First off, graphical resolution has very little to do with developement costs. Graphics are usually originally vector based (done in things like Illustrator and Maya), or high-res raster files... of which are downscaled immensely when going over to a console. This is pretty much true of any graphic design field. For my TV production (still NTSC), I do a lot of my graphics in vector or high-res raster, just in case I may need to use the graphics later for print, or to do some rescaling animations. Graphics are almost always done with the mindset that they may someday go to print media, which means that even the most advanced HD doesn't come anywhere close. Bottom line is, it takes almost no more developement to do HD graphics than SD, since both are going to be highly downscaled anyway.
And the GameCube-similarly comment is just silly.
Only a very small handfull of people think of the Wii as an "slightly updated GameCube", in fact, I'll bet you that more people think of the 360 as an updated XBox (due to the name and the relatively small change in game styles for the new system). The only people who think of it that way are a) tech people who are b) Nintendo Naysayers who only look at processing power as a benchmark for quality. That's a very very small percentage of the population. The GameCube didn't sell, the Wii is selling incredibly well, which means that there must be a huge difference in people's minds between the systems... it's a much larger leap of sales than any other console in recent history. Even that aside, like hell does Nintendo want to market it that way. In fact, I would have expected them to price it differently simply to try to burn it into people's heads that the games were higher quality than GC games. Even if they were to think of them as similar, they're not going to want to admit it. From a marketing perspective, this makes very little sense.
No, the primary reason is that Nintendo has been playing the populist card now for quite some time (and doing so quite well) and their pricing matches that. It becomes difficult to keep up the populist image while jacking up prices so that the populis has trouble paying for it. Sony and Microsoft did all the work for them... they jacked up their prices. So to come off looking like the caring, populist corporation, all Nintendo had to do was NOT change their prices.
It's all about marketing, it has nothing to do with development costs or horsepower speculations. You can only talk about development costs being a factor if each unit sold requires a certain amount to produce. All that goes into the production of the game package itself (the disc, the case, the box, the booklet), is extremely cheep. It's close to a 100% profit margin, in terms of basic production costs per unit, so all they really need to do is price it so as much money is made from the sales, regardless of how many units that is.
Yet your (b) reason just goes to prove his point. Similarly, the reason why games like Katamari are around the same price as FF12 is because people who buy them view them as not having THAT much different entertainment value. We're used to media having relatively flat rates, because there's no accounting for taste. If people don't like Katamari, lowering the price to $20 isn't likely going to make them pick it up, but pricing it at $39.99 will likely get MOST of the people who would have bought it for $20. I can't think of an instance where a specific type of media varied wildly in price. Okay, software... but that has a lot of unique properties that I won't get into.
While the Final Fantasy series is not as big in Europe (relatively speaking... it's still huge), Gran Tourismo and especially GTA are HUGE! Not to mention, most of the FIFA soccer games have major issues as well. This list is not good news, and is most definitely going to effect sales down the line when the complaints start mounting.
Yes, and most likely, they will be boiled down to one question, or possibly ignored entirely. Also, frankly, any question that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", is pretty wasteful. Word the question so that you can gain some insight into their thoughts, well above and beyond the simple answers that they've been instructed to give.
You act as if concentration is a completely black & white matter. This is the same flawed arguement that many use to "prove" that videogames do not influence crime. "I've never run off the road, thus videogames must not prompt bad driving," is a logically flawed arguement. This does not take into account the more subtle distractions and lapses in concentration that can occur while trying to correct against videogame driving habits. The mental state induced by playing a driving game will not likely cause one to drive a car as if they were playing a video game, but there is a part of the subconcious that is having to work overtime to make sure that this doesn't happen. This results in a subtle lack in concentration, and heightened confusion that could likely delay ones ability to react to changing conditions. This is roughly what happens when driving while on the cell-phone.
Videogames, cell phone talking, and driving while intoxicated all effect mental state. Every activity does, to a certain degree. Even talking to other people in the car slightly diminishes ones ability to react to stimuli. However, the change is so minute that it may only effect the outcome of a small handful of accidents. At a certain point, it becomes silly and intrusive to make any legal ramifications for doing so. The question is, then, where do you draw the line? Statistically, cell phone talking has proven to cause an even more significant reduction in ability to avoid calamity than the average drunk driver (and this is regardless of whether the cell phone is hands free or not). So, seeing as though its more intruisive than something already deemed illegal (DWI), one could make a pretty solid case for outlawing cellphone use... and this is already happening in many countries and states.
The question is, then, how much do videogames effect driving? I could imagine that driving immediately after playing a racing game would cloud ones ability for the first few minutes, but then quickly dissappears as the game playing leaves the short term memory. The change could be fairly severe for a short period of time, but will inevitably be corrected. Unfortunately, conditions make it impossible to put some actual restrictions on it. Obviously, legal precidings are fairly impossible and pointless to make for situations like this, but it is good to know, and could be used to make for some loose guidelines that gamers should know about, like simply, "do not drive within 10 minutes after playing a racing game". If people use their judgement (which, unfortunately, they don't), this would work fine.
What is your personal philosophy regarding the future of videogames as a genre? For example, where do you see games, in terms of social and cultural identification, 20 years from now, and how do you think the nature of the PS3 plays into the culmination of this overall vision?
And how are they not art? They're functional, sure... but do you dismis all architecture from artistic definition? A table in chairs falls into the same catagory.
You've made a declaration, not a logical arguement, for the idea that a table and chairs are not art, by means of a supposed ad populum. The truth is that the definition of "art" is a moving target, and can't be defined directly in and of itself. As I've said, some put different criteria on the definition than others. There is little common consensus as to the definition either. Many use a fairly liberal defintion in that, "all creations by means of a creative endevour should be considered art", and some use fairly conservative definitions by attatching conditions such as functionality, quality, and intent.
The problem with these conservative arguements is that even the most rigid believers in them commonly find contraditions with their own arguements, without actually thinking it through. For example, many people agree with your functionality axiom, although few would would argue that architecture does not belong within the definitino, which automatically rules out functionality as a universal truism. I realize that my arguement is not a completely logical one, as it appeals to a particular hypocracy of popular definition.
Another common misconceptions stems from the notion that "art" is inherently a positive attribute. Therefor, art can only be something of which one considers to be of value. Value judgements are completely subjective statements, and therefor, not subject to logic or rational debate. This has no place in a formal definition.
Finally, there's intent, something which is next to impossible to put a universal stamp on. The only way this arguement plays out is by giving total license to the creator to define their work as art or not. "If the creator deems his work artistic, then it is, by nature, so." This is a popular arguement, and while useful for studying the reasons behind the creation of a certain work, it is completely useless in defining that work as a whole. Intent is not a completely black and white notion, and a creators personal philosophy on art may impede his/her judgement about the intent of their own work, so as such, even the creator can not make an objective judgement about the definition of their work. Intent is unequivically important to study, yet it is shallow and irrational to attatch as a condition for a work.
I have yet to hear any rational arguement as to why videogames or tables and chairs, as respetive genres, should be universally striken from artistic definition. One can not "cherry-pick" certain conditions for some genres, and not others. If one must attatch afunctionality to the definition, that is fine, but realize that this goes against common conception in many different genres.
Ones definition of "art", more often than not, simply betrays ones personal bias towards certain genres as having more value than others. This is not relivant to any linguistic defintion.
Good point. No matter how close you make a sim, it's still a sim: 2D projection, no accelleration, etc. However, I do believe that simply the mental difference between feeling "exactly like driving" and "close to driving", is not really very much. I know that even after playing F-Zero or some ludicrisly stylized racing game, the first few minutes of driving on the freeway feels just a little off... as if part of my brain is still having to remind myself that I've "shifted gears" and no longer in the video game.
I have no clue whether video games will change driving habits for the long term, however. But in the short term, it very clearly effects mental behavior during driving.
Great points as well. I've been struggling to figure out what piece of the developement teem is, and should be, considered the artistic identity of the work. Movies have their directors, (although a lot of the public attribute the face of movies to the actors, since they are the ones they actually see on screen), music has bands and composers, but games are tough. They have developement teams, but those teams change for every game, so it's not like a band, who have a public identity. Games, I think, are pretty similar in their production makeup as films, and therefor, the director really defines the identity of the game. A few get their due credit: Miyamoto, Will Wright, etc. but not enough. Maybe it's because such a lot of games are Japanese, and it's harder for americans to remember Japanese names, but I think its more than that. With films, you have an intro credit roll, the direction team printed on the back of the jacket, and on posters. With games, you're really lucky to get an intro credit roll, and any names only get put on the jacket within the blurb, and only if they are superstar game producers. So, I do think more directors and team leaders need to put their names front and center.
Now, many movies have huge creator identities: Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubric, Peter Jackson, Clint Eastwood... all have their own fanbase that will go see a movie specificly because they like the work of that director. The only game directors I know that have followings in the same way are Miyamoto, Will Wright, and Hironobu Sakaguchi. It's much more difficult to take a work seriously if you don't have an identity to attatch it to. I think this will change, though, as game developement starts to look more and more like film crews.
But saying "Valve Software", on the other hand, is similar to saying "Miramax Films". Noone goes to see a film because of its production company, since the people involved changes for every movie. The only exception would be Pixar, which has a very significant identity, and since it's only about 1000 employees, it's basically one central design team with a few rotating directors. Point in case, Square-Enix may be known for Final Fantasy, but it has games all across the board, spanning many genres and created by different people. I've played some games that I love, and some games that I absolutely dispise, that had no connection with each other. It's not really helpfull to know what production company did the work, it's just far too general.
One method may be to brand gaming teams more thoroughly. "Sonic Team", was able to do that to a certain degree. "Hal Labratories", to a lesser extent. Clover Studios definitely were able to define themselves as an entity... but probably a good deal of that was because of the backlash when they were cut.
Freedom, shmeedom... that's not why I play games. Freedom isn't the only thing that games have to offer that other genres don't have. Or should I say, games offer a wide variety of different forms and varying levels of freedom, each of which, no other genre can do. I love cinema, I enjoy it a lot, I don't miss the opportunity to control the actions the main character has in the storyline, because identifying with an exquisitely-cratfted storyline is one of the main reasons why I watch movies, and it happens to be one of the main reasons why I play games, as well. But simply "not being able to control the story" doesn't make a game a movie, or any less reliavent.
There is no such thing as a movie that allows me to control the pacing, the camera angle, the position of the camera, and interact with the world in various ways. None of these things inherently call for variation of the overall plot, or character personalities. It is true that a game allows for a level of interaction that movies do not... but to what degree?
I, personally, don't play an RPG because I want to create a story, I play one because I want to be immersed in a finely crafted story, to a greater extent than a movie can deliver. I feel that society is becoming too full of itself, too arrogant to really listen to others, that even our storytelling must be our own. We want control, we want freedom... but at what cost? The cost of finely-crafted creative vision? We're no longer comfortable with sitting back and letting someone else make us do some serious thinking.
The bottom line is, we all have different interests. While I'd like games to be more than just "movies with button pressing to advance scenes." I don't want to sacrifice fine storytelling just to satisfy some amorphic need to control everything.
I think we're both on the same page, as far as our interest in seeing the more sophisticated side of games, that really hasn't risen its head yet. However, I dissagree that games should become more like cinema. As one of the other repliers said, "we have cinema for cinema". But what I think you intended to say is something along the lines of, "games have a lot they could learn from good cinema."
But as far as I am concerned, a certain level of sophistication simply hasn't been introduced into games yet. Even our most "sophisticated" examples (some have suggested Shadow of the Collosus, Ico, etc.) have about equal to B fantasy movie created for 15 year olds. In this genre, at this time, that isn't bad. But it isn't great either. It makes me sad that "Metal Gear Solid" is held as one of the crowning achievements of story and characters in gaming, when it amounts to little more than something out of the James Bond series... a series that, while fun, I wouldn't even begin to describe as, "sophisticated."
Where's my "Good Night and Good Luck", my "Capote", my "Citizen Kain", or my "Chinatown"? There's no game I've ever seen that comes anywhere close to the level of sophistication any of those provide. However, I'm not worried. It took cinema many years to reach its potential, as well as photography, sculpture, and almost any other artistic medium. It's not there yet, but give it its due course.
The other thing to note is that all genres, in their infancy, will go through periods of emulation of other comparible genres. Just as early art photography attempted to emulate painting, or early cinema used to emulate theatre. It's only natural that, here, in its second stage of developement, videogames would emulate cinema.
While I agree, it also depends upon your definition of "Art". Now, a thoughtful, and more objective interpretation of the word boils down to anything that is produced through a creative process. Society, however, has subjectively attatched their own sense of taste onto the word so that anything that doesn't appeal to them is unartistic, and is often degraded to meer "entertainment". The word "art" is sort of the darling of the accademic community, and thus, reflects a certain bias towards certain works that share sensibilities that resonate with the tastes of people within that community. I'd consider myself deeply ingrained into that psychographic, yet it's important to recognize ones own biases.
Some have attatched additional requirements to the word. You often hear things like, "to be art, a work must not serve any purpose other than itself," yet hardly any art philosopher would dare reject the entire genre of architecture, which most deffinitely does provide additional functionality. Then there are those that argue that the purpose behind art must not revolve around the aquisition of wealth. Yet the vast majority of works we consider art were created with the intention of being sold or licensed. Some would boldly go as far as to suggest that no work of art must have corporate backing... yet it is impossible to execute even some of the simpler forms of cinema without the budget of a small country. Should we, then, deem all cinematic visions "off limits"?
Games do, on the other hand, have one slight distinction that separates them from all other forms of art: they have a goal. This is the only arguement I have heard, to date, for the possibility of not being able to define video games as art. Yet, even the conception of this goal is a creative endevour. Coming up with a great puzzle or difficult situation, in a game, takes quite a bit of fine ingenuity that can not be defined in any other way than being "artistic". When it comes down to it, the goal driving a game forward is simply that genre's counterpart to the clock ticking down the seconds until the end of the symphony, or the spacial dimension of a sculpture; it simply serves to give the work direction and structure.
So, in closing, most of these comments can be taken as snide remarks by those in older generations who are simply inequiped to evaluate a new art form. One particular person is only going to enjoy a fairly small subset out of any given genre, this is true for any medium... but people completely inequiped to evaluate a genre are, then, unable and unwilling to find any of the redeaming characteristics that they normally would be able to find in any other genre.
That's why I was so impressed when Miyamoto spoke, a few days ago, about letting his design teams screw around with weird implementations. "Play Time" is always an absolute neccessity for any kind of good designer/developer. I bet, with 80 hour work weeks and rediculous deadlines, that's the first thing that goes out the window.
Bottom line, games have gotten WAY over-blown. The bar is set so high when it comes to detailed complexity that the big picture is completely neglected. After all, it's the quality of the overall concepts that usually make a great game. That's why I'm so against photo-realism these days... it emphesizes detail while neglecting form.
It's not so much a question of magnitude of "hardcore-ness", as much as the interpretation of the word "hardcore". There are two distinctly different popular definitions surrounding the word hardcore, and they seem to be getting confused here.
1. Referring to anything that attempts to portray a high volume of extroverted masculinity (machismo) via adrenaline-producing properties: "hardcore porn", "hardcore violence", "hardcore action", "hardcore sports", "hardcore music".
2. Referring to a high level of dedication to a particular genre of arts/entertainment, including a regularly consistent level of participation. This is also usually combined with an interest in following the history and current events related to the genre. Also demanding of a high level of complexity or difficulty. Fandom. Someone who is considered a connoisseur of a particular field.
In games, which are traditionally considered a masculine and youthful affair, the general assumption is that the more dedicated the gamer, the more drawn one is to the overtly masculine side of gaming. This is a fairly flawed way of thinking. It's as if the general assumption was that film connoisseurs tend to be drawn toward violent action films, when, in actuality, they tend to be contradictory to the tastes of many film enthusiasts. Many who are drawn to the adrenaline-producing and machismo side of gaming are not so much interested in gaming itself, rather than using it as a medium in which to prove their masculinity to themselves and to others. An example is the hordes of young teenage males who bought GTA games for the soul purpose of running over pedestrians, and playing out their violent fantasies. In this sense, most who are inspired by the purely primal side of gaming are less likely to be game enthusiasts.
The question is, when we say "hardcore", which definition do we mean? In some ways, people fitting both definitions are admired within the gaming community.
This is where the marketing of the Wii becomes a bit complicated. The Wii actively attempts to distance itself from those fitting the first definition; Miyamoto and others within the company have actively expressed concern at the level of violence and machismo within the gaming community. Unfortunately, since Nintendo's current goal is to expand their audience, they have little interest in satisfying or embracing people fitting the second definition of hardcore. Their saving grace is that Nintendo has a longer historical presence; this combined with their "back to basics" corporate philosophy tends to resonate with the nostalgic side of many people fitting the second definition. In a sense, Nintendo's strategy is to say, "You don't have to be a gamer to play games", with little outward effort to "convert" people into the world of gaming.
Sony and Microsoft are also attempting to expand their audience, as any company wishes to do. Their strategy, on the other hand, is to appeal to non-gamers fitting the first definition. But as with Nintendo, they make no attempts to actively embrace those fitting the second definition. This is only logical, because those who are already gamers are already more likely to buy into their system. Additionally, Sony and Microsoft exhibit an outward philosophy of "forget the past, look to the future" (even if they do provide peripheral access to legacy games), which is beginning to alienate gamers fitting the second definition. Their strategy is to excite people with enough flare and primal stimuli, as to fully convert them into active gamers.
The irony is that while active gamers may purchase more, but they also demand more from their games, driving up production cost of hardware and software. With Nintendo's strategy, passive gamers are more likely to respond to the simplicity and form of lower-budget work.
Myself? I'm fully in agreement with Nintendo's strategy, as I believe that it's high time that designers step back and re-assess their concepts of form and function. While this strategy might result in simpler games, at least in the short term, it also has the potential of increasing the quality and sophistication of games to come.
Except that Wii discs are DVDs, as GC discs are simply mini-DVDs. They're not like a GigaDisc, or some kind of wholy propriatary format. It's more like PlayStation CDs or PS2 DVDs... same format, just with a little tag on the beginning that basicaly says "I am not a CD-R".
If I remember correctly, with the PS1/2 this was done by putting a series of little gaps in the track near the inside edge that, when read by a normal CD/DVD player, appeared to be deep scratches. You could copy them just fine (by turning off error correction, so it would ignore the "scratches"), but you could never reproduce those little marks on the CD/DVD-R, in which the Playstation used to identify the legitamacy of the disc.
But yeah, all specs I've seen on the GC and Wii discs suggest that they are perfectly normal DVDs. I had a friend who once told me that the track and disc spun the opposite direction. But while this is a neat idea, I have never heard that since. If it were the case, than it would explain the added complexity of having to spin the motor in the opposite direction, but I have a good feeling that it's just a rumor. I'm guessing that Microsoft does something about the same as Sony, it's just such an easy thing to do, and since it uses all existing technology and format, it becomes much cheaper than creating a propriatary format.
Agreed. I use a PS2 for playing back DVDs, and I'll admit, "it works", but not very well. It's combersomb as hell. I love going and watching movies on my friends' 360, because it has a really nice DVD playback system, that doesn't require you to memorize strange button fuctions, and is much more flexible to use. Now, I have no doubt that the PS3s DVD playback system kicks the shit out the the PS2s, but I'm not about to pay $600 for it.
I can't wait until Nintendo finally puts DVD player software on their online store. After all, the Wii has all the neccessary hardware and decoders to play DVDs, but they didn't allow it at launch, since it would require additional licensing fees. So, I'm possitive a DVD player program/licensing is just around the corner, probably $20-$30s, and the Wiimote is a far better interface for playing DVDs, anyway.
No matter who interviews him, he's always got some inspiring things to say. I think it's really interesting to hear that Nintendo is letting their developers screw around like they do... I think it's the mark of a company that's really thinking in the long term, since "playing around" does not gain immediate results or profits. I guess I should expect as much from a company that's been around more than 130 years.
Also, I find it amusing that Miyamoto's telling MTV to tell kids not to follow fads, I just have to wonder whether that was supposed to be a bit of a smug comment.
Continuing along those lines, that reasoning is basically why I feel that all those "when will society accept games as an artform" articles that/. has every few days are basically just gamers/developers masturbating their ego.
I don't quite understand your reasoning here... if anything, the more people that question the artistic merit of video games, the faster wide-spread acceptance will be. I think it's a really really good question and a really good sign that we're starting to see it popping up so much these days. Masterbation or not, it's a healthy debate, and I'm happy to take part in it.
To a certain degree, I agree, but it is getting worse.
When Windows 95, everyone jumped on board, at least, most tried to and did so fairly quickly. Windows 98 came along, people were fine with jumping on fairly quickly. Even ME came out, and a lot of unfortunate fools decided to upgrade. But then when XP came out, people were a lot more reluctant (possibly because of the ME debacle), in fact, if anything, XP showed people how similar 2000 was, and MANY companies simply "upgraded" to 2000, and went for years without upgrading to XP. Only just a year ago, in 2006, many computers in the company I work for ran 2000. Now, it's probably accurate to say that a good 90% are on XP, and people are fairly comfortable with XP, but aren't willing to switch. So, at this point, Microsoft, in about 3 cycles, has gotten about an entire cycle out of sync with the public. So, yes, Vista isn't going away, but upgrade adoption of Windows versions IS getting undeniably slower, so things are changing. Interestingly, if MS had been able to release Vista two years ago, they probably would have gotten A LOT more adopters.
The bottom line is that Microsoft's constant delays are bringing to attention a lot of concerns about the quality of their product line. The result is that the slower Microsoft becomes in releasing new versions, the slower, still, the public will be to snatch it up.
Agreed. I don't think Nintendo has ruled this out, in fact, I think it's exactly what they intend to do. Currently, Sony and MS are having to sell at a loss because the expectations of a console (sans overall creative vision) are higher than what they can make a profit on. Nintendo is stepping back, making a cheaper, more efficient console for the short term. Come 2009-10, MS or Sony will have so much invested in the 360 and PS3, that they won't be able to release a new console. But Nintendo will be easily able to come out with a new console that will out perform both of the others, and will be far cheaper to manufacture. Nintendo will then be half a generation staggerd from MS and Sony, meaning that half of the time, Nintendo will be the leader, and the other half of the time Sony and MS will have to duke it out for that status. If they are able to pull it off and keep it up, they are almost guarenteed stable market leadership, exceeding 60%, by 2015 or so.
Nintendo has done well to separate itself from Sony and MS. The more they can do that, the more it'll become a choice between Nintendo, and one of the others.
Well, in seeing the scope of the data to be analyzed, one would not expect to be finding anything this early. Yet, in fact, SETI has revealed quite a few possible sources to look into further. The fact that it's recovered anything at all is pretty remarkable, if you ask me. I don't think they were expecting to find ANYTHING this soon, so it has past expectation.
Yeah, no shit. This is identical to the notion that Rock & Roll was for kids during the 50s, or drugs were for kids during the 60s. Now everyone listens to loud music and smokes weed, we all know that!
No, but seriously, I think it's good that these statisics continue to penatrate the mainstream media, as it continues to break down the sentimates that video games are not a legitiment form of entertainment. There will always be nay-sayers, but their voices will become more burried when the masses realize that they're not alone in their game playing.
Wait a minute... let me get this straight, you already have a DVD player that you love (PS2), but you won't buy a Wii simply because it won't get you ANOTHER DVD player? Now I'm very confused.
Simply sounds like you've got hate in your heart, so let it all out: these are the things I can do without.
Explain to me why SETI is considered "in"famous? from everything I've heard and read, the project was a major breakthrough in multi-computer processing of data, opened up a new way of analyzing data on a massive scale, and even revealed some possible locations in which to begin looking for radio transmissions. Excepting a few debacles with people getting fired from using work computers, how could SETI be considered anything but a complete success?
Slashdot Mirror
You're both wrong.
First off, graphical resolution has very little to do with developement costs. Graphics are usually originally vector based (done in things like Illustrator and Maya), or high-res raster files... of which are downscaled immensely when going over to a console. This is pretty much true of any graphic design field. For my TV production (still NTSC), I do a lot of my graphics in vector or high-res raster, just in case I may need to use the graphics later for print, or to do some rescaling animations. Graphics are almost always done with the mindset that they may someday go to print media, which means that even the most advanced HD doesn't come anywhere close. Bottom line is, it takes almost no more developement to do HD graphics than SD, since both are going to be highly downscaled anyway.
And the GameCube-similarly comment is just silly.
Only a very small handfull of people think of the Wii as an "slightly updated GameCube", in fact, I'll bet you that more people think of the 360 as an updated XBox (due to the name and the relatively small change in game styles for the new system). The only people who think of it that way are a) tech people who are b) Nintendo Naysayers who only look at processing power as a benchmark for quality. That's a very very small percentage of the population. The GameCube didn't sell, the Wii is selling incredibly well, which means that there must be a huge difference in people's minds between the systems... it's a much larger leap of sales than any other console in recent history. Even that aside, like hell does Nintendo want to market it that way. In fact, I would have expected them to price it differently simply to try to burn it into people's heads that the games were higher quality than GC games. Even if they were to think of them as similar, they're not going to want to admit it. From a marketing perspective, this makes very little sense.
No, the primary reason is that Nintendo has been playing the populist card now for quite some time (and doing so quite well) and their pricing matches that. It becomes difficult to keep up the populist image while jacking up prices so that the populis has trouble paying for it. Sony and Microsoft did all the work for them... they jacked up their prices. So to come off looking like the caring, populist corporation, all Nintendo had to do was NOT change their prices.
It's all about marketing, it has nothing to do with development costs or horsepower speculations. You can only talk about development costs being a factor if each unit sold requires a certain amount to produce. All that goes into the production of the game package itself (the disc, the case, the box, the booklet), is extremely cheep. It's close to a 100% profit margin, in terms of basic production costs per unit, so all they really need to do is price it so as much money is made from the sales, regardless of how many units that is.
Yet your (b) reason just goes to prove his point. Similarly, the reason why games like Katamari are around the same price as FF12 is because people who buy them view them as not having THAT much different entertainment value. We're used to media having relatively flat rates, because there's no accounting for taste. If people don't like Katamari, lowering the price to $20 isn't likely going to make them pick it up, but pricing it at $39.99 will likely get MOST of the people who would have bought it for $20. I can't think of an instance where a specific type of media varied wildly in price. Okay, software... but that has a lot of unique properties that I won't get into.
While the Final Fantasy series is not as big in Europe (relatively speaking... it's still huge), Gran Tourismo and especially GTA are HUGE! Not to mention, most of the FIFA soccer games have major issues as well. This list is not good news, and is most definitely going to effect sales down the line when the complaints start mounting.
Yes, and most likely, they will be boiled down to one question, or possibly ignored entirely. Also, frankly, any question that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", is pretty wasteful. Word the question so that you can gain some insight into their thoughts, well above and beyond the simple answers that they've been instructed to give.
You act as if concentration is a completely black & white matter. This is the same flawed arguement that many use to "prove" that videogames do not influence crime. "I've never run off the road, thus videogames must not prompt bad driving," is a logically flawed arguement. This does not take into account the more subtle distractions and lapses in concentration that can occur while trying to correct against videogame driving habits. The mental state induced by playing a driving game will not likely cause one to drive a car as if they were playing a video game, but there is a part of the subconcious that is having to work overtime to make sure that this doesn't happen. This results in a subtle lack in concentration, and heightened confusion that could likely delay ones ability to react to changing conditions. This is roughly what happens when driving while on the cell-phone.
Videogames, cell phone talking, and driving while intoxicated all effect mental state. Every activity does, to a certain degree. Even talking to other people in the car slightly diminishes ones ability to react to stimuli. However, the change is so minute that it may only effect the outcome of a small handful of accidents. At a certain point, it becomes silly and intrusive to make any legal ramifications for doing so. The question is, then, where do you draw the line? Statistically, cell phone talking has proven to cause an even more significant reduction in ability to avoid calamity than the average drunk driver (and this is regardless of whether the cell phone is hands free or not). So, seeing as though its more intruisive than something already deemed illegal (DWI), one could make a pretty solid case for outlawing cellphone use... and this is already happening in many countries and states.
The question is, then, how much do videogames effect driving? I could imagine that driving immediately after playing a racing game would cloud ones ability for the first few minutes, but then quickly dissappears as the game playing leaves the short term memory. The change could be fairly severe for a short period of time, but will inevitably be corrected. Unfortunately, conditions make it impossible to put some actual restrictions on it. Obviously, legal precidings are fairly impossible and pointless to make for situations like this, but it is good to know, and could be used to make for some loose guidelines that gamers should know about, like simply, "do not drive within 10 minutes after playing a racing game". If people use their judgement (which, unfortunately, they don't), this would work fine.
What is your personal philosophy regarding the future of videogames as a genre? For example, where do you see games, in terms of social and cultural identification, 20 years from now, and how do you think the nature of the PS3 plays into the culmination of this overall vision?
And how are they not art? They're functional, sure... but do you dismis all architecture from artistic definition? A table in chairs falls into the same catagory.
You've made a declaration, not a logical arguement, for the idea that a table and chairs are not art, by means of a supposed ad populum. The truth is that the definition of "art" is a moving target, and can't be defined directly in and of itself. As I've said, some put different criteria on the definition than others. There is little common consensus as to the definition either. Many use a fairly liberal defintion in that, "all creations by means of a creative endevour should be considered art", and some use fairly conservative definitions by attatching conditions such as functionality, quality, and intent.
The problem with these conservative arguements is that even the most rigid believers in them commonly find contraditions with their own arguements, without actually thinking it through. For example, many people agree with your functionality axiom, although few would would argue that architecture does not belong within the definitino, which automatically rules out functionality as a universal truism. I realize that my arguement is not a completely logical one, as it appeals to a particular hypocracy of popular definition.
Another common misconceptions stems from the notion that "art" is inherently a positive attribute. Therefor, art can only be something of which one considers to be of value. Value judgements are completely subjective statements, and therefor, not subject to logic or rational debate. This has no place in a formal definition.
Finally, there's intent, something which is next to impossible to put a universal stamp on. The only way this arguement plays out is by giving total license to the creator to define their work as art or not. "If the creator deems his work artistic, then it is, by nature, so." This is a popular arguement, and while useful for studying the reasons behind the creation of a certain work, it is completely useless in defining that work as a whole. Intent is not a completely black and white notion, and a creators personal philosophy on art may impede his/her judgement about the intent of their own work, so as such, even the creator can not make an objective judgement about the definition of their work. Intent is unequivically important to study, yet it is shallow and irrational to attatch as a condition for a work.
I have yet to hear any rational arguement as to why videogames or tables and chairs, as respetive genres, should be universally striken from artistic definition. One can not "cherry-pick" certain conditions for some genres, and not others. If one must attatch afunctionality to the definition, that is fine, but realize that this goes against common conception in many different genres.
Ones definition of "art", more often than not, simply betrays ones personal bias towards certain genres as having more value than others. This is not relivant to any linguistic defintion.
Good point. No matter how close you make a sim, it's still a sim: 2D projection, no accelleration, etc. However, I do believe that simply the mental difference between feeling "exactly like driving" and "close to driving", is not really very much. I know that even after playing F-Zero or some ludicrisly stylized racing game, the first few minutes of driving on the freeway feels just a little off... as if part of my brain is still having to remind myself that I've "shifted gears" and no longer in the video game.
I have no clue whether video games will change driving habits for the long term, however. But in the short term, it very clearly effects mental behavior during driving.
Great points as well. I've been struggling to figure out what piece of the developement teem is, and should be, considered the artistic identity of the work. Movies have their directors, (although a lot of the public attribute the face of movies to the actors, since they are the ones they actually see on screen), music has bands and composers, but games are tough. They have developement teams, but those teams change for every game, so it's not like a band, who have a public identity. Games, I think, are pretty similar in their production makeup as films, and therefor, the director really defines the identity of the game. A few get their due credit: Miyamoto, Will Wright, etc. but not enough. Maybe it's because such a lot of games are Japanese, and it's harder for americans to remember Japanese names, but I think its more than that. With films, you have an intro credit roll, the direction team printed on the back of the jacket, and on posters. With games, you're really lucky to get an intro credit roll, and any names only get put on the jacket within the blurb, and only if they are superstar game producers. So, I do think more directors and team leaders need to put their names front and center.
Now, many movies have huge creator identities: Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubric, Peter Jackson, Clint Eastwood... all have their own fanbase that will go see a movie specificly because they like the work of that director. The only game directors I know that have followings in the same way are Miyamoto, Will Wright, and Hironobu Sakaguchi. It's much more difficult to take a work seriously if you don't have an identity to attatch it to. I think this will change, though, as game developement starts to look more and more like film crews.
But saying "Valve Software", on the other hand, is similar to saying "Miramax Films". Noone goes to see a film because of its production company, since the people involved changes for every movie. The only exception would be Pixar, which has a very significant identity, and since it's only about 1000 employees, it's basically one central design team with a few rotating directors. Point in case, Square-Enix may be known for Final Fantasy, but it has games all across the board, spanning many genres and created by different people. I've played some games that I love, and some games that I absolutely dispise, that had no connection with each other. It's not really helpfull to know what production company did the work, it's just far too general.
One method may be to brand gaming teams more thoroughly. "Sonic Team", was able to do that to a certain degree. "Hal Labratories", to a lesser extent. Clover Studios definitely were able to define themselves as an entity... but probably a good deal of that was because of the backlash when they were cut.
Freedom, shmeedom... that's not why I play games. Freedom isn't the only thing that games have to offer that other genres don't have. Or should I say, games offer a wide variety of different forms and varying levels of freedom, each of which, no other genre can do. I love cinema, I enjoy it a lot, I don't miss the opportunity to control the actions the main character has in the storyline, because identifying with an exquisitely-cratfted storyline is one of the main reasons why I watch movies, and it happens to be one of the main reasons why I play games, as well. But simply "not being able to control the story" doesn't make a game a movie, or any less reliavent.
There is no such thing as a movie that allows me to control the pacing, the camera angle, the position of the camera, and interact with the world in various ways. None of these things inherently call for variation of the overall plot, or character personalities. It is true that a game allows for a level of interaction that movies do not... but to what degree?
I, personally, don't play an RPG because I want to create a story, I play one because I want to be immersed in a finely crafted story, to a greater extent than a movie can deliver. I feel that society is becoming too full of itself, too arrogant to really listen to others, that even our storytelling must be our own. We want control, we want freedom... but at what cost? The cost of finely-crafted creative vision? We're no longer comfortable with sitting back and letting someone else make us do some serious thinking.
The bottom line is, we all have different interests. While I'd like games to be more than just "movies with button pressing to advance scenes." I don't want to sacrifice fine storytelling just to satisfy some amorphic need to control everything.
I think we're both on the same page, as far as our interest in seeing the more sophisticated side of games, that really hasn't risen its head yet. However, I dissagree that games should become more like cinema. As one of the other repliers said, "we have cinema for cinema". But what I think you intended to say is something along the lines of, "games have a lot they could learn from good cinema."
But as far as I am concerned, a certain level of sophistication simply hasn't been introduced into games yet. Even our most "sophisticated" examples (some have suggested Shadow of the Collosus, Ico, etc.) have about equal to B fantasy movie created for 15 year olds. In this genre, at this time, that isn't bad. But it isn't great either. It makes me sad that "Metal Gear Solid" is held as one of the crowning achievements of story and characters in gaming, when it amounts to little more than something out of the James Bond series... a series that, while fun, I wouldn't even begin to describe as, "sophisticated."
Where's my "Good Night and Good Luck", my "Capote", my "Citizen Kain", or my "Chinatown"? There's no game I've ever seen that comes anywhere close to the level of sophistication any of those provide. However, I'm not worried. It took cinema many years to reach its potential, as well as photography, sculpture, and almost any other artistic medium. It's not there yet, but give it its due course.
The other thing to note is that all genres, in their infancy, will go through periods of emulation of other comparible genres. Just as early art photography attempted to emulate painting, or early cinema used to emulate theatre. It's only natural that, here, in its second stage of developement, videogames would emulate cinema.
While I agree, it also depends upon your definition of "Art". Now, a thoughtful, and more objective interpretation of the word boils down to anything that is produced through a creative process. Society, however, has subjectively attatched their own sense of taste onto the word so that anything that doesn't appeal to them is unartistic, and is often degraded to meer "entertainment". The word "art" is sort of the darling of the accademic community, and thus, reflects a certain bias towards certain works that share sensibilities that resonate with the tastes of people within that community. I'd consider myself deeply ingrained into that psychographic, yet it's important to recognize ones own biases.
Some have attatched additional requirements to the word. You often hear things like, "to be art, a work must not serve any purpose other than itself," yet hardly any art philosopher would dare reject the entire genre of architecture, which most deffinitely does provide additional functionality. Then there are those that argue that the purpose behind art must not revolve around the aquisition of wealth. Yet the vast majority of works we consider art were created with the intention of being sold or licensed. Some would boldly go as far as to suggest that no work of art must have corporate backing... yet it is impossible to execute even some of the simpler forms of cinema without the budget of a small country. Should we, then, deem all cinematic visions "off limits"?
Games do, on the other hand, have one slight distinction that separates them from all other forms of art: they have a goal. This is the only arguement I have heard, to date, for the possibility of not being able to define video games as art. Yet, even the conception of this goal is a creative endevour. Coming up with a great puzzle or difficult situation, in a game, takes quite a bit of fine ingenuity that can not be defined in any other way than being "artistic". When it comes down to it, the goal driving a game forward is simply that genre's counterpart to the clock ticking down the seconds until the end of the symphony, or the spacial dimension of a sculpture; it simply serves to give the work direction and structure.
So, in closing, most of these comments can be taken as snide remarks by those in older generations who are simply inequiped to evaluate a new art form. One particular person is only going to enjoy a fairly small subset out of any given genre, this is true for any medium... but people completely inequiped to evaluate a genre are, then, unable and unwilling to find any of the redeaming characteristics that they normally would be able to find in any other genre.
That's why I was so impressed when Miyamoto spoke, a few days ago, about letting his design teams screw around with weird implementations. "Play Time" is always an absolute neccessity for any kind of good designer/developer. I bet, with 80 hour work weeks and rediculous deadlines, that's the first thing that goes out the window.
Bottom line, games have gotten WAY over-blown. The bar is set so high when it comes to detailed complexity that the big picture is completely neglected. After all, it's the quality of the overall concepts that usually make a great game. That's why I'm so against photo-realism these days... it emphesizes detail while neglecting form.
It's not so much a question of magnitude of "hardcore-ness", as much as the interpretation of the word "hardcore". There are two distinctly different popular definitions surrounding the word hardcore, and they seem to be getting confused here.
1. Referring to anything that attempts to portray a high volume of extroverted masculinity (machismo) via adrenaline-producing properties: "hardcore porn", "hardcore violence", "hardcore action", "hardcore sports", "hardcore music".
2. Referring to a high level of dedication to a particular genre of arts/entertainment, including a regularly consistent level of participation. This is also usually combined with an interest in following the history and current events related to the genre. Also demanding of a high level of complexity or difficulty. Fandom. Someone who is considered a connoisseur of a particular field.
In games, which are traditionally considered a masculine and youthful affair, the general assumption is that the more dedicated the gamer, the more drawn one is to the overtly masculine side of gaming. This is a fairly flawed way of thinking. It's as if the general assumption was that film connoisseurs tend to be drawn toward violent action films, when, in actuality, they tend to be contradictory to the tastes of many film enthusiasts. Many who are drawn to the adrenaline-producing and machismo side of gaming are not so much interested in gaming itself, rather than using it as a medium in which to prove their masculinity to themselves and to others. An example is the hordes of young teenage males who bought GTA games for the soul purpose of running over pedestrians, and playing out their violent fantasies. In this sense, most who are inspired by the purely primal side of gaming are less likely to be game enthusiasts.
The question is, when we say "hardcore", which definition do we mean? In some ways, people fitting both definitions are admired within the gaming community.
This is where the marketing of the Wii becomes a bit complicated. The Wii actively attempts to distance itself from those fitting the first definition; Miyamoto and others within the company have actively expressed concern at the level of violence and machismo within the gaming community. Unfortunately, since Nintendo's current goal is to expand their audience, they have little interest in satisfying or embracing people fitting the second definition of hardcore. Their saving grace is that Nintendo has a longer historical presence; this combined with their "back to basics" corporate philosophy tends to resonate with the nostalgic side of many people fitting the second definition. In a sense, Nintendo's strategy is to say, "You don't have to be a gamer to play games", with little outward effort to "convert" people into the world of gaming.
Sony and Microsoft are also attempting to expand their audience, as any company wishes to do. Their strategy, on the other hand, is to appeal to non-gamers fitting the first definition. But as with Nintendo, they make no attempts to actively embrace those fitting the second definition. This is only logical, because those who are already gamers are already more likely to buy into their system. Additionally, Sony and Microsoft exhibit an outward philosophy of "forget the past, look to the future" (even if they do provide peripheral access to legacy games), which is beginning to alienate gamers fitting the second definition. Their strategy is to excite people with enough flare and primal stimuli, as to fully convert them into active gamers.
The irony is that while active gamers may purchase more, but they also demand more from their games, driving up production cost of hardware and software. With Nintendo's strategy, passive gamers are more likely to respond to the simplicity and form of lower-budget work.
Myself? I'm fully in agreement with Nintendo's strategy, as I believe that it's high time that designers step back and re-assess their concepts of form and function. While this strategy might result in simpler games, at least in the short term, it also has the potential of increasing the quality and sophistication of games to come.
Except that Wii discs are DVDs, as GC discs are simply mini-DVDs. They're not like a GigaDisc, or some kind of wholy propriatary format. It's more like PlayStation CDs or PS2 DVDs... same format, just with a little tag on the beginning that basicaly says "I am not a CD-R".
If I remember correctly, with the PS1/2 this was done by putting a series of little gaps in the track near the inside edge that, when read by a normal CD/DVD player, appeared to be deep scratches. You could copy them just fine (by turning off error correction, so it would ignore the "scratches"), but you could never reproduce those little marks on the CD/DVD-R, in which the Playstation used to identify the legitamacy of the disc.
But yeah, all specs I've seen on the GC and Wii discs suggest that they are perfectly normal DVDs. I had a friend who once told me that the track and disc spun the opposite direction. But while this is a neat idea, I have never heard that since. If it were the case, than it would explain the added complexity of having to spin the motor in the opposite direction, but I have a good feeling that it's just a rumor. I'm guessing that Microsoft does something about the same as Sony, it's just such an easy thing to do, and since it uses all existing technology and format, it becomes much cheaper than creating a propriatary format.
Agreed. I use a PS2 for playing back DVDs, and I'll admit, "it works", but not very well. It's combersomb as hell. I love going and watching movies on my friends' 360, because it has a really nice DVD playback system, that doesn't require you to memorize strange button fuctions, and is much more flexible to use. Now, I have no doubt that the PS3s DVD playback system kicks the shit out the the PS2s, but I'm not about to pay $600 for it.
I can't wait until Nintendo finally puts DVD player software on their online store. After all, the Wii has all the neccessary hardware and decoders to play DVDs, but they didn't allow it at launch, since it would require additional licensing fees. So, I'm possitive a DVD player program/licensing is just around the corner, probably $20-$30s, and the Wiimote is a far better interface for playing DVDs, anyway.
No matter who interviews him, he's always got some inspiring things to say. I think it's really interesting to hear that Nintendo is letting their developers screw around like they do... I think it's the mark of a company that's really thinking in the long term, since "playing around" does not gain immediate results or profits. I guess I should expect as much from a company that's been around more than 130 years.
Also, I find it amusing that Miyamoto's telling MTV to tell kids not to follow fads, I just have to wonder whether that was supposed to be a bit of a smug comment.
To a certain degree, I agree, but it is getting worse.
When Windows 95, everyone jumped on board, at least, most tried to and did so fairly quickly. Windows 98 came along, people were fine with jumping on fairly quickly. Even ME came out, and a lot of unfortunate fools decided to upgrade. But then when XP came out, people were a lot more reluctant (possibly because of the ME debacle), in fact, if anything, XP showed people how similar 2000 was, and MANY companies simply "upgraded" to 2000, and went for years without upgrading to XP. Only just a year ago, in 2006, many computers in the company I work for ran 2000. Now, it's probably accurate to say that a good 90% are on XP, and people are fairly comfortable with XP, but aren't willing to switch. So, at this point, Microsoft, in about 3 cycles, has gotten about an entire cycle out of sync with the public. So, yes, Vista isn't going away, but upgrade adoption of Windows versions IS getting undeniably slower, so things are changing. Interestingly, if MS had been able to release Vista two years ago, they probably would have gotten A LOT more adopters.
The bottom line is that Microsoft's constant delays are bringing to attention a lot of concerns about the quality of their product line. The result is that the slower Microsoft becomes in releasing new versions, the slower, still, the public will be to snatch it up.
Agreed. I don't think Nintendo has ruled this out, in fact, I think it's exactly what they intend to do. Currently, Sony and MS are having to sell at a loss because the expectations of a console (sans overall creative vision) are higher than what they can make a profit on. Nintendo is stepping back, making a cheaper, more efficient console for the short term. Come 2009-10, MS or Sony will have so much invested in the 360 and PS3, that they won't be able to release a new console. But Nintendo will be easily able to come out with a new console that will out perform both of the others, and will be far cheaper to manufacture. Nintendo will then be half a generation staggerd from MS and Sony, meaning that half of the time, Nintendo will be the leader, and the other half of the time Sony and MS will have to duke it out for that status. If they are able to pull it off and keep it up, they are almost guarenteed stable market leadership, exceeding 60%, by 2015 or so.
Nintendo has done well to separate itself from Sony and MS. The more they can do that, the more it'll become a choice between Nintendo, and one of the others.
Well, in seeing the scope of the data to be analyzed, one would not expect to be finding anything this early. Yet, in fact, SETI has revealed quite a few possible sources to look into further. The fact that it's recovered anything at all is pretty remarkable, if you ask me. I don't think they were expecting to find ANYTHING this soon, so it has past expectation.
Yeah, no shit. This is identical to the notion that Rock & Roll was for kids during the 50s, or drugs were for kids during the 60s. Now everyone listens to loud music and smokes weed, we all know that!
No, but seriously, I think it's good that these statisics continue to penatrate the mainstream media, as it continues to break down the sentimates that video games are not a legitiment form of entertainment. There will always be nay-sayers, but their voices will become more burried when the masses realize that they're not alone in their game playing.
Yeah, but way back when you were a kid (1920s?), $1 was like $30 now! You spoiled little brat!
Wait a minute... let me get this straight, you already have a DVD player that you love (PS2), but you won't buy a Wii simply because it won't get you ANOTHER DVD player? Now I'm very confused.
Simply sounds like you've got hate in your heart, so let it all out: these are the things I can do without.
Explain to me why SETI is considered "in"famous? from everything I've heard and read, the project was a major breakthrough in multi-computer processing of data, opened up a new way of analyzing data on a massive scale, and even revealed some possible locations in which to begin looking for radio transmissions. Excepting a few debacles with people getting fired from using work computers, how could SETI be considered anything but a complete success?