Spore's developer: "The Wii is a Piece of $hit"

[Warbie]

And Warbie, I think you're still confusing visual aesthetic with "art".

Most probably, I still fail to see the distinction.

How many games have you actually found that have a deeper meaning?. You can go on all day about metaphor and hidden subtext etc in video games, but to be fair the attempt is nearly always hamfisted and always second place to 'saving the princess'. Any game can be reduced in such a way btw.

In Metroid you explore a deserted planet - you discover parts of its history, learn what happened, what went wrong. Visually (for its time) it's as convincing a game world as there's ever been and sound wise it's, imo, still unmatched. How is this any less deep or meaningful than any other game? - I really fail to see this. You can argue that Zelda exists in an enclosed world, but what game doesn't? In WW you rediscover Hyrule, literally return the colour to the black and white and long forgotten city. There's metaphor everywhere if you chose to look for it. I'm usually too busy enjouing the game.

 

[PvtRyan]

Deeper meaning / metaphors != necessarily art, pretentious is more the word I'm looking for. If your view of art is only that of men in black clothes in a dark brown caf? talking about the meaning of life in French accents then that view is rather limited. Good level design is an art, art design is (obviously) an art, storytelling is an art, designing a good game in general is an art. And what makes something a good game? Ultimately, it is purely the fun that you get out of it. Perhaps 'fun' is the wrong word since it's associated with dumb, crude fun. 'Enjoyment' is perhaps a better word.
Pretentious games with a dozen different layers and deeper meanings that are not enjoyable are not art in the slightest.

What is art anyway? Isn't it something that invokes an emotional response from someone? I hate to do dictionary-mining, but:
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define:art&btnG=Search

I don't see a single definition that would rule out Nintendo's "dumb princess saving games" from being called 'art'. Well, besides:

All treatments or procedures that involve the handling of human eggs and sperm for the purpose of establishing a pregnancy. Types of ART include IVF, GIFT, ZIFT, embryo cryopreservation, egg or embryo donation, and surrogate birth.

Perhaps the difference is that I think making a good game with good game design, level design and graphics design is an art. Absinthe seems to think that the player himself needs to experience some deeper meaning in the game before the game becomes art. I don't agree.

 

[Vegeta897]

lack of innovation outside graphics

And physics... Have you seen Little Big Planet?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

As far as I can tell, there is no deeper meaning in Metroid, Mario, or even Zelda. No abstract thought process. No commentary.

I haven't really played any of the metroid games, so I can't comment too much on those, and I agree that Mario is weak in terms of meaning, but Zelda's themes have been rather consistently jungian since at least the SNES, what with all the shadow worlds, chosen heroes and so-on.

All games *and all forms of media* have meaning; it's theorhetically impossible not to have meaning.
The question is whether the game has a good and/or useful meaning.

I still fail to see the distinction.

Perhaps we should clarify our terms then.
All forms of media can be construed as art when provided in a proper social context.
Art boils down to a balance of creator's intent and, more importantly, public interpretation.
Both attempt to derive deeper emotional or sociopolitical meaning from a creation in a specific media.

In the case of Nintendo, they are not really intending to produce a very deep meaning. Meaning exists in their games, but is arguably limited via repetition.
You can read a surprising amount into a Mario or Zelda game, but after the umpteenth sequel, it has the potential to become formulaic. Hence my complaint that nintendo is not very artistically innovative.

The games certainly provoke emotion through general "fun", but amusement is an extremely easy emotion to evoke.
It's the equivalent of a cat jumping out of a closet in a horror movie. It's effective, but not resonant.
As a result, the general public does not attempt to derive any meaning from these simpler games. They are seen as more of a tool for stress relief than anything enlightening. Just look at how many people in this thread, in a gaming forum, have called games artistically worthless.

Nintendo-style singleplayer and most/all multiplayer focus exclusively on repetition and general fun, so there is very little to think about after the fact. So, as art, they suffer in comparison with a game like Siren, which is my current top pick for most artistically meritous game to date.

Siren is fun, but it is also disturbing, and it's disturbing because of how it deconstructs religious and contemporary mythological symbolism into their base components and then frankensteins them back together into a surreal zombie horror story. It's scary not just because one level features a little girl trapped in a house full of her zombified parents, but also because examines religous cultism in terms of an infection to be avoided.
The game is loaded with so much excellent social commentary integrated into the gameplay, it's crazy.


PvtRyan:

That's not really what I was getting at, and I hope I didn't come across as pretentious.

Deeper meaning doesn't just mean metaphors and social commentary; it can encompass Warbie's aesthetic sensibilities as well. Emotional meaning is important as well.

Folks need to look at things from the Wizard of Oz perspective: The best of any art has a brain, a heart, and courage.
In other words, social-political meaning, emotional resonance and artistic innovation.
Nintendo's games have lots of heart, but relatively little of the other two. With sony's games, and games for Xbox and PC, it's often more balanced.

 

[Seppo]

Who would've guessed this turns into a serious thread

 

[Jintor]

Folks need to look at things from the Wizard of Oz perspective: The best of any art has a brain, a heart, and courage.
In other words, social-political meaning, emotional resonance and artistic innovation.
Nintendo's games have lots of heart, but relatively little of the other two. With sony's games, and games for Xbox and PC, it's often more balanced.

Ahhhh, now i see where you're coming from. Artistic innovation, though... Nintendo is a great innovator. What is artistic innovation? I believe, for instance, a new control system and its subsequent usage could be perceived as artistic innovation. It's the equivelent of inventing paint.

I totally see where you're coming from with the Socio-Political meanings, though. Nintendo likes to keep real life out of its games.

 

[destrukt]

Folks need to look at things from the Wizard of Oz perspective: The best of any art has a brain, a heart, and courage.
In other words, social-political meaning, emotional resonance and artistic innovation.
Nintendo's games have lots of heart, but relatively little of the other two. With sony's games, and games for Xbox and PC, it's often more balanced.

This part of your post is absolute gold, I'm going to use it in the future.

I also agree 99.7% with the rest of your post.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I can't claim to have invented that analogy; I paraphrased it from Walter Chaw, a film critic from www.filmfreakcentral.net (the only source I trust for professional film reviews).

At the same time, The Wizard of Oz (at least on film) is itself a brilliant examination of the role of art in society, so you can more accurately say that it invented the metaphor well before everyone else.
Like I said, we tend to give our entertainment far less credit than it deserves; most people think of Oz as just "that goofy musical."
It's taken for granted, and most people subsequently don't see the blatant metaphors right in front of them.
The same thing happens to games.

Artistic innovation, though... Nintendo is a great innovator. What is artistic innovation? I believe, for instance, a new control system and its subsequent usage could be perceived as artistic innovation. It's the equivelent of inventing paint.

You're thinking of technological innovation there, not artistic innovation. Give a toddler the best, most innovative paint and he'll still be fingerpainting.

Artistic innovation is stylistic. The idea is to represent ideas more clearly, or in new and unforseen ways.
An example of artistic innovation would be the shift from realism to impressionism, to cubism (and beyond) in paintings.

Or how Once Upon a Time in the West was put together by synthesizing the best bits from other westerns and reconfiguring them into a big awesome postmodern mega-western.

Nintendo is great with the technological innovation, but they lag behind in terms of artistry.
Like I said, their focus is more on multiplayer and redundant sequels, where artistic innovation simply does not occur.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

At the same time, The Wizard of Oz (at least on film) is itself a brilliant examination of the role of art in society, so you can more accurately say that it invented the metaphor well before everyone else.
Like I said, we tend to give our entertainment far less credit than it deserves; most people think of Oz as just "that goofy musical."
It's taken for granted, and most people subsequently don't see the blatant metaphors right in front of them.
The same thing happens to games.

I completely agree. There are movies that can be considered art, no doubt about it, and there are games that can and should be considered art. One example I would use is Grim Fandango.

 

[Max35]

For those that say games cannot be an art form, I strongly urge them to play Planescape: Torment, then try and make that statement again.

 

[Jintor]

Not to mention Grim Fandango (as Mr. Rimmer has already said) or PSSYYyYYCHCHChhhOnnNnnUAauauauAUauuUtututTTTSssSsSS.

Especially the Milkman Conspiracy. THAT LEVEL IS ART.

/EDIT If you can't read that, it says: PSYCHONAUTS.

Anyway, Mecha: i forgot to add something. Is there no Nintendo game you feel has pushed the boundries of art?

 

[Warbie]

Folks need to look at things from the Wizard of Oz perspective: The best of any art has a brain, a heart, and courage.
In other words, social-political meaning, emotional resonance and artistic innovation.
Nintendo's games have lots of heart, but relatively little of the other two. With sony's games, and games for Xbox and PC, it's often more balanced.

That was a great post, but I think you're being unfair here.

Few companies match the care Nintendo put into their games. Polish and design wise they stand on a high pedestal (imo Valve are the only company that comes close in this regard). This is obvious in the playing - each game is a labour of love. I suppose you could say this is just 'heart', but I disagree.

You argue that 'Meaning exists in their games, but is arguably limited via repetition', whereas I feel that much of the joy in games like Zelda/Mario/Metroid is seeing the reinvention of old ideas - and that while the path we're treading may seem familiar, this doesn't detract from the experience in the slightest. Infact, especially in the case of Zelda, this retelling adds a great sense of history and tradition that if anything gives more meaning. This is something Edge hinted at in a preview a few months back - other developers would kill for the heritage that Zelda boasts.

This has been the case with nearly all the great Nintendo games over the years. Mario 64 felt just like the Mario games we were playing on the nes and snes, yet was groundbreaking in nearly every way and single handedly redefined the genre. The fact that the departure from 2d to 3d was seemless can't be praised enough - it's something very few have been able to achieve, and Nintendo went on to do it again with Zelda OoT, Pilot Wings and, to a lesser extent, Metroid Prime. Now take Majora's Mask - it looked similar to OoT, the controls were the same, but the atmosphere had been changed and the experience was very different (did you play this btw? i'd honestly be intersted to hear your take on MM). To dismiss these efforts as being limited by repetition (especially as some of these games are rated by many as examples of the best ever made) is doing Nintendo a considerabe injustice.

I'd agree that Nintendo lacked 'brain' if their games had become stale over the years, but they haven't. Despite being the nth in a series, each title manages to remain fresh and contain more suprises and 'wow' moments than the vast majority of stand alone games. They're better for the games that preceeded them - and due to more than just comfortable familiarity.

Perhaps of late Nintendo have lacked a little courage in their software (I would like a new series or two), but it's hard to argue that against the company that has given us the DS and the Wii. Both of which being the only things to happen to gaming for years and years that actually feel new.


Lastly ..

The games certainly provoke emotion through general "fun", but amusement is an extremely easy emotion to evoke.

If it were such an easy emotion to evoke then why do so many developers fail so miserably? Why do so many fail to match the sheer sense of fun that Nintendo seem to effortlessly inject into their games? The cat in the closet analogy isn't fair - this isn't cheap and easy entertainment. If it was, Nintendo wouldn't stand out from the crowd as much as it does or have the reputation its gained over the years.

I agree with much of what you have posted in this thread - some of it has changed my views on a few things (rare as i'm very opinionated) - but you seem to shrug off what Nintendo does well, which is considerable, and focus soley on an area that very, very few games on any platform mange to achieve - namely 'social-political meaning' (honestly, how many can you name that are worthy of note?). The other two, 'emotional resonance and artistic innovation', Nintendo have had sewn up since the nes - perhaps not in the way that you enjoy, but sewn up regardless.


As a fan I find calling their games 'more of a tool for stress relief than anything enlightening' to be mildly insulting

 

[99.vikram]

Nintendo is a good company that makes solid products and gives people fun games.
But it hasn't advanced any of the genres in a significant way. The Wii is following the same route.

 

[Warbie]

But it hasn't advanced any of the genres in a significant way.

You have seriously got to be joking. Even the biggest Nintendo naysayer would have to conceed that that is complete rubbish.

 

[Laivasse]

I think this debate is as much 'what kind of art do you like?' as it is 'what is art'/'how do games qualify as art?'. Go into any gallery you care to mention and you're likely to find works of arguably less artistic worth than, say, the experience of playing multiplayer Mario Kart or Smash Bros.

Like PvtRyan, I don't buy into the criteria that some people tend to set for art, in that they believe socio-political context/meaning to be a prerequisite almost. I believe it to be an important aspect of some types of art. However, I firmly believe that a lot of art qualifies itself solely by virtue of the emotional resonance it creates. If we were able to reduce every piece of art to a cleverly-worded treatise, then as humans we'd have no need for the concept of 'art' in the first place right? So you have to allow for that sense of the 'inarticulable', which is something that Nintendo's best games have, regardless of them being cerebral or not.

I mean you get games that do Monet, games that do Constable, Escher, Warhol, Banksy, whatever.

For the record, though, I agree with Mecha that the whole attitude of games being 'just for fun' does get in the way of games developing and becoming accepted as an art form. You can see it here in this thread - certain people, just because they only like one type of games-as-art, lump all games into the same category.

It's also true that Nintendo tends to focus on games that the 'just for fun'-group love above all. In the end it becomes irrelevant whether Nintendo does those games so well that they qualify as 'art' or not, because in the end the type of appeal that Nintendo is focussing on means that you would (currently) be much more likely to miss out on games like Ico, SotC, HL2, Planescape, etc. if you only own a Nintendo console.

 

[Warbie]

In the end it becomes irrelevant whether Nintendo does those games so well that they qualify as 'art' or not, because in the end the type of appeal that Nintendo is focussing on means that you would (currently) be much more likely to miss out on games like Ico, SotC, HL2, Planescape, etc. if you only own a Nintendo console.

Fair points, but rather predictably out comes the small list of games - 'Ico, Planescape, HL' - that always get mentioned in these cases. These are a very rare breed, which is a shame. I'd also argue that the likes of Ico and Collosus aren't so far removed from Zelda, infact I feel they owe more to Zelda than any other game. Again with Ico - the sense of solitude that made it for me is easily matched in MP, probably more so. I don't see this big divide.

 

[Laivasse]

Well, more games than those have been mentioned by others and there are more still to mention if you did a poll, but yeah it is a small list. This list tends to follow a pattern, in that they are single player, story driven games, big on depth and atmosphere.

The concern being echoed by people like the spore guy, or at least by Mecha and myself, is that the type of development that Nintendo historically focuses on doesn't do much to expand that list.

Similarly, the casual gamers who get into Wii games for the quick and cheerful thrill of them are unlikely to be the type of people who also recognise the sheer brilliance of the games mentioned in that small, select list. Whether or not the Wii could be a 'gateway' console is hard to tell - like you, I'd tend to say not. As such, I'm not sure really what that means for gaming as a medium.

That's not to say that Nintendo never ever produce games on the same level as those I and others mentioned, but I can see people's arguments when they say that Nintendo aren't contributing to games' development as an art form even though I wouldn't phrase my point in the same way.

 

[ríomhaire]

Anyone who says games can't be art obviously hasn't played Direct Intervention enough

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I suppose you could say this is just 'heart', but I disagree.

I'm certainly not dismissing that contribution as inadequate; nintendo is quite good at style. To me though, and I think this is a common sentiment, art that resonates usually has at least two of the three Oz characteristics. Nintendo occasionally does get that far, but it's a rare event as far as I can tell.

You argue that 'Meaning exists in their games, but is arguably limited via repetition', whereas [...] especially in the case of Zelda, this retelling adds a great sense of history and tradition that if anything gives more meaning.

Zelda is one of the few exceptions to the rule, because, like Mario, its repetitive and serial nature is a key portion of its meaning.

Majora's Mask is an interesting case because nintendo actually kept the graphics the same and changed the storyline, instead of the usual opposite practice. It was also one of the few direct sequels to a zelda game (basically Ocarina of Time 2) so the breaking with tradition was a major factor in the importance of the final product.

The zelda series deals in mythological archetype. Note the constant repetition of a battle between wisdom, power and courage over the course of millenia.
(Wisdom, power and courage: sound familiar? :O)

There's always a dynamic of balance in the series: the four elements, light and shadow, etc.
The major point is it's an exploration of fate, and of universal constants. That's why it gains a chunk of its resonance through the repetition.
At the end of Ocarina of Time however, (spoiler) Link was literally sent out of this continuous loop for the first time.
By giving him a new childhood where he was no longer the hero of destiny (or whatever), he gained an escape from fate.
Majora's Mask looks at what happens in this new fate-free world, and you can see the difference from the beginning.

Instead of Gannon (representing the universal danger of power), the enemy is a god of insanity and chaos. At the same time, Link is stuck in a place where the same events happen in a constant loop. He is the only one who has free agency - and he uses that power to his advantage.
Link is literally free from fate, and the game shows that as a source of strength, in exchange for uncertainty.
It's an excellent outgrowth of the series' themes of destiny and balance.

(Although it could have used a couple more dungeons. )


Continuing with your points, the transition of 2D to 3D is a technical accomplishment more so than an artistic one. Like you said, it mainly served to technologically enhance the same old ideas. The DS and Wii are also technological and not artistic acheivements.
What matters is what these tools are being used to create: the games themselves.

If it were such an easy emotion to evoke then why do so many developers fail so miserably?

The same reason most movies go straight to DVD: a lot of people are total hacks.

Nintendo, does have talents. That's rather undeniable.
My point is that they are putting basically all their talent into refining the same formulas, which might be fun, but it's not artistically innovative.

(honestly, how many [games with deep sociopolitical meaning] can you name that are worthy of note?)

A couple dozen, probably - including a few of the Zelda games, as described above.
Archetypes are a big part of art theory and some branches of psychology.

As a fan I find calling their games 'more of a tool for stress relief than anything enlightening' to be mildly insulting

I'm not the only one saying that; you're saying it too .
In fact, most people in this thread - and it's safe to assume, in the population at large - are interpreting Nintendo games pretty much entirely in terms of technological innovation and emotional effect, and nothing else.

As I said before, more than half of art is in the interpretation, and the remainder is artist's intent.
Currently, both those factors support my assertion.

 

[Puzzlemaker]

Yeah, I really don't care about graphics as much as how fun it is. The Wii is pretty fun.

 

[Jintor]

So emotional effect is not art?

 

[99.vikram]

No, it is a byproduct of art.

 

[Gray Fox]

You can solicit emotions by punching someone in the face, that does not make it art.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

All media has the potential to become art, but emotional response is only the most basic level.

Good art generally has the emotional response integrated into an overall whole. The emotional response is put in the service of some deeper meaning.

I'm not really getting why this isn't clear. Could I explain this better?

 

[Gray Fox]

All media has the potential to become art, but emotional response is only the most basic level.

Good art generally has the emotional response integrated into an overall whole. The emotional response is put in the service of some deeper meaning.

I'm not really getting why this isn't clear. Could I explain this better?

Yes actually.
Art seems to be a concept that means something different for everyone else, something not even people who drink wine and have funny accents can agree on.

I mean did the Mona Lisa have deeper meaning, or Michaelangelo's David. As far as I know they are revered not because they had a deeper meaning, but simply because they looked so good and brought sculpting and or painting to a new level. But in that case, aren't the engineers at Ferrari or BMW also artist, they managed to figure out nature and it's laws, and manage to lift the standards higher every year, and do thing people did not think were possible, they design, they study nature, they study humans, I bet to them it's an art.

And even if Art is wholly in the eye of the beholder, does that counter the points this guy made, since even if were to come to the conclusion that Mario is art. We know very well what that it's not what this guy meant and it doesn't disprove his comments per say.

In any case imo Nintendo can never truly explore what games can be, because they limit themselves to creating fun games. Games do not need to be fun, they need to satisfy. Look at a movie like, hotel Rwanda's, it's not fun watching it, I cried when I watched it, but I also felt satisfied watching it, I felt I saw something beautiful, even if it was because it showed a tragedy, it felt important. I got the same thing from Silent Hill 2, it's wasn't fun, but it was a deeper, more sorrow experience, yet one that left a big impression in me.

Now the thing is, the kind of fun Nintendo provides with it's games is a lot like the fun I get from playing footbal or tennis, it's from winning, from scoring points. While the thing that really separates Video games from normal games and board games is their incredible power to transport you in to a different world, and while gameplay is certainly the core, the single most important thing, it's the embellishment, the garphics, the sound, the stories, that define video games as opposed to a game like tennis, that make them stand out from games like football, that gives them their identity.

And even if you play games like fifa, or pro evo. You do not play them to play football, you mostly play them because they transport you to a big world tournaments, because you get to play with Zidane, Ronaldino. Sure it suck if the game play is bad, and all the gamers of those games ever praise or complain about is the gameplay, so I may be wrong. But I ask myself is it so wrong, that fifa outsells Pro evo, I mean because it has the license, it does more or less give people what they actually want from a game, the illusion, the world they want to be part of.

 

[Jintor]

Wholy shit. They need to satisfy.

That is the best definition for what a game is.

EVER.

Imho.

 

[Shadow-warrior]

He apologized about half an hour later for his comment.

Shame he tried to go back on it, because what he said was spot on :thumbs:

 

[Laivasse]

Like an earlier poster said, it sounded like someone was holding a gun to him.

 

[destrukt]

He didn't need to apologise, you kids and the other people who blew it out of proportion should.

If you actually read how the speech went you could tell he wasn't being completely serious.