Its really not a good night for nintendo

BlitzKrieg

*ouch*

US, March 7, 2007 - During a session at GDC this morning titled 'Burning Mad - Game Publishers Rant,' time was taken about half way through to allow developers a chance to spew their own rants. One speaker, Chris Hecker, currently working on Spore at Maxis, took the opportunity to call out Nintendo for not taken games seriously.

"The Wii is a piece of ****!" Hecker began his talk, which was called "Fear of a Wii Planet." He blasted a few bars of Public Enemy to set the tone. Hecker said the Wii is nothing more than two GameCubes stuck together with duct tape, and that the console isn't powerful enough to provide the next-gen experience he has been waiting for.

Although he stated the system is "severely underpowered," Hecker noted that he wasn't simply referring to the Wii's graphical capabilities. He wants to spend a console's CPU making games more intelligent, and he has found the Wii doesn't have the power to process things like complicated AI.

Hecker also took Nintendo to task for not taking games seriously enough. "It's not clear to me that Nintendo gives a **** about games as an art form," he said. To illustrate his point, he searched for references to games as art on all three console manufacturers web sites. While he found numerous such references on both the official PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 sites, Wii.com had none at all. He then shared quotes from executives at Sony and Microsoft talking about games as a serious artistic medium, and then a quote from a Nintendo executive saying the company only wanted to make "fun" games.

Hecker ended his spirited rant with two demands for Nintendo: First, recognize and push games as serious art. And two, "make a console that doesn't suck ass."

http://au.wii.ign.com/articles/771/771051p1.html


very interesting to and fro debate can come out of this.

I've seen many posters defend nintendo's choice to go for the *2 gamecube* route with the fact that many nintendo games do in fact still look pretty damn good thanks to excellent art direction, not to mention the attention given by nintendo to detail such as in (obviously) control, gameplay, presentation and consistency.

yet here we have a developer...and one who is involved with one of the biggest games coming this year (spore) who is saying its impossible for nintendo to be serious about games as an art form because they havnt provided the sufficent power in their machine's to support it.


So far its not been a good time for nintendo at GDC, the release scheduale earlier wasnt one for cheers (metroid prime 3 falling off the radar makes me angry, for exactly the same reasons I'm angry at sony) and now we have developers bad mouthing the machine at a conference...a long cry from E3 and other shows of last year and earlier where nothing but good words could be spoken. Hopefully things will improve tomarrow.


My opinion on the matter...Art is in the hands of the gamer.

Just as much as consoles and PC's have produced games that focus on different strengths and challanges they should be judged by different merits.

But to criticize the developer...people who set out that their work will be recognised as a piece of *art* will only have it recognised by those who look for *art*

The mere fact that sony and microsoft use the term *art* on their websites only prove that they have crappy marketing thats appealling to a much smaller market, when words like fun attract more.

steviec

I pretty much agree completely.

It depends what you want though. Nintendo's current approach does have that mass appeal and it is working for them so why would they want to change that.

I like that different consoles are taking different approaches, if the guy wants to make great intellectual games then there's two other consoles or PC for him to do it on. It'll sell better on them too because that's not Nintendo's market.

calex71

hmmmmmm i might have an opinion if there where actually some games out for it. Zelda and sports are all ive bothered with so far and by the looks of the rls schedual there might be an inch or two of more dust before another one comes out that i want to play.

Nintendo has and probably always will go for the cartoony style of graphics i can see where the guy is comming from with his point, but isnt the whole point of a game to entertain you????

Sure visuals are part of that experience as is sound, but generally if a game is more style over substance then the developers have missed the point entirely. It is nice to have both style and substance. But ill take a game play over graphics any day of the week.

Example, due to the shocking lack of games at the moment for wii and xbox most of us have been hittin the classics on the VC , how much fun is zelda or mario kart/world,

Crucifix

He's pretty much right, but like people have said, the Wii is just a different type of console.
It is refreshing to see someone actually point out that the Wii isn't the flipping Messiah though

tba

I would tend to agree with him...

First of all everything is art, get that into your heads, if I consider a steaming pile of dog poo on a custard sandwich something which elevates my consciousness then it is art. If you think Donkey Kong is art then it is, I did, but Donkey Kong Vs Mario 64 DS 2007 is not.

As opposed to a "game" which is a device or system that allows you to complete tasks or objectives in a sort of twisted limbo of reaction and interaction, It's like goddamn maths, you gotta add the spice for the fun.

Its been very popular to throw stones at SONY from the NINTENDO bandwagon recently, but the best selling console over Christmas was the PS2, admittedly the cheapest but only by a fraction. Simply because of its library of varied games.

The sad fact of the matter is that Nintendo are the pop superstars of the gaming world, they churn out colorful bright and entertaining games that might win you over if you let them and if played enough get really catchy, but they are all the same, number crunching, pop idol wannabes that would not make it past the auditions in another publishing house.

They are all sequels, I know that we are looking at championship manager 2007 ad infinatum, but Mario has been around since 1981, thats 27 years! I mean come on, constant sequels, ports and graphical upgrades are merely a methadone as far as I can see. Its like the Star Wars prequels or Rocky Balboa just let it die and move onto something new, and I don't mean 3 new types of mushrooms that you can shove up your turtles ass.

That is the real art in games, creativity and innovation. Thats why the new controls of the Wii and DS are so popular, they are brimming with possibility.

I have a DS, I will not buy, super ****ing Mario Brothers, I played that back in the eighties, I have a gameboy still and if I feel the need to crack it open for a spot of retro I will. I got the DS for things like Trauma Centre, Phoenix Wright and Hotel Dusk. Not all of these are great but at least they are trying.

This is turning into a rant, but I shall summarise for those of a fickle temperament. Stop paying money for a new console only to play the same games you played on the last one, be it through VC or a "re imagining" of a classic, you are as bad as the guys getting a PS3 to play God of War 2.

smokingman

Videogames will never be "art" - end of. The interaction demanded of games destroys the objective quality of what a piece of art "is" and therefore as soon as you make the first move in a game, it ceases to even be considered art.

Tell me this, would the Mona Lisa still be art if you could alter the angle of her smile?

I don't think so.

super_furry

This whole 'games as art' thing is bull****. It's egomaniacs like Hecker and wannabe intellectuals like Edge magazine that have been constantly forcing the notion that for videogames to be valid, they have to have some artistic merit to the greater audience.

It's complete and utter rubbish of course, I play games to be entertained and to have fun, not to argue over the deeper meaning and whether or not Pac-Man is symbolic of mankind's inner struggle with the modern world, or if Zelda is a conscious tribute to the renaissance era artists, conceptualising the very essence of what it means to be an outsider.

Hecker can ask my bollox.

funky penguin

tba wrote:

you are as bad as the guys getting a PS3 to play God of War 2.

Yeah!!!!111one If you're going to get it for anything, get it for Final Fantasy 13!!!!!

tba

smokingman wrote:

Videogames will never be "art" - end of. The interaction demanded of games destroys the objective quality of what a piece of art "is" and therefore as soon as you make the first move in a game, it ceases to even be considered art.

Tell me this, would the Mona Lisa still be art if you could alter the angle of her smile?

I don't think so.

How can you be so obtuse as to refuse to see the creative input required to make a game. By your very rigid definition, installations cannot be considered art.

Appreciation and interpretation of art is where inherent definition lies. An artist may choose to allow people who view their creation to add to it, this is as prevalent in games as anywhere.

smokingman

tba wrote:

How can you be so obtuse as to refuse to see the creative input required to make a game. By your very rigid definition, installations cannot be considered art.

Appreciation and interpretation of art is where inherent definition lies. An artist may choose to allow people who view their creation to add to it, this is as prevalent in games as anywhere.

Obtuse? I'm defending art here, and by art I mean "real" art, not some rubbish pawned off to psudo-intellectuals who don't know the difference.

Videogames are a hugly creative medium but so is the process of making a Porsche GT3RS. That doesn't make it art though. Beauty and form can be appreciated in all things and this is where you're confusing things here.

tba

You're not defending art, you can't its a subjective term, its like writing you name in water. "Real" art is a creative process, not a rendition of something, it's appreciation, not it's understanding.

The accurate painting of the Mona Lisa or the photo realistic render are not inherently art, but the process of their creation and their appreciation is.

Game designers without an "artistic" vision (and I use that word in its loaded sense) are merely formulaic bean counters, with a photocopier and a paint brush to tick the boxes.

You can sit there and claim that games are not meant to be artistic, they are meant to be fun, but where in the great mountain of canon is it carved in fifty foot high letters that art isn't fun?

super_furry

Why is it important for games to be considered 'art'?

MikeHoncho

smokingman wrote:

Obtuse? I'm defending art here, and by art I mean "real" art, not some rubbish pawned off to psudo-intellectuals who don't know the difference.

Videogames are a hugly creative medium but so is the process of making a Porsche GT3RS. That doesn't make it art though. Beauty and form can be appreciated in all things and this is where you're confusing things here.

"The term art is most widely used to describe a particular type of production generated by human beings. The denotation art implies some degree of aesthetic value, regardless of any practical value of the art in question. However, there is no agreed-upon definition of art. The impetus for art is often called creativity." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

So yes videogames are art and so is designing a car.

Vegeta

tba wrote:

.
This is turning into a rant, but I shall summarise for those of a fickle temperament. Stop paying money for a new console only to play the same games you played on the last one, be it through VC or a "re imagining" of a classic, you are as bad as the guys getting a PS3 to play God of War 2.

are you trying to tell me you have never bought a sequel in your life

tba

To say I never bought a sequel would be a lie, however the ones I tend to get are on the whole very disapointing. Notable exceptions are usually ones that take a new idea and run with it, for example.

Half Life 2
Elder Scrolls
Final Fantasy

The new direction has to be awesome though

Ones that take run with the same forumula again can be good if there is a demand, but generally lack the spark to be entertaining or worth it, unless there is a massive amount of tweaking and improvement, eg

Lego Star wars II
Civilisation IV

smokingman

tba wrote:

You're not defending art, you can't its a subjective term, its like writing you name in water. "Real" art is a creative process, not a rendition of something, it's appreciation, not it's understanding.

The accurate painting of the Mona Lisa or the photo realistic render are not inherently art, but the process of their creation and their appreciation is.

Game designers without an "artistic" vision (and I use that word in its loaded sense) are merely formulaic bean counters, with a photocopier and a paint brush to tick the boxes.

You can sit there and claim that games are not meant to be artistic, they are meant to be fun, but where in the great mountain of canon is it carved in fifty foot high letters that art isn't fun?

To be honest this debate could go on forever (and it has since the first "Computer Space" machine) but in my opinion, art is not videogames (note - my opinion here).

I can understand the want and in some cases, need to call games art but for me, there's a defining wall between them. I can understand works by the likes of Miró (though I'll never really like them) and appreciate what I see before me but by my physically getting into art as what happens in games, I detroy the objective nature of it.

Sleepy

If I want 'art' I'll go to the National Gallery (and I do).
If I want to have fun, I'll play video games.

I agree with the guy that the Wii would be better with more power but then, I'm a techie, I want every machine I use to be Deep Thought.

tba

OK I don't want to argue, you see art as objective, I see it as subjective

As an aside A great collection of Mirós work can be found in the Miró Foundation in Barcelona, a building by Joseph Sert, itself a subjective work of art. (as all architecture is)

r3nu4l

Here's the thing, the ONLY reason I would consider buying a Wii (and I am seriously considering it) is because of the interactivity allowed by the Wiimote. It's a great concept

However as always Nintendo games to me are a bit light. Very family-friendly for the most part yes. That's a good thing...however, I also want games with a darker side, games that make my inner evil demons smile, in short, games like San Andreas

I love what Nintendo have done by bringing the Wiimote to the world and I can see future consoles all having an IR sensor bar and Wiimote-style controllers but Nintendo need to take the actual "Games" element seriously.

steviec

Games can be so much more than simplistic fun. In many cases they already are.

For me personally I think the pinaccle of games as 'art'(though I don't really want to or care about an argument about the definition of art) is Shadow of the Colossus. It's probably not strictly as 'fun' as, say, Buzz or Singstar or Mario Party, but if I could only play one game from the last five years it would be it.

Just because of the dictionary definition of the word 'game', doesn't mean that's what interactive media must limit itself to. What if you were to apply the same criteria to films? I mean you could say that Big Momma's House 2 is more fun than Pan's Labyrinth so that's obviously better.

But like I said, there's plenty of room in the market for so many different types of games. I'm currently playing through Final Fantasy XII but I love a quick blast of Crackdown and I also spend more time than I should on tiny web-based games.

The point I think the guy was making is that Nintendo have really pigeon-holed games into the 'quick and simple fun' category with the Wii, and if you look at the games, that's mostly true. And the hardware doesn't make it easy for third parties to fill the gaps - its not just about graphics its about ram and cpu power, and the controller also seems to hinder some game types as much as it helps others.

I don't have a problem with it, I'll have a Wii for Wii games and other machines for other games, but I'd hate to see a situation where the Wii becomes so successful that the market gets flooded with party games and the like while more immersive games get cancelled.

smokingman

tba wrote:

OK I don't want to argue, you see art as objective, I see it as subjective

As an aside A great collection of Mirós work can be found in the Miró Foundation in Barcelona, a building by Joseph Sert, itself a subjective work of art. (as all architecture is)

I was there last November and it's one of the most confusing museums I've ever been to. Maybe it's meant to be like that but it was funny seeing the hoards of tourists getting lost in it

Retr0gamer

For me a game should be fun and engaging and thats all thzt matters. Shadow of the Colossus may have great art direction but it suceeds because the experience is so exhilarating and fun. In my eyes an aged but fun game like super mario bros. is more art than a beautiful borefest like FFXII

super_furry

Retr0gamer wrote:

is more art than a beautiful borefest like FFXII

Finally I have an internet nemesis! You love FFX, but hate FFXII? I call blood fued.

Zombrex

BlitzKrieg wrote:

http://au.wii.ign.com/articles/771/771051p1.html

Bit of a bizarre little rant there.

A few points

Firstly claiming that the Wii lacks the power necessary to create great games is clearly nullified by the fact that great games have existed on every console from the NES to the GameCube.

The Wii might lack the power to create new forms of simulation and AI, as he mentions, but then Nintendo's response to that has always been "Buy a PlayStation"

Its kinda like getting annoyed that your Nintendo DS doesn't have as much processing or graphical power as your PlayStation 2. Which is completely missing the point. As the failure of the PSP relatively to the DS demonstrates people aren't necessarily interested in new consoles that just give more of the same.

It does, rather worryingly, demonstrate though that even developers in world class development houses such as Maxis are themselves locked into the traditional idea that Better Graphics + Faster CPU = Better Games With the DS Nintendo showed that Talented Developers = Better Games

I can apprecate that from a developer on Spore, which I imagine is a very hardware intensive game, the quest for faster CPUs and higher level graphics is entwined with the ability of the game to succeed in its design goals. But just develop it for the fecking Xbox 360 then. rolleyes: No one would complain that they can't get their flight simulator working on the Nintendo DS, they would just develop it for the PlayStation 2

The fact that people get annoyed over the limitations of the Wii hardware again demonstrates that they are still locked into the traditional idea that You buy one console - You become fanboy for that console that harks back to the good old days when teenage boys used to beat the crap out of each other in the playground when one persons dared mention that Street Fighter isn't out on the MegaDrive yet.

tba

Retr0gamer wrote:

For me a game should be fun and engaging and thats all thzt matters. Shadow of the Colossus may have great art direction but it suceeds because the experience is so exhilarating and fun. In my eyes an aged but fun game like super mario bros. is more art than a beautiful borefest like FFXII

Well I would agree with gameplay being a major element of games, it is after all a concept of usuability (or desire to use) inherent in all good design. However asthetics are also important, as is innovation. SOTC had all 3 I will agree. Back i the day SMB had it aswell and stands as a classic.

You said that it has to be fun and engaging, thats the cruical word, a Shadow of the Colossus that is difficult to control will not get a chance and one that is ugly will be disracting.

Art isn't simply about asthetics.

Wicknight wrote:

I can apprecate that from a developer on Spore, which I imagine is a very hardware intensive game, the quest for faster CPUs and higher level graphics is entwined with the ability of the game to succeed in its design goals. But just develop it for the fecking Xbox 360 then. :rolleyes: No one would complain that they can't get their flight simulator working on the Nintendo DS, they would just develop it for the PlayStation 2

A version of spore is coming out for the DS so its possible that its not simply a teraflop issue

flogen

Don't see this guy's point to be honest.

Firstly, he's saying that Nintendo don't care about games as art - perhaps he needs to give his own definition of art so... does it have to be beautiful, thought provoking, interactive, challenging, fun, what? I rarely think of games as art, but if art is creativity then all games are art, just not always good or great art. By that definition, Nintendo are creating plenty of art, they're just not telling everyone it's art - big deal.

Secondly, developers are free to do what they want - if he doesn't think nintendo are making art, why doesn't he?

Thirdly, I agree with Wicknight's point - saying Nintendo doesn't care about art because it's machine is far from the most powerful is like saying everything but games made for the PS3 (or for that matter the most powerful PC going) are not art. Sure - the extra power and AI features can be used to make some great things, but they're not required to make a game or art. Maybe he needs to look at his own ability/imagination as a developer.

And finally, a counter-argument. I would say that Nintendo does think of gaming as art, but it decided to offer this art in a new way, rather than simply build on what already existed....

To put that in artistic terms, would I be a good artist if I repainted the Mona Lisa but used more vivid colours and greater detail? God no - not only would I be completely ignored for offering nothing new, I'd also have missed the entire point of what made the Mona Lisa beautiful in the first place. Real artists (and not just good ones) go out and do something that's never been done before.

I would have thought as a developer at Spore, a game that is taking a lot of new steps (but not necessarily ones I could care less about), he'd be able to understand and appreciate that... But if he can't realise that then he may as well have a go at Will Wright and Co. for not creating a hyper-realistic "next gen" version of The Sims with better graphics and more furniture options while he's at it.

BlitzKrieg

i go to bed and what do i find...the thread has exploded...cool


will read allllll of that when i get a chance.

Star Lord

tba wrote:

A version of spore is coming out for the DS so its possible that its not simply a teraflop issue

Thats the issue that has perplexed me through this whole thing... if the DS can host a version of Spore, and it has a lot less power under the hood than the Wii has, then what is the issue with developing for the Wii?

And on the games/art issue, I think that they can be considered art, but, as already stated, not always god art. The likes of The Legend of Zelda, SOTC, Final Fantasy, Killer 7 and the forthcoming No More Heroes, Okami, and any game you care to name that made you simply go "Wow", through the combination of the graphics, the gameplay and the storytelling. I would consider them all art.

The main thing for me though is all of the titles I named, I'm sure you'll all agree that they could be considered among the finest of games, and worthy to be considered art, but how many of them involve hyper realistic graphics and highly advanced AI? How many of them were on the consoles that were on the bleeding edge of technology?

I think I can sum my opinion up quite aptly with the following old saying:

It's a poor workman that blames his tools.

smokingman

BlitzKrieg wrote:

i go to bed and what do i find...the thread has exploded...cool

It's a good thing we didn't start into the metaphysics of quality in art....might have been moved to another forum

KdjaCL

Interesting debate but something has been overlooked, he works for MAXIS ffs.

Oh its "sims takes a **** part 4 with real poop sounds brought to live by Creative Audigy and realistic poop sliding by HAVOK and ripples in the water by Nvidia".

kdjac

Retr0gamer

I think anyone who dismisses nintendo games because they are wrapped up in happy kid friendly graphics is an ignorant fool and deserves never to experience the unbridled joy of playing some of nintendos best games. I don't understand people who give out about nintendos lack of mature games whilst championing GTA, a game series with plenty of mature content but is itself utterly childish.

steviec

KdjaCL wrote:

Interesting debate but something has been overlooked, he works for MAXIS ffs.

Oh its "sims takes a **** part 4 with real poop sounds brought to live by Creative Audigy and realistic poop sliding by HAVOK and ripples in the water by Nvidia".

kdjac

The Sims was one of the most original games ever when it came out. Same goes for what we've seen of Spore. Same went even for Sim City way back when, and I know they experimented with various other 'Sim' titles with varying levels of success, but I don't think they could be accused of a lack of innovation.

Sure they've produced many sequels, but those sequels sold by the bucketful so who can blame them? They good easily be still throwing Sims expansions on the conveyor belt right now, but instead they're working away on Spore which is breaking new ground in many areas.

Moussdog

I think the problem the Ranting Developer had was that his artistic vision for Spore was being constrained by the lack of power in the Wii.

Imagine Michelangelo being given Poster Paints and ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Sure he could paint something good but it wouldn't be the same.

Therefore I think he had a point when he bladsted the Wii but if he's that pissed off he should use some different paint and brushes.

tba

Now he has apologised...

I have lost all respect.

evad_lhorg

whats the point in apologising? he said it and meant it. saying sorry wont mean crap all now

flogen

Moussdog wrote:

I think the problem the Ranting Developer had was that his artistic vision for Spore was being constrained by the lack of power in the Wii.

Imagine Michelangelo being given Poster Paints and ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Sure he could paint something good but it wouldn't be the same.

Therefore I think he had a point when he bladsted the Wii but if he's that pissed off he should use some different paint and brushes.

As has been pointed out, Spore is due to come out on the DS too - so his rant doesn't exactly make much sense in that regard.

He's apologised? Got a link? if he has just because he got a slagging from fanboys he should be ashamed of himself. If he had a point to make he should stick to it (although learn to clarify what he was getting at). If he's realised his point was a stupid one, fair enough.

Star Lord

Egg-on-face apology or pushed by his bosses? You decide!

super_furry

smokingman wrote:

It's a good thing we didn't start into the metaphysics of quality in art....might have been moved to another forum

Or another plane of existance.

sprinkles

Wicknight wrote:

Bit of a bizarre little rant there.

A few points

Firstly claiming that the Wii lacks the power necessary to create great games is clearly nullified by the fact that great games have existed on every console from the NES to the GameCube.

It does, rather worryingly, demonstrate though that even developers in world class development houses such as Maxis are themselves locked into the traditional idea that Better Graphics + Faster CPU = Better Games With the DS Nintendo showed that Talented Developers = Better Games

The fact that people get annoyed over the limitations of the Wii hardware again demonstrates that they are still locked into the traditional idea that You buy one console - You become fanboy for that console that harks back to the good old days when teenage boys used to beat the crap out of each other in the playground when one persons dared mention that Street Fighter isn't out on the MegaDrive yet.

QFT

To be honest I don't see his problem with the wii. He's developing a game that needs a very powerful machine.... fine release it on the 360/PS3. And his point that you need something more than 2 cubes stuck together to give you enough power for a great game is ridiculous. There were plenty of great games on the cube alone (as Wicknight said above).

Gun to head I'd class myself a Sega fanboy, I loved all of their consoles and wasted uncounted hours fighting with the brother over who got to play the megadrive next... but I really like the approach Nintendo took with the Wii and again with and the DS, which brings me to the inherent flaw in his argument

Is the DS underpowered? Compared to the PSP it is. Which do I enjoy playing more? The DS. IS the Wii undepowered? compared to the PS3 it is. Which do I enjoy playing more? lets wait and see.....

Call Me Jimmy

Of course it goes without saying that a game needs to have a good gameplay at its core, but great art direction and story can make a game unmissable.

For example, Final Fantasy VII, I am nearly 20 years of age and it is still one of my favourite games despite the gameplay being quite straightforward and repetitive.The music, story, characters and art direction make this game what it is.
I think some people have said that games are not art but if you think music, films and books are art forms then games are too. However, like all other art forms, not all games are good or inspiring.

And I'm not saying that I want developers to be thinking about games as paintings or that they're goal should be to make something beautiful, all I'm saying is I'de like to see creativity in gameplay and presentation once in a while.

I own a wii and am quite bored of it because all the games that I have played don't have any depth. As I've said before, the possibilities for the wii are almost endless if the developers actually take a chance or two instead of porting 'The Godfather'.

Killaqueen!!!

HOW OUTRAGOUS! Nintendo producing fun games! That's the last straw...to think that they would go and do that. Here was me wanting non-fun games with ridiculously realistic graphics and dead seriousness.

thelordofcheese

You know, i think the guys wrong, and clearly socially retarded if he decides that a public forum is best place to throw a troll fanboy esque temper tantrum. But at least he had the balls to state his opinion, no matter how backward ass retarded it was.

Then he went and done a complete 180 on the whole thing. *sigh* Now he's lacking in both a spine and a coherent argument.

Blowfish

Wicknight wrote:

It does, rather worryingly, demonstrate though that even developers in world class development houses such as Maxis are themselves locked into the traditional idea that Better Graphics + Faster CPU = Better Games

I've no idea where you got that from, he didn't say that at all, he said

Better AI + Faster CPU = Better Games

It's interesting to note that he didn't point out the fact that the ps3 is definitely not designed to be able to produce complicated AI either.

Retr0gamer wrote:

I don't understand people who give out about nintendos lack of mature games whilst championing GTA, a game series with plenty of mature content but is itself utterly childish.

I couln't agree more, it's just another of the annoying things about fanboyism.

Sharkbte

this made me lol. Do I have to admit, the wii isnt powerful. I heard nintendo struggled to make it more powerful then the xbox! never mind the 360. But I say this guy is right in some points

makeagudnotebad

What people forget is that Nintendo are the only guys in it to make Art! I mean Sony and MS just want another branch of their huge Multimedia empires… and if someone chooses to use that branch for artistic purposes… so be it.

Nintendo are actually out there to carry on a tradition! D Pads, Shoulder Buttons, Analog Sticks and not censor bars… its all part of the plan. OBVIOUSLY its about making money… but innovation is the main focus… something the GC lacked.

Nintendo don’t have the money these other companies have, Sony can produce a giant multimedia thing that they wont ACTUALLY make a profit off of for another two years even if it sells through the roof. They have other endeavours to soften the blow while waiting for the cash to come rolling in.

The gamecube went head on with the big boys, it trounced them in some cased and fell short in others… but it didn’t have the profit margin. This isn’t the first time Nintendo has dumbed down the hardware to keep themselves afloat.

After all the ONE thing that people think ruined the N64 turned out to be the very thing that saved it! CD’s were less expensive than carts but Disk Drives drove up the cost of hardware. Sony could use its deep pockets to soften the blow of bringing the hardware cost down…. Nintendo and Sega couldn’t, Sega tried, Sega failed. And Nintendo ended up with a consol full of classic games.

With Wii Nintendo has created a new market… look at me, I’m a total queer who had a 64 back in 98… GC’s, Xboxes and PS2s didn’t interest me. Wii brought me back to gaming. I’ve NEVER heard of a grown person get into gaming for the likes of the 360 or the advent of the PS3, they are catering to people that only want to upgrade what they already have.

Wii is doing its job… as are the others… but don’t go and say its **** or its not art just because it doesn’t have the muscle.

sprinkles

makeagudnotebad wrote:

Wii is doing its job… as are the others… but don’t go and say its **** or its not art just because it doesn’t have the muscle.

nicely put.

Star Lord

makeagudnotebad wrote:

Wii is doing its job… as are the others… but don’t go and say its **** or its not art just because it doesn’t have the muscle.

Well said!

makeagudnotebad wrote:

... who had a 64 back in 98… GC’s, Xboxes and PS2s didn’t interest me.

You knew where to get those consoles back in '98? :eek:

makeagudnotebad

no! hahaha, smart ass.

lost interest in the 64 towards the end!

then when they all came out they didnt entice me back!

Star Lord

I'd managed to hold off getting a gamecube till Resident Evil remake came out...