Developer: "The Wii is a Piece of Sh*t!"

Discussion in 'Video Games and Technology' started by misterd, Mar 8, 2007.

  1. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,700
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    From IGN and the Game Developers Conference: http://wii.ign.com/articles/771/771051p1.html

    I've posted enough shit about the PS3, figure its only fair to pass on some bashing of Nintendo (of which I am a die hard fanboy).

    Again, I don't do this to start a flame war. There is more to his rant than the quote (though that does serve as a great attention getter), and I think it merits real discussion.

    The main questions evoked from this rant would be, I assume:

    Does Nintendo disrespect games as an art form, or is the developer just pretentious?

    Does the limitations of the Wii create real limits on game play?
     
  2. Gnaw

    Gnaw Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Posts:
    4,548
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    Well, he's right. But then again, what games on the PS3 and XBOX 260 have been 'pieces of art'?
     
  3. Primus

    Primus Beware, the modelers. Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Posts:
    4,145
    News Credits:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    196
    Likes:
    +12
    flOw
     
  4. Valkysas

    Valkysas Attack Buffalo

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Posts:
    20,799
    News Credits:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +21
    Nintendo has made artistic games. Wind Waker and Twilight Princess both come to mind.
    Artisic games can be made for any type of hardware. it just depends on how creative the developer is. if a developer is complaining that they can't do an artistic game on the Wii, its not because the Wii is underpowered, it's because the developer is.

    And why does anything this guy say matters anyways? Maxis is known for creating some of the most boring games on the planet. Yes, some people like them. Some people also think that the Army Men series died too early as well. Maxis makes games you watch. Nintendo makes games you play. Its no surprise he doesnt understand what Nintendo is doing.
     
  5. flamepanther

    flamepanther Interested, but not really

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    10,505
    Trophy Points:
    292
    Likes:
    +124
    Overly pretentious developers FTL. Sony and MS talking about games as "serious art" are just telling people what they want to hear. I don't think any console maker cares more about artistic game development than Nintendo does. Case in point: Twin Snakes, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess. It doesn't take super-dee-duper graphics and crazy AI to make an "artistic" game though. And yes, games should first and foremost be fun. That's what games are for. If Mr. Hecker has lost sight of that, it's a sad comment on the state of some segments of the game industry. Who would want to play an artsy game that isn't fun?
     
  6. eyeballkid

    eyeballkid Old

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    3,754
    Trophy Points:
    202
    Likes:
    +6
    The guy obviously forgot that the Wii is not a next gen console, it is a new gen console.
     
  7. Gigatron_2005

    Gigatron_2005 President of Calendars

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Posts:
    7,871
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Likes:
    +1
    Did this guy just find out about the Wii's hardware or something? Sure, its not nearly as powerful as the 360 or PS3, but the thing can pump out some respectable looking visuals without all the power.

    Funny thing here, he calls out Nintendo for not taking games "seriously", yet of all three home consoles, the Wii is the only one that is respectable to the PC version, interface wise.

    This developer is developer just pretentious and on a massive high-horse. Since when did video games as an "art" require a top of the line CPU and GPU? (Okami, Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Paper Mario, God of War, etc...)
     
  8. flamepanther

    flamepanther Interested, but not really

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    10,505
    Trophy Points:
    292
    Likes:
    +124
    Truth.

    As I'm sure everyone knows I like to point out, the PS2 was a pretty weak piece of hardware compared to the GC and the Xbox. Nevertheless, developers had no problem turning out a veritable wealth of artistically inclined games for it. If he can't be "artistic" with weaker hardware, that's his problem.
     
  9. Valkysas

    Valkysas Attack Buffalo

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Posts:
    20,799
    News Credits:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +21
    Compared to the Dreamcast in some aspects too.

    and as I believe you recently said in another topic, the most powerful console NEVER wins. History has proven that over and over.

    This will have the same impact as when a guy from valve said the PS3 was a failure and that it should be pulled from shelves: absolutely nothing.

    Being from a respected company doesnt make the guy's opinion matter, nor does it mean the guy is intelligent.
     
  10. GogDog

    GogDog Logic's wayward son Veteran

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Posts:
    12,203
    News Credits:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    246
    Likes:
    +6
    FTL FTW!!!!
     
  11. GigatronSama

    GigatronSama Mr. Insomnia Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,523
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Likes:
    +1
    you can make art on an atari 2600. Or is he saying that games were never an art form on the PS2, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES and so fourth and that somehow HE is the only individual who is capable of producing such and he requires technology that has never existed before.

    Yeah, calling him pretentious is being kind.
     
  12. DragoUnicron

    DragoUnicron Dragon Master

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Posts:
    1,572
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    Everything that you have said, Flampanther, were as words taken out of my own mouth. Seriously, the Zelda games are pure art. Art is more then just pretty graphics, it is story, vision, ideals, and even gameplay too. The ability to see Snake's zits does not automatically equal art. It can, and in many cases does, but so does the handdrawn type stuff of the SNES. The ability to mix telling a compelling story and still allow for a great amount of character control is art. The challenge of making games hard enough to be challenging, yet easy enough to be fun is a major artform. Realism isn't the only form of art, especially in the fantasy heavy universes of the video game industry.
     
  13. Edge

    Edge weapon of destruction

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Posts:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Likes:
    +0
    each system has games that are considered art, and alot of the ones on any Nintendo system tend to be by Nintendo. And if memory serves maxis is making spore for all consoles and ea is making a group to develop for just the wii (I'm kind of paraphrasing the last one from something I read ago so I could be wrong). As of right now I don't think the wii can be considered a piece of shit.


    Now six months down the line could be another matter...
     
  14. Spekkio

    Spekkio Master of War

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Posts:
    2,332
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Likes:
    +3
    Maxis sold its soul a long time ago, so I don't really give a shit what anybody there thinks. I mean, if you like the Sims, OK - I don't care - it's a matter of taste. But they've milked the Sims to death - Sims, Sims Online, Sims 2, and various console adaptations. And they haven't done anything revolutionary with the Sims past the initial go-around. Adding pets and seasons isn't groundbreaking.
     
  15. McBradders

    McBradders James Franco Club! Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Posts:
    34,131
    Trophy Points:
    286
    Likes:
    +0
    :lolol 

    I know a few developers who feel exactly the same way XD
     
  16. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,700
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    If you read (or reread) the article, the GDC gave developers an opportunity to rant, which is why this comes up now. Not sure how many other developers took this chance, nor what they may have said, but I'd be curious to find out. However, what's unusual is news, and up to now there haven't been many attacks on the Wii.


    Of course all the games you mention do have relatively top of the line CPUs, at least compared to the last generation. Mix in a Tetris, Ms Pac Man or Super Mario Bros and the point would be stronger.

    To be fair, I think what he's saying is that by limiting the hardware, you are limiting how far the artist can go in developing a game, or, as he might say, in stetching the boundaries of the art. That's a point I find reasonable, as a more powerful system can allow the developer to more, but they can still do Atari2600 style games if he chooses.

    Put another way, an artist could still create art if all he had was charcoal and a cave wall, but given the choice, he'd also like to have paint, pencil, chalk, crayons, canvas, paper, etc available to him.

    Again, if you read his whole rant, he says that it's not just about the graphics. He points out that the Wii, for him, seriously restricts what can be done with AI. I think that may be a fair point, but for the last 10 years I've heard about improved AI, and while most games have more ranges of behavior, I've still yet to be impressed by any AI. Maybe the 360 or PS3 will change that, but if that's his concern, he should stick to those systems.

    And that's the key, isn't it? I've seen plenty of pretentious "art" films that bore me to tears. Being stylish and creative and "deep" doesn't necessarily make a great film, and by the same token, being visually stunning with cutting edge AI doesn't by itself make a game worth playing.

    To me the Wii controller has the potential to add a dimension to games, make them fun in a way they haven't been before. This may not be what he wants to do, but that doesn't make it shit. It's a bit like an oil painter getting pissed because one company choses to focus on making better brushes than new and improved paints and canvas. He may not want or need those new brushes, but that doesn't mean the company isn't serving the artists who do.
     
  17. b_ack51

    b_ack51 I'm on the interweb!

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Posts:
    932
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +0
    I agree with you completely right here, I can't read the article from work but I'm guessing the developer is just talking about the limitations of the hardware of the wii and comparing it to the other systems. He's a developer, any limitation on his ability to develop with hardware will piss him off or any developer off. I'm not saying the Wii is a piece of shit or whatever, I can just understand the guy might be frustrated when he wants to make a beautiful artistic game (in his eyes) and he goes okay to run this I will need this type of processor, ram, (or Tim Allen would say "MORE POWER") but he sees the he might need this and the wii only offers that.
     
  18. Tigran

    Tigran Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Posts:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    182
    Likes:
    +13
    I think he's just pissed he hasn't been able to find a wii yet. ;) 
     
  19. Gryph

    Gryph Action Master

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Posts:
    10,393
    News Credits:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    267
    Likes:
    +25
    The man has his priorities mixed up. Fun should always be the first priority for any game. If it's not, then what's the point in making a game in the first place?
     
  20. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,700
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    Because he's looking at it from the developer's POV. Many good ideas get crushed because of technical limitations - look at what PM originally planned for Fable, compared to what we actually got. I'm sure in his mind, if only we could overcome those limitations, the games would be that much more fun.

    Think about how limited movies were before digital FX. Many things we see today would have been impossible to pull off credibly. Imagine, when Cameron was making T2, or Speilberg Jurassic Park, if ILM was putting all it's resources into making great 3D films, rather than digital characters. Surely there are lots of ways filmmakers could creatively improve the movie going experience with 3D, but it wouldn't help anyone looking to make a T-1000 or T-Rex.
     

Share This Page