Umm, you could have still made the games, and made them excellent with different styles of animation, different engines, so the idea that you had to make them that way is false

CGI isn't what makes the Pixar movies great, the stories and characters do, the CGI is just eye candy, Fantasia was hand drawn, and its considered one of the greatest pieces of animation ever

No that's not what I meant, what I meant was the idea that they needed the tech to be artistic is belied by the fact that those games aren't art, they're just decent games, you could have made those games in other animation styles with less power and gotten the same feel, the tech wasn't needed to make them what they were.

^And again you miss the point that the developers being passionate about their work and believing they're contributing to a piece of art is totally independent from your evaluation about what is art or what is a good game.

Please note that when I talked about Kubrik I called him a craftsman, not an artist, even though I certainly think he was an extremely talented artist. Exactly because what is art is not the point here. What the author wants or thinks is needed is.

And no, SOTC wouldn't be possible on PS1 - as in it wouldn't be the same game even if you were to try and reduce it to that tech. Just like 2001 is a different movie if you watch it in a proper theater or on an iPhone screen: the way it is delivered can only be altered so much from what the author intended originally before you can't even call it the same message or experience.

This actually proves the point more than disproves it. I believe that CGI animation is a fad in part, and that "hand-drawn" (which is fallatious to say because all animation styles have been done with computers pretty much since the millenium) is going to restore itself to prominence sometime in the future. Animation studios are just too caught up in trying to imitate the big Pixar titles, just as they have been ever since Toy Story came out

The Princess and the Frog should hopefully open some eyes. If the movie itself is any good, at least.

And i kinda understand where this thread  is going. It would be highly embarassing for execs from companies like, say, Capcom, EA, or Square Enix to come out and say "all that money we spent on developing HD Tool-sets was a waste!" It would cause investors' heads to roll if they admitted that, and went back to using PS2-era graphical techniques when they had just spent a lot of money to gear up for HD. That is why you see companies like Square Enix kinda squirming and talking about a "Wii HD" so that they can see the existing problem resolved.

The 3rd party support for the Wii has certainly been interesting. I don't think many people would have predicted that before this gen started, that if Nintendo went on to dominate they would receive less traditional 3rd party support than they did on the Gamecube. For the first few years I assumed 3rd parties would start releasing their big games on the Wii at some point, but that is looking unlikely now. Although, for Japan centric games the support does seem to have increased a bit. I think the success of the Wii, is now more likely to help Nintendo's 3rd party support next generation, if the Wii's successor has capabilities closer to the competition.

No what they are doing is creating ego strokes, games that let them pretend they're a gaming god.  Its not about passion, its about ego.

I've seen 2001 on quite a few different size screens, even movie sized, its the same movie, regardless, the core parts, the story and the characters don't change regardless of the tech

'CGI isn't what makes the Pixar movies great, the stories and characters do, the CGI is just eye candy, Fantasia was hand drawn, and its considered one of the greatest pieces of animation ever.'.

Only Fantasia was made decades ago. Where is the 2009 equivalent?

Take the opening action sequence in Bolt. That was great because of the tech, not the story. The characters to a certain extent. I've never seen a hand drawn sequence do better than that.

Anyhow, the tech is just one piece of the jigsaw, which you point out. Kind of destroying your own argument at the same time.

'I've seen 2001 on quite a few different size screens, even movie sized, its the same movie, regardless, the core parts, the story and the characters don't change regardless of the tech.'.

I saw 2001 in 80mm in London a few years back. Let me assure you, nothing else comes close.

^No I disagree, the opening sequences in Bolt would have been pretty much the same hand drawn. Actually what I pointed out, was that its eye candy, CGI is still at that stage where its seen as being able to wow, kind of like how it was with gaming when it first made the jump to 3D, now however 3D is kind of gotten to the point where its so boring that we are happy to see 2D gaming coming back.

Here we ara again, generalizing and insulting people you don't know and of which, I suspect, you have scarce familiarity with the work of.

Plus, if you really think that the core of 2001 is only in its "story and characters", then I don't think there's anything useful that might come from us two further discussing about movies, games and visual media. I'll just politely suggest that you might be in the minority on this subject, and that it reeks of an ideological stance against the value of visual communication rather than a substantiated one.

I'll leave it at that as I think my points were clear for any reader and I don't want to push the thread further offtrack.