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.

Fair enough. I'll concede that I overreached with that statement, and that there are plenty of folks who enjoy HD games. But two points: the first is that few HD games seem to have any appreciable "legs," and that it seems to be very hit-or-miss in terms of which games sell. In other words, there seems to be a voracious core of gamers who buy the big games, but that there are not enough of them to support a wider variety of games. Put alternatively, the big-games are very big, and the small games are very small. For that reason, I don't think we can use just the platinum-sellers to gauge appeal. But that's an assertion that will require more time to defend than I have at the moment. Perhaps another time?

Regarding Mario 64, I'm not sure I agree. Remember, it's been re-released for the DS, and it's sold millions once again. More importantly, it's done so by selling small but steady amounts, which to me means it's spreading by word of mouth. I've no doubt some of those were because of nostalgia, but I have a hard time believing even a fraction of the total is from nostalgia.

I appreciate your example about Killzone 2, though. My own example would have been Dead Rising, which (demonstrably) can't be replicated on the Wii. But your point is well-taken. It just doesn't seem, from my interpretation of the data we have, that immersion is as big of a selling-point with most people as "easier to control." But as you pointed out earlier, there are tens of millions who feel otherwise, and I don't begrudge them for that. I just wish more developers would be willing to try something different this time, is all.

And I fully intend to play Flower in the next round of Console Swap. My Wii is going on loan in a few weeks: a few weeks after that it will be my turn to try the PS3, and you can bet I'll make him download the game first, as I'm quite intrigued by it. Thanks for the discussion, though: I enjoyed it.

Okay, here's what I think.

Nintendo should just expand and improve their output. Third parties don't "get" it, they cannot create nor sustain success for Nintendo consoles. It is because of their own games that Nintendo is where it's at now with the Wii and DS, and it will continue to be about their own games.

Their big mistake is the exact opposite of what people think is the problem. They are leaving too much room for third parties to thrive on their systems, they need to take hold of that and expand their output.

This focus on third parties in the industry is becoming completely irrational. Third parties have made their choice generally speaking, some of the top developer circles in Japan would like gaming to sink before supporting a Nintendo dominated future. This can be seen expressed literally. Nintendo needs to expand and make more software. They need to speed up their innovations and excite the market with new things more quickly.

This thread isn't very funny.

That's not all that unreasonable, I suppose, though to a degree I sitll don't like it. I worry that Nintendo expanding might cause a lack of focus on the values that the company currently has in terms of game design...

And really, I like a lot of third party games!

I don't mean this in a rude or mean way, even though it will inevitably come across like that, but...if you think that that type of attitude would last long, you're horribly mistaken. You're probably a student, huh? Never had to fully support yourself? I ask this because I know that if you did, you wouldn't say anything like this. People do what they have to to eat and pay their mortgage, dude, and if they keep cranking out crap that no one buys they won't be able to do either. You'll find out soon enough that if you want to make good money, you'll do your job well, no matter how much you detest it, or you won't be doing any job at all.

Life kinda sucks, y'know.

He made Dead or Alive, for starters...

You'll find that Itagaki is widely considered to be "accomplished," at least amongst those who pay attention to devs. Or do you reckon Tecmo just give him their most talented dev team for giggles?

Go look at a list for the 50 top-selling games of all time, on all systems. Tell me what name takes up two-thirds of that list. Shoot, I posted that info in this thread. Do you think that might play a role in this? Maybe?

Apparently...

I will pay you actual money if you can prove this is happening.

Jesus Christ dude, it's not 1996 anymore.

Well no wonder your posts smell like s***: you're clearly pulling things out of your a**.

@noname2200

The way I see it:

A craftsman starts from a contract with the consumer about what he's going to create. It might be a shoe, a violin or a racing game. The creation is made at the best of his capacity and experience, but all the embellishment work can't violate this contract about what _functionally_ is a shoe, a violin or a racing game.

An artist has a tacit agreement with the consumer that the consumer himself will have to put some meaning in the creation. It might be a picture of three women that really represent the three ages of life, an abstract scuplture in which the observer sees a running dog, or a game in which you have to ride in a silent world, your life dwindling each time you kill a colossal opponent, to resuscitate  a girl we don't know the relationship to you...

There's no reason why art must be more technically advanced than craft either: pop art is usually technically very simple. And the real snobs are those saying that creators should not try to give art of any kind to the masses, because they are only able to grasp self-evident products, well-crafted as they might be.

I wouldent be surprised if this proved true for CERTAIn 3rd parties but not all.

I think the argument that 3rd party developers don't get the Wii needs to stop. I think the fact is that they simply don't want to develop quality games for the Wii. Developers create games and pitch them to publishers - if nobody wants to make a decent Wii game then that's their prerogative.

I didn't realize that DoA was such a blockbuster title. I'll concede that one.

I think by "videogames" you meant console games. I only know about one popular blizzard series which is an MMo that people subscribe to. I don't know how to compare that to console games. I'll agree that people seem to put valve on a pedestal as well. However, I don't think valve games have the breakaway sales that nintendo's games have. I'm not sure though so feel free to prove me wrong.

If you ask me, doesn't that chart prove my point? The fact that nintendo would have the vast majority of sales on every one of their platforms with only a handful of games? Think about it, nintendo doesn't release games every month therefore most of it's following either plays mario kart or another ninty title over and over or turns their wii off in anticipation of nintys next game since they won't buy from other companies. One of the reasons why it's hard to compare ninty's sales back then to more recent times (especially since the advent of the playstation) is the "viability" of the competition. When there's not much choice, 3rd parties are faced with different issues. Still, even from back then, we're still comparing a few ninty titles to tons of 3rd party games.  Perhaps since you think they'll all go bankrupt on HD consoles, their choice would be lost. We'll see. I still doubt they'll find any breakaway sales on wii though. probably a few $$$ profit here an there but I guess it's better than loss.

As for the DS, it's the same issue: a handful of titles as opposed to tons of titles. You're still grouping all 3rd party effort together showing the typical lack of appreciation thats the common perception among the nintendo-faithful.Like Like I said before, many of the 3rd party games that many agree are really good still don't have sales to match. The wii is not the goldmine you seem to think.

Yes they are. The point was just to prove that in-house studios are typically better at managing console specific perks.