You're not logged in | Login / Register | News Filter | Submit News

Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata interviews Yoshinori Ono

Posted by Catalyst
February 24, 2011 at 8:42 a.m. PST
Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata interviews Yoshinori Ono A 6-part interview with Capcom's Yoshinori Ono, conducted by Nintendo CEO, Satoru Iwata, is available for your viewing pleasure.

This covers a lot of Ono's past experience working on video games, and of course gets into some Street Fighter stuff. Here's a snip.

Ono: When I was being interviewed overseas for another title, the last question almost everyone asked me was, "When will we get a sequel for Street Fighter?" People asked me that a lot. The reason I thought the series was over after Street Fighter III24 was because of the same mistake I had made with Shadow of Rome. I had only considered the same consumers who were diehard fans of the series. 24. Street Fighter III: First released in the arcades by Capcom Co., Ltd. in 1997 and subsequently ported over to home consoles.

Iwata: But those were your most passionate fans.

Ono: Right. They were also the loudest people who made their voices heard. I really understood how they felt, so I thought their voices were everything. But I didn't realize there were other people to whom the game could not resonate with at all until just about four or five years ago.

Iwata: If it weren't for that big failure you mentioned, you probably still wouldn't have realized it by now.

Ono: Yes. I realized there were people who were waiting for it. I decided to seriously revamp the franchise from the bottom up.

Also, in somewhat related news, Nintendo's 3DS is going on tour in the UK giving gamers a chance to play the 3DS version of SSF4.

Comments

Hakansoilbarrel said on February 24, 2011 at 9:33 a.m.

(Nintendo X Capcom can still work! Put it on the DS and it will be like a unofficial version of Smash Bros; instant $$! giving you enough money to do DSIV and buy Terry!)

#1
EmeraldFont said on February 24, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.

Wow. Not only is he calling SF3 a failure, but he's saying that it was a failure because he catered only to the hardcore crowd? What?

SF3 was a fantastic game and it wouldn't have been such a financial failure if they had done some of the same things with it that they did with SF4. SF3 was released right when arcades were starting to go under, yet the game didn't really have a great console port for a while, unlike SF4 that had a great console port released almost simultaneously with the arcade version. Furthermore, SF4 was hyped and advertised like no one's business, which was hardly the case with SF3 and is extremely unfortunate because SF3 really needed some advertising to get people used to the new cast.

The only problem with the game was that it took them too long to get the ball rolling. They released New Generation when it was obviously incomplete, and things didn't start to pick up until 2nd Impact. By the time 3rd Strike came out, most had given up on it. Of course, balance was also an issue, especially considering they made this game for the hardcore fans, but I don't think it really mattered by the time 3S came out.

It's a shame really. SF3 is a great game that gets a bum rap due to a lot of bad decisions by Capcom. A lot of Street Fighter "fans", most of whom have probably never even played SF3 and have only watched videos of it on Youtube, hate on the game and call it crap because it didn't sell well or because they heard from a friend that people only use Yun or Chun-Li when in reality there are about 5-6 other viable characters as well. Hopefully the re-release on PSN and XBL will get people to realize that SF3 was amazing and it only sold poorly because Capcom made some pretty big mistakes regarding its release and advertising.

#2
THE_GODDAMN_MASTER said on February 24, 2011 at 12:11 p.m.

@2: A fantastic game? It did nothing new (apart from the complete negation of fireballs, which have been part of the series since SF1), and when characters were good (in terms of gameplay, they all suck as actual characters), they were TOO good.

#3
BlankaBeast said on February 24, 2011 at 12:42 p.m.

SF4 has resurrected SF by returning to its roots, it a lot like SF2.

#4
chewster said on February 24, 2011 at 12:44 p.m.

@ #2
He never said it was a BAD game. It was a very hardcore game with a very hardcore fanbase and your comment just reaffirms that statement

#5
Batsu said on February 24, 2011 at 1:53 p.m.

Where the F**K is Darkstalkers, man. Capcom needs to quit playing in their A$$ and get to it.

#6
EmeraldFont said on February 24, 2011 at 2:23 p.m.

@3
"@2: A fantastic game?"
Yep

"It did nothing new"
Parry system ringing a bell? If not, how about a mostly new cast of characters, selectable supers, brought in the CPS III system which introduced non-mirroring sprites, and EX moves?

"(apart from the complete negation of fireballs, which have been part of the series since SF1),"
And this is how I know that you've never played SFIII and you're one of the many people that I mentioned in my post who do nothing more than puppet what other people have said about the game. Fireballs were not "completely negated" in SFIII. The parry system made it to where you couldn't simply sit across the screen and spam fireballs all day, but they still had a place in the game. If you ask me, this is an IMPROVEMENT. Conversely, look at what happened in SF4 when they got rid of parry. Now we're back to fireball wars. IMO, SF3 was a step in the right direction with this.

"and when characters were good (in terms of gameplay, they all suck as actual characters), they were TOO good."
Yeah. I already mentioned that it had balance issues. If Capcom had given this game the same level of balancing that SF4 had, it would have performed a lot better.

And saying that all of these characters suck just further proves that you've never spent any significant time with the game. If you think characters like Dudley, Alex, Hugo, or Urien are bad, then you've got some pretty unusual taste.

In closing, stop your hating and your trolling.

#7
THE_GODDAMN_MASTER said on February 24, 2011 at 2:34 p.m.

Fireballs' place in SF3? Combos.
Do you really think an off-brand version of Hulk Hogan is a compelling character? Or how about a genetically altered, 400 pound emperor of the Illuminati? To me, the SF3 characters (with the possible exception of Dudley) seem a bit meta, as if they're intentionally trying to parody themselves.

You have the stereotypical tough karate 'girl' (who has one hell of a fetish for genital torture), the even more stereotypical Valley Girl (who just happens to be a ninja with hilariously huge mama-zeppelins) and a host of mutants with powers that seem awfully reminiscent of the original cast...
Yes, it may be a good game. It might even be great, but it does NOT deserve its overzealous, nostalgia-blinded fanbase.

#8
JIHADJOE said on February 24, 2011 at 2:41 p.m.

I kinda agree with Ono that SF3 was maybe just a bit too hard for the casual player. It's easy to hold down back, but you certainly don't expect anyone new to be able to tap down or forward at just the right time. What more, a successful parry isn't just a 'better defense,' but more importantly it serves as a transition into your own offense.

SF4 works around that by democratizing defense, but still caters to the hardcore players by giving them more offensive options via the FA system. For the casuals, ye old two hit combo works just fine.

#9


Post a comment

You're not logged in, you must Login to your account to post a comment.

If you do not have an account, you need to Register to comment. It's a free and quick process.

You're not logged in, you must Login to your account to post a comment.

If you do not have an account, you need to Register to comment. It's a free and quick process.


Follow & Search EventHubs
RSS Twitter Facebook
Live Streams
Name  Viewers 
Level|Up 3,496
FGTVLive #1 2,001
SaltyBet 514
TS|Arturo Sanchez 235
Finest K.O. 212
Tiers
Gains
 Losses 
Game-Specific News
Submit News | Advertise | About | Links | Privacy Policy | EventHubs.com v.70