So I was reading this article (http://www.forbes.com/technology/2007/03/08/nintendo-wii-gdc-tech-cx_rr_0308game.html ) which is talking about the Nintendo guru-guy Miyamoto and his speech blah blah ... then it goes on to include a quote from a guy from Electronic Arts. "Hecker said that Nintendo isn't as committed to creating artful games as Sony and Microsoft, and that the company is only interested in producing fun games with limited graphical appeal. The Wii console, he said, is hardly better than two GameCube consoles duct-taped together."
This may be true, but so what? Is it really all about the new crazy graphics that we can get? Excuse me, sir, but that is not all everyone is looking for - some of us are still fine watching VHS and haven't upgraded to that blue-stuff. Entertainment is still entertainment regardless of how clear the picture is. I mean we were fine back playing Super Nintendo (my favorite) right? Another point on the Wii - yeah, it is less violent - that is appealing to SOME people, especially those looking for family-kid-friendly-oriented fun.
So what if Nintendo isn't obsessed and five thousand percent dedicated to graphical appeal as you say, Hecker. Is it really a problem if they went another direction and tried something else innovative where they are smartly appealing to an audience - an audience that will earn them, sure, a lot of money? Of course it is about money, but it is just refreshing to see a gaming system that isn't hardcore focused on the detail of the guns, blood, shooting ranges, gory gruesome monsters, etc etc (yea I am a fan of Halo, I can deal with a fair dose of action, so my point isn't made against that genre). Okay I have lost my train of thought, so before I ramble on anymore, time for me to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment