Topic: new Rein interview

[nemo_83]

Nintendogs is pornographic (and not in a sexual sense) because they exploit the gameplay.  The concept of Nintendogs is nothing more than an aspect of what you will see in future Nintendo titles.  Basically Nintendogs is a mini game, it is a facet, a singular ambition Miyamoto most likely wished he could have done as a part of a larger game like Zelda.  Would you have rather Nintendo had taken the fishing out of OoT to publish a fishing game?  My opinion is against that.

I am trying to say we don't need games with so little adventure you can hardly say they are a complete videogame.  Basically I am arguing against simulation games.  Surly noone here wants an on rails Zelda sword fighting game based on the motion capture technology; wouldn't it make more sense to just have one Zelda game with a traditional adventure with the mocap sword fighting in the game?

[ThePerm]

Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
insert funny picture and comment here on sunday

about stanley kubrick

[Don'tHate742]

Oh my God! My ears!

I...I mean my EYES!

Honestly, how does an interview with Rein turn into a sermon concerning games? You guys have way too much time on your hands if you can debate things that absolutely have no bearing on your life or anyone else's life.

[darknight06]

Well, I'm an artist and topics like this are pretty much a good part of my life, so sue me.

[Don'tHate742]

Well that's good, especially because I am as well, but to debate such aspects as art is ridiculous.

Art is more or less opinionated. You can't debate opinions. Art is different to you then it is to me. It symbolizes something to you while it may symbolize something vastly different to me. So debate all you want but you can't sway someone's opinions with opinions. It's like saying I should like red because it's your favorite color.

Anyway...continue i guess, though you don't need my permission.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Don'tHate742
Well that's good, especially because I am as well, but to debate such aspects as art is ridiculous.

Art is more or less opinionated. You can't debate opinions. Art is different to you then it is to me. It symbolizes something to you while it may symbolize something vastly different to me. So debate all you want but you can't sway someone's opinions with opinions. It's like saying I should like red because it's your favorite color.

Anyway...continue i guess, though you don't need my permission.

You realize DontHate, that you've just spent some time debating art, something that has "absolutely have no bearing on your life or anyone else's life?"

Lol.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Strell]

Nemo are you STILL arguing that Nintendo won't make epic games?

Sigh.

Additionally, like Gabe said on Penny Arcade a long time ago, you certainly can argue opinions.  I'm not going to give examples because I want to see someone tell me I'm wrong, and I don't know if I'm going to respond at that point or not.

[mantidor]

Jesus Perm, that thing gave me the creeps back when I saw it, I wont be able to sleep tonight Thats not art thats just sick stuff... I kid, I kid, still it was disgusting, I shouldnt have watched the shining so young >_<

[MrMojoRising]

It's only Donthate's opinion that you can't debate opinions.

I for one don't believe in opinions, I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

[wandering]

Quote
[i}Originally posted by: nemo
Basically Nintendogs is a mini game, it is a facet, a singular ambition Miyamoto most likely wished he could have done as a part of a larger game like Zelda. Would you have rather Nintendo had taken the fishing out of OoT to publish a fishing game? My opinion is against that.

Well, fine, but I'm not sure why you don't mind a game like Ico which, as you said, is also tightly focused on a single concept, but do mind a game like Nintendogs.

Regardless, I don't think a game that Miyamoto made on a handheld will be indicitive of the kind of game Miyamoto will make on the Revolution. But we'll see. The biggest thing I'm concerned about these days is that Miyamoto just hasn't made anything like OOT since, well, OOT. And that's a reflection of the fact that his position nowadays is more akin to an overseer rather than a game designer who works on individual games. I'm hoping that he'll be forced back into developing individual games for the revolution, because hopefully Nintendo will need his expertise to translate their various franchises onto the revolution.

Quote
Originally posted by: attackslug
One of the reasons I *highly* disliked the MGS series is that they try so hard to be much more than what they are -- a fairly silly videogame with some long winded political & philosophical commentary tacked on. You can argue that videogames are a valid art form (in some regards this is very true) to the bitter end, just as you can with any creative media, but in the end they are still products designed with the intent of making lots and lots of cash.

Well, that will change as videogames become cheaper/easier to develop. This is kind of off topic (but what isn't in this thread?) - but these days, the most artisitic work in the interactive sector seems to be comming from interactive fiction....yeah, as in text games.

Oh, as for MGS, I agree completley. I think Dennis Dyack said it best when he noted that Eternal Darkness was like an independant or foreign film, and MGS was like a Hollywood movie. Of course, at the time Dennis was explaining why SK was going to try to make their games more like MGS from then on (sigh).....

[Don'tHate742]

Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
Nemo are you STILL arguing that Nintendo won't make epic games?

Sigh.

Additionally, like Gabe said on Penny Arcade a long time ago, you certainly can argue opinions.  I'm not going to give examples because I want to see someone tell me I'm wrong, and I don't know if I'm going to respond at that point or not.

Maybe so, but something so unstructured as art can't be argued. If someone likes a certian brush stroke, you can't debate them into thinking a certian color is better. All you can do is express your opinion, and hope it appeals to their liking.

Also Kairon, call me hypocritical if you want, but you should know that I wasn't debating art, rather I was arguing over people debating art. There is a difference.  

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Don'tHate742
Also Kairon, call me hypocritical if you want, but you should know that I wasn't debating art, rather I was arguing over people debating art. There is a difference.

I'm not calling you hypocritical, lol.

I'm just pointing out that you've already entered the debate by stating why you think the whole thing is moot, and backing that up by an evaluation of the nature of art.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Don'tHate742]

oh ok...heh..

back on topic.

I guess this is where I should say something about the topic at hand, but what can I say that hasn't already been said? Hmm...I know...

Nemo, and this goes for everyone else as well, making outlandish statements that are derived from concerns is going to get you nowhere. It's not going to make you feel better. As a matter of fact, it'll probably piss you off even more.

Rather than criticizing Nintendo about what they SAY (or where ever your concern may have occured), how about we wait to see what the DO instead?

[Artimus]

I don't think video games are art.

Oops.

[couchmonkey]

Oh man, coming from Ty's Funhouse...being serious about this is all too hard!

I'll try anyway.  Well, I don't have time to read all of the posts, but I question the old argument that videogames must equal adventure.  There are a lot of folks out there who argue against games like the Sims or Nintendogs being games simply because they aren't an adventure.  If you press them on it, they might try to say it's because they have no goal.  I guess maybe that's a fair argument against the "game" status of these "non-games", but then I guess the question is why shouldn't the world of videogames expand into the world of interactive video entertainment?  Other than the fact that Interactive Video Entertainment is a terribly clumsy, ugly name.

I guess I'm just throwing in my opinion that I welcome new genres which expand videogames and maybe even break the rules of what a "game" should be.  Of course I still want the traditional adventure games, but I really don't believe many companies are going to stop making those types of games when they are basically a guaranteed source of revenue.

Edit: I think any form of entertainment is art.  Even advertisements or a movie starring Hilary Duff and Gene Simmons.

[Ian Sane]

From Rein's interview:

"I wasn't bashing Nintendo, I wasn't bashing the controller, I was really just saying that a byproduct of having a device like this is that people are going to make games that possibly are just there because of the controller, as opposed to being great games of themselves"

Although this might just be him backpaddling this is a very solid point and it's a worthy concern.  One thing I did like about the DS during the first few months was that it seemed too much like both Nintendo and third parties were approaching DS game development with the idea of "how can I use the stylus" instead of "how can I make a great game."  I still to an extent feel that Nintendo didn't really have any ideas for the touchscreen.  They wanted to be different so they thought of a way to do it but they didn't have any solid game ideas to necessitate such a major feature.  They made up the feature and then went "okay, now how can we use this?"  What they should have done is come to the conclusion that a touchscreen was an ideal addition because some great game ideas they had would not work with the current design and the touchscreen was seen as a solution to that problem.  Controller innovation should come about as game ideas require it.

So I fear that Nintendo took a similar approach to the Rev controller.  That they were innovative for the sake of being innovative instead of innovating to accomodate their own ideas.  The later is how a new standard gets made.  A new standard doesn't get made by making a creative controller and then staring at it and thinking "so what can I do with this?"  They shouldn't have to think of an idea.  It should be damn obvious.  They should be thinking "this is great!  Now I can do all these great ideas I've had but had no feasible way to make them work with the old controller design!"

As for this art discussion I wouldn't use the word "pornography".  I think "pop" would fit better, as in "pop music".  Pop music typically isn't music that makes you think, it's just fun to listen to.  There's a lot of disposable entertainment that gets made that I wouldn't describe as pornography.  I saw Legend of Zorrow with my girlfriend on friday.  It's was a silly stupid movie with virtually no artistic merit whatsoever but it was a lot of fun.  I'm not going to remember it a year from now but I enjoyed myself.  I wouldn't consider that pornography.  It was just a popcorn film.  But then as a religous person I tend to associate pornography as offensive disposable entertainment so I might have a different view of the word than others.

[Don'tHate742]

Quote
"this is great! Now I can do all these great ideas I've had but had no feasible way to make them work with the old controller design!"

This is where your claims fail completely. Do you know how many japanese developers said exactly what you just qouted? It's almost as if your ignoring the overwhelming potential of the REV.

Quote
Controller innovation should come about as game ideas require it.

I'm not so sure. Game ideas flow through the door of which technology continues to unlock. It doesn't matter if previous game ideas existed or not. Most of the time game ideas prequel the actual controller innovation, but it's irrevilant if those ideas cannot be developed. So I think you meant to say, controller innovation should come about when technology allows game ideas to utilize it.

[nemo_83]

It is a huge ugly war in art about what is more important, the (big) idea or how the idea is communicated with respectable authors, musicians, and painters on each side.  There is no black and white answer; there is a balance to be sought after.  Right now the game industry definatly needs to expand upon how it communicates its ideas (the revmote allows this) but developers need to keep in mind that they must not forget to still communicate an original idea.  There will always be artists who lean one way or another but I can tell you from experience that one can write a sentence out of the love of language and a poetry workshop will tear it to pieces and shat all over it if there is not a thing, a subject; an original idea or perspective that makes it meaningful.  The subject matter and how it is communicated are nearly equal in value.  Traditional game design on 360 will obviously lean away from the new form of control while going to extremes making the content far more important than how the game plays.  If the Revolution software is like that of the DS then it will be the opposite of 360; it would lean away from what is said and dive into extremes soley for the purpose of control.  If that happens we can only blame developers.  The revmote should help to bring balance to the kinds of "traditional" games on 360; it should not justify creating an oppossing polar extreme to what 360 is offering.

In art forms such as painting and writing you can't have a more natural ability than the giant whose back you're standing on so you best have a better story to tell.  It is all a game of searching for what makes your story important.  

[Hostile Creation]

Ian, how exactly should game designs incite controller innovations, rather than the other way around?  When has the product ever preceded the medium?  The moving picture was developed long before any film techniques were thought up.  And the first films were experimental and somewhat primitive.  That's the way things go.  Suggesting that you design a few games and base a controller design off of that isn't very practical, it gives you a controller that works for a few games.  You need to find an idea that can expand the genre as a whole, and design the games to fit that system.
New technology always precedes art created from it.  Why would it be any different with the DS or the Revolution?

[IceCold]

Well, I think Ian would bring up Mario 64... it wasn't at all primitive or experimental. In fact, it was as polished as you can get in showing off the analogue stick. It was a template for all games that used that innovation afterwards.

[Ian Sane]

What I'm saying is that if Nintendo is going to claim that their new controller is the new standard and they're going to bank the success of the Rev so much on it then they better have some actual ideas for how to use it and didn't just do it to try to be different.  Rein's concern is that developers aren't going to approach the Rev with the idea of making a great game but rather with the idea that they have to use the Rev remote in some way regardless of whether or not it makes for a good game.  That's why it's a good idea if Nintendo had some game ideas already or some good ideas as they were developing the controller.

Do you think they're going to have a very good launch lineup if they didn't have ideas in mind as they designed the controller?  Innovation for the sake of innovation isn't going to accomplish anything.  There needs to be a purpose for this big change, a reason to go with a new format.  Otherwise this is just a last ditch distraction.  "Hey let's be wacky a different and then maybe people will not notice how ineffective we are at competing with the other consoles."  I hope that's not the approach they're taking.

Connectivity was a pretty good idea in theory but Nintendo CLEARLY had no ideas for it for the first few years and in the end they didn't deliver much.  So they ended up with egg on their face because when it came time to think of ideas to use this feature they promoted as such a big deal they drew a blank.  In order to avoid this sort of thing they need to have had ideas as they were making the controller.

Plus why did we need a new standard?  And what makes THIS the new standard?  A new standard suggests that a game I was making on the old standard will be even better on the new one.  The Rev will live or die by the controller and that means that great games have to be made for it, not just games that use the remote.  That means Nintendo has to have great ideas because if they don't third parties won't either.  If they don't then there was no good reason to introduce a new standard and risk an entire console on an unproven design.

[Zach]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Plus why did we need a new standard?  And what makes THIS the new standard?  A new standard suggests that a game I was making on the old standard will be even better on the new one.  The Rev will live or die by the controller and that means that great games have to be made for it, not just games that use the remote.  That means Nintendo has to have great ideas because if they don't third parties won't either.  If they don't then there was no good reason to introduce a new standard and risk an entire console on an unproven design.

Yes Ian, why should we try to improve upon existing technology?  If nintendo didnt ever do that in the first place then the controller would not be anything near like it is today.  What nintendo is doing is trying to improve the controller to provide better ways to play.

Now, I do have to agree with you in some respect, there is no way to say that the revmote will be the new standard.  However I do beleive that if Nintendo plays their cards right, then the controller can be a HUGE success, and possible a new standard like they are saying.

[Ian Sane]

"Yes Ian, why should we try to improve upon existing technology?"

Trying to improve makes sense and is good.  Being different just to try to attract attention isn't.  So it's very important Nintendo is trying to improve and didn't just say "we need an edge this gen, let's try to be innovative".  That's why I think it's important to have some good ideas beforehand.  It shows that they're really trying to improve.

[Zach]

I can agree with that, but I think nitendo is trying to improve, not be different just to attract attention (though it is attracting attention).  There is no way to actually innovate unless you try, and it is always risky.  The thing is that Ninty has to take risks now if they ever want to improve their standing.  Now what Nintendo needs to do is release some really great games at launch that show how (if?) the controller can really improve the way we play (Kinda like how Mario 64 showed off the analog stick).

[Artimus]

Surely a system with both 3D and 2D control is better than a system with just 2D control. Isn't that Ian's favorite thing to say? MORE OPTIONS ARE BETTER!