Long Live Yamauchi-sama

by Tomm Hulett 

This is directly a response to the editorial by Ersatz Sobriquet, but is the result of tons of pent up frustration. Why am I frustrated? Simple. Because I seem to be the only person in the internet RPG community who understands how things work. Maybe I'm privy to information other people don't have, being a game designer--but this still seems like common sense. Let's get started.

Square is not the only company whose games have spawned fans, websites, fanfiction, and debates. Nearly every big-seller can boast this. If you simply meant that Square makes great RPGs...well so does Sega. Sega also innovates their RPGs so that fans of any preference can find a title to love (Shenmue, PSO, and Skies of Arcadia are all very different, and very good). Nintendo has allowed all of these developers into their GBA community, so there's clearly a deeper reason why Square wasn't welcomed.

Square did not "just leave Nintendo like any smart company would". This is a common misconception. Capcom just left Nintendo. Konami just left Nintendo. They were normal third parties, and desired a console with massive storage capabilities (compared to N64's cartridges). Squaresoft was not a "normal third party", because it had the unique policy of only supporting one console. Square did not make Genesis games like Capcom and Konami did. Square only made Nintendo games. Thus, when Square switched to Playstation, it was saying "we will not make Nintendo games". Capcom and Konami eventually came around to make both.

On the same token, Square was unique for another reason. They had just signed a buddy-buddy agreement with Nintendo, to team up and make some kickass exclusive games. Super Mario RPG came out, and is still considered a superb piece of software. Then, in the middle of this agreement, mind you--Square cut out. They went from being the best of friends to saying "so long, this Sony guy's got you beat." It's an interesting concept to think that had Square stayed with the 64, it might have outsold the PSX.

So yeah, I'm tired of people acting like Square was so right in leaving; and that Nintendo shouldn't hold a grudge. Remember when Square left and everyone was whining about how stupid they were, and how Nintendo was "the man" and how Square betrayed them? Where'd they all go? While 'betray's is a fancy word us gamers misuse a lot of times when a company simply makes a decision; Square was in fact bound to Nintendo. They actually did 'betray' them.

My next little peeve is the fact that nobody gets how Nintendo works. I suppose Nintendo has built up quite an ego over the years. You know why that is? Cause they damn well deserve it. If it wasn't for Nintendo, none of us would be playing games right now. Atari would have ended it. Only Nintendo had the persistence, the know-how, and the plain thick-headedness to turn this industry around. Oh...and the guy who ran Nintendo that way was (gasp) Yamauchi.

Nintendo is not a sea of unhappy programmers run by the despotic god Yamauchi. Quite the contrary. Yamauchi doesn't come up with these "crazy ideas" that Sobriquet has attributed to him. R&D actually tells him what can be done, and he decides what's going to work and what isn't. R&D, ever since the days of Gunpei Yokoi (God bless his soul), has been assigned the task of creating. That's what they do. They then take their creations (be they game or hardware) to Yamauchi, who gives the okay. They're quite happy. Yamauchi might say "make something durable and simple" which brings the engineers to catridges. He might have said "I want something that's hard to counterfeit", which resulted in proprietary discs. But these are by no means oppressed, frightened little engineers who are forced to dance at Yamauchi's whim.

To address a few more of the points mentioned in the previous editorial...Nintendo made cartridges work. Mario64, MarioKart64, Zelda, Zelda:MM, and Smash Brothers are some of my favorite games of recent years. Nintendo and their second parties can be counted on to produce the industry-leading titles (they win interactivity awards every year like clockwork). Just because the third parties don't have quality control (damn you, Yamauchi!) isn't a reason to say Nintendo made the wrong decision. They just had bad timing. I don't believe Yamauchi is "pushing for the GBA to "--I believe he's requested this because EVERYONE wants their system to do non-game things. Ever since the original Famicom, video game systems have aspired to multiple online functions--it won't stop anytime soon--so get used to it. Lastly, Yamauchi isn't "trying" to stop Square from developing on his system. He has stopped them. What Yamauchi says, goes...and I haven't heard any Nintendo insiders say otherwise. He commands a great deal of respect, and Square knows that.

I find Sobriquet's suggestion that someone is being paid to "stop" Yamauchi quite disrespectful to the person who revitalized our industry. I do, however, respect the author for not falling to the common argument that "Nintendo needs Square". To anyone who subscribes to that, listen up. Nintendo did not "fail". Sony did not "crush" them. Nintendo is sitting on a stack of money so high that the GBA and Gamecube could both flop, and they'd still have enough left over to drive a third system into the ground. Square, meanwhile, has just reported their first financial loss in history. Ouch. Nintendo makes the best first-party games this side of Sega, and they'll continue to do so (and thus, sell units) well into the future.

Speaking of Sega...ever stop to think that the reason Nintendo turned down Square is because they have another ally in the wings? With a joint Nintendo/Sega RPG all but confirmed...we should all ponder if Nintendo would really want Square afterall. And with their current loss of money, how scared should Squaresoft be?

PS. If anyone wants to learn more about Nintendo, its history, and how things work, check out "Game Over: Press Start to Continue" by David Sheff. It's currently on clearance at EB for $2.99.