Comments on Wii from GDC
http://wii.ign.com/articles/771/771051p1.html
(Not sure if this story has been posted elsewhere.)
http://wii.ign.com/articles/771/771051p1.html
(Not sure if this story has been posted elsewhere.)
"Artsy" Wii? A Rant *spinoff
- Thread starter Mat3
- Start date
Chris Hecker certainly has been around for quite some time; nevertheless I do think these rants are designed to be controversial.I didn't know they allowed 10 year olds to be game developers..
brain_stew
Regular
Whilst that GDC presentation doesn't seem to be much more than attention seeking to me, I think this phrase could be quite telling, despite the way it is presented:
That quote could lend crednece to the suspision that Hollywood may be a doubled up Gekko (or at least have parts of it doubled up).
He could also just be referring to the higher clockspeeds and memory of course, and given the nature of the presentation, I wouldn't say he appears to be exactly the most unbiased of sources.
GDC said:
That quote could lend crednece to the suspision that Hollywood may be a doubled up Gekko (or at least have parts of it doubled up).
He could also just be referring to the higher clockspeeds and memory of course, and given the nature of the presentation, I wouldn't say he appears to be exactly the most unbiased of sources.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Could be. But I dont take that lame rant of him serious after reading he thinks nintendo doesnt view games as a artform and MS and Sony do. I mean, nintendo probably produced more games that qualify as art than MS and Sony did together.
Besides that I dont see why he calls the Wii a slow piece of shit if spore itself looks like something wich could run on N64.
Besides that I dont see why he calls the Wii a slow piece of shit if spore itself looks like something wich could run on N64.
Your quite is a little messed up as I'm sure you're reffering to flipper not gekko.
Wow, who pissed in his cornflakes this morning?
I can't really understand what his point is ... I mean, if a game is not realistic and does not push technology forward, it's not serious? What about Geometry Wars? That's a fantastic and great looking title, and it's VERY simple. If games are such an art form, surely the technology behind the console should not be such a limiting factor, because simulation/realism is only one small branch of the art world.
This guy must just be trying to get himself some attention.
Sorry, but I completely disagree with this man.IGN said:
I could not treat games with the same focus on asthetics and story as with movies and animation. True, games with them can make even a greater experience, but IMO, that isn't what ultimately determines a great game in the end.
I treat games more like sports than linear stories like film. Making games are about making rules, and making sure you don't overlook any of them as to make a game have broken mechanics (hence the term broken games). That alone explains why so many American-made fighting games are failures in terms of being actually tournament worthy. This guy obviously hasn't been playing games untill Final Fantasy VII...The idiot should not be making games.
Disagree with me or the dork that ranted about video games to a Public Enemy song?
The dork. Sorry about the confusion...
He's focusing too much of using videogames primarily as a naritive instead of as a...well, what do you know...game.
Last edited by a moderator:
The 'rant' has a reputation for being tongue-in-cheek. The issues are real - Hecker doesn't feel the Wii has the oomph to create computer art - though the presentation is over-the-top for laughs. A chance to air some frustrations by taking them out on one or other target in a big way. Don't take what's said too seriously. the only relevant points are
1) Wii isn't amazingly powerful (shocker)
2) Nintendo are pushing games as fun rather than art: and I think kudos to them because I like playing games more than watching art. Art has it's place, but play is more important in my world.
inefficient
Veteran
I too live in terror of a of a Wii Planet. I share a lot of the same sentiments as Chris Hecker.
The Wiimote is a fun concept for gaming. And I'm not anti Wii or anything. I feel it has it's place in the world. I just don't feel the Wii console itself has the legs to really move gaming forward. The hardware is literally a generation behind.
The Wiimote is a fun concept for gaming. And I'm not anti Wii or anything. I feel it has it's place in the world. I just don't feel the Wii console itself has the legs to really move gaming forward. The hardware is literally a generation behind.
Metal_Spirit
Regular
Just placed this in DCEMU forums, but i think I should say it here too:
Man.. remember PS2 lauch?? Same crap. Same words, same rants, etc. When Xbox was lauched PS2 was even more crappier, and Xbox was the great system. XBOX is dead, and PS2 still sells like crazy, with awesome games comming out.
Wii is the future, and whether they like it or not, sales will make them have to learn how to program it and optimize it, and then we will see how bad the console is. WTF, look at wii Sports. Pure crap in GFX terms, and yet, pure GOLD in gameplay terms. Good graphics and highly complex physics don't necessarily make a good game.
Adding some extra words, I take my previous post where I talk about the DS. Is GFX and complex physics made good games, the DS would be dead. And it´s not! Gameplay, and great FUN games are what we want. If they have also great GFX and great Physics, AWESOME, but as long as they are fun, that´s all that matters.
Man.. remember PS2 lauch?? Same crap. Same words, same rants, etc. When Xbox was lauched PS2 was even more crappier, and Xbox was the great system. XBOX is dead, and PS2 still sells like crazy, with awesome games comming out.
Wii is the future, and whether they like it or not, sales will make them have to learn how to program it and optimize it, and then we will see how bad the console is. WTF, look at wii Sports. Pure crap in GFX terms, and yet, pure GOLD in gameplay terms. Good graphics and highly complex physics don't necessarily make a good game.
Adding some extra words, I take my previous post where I talk about the DS. Is GFX and complex physics made good games, the DS would be dead. And it´s not! Gameplay, and great FUN games are what we want. If they have also great GFX and great Physics, AWESOME, but as long as they are fun, that´s all that matters.
inefficient
Veteran
Well Pacman was fun right? Super Mario was fun right? Hitting a ball with a bat is still good fun right?
Why do you feel games no longer need to advance as long as they are fun?
Just speaking for myself, watching the advancement of technology is a significant part of what makes gaming fun and exciting to me. You take that away from me, and you take away a significant part of the fun factor out of the equation.
Metal_Spirit
Regular
You don´t seem to understand.
The Wii is not a bad console. If the gamecube had and still has versions of the latest games, then the Wii must and will do even better.
It´s not a matter of the console not beeing powerfull enough to have good games, it´s just a matter of wanting to compare it with the PS3 or the Xbox 360. The dev was stupid enough to want to compare consoles that just aren´t comparable.
Wii will never have shaders, will never have hi def textures, and will never have His Resolution outputs, or a 3 Ghz CPU. It may also not be able to handle the lastest physics engines. But are you sudently telling me old generation games became bad over night? There is room for improvement over the last generation, since the wii is faster and has more memory than the gamecube (more improvements may exist, and this is what this thread is all about, although we are temporarily running off toppic). We just will never be able to compare it with the Xbox 360 and the Ps3. But I say it again, Legend of Zelda Twilight princess had several 10's in several sites over the net. Where is the PS3 game with 10?
Get this in your mind. People play emulators, and play retro games. I can bet they do it for the fun and gameplay and not for the graphics. So, if fun is the factor here, the wii can show enough graphics to produce great games.
Also, although I can understand what you say, you seem to be neglecting PSP and DS. Apparently these consoles no longuer have a place in the market since when compared to the new gen systems they also suck. And yet both sell like hotcakes, specially the weakest of the two, the DS.
And why? Because the DS concept is similat to the Wii one. And proves that you don´t need great graphics to get great games, and as such is the best selling console at the moment.
Evolution is a great thing, as long as we need it. Nintendo just fell that the next gen evolution was just a way to push new systems to people.
Getting a little back on the topic of this thread, I cannoot help to think this is the reason why there is such a secretism about the Wii specs. Wii must have more changes that just simple overclocks. There are tons of reasons, several very strong and spread around this thread to think that changes are bigger than that. Even developers are not getting full Wii specs, since as they already recognized, they are programming for the gamecube, and the wii has a lot more power under the hood.
Nintendo must have though about what they were releasing, and a logical though is that the wii may compete with other gen consoles at the moment, since we are in a transition phase, but what about in three four years? Will the Wii be dead? People will eventually convert to the far superior consoles, that's a fact, and Wii sales will decrease.
So, it seems logical that Nintendo holds back some of the real specs of the Wii, releasing them as necessary. Remember a old rumour about the Wii beeing the first upgradable console from nintendo? That could be it.
I´m speculating now. I cannot prove any of this! Regardless, take the first 6 paragraphs as a reply to your comment.
The Wii is not a bad console. If the gamecube had and still has versions of the latest games, then the Wii must and will do even better.
It´s not a matter of the console not beeing powerfull enough to have good games, it´s just a matter of wanting to compare it with the PS3 or the Xbox 360. The dev was stupid enough to want to compare consoles that just aren´t comparable.
Wii will never have shaders, will never have hi def textures, and will never have His Resolution outputs, or a 3 Ghz CPU. It may also not be able to handle the lastest physics engines. But are you sudently telling me old generation games became bad over night? There is room for improvement over the last generation, since the wii is faster and has more memory than the gamecube (more improvements may exist, and this is what this thread is all about, although we are temporarily running off toppic). We just will never be able to compare it with the Xbox 360 and the Ps3. But I say it again, Legend of Zelda Twilight princess had several 10's in several sites over the net. Where is the PS3 game with 10?
Get this in your mind. People play emulators, and play retro games. I can bet they do it for the fun and gameplay and not for the graphics. So, if fun is the factor here, the wii can show enough graphics to produce great games.
Also, although I can understand what you say, you seem to be neglecting PSP and DS. Apparently these consoles no longuer have a place in the market since when compared to the new gen systems they also suck. And yet both sell like hotcakes, specially the weakest of the two, the DS.
And why? Because the DS concept is similat to the Wii one. And proves that you don´t need great graphics to get great games, and as such is the best selling console at the moment.
Evolution is a great thing, as long as we need it. Nintendo just fell that the next gen evolution was just a way to push new systems to people.
Getting a little back on the topic of this thread, I cannoot help to think this is the reason why there is such a secretism about the Wii specs. Wii must have more changes that just simple overclocks. There are tons of reasons, several very strong and spread around this thread to think that changes are bigger than that. Even developers are not getting full Wii specs, since as they already recognized, they are programming for the gamecube, and the wii has a lot more power under the hood.
Nintendo must have though about what they were releasing, and a logical though is that the wii may compete with other gen consoles at the moment, since we are in a transition phase, but what about in three four years? Will the Wii be dead? People will eventually convert to the far superior consoles, that's a fact, and Wii sales will decrease.
So, it seems logical that Nintendo holds back some of the real specs of the Wii, releasing them as necessary. Remember a old rumour about the Wii beeing the first upgradable console from nintendo? That could be it.
I´m speculating now. I cannot prove any of this! Regardless, take the first 6 paragraphs as a reply to your comment.
inefficient
Veteran
There is no doubt in my mind the Wii will have some good games. Talented people are going to make cool things regardless of the hardware deficiencies. But what I do doubt is that the Wii is actually a better target for those games than the PS3 or Xbox360.
For example, there is no doubt in my mind that the next Metroid would be a far superior game on the Xbox360. Or that Zelda TP would have been even an better game if PS3 was the target platform. The Wiimote is certainly a factor. But I'm not convinced at all that it makes up for the huge performance gap.
About retro games. I love to play retro games. But big part of why I love them because I respect what they represent with regard to the historical time frame they were released in. Without that historical context, I would rate them much lower.
When I was originally playing those old games, much of the time I was thinking "Man! Imagine what this scene could look like 10 years from now". Or "This battle would be so cool if...". In my minds eye, my version of the game was actually better than what was actually going on screen because I was looking at it's potential not just accepting it at face value.
That ability to see games in terms of their potential, use their imagination, and not just take them at face value, is what I believe separates gamers from other people who just "don't get" games. Especially with older games, non gamers, who lacked a vivid imagination, usually just saw "colored blocks moving around the screen" and didn't "get it".
What I am getting at is that it is pretty painful to have to play a Wii game and think "Man this game/genre could be so much better 10 years from now" when you know there is console hardware already out there that has the potential to execute those dreams.
For example, there is no doubt in my mind that the next Metroid would be a far superior game on the Xbox360. Or that Zelda TP would have been even an better game if PS3 was the target platform. The Wiimote is certainly a factor. But I'm not convinced at all that it makes up for the huge performance gap.
About retro games. I love to play retro games. But big part of why I love them because I respect what they represent with regard to the historical time frame they were released in. Without that historical context, I would rate them much lower.
When I was originally playing those old games, much of the time I was thinking "Man! Imagine what this scene could look like 10 years from now". Or "This battle would be so cool if...". In my minds eye, my version of the game was actually better than what was actually going on screen because I was looking at it's potential not just accepting it at face value.
That ability to see games in terms of their potential, use their imagination, and not just take them at face value, is what I believe separates gamers from other people who just "don't get" games. Especially with older games, non gamers, who lacked a vivid imagination, usually just saw "colored blocks moving around the screen" and didn't "get it".
What I am getting at is that it is pretty painful to have to play a Wii game and think "Man this game/genre could be so much better 10 years from now" when you know there is console hardware already out there that has the potential to execute those dreams.
Using graphics to benchmark a game's superiority to another is somewhat pointless to me. Take fps games for example. I play CS1.6/CS:S not because of it graphics but rather because it's gameplay is a lot better multiplayer than a lot of other fps games that have broken mechanics these days. I prefer Doom 1&2 to 3 and UT99 is far better than the 2k3 and 2k4 releases. Same could be said for fighting games I like. Sure soul calibur 2&3 look better than the original but it's own competitive community including myself know the first was the best. I probably don't see your view so well because I do have a vivid imagination and what is in front is more than enough to get the picture the dev wants. Do I love eye candy? Yes I do but it's not necessary for me to have that perfect experience you seem to be looking for, no matter what you do with a games graphics your imagination can beat it with ease.
BTW metriod wouldn't be superior on 360/PS3 because it will always have dual analog controls compared to Wiimote which is superior in terms of fps controls. Serious if you haven't hooked your Wiimote into your pc and played an fps, should you be a fan of the genre, you don't what devs and consumers are missing out on big time.
In my opinion, the stuff Miymato creates is better art than 99% of what's out there, especially from the guys who proclaim so loudly they're trying to make art. So the "art" thing is stupid. Great art happens when creative geniuses create, and Nintendo has one of the best working for them. When pizza-stained nerd rip off Lovecraft, that's not "art." There are only a few great artists of the medium in the video game industry, and none of them work for MS. You can't create that kind of talent by your will.
The power issue is significant. The Wii can't bring some experiences to gamers. For instance, I don't think the kind of sandbox-combat gameplay we've seen in Warhawk is possible on Wii without looking terrible. Look at how hideous a game had to be for sandbox gameplay to be functional on PS2! The power wasn't the limitation; it was the RAM...and Wii doesn't have a lot of it.
Graphics are kind of a strange thing to me. I played some Lost Planet at a store kiosk the other day, and even though I knew the Xbox couldn't run this game, the graphics didn't grab me. There were lots of normal maps and high-res textures, but everything I was looking at was boring. Detail in itself is not exciting. Would it be nice if MP3 would have more detail? Yes, but I think it will be pretty anyway as long as it gives us real eyecandy like neat environments and weird monsters.
The power issue is significant. The Wii can't bring some experiences to gamers. For instance, I don't think the kind of sandbox-combat gameplay we've seen in Warhawk is possible on Wii without looking terrible. Look at how hideous a game had to be for sandbox gameplay to be functional on PS2! The power wasn't the limitation; it was the RAM...and Wii doesn't have a lot of it.
Graphics are kind of a strange thing to me. I played some Lost Planet at a store kiosk the other day, and even though I knew the Xbox couldn't run this game, the graphics didn't grab me. There were lots of normal maps and high-res textures, but everything I was looking at was boring. Detail in itself is not exciting. Would it be nice if MP3 would have more detail? Yes, but I think it will be pretty anyway as long as it gives us real eyecandy like neat environments and weird monsters.
Hecker never said Wii can't do good games. He said you can't use it to create art. Art is a very subjective term and not really in the scope of this thread. Just understand that no-one is saying Wii is no good for producing fun games - of course it is. The question is whether Wii can produce a different experience that is classed as 'art' by some unknown definition. If 'art' requires realistic graphics and advanced physics and next-gen animation, than Wii cannot produce 'art', even if it goes on to be the best selling console in the history of the Universe. Whether people at large also want 'art', or just good games like yourself, is another topic entirely, and also not suited to this thread.
Metal_Spirit
Regular
All this discussion appears to point to one thing. People seem to buy stuff without really knowing what they are buying.
Why choose a Wii in the first place? Did you chose it thinking you were getting an ultimate system for a cheap price? Or you choose it for the fabulous interactive methods the wiimote offers, and for knowing the game concept nintendo had to offer, and previously showed in the Nintendo DS?
I always knew the Wii was not a top notch system. And I never doubted of it´s quality. I experienced the world of the Nintendo DS, and saw the concept of what nintendo has to offer, and I can say I´m very pleased with it.
I´m not saying I will not buy a X360, because I would be lying. I intend to buy one! I like great graphics and always did! But my Wii was not a mistake, I knew what I was buying, and I´m very pleased with it! I bought a game concept brought by nintento in the DS and now in the Wii. A great concept BTW.
Why choose a Wii in the first place? Did you chose it thinking you were getting an ultimate system for a cheap price? Or you choose it for the fabulous interactive methods the wiimote offers, and for knowing the game concept nintendo had to offer, and previously showed in the Nintendo DS?
I always knew the Wii was not a top notch system. And I never doubted of it´s quality. I experienced the world of the Nintendo DS, and saw the concept of what nintendo has to offer, and I can say I´m very pleased with it.
I´m not saying I will not buy a X360, because I would be lying. I intend to buy one! I like great graphics and always did! But my Wii was not a mistake, I knew what I was buying, and I´m very pleased with it! I bought a game concept brought by nintento in the DS and now in the Wii. A great concept BTW.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- Games
