What's your take on Microsoft and Sony entering the motion-controlled market?
Trent: Me and Rob are both big Nintendo fans for a number of reasons. Nintendo approaches gaming from a prospective where Super Mario Bros. is still a classic and doesn't look dated. Look at any game on the PlayStation 1 that tries to exceed past the terrible 3D graphics, with their look alike, sound alike franchise attempts.
With Nintendo, there's this kind of aesthetic that they bring to their in-house games that makes them feel like art. Where they aren't trying to be something else, where they have their own place and are just what they are. I've talked with Rob about this, about why that kind of game is cool, has a timelessness to it and isn't trying to be more than what it is. If I were going to make a video game today I would not put in rendered, 3D characters that try to look human. You know, where when they talk their lips are out of sync and have this weird aliased thing going on. There's that Shadow Complex game, which does looks cool. Every cut scene has the eyes rendered pretty well, but there's that terrible voice acting and the characters look like Fembots.
Rob: The characters usually look better stylized in a way where it lends itself to the media as opposed to trying to look like the latest 3D-animated movie, which can create things super-realistically. When it's done only half way ... well, it's just kind of weird.
Trent: How that applies to Nintendo, and I'm not saying they haven't fucked up a few times too, but they have this sense of here's this game, we're aware of the limitations, but we're going to make the game great with taste and integrity. Being honest, I'm not a huge fan of Sony. Their entire strategy behind the PlayStation is to focus on gaming as an experience last and getting a Blu-ray player in your living room comes first. Now, three years later they're trying to release a motion controller that's a little bit better than the Wii's.