| WereKitten said: @noname2200 On the other hand, I think that you misread my post. Please note that I always talked about art or _craft_. They are not the same: when I think of craftsmanship I think of experience, love, taste being used into making a great _product_, though not necessarily trying to bring down new walls. Some games are "artsy", other are as much as good and are great works of craft. Nintendo's own first party games are such works of craft. Blizzard's games are such works of craft: polished and fun, though usually derivative. GTA is a work of craft. Shadow of the Colossus, ICO, Killer 7, Portal are pieces of art... and it not only (or even at all) because of their graphics, but because of the way they try to convey new experiences, even indirectly. My point was that sometimes you need the means to express your art or craft. Stating that the input method is everything and every other aspect of technology comes second is myopic: the greatest games of all times did not have great graphics, but they also were controlled without a wiimote. Plus you seem to have a double standard when it comes to what makes a quality game. The customers' wallets have spoken: a lot of people like Wii Sport and Wii Fit and Mario Kart Wii and that is great, I love my Wii Tennis with friends. But do you think that in ten years you will look back longingly and say "aah, Mario Kart Wii was one of the best games ever"? |
Perhaps it's just that I'm still not understanding you, but while you speak of "art" and "craft" being different (and I agree that they are), the way you speak of them makes them sound the same. Let me put it this way: you wrote that "sometimes you need the means to express your art or craft." Your defining the process as the creator (in this case the developer) doing something to realize his (or her) vision. In other words, your process makes it sound like there's only one person in this who matters, that all that is important is that the creator successfully realize what he wants.
Rol can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly the attitude he's speaking of? Trying to please yourself (and those who think like you), rather than trying to please us?
Rol can also correct me if I misinterpreted him here too, but I really don't think he's saying that "control methods=everything." What he said was "Developers of Wii games can create gameplay never seen before."
I don't see how you can argue with that. The Wiimote is something we've never had before, something that opens doors we didn't know were closed before. I know I don't have to spell out the numerous possibilities for you. Shoot, we've already seen plenty of examples in terms of both completely-new genres, and in refinement to tired old ones, thanks to the Wiimote. Is it too much to ask that developers take advantage of this?
Finally, judging by how much plenty of folks love Super Mario Kart and Mario Kart 64 (heck, I know several college girls who still play 64 once and again, girls who don't play any other game, and it's been, what, twelve years?) I'd say it's quite plausible that Mario Kart Wii will stick around.
But that argument is a bit off-center, as that's not what I was asserting. I was pointing out that the improved inputs were meant to impress not the developer, but to invite the customer to play. And yet developers are eschewing invitations to the masses in favor of impressing one another, and trying to become the apple of each other's eyes. Why else do you think that some companies not only regularly boast about their Metacritic scores, but assign bonuses based not on how the game sells, but on how high it is reviewed? Isn't that the sign of a sick industry? And is that not partially the point of this thread?
The discussion of what makes a "quality" game (from the individual's perspective) is one that intrigues me greatly, and it's one I'll be happy to have another time, but it's one that's tangential to this thread.
