"Artsy" Wii? A Rant *spinoff

[cthellis42]

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

Well, technically you DO draw pictures of things in Brain Age... Hehe.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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...).

That's different art though, and artists don't like being told what to create! It's like saying 'black and white films have been made before that are art, so you can forget your ideas of using colour for art and just stick to the old methods'. The artists might still go along with that, but those that want to work with colour will be grumbling about the lack of opportunity.

Just because there's existing art on consoles, or games that don't accomodate art, doesn't mean there aren't future possibilties that are as yet never-before-tried which would benefit from better tech or what have you. And many 'high-brow' artists are looking for that new, never-before-tried thing. They're explorers. It's not enough to keep to using the same techniques when there's new techniques they could on the cutting edge of.

I think people have somewhat got Hecker's argument back-to-front. It's not a case of arguing 'can Wii make art' or 'do you need high-tech to make art' or what-have-you. Basically, the question is 'do XB360 and PS3 allow different and new arts that Wii cannot handle?' If the answer to that question is 'yes', then those wanting to create those new types of art will lament the inability of Wii to create those types of art.

• We want to do this.
• XB360 and PS3 allow us to do this.
• Wii doesn't allow us to do this. Wii only let's us do that.
• We say boo to Nintendo for not making hardware that allows us to do this. We don't want to make that any more.

Of course, you'll find plenty of other people saying 'yay for Nintendo in letting us do that in a new way'.

 

[oli2]

Shifty,

There is a thing that last generation teached us : the type of developers (not to say "Artits") you are talking about, in the very vast majority, have chosen to develop on another console for numerous reasons we all know.

Microsoft has the cash and the will to fight on this field. We know the position of Nintendo on the subject.

It's fine for me, because last gen we had 3 manufacturers oriented the same way. 2 of them are continuing the same way with 'plus' on every fied. the 3rd have chosen another path.

That said :
- Would Nintendo try to be on part power-wise, would Hecker develop for it ?
- Why stick to what won't be possible on Wii and not talk about what won't be possible on the other 2 ? (that last point was my DS/PSP comparison)
- What is "this" ? You mention "this" as christ come back on earth, but we are not speaking of black & white to color, or 2D to 3D.

I am very surprise Joshua and you give a crap on that : last generation we had, "poly/s", "MHz", etc., now let's look at the great concept : there will be more "art" or emotion" or what else on games made for PS3/Xbox360 than those made for Wii.

(re-read 3 times this sentence to feel how this idea is simply nonsence)

 

[Scott_Arm]

He issued an apology. Someone linked it in another thread. The apology seemed sincere and far more reasonable.

 

[cthellis42]

Might as well link it here, too: http://www.gwn.com/news/story.php/id/11595/Chris_Hecker_Doesnt_Really_Hate_The_Wii.html

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.

 

[cthellis42]

I am very surprise Joshua and you give a crap on that : last generation we had, "poly/s", "MHz", etc., now let's look at the great concept : there will be more "art" or emotion" or what else on games made for PS3/Xbox360 than those made for Wii.

The more I see of physics, realistic lighting and modelling, tremendous and sprawling landscapes with a myriad of activity... the less it seems like the "complete nonsense" you make it out to be. And it doesn't countermand Joshua's points. And it doesn't negate complaints along those lines other developers may have.

The main thing is just that Hecker was being dickish, rather than putting his comments in personal context.

 

[dobwal]

Is the Wii limited in its ability to visually express itself in an artistic fashion in comparison to other consoles. Yes, that is true.

However, there seems to be a lot of posters on here debating this topic with a narrow view of what art is.

To put it in perspective, look at the art of film. The most technically advanced films in terms of visual effects are often more about commercial success then they are about art. Some of the most critically acclaimed films are often made a fraction of the cost of more visually robust commercial films in relation to production expenditures. The fact is, acting as well as the story itself is just as important to the art of film. Each component can be seen as an artform in itself from acting to sound and scene design.

Video games are more than just visuals. I would make the argument that the interaction component is the most important part of what makes video games, video games. While the Wii is visually limited, it offers a potential in interaction thats not possible on either the 360 or the PS3. Thus, one could make an artistic video game expressed through user interactions that can only be produced on the Wii.

Saying that the Wii is artistically limiting is like saying one film is more likely to be more artistic than another film based on production costs and totally ignoring the acting, the story and the ability of the film to evoke emotion.

 

[oli2]

I totally agree (and tried to say the same thing) to what Dobwal said.

Plus,

The more I see of physics, realistic lighting and modelling, tremendous and sprawling landscapes with a myriad of activity...

I don't think you can put a limit and say "art and emotion start there" ... that's all.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That said :
- Would Nintendo try to be on part power-wise, would Hecker develop for it ?
- Why stick to what won't be possible on Wii and not talk about what won't be possible on the other 2 ? (that last point was my DS/PSP comparison)

Because the topic was creating Art on Wii! Saying 'Ahh, but Wii let's you create user friendly games' doesn't solve the issue of creating 'art'.

- What is "this" ? You mention "this" as christ come back on earth, but we are not speaking of black & white to color, or 2D to 3D.

We don't know what we're talking about, because the potential for 'art' on the new consoles is an unknown. People seem to think what Hecker is wanting is an FPS with soldiers crying, and an antagonist who expresses emotions in his face which the player never sees. People are trying to see the games they know being turned into some form of 'art' as just having some emotional content chucked in. What if the 'art' being created has very little to do with games? Use the term 'interactive media' instead of 'game' and maybe then you'll see what they might be gunning for. It's an unknown. It's a place for experiment. Powerful hardware provides opportunities for new things, which may end up totally different to what people consider games and which can't be categorized as games. As an example, years ago in the Tate I saw a 'work of art' which was two TVs on top of each other. One had a man in a green suit like a TellyTubby, and another in an orange suit, and they were jumping up and down. I think one was upside down. That was an idea the 'artist' had which, if they were forced to use paint and paper, could never have been created. They used the technology to enable a work of art that is utterly unique and impossible on older mediums. No-one looking at paintings and drawings could envisage this artwork. Using the TVs wasn't a case of just showing static pictures. It wasnt the same as the traditional art on a different medium. It was something totally new and different. Of course, whether that TV thing counts as art, whether people want to buy that sort of art, etc. are valid concerns. But it's presented here as an example of how different technology can allow for totally different artworks, and how PS3+XB360 can perhaps allow for experiences that Wii cannot because of technical limitations, akin to TVs allowing moving art, where paper only allows for static images.

And the performance difference between PS3 and Wii is probably very akin to the difference between colour and B&W, if not moreso. B&W still shows the same program and story and emotion as colour, but with perhaps less impact, and less clarity (as remembered by those who used to watch snooker and B&W sets!). On these consoles, there will likely be things that PS3 can do that Wii just plain can't, rather than being able to do to a lesser degree.

I am very surprise Joshua and you give a crap on that : last generation we had, "poly/s", "MHz", etc., now let's look at the great concept : there will be more "art" or emotion" or what else on games made for PS3/Xbox360 than those made for Wii.

Jeez, Louise! No-one's saying XB360/PS3 will have more art than Wii!!!!! The argument is that the powerful consoles offer more opportunities for artists to create new artistic expressions than Wii offers.

I can't see anyone who disagrees with Hecker's statement as actually understanding the situation from the artist's POV, despite best efforts to explain it. Forget your ideas of gaming, console sales, market penetration, last-gen art, and everything else. Artists want to create, and when they have opportunities, their minds go 'Whizzzz, just think! I can do this and that (unspecified artistic inspirations)." They like those opportunities. When they have those wonderful moments of inspiration, and then for whatever reason they are unable to create those art-works, they get grumpy. If they think "Wow, I can create a whole new genre of emotional interaction that's never been done on a console before. What I need is super-realistic facial rendering so the user can empathise" and then see the hardware can't manage that, they feel glum. they have a great idea (or what they think is a great idea, that perhaps the public will hate), but it'll never happen. Now if they feel that way, and then look at Wii and see that Nintendo could easily have released a different system, still with the innovative controller, but with much better performance, they will have more reason to grumble and groan. From their POV! Nintendo's choices are theirs to make, and perhaps they made the right ones to satisfy their vision of what their platform is to do. But for the artists, who have this inspiration to combine the Wiimote interactivity with some incredible artistic experience, or whatever 'art' they have in mind, to find the machine isn't as good as it could have been for them, I can see why they'd be disappointed. That's not to say Nintendo made the wrong choices! It's a different platform with different goals. Talking to 'artists' about creating for that platform (and 'artists' is not the same as 'game developers'), you get their view on what they want the machine to be, which may not be the same as what Nintendo wanted it to be. In exactly the same way you talk to gamers about what they want PS3 to be, and some say 'it shouldn't have BluRay, that's a waste of money as games don't need it.' That's their opinion. Sony's idea on what their machine should be is different.

• Nintendo made a machine that's different from it's rivals.
• They want to appeal to more people to have fun playing games.
• They have no great concern to ensure there's a lot of 'art' on Wii.
• Wii will have fun games.
• Wii will have emotional and 'artistic' games.
• Wii is capable of being 'artistic' in different ways.
• Nintendo chose to make the hardware less powerful than the rivals.
• Because of this, Wii offers less new techniques and opportunities for creating 'art' than its rivals where that 'art' requires powerful hardware.
• Artists that want to create 'art' that needs high-powered hardware cannot do that on Wii, and may voice their opinions that they feel the hardware is a let-down in that respect.
• The public may not care for the 'art' that requires the high-power systems, may prefer the 'art' of Wii, and 'art' isn't an essential requirement for a console.

To me, all the above statements are true and not conflicting. I repeat again, no-one's saying Wii can't do art, or all art needs high-power. It's only a new area of artistry that is being enabled by high-powered hardware that Wii cannot do, the form of which we don't yet know because artists haven't had much chance to be creative with the high-powered hardware yet. Plus Nintendo are not pushing for 'art', but are instead pushing for 'fun'. 'Art' isn't on the agenda which will upset artists. Like people who want to put on deep, weird plays, whereas the funding only wants to pay for light comedy. Light comedy can still be artistic, but the artists want to be able to create what they want to create without any constraints, as that's the way they are.

 

[cthellis42]

I think what people are saying is that the 360 and PS3 have expanded in more directions and more intensity of "artistic possibility" over the last generation, while the Wii can be perceived as mainly expanding into one unique, input-related one. (And one which the PS3 also has to a lesser degree, and one which both the PS3 and 360 could strap on for individual titles with an input device, whereas the Wii cannot strap on upgraded chipsets. And while it's true that you get much more out of a built-in peripheral, a compelling-enough title can handle itself just fine. Think how many $50+ peripherals Guitar Hero sells. )

Moreover, it may be similarly seen that the new environment Nintendo is trying to foster--the appeal to casual gamers--may not be conducive to their designs, and have them in general looking to the other platforms. The Cube suffered--unfairly, in the beginning--from almost continuous "kiddy" accusations. It started off with counter-evidence in the form of Eternal Darkness and the Resident Evils, but they still lost ground--and third party developers--and their headlining 1st party titles (barring Metroid Prime) basically reinforced it. The question to ask is: "Will the Wii's unique controls counteract the 'not much better than the Gamecube' hardware perception for developers? Will "intuitive gameplay" outweigh the emphasis on "simple gameplay everyone can pick up?"

There are many questions, but no simple answers, and certainly none of the comments made so far are "completely ludicrous" from ever angle. Of course you can made artistic games on the Wii; you can still make them on any medium. Hell, you could bootstrap some titles all the way back to the 2600 if you wanted, but the question for developers will always remain: "Can we make this game more to our desires on another platform?" And they're not looking to this year or next year, but also to 2010 and beyond.

How many of them will be looking at the Wii's limitations--and what they see of the future prospects--and weighing it against the Wiimote? And do you get to willy-nilly call them foolish for even thinking that they couldn't make their game "artistic enough" on that platform as opposed to another?

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

He issued an apology. Someone linked it in another thread. The apology seemed sincere and far more reasonable.

He probably got some angry faces from EA or maybe even from will wright, the creator of spore, who really likes Wii. You dont rant about something the one day and say the total opposite the other day. I assume he prepaired his speech so he knew what he was going to say before he even said it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I assume he prepaired his speech ...

It's an informal, good-humoured rant. They've slagged off all sorts in these rants before. Like stand-up comedians who's humour is invariably just complaining about the world; find something you don't like, and grumble about it in an over-the-top way. This wasn't a professional keynote discussion. It was devs getting to hang with devs and have an informal gripe about their industry.

Once again the internet has invaded a corner of the world it wasn't welcome to and screwed up the innocuous intentions of a speaker. Now devs aren't even allowed to complain and have a laugh in their own company.

 

[cthellis42]

Reminds me of a recent GU Comics. (Read that one, the commentary, and the next day's.)

 

[oli2]

Understand me : i , like many others, have high expectations end excitement upon the things we will see in futures games on PS3 and Xbox360.

Many of the stuff we will have won't simply be possible on Wii graphic-wise, or anything-wise.

But the nature and weight of the words we've read here such as "Art" and "emotion" in that context are of the type of trying to downsize the experiences we will have on Wii, don't you think ?

Art direction is not in the hardware by nature, neither are the emotions a game gives to us.

 

[dobwal]

Take any medium in art and I will doubt that you will many in those fields that find prior works to be inferior artistically due to the more advanced tool sets that are used to produce more modern works.

Technical advancement doesn't equal Artistic advancement.

 

[Mordecaii]

It really depends on how he was considering art; e.g. if he was just referring to visual art, then his statements were 100% correct. The Wii simply cannot do some of the things that the PS3 and Xbox360 can do.

No one can deny that the broadest definition of art certainly includes things such as acting, storytelling, etc... But that doesn't mean that Hecker was including those aspects in his statement.

Hell, I'll go back and play PS1 games and SNES games simply because I loved the story and prefer it over a lot of the newer games, but in terms of visual artistry they don't come close to measuring up.

 

[dobwal]

It really depends on how he was considering art; e.g. if he was just referring to visual art, then his statements were 100% correct. The Wii simply cannot do some of the things that the PS3 and Xbox360 can do.

No one can deny that the broadest definition of art certainly includes things such as acting, storytelling, etc... But that doesn't mean that Hecker was including those aspects in his statement.

You don't use a broad term to specify something more specific. In doing so, the problem lies with the speaker and not the listener.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But the nature and weight of the words we've read here such as "Art" and "emotion" in that context are of the type of trying to downsize the experiences we will have on Wii, don't you think ?

No, I don't think that. Art is a word that takes 'subjective' to a new level. And this is in response to you too, Dobwal. Art means different things to different people, and it's a very difficult subject to talk about. Just look at some of the crap that wins the Turner prize which people call 'art'. Art as a concept (and a word) is impossible to pin down exactly what it is. That's why I used the terms this and that, rather than using specific concepts like 'emotional experience' and 'dynamic gameplay'. This and that are whatever artistic ideas the artists have; quite possibly things I myself would never consider to be art. IMPO (in my personal opinion), art is just a certain something indefinable that a thing may have. It's a feeling that I can't define in logical terms. In Hecker's comments, art has a meaning for him, for which the art he would create, he cannot create on Wii, because of technical limitations. No one here can have any idea of what that 'art' might be, or if we would even consider it 'art' outselves. All we know is Hecker feels Wii could be more powerful to let him create 'art' in his image.

As for Wii getting less art, in realistic terms I don't think that's the case, because art is, again IMVSO (in my very subjective opinon!), very lacking in most games. You can get visual artwork in games, and artistic music, but few games ever appear to me to be art. One I would class as art is ICO, which was far more art than game. And as we see last gen, not many 'artists' created art on the consoles like ICO. For someone else, art may abound on consoles due to their definition. If Mario is art to you, Wii will have buckets of that art. Generally though developers are creating games, and that'll be the same throughout IMO. We'll see things pushing boundaries like Heavy Rain is trying to do, where the term 'game' is dropped in favour of 'interactive experience', but overall I think games and fun will still be the main focus. And where art does appear, it'll appear on Wii but in different forms. One area Wii could have art (in my definition which will be different to others) where the others can't is in movement (or dance). Artistic motions through the Wiimote would be unique. Think Tai Chi. You could have a dozen games for Wii that are artistic in their use of movement, and 4 games on PS3 that are artistic in emotional content powered by hardware abilities, and the Wii would have more. We've no idea where art will find it's home this gen, if anywhere. My guess is it'll spend its time sidelined and marginalized like always, where it probably belongs. We'll see... But it is also telling that Sony make mention of art a lot in their website, and Nintendo don't. Sony obviously are encouraging the idea of art on their platform. Nintendo aren't.

 

[fearsomepirate]

stuff about modern art using TVs and stuff

This is a terrible analogy, because electronic TVs are essentially different from pen & paper. However, the graphics produced by Wii and, say, Xbox 360 are not. We are dealing with a difference in degree, not in kind. Nothing is essentially different. The textures are higher-res, the physics are better, the animations are better, there are more particles, more (and different kinds) of shader effects, more NPCs, more foliage, more buildings, more detail, and better lighting. There's nothing fundamentally different being offered; only a greater version of what already exists. The substance is the same.

People seem to think what Hecker is wanting is an FPS with soldiers crying, and an antagonist who expresses emotions in his face which the player never sees... What I need is super-realistic facial rendering so the user can empathise"

Super-realistic facial rendering is awesome. Not when I'm busy mowing down bad guys by the hundreds, and it is substantially less awesome when 500 guys have the same canned facial expressions, or when one guy has the same expression 800 times...you know, just like it was when facial expressions were first introduced to 3D games about 5 or 6 years ago. It's great in a cutscene, though, which is where it will continue to appear. Heck, even you yourself said what you would like to see is just a better version of what was already done in FFX. And personally, I think empathy is 65% driven by story, 20% by audio and 5% driven by visuals, and of those visuals, 99% of what in visuals drives empathy is dependent upon having the kinds of camera angles only possible in cutscenes.

You know, it's not that I disagree that the Wii is way underpowered, even for realizing certain visions of gaming. It's that I think the vision you're presenting is a third merely an improvement upon things we've already seen realized fairly adequately in video games, a third completely incoherent, and a third irrelevant.

The main place Wii is screwed is in creating big, busy worlds that don't look like total crap. Lots and LOTS of games between Dreamcast and Wii will always look aesthetically pleasing even if technologically dated. Ready 2 Rumble, Soul Calibur 3, Metroid Prime, Mario Galaxy, F-Zero GX, Ikaruga, Wind Waker, Ratchet & Clank 3, Jet Set Radio Future, Beyond Good & Evil, etc. However, GTA3 and Morrowind (Xbox version) were hideous the day they came out; the bigness and novelty atoned for the sin of hideousness, unless they made you seasick or pissed you off with the endless load times. Wii's got 88 MB of RAM. It could have an X293000XTX GS XT Pro, and 88 MB would still result in a hideous GTA-type game. You want to see Wii's big weakness? Look at Warhawk and Saints' Row, not the footage we've seen of FFXIII cutscenes.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This is a terrible analogy, because electronic TVs are essentially different from pen & paper. However, the graphics produced by Wii and, say, Xbox 360 are not.

... It's that I think the vision you're presenting is a third merely an improvement upon things we've already seen realized fairly adequately in video games.

You are misunderstanding me then. I'm not talking about the grahics being more realistic. As I said above, 'art' is not a definite term. It might mean better graphics to one person. It might mean better expression to someone else. It might mean bizarre psychedelic colours swirling around in a mess to a third person. What more power provides isn't just better graphics, but more opportunities in any and every field that we can think of, and even can't think of. Areas that some artist suddenly thinks of which we couldn't, and which wows us when we see it, or makes us think, "what the hell is this rubbish? Call this art?!"

If you only think of art as being better looking games, or games with more emotional expressions on characters, then you're missing what the true scope of 'art' can be. As I also said above, art can be movement, where the Wii has the advantage. You could just as readily have a choreographer stand up at GDC and say "thank God for Nintendo adding more art to their console than MS and Sony! Only Nintendo are reaching out to the motive arts". That would be exactly the same as Hecker's comment. It's pointing out where the technology of Wii has enabled art that the other consoles lack, and is relevant to the artist wanting to create art on the consoles where their idea of art is motive.

Art can be sound, feelings, sights, motions, experiences, stillness, different things to different people. People are being too strict in their personal definitions of 'art' to understand how other 'art' can be realized and inhibited by technology.