"Sometimes?"

I've just got in and I have to run, so I haven't had a chance to read this thread, but has anybody asked whether Nintendo could make this powerful, Hard AI/amazing graphics console with Wii controls that ships with a game for $250? And yes, that is a big deal. It means a console that is accessible to everyone, which is mandatory when you're trying to make a console that will appeal to everyone. Yes, it has limits. I'd love it if the Wii had more power, but there's already two consoles that do that. Gaming has gotten to the point where it's ok to take different strategies. That was the big problem last gen, they were three consoles that pretty much did the same thing. I'm glad Nintendo is doing what they're doing. And they seem to be pretty happy about how it's turning out too.

I don't know what you and Hecker are so afraid of. Nintendo has always had great artistic style and has always taken great risks just for the sake of their art. Take The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker for example. Nintendo decided to take one of their most famous and lucrative franchises redesigns its whole image based on a new artistic style. Even though the general gaming public was skeptical, Nintendo went with the changes anyways. Isn't art supposed to be "fun"? Meaning that art is supposed to be enjoyed. I'm not going to listen to music that I don't enjoy. I'm not going to stare at a painting that I think sucks. I don't see how the Wii's lack of power will make all the games on it unenjoyable and not artsy. I think that is the real art in videogames, making it fun. Hecker's whole arguement is the real piece of shit.

In my mind, art doesn't necessarily have to do with visuals, which is the way you have emphasized it in your response. Art has far more to do with emotional engagement, which most Nintendo games have severely lacked and has rarely been a point of emphasis. The only possible exception is certain Zelda games, but they tend to follow the same fairy tale archetype all the time. I want gaming experiences that can rival other media, such as literature or cinema. Gaming has rarely been able to achieve the emotional engagement that you get from reading a great novel like Slaughterhouse-5, Catcher in the Rye, or To Kill a Mockingbird. Gaming hasn't achieved what films like Citizen Kane, The Godfather, or even something as hokey The Last Samurai have (it may be rather unrealistic, but an amazing movie nonetheless). Games like Metal Gear Solid, Shadow of the Colossus, and Shenmue are the only ones I can think of that seem to be approaching this lofty level I'd like to see. Don't get me wrong, I don't want every game to aspire to be like this (we all love a great Will Ferrel comedy, right?). Again, I fear that Nintendo dominance would lead this industry toward more simple titles that mainly aim to be fun, rather than aspire to a higher level of emotion. With Nintendo aiming videogames at a more casual audience (aka the lowest common denominator), I worry that this industry will follow Nintendo's lead and current longtime gamers looking for something more will be mostly left in the dust.

jman8 - That is exatly what I meant. I want to see the most complex detailed worlds possible. Worlds that have *life* worlds that you INTERACT with. Not just follow the story.

Basically what you're saying is that the industry will try to compete with Nintendo in what they do best than to keep all the millions of hardcore gamers out there, that usually buy more games than the casual ones? Would it make sense? If a game with a higher level of emotion sells, don't worry, the industry will not close the emotion tap.

The style of Zelda changed, but the substance was essentially the same. The same argument can probably be applied to Twilight Princess. That doesn't make either game any less great (I really enjoyed Wind Waker, but I haven't played TP). Neither are necessarily "art" as well. (Read my post right above this one for my definition.) Also, Hecker's argument isn't solely entrenched in the horsepower of the Wii. Equally as important to the computing power is Nintendo's stance toward gaming and what they believe gaming should entail. Emotional engagement is rarely on the top of their list for game development. Yes, I agree with you. Gaming SHOULD be fun. But "fun" shouldn't always be the end all and be all. One genre gaming has really excelled in that's not simply all about fun is "horror." The main goal of a horror movie isn't "fun;" it's to play off a whole different emotional sense which is fear. By playing off your fears, directors end up making a product that is in fact fun, but not in the way Nintendo would define it. I'm not saying Nintendo should make a survival horror game. They should do whatever the heck they want to do. My beef isn't necessarily with the games Nintendo makes, but it's with the industry potentially emulating Nintendo because the identity they have forged for the Wii.

I agree guys, I love big amazing worlds, look at my response in the fanboy thread, i love games that have immersive worlds, specifically like Shenmue(I would pay 200 bucks for a third installment) as yourbrought up jman8. (btw I love Last Samurai) To be honest when I think of games that excite me for the future it's games like Mass Effect, Alan Wake, Thesis, Heavenly Sword, to name a few. Those titles cling to me emotionally, there a world that I want to live in. But there is the other end of the spectrum too, and that is fun. I don't think Nintendo has the power to change every game in the entire industry, but it wouldn't hurt for there to be a segment of gaming that was concerned about games being fun. i'm not as excited about Super Smash bros. but I know I'll be there playing it day and night when it comes out. I loved Warioware and Wii sports. So I really can't bash Nintendo's choices. And since they have made deeper experiences like Zelda at least I can say they have some franchises attempting this, of course not nearly as much as I'd like to see. Why can't the Zelda team make another game? Has anyone watched the anime Kenshin? i would have loved a Zelda likegame based on the samurai world that had depth and challenges. I'd love to see them mix it up a bit. It's funny but for a company that doesn't care about their stories too much, they sure are afraid to change the plot up a bit. Metroid I think is another good attempt at an immersive world. though, I really think Nintendo needs to partner with someone, they are a brilliant gaming company, they just know how to create controls and gameplay, but I do agree on the story aspects they are weaker even by their own admission. As a side argument though I've yet to really play a game with a brilliant story, nothing out there even comes close to Godfather like status, not even a Matrix like story, I guess video game graphics are far cry from real actors. But I hope we're getting there.

jman, one thing you can always count on in life is diversity. Even a dictatorial state can't make people think the same, they can only try to force them keep their mouths shut. look at the genres in movies, in music, in games. the industry follow the consumers not the leading game maker. you can have more casual type games (and that started a few years ago with games like The Sims, not now) but you WILL ALWAYS have every other type of game people want. no matter who is in front on the console war.

Oh, I'm sure they won't. Certainly the sellouts of Hollywood haven't (being a bit facetious about "sellouts" part). But I wouldn't be surprised if the industry turns its focus more toward the casual game and turns a bit away from the ambitious hardcore titles. Remember, there are millions of hardcores, but so many more softcores (that sounds naughty). Oh, and did I mention I fear change . We just have to relax and wait and see where the industry goes from here. But IMO, a little bit of trepidation is justified.