*note, some swearing is present in all of the links*
http://news.spong.com/article/12010/GDC:%20Wii%20Is%20Piece%20Of%20****?cb=291
Aaand now he's apologizing, lol. (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3157914)

Laughter and shocked applause from the developer-heavy crowd ensued, as Hecker elaborated to the tune of Public Enemy (seriously...he cranked it). Revealing the darkest secrets of the Wii manufacturing process ("Take two GameCubes and duct tape them together"), Hecker raked Nintendo against the coals for including a "piece of **** underpowered CPU" in the Wii, and stressed that it wasn't the graphics that are important, but how intelligent the console can be for delivering more "serious" games.

And that was the main crux of his rant -- Nintendo isn't taking games seriously enough. Juxtaposing quotes from Sony and Microsoft PR plans ("games can be art" etc.) against Nintendo's Eiji Aonuma ("our goal is to just make games that are fun"), Hecker finds the latter approach "not good enough." He claims that games can be a legitimate art form in the 21st century, "it's just ours to f*** up." Jokingly (?) threatening to rush tomorrow's Miyamoto keynote, Hecker concluded by giving two pieces of completely unsolicited advice to Nintendo:
1) Push games as a serious art form, and 2) "Make a console that doesn't suck ass."

One wonders how many in the development community share this opinion...

I'm with Douglas Adams on this one.

The first purpose of a video game (or book, or film, or song, or whatever) should be to entertain, to be fun. If it turns out to be art as well, then this is a bonus. But making things with the intention of them being art is never a good thing.

But making things with the intention of them being art is never a good thing.
[Stupid reply]What if your making art?[/stupid reply]

*runs*

[Stupid reply]What if your making art?[/stupid reply]

*runs*Then you are drawing, or painting, or sculpting, or whatever. You're doing it because you enjoy doing it, you want other people to enjoy it, perhaps you want to learn a new skill for the sheer hell of it. Or, to take a more mercenary note, you're doing it because you like having food in your mouth. If you think you're creating art, then that's worrying.

I'm with Douglas Adams on this one.

That's usually the easiest way to get the correct opinion, yes.

But I bet it's probably frustating for someone to be able to use a lot of processing power in one console to have to step back to a lot less processing power for another console. It's probably like working on an N64 game when the Gamecube was already out. This applies for people that care about their games that is.
Not to say that the Wii is not capable of great games, all consoles are capable of this. But for developers who enjoy making the most of their games, working on an underpowered console is probably not as fun.

Hmmm, I never really considered processing power that important before...

Strange. It almost seems that he just shifted his apparant opinion because it wasn't liked as opposed to try and back it up further.

Anyway, games have always had one aim and that is too entertein. They are not an art form. If you try to merge them and make it an art form, then you asking for trouble.

Basically, I agree with Paul and probably Douglas Adams.

So was movies, comics, teathre, etc. It's to entertain, but they are considered art forms.
Videogames used to be more like just pain entertainment(tetris, pacman, sonic, mario bros) then they started developing storylines(zelda, chrono trigger, countless rpg's...), then they started emulating more movie-like environments(Max Payne, Halo) and more realistic graphics(HL2).
There are still fun-only games, with very simple storylines or no storyline at all, but most games currently can already be considered an art form.

Strange. It almost seems that he just shifted his apparant opinion because it wasn't liked as opposed to try and back it up further.

Anyway, games have always had one aim and that is too entertein. They are not an art form. If you try to merge them and make it an art form, then you asking for trouble.

Basically, I agree with Paul and probably Douglas Adams.I think you've misinterpreted slightly.

Games can be an art form. But that's not for the people making the game to decide.

A maxim for writers is "Aim to be literate, not literary". By analogy, it's the same for games developers.

I think you've misinterpreted slightly.

Games can be an art form. But that's not for the people making the game to decide.

A maxim for writers is "Aim to be literate, not literary". By analogy, it's the same for games developers.

True... the main thing is, as far as I can see, aim only for what the purpose is.

Oh, come on.
Why the hell does a game need to be graphically powerful to be artistic?

Making a game look better will not make it more artistic (thought-provoking). It will make it more entertaining (fun). I wrote that DA journal about how graphics are used to make nice moments, and this is true. They are rarely used for artistic merit.

(Note that I, personally, define art as a combination of entertainment and value. Entertainment is how fun the art is, and value is how well it makes us think. Video games are generally high on the fun side, but low on the value side.)

Probably the best way to make games more artistic is to give them good stories, which really don't need good graphics. Hotel Dusk and Pheonix Wright both have tremendous stories (far better than any pretty, high-processor game), and they're DS games. Killer7 has a very intriguing story, and it's a gamecube game.
Hotel Dusk wasn't a very ENTERTAINING game, in the general sense. So it's high on value, low on fun.

And here are some EQUATIONS! +,good -,bad
+Looks == +Fun
+Looks =/= +Value
+Story =/= +Fun
+Story == +Value
-Story =/= -Fun
-Looks =/= -Value

Basically, bad story doesn't mean bad entertainment, and bad graphics doesn't mean bad value (artistic merit).

The PS3 and Xbox360 have an edge on the Wii for entertainent because of graphics (Though the Wii actually offsets this with the intuitive controller), but they do NOT have the edge art-wise. All 3 systems are equally capable of making games with high value.

To be honest, I don't dislike this guy. Hell, he helped me figure out some new things. I just thought up the Art=Fun+Value thing while writing this post.
Definitely have a good intro for my next DA lecture.

In a way, games like Wind Waker, or anything with stylised graphics are more artistic than ZOMG ALMOST REAL graphics...*wonders off again*

Along the lines of what I was thinking. This debate's popped up over in the introversion forums too, if I remember correctly.

One of the points was that Picasso is considered a brilliant artist, but his stuff sure isn't realistic. Games like Darwinia (yey!) are brilliant fun to play, because that's what the main aim was, but also have been called art. I think I agree, it's certainly not realistic, but it is lovely to look at, despite being reasonably simplistic.

I think you've misinterpreted slightly.

Games can be an art form. But that's not for the people making the game to decide.

A maxim for writers is "Aim to be literate, not literary". By analogy, it's the same for games developers.

You would think that if anyone involved knew about maxims, it would be Hecker.

Oh, come on.
Why the hell does a game need to be graphically powerful to be artistic?

The guy didn't bash the wii for the graphics power, he bashed it for the processor power.
And no it doesn't need great graphics to be artisitic, but that doesn't necesarily mean that it having great graphics will make it less artistic, in any case I would assume someone who would try to make a game artistic, or considered his game an art form would like to not be limited in what he can do, both graphically and in processor power terms.

Also, if movies are considered an art form, then games should be considered an art form too, there's hardly any difference into the making of both, just that the games are interactive.

It is a fair point about the processor power. A game like Spore will consume vast quantities of it, because the concept of the game is in part to have lots and lots and LOTS of independently controlled entities running about the place. A less powerful processor can hamper creativity in that way.

Also, if movies are considered an art form, then games should be considered an art form too, there's hardly any difference into the making of both, just that the games are interactive.

Nothing created by a corporation or with the intention to make money has ever been art. That rules out almost all games and movies (at least, ones you've ever heard of) right away. A concept created by an individual or a group and developed into a finished product by a company could be art, but I bet you can't name three games that developed that way, much less three that could be considered "art".

Definitions of art on the Web:
the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"
the creation of beautiful or significant things; "art does not need to be innovative to be good"; "I was never any good at art"; "he said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully"
a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation; "the art of conversation"; "it's quite an art"
artwork: photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication; "the publisher was responsible for all the artwork in the book"

Also, aren't there a lot of artists involved in the creation of a movie/game?
Surely they are produced by large companies with the intent to gather money, but people involved in the actual making of the project usually do put their hearths on it, and that usually shows in the final result.

Wait, I though the Spore developer was Will Wright. Or does he have another position?

Wait, I though the Spore developer was Will Wright. Or does he have another position?

Yes because only one person is allowed to work on spore at a time.

Will Wright is the Maxis head honcho so he's the one you'll see representing the team most of the time.

Theres nothing wrong with either ways of gaming. They are just different forms.

What would you like to do in your art class? Paint or sculpt? Ones probably alot more fun than the other, one probably requires more skill, and one will probably produce something that looks alot more stunning. Does it matter? There is still just as much painting going on in the world than there is modelling. The fact that painting in the present world is the image that most people collide with when someone says "art" dosn't effect those facts. Its the same if someone says "game" and you suddenly think "awesome graphics", which is, presently, what usually happens.

Theres nothing wrong with either ways of gaming. They are just different forms.

What would you like to do in your art class? Paint or sculpt? Ones probably alot more fun than the other, one probably requires more skill, and one will probably produce something that looks alot more stunning. Does it matter? There is still just as much painting going on in the world than there is modelling. The fact that painting in the present world is the image that most people collide with when someone says "art" dosn't effect those facts. Its the same if someone says "game" and you suddenly think "awesome graphics", which is, presently, what usually happens.

Well said.

I agree on both terms. Spore looks like a fantastic game though.

Spore looks like a fantastic game though.

Yes.

I mean: SEPTEMBERISH RELEASE DATE!?!? BUT I CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG!!!! :(

No its good. It means I have a chance to actually start earning some money before then.

Oh I kid myself too much.