"When a good game doesn't mean that it's art, what exactly constitutes 'art in video-game format', and who decides which game equates to art?"

You're asking me to provide a definition of art, something no one else has been able to do. I do have personal criteria, though, as to what I consider art, but it's hardly universal; in order to be art, a work must be deconstructable, and that deconstruction must reveal hidden depth and meaning. Following my own criteria, the only games that qualify as art are MGS2, Mother 2, and the Xenosaga trilogy as a whole.

"And besides, the moment a game stops being fun, it becomes useless."

Here's the problem; the belief that games can only be one thing. Exactly what is stopping an art game from being fun? Nothing. No one says Mother 2 isn't fun. No one says MGS2 isn't fun (they just call it too damn weird.) Quite a few people say Xenosaga isn't fun, but that's because they dislike the presentation.

"Or is he requesting they stop with the 'focus on fun' mentality and 'get serious' with games?"

He's requesting they take their desire to make fun games and go a step further by making games that are both fun and art.

terpfen: Valid points you have. But please enlighten me. When a good game doesn't mean that it's art, what exactly constitutes 'art in video-game format', and who decides which game equates to art? Something that looks photorealistic like the PS3 and the X360 can approach?
Fine art isn't limited to, nor defined by the baroque era.

And besides, the moment a game stops being fun, it becomes useless. It's not like an artform that has value sitting on a shelf. It's meant to be played. And if by playing it, one doesn't glean a sense of enjoyment and fun out of the game, it doesn't matter how pretty it is.

I'm seriously at a loss as to what this guy is trying to push. He's bashing Nintendo for only making 'fun' games, so is he saying that they should make the same kinds of games and focus more on the graphics than they have been? Or is he requesting they stop with the 'focus on fun' mentality and 'get serious' with games?

Seems like he totally doesn't understand Nintendo's stance that the world of gaming shouldn't only be comprised of the hard-core group. That some people care more that the game delivers a quick and enjoyable experience rather than knowing that the developers spent X-billion dollars making the game look, sound, act and feel next-gen.

"The game isn't only visually unique. It was a breath of fresh air to many PS2 owners. Why would that be unless the game was something over and above the standard game?"

Okami is a really good game, yes. But that doesn't mean it's art. You aren't grasping the argument.

"What I fail to see is how Nintendo isn't taking games seriously because the Wii isn't as powerful as the PS3 or Xbox."

No one's claiming that, and I don't know where you're getting that from. The guy is saying that Nintendo isn't taking the concept of games as art seriously, not that they aren't taking games seriously. There is a huge difference.

Basically, what he's saying is that Nintendo isn't advancing the medium, but rather trying to regress it. He's calling that a waste, because he believes Nintendo is the company best suited to make the advancement he (and and other developers) would like to see.

"His argument should not be that the Wii is crappy, but that Nintendo must change their outlook to include more 'artistic' games."

The latter IS his argument, though he went about it in the most ridiculous and ineloquent way possible. The Wii doesn't suck, and he shouldn't have said that, though given that it was a developer rant forum, "this sucks and that totally blows" is probably the expected format of presentation. Hey, check it out, context is being used in analysis of a situation!

"Maybe Star Wars was just Star Wars but ended up with people making parallels to current political and social events."

If they did, it's because George Lucas expressly wrote them in, as he has admitted, particularly in Episodes I-III.

Mario could be construed as satire of the standard fairy tale, and I admit I've never thought of it that way, but I'm going to classify that one under "reach," especially with games like Super Princess Peach showing that Peach isn't quite helpless.

"So you mean it's more about storyline? ... Like a book or movie sans the interactive parts?"

No. The guy is saying that the medium of video gaming--or more accurately, interactive entertainment--can be used for much more than just making fun games. That was the reasoning Hideo Kojima used when he made MGS2, to make a video game that is more than just a video game. There really isn't a term for it yet, because very few people are trying to do it.

The guy's point is that Nintendo could actually advance the medium in a fundamental way if they bothered to try. It's actually praise, because he cites Nintendo--not Square-Enix, not Capcom, not Sony, not Sega, not Microsoft, not EA, not Valve, not anyone else--as being the company that should spearhead that kind of expansion. Why? Because he believes they can do it, and they can do it better than almost anyone else.

His frustration is that Nintendo claims they're doing something new, when actually they're going back to the NES-era in terms of just focusing on fun gaming, instead of actually doing something new by expanding the medium.

Now, fine, the guy didn't deliver that message in the most effective of manners (I'm being kind here), but he's not alone in the sentiment. The trouble is, the vast majority of gamers either don't understand what the issue is, or don't care. Notice the virulent reaction to MGS2, and Kojima's bowing to that pressure by making MGS3 a fairly conventional game in terms of design. Then you've got this comment thread, which just further exemplifies what I'm talking about.

"Who would dare to claim that Okami is not 'artistic' because it's on a last-gen system? Nobody? Good, I thought not."

I'm really trying to stay away from commenting on what the guy said, but I have to respond to this one.

You're confusing "stylistic graphics" (Okami) with "artistic game design." (What the guy is advocating.) They are two vastly different concepts. What you're saying is that graphics qualify as art. They don't. Okay, they're art in the most basic sense in that they are visual works, but this guy is talking about video games as meaningful art, that is, an encoded message or messages that can be discerned via deconstruction of the work. Basically, the guy is complaining that Nintendo would rather (everyone) make Mario Party and Warioware instead of Metal Gear Solid 2.

"Yeah, that's pretty much what I had in mind."

Then I'm looking forward to that podcast. Where do I go to subscribe to it?

"Also, you're right about the SD3 shots back when HoM was announced. Someone should have asked, and I'm kind of ashamed that we didn't."

If you've got contact information for Square-Enix's PR, now's the time to fix that mistake.

"A good chunk of gaming journalism today is just the posting of official press releases and screenshots, with actual hands-on articles being far less common."

Yeah, that's pretty much what I had in mind. Also, you're right about the SD3 shots back when HoM was announced. Someone should have asked, and I'm kind of ashamed that we didn't.

I think this guy isn't mature enough for the Wii, and I don't think that he has a lot of room to talk since he hasn't even finished his first professional game yet.

I have to agree, there arn't many mature games for the wii, like there wasn't for the gamecube, that may not be a bad thing but it's also not a good thing.

I mean look at the wii sims trailer, it's so cute it makes me want to vomit, how am I supposed to lock something like that in a room and deprive it of it's neccessary human needs? I think saying it's a PoS is a bit much but it does lack in competetion and the wii-mote won't make up for much of it's short comings.

The wii needs to shed some of it's childish cartoon like games and give us some more concrete adault orriented games. Remake RE-4 with the remote, get a gory FPS, see if rockstar can make a gta, one where to kill people with the baseball bat requires you to swing your remote like a baseball bat, I think the nintendo needs to grow up a bit.

The guy's entitled to his opinion. Be careful leaving it at that, though. He brings up a valid point, but he's also full of it.

I find it enormously ironic that here's a guy passionate about gaming as an art form, but very very narrow-minded about what "art" is. WarioWare is art. It's every bit as much a work of art as ICO is. Don't tell me it's not "art" just because it's "fun". Art can be fun. In fact, if it's a video game, maybe it even SHOULD be fun.

What the guy's really pissed off about is that his preferred art form and style is very CPU and GPU hungry, which could lead him to a valid criticism of the Wii. In practice, what it means is he'd have to get creative to adapt his style to work on Wii. Oh no! Creativity! From an artist! Come on, just say it's an annoyingly weak machine and quit whining.

The PS2 was the weakest of the last-gen machines, and it had Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, ICO, God of War, Katamari, all these games that we all agree are "art". Nintendo's no stranger to art either: Odama, Killer 7, Pikmin, Eternal Darkness, Trauma Center, Electroplankton, even Wii Play.

There are many kinds of art. Spore eats CPU cycles for breakfast, fine. Electroplankton doesn't. Michaelangelo's David doesn't either. Must not be art then, huh? ;^)

"But to be so tactless in its delivery is unbecoming of a professional IMHO"

It was a rant panel, a place designed for talking about whatever you want without the troublesome concept of political correctness and politeness. It wasn't a freakin' keynote address, it was a rant panel.

"Going over this, about 90% of posters here have absolutely no reading comprehension ability."

I know. It's unbelievable.

"It pains me to say this but I recently just took a job at EA. However, I worked for Will on the game you just saw, so.. [laughter] I'm going to rant about How Sony And Microsoft Are About To Screw Your Game Design. Look, how are we going to get where gameplay, graphics and physics are all evenly well balanced? At the moment we're the 120lb weakling, except nowadays his right arm here, graphics, is enormous."

--Chris Hecker, GDC, 2005

Going over this, about 90% of posters here have absolutely no reading comprehension ability.

I'm finding it insanely amusing to watch people make very valid arguments and a few things that should be noted, and then unforgivingedges finding a single word that he doesn't agree on and then claiming we don't understand.

In case you didn't read Sniffy's commend, unforgiving, he wasn't saying that Spore would look like a PS2 game, or that the scope was too small. What he was saying was that the game in itself has the thought process of a PS2 game. Go here, do this, then do that. While I do think that Spore will be something awesome, I'm also afraid that it might not deliver to its fullest, and could have been done with a little less antsy pantsy production time.

Looking at games down the line, I don't want stuff that could have been done on the previous systems. I'm not talking graphics wise, and I'm not talking AI wise either. Scopre, sure, I want' something grander, but I also want something to fully take hold of what's given to them and making a truly great game. Gears of War could have been done on the original Xbox. Perhaps the AI wouldn't have been as powerful. The graphics wouldn't have by far. Maybe the sound wouldn't have been as clear. But the concept could have been executed just as well without problem.

Also, his Konami comment was pretty justified. Looking at the history of the Metal Gear series is a good example of how a system's evolution can greatly affect how a game series evolves. The originals were great on their hardware limitations. Putting Solid on the PS1 meant that there was more versitility, more use for AI and weapons, creative thinking. Then the PS2 came along, and they now had two control sticks to work with and make more versitility in the control scheme, build more, push outward more in how they would go about making games. I'm interested to see what Kojima has done to with the PS3 hardware in pushing and pulling gameplay and mechanics into something that fully takes use of what the PS3 has to offer.

This is partially what I really like about the Wii. It gives a very HUGE edge on what can be done with games developed for it. I've never liked a sports game since my NES days of playing FootBall and the like. They just were simply carbon copies, oh look some new stats for this year, see the sweat drop on this guy as you try to press the button at the right time. On the Wii however, I forsee myself actually playing and enjoying sports titles. I enjoyed Wii Sports to no end, and still do. That's part of pushing the boundries of a system, and clearly, I don't think that Hecker thought this through when he bashed the Wii.

Unless he personally starts putting a hand into something that takes absolutely full control of the 360 or PS3, then this whole 'rant' is nothing more than a child's whining about a candy not tasting exactly like a watermelon.

This would be like -say- Uwe Boll ranting about how Hollywood movie equipment isn't good enough for his visions.

Burk: Thanks. :-)

Justin: You should do your own rant on Press Start. I'm a fan, and personally I'd love to hear it. :P

" And I bet that even WITH all that power, Spore will just be a Playstation 2 game."

Um, what? Spore is a PC game with graphics and scope far beyond what the PS2 could output.

Yeah, what's wrong with Nintendo?? always trying to make FUN games....don't they know it's more about the art and graphics?

But weren't we able to experience "fun and cinematic" games last generation despite having weaker systems to play them on? And incidentally, why is the PS2 (and PSP) still getting some good titles along with the 360 and PS3 while the Wii gets left behind again? People like to talk about creative power only possible if they had more powerful systems and yet the PS2 and PSP still get games like Force Unleashed, GRAW, Burnout, Oblivion, etc. Someone explain that to me. Let me guess: it's either kiddy demographic, online-centric, weaker system, less disc space, Nintendo fanbase don't buy third-party games, etc.

Anyway, I guess in some ways I see what he's saying but like most I don't agree exactly. He's arguments are ambiguous. How do you define what's art. I mean I like Paper Mario's art style in the same way I like Dark Cloud 2's art style (just like most of Level 5's similar art style). I like the recent RE games' art style (which is similar to Silent Hill's) and I like Idol Master's artstyle. On the other hand I don't like the Sim's artstyle (though MySims' is great and Sims 2 is an impovement over the origianl), nor do I like Animal Crossing's. I also don't like Black & White's artstyle and truthfully I don't like Spore's art style (note: art style). Of course there are games will good artstyle but looks poor due to hardware limitations but I think the Wii is capable enough to not make a game look like a PS1/N64 game which were poor and, as far as I'm concerned, was a rush job to implement 3D before it was ready just to say a game was 3D. Anyway, sure if you try to make a big city landscape a game will look poor but games like RE4 show that small areas can look great when given just the right attention.

Frankly the systems are just canvasses, they may limit the art in some ways but if won't push the art form for you. Short of reaching for the photo-realistic looking games (and I mean truely photo-realisitc "you wouldn't have guessed it wasn't a real human being or a real television show but a game" - which we're so far off from), you essentially can do great art now.

Some of this makes me think that everyone's looking for Nintendo to fill out the "mature" games for their system again on their own. I mean we all like Nintendo games but does anyone expect that Nintendo do everything (i.e. "they should make more mature games"). Buy some "mature" third-party games, y'know when third-parties bother to make any for the Wii. And by "any" I mean great "any" not just any "any."

Wow, i don't have time to wade through all the comments right now, but my own thoughts...

How is it Nintendo's job as a console developer to push games as a "legitimate art form?" Or Sony's? Or Microsoft's? Criticizing the development side of their buisness for the type of games they produce would be valid, however the job of the console side of their business is to produce a machine that will sell well and will enable developers to easily produce games that will sell well.

Microsoft and Sony produced consoles with lots of graphical power and a high price tag. Nintendo produced a console with a new method of control and a cheaper price tag. It is now the developers' jobs to produce whatever type of game they want, "artistic" or not, for whichever consoles they want.

If Chris Hecker feels that the type of games he wants to develop require the horsepower of the PS3 or 360 that's fine. If however he feels that the higher level of graphics is a _requirement_ to produce "art," then he clearly doesn't have any notion of what art really is.

(I would certainly have trouble defining what art really is myself, but i'm not so deranged as to try to claim that it requires a high definition display or any other specific kind of media to produce.)

Everyone can rant, there's nothing wrong with that and you can expect some counter blasting from fans.The funny thing I find about this is he goes on to blast the Wii on multiples areas, but you know what he could right as day and night about how the Wii is weaker and it's cheaper and out selling everything under the sun, it's fun and just great little package. If he loves art so much why doesn't he do something about it, develop a game for the wii, oh I forgot it's underpowered.Weird how we saw that from LucasArt but they are making a game for the PS2(no comment on this one).Jesus the system just came out and there's like how many dev's that are making games for, but most of them are just plain lazy.We can't expect RE4 graphics from lazy dev's.


~Arm

Basicly, what he's saying seems to boil down to "You can't make art with paint because it can't show time like a movie can."

I understand what he's saying, but he needs to understand that just because he can't make the type of art he wants to doesn't mean it isn't a valid medium to make art with.

The different systems are good for different things, if he wants higher level graphics and physics to make the art he wants then he can use those systems, but it's incredibly insulting to developers who feel their artistic vision is best expressed on the Wii to make the claims he did.

So he blasts Nintendo because they don't have a quote about games being art on their f***ing website and because the Wii is not a super computer?

This got is not a genius.

f*** him.

I suppose Heckler has a point about Nintendo not treating games as serious art, but that other point on the Wii's processor can go either way.

My opinion is this: if games were to be considered art then developers must enhance amd refine the qualities unique to the medium (video games) to the fullest. How is it done? Game design. Games are played because they're interactive, and the better the interactive experience is the better the game is. But can the interactive experience reach the level of art? I think so.

In fact, I think there are some games out there that have done that already, as early as the original NES; and some of them didn't even have enough processing power required for a policeman's speedometer. Sure physics engines and AI can help make an incredible game, but there is no guarantee that clever AI and/or realistic physics is going to make a game artistic, or even be taken seriously for that matter.

I haven't played either next-gen consoles (XBox 360 or PS3) to determine if their games have better design than titles of previous generations, though, but it is probable that game design has not progressed as far as graphics have gone.

mrsinister

Or developers can, you know, focus on both good gameplay and good graphics.

Nintendo doesn't want their games to look good at this juncture, so they've eliminated that part of the decision for developers.

lol bless atari, they tried. and a company bought their name to do better, and they tried too...and failed ROFL

there was an april fools of ffvii being ported to 256 atari carts some good years ago.

i dunno. i own wii and 360. i still think a good developer can see past the graphical flaws of wii and implement good fma and fmv when needed. the main element of wii is its gameplay and fun factor. if developers dont want to focus on that. that's their problem. they can just move on to the 360 or ps3

seemy comment below biding :) a good developer would not slam a console. a good developer would know how to utilise every great aspect of it, if necessary, to make their game a big seller

a frustrated developer is one without vision, only one dimension methods

This is the same guy, who at the 2005 GDC, delivered his rant on the necessary balance between console power, physics, and gameplay.

Its two years later, and i think many will agree that MS and Sont have put a very large emphasis on Graphics and Physics. Leaving Nintendo the odd ball out in the "gameplay" aspect, which is what Nintendo is aiming for. Why he's ranting at something that should balance out his 2005 rant is beyond me.

While i dont agree with his choice in wording, or his argument in general, i can understand his early frustration at possibly not being able to do something he wants to do.

Though i wouldnt count Nintendo as this far behind in graphics, as theyve been known to squeeze every little bit out of a system to achieve comparable levels to "superior" machines. Though as a representative, he should be a bit more professional instead of threatening to rush the Miyamoto keynote tomorrow as well.

Yeah, like I thought, this comment thread is borderline legendary.

unforgivingedges, you're absolutely correct, but don't bother trying to persuade people. It won't work.

Does he have an account on here? I'm gonna give him negative karma!

Whether this guy is right or not, Nintendo needs to consider the fact that the Wii needs some serious backup... and soon.

I feel like we're right on the cusp of the Wii's novelty wearing off and people realizing there isn't a significantly deep enough game for them to stay interested in what they bought. Right now the best thing for Wii (arguably) is a Zelda game that is mostly a Gamecube experience. When we get our Metroid Prime 3 and Smash Bros Brawl I'm sure that will change, but man, something's gotta happen soon.

I mostly don't agree with what they guy's saying, but I think one thing's right... Nintendo and other companies developing for the Wii need to make sure they take games seriously as an art. Visuals will be a part of the emotional experience they try to create. I think Resident Evil 4 stands as proof that even if the Wii is only slightly better than the Gamecube, it has what it needs. Get to it, Nintendo! Add good visuals to that FUN you're so good at.

For the last time:

He's not drawing a line that says there are either fun games or artistic non-fun games. He's saying that he wishes Nintendo wasn't focusing ONLY ON FUN. he's saying he wishes they were focusing on FUN AND CINEMATIC PRESENTATION ON THE LEVEL OF MORE POWERFUL SYSTEMS.

And most of the people missing his argument can be attributed to his equally immature, childish delivery. Nevermind that I continue to disagree with his assertion - because, you know, Twilight Princess is only there to kill time (ditto for Metroid Prime). To each his own, but for me, "fun to play" is a requirement for "fun to experience." If Gears wasn't a blast to play from a gameplay standpoint, I would have taken it back to the store. Sorry, but I play games and find artistic merit in the core game. I respect the developer that is able to take advantage of any situation s/he's given to send us his or her artistic vision (Okami).

That's beef.

So... why do we care more about this than any of the other rants? I'm kinda curious what the rest were.

Also, since when did games NEED to be art? Why can't they just be fun?

As for how he spoke... it was supposed to be a rant session, so it's kinda fitting.

being a developer, unless he's a lead designer or producer or someone else important, gives him little stature. more than a forum poster, but not much.

he's probably a programmer, one of a ton on that game and tons of others. one of the names that scrolls by when you complete a game and you don't even read it, much less remember it. he probably added "coke" to the list of "thank yous" in the credit list. on his last two projects, he only rated in the "special thanks" portion of the game. so yeah, i'm sure i could just as easily find someone else at his level on the spore team to say the exact opposite. so, whatever.

Some of my favorite games are on the NES, so I honestly don't give a rat's ass about how Wii's processing power compares to PS3's or Xbox 360's.

>>"The fact that he's a developer gives him more >>credence to say this."
Yeah, I love his choice of words too. "The Wii is a piece of s***!" Very professional.

Yes, you're right about that. But if CPU and system specs were that big of an issue, did SNES or PSX hardware prevent developers from creating great games? Didn't the technically inferior PS2 have better games than the GameCube?

I honestly have no idea where he was going with the "games as art" argument. Nintendo was arguably one of the first companies to take games seriously, and their consoles the DS and Wii offer extras that could quite possibly make a gaming experience more interactive and satisfying.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take a guy seriously who spouts profanities and has a baseless argument. Yes, it's confirmed that the Wii has much weaker hardware than its competitors. Yes, Nintendo makes...fun games? I'm not sure what it takes to make a good console in his eyes, but whatever it is, it's pretty distorted.

This isn't about defending Nintendo, it's about making a sound and logical argument. I suppose it's fitting that it's a "rant", but a rant of this level coming from a developer just surprised me is all.

Nintendo must be doing something right - nobody cared about GameCube enough to complain like this.

Yeah, i hate fun games, they're so stupid

At first I read his name as "Chris Heckler". :D

Seriously though. Overreact much? I would understand if this was coming from some crazy teenager, but the fact that he's a developer just amuses me. Apparently, he's not much of a gamer.

Wow so a Nintendo makes games that are only fun, so they suck ass? Did this guy seriously say this? I mean that kind of childish rantings would get you banned from a forum and this guy is supposed to be a respected member of the development community?

LOL!!!!!!!!!
AR. OH. EF. FREAKING. EL.

"...and said that Nintendo only wanted to make "fun" games."

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we were only allowed to play boring games with purty graffex.

No one cares what this moron says. Cause the Wii is selling as hot as the DS.

It would be like me writing a blog saying how crappy Myspace is.

How old is this guy? He sounds like he's 12.

I'd be more concerned about the complete lack of software worth playing on PS3 and PSP.

By "this", you mean the impending flamewar here and on every other gaming blog in existence, correct?