Post by: MegaByte on March 14, 2007, 07:56:54 AM
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on March 14, 2007, 08:18:06 AM
Post by: Bloodworth on March 14, 2007, 08:19:35 AM
Post by: odifiend on March 14, 2007, 12:01:11 PM
Post by: darknight06 on March 14, 2007, 01:26:41 PM
Post by: MegaByte on March 14, 2007, 01:45:25 PM
"Perhaps I might get into trouble if I say this in front of people from the mass media. Games are not a work of art. It's actually a product. If we think of it as a work of art, then... when we think about Picasso and Van Gogh's paintings, the end result is beauty, so it doesn't matter if you sell it or not. However for games, it's a product. It is a commodity. The producer has to think about that." - Keiji Inafune
Post by: IceCold on March 14, 2007, 01:48:32 PM
Post by: MegaByte on March 14, 2007, 02:04:13 PM
Post by: Djunknown on March 14, 2007, 03:05:00 PM
Quote
He believes that even with a great director, without a great producer, the game will not sell, and that was Clover’s downfall.
He might as well called Inaba a bitch and punched him in the face, because that's what essentially he did with his words.
I don't believe the original Viewtiful Joe tanked that badly, if memory serves they sold out their inital batch. USA Today called it 2003's game of the year. That has to count for something...
Good on Iga for sticking with 2D. It'd be interesting to see an exclusive, from-the-ground-up 2d game for the Wii using 'waggle.'
Quote
Giving his presentation wearing a Nirvana T-shirt, Goichi Suda, better known as Suda 51, gave one of the final and most unique talks at GDC.
He should've worn a Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Ramones, hell even Bad Religion, Operation Ivy, or Pennywise shirt to drive the point home. But we get the idea
Quote
He credits Killer 7 producer and Resident Evil creator Shinji Mikami for providing him with the necessary support and insight, allowing him to create what he wanted rather than what would do well in the gaming market.
I'd take a stab that the higher-ups trusted Shinji in what he was doing, thus letting Suda 'do his thing.' One thing's for certain: There's no developer alive today that can copy Suda's style. He truly is one-of-a-kind.
Its a shame they had poor translators. Maybe they should've borrowed Bill Trinen...
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 14, 2007, 03:14:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MegaByte
BTW, here's the whole quote:
"Perhaps I might get into trouble if I say this in front of people from the mass media. Games are not a work of art. It's actually a product. If we think of it as a work of art, then... when we think about Picasso and Van Gogh's paintings, the end result is beauty, so it doesn't matter if you sell it or not. However for games, it's a product. It is a commodity. The producer has to think about that." - Keiji Inafune
Failure analogy...What about the people that paint for their daily bread? Does the fact that they sell their paintings make their "product" any less "art" than a painting that isn't made to be sold?
Post by: KDR_11k on March 14, 2007, 07:01:23 PM
Post by: Nephilim on March 14, 2007, 08:41:07 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 15, 2007, 02:38:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Of course not but when people say they want art in their games that usually means having unconventional graphics tacked on and those don't sell well. Painters that sell their art make sure to paint what people will buy.
Well I'm also not limiting the definition of "art" in games to solely be the graphical style...When looking at a piece of art, one doesn't just look at the kind of paint and strokes the artist used, but also the context of the painting and any symbolism within...Considering developers are creating environments and gameplay with their own hands, I think it would be wrong to leave those out...
Post by: KDR_11k on March 15, 2007, 05:18:03 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 15, 2007, 05:23:01 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 15, 2007, 09:23:29 AM
And being magical digital commodities designed to attract a paying audience, it's more important that they entertain (and thus sell) rather than be someone's medium for expression.
As for artists selling their art, well, the "art" part is good and done (the art is there and it's finished), the consequence is "economics" =P
Post by: MegaByte on March 15, 2007, 02:00:02 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on March 15, 2007, 07:10:16 PM
Most of those were either in the past or only played in "indie" cinemas. The current market situation is not very appreciative of art. The cartels want cheap, mass produced products and use the way they have pretty much total control over the radio and cinema (never mind the biggest advertising budgets) to prevent anything they don't make from getting big.
Post by: ShyGuy on March 15, 2007, 07:22:38 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 16, 2007, 06:24:18 AM
