempts at promoting brands. In most cases, we’re left with unique results.

Case 1 – Crazy Taxi Takes You To All Your Favorite Brands:

                                      

        (Get to the Colonel ASAP. Credit: Mweb.co)

When Crazy Taxi hit the arcades starting in 1999 no one had ever seen anything like it. It was a fast paced, punk rock fueled, driving game where you played a taxi driver. It was not a traditional racing game trying to beat out opponents. Instead, players were tasked with driving to an available passenger in what seemed like a downtown San Francisco. Passengers were marked with colors ranging from green, yellow, orange, and red depending on distance to destination (green was extremely short or easy, while red was a longer, more difficult drive). Players were paid various sums depending on how fast they could get to the destination and driving skill, meaning if they were able to swerve through traffic without getting hit or fly through shortcuts or jumps they would be rewarded with bonus cash. There was a limited amount of time that would be replenished somewhat once the drive was completed. It’s important to stress that the game is more of an action racing game, and again, unlike anything seen for the genre. Players do not have a lot of time to think about the destinations or routes. The game focuses on reactions and trying to hold off the time limit from expiring. Marketers realized the potential hit and partnered with Sega to utilize the game for superb product placement.

What made the product placement so great was that the products represented were the destinations players would deliver customers to for fares. The game included Fila, Levi’s, Tower Records, KFC, and Pizza Hut as potential destinations. While Tower Records may not have been able to fully utilize the advertising effectively going forward (a result of a changing market), the other brands still remain household names. Furthermore, in a game about speed and quick reactions, the transmission power associated with the products may have made it even easier for players to recognize what to look for. Instead of a generic location (and there are some in the games), players knew what the destination was ahead of time, even if they had not seen the virtual location previously. This marketing also provided locking power, because if a player were to play it with a friend and barely reach a destination, at least there would be something to talk about in the story following the in game activities. Most importantly, perhaps due to the rapid reaction time and lack to fully comprehend the advertising attempt, there is not enough time for a player to bemoan the use of product placement, because the product simply does not have relevance for its advertising and is instead meant as a key part of the game. With Crazy Taxi being the 2^nd best-selling Dreamcast game in 2000 (selling nearly 750,000 units), it is fair to assume the advertisers got their money’s worth.

Case 2 – Mercedes-Benz has no idea who its audience is and decides to partner with Nintendo:

          (Well those aren’t traditional go karts…)

When I think of Mercedes-Benz, I think of luxury. The high priced cars that hopefully I’ll be able to afford sometime shortly after finishing business school[1]. The longstanding brand that seems to ooze class and success. I do not think of it as the primary vehicle of choice for the inhabitants of the Mushroom Kingdom. Nevertheless, Mercedes-Benz and its team thought of the idea of partnering with Nintendo to provide a downloadable content pack for the Wii U’s Mario Kart 8 in 2015 which allowed Mario, Luigi, and all of their friends to drive in current and older models of the company’s famous cars. While the jury is out on whether or not it was truly effective, in a very short period of time it has been largely questioned across the industry. Furthermore, it has appeared on several “Blatant Product Placement” lists, which is clearly not the greatest outcome for either company[2].

In attempt to stop publicity from taking on a life of its own, Mercedes attempted to address the rationale as to why it wanted to add its cars to the game. According to Caroline Pitz, the head of product placement with Mercedes, the main factor was nostalgia, as she specifically stated that “Many people grew up with Mario during the last 30 years, so there are quite a lot of 30- and 40-somethings around for which Super Mario Maker hails back to their childhood days and gives them a large dose of nostalgia”[3]. While this quote directly references Super Mario Maker where downloadable content was produced earlier this year from the automaker, the quote still rings true for the efforts in Mario Kart 8.

         (The Super Mario Maker collaboration. Credit: Nintendo.com)

Unfortunately, I would strongly disagree with Ms. Pitz’s assessment on a number of factors. First, the individuals that Mercedes is looking to target are not playing Mario Kart 8. Since the console wars of the 1980’s and 1990’s, Nintendo has been battling against being typecast as a children’s console. As time has progressed that sentiment has not truly changed, if anything, it’s gotten worse. Third party developers who focus on more mature titles have shied away from Nintendo’s recent consoles, continuing the stigma that Nintendo systems are meant for children. While I personally do not agree with this concept (Mario and Zelda are great regardless of age) it cannot be denied that the industry is shifting. Therefore, it would be a mistake to assume 30 and 40 year old individuals are playing Mario Kart on the Wii U, and thus Mercedes is left with individuals who will almost assuredly not be able to purchase one of their cars.

        (It just looks…off. Credit: businessinsider.com)

Furthermore, with a very low install base compared to the Wii, Mercedes missed a golden opportunity from years earlier. Had it partnered with Nintendo back during the Wii era Mario Kart I am positive it would’ve been a more bona fide hit. Back from 2006 – 2012, Wii fever was everywhere, across all age ranges and genders, as motion control turned the industry upside down, and forced the competition to add motion control to their platforms. Furthermore, with a historically large install base, the opportunity to reach a substantial number of individuals was significant. Here is where Mercedes would have been more successful. By focusing on the Wii U, Mercedes missed nearly 90 million consumers[4]. Lastly, the content itself is simply too realistic for Mario. Mercedes has done a good job using its brands in other games on the PlayStation and Xbox, but with Nintendo, I think adding some cartoon effect would have made the product placement more successful. Having a cartoon character driving a realistic car just looks awkward. Nintendo did all the right things with the partnership as it just established itself as a more viable partner to work with, but perhaps some additional quality control would have helped deliver stronger overall content.

Case 3 – EverQuest 2 assumes all gaming stereotypes and gives you the opportunity to order a pizza while you play.

(Game Nom. Credit: Daybreakgames.com)

Let’s face the facts – gamers have not been the recipients of the kindest stereotypes. When I think of how Hollywood, the media, or the general public portrays gaming, I usually see overweight teenage boys with pimples, no social skills, and an affinity for getting angry whenever they lose. Even worse, there is a connotation of stupidity or childish nature associated with gaming, even though the industry makes billions of dollars a year and the average age of a gamer is 34. I myself for a very long time would keep my passion for industry a secret when meeting new people because I was embarrassed of what people would think of me. Furthermore, I’ve been ardent in proving people wrong in that gamers can be sociable and active[5].

Nevertheless, when I think of an individual who plays a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (or MMORPG) I realize these stereotypes are even more enhanced. MMORPGs offer deep and rewarding experiences at the expense of countless hours and grinding for level improvement. Thus, the obese, loner stereotype is only stronger here, South Park even made an episode about how the four main characters played the most famous MMORPG, World of Warcraft, for months to conquer one player who had been killing all other players in the universe. The player in question was obese, old, losing his hair, had a wrist protector (likely due to carpel tunnel syndrome) with junk food surrounded by his computer. In order to defeat the player, the boys decide to go on a training regimen. In their training they gain a substantial amount of weight and pimples across their faces. In truth, it’s actually a very funny episode, but really emblematic of how players are perceived.

With this perception in mind, Pizza Hut thought of a ridiculous (albeit kind of brilliant) means to promote itself to these specific players: /pizza. In EverQuest 2 (one of the older but beloved MMORPGs that helped bring the genre to the mainstream) players had the opportunity to type in “/pizza”, after which, a special Pizza Hut menu would pop up, where you could type in your order, address, and payment information while still in the virtual world. Within 45 minutes, there would then be a pizza delivered to you in the real world. This was introduced in the mid 2000’s (EverQuest 2 was released in 2004), well before online ordering was commonplace. Needless to say, the campaign received a lot of publicity, simply for its ludicrousness. Nevertheless, I think it’s a brilliant marketing strategy overall. Pizza Hut believed it understood the targeted audience well enough to know that to enjoy the game a lot of time was required, and thus gave itself the opportunity to drive sales in a simple partnership. It’s unlike almost any other type of product placement I’ve ever seen before (or since) in media, and it clearly drove content and interest[6]. You really need to give the credit to Pizza Hut in this case. It was able to come up with something so innovative than the typical product placement used in video games. Since then Pizza Hut has partnered with Xbox to provide a platform to order its pizza through your console, so clearly the company has some faith in the platform.

(Clearly there were fans. Credit: EQ2wikia.com)

These are just a few instances of product placement. There have been countless others that have ranged all over the spectrum, whether it’s using an Axe light fixture as stealth in Splinter Cell, a billboard for President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in Burnout Paradise, or a Verizon commercial in Alan Wake, product placement is everywhere[7]. Furthermore, it appears to be growing steadily with the industry. That being said, it’s not nearly as offensive or effusive as it is in other industries, where it can be downright ridiculous (see all Transformers’ movies). Instead, it seems as if it is either something unique to notice or a mild irritant. Of course, given gaming’s growth more towards the mainstream with the influence of mobile gaming, that all could be subject to change.

---

[1] “Shortly” means within 10 years. Maybe?

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQzf4SkZTx8

[3] http://fortune.com/2015/12/15/mercedes-benz-targets-nintendo-fans/

[4] The Wii sold 101 million consoles while the Wii U has currently sold 13.3 million consoles (www.vgchartz.com)

[5] Sometimes we even attract members of the opposite sex. Crazy I know.

[6] Just google EverQuest 2 and pizza to see the publicity.

[7] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/03/six-of-the-best-product-placement-video-games

Death of a Franchise

Key Takeaways:

Much like film counterparts, game franchises typically die due to lack of sales and interest

Timing is one of the most important factors in the success or failure of a franchise

Occasionally, a franchise vanishes due to the closure of a development studio

Nostalgia trips are potentially the only way a franchise can be revived, but unless they can reclaim former sales numbers or surpass them, they’ll likely remain dormant

          (Basically…Credit:Whatculture.com)

If you’ve read any of my blogs post since I started up back in April you know I love old games. That’s not to say that I don’t love new games, in fact, The Last of Us is probably one of the best 3 games I’ve ever played. That being said, the gaming industry has become a lot more mature than it was in the 1980’s and 1990’s, and I cannot help but enjoy reliving the wild business antics that are a part of the industry’s history. So many unique and long lasting games and franchises were born from this era. Today, you will never find another game like ToeJam & Earl - a game about two space aliens wandering around a strange looking Earth while searching for pieces of their spaceship and avoiding injury from the likes of mini-devils, Cupid, and what appears to be a stampede of Black Friday shoppers. A game with that concept would likely never make it to fruition in today’s industry without a lot of help from Kickstarter[1]. Yet, even back in the glory days there were still a handful of high quality, unique games that just never seemed to get their feet off the ground outside of a few entries. This post will take a look at a few cases and try to rationalize what went wrong.

Case 1: Vectorman vanishes out of this dimension

                                             

                              (Who could deny Mega Value? Credit: hardcoregaming101.com)

Vectorman had all the makings of a hit in the 1990’s. A run and gun platformer where you played the titular hero, whose role was to take out the evil Warhead. The atmosphere was more on the dark and edgy side, and the main character, a robot made of green orbs, was cool, calm, and collected. His traditional weapon was a ball gun that could blast enemies in multiple directions, and could later be powered up. Furthermore, Vectorman himself could transform into vehicles or items such as a drill or bomb. Due to a significant amount of advertising spending Vectorman and its sequel were both solid hits for the Sega Genesis; however, Sega made one crucial error – it released the games far too late in the Genesis’ lifespan. The original game came out in October 1995, nearly 5 months after the Sega Saturn was released to the public. Sega was fortunate to gain a following for the game, but questions remain whether or not it came at the expense of promotions for the Saturn[2]. Regardless, Blue Sky Software, the developer of the series, promised a new outing by the end of 1997. Unfortunately, that outing never came to be, as Blue Sky closed during that same year, and the project was lost. There are few details behind the end of Blue Sky, but the main rumor is that Sega/Blue Sky were not happy with the quality of the new game. Vectorman than remained dormant until May 2003, when Sega announced that the franchise would be coming to the PS2 (Sega was out of the console business at this point). Then, without much reasoning in October 2003, Sega announced the Vectorman 3 project was dead again, simply stating that it has chosen not to continue with the project[3]. With that, Vectorman vanished, and hasn’t been seen outside of compilations or virtual console releases since.

                               

(A missed opportunity for the Saturn? Credit: Gamefabrique.com)

There are two significant reasons as to why Vectorman vanished, the first of which has to do with timing. As previously mentioned, the original game came out months after the Sega Saturn was released. I actually believe that this was a fine strategic decision. The Genesis had an extremely large install base, and launching a new franchise on a new console with no familiarity to users may not have been the system seller Sega wanted, especially if they did not promote it extensively with the console. Where I see the true error is in the sequel’s release. Vectomran 2 was released in November 1996, a year and a half after the Saturn was on the market. Now it’s no secret that the Saturn struggled from the moment in launched, mainly given it had to compete with Sony’s lower priced PlayStation and the incoming threat from the Nintendo 64; however, aside from the fact the game is in 2D as opposed to 3D, I have no idea why Sega would not choose to release the sequel for the Saturn. Vectorman had established brand equity, and the sequel presented an immense opportunity to generate sales for the Saturn. I realize that during the late 1990’s there was a huge push to move towards fully three dimensional graphics, but when a console is desperate the parent company should do all in its power to make it successful. I understand that Vectorman 2 was also a success for the Genesis, but it could have done a lot more for Sega if it had been put on the Saturn, perhaps even as a bundle with the console. Unfortunately, that’s a reality we will never know.

The other key reason Vectorman vanished is the closing of Blue Sky Software. Although a longtime successful development studio, when it closed the majority of its franchises faded with it. There have been few times in the gaming industry where a development studio or publisher has closed and franchises have made it through unscathed (one example is how THQ’s assets were sold off following its bankruptcy). If an upcoming game from a fledgling developer is not already in a playable format or has not been overly successful in previous iteration, it is even more unlikely anyone will pay to gain rights to the franchise. Furthermore, with turnover and buyouts due to financial trouble, the direction of the franchise may no longer be up to the original studio, and thus, it disappears quietly from existence. Such was the case with Vectorman, and unfortunately it looks like unless a nostalgia fueled campaign exists, he’ll remain in obscurity.

Case 2: Rocket Knight’s Revival Can’t Reclaim Past Glory

(Ready to go. Credit: Youtube.com)

The 1980’s and 1990’s were overloaded with too many mascots. Mario and Sonic led the charge, and almost every publisher/developer came up with one to try to make a name for itself. Konami had the Castlevania, Metal Gear, and Contra franchises, yet those game focused on main characters being people instead of animal/cartoon mascots and were not as approachable as the aforementioned icons. Thus, in 1993, Konami released Rocket Knight Adventures for the Sega Genesis. The game focuses on Sparkster, an armored possum who uses a sword and a jetpack to defeat evil pig invaders[4]. The game is a side scrolling platformer, and is extremely easy to pick up and play (it has a very arcade feel to it). I honestly had not ever played this game up until a month ago, but it hooked me right away as it was extremely accessible and a blast. It was a huge success for the Genesis, and is still considered one of the best games for the console. Sparkster was also an excellent addition to the mascot dominance of the Genesis, following strongly in Sonic’s footsteps. Konami then released two games for the franchise a year later, a direct sequel for the Genesis, and a spin off for the Super Nintendo. While both of those games were not considered as good as the original, they both seemed to find an audience. Building off the new success, Konami did absolutely nothing for 15 years[5]. Sparkster made cameos in various games, but never received a third installment of the franchise, that is, until Mega Man 9 fueled the retro revival in gaming. Due to the success of Mega Man 9 and its return to the early 8-bit graphics, several other companies attempted to bring out their old mascots to see if there was any life in them[6]. This included Bionic Commando, Sonic, Contra, etc. A lot of companies thought this method would both please established fans and save development money. Naturally, this presented an opportunity to bring back Sparkster. The revival was dubbed Rocket Knight[7]. The game contained similar characters and gameplay (with a few tweaks naturally), but also sported updated graphics. Unfortunately, upon release in 2010, the game was met with mixed to positive reactions. It came across at certain times like a cash grab, as noted in the 1up.com review:

But for a fifteen dollar download, Rocket Knight feels strangely underdone, as if you were playing an extended demo. There are only about a dozen levels and not a lot of variety. Although some of the levels make a visual splash and verge on the outright spectacular, the sound consists of only a few whooshes and clanks as you go along, with the obligatory ding every time you pick up a gem. If you were to turn the music off -- and lord knows you're going to want to -- you could play this game in the library without being shushed overmuch. (http://www.1up.com/reviews/rocket-knight-review)

It’s important to realize that in 2010 retro revivals were no longer a new and exciting innovation. Mega Man 9 was released in 2008, the industry had caught onto the concept and embraced it fully. Furthermore, certain successful games stayed fully true to their roots, while Rocket Knight may have tried to change a little too much.

          (1993 vs 2010, 1993 wins. 2010 is just so lame. Credit: Wikipedia.com)

As a result, Sparkster has not been seen since. Once again, there are a few reasons as to why. First, by year end 2010, the game had been downloaded only around 10,000 times. This is probably the biggest kiss of death there can be for a franchise. I would imagine the lack of enthusiasm was twofold: the game had changed too much for those who knew it, but for those who didn’t, there simply weren’t enough games in the franchise to create longtime brand equity. Gamers know Sonic, Mega Man, and the Contra series, even if they had not played any of the games. Sparkster simply did not have the following.  Couple this lack of interest and sales, along with an overall mixed reaction, and unfortunately you have a recipe for the end of a franchise.

While I do believe there is always another opportunity for the future, it seems more unlikely than ever for either Sparkster or Vectorman. If I were to guess, I’d say that Vectorman has a better shot of coming back than Sparkster, simply because Sparkster tried to return and failed. That being said, I would not be surprised if we saw both or neither of them ever again. Only time will tell.

---

[1] Ironically, a modern remake of the original was Kickstarted a little while back, it should be out in 2017…I’ll buy it

[2] The Sega Saturn and Sega’s other add-ons to the Genesis are a whole other set of posts, sometime possibly in the distant future

[3] http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/11/21/sega-rumor-clarification

[4] Eat your heart out Angry Birds

[5] Konami needs its own case study. From mishandling Hideo Kojima’s exit to the lack of interest in specific franchises (RIP Zone of the Enders) I have no idea what direction this company is going in.

[6] This is just my opinion the Mega Man 9 started the trend; however, it was a shock to the industry when it occurred so I stand by it.

[7] How late did you stay up thinking of that one Konami?

Pokémon GO Takes Over

Key Takeaways:
 A well-managed brand can create decades worth of value
Moving to a platform with a huge install base provides an opportunity to capture even more value than originally predicted

Never count Nintendo out

        (They’re here to stay. Credit: www.Forbes.com)

Some of you may have seen in the past few months that Pokémon has returned to the mainstream media with a vengeance. On July 6^th, Pokémon Go, Niantic’s Pokémon themed mobile game hit the app store in the United States, and has caused a frenzy across the country. In only a few days since released, it has been able to accomplish the following:

1. Raised Nintendo’s market value over 9 Billion (yes, billion) dollars
2. Topped the daily user numbers of Twitter, Tinder (on Android phones), and more engagement than Facebook
3. Brought to light just how powerful a well handled brand can be sustainable over time

Suffice it to say, the game is a huge success. In fact, the peak daily active users have been so high they have broken the record for a mobile game previously held by Candy Crush. Pokémon Go may even approach the numbers of Snapchat and Google Maps. Few people could have predicted the runaway train of success. As a result, Niantic, The Pokémon Company, and Nintendo have been reaping the rewards. Even I forgot to mention it back in April during my Pokémon post as I focused on the core games. I was aware it was coming but I knew virtually nothing about it, and totally whiffed on the opportunity to talk about the opportunity it would give Nintendo for the future. While the interest has declined mightily after the summer craze, it has had a huge, immediate impact on the industry, showing just how powerful a well-managed brand can be.

                                             

                                            (Wouldn’t you want one? Credit: serebii.net)

So what exactly is Pokémon GO and how did it catch fire since its release? The premise is to create your own avatar and essentially go out in the real world and catch all nearby Pokémon that appear. Pokémon appear at random, and vary by location (I get a lot of bug Pokémon in my neighborhood, trying to say something about my living conditions Nintendo?). When a Pokémon appears on your phone screen, the user needs to touch it, and then a mini game will ensue using the augmented reality system in place. Basically, using the camera in the phone, the Pokémon will appear right in front of the user, and the user will then need to flick pokéballs at the creature in hopes of capturing it. After capturing a Pokémon, users can power them up, look to evolve them, and as the user’s level increases, battle their creatures at a gym. Gyms are real world venues that teams can take over and hold onto over time. Furthermore, there are places called Pokéstops, which are, again, real world locations where users can pick up items or more pokéballs. The game intrinsically pushes the player to walk to new areas to hunt for new gyms, creatures, etc. Furthermore, users can pick up eggs that will only hatch after a walking requirement has been completed. The walking requirements are also based in distance, not steps, and Niantic has prevented cheating by not taking movement data after a certain speed limit. There is currently no trading or battling friends, two of the key cornerstones of the franchise, and needs to be implemented for long term success. As far as I can tell thus far, these are the main objectives of the game, and admittedly, while I do find it fun and addictive, it lacks the depth I enjoy in the core Pokémon series.

                                           

           (The classics. Credit: www.Nerdist.com)

   

Regardless of what I think though, it has to be the most successful game in the franchise since the original Pokémon Red/Blue/Yellow. In my opinion, I do not think it’s that hard to understand why it’s become so popular. First of all, Pokémon has never lacked success, with 2013’s Pokémon X/Y selling nearly 14 million copies worldwide. That game was on the Nintendo 3DS, which at the time probably had an install base of around 20 – 30 million users. Pokémon Go was produced for iOS and Android platforms, where approximately 1.4 billion smartphones sold in 2015, so the install base was extremely larger than the 3DS. Since the app is free, there really is no reason to not give it a try, as opposed to the typical $40 price point for the core games. Nintendo essentially found all the users who had previously enjoyed the series but had switched to mobile for their preferred platform. The popularity has even spurned users to pick up old games, as sales of the original titles has increased dramatically. I look forward to seeing how Nintendo positions the renewed interest in the franchise from the app with the upcoming games in the series, Pokémon Sun/Moon.

                                             

                (Pokémon can be anywhere. Credit: Vox.com)

Furthermore, Pokémon Go may be the best secretive fitness app. Staying still to play the game will get you nowhere, you need to go find new places to find Pokémon and greater benefits. While there have been some drawbacks (ex. users walking into traffic, like your graceful author) they have not been nearly enough to outweigh the benefits. Gaming and gamers constantly fight a battle against stereotypes, the biggest being that gamers are out of shape. While more games have been made to get gamers fit, most of them have been fads (RIP Wii Fit and Dance Dance Revolution). Pokémon Go never announces its intention to be fitness, but walking and moving around is inherent in the gameplay. As a result, adults are pleased with the positive impact it’s having on their kids, and I commend Niantic for the sneakily great decision. Lastly, like Candy Crush and other successful mobile games, Pokémon Go does not throw micro transactions in your face. In fact, I had to search through the app to find out if there were purchase opportunities (there is a shop section, but you need to tap into the main menu to get there). It’s these savvy moves that make the game extremely likable and approachable, key ingredients for success in the mobile space. Finally, with the immediate success Nintendo has realized the value of the mobile space, and announced Super Mario Run at the recent Apple conference, an endless runner starring Mario, the company’s most famous character. As a result, the stock has increased dramatically again, as investors approve of the interest in mobile.

                                                   

                    

                                                 

                                     (Pikachu and Mickey together. Credit: Deviantart.com)

I have had a longstanding theory about the Pokémon brand that I believe has been confirmed with the early triumphs of Pokémon Go: Pikachu is my generation’s Mickey Mouse. Although gaming characters like Mario, Sonic, or (my personal favorite) Mega Man have garnered legions of fans, and while Spongebob Squarepants has certainly made a claim for the title, none of the gaming characters are nearly as beloved (I will concede that Mario is close). Spongebob on the other hand is beloved, but the part of his appeal had to do with the humor of the show was great for both children and adults. The humor for adults has certainly waned over time, thus hurting the character’s image. Pikachu on the other hand, is the perfect mascot. Cute but ferocious with a lot of personality, Nintendo really picked the perfect face of the franchise. The fact that he is semi rare in Pokémon Go only adds to the intrigue and appeal of the game. Furthermore, throughout the franchise’s 20 year history, there has never been a truly bad game, meaning that the character has always been associated with a quality product. Combine these attributes with an onslaught of merchandise featuring the electric rodent and you have a clear cut winner, one that clearly is not going to be slowing down anytime soon.