"Artsy" Wii? A Rant *spinoff

[fearsomepirate]

In existing games it's done in cutscenes. You have emotive story cutscene, followed by action gameplay, followed by emotive story cutscene, followed by action gameplay

And it will continue to be because the artistry necessary to create and manipulate emotions requires fine control over what's going on. Further, each experience needs to be unique, or it will lose its impact. If each and every single individual emotive act by an in-game character is not uniquely hand-crafted, the game will indeed feel quite wooden. We are nowhere near the point where computers can synthesize unique character emotion and dialogue. "Oh wow, he's doing the sad walk again. I totally empathize."

And another problem with gameplay is that you're too busy shooting weapons and running around to stop for 5 minutes and watch the pixel-shaded tears roll down a soldier's normal-mapped face as he comforts his dying buddy with professional lines delivered by Hollywood-quality script writers and voice actors. And even if you did bother to stop, how many players would? Enough to justify paying the voice actors, script writers, and animators for the hundreds of such scenes necessary to craft in the game world to make it "emotional?" No, you're going to make like Master Chief and shoot everything and everyone in the face until the game forces you to take a breather. How come so few games have managed to surpass Half-Life in this area despite having vastly superior technology? Could it be more about talent than texturing?

There is the possibility of the player getting emotionally moved by things that happen to his character/sidekick in-game, but that hardly requires technology. You know what the most emotional moment of that type in any game was for me? When Woof died in Fallout. Various events in Torment follow close behind, although Torment as a whole was the most engaging emotional experience I've ever had in a game. The third was when this dude Leonid that had been with me since my first wave of recruits died in X-Com as we were fighting the last battle on Mars. The fact that any of the fancy 3D games with far, far superior capability for expression have yet to surpass what I experienced in sprite-based games should say something about how much technology matters to the emotional experience.

Oh sure, you might get one, maybe 2 really moving games next gen. That's because only one, maybe 2 developers are talented enough to do it, regardless of the technology. The rest will just claim they're producing art when they're just ripping off Lovecraft.

P.S. Watch the new Mario Galaxy trailer. THAT'S art.

 

[RollingBalls]

Why do I have to play a lesser version of Dragon Quest IX on the DS when my PS2 had all of the power to do a better looking game? If Wii becomes dominant enough, we're going to pay to go backwards.

 

[Acert93]

I think some of you are going about the art question the wrong way.

No one is saying you cannot create art with the Wii--great art at that. But art comes in many forms. Thus an anology:

• You have a room of artists: Composers, Musicians, Poets, Authors, Sculptors, Painters, Sketchers, Photographers, and so forth.

• These artists wish to make full body and bust sculptures, pottery, jewelry, water color painting & oil paintings of a wide variety (realistic to abstract, family portraits to fantasy), murals, interior home design paintings, so on and so forth.

Now tell me how they are supposed to react when

• A number of employers offers them a wide variety of tools to create their vision: water and oil paints, canvases, vellum, parchment, boat loads of instruments, and so forth -- and offer them a number of venues to practice their art.

• Another employer comes along and hands them a box of crayons and stationary and argues, "Look, we have seen some mighty masterpieces done with these tools--hence YOU should be able to do the same".

And that is the substance of his complaint.

Hardware and Software progress together for many reasons, one being consumer demand as well as developer demand. Consumers and Developers have visions. Most developers I have met are into game dev because of the challenge.

But not all developers are the same in regards to skill or vision. Hence we are seeing a lot of developers take TOTALLY different approaches to next gen games: Crazy animation in the Lucas Arts games and Assassin's Creed, crazy physics in Motorstorm and BD: Bad Company, killer graphics in Gears of War, huge expansive worlds in Oblivion and Mass Effect, accurate real world simulators like Forza Motorsport 2, and the list goes on.

Wii offers progress in 1 area (input--but not without its own hurdles, challenges, and significant drawbacks to a number of established, successful genres) and tells all the other areas of progress to get lost.

Technically Wii games will suffer as a given (outside the Wiimote) compared to the competition; but it also suffers because it constrains artists to, effectively, the same constraints they have had for the last 6 years.

Nintendo has told developers that if they wish to be creative they have to be "musicians" (to appeal to my analogy) and that all forms of expression and progress or worthless.

Wii fits Nintendo's philosophy well and they have done an excellent job marketing their product (note all the commercials show/focus on people having FUN and NOT their games) but from a developer standpoint it is clear to me why someone would think it is a POS, especially when the competition has offered tools (hardware and software) to overcome the problems you have faced for the last 6 years and are FINALLY getting to express your art in a new way and Nintendo essentially has told you, "Not on our console. It is our way or the highway".

If I was a musician and I was told all I could do is create rap music I think I would look for work elsewhere... or at least express my frustration.

Edit: And don't get me going on Nintendo's comments about quality and innovation which they have drummed a lot over the last decade when quite a few 1st party Nintendo games are anything but (good games but hardly this emphasis on unique innovation and quality). Nintendo makes great games, always have and will, but they have an image like all companies they foster that is at times disjointed from reality.

 

[Corwin_B]

First, the bombshell :
http://kotaku.com/gaming/wii/spore-...or-calling-the-wii-a-piece-of-shit-242822.php

No one is saying you cannot create art with the Wii--great art at that. But art comes in many forms. Thus an anology: (snip)

Joshua, your analogy is completely flawed, in that game developers are not supposed to create artistic pieces, they are supposed to create video games. And the Wii allows them to create better video games than in the past. The PS3 and 360 do the same thing, in another direction. There is nothing wrong for a developer to prefer one approach to the other one, but saying "Nintendo does not care about art as an art form", and use website searches as "proof" does not strike me as a very sound critic.

But not all developers are the same in regards to skill or vision. Hence we are seeing a lot of developers take TOTALLY different approaches to next gen games: Crazy animation in the Lucas Arts games and Assassin's Creed, crazy physics in Motorstorm and BD: Bad Company, killer graphics in Gears of War, huge expansive worlds in Oblivion and Mass Effect, accurate real world simulators like Forza Motorsport 2, and the list goes on.

What does that laundry list has to do with art, which is what we were supposed to be talking about ? One of the games I found the most artistic last gen was Rez. Rez was artistic in the sense that it espoused Kandinsky's vision of "synesthesia", the interaction between various senses. Being a wireframe rail shooter, I doubt that Rez would benefit a lot from the huge horsepower of PS3, for example. On the other hand, it made extensive use of controller vibrations...

 

[oli2]

Where are you going in this debate Joshua ?
This is the first time for months i think you are talking nonsense !

On another note, i agree with you Inane_Dork

 

[Acert93]

Joshua, your analogy is completely flawed, in that game developers are not supposed to create artistic pieces, they are supposed to create video games.

You absolutely need to reread what I wrote.

And if you don't have the time or care, I will summerize:

The reference to "arstis of various sorts" and "art forms" are merely analogies to "developers of various sorts" and "various developers disciplines". So, for the visual:

Painters, Sculptors, Photographers, etc == AI Programmers, Level Designers, Render Engingeers, etc

Oil Paints, Sketches, Busts, etc == Advanced/Complicated AI, Physics, Animation, Graphics, etc

The analogy was created because some of you are completely ignoring his comments about processing power and its impact on aspects of game development -- to make good games -- like complicated AI.

Further, developers DO believe they are creating art when they create games. And a number of Wii fans are even argueing that the Wii is capable of great art. The fact is games do contain art--it is an essential aspect to the presentation. If it were not games could get away with stick figures and sell as well as games with stylistic presentations. Year in and year out we see that great graphics IS a component to appealing to gamers. Even a large number of the GCN's best selling games were visually at the top of the heap in this regards. But it is more than that--games are art in that they express ideas, a vision, and emotion. They do this through interaction, music, story, and visuals. Art is not the purpose, but the result, the game, is a form of artistic expression. Most artists don't like to be artificially limited and told they cannot use new tools that make their product better.

And the Wii allows them to create better video games than in the past.

We don't live in the past, we live in the present. Wii isn't being compared to the GCN, PS2, or Xbox1 as it isn't going to compete in a market against those consoles.

The PS3 and 360 do the same thing, in another direction.

I would argue they offer more tools and flexibility to go in other directions compared with their past consoles. Wii has effectively grown in a much, much smaller fashion.

There is nothing wrong for a developer to prefer one approach to the other one, but saying "Nintendo does not care about art as an art form", and use website searches as "proof" does not strike me as a very sound critic.

And you are being equally unfair by acting as if his conclusion is absolutely limited to that single point.

As I pointed out earlier mingled in between his colorful language (which were obviously there as an expression of frustration and to stir the pot) were a number of salient points, e.g. in regard to processing power -- and not just graphics related -- and the issues with complicated AI which impacts developer expression. I think many people are seeing the word "art" in a fashion that is far too limited. Art isn't just painting and drawing in the traditional sense -- it includes music, story telling, and so forth. Likewise in the art of game development "art" is a sum of parts -- pixels and sound coming together in many different ways to create an experience that influences someone.

What does that laundry list has to do with art, which is what we were supposed to be talking about ?

Thread spinoff (as the subject line notes), my initial participation in the thread can be viewed above.

One of the games I found the most artistic last gen was Rez. Rez was artistic in the sense that it espoused Kandinsky's vision of "synesthesia", the interaction between various senses. Being a wireframe rail shooter, I doubt that Rez would benefit a lot from the huge horsepower of PS3, for example. On the other hand, it made extensive use of controller vibrations...

So the lack of technology, in this case rumble, could impact the ability of the developer to express their vision for their game.

That is exactly Chris' point. All consoles have shortcomings, but the Wii is lacking in many, many areas in regards to this ability to express. What Nintendo is banking on is that the controller (almost by itself) makes up for such. Some people will like that, others will not.

There is no doubt all 3 consoles have limitations in their ability to express the vision of a developer when compared/contrasted to the competition. The point Chris was driving home was that the Wii, compared to its competition, absolutely sucks in many areas. Which it does when compared to the competition.

Of course it absolutely has the potential to rock in other areas (like input). Yet the later doesn't negate the former, or vice versa for the other consoles.

 

[Acert93]

Where are you going in this debate Joshua ?
This is the first time for months i think you are talking nonsense !

Feel free to actually provide some substance to your criticism.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Joshua, your analogy is completely flawed, in that game developers are not supposed to create artistic pieces, they are supposed to create video games.

And this is the problem with those that don't see the argument here! To date, console have been about creating video games. It is thus assumed that anyone developing for consoles has to be creating games. That's like saying 'drawing was invented to help with architecture and designing buildings, so all people who draw should draw buildings.' What if one chap who's drawing buildings decides he wants to draw people? Why can't he? If a develop wants to create an interactive, never-before-tried, artwork on a console, why can't he? For those people, Wii doesn't look to offer much scope for creating artworks.

But this is an entirely different topic to the market wants, what publishers want, what gamers want, etc.!

Many an artist creates their art for art's sake, and lives impoverished because of that. That's their choice to make! But as artists, they should ahve the freedom to create the art they want, using the tools they want. Bare in mind art has two meanings. There's art as in artworks as in nicely drawn pictures or nice sounding musical ditties, and there's art as in something...bizarre, or spiritual, or in some way indefineable, but created for the sake of what it is, rather than because it's paying the bills. There's a different motive behind the two different meanings. One is creating for money. The other is creating for the creation itself. Those complaining about art on Wii are talking about creating for the creation, and not creating to order for commercial reasons.

 

[oli2]

My view is fairly simple : Art is the fact of artists, that's all.

Beethoven was a deaf person => Wasn't he one of the best composer ever ?
During the 70s, there were no 3D effects in the cinema => Jaws is one of the scariest film ever.
Picasso has invented Cubism => Is it based upon significal advancies on technology ?

Understand me : Art can surge from technological advancies too.
- The particuliar light in Barry Lyndon was made possible because new types of cameras that could film it were just build.
- etc. (i don't think of examples right now, but there are lots of)

Sony, and now Microsoft, has put a lot of emphasis on "tools" and "technology", and it certainly will help the surging of "Art", in certain directions.

The path chosen by Nintendo is clearly different : emphasis is put on "interactivity", "fun", "gameplay".

Sure, Developers working on Wii, won't be able to go as far on "AI", "Physics", etc.

But the contrary is true : developpers working on PS3 or Xbox360, won't be able to go as far on "interactivity", "gameplay".
Sony has saw this particuliar danger by providing "Sixaxis" ...

In my last attempt to be clear, "Interactivity", "AI", "Physics" and all other big words are ... just words !
You don't have for example good gameplay because you say so : it is there or not.

Einstein was in no way a big mathematician of its time, neither did he had one of our wonderful computer to help him.
But he provided his theory of relativity and the scientifics of today, with all the better "tools" they have, are not able at the moment to provide something more satisfying than the "standard model".

I don't now if i succeeded to make myself clear.

 

[Corwin_B]

You absolutely need to reread what I wrote.

And if you don't have the time or care, I will summerize:

The reference to "arstis of various sorts" and "art forms" are merely analogies to "developers of various sorts" and "various developers disciplines". So, for the visual:

Painters, Sculptors, Photographers, etc == AI Programmers, Level Designers, Render Engingeers, etc

Oil Paints, Sketches, Busts, etc == Advanced/Complicated AI, Physics, Animation, Graphics, etc

The analogy was created because some of you are completely ignoring his comments about processing power and its impact on aspects of game development -- to make good games -- like complicated AI.

The discussion for a couple of messages was completely centered on its "art" comment, not on the processing power limitations of Wii. The beginning of your post was also about "art". How such or such console game can be considered "art" is mostly irrelevant of the advance of technology shown in said game. FF7, Okami, Rez, SOTC or Zelda OOT didn't stop being "artistic" games because the PS3 and 360 have the ability to push umpth millions polygons per second. I think there will be games of an artistic nature on all consoles this generation. It's likely that some of those games will include technology that couldn't be possible on Wii. But that doesn't mean art is not possible on the Wii, or that Nintendo is neglecting developers or developers that want to make "artistic" games.

Further, developers DO believe they are creating art when they create games. And a number of Wii fans are even argueing that the Wii is capable of great art. The fact is games do contain art--it is an essential aspect to the presentation. If it were not games could get away with stick figures and sell as well as games with stylistic presentations. Year in and year out we see that great graphics IS a component to appealing to gamers.

You are shifting targets here. Most "artistic" games tank abjectly sales-wise, and as such don't seem to appeal to gamers. Good graphics are very different from artistic vision, btw. I'm in awe at GoW graphics, but I don't think its graphical style is very artistic.

Even a large number of the GCN's best selling games were visually at the top of the heap in this regards. But it is more than that--games are art in that they express ideas, a vision, and emotion.

Some games are. Some others aren't, and many technologically-advanced titles don't qualify here (where are the emotion and vision in Madden or PES ?). Thus further proving that technology and art are orthogonal concepts.

They do this through interaction, music, story, and visuals. Art is not the purpose, but the result, the game, is a form of artistic expression. Most artists don't like to be artificially limited and told they cannot use new tools that make their product better.

That has nothing to do with being "artists". I think most people working prefer to have tools that make their work easier, there is nothing wrong with that. Saying there are some things you can't do on the Wii because of limited power that you could do on PS3/360 is certainly a valid point. There are also some things you can do on the Wii that you can't on PS3/360. I've yet to see a sports game as immersive as Wii Sports, for all the technological prowess that exists.

We don't live in the past, we live in the present. Wii isn't being compared to the GCN, PS2, or Xbox1 as it isn't going to compete in a market against those consoles.

And I would add that it seems to be doing a pretty good job at it... And for one developer complaining about not being able to realize his artistic vision on the Wii, how many are bitching about rising dev costs, multi-core processing... on PS3 and 360 ?

And you are being equally unfair by acting as if his conclusion is absolutely limited to that single point.

This "point" was stupid enough to be adressed single-handly, actually. If he had such a valid case, then there was no need to add this website-search travesty.

As I pointed out earlier mingled in between his colorful language (which were obviously there as an expression of frustration and to stir the pot) were a number of salient points, e.g. in regard to processing power -- and not just graphics related -- and the issues with complicated AI which impacts developer expression. I think many people are seeing the word "art" in a fashion that is far too limited. Art isn't just painting and drawing in the traditional sense -- it includes music, story telling, and so forth. Likewise in the art of game development "art" is a sum of parts -- pixels and sound coming together in many different ways to create an experience that influences someone.

Hecker wasn't as nuanced or convoluted in his speech, though. Had he made the case that you are making, I wouldn't have objected. I agree that there are some concepts/visions that you simply can't do on the Wii (and probably some that you can't realize on 360/PS3 either, btw), or would have to downgrade to a point where they are basically not representative of the initial idea (there are also some concepts that absolutely need the technogically inferior DS or Wii to be realized, btw). But I disagree that it means that Nintendo doesn't care about games as art, which was Hecker's point.

 

[Corwin_B]

Many an artist creates their art for art's sake, and lives impoverished because of that. That's their choice to make! But as artists, they should ahve the freedom to create the art they want, using the tools they want. Bare in mind art has two meanings. There's art as in artworks as in nicely drawn pictures or nice sounding musical ditties, and there's art as in something...bizarre, or spiritual, or in some way indefineable, but created for the sake of what it is, rather than because it's paying the bills. There's a different motive behind the two different meanings. One is creating for money. The other is creating for the creation itself. Those complaining about art on Wii are talking about creating for the creation, and not creating to order for commercial reasons.

And this "special something" is achievable on machines with far less power than Wii, because it has been done in the past, in games that are still revered nowadays (see Captain Blood, which ran on a ZX Spectrum that is less powerful than a pocket watch nowadays, and closer to us stuff as FF7, Rez, OOT, Deus Ex...).

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I don't know who has read the internet, yesterday. In a [unintelligible] panel I said a bunch of things. I was trying to be thought provoking and entertaining and fun and a lot of the stuff went too far over the top—on the entertaining and fun side, so that it was no longer thought provoking, just inflammatory. And in the process I hurt a bunch of people I care about. And so, I want to apologize now.

When I'm on stage, I'm me. I'm talking talk from me. From me. I'm not representing EA or Maxis.

I want to make two things perfectly clear.

I do not think the Wii is a piece of shit. Nintendo needs to be applauded for trying to interface on the controller front, the user interface front, on making games accessible, on making a console that you don't need to mortgage your house to afford.

Secondly, it's totally obvious—and I'm sorry that I implied otherwise—that everyone at Nintendo is passionate at making great games. Some of the games give me hope that we will be seen as an art form on par with movies and books.

So EA forced him to say this? I dont really see how you can go from ''cant create art on this shit'' to ''its great you can make art on this'' overnight.

 

[Gubbi]

For a computer game to qualify as art it would have to move you, cause an impact, blow your mind in some way.

For a computer game to move you it would have to either:
1.) Completely blow you mind on technical merrit, like the very first moving pictures of a running man, or the very first playback of recorded audio.
2.) Or contextualize a scenario for you and then surprise you in some way which causes an emotional reaction.

No. 1.) has happened to me a few times. first time was seing Space Invaders in 1979 (ZOMG!), second time was Atari's Star Wars arcade game, and then third time was Wolfenstein for PC (That looks so.... real!!). Those were all technical quantum leaps over what came before, ever since then we've seen incremental improvements to existing concepts. I think the time is over for quantum leap improvements in computer games (but would love to be wrong).

So no, the X360 and PS3 do not automatically score points for delivering a mind blowing media experience.

For games to be considered art today, they have to be in the second category. A good game immerses you in the game, you become part of the game, identifies with characters like you would when watching a movie.

The key word here is immersion. The primary tools for immersion are good production assets: sound effects, models, textures, animation and above all a good story. For the sound and graphics assets there are some underlying techical premises that enable (or restrict) certain things.

Now, the state of the art of computer games has been progressing steadily for 3 decades now. Every year new advances in hardware (new console, new GPUs etc.), software (new techniques) and asset production have made games more immersive than what came before it. With this improvement in immersive level we, the gamers, have become spoiled. What makes an immersive game is a moving target. Three personal examples of great games of their time, which have jaded:

Wolfenstein looked awesome when it came out, but today it's graphics would be considered bad for your phone.
Halflife was incredibly immersive with it's large goverment installation levels and good story (capitalizing on the dark sci-fi zeit geist). Today it's a meh experience to replay.
Kotor (1 and 2). Fantastic games, best narrative based on the Star Wars universe today, lots of replay value. Today almost impossible to play because of the low polycount pixellated mess that it is (on the XBox).

The reason why these games are not as enjoyable as they were back then is because now we're used to even higher levels of immersion. The games falls flat in one way or another. And since it doesn't immerse you anymore, it doesn't cause an emotional impact on you and hence ceases to be art.

That is Nintendos problem.

People being used to higher level of immersion from the other platforms and therefore not being able to be immersed in the game worlds on the Wii. That's the context of Hecker's rant

Cheers

 

[oli2]

That is Nintendos problem.

People being used to higher level of immersion from the other platforms and therefore not being able to be immersed in the game worlds on the Wii. That's the context of Hecker's rant

Does not this same logic apply to PSP vs DS ?
There were countless discussion on the Web two years ago involving this type of vision of video game.
I think this is obvious now that Nintendo proved its point, no ?

 

[cthellis42]

Quoted from Joshua for emphasis following the thrust of Gubbi's post:

Technically Wii games will suffer as a given (outside the Wiimote) compared to the competition; but it also suffers because it constrains artists to, effectively, the same constraints they have had for the last 6 years.

And no, the same logic does not apply with the DS versus PSP, as general desires for portable gaming are suitably different from their cord-bound counterparts.

Notice no one is pulling out an "Nintendo is DOOOOMED!" canard or saying they'll be suffering in overall sales this gen because of it (they certainly have other directions of appeal,) but are applying context to the complaint. Some developers are excited about the new possibilities compared to the competition; others look in different directions and complain about all the lacks.


Miyamoto running over Hecker's dog was just why he was so pissy about it.

 

[oli2]

And no, the same logic does not apply with the DS versus PSP, as general desires for portable gaming are suitably different from their cord-bound counterparts.

Today, this is perfectly clear, but let's get back 2 years ago and say that when all the forums on the net were claiming Nintendo is doomed ...

Technically Wii games will suffer as a given (outside the Wiimote) compared to the competition; but it also suffers because it constrains artists to, effectively, the same constraints they have had for the last 6 years.

That is thinking there are only few directions of work for the artists, and i fail to understand how more constraints equate to less artistic expression.

Take for example Brain Training : some have tried to make the same game on PSP. What was the result ?

I expect that developer will succeed in providing excellent games simply not possible on PS3 and Xbox360 (given the pad) ...

 

[wazoo]

Does not this same logic apply to PSP vs DS ?
There were countless discussion on the Web two years ago involving this type of vision of video game.
I think this is obvious now that Nintendo proved its point, no ?

You are trying too much to relate "art" (I do not know what it means with regards to VG) and commercial success.

The Wii could be the worst/best platform for "art" in VG and completely success/tank.

Absolutely no relation.

Look at movies and tell me that "art" movies are on top of the charts (It may happen since there is no relation also here).

 

[cthellis42]

Today, this is perfectly clear, but let's get back 2 years ago and say that when all the forums on the net were claiming Nintendo is doomed ...

To be perfectly clear, two years ago doubts were certainly expressed and comments that Nintendo would have to be on the ball to prove itself in the arena, but no one worth listening to was screaming "Nintendo is DOOOOOOOOOOMED!" And to my knowledge that doesn't include anyone in this thread, does it?

Take for example Brain Training : some have tried to make the same game on PSP. What was the result ?

Since when is this game even abstractly "artistic?" It is supposed to be fun and functional, and the only real thing being leaned on is the input method.

PDA's by and large have less horsepower than the DS, but could play the Brain Training games exactly the same. (With some adjustments for screen estate, of course.) Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't already, since it would be easy and appealing, and there are a lot of PDA's out there. (It'd just be harder to deliver.)

I expect that developer will succeed in providing excellent games simply not possible on PS3 and Xbox360 (given the pad) ...

"That developer" is included in the part previously mentioned about "developers excited for the unique features the Wii brings," and will probably include any number of developers. But even when stretching the bounds of "art" as much as has been done in this thread already, one would be hard-pressed to include the likes of Brain Training in the mix.

Hecker and many other developers are not piqued by the possibilities of the Wiimote, so express discontent at everything else. (Even Nintendo's online game support right now seems to be less than thrilling, as they focus more on local multiplayer--which I'm sure many developers wrote off years ago.)

 

[oli2]

OK, my example with "Brain Training" was not the best one i could find ...

 

[fearsomepirate]

No one is saying you cannot create art with the Wii--great art at that. But art comes in many forms. Thus an anology:

I think here's a better analogy:

You have a room full of hacks: Comic book artists, sidewalk caricature artists, pulp fiction authors, cartoonists, bar bands, summer action movie producers, and so on.

These hacks have been clamoring for a long time that they have some serious, monumental, truly artistic vision that needs to be realized. However, 99% of what they produce is merely crap for titillating the masses.

Two employers offer them super high-tech tools to do this: the latest versions of Paintshop Pro, electronic synthesizer guitars, digitally controlled routers, and so on, in addition to what they've always been using.

Another employer offers them slightly better quality canvas, ink, instruments, and so on than they've been using before. They say "Honestly, you guys aren't talented enough to make that big of a difference if we broke our banks delivering incredible high-tech tools to you. It's not like any of you are going to pull off another David."

And that is the substance of what I think Nintendo is doing. Yes, every generation, new heights of graphics and animation are achievable, but you talk as though Wii games can only consist of rudimentary geometric shapes abstractly jerking around at 15 fps. It's ironic that you mention Oblivion, because I've noticed that the worlds in Elder Scrolls game shrink as technology advances. Don't get me wrong. I'd love it if Wii games had normal maps everywhere and were spitting more polygons in my face. I love that crap. I'm disappointed in Wii. But I've played those next-gen games too, and I think that guys who make the artistic equivalent of Arnold Schwarzeneggar movies (has technology helped Arnold reach an amazing artistic vision, or are Terminator and Conan as good as anything he did in the 90's?) should just shut up about "artistic vision." As far as I'm concerned, there are so few real artists in the game industry that it's pretty much irrelevant.

I just have one question: If a 3rd-party game on Wii required 100-man teams and $100 million budgets, given the commercial performance of Gamecube, do you think anyone would bite the bullet and develop for it?

If you answer that question correctly, I believe you have truly understood why Wii is what it is.