Mariner explaining how Nintendo makes games (1/7/03) ---------------------------------------------------- EAD is Nintendo's main internal development team, formerly headed up by Miyamato before he was promoted to handle lots of other stuff. I think Takashi Tezuka heads it up now (who also did a lot of work on Zelda). In any case, they're more of an internal company than one team (although they are of course a section of Nintendo without any independence at all). They are, at any one time, working on multiple games, and thus there are multiple project teams within this one development team. The partnership with Capcom (which has also been extended to Namco with Starfox and Sega with F-Zero) is slightly different. They are more of joint projects between the two entities than a separate company representing Nintendo. It is my understanding that Nintendo and Capcom worked on the Zelda games together, rather than Nintendo just giving it to Capcom. Flagship (Capcom's team (which is also partly owned by Nintendo) that made Oracle) came up with some ideas as to what they wanted to do, would talk it over with Miyamato and other members at Nintendo, and implement them. Flagship did the grunt work, but both teams cooperated on the actual design of the game, making it neither Nintendo nor Capcom's game. As such, there was really no developer/publisher relationship as it is generally known, although Flagship was the Developer and Nintendo the producer. In general terms, the developer is the one actually making the game. They usually come up with the concept, design it, figure everything out, and then program it. The publisher actually gets the game out into the market and, to some extent, finances the game making. As such, they also can call the shots if they want to. They decide which games will best sell, so the developer must either prove their game will work, change their game to suit the publisher, or scrap it altogether and do whatever the publisher tells them to do. In Oracle's case, Nintendo neither took a hands off approach nor took over the project's design, putting them somewhere in between these two extremes. Thus, it was something of a joint process. ---------------------------------------------------- Anywho, the Executive Producer is always just the President of Nintendo. It used to be Hiroshi Yamauchi, it's now Satoru Iwata. A Producer is also listed. Chances are, at least one of the Producers for every N64 and GC games is going to be Miyamato. I'm not exactly sure what the difference between Producer and Director are. I would guess Miyamato is not involved in the details of design anymore, but more involved in making sure everything is running smoothly and the game is shaping up correctly. At least, that's what most Producers probably do - Miyamato probably does influence the direction of games more simply because he knows what he's doing. Directors are the ones actually making the game and putting it together. If I could make an analogy, I would guess the Director is the team leader, while the Producer is his boss. As for a Producer/Developer relationship within Nintendo itself, not exactly. EAD is just one of Nintendo's game development sectors. Yes, they have to get their games approved by the higher ups, but in regards to game development itself, I doubt they report to much of anyone (except for Miyamato, of course). Another section of Nintendo, not special enough to get its own name, just takes care of all of the publishing aspects of the game. In fact, I think Publisher is a better name for the company rather than Producer. And, in case you ask, I really don't know whether the "producer" would be affiliated with the developer or publisher in most cases (obviously Nintendo is an exception). Certainly the director would be from the developer, as he is the one interested on actually making the game. I would guess the producer would be from the publisher, as he is more of a manager and would be most interested in getting the game on the shelves. But I can't be sure of that. ---------------------------------------------------- Well, certainly members of EAD would be included in the decision to make a new Zelda game. Actually, I seem to remember a quote by Miyamato that there is always a Zelda game in development at Nintendo. Zelda is, of course, one of Nintendo's biggest franchises, and so would be scrutinized very closely. I get the feeling Zelda games would need a lot of pre planning and stuff before actually going into development. And once there, they would need a lot of time to perfect it. Thus, in a way, Zelda is constantly in development, and is released as soon as possible. Of course, being a cherished franchise, the ideas would have to be pretty spectacular, and like all projects would need to be approved. Also, the focus of the Zelda game would not be constant. For instance, there were probably very few people available for the Zelda project in early 2001, as EAD was focused primarily on their launch titles - Luigi and Pikmin. I would guess the publishing side of Nintendo decided Christmas of 2002 would be a good time to release the game, and so allotted resources for the project accordingly. In fact, Mario (which probably has a similar development cycle as Zelda) was deliberately held back as a marketing decision. Of course, the specific ideas for Zelda need to be approved (mainly be the senior designers like Miyamato though, as opposed to the marketing department - this is different from most companies). But nobody in particular decides that a new Zelda game will be made on the console. With the popularity of Zelda, it's decided already. As for Oracle, I believe Capcom approached Nintendo about the possibility. It also coincided with a new approach by Nintendo - to get exclusives from companies by working with them. The Capcom team had a great idea for a Zelda game, Nintendo agreed, and not too much longer Capcom is a good friend of Nintendo. It's a win-win scenario for both parties involved, and the business side of it almost undoubtedly came into play. But no, I'm not sure of the particulars of that decision.