By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Iwata: Why Nintendo Games Aren't Works of Art

S.T.A.G.E. on 01 August 2013
Otakumegane said:

To a degree, I agree with him. As soons as games start becoming art people want to make em more like movies.

Heck Bioshock Infinite, critically acclaimed for it's gameplay was called "art". But the gameplay played like a generic shooter.

Now on the other hand, good gameplay doesn't mean a bad story, but good gameplay is easier to appreciate than good storytelling in a game as they age.

Of the greatest games of all time, not many as considered that because of their story.


Journey and Shadow of the Colossus are considered works of art. Shadow of the Colossus was in the smithsonian as a select work of modern art. Game had barely any story, but the gameplay told a story words cannot express.  Sony are both very artsy companies, but Sony focuses mostly on mature adult themed games which sometimes become niche if they lose their charm. Nintendo goes for the mass market kitsch approach which is built by virtue to sell more. Sony needs to learn from that.



Around the Network
Mythmaker1 on 01 August 2013
the_dengle said:
Oh no, Nintendo wants people to enjoy their games. Scandal!

I think that's kind of what made me lose interest in them the past few years. Nintendo makes very, very fun games, but rarely do they ever step beyond that. And when it comes down to it, I can have just as much fun, and appreciate the artistry to a much greater degree, when I dip into their older titles than their newer ones.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

Kwaidd on 01 August 2013
Mythmaker1 said:
the_dengle said:
Oh no, Nintendo wants people to enjoy their games. Scandal!

I think that's kind of what made me lose interest in them the past few years. Nintendo makes very, very fun games, but rarely do they ever step beyond that. And when it comes down to it, I can have just as much fun, and appreciate the artistry to a much greater degree, when I dip into their older titles than their newer ones.


So you are saying that the "artistry" in Super Mario 1 or 3 is better than the "artistry" in New Super Mario Bros. Wii or U and therefore more enjoyable?  Rarely do they ever step beyond making very, very fun games?  What does that mean, don't we all play games for the fun and enjoyment?  Stepping beyond that would be making very, very un-fun games, and that would be preferred?  What are you really trying to say here?  How you are wording it does not make any sense.



GuyDuke on 01 August 2013
Mythmaker1 said:
the_dengle said:
Oh no, Nintendo wants people to enjoy their games. Scandal!

I think that's kind of what made me lose interest in them the past few years. Nintendo makes very, very fun games, but rarely do they ever step beyond that. And when it comes down to it, I can have just as much fun, and appreciate the artistry to a much greater degree, when I dip into their older titles than their newer ones.

I don't know if "rarely" is really the right word to say. If I count down almost every year since the Wii started, I had

2006: Twilight Princess

2007: Super Mario Galaxy

2008: Super Smash Bros. Brawl

2009: okay for this one :(

2010: Super Mario Galaxy 2

2011: Skyward Sword, Xenoblade

I think they are able to put out one masterpiece per year, which is a pretty darn good average mark.



the_dengle on 01 August 2013
Mythmaker1 said:
the_dengle said:
Oh no, Nintendo wants people to enjoy their games. Scandal!

I think that's kind of what made me lose interest in them the past few years. Nintendo makes very, very fun games, but rarely do they ever step beyond that. And when it comes down to it, I can have just as much fun, and appreciate the artistry to a much greater degree, when I dip into their older titles than their newer ones.

I can assure you that in spite of Iwata and Miyamoto's efforts, their newer games do offer more than just "fun." I can't speak for Mario because I don't really play NSMB. But going by the latest Zelda, Kid Icarus, Fire Emblem, Pikmin, and more, there is plenty of "artistry" to appreciate in Nintendo's offerings.



Around the Network
Mythmaker1 on 01 August 2013
Kwaidd said:
Mythmaker1 said:
the_dengle said:
Oh no, Nintendo wants people to enjoy their games. Scandal!

I think that's kind of what made me lose interest in them the past few years. Nintendo makes very, very fun games, but rarely do they ever step beyond that. And when it comes down to it, I can have just as much fun, and appreciate the artistry to a much greater degree, when I dip into their older titles than their newer ones.


So you are saying that the "artistry" in Super Mario 1 or 3 is better than the "artistry" in New Super Mario Bros. Wii or U and therefore more enjoyable?  Rarely do they ever step beyond making very, very fun games?  What does that mean, don't we all play games for the fun and enjoyment?  Stepping beyond that would be making very, very un-fun games, and that would be preferred?  What are you really trying to say here?  How you are wording it does not make any sense.

I'm saying if one is better-designed than the other, then that will show through while playing it. And that the artistry, therefore, is a factor in how much I appreciate and how well I regard a game. Not the only factor, but a factor.

And don't be too quick to equate "fun" and "enjoyment." You can enjoy something because it's fun, but it doesn't have to be fun for one to enjoy it. That's true for anything, and video games are no exception.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

Mythmaker1 on 01 August 2013
guiduc said:
Mythmaker1 said:

I think that's kind of what made me lose interest in them the past few years. Nintendo makes very, very fun games, but rarely do they ever step beyond that. And when it comes down to it, I can have just as much fun, and appreciate the artistry to a much greater degree, when I dip into their older titles than their newer ones.

I don't know if "rarely" is really the right word to say. If I count down almost every year since the Wii started, I had

2006: Twilight Princess

2007: Super Mario Galaxy

2008: Super Smash Bros. Brawl

2009: okay for this one :(

2010: Super Mario Galaxy 2

2011: Skyward Sword, Xenoblade

I think they are able to put out one masterpiece per year, which is a pretty darn good average mark.

The "rarely" was referring to games which don't rely entirely on fun in order to provide enjoyment, not the quality of their games in general, which is typically quite high.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

DucksUnlimited on 01 August 2013
Kwaidd said:

Why did I even bother to open this thread?  My goodness, cry me a river.  So sorry your inner artist has been hurt by a dev/pub saying that they aren't making their games with the intention of being "art" and you just must sell your console.  Galaxy, Kart and 3DWorld soul-less?  It's a game, not Motown.  Go ahead, trade it in for a cpl pacifiers and a blanky.

You seem upset.



Kwaidd on 01 August 2013
Mythmaker1 said:
Kwaidd said:
Mythmaker1 said:
the_dengle said:
Oh no, Nintendo wants people to enjoy their games. Scandal!

I think that's kind of what made me lose interest in them the past few years. Nintendo makes very, very fun games, but rarely do they ever step beyond that. And when it comes down to it, I can have just as much fun, and appreciate the artistry to a much greater degree, when I dip into their older titles than their newer ones.


So you are saying that the "artistry" in Super Mario 1 or 3 is better than the "artistry" in New Super Mario Bros. Wii or U and therefore more enjoyable?  Rarely do they ever step beyond making very, very fun games?  What does that mean, don't we all play games for the fun and enjoyment?  Stepping beyond that would be making very, very un-fun games, and that would be preferred?  What are you really trying to say here?  How you are wording it does not make any sense.

I'm saying if one is better-designed than the other, then that will show through while playing it. And that the artistry, therefore, is a factor in how much I appreciate and how well I regard a game. Not the only factor, but a factor.

And don't be too quick to equate "fun" and "enjoyment." You can enjoy something because it's fun, but it doesn't have to be fun for one to enjoy it. That's true for anything, and video games are no exception.


you are really grasping at straws here.  When was the last time anyone enjoyed playing a game that was not fun?  Because that is what we are talking about here...games, not a Rembrandt or a Chopin.   "I spent 60 dollars on a game and it wasn't even remotely fun, but I really enjoyed it."  C'mon.



Kwaidd on 01 August 2013
DucksUnlimited said:
Kwaidd said:

Why did I even bother to open this thread?  My goodness, cry me a river.  So sorry your inner artist has been hurt by a dev/pub saying that they aren't making their games with the intention of being "art" and you just must sell your console.  Galaxy, Kart and 3DWorld soul-less?  It's a game, not Motown.  Go ahead, trade it in for a cpl pacifiers and a blanky.

You seem upset.


/chuckle