Tom Kalinske: Sega's Been Doing It Wrong for Past 20 Years!

[Melf]

Kalinske wasn't even at SOA when Castle of Illusion or Quackshot were developed.

I'm referring specifically to your example of Aladdin and the games that followed it (Lion King, etc.).

And I find it unfair to the highest degree to credit games like Castle of Illusion or Quackshot to SOA and not to Emiko Yamamoto's team at SOJ - who actually made the games: http://segaretro.org/Emiko_Yamamoto

Yes, I know you did an interview with Jim Huether where he claims that he and Stephan Butler at Disney "drove the design of this game and approved the final versions." But the fact is is that Jim only received "special thanks" credit and Stephan was credited as "Walt Disney Producer" (Castle of Illusion). They were not credited as game designer, producer, coordinator, or anything else because they didn't do any of that. Did they have some input? No doubt. But the game was developed by a Japanese team and it's rude to Emiko Yamamoto to try to shift credit.

I never said that the game wasn't developed in SOJ, and credit is due to them for making a stellar platformer. However, it is equally unfair and rude to attribute ALL the credit to a game they clearly didn't do alone. What do you think a producer did? Stephen Butler was the Disney producer who was tasked with ensuring that the game remained true to the license, and Huether actually had significant input in the gameplay design (the easy mode, for instance, was his idea). Both of you are forgetting that Mickey Mouse was an American property and that the game was designed for a worldwide audience, not just Japan. That is why Butler and Huether had such important roles.

Also, according to Butler himself (I spoke to him recently for an upcoming project), it was SOA that licensed the characters for Castle of Illusion, not SOJ.

I think it is undeniable that video game culture in the US and Europe was nowhere near as advanced as in Japan back in the late 80s and early 90s so that played a role when comparing the quality of Western MD games to Japanese games but I'd also say that in many cases the reason for the lack of quality of a game was the resources given to the developers by the companies. In SOA's case it seems to me that time was the issue as opposed to money.

I agree that time was more likely a bigger factor than money. SOA was in a race against Nintendo and needed games as quickly as possible. Many of them probably had their development cycles shortened in order to get them out in time for the holidays, etc.

Sonic the Hedgehog was definitely more popular in the US and seemed targeted at the American audience. It even came out in the US a month before Japan, which is unusual. But I don't think you have an accurate impression of its success in Japan. It certainly was successful and, although accurate sales numbers are impossible to find, there is some indication that it was one of the top-selling MD games in Japan with several hundred thousand sales. That doesn't even scratch the surface of what Sonic sold in other countries, but it's pretty good considering only 3.5 million MD units were sold in its lifespan. It was cover-featured in the 2 Japanese MD magazines and received one of the highest ratings for an MD game in Famitsu (33 points) and was scored 9.2 in Beep's reader reviews, which is the highest score a game ever received on release I believe. Even today if you mention the MD in Japan people will think of Sonic first. I can't find the source now (maybe it was in the MD Encyclopedia?) but in a somewhat recent poll of MD fans Sonic was voted the best game for the system. Sonic was heavily marketed in Japan (for an MD game) and had several TV commercials and a bunch of print ads. It was also eventually included as a special pack-in with MD units. So, Sonic was successful in Japan but just could not sell the system.

No one's saying Sonic was unsuccessful in Japan. I'm refuting the contention that SOA's marketing had nothing to do with its success in the US. If that success had been the result of game quality alone, it wouldn't have sold as well here. The fact that such a heavily marketed Japanese game - the company's flagship franchise - could not sell the system in its native country while its US version shifted the balance of market share is testament to the importance of SOA's marketing of the game.

[EclecticGroove]

They did but even in 1997 SONY weren't noted for any of their In-House games they were always seen to be behind Nintendo and even SEGA In-House studios and Sony track (sorry about the pun) recorded on driving games was average at best and way behind that of SEGA . With GT not only did SONY transform its In-House image, kill SEGA image as kings of all driving games it also completely revolutionized the driving game genre it's self . It had nothing little to do with the internet as even in 1997 the coverage was miminal and 36k modems not up to showing off a game at its best , the written press still ruled the gaming waves . GT was just hyped up by SONY and the then the Press and then when people 1st saw it at the gameing shows or in a Shop pod they wanted it or at least a PS to play it on.

Not much different from Sonic

It was, however, quite different.
Sony's PSX was big on the scene, it made a BIG splash. Sega had already opened up the market. More magazines were covering non Nintendo stuff, and there were just more of them in general.

The PS1 had been out for ~3 years and making a huge name for itself. 97 was the year when some massive games (like FF7) were released.

Again, you're seeing the kinds of pre release hype for new games happened much later, and translating it back to a time where it rarely existed in any amount the USA unless it had Nintendo's name stamped on it.

[spiffyone]

Without the marketing efforts behind Sonic, it might have become another Bonk: good series of platformers that deserved better sales.

[spiffyone]

None of those are relate-able to what was a brand new IP like Sonic.

Mario 3 was anticipated since Mario 2..

Yep. And folks don't seem to remember how much hype was built for that game in the advertisment...sorry "film" The Wizard. That movie was basically a commercial for Nintendo, and the part with Super Mario Bros. 3 was the climax of the movie, iirc.

[retrospiel]

I'm referring specifically to your example of Aladdin and the games that followed it (Lion King, etc.).

The games that followed Aladdin were not made by Sega nor published or produced by Sega. And the Mega Drive Aladdin actually got ported to several Nintendo platforms as well as Amiga and MS-DOS PCs and were released alongside the MD version. Subsequent Disney games by Virgin were released for SNES and MD simultaneously.

There was just one more 16-bit Disney game ever made by Sega (or Sega of America in this case), and that was Bonkers in 1995. All the post-Aladdin Disney games came from either Virgin or Sony.

[gamevet]

The games that followed Aladdin were not made by Sega nor published or produced by Sega. And the Mega Drive Aladdin actually got ported to several Nintendo platforms as well as Amiga and MS-DOS PCs and were released alongside the MD version. Subsequent Disney games by Virgin were released for SNES and MD simultaneously.

The Genesis version of Aladdin had your character swinging a sword, while the SNES version had foot stomps for attacks. Capcom developed the SNES version.

Sega contracted Virgin of America to make Aladdin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_video_games

Disney's Aladdin was developed for the Mega Drive by Virgin Interactive's studio of Virgin Games USA and published by Sega in 1993. This was due to the fact that Sega had both obtained a license for publishing video games based on Disney's motion picture and established a collaboration deal with Disney's animation studios which was a first in the video game industry, so Sega of America tasked the Virgin Games USA development team with the programming duties because of their successful previous efforts with McDonald's Global Gladiators and 7 Up's Cool Spot. The game has been noted for its use of traditional animation, which was produced by Disney animators under the supervision of Virgin's animation staff, including animation producer Andy Luckey, technical director Paul Schmiedeke and animation director Mike Dietz, using an in-house "Digicel" process to compress the data onto the cartridge. The game also featured arrangements and original compositions composed by Donald S. Griffin

[retrospiel]

Capcom developed the SNES version.

That is correct. Virgin developed the MD/Gen version, which also appeared on NES, GB, MS-DOS, and Amiga.

Sega contracted Virgin of America to make Aladdin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_video_games

No. Disney did - after being pissed off by SOA's and BlueSky's lack of enthusiasm for the game, especially in comparison to what Capcom had in the works: http://www.sega-16.com/2014/03/behin...sneys-aladdin/

Disney did not want another Fantasia, Ariel or TaleSpin so they intervened and gave the project (and subsequently all follow ups) to Virgin.

[Da_Shocker]

Night Trap didn't receive any hype until the news and politicians started to blabber on about how the awful the game was for the kids and youth. And let's face it, Sega launched the Saturn w/o Sonic in Japan and it didn't have any issues selling 200K in the first weekend. Tom's primary job is to sale sale and sale some more. Even if he tells a few lies every now and then and yes he did. Shit like that may not fly in other countries (ie Japan) but here it does.

[Melf]

The games that followed Aladdin were not made by Sega nor published or produced by Sega. And the Mega Drive Aladdin actually got ported to several Nintendo platforms as well as Amiga and MS-DOS PCs and were released alongside the MD version. Subsequent Disney games by Virgin were released for SNES and MD simultaneously.

There was just one more 16-bit Disney game ever made by Sega (or Sega of America in this case), and that was Bonkers in 1995. All the post-Aladdin Disney games came from either Virgin or Sony.

The fact that any Disney games came out on the MD at all had a lot to do with SOA's relationship with Disney, particularly the relationship between Kalinske and the head of Disney Consumer Products. It's a story that hasn't been told, but it will be, soon!

No. Disney did - after being pissed off by SOA's and BlueSky's lack of enthusiasm for the game, especially in comparison to what Capcom had in the works: http://www.sega-16.com/2014/03/behin...sneys-aladdin/

Disney did not want another Fantasia, Ariel or TaleSpin so they intervened and gave the project (and subsequently all follow ups) to Virgin.

Disney wasn't "pissed" at Sega for Aladdin; it just wasn't excited with BlueSky's version. SEGA was given the distribution rights after its version was canceled specifically BECAUSE of the good relationship between the two companies. Disney could have just let Virgin distribute it.

And contrary to what many think, Disney wasn't mad at SEGA for Fantasia, either. There was a whole other problem with that game that was actually Disney's fault. There's no evidence at all that Disney had problems with Tale Spin or Ariel, and Virgin developing Disney games after Aladdin had nothing to do with its change of heart towards SEGA.

[Da_Shocker]

Melf I must ask do you know why Disney didn't do anything with the SCD? We could've had some awesome ports.

[Melf]

I've never heard anything specific about the SEGA CD, but I bet it had to do more with focusing on where the most sales could happen. That's why the SEGA CD version of Aladdin never happened.

[A Black Falcon]

The fact that any Disney games came out on the MD at all had a lot to do with SOA's relationship with Disney, particularly the relationship between Kalinske and the head of Disney Consumer Products. It's a story that hasn't been told, but it will be, soon!

Looking forward to it!

Disney wasn't "pissed" at Sega for Aladdin; it just wasn't excited with BlueSky's version. SEGA was given the distribution rights after its version was canceled specifically BECAUSE of the good relationship between the two companies. Disney could have just let Virgin distribute it.

And contrary to what many think, Disney wasn't mad at SEGA for Fantasia, either. There was a whole other problem with that game that was actually Disney's fault. There's no evidence at all that Disney had problems with Tale Spin or Ariel, and Virgin developing Disney games after Aladdin had nothing to do with its change of heart towards SEGA.

Well, as soon as Disney started making its own games Disney games dropped in quality, so yeah, I would believe that Disney had fault earlier on too.

I mean, Disney's first licensed game published by its just-set-up Disney Interactive label was Gargoyles (Genesis) from '95, which looks nice but doesn't play as good as it looks. Of course, Toy Story (multiplatform) that same year also has gameplay far worse than its graphics. So did Lion King, the year before that. And after '95... Disney licensed games weren't exactly great games anymore. Pinnochio is okay, stuff like the Emperor's New Groove and Aladdin 3d platformers on the PS1 are decent but fairly average, etc. NES Capcom and Genesis Aladdin are the high points of Disney games.

As for Sega, I've noticed before that Sega seemed to move away from Disney games and towards Looney Tunes games, after World of Illusion and such. After that Sega made a whole bunch of Looney Tunes games on the Genesis, but not more Disney -- Taz, Road Runner, Bugs Bunny, etc. Looney Tunes was also a quite prominent cartoon license, of course.

[j_factor]

I really doubt that Disney had particularly high standards with regards to gameplay, or that they paid attention to magazine reviews etc. Their concern was how the source material was treated -- high art quality, no risqué content, accurate character depiction, appropriate plot/thematic elements, etc. One of the interviews here (I think it was here) mentioned that in Castle of Illusion, it was mandated by Disney that the game avoid any reference to a number of "lives" and instead call them "tries". That's the kind of thing developers had to deal with from Disney. Disney-licensed games weren't consistently great, but even the bad ones were inoffensive to the property. Look at Fantasia: Mickey looks just like he did in the movie, and so do various enemies like the brooms; the levels were all taken from imagery seen in the movie, they didn't add a carnival level or something; the Sorcerer's Apprentice attacks with spells, they didn't give him an unnecessary weapon; they didn't insert anything uncharacteristic and they even worked in the orchestra. I doubt the game was objectionable from Disney's point of view.

[fruitsofherwomb]

Not to be 'that guy' but I don't see how anyone would know what Disney's license holders wanted in games and what they didn't want. I would assume they wanted the game to be successful, I would think them playing great and being fun had to do with that.

[A Black Falcon]

Not to be 'that guy' but I don't see how anyone would know what Disney's license holders wanted in games and what they didn't want. I would assume they wanted the game to be successful, I would think them playing great and being fun had to do with that.

When you're talking about licensed games, "playing great" rarely seems to be a relevant concern as far as license-holders go, sadly. Most of the time how well a game plays probably only matters with regards to how it affects sales...