Eh... What? I'm fairly sure the filmmakers at Pixar work very hard to create some of the best in pictures in the animation industry - that's what they're known for. I really don't think actively limiting yourself "quality-wise" is a key element to success. Nintendo certainly does not operate that way.

The developers who say stuff like that are the minority. Most companies (3rd parties) do make money out of the Wii. Its audience does buy games, as software sales show. It's just not the games these companies want them to buy.

And yes, I did read the article thinking that you were another Wii fan complaining about lack of games. Sorry about that.

"Eh... What? I'm fairly sure the filmmakers at Pixar work very hard to create some of the best in pictures in the animation industry - that's what they're known for. I really don't think actively limiting yourself "quality-wise" is a key element to success. Nintendo certainly does not operate that way."

What I mean is that they focus on it being good, not with the goal of the most grand thing ever.

"The developers who say stuff like that are the minority. Most companies (3rd parties) do make money out of the Wii. Its audience does buy games, as software sales show. It's just not the games these companies want them to buy."

Oh, I am fully aware of that. This is for that vocal minority.

"And yes, I did read the article thinking that you were another Wii fan complaining about lack of games. Sorry about that."

Hey, I've misread some posts of others as well, and then realized I goofed.

"What I mean is that they focus on it being good, not with the goal of the most grand thing ever."

Is this a stated principle of theirs? I know Pixar reps have bragged about what they achieved (on a technical level) with Toy Story (1&2) and Finding Nemo.

And speaking of film, how does this theory of yours you deal with the likes of James Cameron?

"Is this a stated principle of theirs? I know Pixar reps have bragged about what they achieved (on a technical level) with Toy Story (1&2) and Finding Nemo."

It's the difference between "I like to go the extra mile" and "This will be the most incredible thing ever, and people will never see games the same way again!"

"And speaking of film, how does this theory of yours you deal with the likes of James Cameron?"

Doesn't apply at all. Films are something you watch, not play. In fact, that's another kind of rant. Game makers who think they are filmmakers, which is why they need to have the HD graphics, because they can't make their awesome visual without it, even though the gameplay is basically a 6th gen game anyway. It's just an expensive crutch in lieu of good gameplay or stories. Most games have writing that are too often B movie quality, which is okay when it's filler for the gameplay (as it should be), not for when the story overtakes the game.

"It's the difference between "I like to go the extra mile" and "This will be the most incredible thing ever, and people will never see games the same way again!""

So how does that apply to Pixar again (more than any other studio)?

"Doesn't apply at all. Films are something you watch, not play. In fact, that's another kind of rant. Game makers who think they are filmmakers, which is why they need to have the HD graphics, because they can't make their awesome visual without it, even though the gameplay is basically a 6th gen game anyway. It's just an expensive crutch in lieu of good gameplay or stories. Most games have writing that are too often B movie quality, which is okay when it's filler for the gameplay (as it should be), not for when the story overtakes the game."

First, if film is such a poor comparsion, why did you bring up Pixar?

Second, I only brought up Cameron because he directly contradicts your statement that modesty is key to sucess. My question has nothing to do with story or cinematics - the scale is what is important. And it is, without doubt, his sense of scope that has allowed James Cameron to produce not just popular films, but the most sucessful pieces of cinema in motion picture history.

"So how does that apply to Pixar again (more than any other studio)?"

I meant just in how they handle their respective genre. Some other studios do that with their own genres, just Pixar is so notable about it. Another one would be the creators of Avatar The Last Airbender.

"First, if film is such a poor comparsion, why did you bring up Pixar?"

You just asked how what I wrote applies to filmmaking. It doesn't. Pixar was only brought up because they have this approach. A video game example would be Insomniac or Nintendo.

"I only brought up Cameron because he directly contradicts your statement that modesty is key to sucess."

It can't contradict when a) films and games are different media and b) I did not claim that modesty was the key to success.

I wrote that if you want to make an expanded market game, your approach should be just to make a good expanded market game, not the most grand, awesome, loaded with features and stunning graphics, expanded market game.

And the problem with many game developers is they think they are James Cameron, and want to be just like him, but with games, as in making games as though they were big budget films. It doesn't work that way.

You've got to be kidding me........

I still don't see how Pixar is a good example. What animation studio makes ostensibly "grander" films than them?

And, again, how is it that the movie comparsion works one way and not the other? What is it that makes it impossible for games to appeal to a mass audience with promises of grandeur when such a strategy so obviously can be sucessful in other media? I can understand it as a sort of practical guidline if that's what you're talking about, but still: Gaming might be different from film, but I think Cameron has shown people do not flee great production values. Other things are what is ailing ambitious games in an expanded audience context (such as, for example, creeping featurism and general inaccesability).

Lol at most of the comments here. Why are you complaining? You know that what he wrote is true.

3d parties can make great games on the wii. They just don't want to being for prejudice (I am an artist! I cannot make such filth!") or simple short sight ("but is like wii sports! why don't sell?"). We are not receiving the same respect and quality treatment as the other consoles. They are having beluga and we get crackers. Is absurd.

Great article here. Is too bad that many wouldn't read it and if they did they will ignore it. I hope I am wrong.