Post by: nemo_83 on November 11, 2005, 11:36:57 PM
eurogamer
begin quote:
"is there any chance of Epic ever making a Nintendo game? After all, at an IGN event recently Rein did suggest that the Revolution controller would inspire developers to produce "sparkling innovationy, crappy, cheap, I-wish-I-hadn't-bought-it games"...
"I actually said Nintendo's going to make amazing games. I never really passed a judgement on the controller itself. I think the controller's cool!" Mark says.
"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, and I said it badly... I regret that."
There will be plenty of great titles that make use of the controller, too, Rein adds. "Nintendo and some of the best third parties are going to make amazing games for it."
We mention a recent interview Eurogamer did with Nintendo's Jim Merrick, where we asked him what he thought of Rein's comments.
"You know, I read your article and I called him up right afterward," Rein says. "We had a long, very good chat."
So he wasn't, shall we say, a bit cross? "Didn't seem to be!"
And what about Merrick's suggestion that Rein get a Revolution dev kit for himself so he can see exactly what the machine can do?
"I told him we've absolutely love to take him up on that."
That doesn't mean Epic has signed up to develop for Revolution, but it's certainly something worth looking into, says Rein.
"I think Unreal Engine 3 and Nintendo Revolution would be very well suited to each other."
end quote.
Mark's assumption that the software library of Nintendo's new system in ign's video conference would be filled with sparkling innovationy I wish I hadn't bought this games was for me disappointing because I was looking to third parties like Epic to ensure the library would not be filled with micro games. I am afraid it is up to Nintendo to show third parties this controller is the new standard for their traditional games and not just a sparkling innovation for cheap short mini games. Judging from how they have used the touch screen on the DS though to shell out non games; I just don't know at this point if Nintendo will match their hardware innovation with software innovation as well. My faith in them as a software provider has been damaged; I own a GameCube and the last time I bought a Nintendo game was when MP2 first came out. The last year has been abismal for me as a gamer and Nintendo console owner (oh Twilight Princess, what abyss have you vanished into). DS does not serve as a suplement (I may wait for the DSmicro); I only play at home so I'm best off with just buying multiple consoles. I guess I just screwed myself over this generation placing my money in Sega's Dreamcast as my other console for five years.
Everyone knows to rely on Nintendo for the next Zelda, Mario BROS., and Metroid, but as a fan original serious IPs I am worried they will not be aggressive enough in convincing third parties like Epic to develop big games on their console as well. I simply don't know if I can trust Nintendo to develop anything original next generation that is also an epic game. The only game they have talked about that isn't a franchise so far is a cooking game. Hint, I don't cook because its fun; I cook because I need to eat. I have too many classes and too much homework to be thinking about cooking food for fun that I can't then consume.
It is not the controller that is the sparkling innovation; its about how the software developer uses the controller that may be sparkling innovationy. I see on the DS Nintendo abandoning their software roots in epic game design going back to Super Mario Bros, Zelda, and Metroid on the NES; games with story, conflict, and resolution. Now Nintendo is busy cashing in on pet simulators absent of what I have come accustomed to relating as game design. As a long time consumer of their software; I feel they have abandoned trying to create new games that appeal to me.
I would like to say I don't play games to simply play games. I play games for unique experiences. I choose my games as carefully as I choose my movies and books. And I like my movies and books to make me think about issues in life; I want a story and I want themes and metaphors and symbols. Nintendogs and Warioware are the equivalent of pornography. I am not looking for porn; I'm looking for the next Stanely Kubrick film. I am looking for art; I am not looking for a quick fix. I want to experience something that makes me talk about it the next day. If its really good I'll still be thinking about it a week later; and if it is timeless people in a hundred years will still be talking about it then. In a hundred years people will be looking at the games made in the past twenty years as the art of this time. The age of the painter is dead, killed by animation, the fourth dimension. Now the age of the film director is dead, stangled by a fifth dimension; interactivity. People in the future will look back not upon the painters of this time or the hip hop performers; they will look back at Super Mario Bros 3 and The Legend of Zelda and see an art beyond just asthetics and beyond linear storytelling; they will see an art of storywriting or storyliving. Videogames bring together music, graphic arts, animation, and storytelling, and the center piece that holds these parts together is the interactive nature of videogames. Can a videogame be a videogame without animation? Without graphic art? Without music? Without a story? I do not believe so; otherwise the wheel collapses. And I am more interested in making it so that wheel is strong and can run on its on without an engine; the future will take us to a new dimension beyond the television screen through augmented realities in which entire virtual worlds are painted upon the skeleton of our real world (imagine wearing a pair of glasses with a transluscent screen, motion capture control, and cameras for each eye taking in the image of your world then splicing it with virtual reality on the screens).
Post by: Nephilim on November 11, 2005, 11:53:50 PM
yay for him
Post by: Strell on November 12, 2005, 12:58:40 AM
If anything, it's a postmodern game. It's a game that says to itself "I know I am a game made of minigames," much like how a story by any postmodern author tends to refer to itself, its own author, etc.
If we're going to bring philosophy into this and talk about art and videogames and how they clash respectively, then I think we're going to need better examples. Calling Warioware pornography - essentially devoiding it of any creative being or artistic integrity - is a terrible statement in my opinion. That's assuming the game has little, if any, redeemable qualities. At all. And that is a HUGELY elitist proposition.
Yea, I guess if you play one minigame, turn it off, wait a day, play another game, turn it off....on and on and on, then it's worthless. But that's the equivalent to leveling up one level in any RPG and shutting down the game and doing it again a day later. If people did that, RPGs would be boring as hell. Since a good portion of ALL RPG games REQUIRE leveling up, we might as well say that "it's boring to level up" (which it is) and remove anything genuinely appealing about that entire genre.
Warioware is a game whose sum far exceeds its parts. One by one they can't stand. All together they rock. Hard. It's not Ico and it's not Okami and it's not Disgaea and it's not Viewtiful Joe, but the more I think about it, all of those exist on aesthetic pleasure alone and the stories are generally trash. In fact, the more I think about it, a huge percentage of games really rely on tired concepts for stories.
I could take all of this further with an anaology to traditional/modern/postmodern forms of writing, but that would really take me off topic and make this a lot more bloated than it might already be.
However, to tie it Rev/Rein, I think he simultaneously has a point and doesn't. sparkling innovation games will be made but there's no way to know what percentage and how fun/in depth they will be. Additionally Nintendo has already made it clear long, epic games (no pun intended) will exist on their console. I think the mix right now is good - we get Mario Kart, Mario, Zelda, and then stuff like Kirby Racing. That's good for me. I have a huge, HUGE backlog of games right now, several on the GC and DS (and others). As I stated in another thread, I think Nintendo's comments are taken wildly out of context, and one of the favorites is "we need shorter games." Again, they are saying they need potently focused games, not bloated ones.
All of this remains to be seen how the Rev's games will pan out. So I can't say anything on that. I sincerely hope it leads not to simple mini games, but to awesome new experiences. I think that is what Nintendo is betting on as well.
Also, DeadlyD's comment made me laugh. A lot.
Post by: OptimusPrime on November 12, 2005, 02:45:24 AM
Nintendo's Revolution will have a hard time with rusted hard-core gamers as nemo (maybe) is. A rusted hardcore gamer is one that glues himself inside the box that gaming is today, anthing innovative that can break the box is a sparkling innovation or completly useless. They will buy every sequel out there and expect more the same all the time. It's nice nemo mentioned Zelda because every new real Zelda is actually more of the same even if every zelda actually uses a new concept to create new gameplay variations that nobody did before. The problem, because every zelda does that the rusted hardcore games will expect that from every zelda. Innovating within the zelda-box of gameplayfundaments is a fundament of every zeldagame (same like saying that Nintendo's biggest tradition is to innovate... sounds like a paradox but it isn't) so rusted hardcore gamers will not scream rape and murder if the next zelda inovates hugely as long its within the box of the zelda gameplayfundaments (which innovation is one of them). They will scream rape and murder if the Zelda Revolution wil suddenly force you to control Link in a complete new and innovative way trought the controller, it breaks the box that is zeldagames.
Those rusted hardcore gamers now demand stories as if they we're part of the gameplay (which they aren't), they made this word 'epic' up whose definition is extremly vague (and so very usuable for marketing hypes). Denis Dyack's accusations towards Nintendo not wanting to make epic games are for me complelty ungrounded... Zelda is probably the most epic gamingseries out there and he even admits it by answering to the question 'what do you think of the controller?' with ' it wil not stop me from buying the revolution for zelda'. This is what historians call a unguarded moment by the forgerer. he can not maintain his faked spontanity and has a unguarded moment at times that actually reveal his true motives or personality.
Nintendo is eager to break the box and they know that for breaking it you need to make the software that really uses that controller and proves that breaking the box isn't a bad thing at all. Especially to the rusted hardcore and after that the rusted fanboy hardcore. it's nice to see that among al the third parties who commented on the Revolution no one seems to be a rusted hardcore and sees the box-breaking potential Nintendo has in store for the industry. We can ssume they know a lot more then we...what games Nintendo has planned, what kind of applications in regard to the controller, the hardware, Nintendo strategies how to appeal to the new markets ect. Problem again, those are behind the screens talk, we don't know what's happening...result frustration under the skin with some that can seriously pop if some kind of news that has some kind of negative in it comes up. Not by coincidence are those people with the most frustration the ones who are the most rusted hardcore.
Only thing we can do is wait and carefully and with lots of consideration at what we know, not ripping things out of the context, discuss. That's a very thin line i know.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on November 12, 2005, 04:11:46 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 12, 2005, 06:32:53 AM
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on November 12, 2005, 08:08:10 AM
However, if anything great does come out of it, I'll happily eat my words and rejoice with the rest of you.
Post by: ThePerm on November 12, 2005, 08:50:45 AM
Post by: nemo_83 on November 12, 2005, 09:55:06 AM
There is a broad line to me between minimalism (Ico) and what I equated as pornography (Warioware). It's not that the mini games in Warioware themselves are pornographic; its the overall presentation and exploitation that makes the game itself pornographic. Ico is a minimalist game; it is like Resident Evil and MGS in that it takes an aspect of Zelda and focuses tightly on that aspect for the entire game.
Imagine that all games are poems for a moment. Let us assume we're in the early 20th century. Writers found themselves looking for new ways of writing. They abandoned the restraints of traditional meter and rhyme but that didn't mean they abandoned telling stories. Even a two line Sandburg imagist poem conveys a freaking point. What do you learn from Warioware? Is there even a literary theme? Zelda has plenty; it's built on a thousand years of British literature. You see Zelda is the standard for video games from its conception on into forever just as Beowulf will always be looked back upon as the standard for themes, character flaws, and story for English story telling (and Beowulf draws most of its material from the story of Christ).
The deepest thought I have heard on Warioware was that it has a secret audio clip that when played backwards says something along the lines of, "I have delivered children to hell." That is good to know Nintendo; I always thought you were the master of false idols
Just because Zelda is the rock which all games are built upon doesn't mean any game that seeks to make allusions to it is a clone. The closest game I ever played to a Zelda clone was Metroid Prime; it kept with the Metroid subject matter but pretty much did everything Zelda does in game design with puzzles, dungeons, weapons, etc. Metroid and Zelda are epic games to me. Resident Evil on the other hand is more like a whole game built on one Zelda dungeon with puzzles, keys, weapons, and a huge boss at the end. MGS borrows a lot of the stealth gameplay you see in the original Zelda. There isn't much of a difference between hiding in MGS and hiding behind a bush from a Moblin in Zelda. Ico is like a whole game built around rescuing a princess; the game is basically the first scene of LttP. If Zelda were a novel; Ico or Shadow of the Collossus would be a short story. And WarioWare would be the mail bag in Penthouse.
Games that hardcore gamers will claim to be epic but are really just long winded would be Final Fantasy (11 if you please) and KOTOR. Any game that requires you to play for 40 hours before something interesting happens is garbage to me. I'm not going to play it, get over it; they are as pornographic as WarioWare if not something worse as at least WarioWare succeeds at being accessible. RPGs are the perfect example of exclusivity and snobbery within the game industry. The kind of crap that fills that 40 hours of monotony in long RPGs is as pointless as the scavenger hunts Nintendo has been throwing into their titles recently to extend their length like the Triforce run in Wind Waker, the keys in Prime, and everything in Sunshine.
If I were able to create a game right now on Revolution it would be inspired by the controller. It would drive me to create a game where the control of the character feels as free as the remote itself. I would create a game where the action is all about character control, running, jumping, and flying. I want to go back to the roots; Mario Bros and Zelda. I want something simple like that; I want to control the marionette; not a water pack
I would seek to create a traditional story with themes just as story tellers have done for all of human history. The subject matter would be affected little by the remote; the remote changes the interactivity with the character and the world. It frees the game designer to create something more ambitious, it frees the writer to tell a story more intuitively, and it allows for games with new gameplay such as free form flight to control really well. The remote's technology does not mean we have to have games about doing dentistry work. Is Nintendo a video game company or are they Microsoft, a software company?That is the kind of simplifying I see for this remote; not a game in which I cook with a wok (that's the kind of game you give away for free online as a demo of the controller; if you make that a game it will be equivalent to playing the board game Operation). Games with adventures feature macro puzzles and micro puzzles; they feature adventures within the adventure. A game that has no journey and no adventure is a game that has no purpose to me.
Post by: zakkiel on November 12, 2005, 10:41:55 AM
QuoteUm, I guess all these games are similar in that they feature collectible upgrades and boss battles. To conclude from this that they are all based on Zelda requires a level of fanaticism that I, as a strong Zelda fan, simply do not possess.
Just because Zelda is the rock which all games are built upon doesn't mean any game that seeks to make allusions to it is a clone. The closest game I ever played to a Zelda clone was Metroid Prime; it kept with the Metroid subject matter but pretty much did everything Zelda does in game design with puzzles, dungeons, weapons, etc. Metroid and Zelda are epic games to me. Resident Evil on the other hand is more like a whole game built on one Zelda dungeon with puzzles, keys, weapons, and a huge boss at the end. MGS borrows a lot of the stealth gameplay you see in the original Zelda. There isn't much of a difference between hiding in MGS and hiding behind a bush from a Moblin in Zelda. Ico is like a whole game built around rescuing a princess; the game is basically the first scene of LttP. If Zelda were a novel; Ico or Shadow of the Collossus would be a short story.
QuoteNever played any Final Fantasy game, but your claim that KOTOR is "pornographic" makes sense only if by "pornographic" you mean "I don't like it." In which case, fine, you don't care for games that are long. But I'm curious: if TP is as long as claimed, will you tell us how that's porn as well? Or will that be "different"?
Games that hardcore gamers will claim to be epic but are really just long winded would be Final Fantasy (11 if you please) and KOTOR. Any game that requires you to play for 40 hours before something interesting happens is garbage to me. I'm not going to play it, get over it; they are as pornographic as WarioWare if not something worse as at least WarioWare succeeds at being accessible.
The purpose of a game is to entertain. A commodity, such as a game, is good insofar as it fulfills its purpose. Therefore, a game is good insofar as it entertains. The only measure of a game is how well it entertains its target audience. Which is why claims such as "OoT is vastly overrated" (I'm looking at you, PaLaDiN) are so very, very silly. Unless you think people can be deceived about how much fun they have while playing a game.
Post by: nemo_83 on November 12, 2005, 11:57:17 AM
I'm posting this quote because it is the world I am coming from and entering into the world of writing.
Do we do art for art's sake? Does one paint a painting simply for color. Does one write a poem simply for the pleasure of language? I do not believe so; what makes something literature or art in general is the message. If Frost gives the reader an image of him mowing it could be pretty boring, but if he gives you a bright green snake too suddenly it is a pastoral poem with an allusion to Eden. The genius of the execution can not out perform the genius of the idea and theme beneath the surface.
It is like asking the question of what is the purpose of English. Is it to compose sentences or to use sentences to compose drama?
One must step back from the trees to see the forest.
The reason KOTOR is pornographic is because you may spend twenty hours leveling up before you get a light saber; you'll spend another twenty hours developing your force abilities. The gameplay is gratuidous and repetitive. The difference between this and a game that actually has you doing something for those many hours is what makes a game pornographic or not. The scavenger hunt for example at the end of Wind Waker is pointless and slapped onto the game at the last minute to make the game seem more epic; it was only more tedious. If however Nintendo had added three new dungeons which impact the adventure with new items with new uses to solve new puzzles it would have been meaningful. Games like KOTOR or FF11 don't allow you to do anything until you get deep into the game; you spend most of your time just playing to be playing, you just run and level up and run and level up and level up until you can actually go out into the world and explore things. It doesn't take five minutes in LttP on SNES to get your sword and get on with your adventure and begin exploring Hyrule.
Post by: zakkiel on November 12, 2005, 04:28:06 PM
QuoteI can only conclude that you've never played the game, since a) it's not more than thirty hours beginning to end, unless you really go all out on side quests, b)the lightsaber is basically just a sword with some added bonuses, c)you are, in fact, "doing something" in the sense that you are busy fighting, beating dungeons and completing quests, which is what you do in - wait for it - Zelda, and d)you do not spend time "working" on your force powers, you gain them as a consequence of leveling up. If you simply despise the whole concept of RPGs, fine, but don't torture the English language by abusing the term "pornographic." The metaphor makes no sense at all.
The reason KOTOR is pornographic is because you may spend twenty hours leveling up before you get a light saber; you'll spend another twenty hours developing your force abilities. The gameplay is gratuidous and repetitive. The difference between this and a game that actually has you doing something for those many hours is what makes a game pornographic or not.
Post by: ThePerm on November 12, 2005, 06:43:20 PM
Post by: attackslug on November 12, 2005, 08:12:11 PM
You've just described pretty much every RPG out on the market, including Nintendo classics, such as Earthbound. No offense, but you might want to leave the lecture/reading material from your latest Lit class out of a post regarding videogames. Leisuresuit Larry and GTA come *kinda* close to pornography, and perhaps something as explicit and exploitative as Manhunt, but I think you are way off on your (mis)use of the word.
Back on topic, I think most people are a bit too harsh on Rein. Epic's middleware on the Rev would be an invaluable asset for third-party designers, especially if we are going to see cross-platform development/porting this time around.
And back off-topic again...
Dammit, Warioware has some of the best art direction in any game I've played to date. I've never had such simple little line drawings make me chortle like an idiot before, and I love the "bastardizations" of classic NES games (über-ripped Mario vs Bowser, anyone?).
Post by: KDR_11k on November 12, 2005, 08:37:26 PM
Post by: Kairon on November 12, 2005, 08:43:33 PM
If I'm interpreting what you're relating correctly, it's like we have two contrasting styles...
One style is lean, focused, and powerful. It's concise and concentrated; it's a pure, driving example of whatever it is. It's like one powerfully written sentence by a great writer, one sentence that only has a couple of words and takes only a small moment to read. But reading it aloud, this single sentence is so well crafted that each natural pause thunders in your ears, each word drips with intent, each image slithers into your consciousness, and the period falls heavily it's like the finality of a slammed door. So powerful is this single, concise, focused sentence (or game) that it conquers without wasted breath, extant time, or excessive adornment.
But the other style, the other style is expansive, and vibrant, and freeing. It doesn't just give you its message, but it also elaborates upon it and explores all the ideas that its initial conception sparks upon. It's not just one flower, but a garden of dozens of different flowers and shrubs and ferns and grasses and trees and roots, and vines and mosses and lichens, each unique and each one a new discovery, each one drifting into consciousness only for a moment before you alight upon the next adventure. It's never finished and never contained by one mind: each person is invited to take their own journey through it, enjoy each plant not as a single plant but as just one of an entire menagerie, enjoy each experience as one fleeting moment in a string of ideas and conceptions and experiences. This style isn't about just an idea, but about exploring that idea, romping into sidepaths and across open fields, and frolicking in a huge expansive feeling that has no single line of thought other than freedom.
Oh god I set off attakslug's pretention meter again.
Anyways, IF I am interpreting this right, the first style is closer to the style of a game like the first Mario Bros. Each level had one goal: reach the end. Each world had new challenges: reach the end. Each warpzone led to new purposes: reach the end. The first Mario Bros. was singleminded in its purpose for the player, you may have fire flowers and spikeys and warpzones, but only one thing is repeated again and again, only one thing is ever really strived for in Mario: reach the end.
The second style seems similar to a game like Metroid. Explore your world. Experiment with your abilities. Solve Puzzles. Learn your enemiy's patterns. This is a game that didn't succeed becuase you shot monsters, it succeeded because it was always elaborating upon the players experience. It introduced a variety of weapons, it had bosses who had different patterns, it gave the player countless ways to move around their world and it gave them more than one way to play the game: beat a time limit? find all the secrets? just win? AND, it even broadened the gameplaying experience because the action hero, the masculine role, was given to a female, extending the game's world into ours and intersecting with the real world discussion of gender roles.
...so....uh....
I don't see other style as negative. That's why this "pornography" term makes me icky. NEITHER of these styles are bad. But they are most definitely different.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: IceCold on November 12, 2005, 09:08:08 PM
Post by: MrMojoRising on November 12, 2005, 09:52:13 PM
Post by: wandering on November 12, 2005, 10:23:51 PM
Because isn't creating any piece of art essentially bringing to life dreams and fantasies?
You can go on about stories and meaning - but, in my mind, a great piece of art doesn't need a trumped "story" in the traditional sense - with a beginning, middle, climax and resolution...and it doesn't need an author to force a trumped-up "meaning" onto it. In my mind, a great piece of art is about capturing something well. A painting of a woman looking out of a window can be art, even though, while there may be some story and meaning inherent in the image (Why is she staring out the window? What motivates her? What is going through her mind?), the story and meaning will likely be unknown to the viewer. The point is, the paiting has captured a singular moment beautifully, or, perhaps, has captured a beautiful moment well - and, therefore, it is art.
In the same way, Nintendogs can be considered art, because dogs are beautiful, and Nintendogs captures them beautifully.
Post by: norebonomis on November 12, 2005, 11:18:43 PM
Post by: attackslug on November 13, 2005, 04:30:45 AM
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.
Post by: mantidor on November 13, 2005, 07:30:36 AM
For me art is the expression of human emotions and feelings through some sort of media, when you can pass the superficial aspect of such media (be it the sounds, images or whatever) and the lasting impact is an emotional one beyond basic instincts, then is art. Pornography or Nintendogs for me then ar not art, what they evoque in you is basic instincts, bieng simple sexual desire or the "aaaww" we say when we see cute things.
Post by: PaLaDiN on November 13, 2005, 08:10:22 AM
Post by: darknight06 on November 13, 2005, 09:21:43 AM
Post by: Kairon on November 13, 2005, 11:05:49 AM
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.
I agree with you sooo much on that observation.
But MGS doesn't invalidate the whole game-as-more-than-a-game concept. It was just really awkwardly done...in this critics humble opinion...
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: nemo_83 on November 13, 2005, 03:45:45 PM
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?
Post by: ThePerm on November 13, 2005, 03:59:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
insert funny picture and comment here on sunday
about stanley kubrick
Post by: Don'tHate742 on November 13, 2005, 04:24:24 PM
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.
Post by: darknight06 on November 13, 2005, 04:40:23 PM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on November 13, 2005, 06:06:19 PM
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.
Post by: Kairon on November 13, 2005, 06:10:11 PM
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
Post by: Strell on November 13, 2005, 06:24:32 PM
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.
Post by: mantidor on November 13, 2005, 08:43:46 PM
Thats not art thats just sick stuff... I kid, I kid, still it was disgusting, I shouldnt have watched the shining so young >_<
Post by: MrMojoRising on November 13, 2005, 09:33:12 PM
I for one don't believe in opinions, I'm right and everyone else is wrong.
Post by: wandering on November 13, 2005, 10:51:02 PM
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).....
Post by: Don'tHate742 on November 14, 2005, 04:56:46 AM
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.
Post by: Kairon on November 14, 2005, 05:17:02 AM
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
Post by: Don'tHate742 on November 14, 2005, 07:10:39 AM
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?
Post by: Artimus on November 14, 2005, 07:14:30 AM
Oops.
Post by: couchmonkey on November 14, 2005, 07:16:43 AM
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.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 14, 2005, 07:47:35 AM
"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.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on November 14, 2005, 08:33:28 AM
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.
Post by: nemo_83 on November 14, 2005, 09:32:13 AM
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.
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 14, 2005, 10:09:09 AM
New technology always precedes art created from it. Why would it be any different with the DS or the Revolution?
Post by: IceCold on November 14, 2005, 10:39:00 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 14, 2005, 10:50:21 AM
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.
Post by: Zach on November 14, 2005, 12:24:52 PM
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.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 14, 2005, 12:43:31 PM
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.
Post by: Zach on November 14, 2005, 03:15:16 PM
Post by: Artimus on November 14, 2005, 03:32:16 PM
Post by: ThePerm on November 14, 2005, 04:57:37 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 14, 2005, 05:16:23 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 14, 2005, 05:58:00 PM
So far as I can tell, that's not a problem for the Revolution.
Post by: Galford on November 14, 2005, 06:35:15 PM
thread...
Seems Rein got caught sticking his foot in his mouth and this his is shoddy
apology.
With all this talk about Rev's controller, no one has brought up the point that Nintendo
is trying to change the rules of engagement for this next generation. Nintendo
can't afford an arms race with both Sony and MS, so Nintendo is trying to change
the rules. That is all Rev's controller stands for...
Post by: zakkiel on November 14, 2005, 07:16:04 PM
QuotePerhaps because this has been said many times on other threads?
With all this talk about Rev's controller, no one has brought up the point that Nintendo
is trying to change the rules of engagement for this next generation.
Post by: pudu on November 14, 2005, 07:44:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
With all this talk about Rev's controller, no one has brought up the point that Nintendo
is trying to change the rules of engagement for this next generation. Nintendo
can't afford an arms race with both Sony and MS, so Nintendo is trying to change
the rules.
heh...kinda like how the US fought during the revolutionary war?
Post by: MODE_RED on November 14, 2005, 08:50:13 PM
The Nintendo Revolution’s “freestyle” controller, a.k.a. “the revmote”, looks like a simplified T.V. remote control (casual and non-gamers be happy), but is actually much more advanced and innovative (hardcore gamers rejoice.) The revmote’s unique functionality has caught the gaming community by surprise, and Nintendo’s strategy doesn’t stop there.
Nintendo is known for its innovation, but who would have thought they would completely reinvent the wheel. Comparing this freestyle controller to traditional models is like comparing a car with a steering wheel to a car that knows where you point, goes where you point, and stops when you make a fist. It’s almost a crime to the mind to jump from our unbroken conventions to convention breaking revolutions in one step, but Nintendo believes one step to fly northwest is better than two steps to turn up and left. Nintendo has up and left convention, and for some, that just may not fly.
If you were ask Nintendo why they would leave their traditional market in the dust, they would say that they are taking all conventional gamers with them into the future, where they will join non-gamers in an expanded market in which everyone benefits from Nintendo’s unique strategy and system features. In this new, expanded market, Nintendo’s strategy of using a simplified control scheme, the backward-compatible virtual console, and non-games that appeal to the masses seems to clearly make them leader of the new-school. The only thing keeping Nintendo from achieving this dream scenario is their ability to expand their market in the first place, which they are proving fully capable of with the Nintendo DS. Competitors –watch and learn.
If I were Sony or Microsoft, I’d be studying Nintendo’s every move and watching the market like a hawk. I’d be putting money into must-beat-Nintendo R&D to make better games for the newer, broader market Nintendo creates. But there is a problem for Nintendo’s competitors that cannot be easily fixed. Sony and Microsoft have more than likely priced themselves out of the newly expanded market, which either forces Nintendo into a market niche or gives them the edge in the market as a whole. My bet is that the revmote will give Nintendo the edge in key genres, notably 1st Person Shooters (online Halo killers), RTS (real-time strategy) and action/adventure games, not to mention all their 1st party franchises and original offerings that always validate your initial investment.
The edge also comes from 3rd parties that can’t seem to resist the revmote’s appeal, just like the entire gaming industry including its current and future consumers. Put a Nintendo Revolution with the revmote and a game that makes ingenious use of its functions in front of any type of gamer, whether a 49 year old Sony exec or 8 year old XBOX fanboy and you’re going to hear a lot of “can I play?” Hell put it in front of a little girl with a Nintendogs remake or a lifestyle/self-actualization “non-game” in front of an adult and hand them the remote. Systems will be sold that day. Demo kiosks will appear at your local Office Depot, right next to the Apple I-Pods.
If this Revolution is any better than its hyped up to be, which I’m sure it will be by its release, you might just see Nintendo come out somewhere about the top, with Sony and Microsoft’s R&D departments wearing Nintendo slips under their dresses for the generation after.
The Nintendo Revolution is a new paradigm, a new standard, and a new life for the industry.
Post by: IceCold on November 14, 2005, 09:49:37 PM
QuoteAha! That's where you're wrong - it's 1.4142... steps to the Northwest
but Nintendo believes one step to fly northwest is better than two steps to turn up and left.
.Anyway, I do agree that it's all in the software. If Nintendo is actively doing what they've said they're doing (going around to 3rd parties to give them ideas about how to use the NRC in their traditional franchises) then that's a big step forward. Nintendo needs to prove that these traditional genres can be easily transferred to the NRC, and by giving other developers ideas, this will become easier.
Sure, there will be games that use the motion sensing ability unintuitively just for the sake of using it. But these games won't sell, and the developers will figure out soon enough that they need to actually spend time to mould their games around the NRC. If Nintendo has games from many genres early in the Rev's cycle that use the NRC in a truly revolutionary way, then there shouldn't be a problem, because 3rd parties will just use those games as examples.
But now, all we can do is wait for information on the games and how they will be played.
Post by: pudu on November 15, 2005, 08:54:53 AM
The overall statement you made I agree with. In a perfect world Nintendo would be handsomly rewarded for their business strategy and guts...but, unfortunately, there are so many variables that will determine what will actually happen. Making a cool new gadget and innovating doesn't necessarily mean they will be rewarded. With the DS they already dominated the market so with their name alone they had enough to be successful in intoducing the new features, but with home consoles they are pretty much the bottom of the food chain (not too far behind Xbox but behind none-the-less).
I guess I'm being pesimistic for the sake of showing all sides of the argument. I hope that they are successful in becoming an "AND" product when it comes to the more hardcore and casual gamers and they become an attractive product to non gamers. I just find it sad that they might have another lack luster showing in the console race even though they are doing so much to add to the industry and drive it foreword. It also sucks that, while they may not gain much market share, come next generation after Rev the other consoles will probably have taken their ideas and ran with them (if they don't take them this generation) and could profit off of their ideas more they they did when they took the risk of using them.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on November 15, 2005, 09:12:31 AM
Post by: The Omen on November 15, 2005, 12:08:56 PM
Quote
You can't debate opinions
Actually, that is exactly what a debate is.
Post by: zakkiel on November 15, 2005, 12:23:59 PM
QuoteThe Revolutionary War was won with conventional tactics. The idea that we beat the Brits with the brilliant strategy of hiding behind trees and using rifles is a myth.
heh...kinda like how the US fought during the revolutionary war?
Post by: ThePerm on November 15, 2005, 02:37:32 PM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on November 15, 2005, 05:51:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: The OmenQuote
You can't debate opinions
Actually, that is exactly what a debate is.
Haha, you obviously raped my qoute and took it out of context.
You can't debate opinions with more opinions.
Post by: Strell on November 15, 2005, 11:30:00 PM
All the ladies agree.
