"I'm not standing here today to tell you your wrong. I'm just standing here saying, as Developers, they have I'm sure some valid reasons why they did what they did. Totally Ignoring those's facts, wont help anyone figure how to Inspire 3rd party to produce good ports for the Next Nintendo consule."
If their reasons are to assume that showing off their development toys (which is what I meant, not about the games as toys debate), then it's not valid. It doesn't matter how long it's been around. Any art medium has never made the classics based on showing off loads of tools. It's always been about great use of the tools you have, even when you have limits. Especially when you have limits.
This mentality of always pushing a system and stuffing loads of effects and features into a level is what gave us the Star Wars prequels, not the Original Trilogy (save for Jedi, which had the signs). It doesn't matter if it's common. That just makes even more of them wrong for not being able to see art in games another way.
As for the bolded part, why do you think I made this discussion about ports specifically? How about I meant ANY GAME?
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
