Does Sega Have Secret Plans To Release A New Home Console?

[Original_Name]

A counter-point! Sweet! =D

Okay, I'll start off with the thing that stuck out the most for me: I didn't mean to say that there was anything wrong with being a toy company - in fact, Nintendo has created some of the most timeless "toys" in existence. Many of Nintendo's questionable business practices in the face of early competition from Sega left a bad taste in my mouth, but they're all-in-all quite forgiveable - especially since as of the past decade and a half they've been playing a squeeky-clean game. I wasn't trying to say that Nintendo doesn't have merit as a video game company - it's just that I don't think they'll ever make a video game that is just about pushing a video game as far as it can conceptually go, because such a video game would be confusing to the mass market - it would be like Hasbro releasing a new Bop-It! which asked you to quickly give logical answers to philosophical conundrums instead of twisting a knob - interesting, sure, but how the hell would you market it - the KIDS sure as hell couldn't play with it -- it would be like if Disney made their next movie a Mickey Mouse film with a Maus tie-in - it would be far more meaningful but, once again, how the hell would you market it, and the kids sure as hell wouldn't get it; there's nothing wrong with operating a company this way at all, it's a very practical way to operate a business, but it is conceptually limiting. Sega, the company who released fucking Seaman, obviously had no qualms about taking a video game as far as it could conceptually go because it was practically their mission statement (as evidenced in Segagaga). I'm not saying this makes them the best video game company (although they are my personal favorite) - being one of the few big players in the entirety of the industry who were first and foremost a video game company AND never in even the slightest sense tried to present themselves as anything but a video game company isn't the most extravagant claim to fame, but it does give them merit as being a company VERY devoted to the craft of video games.

Perhaps I'm giving Sega too much credit for being fascinatingly reckless during their tenure as a video game giant, but honestly, although its feasible to imagine some business man at Sega saying "THEY'LL BUY ALL THIS CRAP!" with dollar/yen-signs in his eyes, the plan was just too obscenely dumb to have been enacted by anyone more than a day old if profit was really the first thing on their mind. Perhaps it's a little bit of both - it was a money-making plan which got blind-sighted by Sega's want to create or vise-versa. We may never know, but if you ask me such a course of action was too astronomically stupid from a business sense to actually have been fully-formulated with business purely as the main focus.

As far as CSK's place in the ordeal, your point confuses me: "Sega was a coin-op amusement business first, sure. But don't forget that by 1984, before the release of the Master System, they were owned and traded by a multi-billion dollar conglomerate. CSK and Isao Okawa played a large and vital part in Sega, but CSK was a company that sought profit like any other. If we're willing to shoehorn the identity of a company based on their history, what are we to view Sega and CSK as? It's the developers that make the games, not the stockholders that own them." True, they were owned by said multi-billion dollar conglomerate, but as you say yourself, it's the developers who make the games, not the stockholders that own them. I see no reason to argue with you that CSK was a fairly regular company in the capitalistic sense, but CSK never really interfered with Sega's decisions in any way until they sold them off because the company had failed in their minds. Sega acted completely indepedently as a video game company, as CSK was obliging enough not to meddle with Sega's business decisions assuming the video game company should be the one running the video game company while they held their stocks for their own business endeavors. A company holding the rights to an otherwise independent business is far different than a sub-division of a larger company with a centralized vision.

"So what if the Wii controls don't lead to gaming expertise; Is gaming expertise the only way to "evolve" as a gamer?", of course not! My personal favorite video game of all time is Rez, which does not require expertise to complete - it was the experience it offers. The thing is that I can't name a single original game on the Wii that has advanced the medium artistically - it has showcased an ability to further immerse a player due to its control-scheme, but thus far it has not utilized that further immersion to create a deeper video gaming experience - the Wii is a tremendous entertainment device, but it has shown very little artistic merit - again, not that this is a bad thing, Nintendo is VERY good at what they do - I just miss the avant garde tendencies of Sega, as I feel that company which they had become (and had been moving towards for years) had their hearts laying in the right places as evidenced by their bat-shit crazy, yet philosophically/artistically charged titles, reckless nature which valued innovation over practicality (keep in mind I said their HEARTS were in the right places, not brains or pockets), the monologues in Segagaga, and everything about the lil' ol' Dreamcast.

I think you misinterpreted my point about Sega wearing their heart on their sleeve and presenting themselves as an arcade company bringing the experience home as opposed to presenting themselves as the more marketable "toy-company" archetype. I was not in anyway saying that arcade gaming is the pinnacle of video games as an artistic medium by any stretch of the imagination - in fact, I view that as far from the case in nearly all circumstances - I respect Sega's console-exclusive offerings such as Phantasy Star, Sakura Taisen, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Seaman, Skies of Arcadia, Shenmue, Rez, etc. more than the awesome and expertly-crafted but comparatively shallow arcade games because console gaming offers far more oppurtunity for prolonged immersion, and since the consumer's investment is greater, there are greater expectations to be met than in the arcade in which one's investment for a fresh experience can be so little as a quarter. I was not denouncing other mediums at all, I was simply stating that during Sega's INCEPTION into the home console market they presented themselves as a company bringing the arcade experience home (arcade games a concrete and distinct denomination of video gaming) although they would ultimately move on to greater things in my opinion as opposed to Nintendo's inception into the home console market wherein they presented their video games as fancy toys that you got mom n' dad to hook up for you (video games being more loosely correlated to the greater body of toys of course than arcade games are to the greater body of video games).

That's not to say that there's anything wrong with presenting your video games as "toys", it's just that I feel Sega had more soul as a video game company because (if Segagaga's monologues are to be believed), their mission statement was to nurture video games as an artistic medium no matter what that meant (hence the "Segagaga March" - they kept marching on with their vision no matter what), a determination which ultimately met them with their demise, than Nintendo who seeks to entertain and reap the benefits. If Nintendo comes out with a statement that talks about how they view that their youthful direction comes from an intent to restore a youthful sense to the world and their toy-like self-presentation is an extension of that (or something) then I would say that Sega and Nintendo have equal amounts of "soul" as a company because then they would have both been companies who presented their craft as an artistic means to attain an effect beyond that of customer-loyalty and ultimately cash - but as it stands, I don't see reason to believe their mission statement is anything above that. I don't feel that video games are something that Nintendo, as a company, would literally die for instead of cutting their losses and moving on like Sega did - that is SOUL. That doesn't make Nintendo a bad video game company - I'll admit, they're more skilled at the craft than probably anyone else - but that doesn't change my view that Sega - flawed as they were - carried video gaming's soul, and their absence (and the absence of big-players with similar mind-sets in today's industry) has left a craterous hole in the medium as a legitimate form of art.

As far as your points about the industry's faults being the competitive nature of it - I think that's a damn good cause for an entirely new topic, as it's one that needs to be discussed, but not here.

Also, thank you for taking the time to write up a detailed, well thought-through response - it always tickles me when people take the medium as seriously as I do. Furthermore, thank you everyone who complimented me on my post - gave me the warm-'n-fuzzies! I suggest you extend similar sentiments to Mr. Crux and throw in your own opinions on the matter.

Finally, to the guy who complimented my fluidity - thank you very much! I try and write in an accessible manner, so that's a good thing to hear! If you're interested, I put up a short piece on these boards that largely got ignored if you'd like to read it:

http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17896

[Dylan]

Hm, I think that the feeling of "soul" could be chalked up to nostalgia/bias, because I have the exact same feeling for Nintendo and not really for Sega.

[Original_Name]

Hm, I think that the feeling of "soul" could be chalked up to nostalgia/bias, because I have the exact same feeling for Nintendo and not really for Sega.

Elaborate, bro.

I'm saying that I feel that Sega had more "soul" (a subjective term, mind you) than Nintendo as a video game company because of their mission statement as detailed in Segagaga and the way they marketed themselves out-and-out as a video game company as opposed to Nintendo's relentless fascination with mass-market appeal (not that that's a bad thing, just that I feel it is creatively limiting in some respects). That's not to say that Sega did not care for mass-market appeal, it's just that it never appeared to be THE issue to them like it might be to Nintendo or the likes of Hasbro or Milton Bradley. How do you feel that Sega has less soul? Because you feel they are "copiers" or simply under-talented programmers who attempted to take the low-road of being "edgy" in order to appeal to a market to make a profit, not because that's where their hearts lay? Another reason? Reasons why you think so?

[Dylan]

Who's to say where their "hearts lay"? This idea is based entirely on perception, it's not really a factual argument. Games are all varying degrees of entertaining, the only other thing I can perceive about them is an emotional attachment or recollection of enjoyment, i.e. nostalgia. I'm not saying that Sega didn't have soul per say, what I'm saying is that soul as a feeling is based on the understanding an individual has based on experience.

Any game company wants to produce quality titles, that much is certain. To judge their soul based on methodology I find odd. Both Sega and Nintendo shared the same primary goal, their executions simply took different paths. One might enjoyed the innovative adventures that Sega brought, one might enjoy the solid consistency that Nintendo brought. What we're seeing is a preference in execution, rather than a perception of who likes making games the most.

I also find the argument of mass market appeal vs. being a game company confusing. Both Sega and Nintendo were just game companies, that's all that they did. I would also argue that Sega had a much greater emphasis on mass market appeal than Nintendo did, that can easily be seen in their wild advertising campaigns (especially with their Nintendo bashing, when Nintendo never really bashed back). If anything, Sega wanted to be on top in terms of popularity, so they went that route. This isn't to say that they didn't make great games in the process, it's just that any game company is just that: a game company. They produce quality titles and then sell them to the public.

And finally, are you really going to tell me that this man doesn't have soul?

[Original_Name]

Who's to say where their "hearts lay"? This idea is based entirely on perception, it's not really a factual argument. Games are all varying degrees of entertaining, the only other thing I can perceive about them is an emotional attachment or recollection of enjoyment, i.e. nostalgia. I'm not saying that Sega didn't have soul per say, what I'm saying is that soul as a feeling is based on the understanding an individual has based on experience.

Any game company wants to produce quality titles, that much is certain. To judge their soul based on methodology I find odd. Both Sega and Nintendo shared the same primary goal, their executions simply took different paths. One might enjoyed the innovative adventures that Sega brought, one might enjoy the solid consistency that Nintendo brought. What we're seeing is a preference in execution, rather than a perception of who likes making games the most.

I also find the argument of mass market appeal vs. being a game company confusing. Both Sega and Nintendo were just game companies, that's all that they did. I would also argue that Sega had a much greater emphasis on mass market appeal than Nintendo did, that can easily be seen in their wild advertising campaigns (especially with their Nintendo bashing, when Nintendo never really bashed back). If anything, Sega wanted to be on top in terms of popularity, so they went that route. This isn't to say that they didn't make great games in the process, it's just that any game company is just that: a game company. They produce quality titles and then sell them to the public.

And finally, are you really going to tell me that this man doesn't have soul?"

As far as where their "hearts lay", I'll reference a Gamasutra interview with Shigeru Miyamoto and Eiji Aonuma in which Aonuma states the following:

"As someone who studied art, it's a very important question to ask: Where do you draw the line? What is art, and what isn't? To me, I don't necessarily feel that games have to be considered as art. If you really think about art, the people that really understand it are those that have studied art, and know art, and are art buffs really. Whereas, if you look at what Nintendo tries to do with games, we want to create games and present them to as many people as possible, young, old, middle-aged, teen-aged, we really want to entertain people, and entertain as many people as we can. I think a good example is the film industry. You have two directions it's going in. You have the mass market films that anybody can go watch, and enjoy, and be entertained by, and say "Wow, this a great movie!" And you have arthouse films, where really the masses don't get to experience or enjoy the art of those films, and instead it's just really people who are film buffs who get to go and experience that. While there's nothing wrong with that, our goal is to just make games that are fun and entertain people, and thus we want to entertain as many people as we can."

I'm saying that in today's gaming climate we still have a company like Nintendo who excitedly (and effectively) create games for the mass market to consume while the most prolific "arthouse" company no longer exists and while there are a hodge-podge of developers who are making games to fill that gap, the absence of a company like Sega as a major player in the industry has left a craterous impression on the industry. When I say "soul" as a company, I'm referring to an artistic spirit - I'm a person who believes that artistry in its purest form does not care about mass-appeal and is more geared toward creation for creation's sake, expression for expression's sake, and innovation for innovation's sake. While Sega might not have achieved this level of purity in artistry (one may argue that no artist ever has), I feel that they were closer to that ideal than the main players we currently see in the industry - and very impressively close to that ideal considering their size as a company.

Yes, they do share the same primary goal, but if you ask me execution is very important. That's why although I'll admit that a band like Fugazi wasn't as musically significant as say, Santana, I value Fugazi more as artists because even though both made incredible contributions to the fusion of genres in ways which showcased great musical prowess and innovative spirits, Fugazi did little things like refusing to be interviewed by magazines which contained advertisements for drugs and alcohol, refusing to sell merchandise (because they saw it as exploitative towards their fans and a distraction away from their creative spirits and a handicap to the DIY nature they wished to advocate), refusing to play any shows that weren't all-ages, and declining major-label deals in favor of Ian MacKaye's (a singer/guitarist for Fugazi, if you're unfamiliar with the band) own independently-run Dischord Records. Do these differences show up on their albums? No. In fact, Carlos Santana's music has better production and is more technically proficient - however, the things that Fugazi stood for place them closer to that high standard of artistic purity.

Sega's not the almighty symbol of artistic purity, this is true - but in my mind their execution places them closer to that ideal than Nintendo. And it takes a whole lot of guts to take that route (look at where it got Sega), and to have guts you have to have "soul". So I suppose since "soul" is such a subjective term you could say that Sega had more guts as a company and that's why I value them more, although they mean the same thing in my mind. Yes they did do some mud-slandering, but when you compare that to legal agreements forbidding third-party companies from developing games for any system other than the NES lest they receive lawsuits on Nintendo's behalf and risk bankruptcy by developing for the competition which has about three companies developing for it and a 5% market share in part because of said lawsuit, it doesn't seem so bad. And I do recognize that Nintendo is not like that anymore, and hasn't been like that for a long time. In more direct reference to their marketing campaign, I find that completely forgivable since that marketing campaign was essentially Sega on their last legs as a hardware company: they'd lost tons of money from the relative failures of the SG-1000 and Mark III/Master System and the MegaDrive was getting creamed in Japan, so that marketing campaign was about the only thing that could save them in that market, and they kept going with it because it was giving them the headway they needed to actually be a competitor in the home console market. Also, Nintendo did bash back with the "Super Nintendo is what Genesisn't" campaign, but I get what you're trying to say - like I say, Sega's not perfect, but they're closer to that ideal which I feel is so valuable.

As far as Shiggy having soul - of course he does. He is, however, unique and admirable as he may be, more conservative than say the creators of Shadow of the Colossus or Rez: games which have meanings that are ultimately depressing and show the potential to impact gamers on a psychological level - or say, Seaman, which is intentionally so strange and so off-putting that many gamers won't even give it a try, but those who do find themselves able to connect with the little fish and are even insulted a bit by the little guy - YOU feel like the weird one while talking to this little fish with a man's head. It is ultimately a lesson in the futility of prejudice and experiencing a judgment of humanity from an inhuman perspective. Miyamoto's comparatively conservative nature as an artist make these directions highly improbable: his desire to create a game that has an ultimately off-putting meaning is hindered because that is an unpopular notion which would not be appreciated by the mass-market - then to present meanings in such a subtle manner as Seaman does is not an option because many people might not get it (as 95% of the people who play Seaman don't) because that is an equally off-putting notion. One of Shiggy's quotes on video game violence: "Of course the art of freedom and the right to speak are important, but we should be careful with what we create. Games are interactive entertainment and could affect young people..." - this is a notion that I agree with, but as a mature gamer, I understand that violence can play a vital role in eliciting a response from me. For instance, I was not able to defeat the first Colossus in SotC because I felt bad for it, making blood spray from such a beautiful creature was something I wasn't comfortable with doing. When I read a year later how that game ends, and imagining what it must have been like for someone who completed that game to receive that poignant spit in the face, I see the artistic merit the title's violence had. Shigeru Miyamoto has cut himself off from a very useful tool in communicating one of the aspects of video games which give the medium true artistic merit: the ability to create a feeling of guilt through one's own direct actions.

Disclaimer: Not that Shigeru Miyamoto is not among the highest order of video game artists of all time - he is! Please don't feel as though I'm trying to bash on Shiggy because I'm not - I have the utmost respect for him and Nintendo as well.

[Dylan]

I see. The issue is that again, art is something of a matter of taste. I should think that you're more attracted to the form of art Sega has produced, and this is where the feelings start coming in. The term "guts" makes more sense to me than "soul", because that's how I personally perceive it. What you've just made me realize over a few minutes of introspection is that I'm not entirely sure how I see art in games, or whether I would describe my positive feelings as an appreciation for art per say.

My resolution is this: everything is to us as we perceive it. The impressions and understandings of things we have are our own, and it's often the case that others see things the way we do as well. This is why art isn't the same thing to any one person, and why there are logical preferences and partitions in any given form of it. Going off of this concept, there isn't really a purest form of art as viewed by all people. Art is not objectively good or bad, and there can be no objective resolution as to its merits. This is why it isn't really logical for you to argue that Sega has soul to me, or for me to argue that it doesn't to you. What I understand is that we have dissimilar views of art, and my insight into the company and yours both have merit, but what we see in it is for us to understand.

[MrPopo]

I'm going to give the tl;dr version of Original_name's post that encapsulates his main points.

1. Original_Name is a huge fan of art for art's sake.
2. Oirignal_Name feels that Sega has perhaps come the closest to being a video game company that follows art for art's sake.

With that as a jumping off point, I have to say that at least for myself, the first thing that a game needs to do for me is to entertain. I have to enjoy interacting with this digital medium, or else I won't continue. This is similar to other media I consume, such as movies and novels. I've tried to get through War and Peace just for the hell of it, and because I've heard that it is a highly regarded novel. But as I read it I find that I am not being entertained, and thus I lose interest in it and put it down.

While I don't have any issue with art for art's sake per say, I have found that it tends to spiral out of control. Initially it's about "I think this would be cool, and I don't care if I can make money from it, since I have an idea that must be created." I can get behind that, and it has given us some real gems. But then it turns into an almost rejection of the notion that a medium can be popular with the masses. The example that sticks out in my mind the most is atonal music. I had a buddy in college who was a music major and he introduced me to the concept. I listend to a few pieces and I found them to be absolute garbage to listen to. However, there exists a culture of people who "get" it. And this is where art for art's sake tends to end up. A group of people who differentiate and elevate themselves over others because they are in it for the "art", and not just for finding enjoyment in whatever has been created.

That is why I find myself drawn to Nintendo. Whatever else you may feel about them, they make damn fun games. And at the end of the day the reason I pursue this hobby is for entertainment.

[CAv]

Nothing is totally impossible, but I don't think so. My best and wildest hope is that Microsoft would buy Sega from that evil pachinko company.

[GSZX1337]

Nothing is totally impossible, but I don't think so. My best and wildest hope is that Microsoft would buy Sega from that evil pachinko company.

...So it would be in the hands of an evil software company?

[noiseredux]

Original, when you say "it's just that I don't think they'll ever make a video game that is just about pushing a video game as far as it can conceptually go" I feel like you're not putting such games as The Legend Of Zelda into perspective of the video game landscape that it was released upon. I mean, if that game didn't push itself as far as it could at that time conceptually, then I'm not sure what you would consider it's conceptual superior during that time?