Narrative, character development, and good writing do not need a bad-ass system backing them, is all I am saying.

Point proven!

"Narrative, character development, and good writing do not need a bad-ass system backing them, is all I am saying."

If The Dark Knight with the same writing, etc. had been made 30 years ago with Adam West and Ceaser (sp) Romero as the main characters would it have been as good?

Hmm yeah but now you are only talking about RPG's?  I think a lot of new gamers wouldn't like M64 so much.

@Paul_Warren: Try using an example from a comparable medium. Like, you know. Video games. Specifically RPGs.

@konnichiwa: Yes, I am referring specifically to RPGs.

@noname2200: Yes, I believe our shared passion for this particular game proves the point quite handily.

Naturally not! But your analogy is inapt. Your example uses acting as a substitute for technology; Khuutra is using technology to mean technology. Essentially, Khuutra is pointing out that a great story doesn't necessarily need bells and whistles to sell itself.

Look at it this way; the movies that most rely on special effects nowadays can do well at the box office, and we all sit down and enjoy them once in a while. But how many of those flicks have narrative, character, and great writing? How many of them do you reckon will achieve immortality on the level of a Casablanca, or Vertigo? The latter two are classic examples of how great stories can tell themselves, without needing extra garnishments...

That said, I'll meet with you halfway. It's not inherently bad to give storytellers more tools. But a truly great storyteller can make do without them (see: Shakespeare, Stoppard, many Greek tragedies, etc.), and the extra tools can be harmful if they lead the storyteller astray (see: most action movies, summer blockbusters, etc.).

I'm not against new technologies at all. But I realize that it's rarely necessary, and that the temptation to put lipstick on a pig (...) has overwhelmed far too many storytellers, game developers included.

MGS4 had not even reached 5 millions that's crysis.

Just let the games come, whether Wii, PS3, 360. Is there a problem with that?

Wow, this argument comes up every time. All this talk about what system a game will be "best" on...

I'll tell you which system a game is best suited for: the one that it will sell the most on. That's all that matters. If that isn't the case, why do the Japanese even bother with consoles? Why not the PC, where the technological capabilities are much higher? You bring up the Gamecube, yet conveiniently omitted the Xbox, which was far more advanced than the PS2. Besides, the HD consoles are the ones with "last-gen" controls, so calling the Wii technologically inferior is a stretch.

The fact is, devs are trying to push technology that is not yet affordable. The (financial) reason they do this is to set themselves apart from all the other smaller devs - the ones that don't have as much money. It creates a barrier to entry that is favorable to the ones who can afford to make games with massive budgets. Unfortunately for them, costs have risen too much to sustain this advantage, and the DS and the Wii have hastened the process. They'll need to come up with original ideas (like Guitar Hero) if they want to survive.

The reason Kojima will complain about the situation is because he is a graphics whore, and wants his games to look as nice as possible. Unfortunately, due to the higher costs of games nowadays, managing that this gen will not be an easy task. He needs to learn to settle for games that don't cost so damn much.

No, but Batman was made almost 20 years ago with Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson and it was even better.

Yeah I know this doesn't relate to anything, but it's so damn true.