Mark Cerny: I Hope Sony's Impact Will Match Nintendo's In Years To Come

Either I sort of "grew up" or Nintendo games don't appeal to me very much nowadays. In 3DS I only have third party games (some of them were published by Nintendo in Europe). In DS the only Ninty games I have are Mario 64 and the two Zelda games. In GBA I only have Mario Kart. All my other DS/GBA games are Castlevania, jrpg's or old school adventure games. The DS has plenty of them!

I already consider Sony to be of a similar, if not better, standing than Nintendo (My heart will always belong to SEGA lol) This notion of Nintendo being on an unnatainable perch peering down at the competition that people seem to have is a little pretentious, maybe even insulting to the other companys involved in the industry.

Sony have done a lot for video games since Nintendo betrayed them but Nintendo have their fingers in literally every video game ever made since the mid '80s. They're much like The Beatles, everyone and everything can have its roots traced back to them and although people will have their own opinions on whether they are the best (and are entitled to them) when you begin to ask more and more people their name will crop up more than than the rest put together. They are that important. If Sony can manage even half of what Nitendo have achieved then everyone should be delighted.

I realise I'll likely get stick for saying that on a pro-Sony website but couldn't care less. Without Nintendo we wouldn't be even discussing this. And there'd be no PlayStation.

@rastamadeus Ill agree and disagree at the same time lol I think your forgetting the Atari 2600. All subsequent consoles thereafter the 2600 are based on many of the staples of its design. The notion of console gaming starting with NES is insulting to Atari. Without the 2600 we wouldnt have even had things like interchangeable game cartridges and controllers, ok maybe we would, but what if noone thought of it had Atari not? We'd still be playing Single game systems with controllers attatched to the console Its a shame many people have forgotten so much of the innovation Atari pioneered in the dark ages of console gameing.

Your nothing compared to Nintendo, yet. Nintendo themselves are a great gaming company, but they need to work on third party relations, Sony's first party isn't that bad, but nothing compared to Nintendo, but their third party is really good. So, yay, Sony isn't quite there, but ohh so close, their first party has definitely improved over the years.

The PS2 will likely always be my all time favorite console, and I play my PS3 a whole lot more than my Wii, which I haven't played in a year or two but my kids are playing Brawl right now, but I don't see Sony matching Nintendo's pedigree anytime soon.
Ras had a great analogy w/ the Beatles, I was thinking more along the lines of Disney. No matter how great Universal studios or any other amusement/theme park may be, people are always going to want to take their kids to Disney. I prefer Finding Nemo and other Pixar films over the Disney classics (yes I know Disney = Pixar) but I'm still not buying Disney Infinity until they make Disney Infinity Classics w/ Jiminy Cricket, Thumper, Dumbo, and the Seven Dwarfs. Mario may not be Mickey in worldwide recognition, but he's much bigger than anyone Sony has, or probably will have.

Personally, I don't care for Nintendo and don't feel like they've really done anything of real significance since the 90's.

My main problem is with their games. Sure they sell, but there comes a point when Mario gets tedious - even Pokémon has started to feel dull. They need to come out of this little bubble they've made and try something new, until then, I couldn't care less about them.

Sony doesn't have far to go to match or exceed Nintendo's impact. They pretty much drive the industry forward by taking risks on experimental IP that no other company would take a chance on - Heavy Rain, Journey, The Unfinished Swan.

Basically, Sony looks to the future while Nintendo is stuck in the past. Call me a fanboy if you want, I don't care.

Nintendo has history, Sony has the present.

I am down with Playstation, I was there in the beginning and will be there at the end, on the other hand the only two consoles I will probably never own are the wiiU and xbox one.

The one thing I don't think Sony will have that nintendo has are the world-wide beloved characters like Mario and Pikachu... Everyone in the world knows who they are. Sony tried with Crash but that didn't work out.. Mario and pokemon were so ground breaking during their times that they're gonna be hard to beat. It's the characters that have made nintendo what they are

@MadchesterManc On the contrary, Atari aren't to be forgotten. For two reasons. One they put the first bricks of the house down, so to speak. But they also blew the house up and dragged video games and the industry down to the gutter. Those dark days you said about were made by them themselves. People don't forget them, they just (rightly or wrongly) concentrate on the massive cock up that was their own making. Atari are important but not in the same level as Nintendo. Nor Sega either. Such a shame they were ran by idiots - they still are, to be fair - as they should be up with Nintendo. Only Taito come close to the importance.

Despite my Nintendo passion statements here, must point out if anything I, like you, am a Sega diehard. I love Nintendo dearly and think they make the best games, but I grew up with Sonic and Sega will always be the most important to me personally. But looking at the bigger picture it has to be Ninty.

@TheRealBatman Play Mario Galaxy 2. As for doing anything significant well the Wii has single handedly made video games acceptable to the masses and provided a gateway for millions who would never touch a video game before it. If that isn't significant then I dunno what is. Also, without sounding like I'm arguing with you when I'm not meaning too, try playing a recent Nintendo game. Levels have things other companies would base ENTIRE games out of that they throw away as a single stage. That is much braver and riskier than making those three games (all fantastic!) you used as examples. Again, not trying to argue as I can see why you'd think what you do, just trying to add another shade to the palette.

@rjejr Quite happy with my Beatles reasoning. Especially as I said it after sixteen minutes of sleep in the last 48 hours! Never get a woman into labor folks...

@rastamadeus I always enjoy reading your replies. To be honest I should apologise for assuming you may not be familiar with the dark age if gaming that I spoke of. You'll be suprised how many people these days know nothing of pre 16-bit era let alone what an Atari2600 is lol Its always good to meet a fellow SEGA fan. I fear SEGA are going the way of Atari lately which is an incredible shame for people like us who were grew up with thier incredible console heritage (I only need a working Game Gear to complete my SEGA collection) Ive never really like Nintendo's offerings much, even though I have purchased em lol, but I have always at least respected them for at least being a strong competitor in the industry for so long. Congratulations on your good news btw

@rastamadeus

That's actually all true. I've preferred the PlayStation brand since it's been around, hell I'm more of a Sega guy than anything (Genesis and Dreamcast probably would both make my top 5 favorite consoles ever) but nobody can deny the impact of Nintendo. I know the influence the company had me since NES was the system that introduced me to the industry.

@rastamadeus
So true, heck even the blue blur himself was inspired by Super Mario Bros. Say what you want about Nintendo but they still make some pretty solid games. I've heard people compare NSMB to getting a cheeseburger at Mcdonald's, in that its a safe, reliable, and enjoyable experience.

While I enjoy most of Nintendo's games I actually buy them for the third-party exclusives they do have. The thing with Nintendo is while they're still pretty innovative on the hardware side I think they've been playing it a bit too safe on the software side lately. Its kinda funny though, what one company lacks is the other company's strenght.

@TheRealBatman - "Basically, Sony looks to the future while Nintendo is stuck in the past. Call me a fanboy if you want, I don't care."

Ummm... no.

The Wii and DS were designed the way they were BECAUSE Nintendo was looking toward the future; it realised that the games industry was stagnating, and needed a shot in the arm. The PS3 (as much as I love it) was a bloated, unfocused piece of hardware in the beginning. It was a product of Ken Kutaragi's arrogance and Sony's misjudgement of the evolution of the games market. The inclusion of 'Trophies' (i.e. Achievements), the Sixaxis, and the PS Move was proof of a confused Sony playing catch-up.

Now, thankfully, it seems things are different. Sony really seems to have changed for the better, and I applaud its efforts. Cerny,Yoshida, & co. really seem to be doing everything right.

@Zombie_Barioth - "The thing with Nintendo is while they're still pretty innovative on the hardware side I think they've been playing it a bit too safe on the software side lately."

Honestly, I think ANY company could be accused of this, if one were to try hard enough. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have their 'safe' games (Halo, God of War, NSMB), they have their 'bold' games (Quantum Break, The Last of Us, Nintendo Land) and they even have their 'quirky' games (Project Spark, Puppeteer, Game & Wario). IMO, I think the reason why there is a perception that Nintendo 'milk' their IP more is because of their design philosophies. Miyamoto and others base their projects on gameplay, before deciding what franchise suits that gameplay best; whilst Microsoft and Sony seem to place a greater emphasis on story and narrative. I've noticed that games like Uncharted, God of War & inFamous have a strong 'canon' that has a beginning, a middle and an end. Characters die, and stories end, which creates a need for 'new stories' - AKA new IP. Compare this to Mario and Zelda; stories that don't have a strong canon - because the story is not the primary focus. Mario doesn't grow old, goes through numerous epiphanies, and dies at the end - and neither does Link. Nintendo's characters are stuck in a perpetual Never Never Land - there is no constant cycle of death and rebirth (like an IP being canned, before going through a reboot - like the ever-suffering comic book industry).

Again, it all boils down to creative mantras. Neither approaches are 'right' nor 'wrong' - just as long as they are fun to play, IMO.

@Kage_88
I agree with you, but thats why I said "lately". Theres nothing wrong with going with a sure thing, but recently they've been coming out with nothing but Mario and Donkey Kong (never though I'd complain about the latter).

I think thats the problem with their design philosophy, it makes it a lot easier to over-expose your IP when you rely on it so heavily. They use Mario as a one-size-fits-all glove for everything even when they've got several other IPs in the same genre they could use instead. Righ now they're trying to get the Wii U off the ground which is fine but afterwards they need to cool it and give Mario a rest for a while.

Nintendo don't have the impact, they once had (Golden Eye on N64 anyone?).

Sony have a way bigger impact than Nintendo atm and well Microsoft... Still waiting on seen Finish Windows 8.1

Sony are just as guilty as Nintendo is.

Gran Turismo is pretty much the same damn game every time, once sold a demo as a retail game and has little creative juice in it (I mean, what creativity is there in replicating car driving?)

Uncharted was a fantastic series and so was The Last of Us but I also think they are losing their creativity as well, I mean, they are both cover shooters through and through, when compared to the stuff they pulled before where they either constantly tried to add new ideas or completely overhaul the main game in almost every way, The Last Of Us feels just as "Safe" as say, the new Mario Kart.

Nintendo still do those sorts of things as well, I won't deny, but acting as if Sony is exempt from this action as well is just silly. And before you go "But Nintendo doesn't make anymore games in [Random old series] anymore they just make Mario!" Then I'll take say, Ape Escape. I have not seen a single game like Ape Escape or it's sequels, it has a strange control scheme but it works and makes sure that no other game has really had the same feel that the series has (Take note they built the gameplay around the controls extremely well, with the gadgets being quite fun to use). Which just leaves me wondering why the second rate "Halo Killer" Killzone series is getting its fourth instalment (While 343 Industries has done a good job killing Halo as it is ) while this one of a kind series was abandoned apart from an embarrassing move game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm hyped for the PS4, but It'll be third party games like Battlefront 3 and KH3 that I'll be playing.

i play mostly third parties games and playstation is the most prefer console/portable for me to play those with...my only issue with sony is i like jrpgs a lot and their first parties is lacking in that dept...hopefully they will pump up that genre soon

@Magolor

I couldn't possibly disagree more with you about The Last of Us. It's not at all a cover shooter.

I'm still seeing Sony consoles as more of multimedia and third party boxes, but that's not a bad thing.
Sony may not have as many years or experience as Nintendo, but they're pretty respectable now at least. Microsoft on the other hand...I don't care for them.

Nintendo knows how to maintain a "wide demographic. Nintendo works hard to establish their first party titles. I feel that Sony has awesome first party titles, they just need to establish them better.