Ps3 vs Wii : Film vs TV
My friend was recently COMPELLED to purchase that strange oddity, the Ps3. He furiously spouted many reasons for his decision, but I truly hope that he was able to convince himself more than he did me. His reasons were as follows:
1) backwards compatibility (he is worried, and rightly so, that sony will remove the emotion chip from the US ps3 systems as they have done for the European launch).
2) comprehensive console ownership (as a game developer, he feels it is his duty to own each console that is commercially available, so as to better understand the current video-game climate. It turns out that I happen to appreciate this reason, as it lead to the realization that I am currently elucidating).
3) blu-ray
Before I continue, let me follow a quick tangent and point out that "Play next-gen games" was not an entry on his list. When we left Best Buy with the towering, monolithic monstrocity (of the 60gb persuasion), he carried not a single ps3 game, cradling instead a piping-hot, last-gen copy of God of War II. This was meant to justify reason number 1 and provide the opportunity to see Kratos in gloriously upscaled, hdmi-driven glory.
Again, before I finally attend to my point, let me take a quick tangent. At GDC several weeks ago, I vidied Greg Costikyan receive the Maverick Award and deliver his acceptance speech. His words struck a nerve with me, and I would like to quote a quick tidbit for your consideration:
"A dozen years ago, in an article in Chris Crawford's Journal of Computer Game Design, I asked whether the new interactive medium of games would ultimately become, like the written word, one that illuminates and helps us understand our world, or like television, one of deratiocinated pabulum, to the detriment of our culture and intellectual life."
You can see the whole speech at Greg's blog here: http://www.costik.com/weblog/2007/03/maverick-acceptance-speech.html
He continued with the opinion that we are "not doing so hot." I tend to agree, and I would like to use the current console war as an exemplar of this QUALITY DIPOLE.
This leads us back to the point. I would like to slightly modify this comparison, however, by using Film as a substitute for the written word, not because I think that it is a better comparison, but because I think it is more relevant and applicable to contrast TV with Film than with literature. It also fits very snugly for other reasons, as you will see in a moment.
Now, some of you may point out that the medium of cinema doesn't fit for two reasons. First, movies have become increasingly stale and insubstantial of late. Second, that Film is no longer a good label, as digital methods have permeated that industry of late. Let me address both points: I agree completely. This is why I chose to use the word Film to describe that side of the dichotomy. When I say Film, I refer to movies back when they were one of the premier artistic offerings of our species. This is before the days of fancy digital effects and such a dearth of creativity that remakes are consistently the best option available to the public. This is back in the 50s-70s when Film was truly a medium to behold, when artists such as Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick were teaching us what it means to be human.
So what I am talking about here is 2001 vs. Lost; Touch of Evil vs. Days of our Lives. This is the dichotomy that we are investigating, and this is the metric that we are going to try to apply to the medium of video-games.
Back to my friend and his Ps3. When we finally hooked the thing up (this was a few days later, mind you. Ps3s don't come with HDMI cables, and the only ones they had at Best Buy were the 100 dollar-per-3-feet-gold-plated-and-sanctified-by-god variety that marketing somehow sells to ignorant consumers), we were greeted by an extremely elegant, classy (and black!!! Woohooo!!!!) OS GUI. I should have expected this from sony based on my experiences with the ps2 and their black, particle-infused menus that apparently hover over a RESTLESS OCEAN. Nonetheless, I was surprised by the class that sony was offering up here. When the system first boots up, furthermore, the user is greeted with a fabric-like ribbon, a suave "Sony Computer Entertainment" logo, and a huge orchestral-soundscape moment that fills your room, reminding us of a logo of a major film studio before a particularly potent offering. When you move through the menu and highlight the currently-inserted disc, the entire screen changes into specialized skin, and some inspirational music from the game's score starts playing. This symbolizes Sony's attempt to bring a new kind of dignity to the medium, and it was apparent to me how important this effort was despite their previous blunders with the system.
Let's take a break for a moment and look at the Wii. Nintendo's simple console offers a very different view of the next-gen video gaming experience from the Ps3. The bright white menus with their large buttons and gaudy logos remind me of that toy with different animals around the rim that you point to to make different barn-yard sounds ("I call the Flinstone phone!"). What is really telling, however, is when you notice what Nintendo calls their organization system. These icons don't represent works of art, they represent "Channels." Each one is on an identical, regulation-size button. There is no noticeable difference between the "Wii Shop Channel" and "Zelda: Twilight Princess." Noticing anything here?
What we have here is a direct connection between these two different next-gen paradigms and the dichotomy that I am attempting to apply to our medium. With the Ps3, Sony is clearly saying "Games are serious, artistic masterpieces. When you turn on this system, you are enabling the cream of contemporary art to enter your living room." While I consider this to be fairly arrogant of Sony considering their ridiculous currently-available "next-gen" instances, this attitude is very much in line with my own thinking about the medium than that of the Wii.
With the Wii, its all simple, meaningless games and accessible, complacent artistry. Each is a channel, not artwork, which implies something about the commercial vision of the product as well as its intended significance. These are sound bytes, not speeches, and they are designed for the attention span of the MTV generation. If you don't wow us every 16 seconds, we change channels. The Wii doesn't mind, though, because there are 29 more channels where that came from. In 6 months time, there will be 30 more.
It seems clear that these two systems represent an EMPIRICAL TEST of the afore mentioned question: Will video-games, as a medium, walk the road of Film or TV; Style or Flash?
Before we get to the frightening conclusion of this point, let's first look at some player demographics. The Wii is, so far, the most universally accepted and successful video-game console on the planet. It has managed to achieve wide appeal and transcend the boundaries of the traditional "gamer." We, as gamers, enjoy these simple offerings such as Wii Sports, as they are fun, quick, and offer a break from the usual fare. We bring the Wii home over christmas, and, to our suprise, our parents and grandparents can dig these games also... wow. Next, we go to parties where "cool" people are engaged in "cool" activities such as drinking and beer pong... er... wait, are they playing a Wii? Yes, that's right, Wii Sports has even replaced traditional drinking games among this demographic, something I hardly considered possible a year ago. Is there anyone that the Wii can't please?
Well, to be honest, that person is me. Don't get me wrong. I develop for the Wii. I own a Wii. I play my Wii often (I understand that this is starting to sound dirty, but blame Nintendo. I am going to continue unabated). The bottom line, however, is that Wii games (so far) only provide what I would consider to be cheap thrills; gaming experiences that are neither rare or compelling. There is something extremely interesting about playing virtual golf in my living room, certainly, but am I learning anything or reflecting upon my own life while playing Wii Golf? No. The Wii, through its pop-culture leanings and TV-inspired organization, seems to cheapen what I consider to be the potential for a sacred experience. It can offer me entertainment, but it never takes things to the next level.
Now let's look at the player demographic for the Ps3. Most people who play Ps3 are... um... well, nobody. The largest demographic related to the Ps3 is that no one even owns one.
This seems to say a couple things about the medium. First, it seems to say, based on the direction that Sony and Nintendo decided upon, that Artistry and Popularity are mutually exclusive goals for gaming. Second, based on the resulting popularity of both systems, it seems that artistry and style do not sell; that substance and quality do not correlate to the public interest.
As a game developer, I believe that it IS possible to make games that have broad, mass-market appeal AND stay true to the medium as an art form; that this situation is more a product of specifics and timing rather than the overall direction and vision of the consoles. Nintendo struck a nerve with the Wii, but I think it is more related to the increasingly poor quality of Sony-type offerings over the years rather than the actual quality of the Wii titles. The Wii represents a breath of fresh air in a medium that has become a rather bloated and crusty case of devolution. These games hearken back to the days when a few developers could make an entire game and truly share a vision. These games are simple and fun, and they seem incredible when you compare them to the most recent iteration of The Wheel.
This does not mean that these Wii games are good. In fact, they are not.
The Ps3 IS a good system. The only problem is that they are deepening the same rathole within which we, as an industry, have been trapped. Blu-ray enables (i.e. FORCES) developers to create an obscene amount of content. If we have 50 gigs of space, by golly, we should use it. This represents seriously warped priorities, really, as it imposes design constraints based on what we MUST do, not what we can't do. Furthermore, we have SEVEN processors (well, 6, if you don't count the one that the OS controls... er... well, 5 if you don't count the one that can be stolen away from you at any moment... er.. well...). We are COMPELLED to use all of these resources, independent of whatever game design or message we are trying to convey through this technology. This leads to games that are completely bloated, unfocused, and, in most cases, utterly broken.
We, as game developers, realize that this situation is exactly that: situational. This dichotomy between Ps3 and Wii and the resulting popularity of the Wii system is due to a great many factors, none of which, I would argue, involves the specific paradigm of either system. Yes, the Wii embraces the pop-culture, TV model. Yes, the Ps3 tends to ignore you and stand aloof, almost announcing "You aren't good enough to purchase me" to prospective customers. However, these are just execution details, and they are not married to the paradigm.
The problem is that the Game Publisher CEOs of the world don't see it this way. All they see is trends and dollar signs. The Wii eschews art in favor of entertainment and sells bajillions of units to people who don't usually buy any of our product. The Ps3 stylishly pushes the gaming envelope, and no one seems interested. This is a very simple circumstance and leads to obvious future decisions: From now on, all the money is going to the TV side of video-games ("You do not know the POWER of the dark side!").
This realization, which I have known for some time, deeply troubles me. I know what the future of this medium could become, but I worry for the well-being of us all when the trends seem to favor glitz over quality so strongly.
In the end, the only thing we can do, as game developers, is try to push the medium forward with all of our offerings, no matter what system we release on. If you release on the Ps3 (or 360, for that matter), pay special attention to the needs of the more casual players. Make your learning curves shallower, and make your GUI and controls more intuitive. Similarly, if you are developing for the Wii, pay special attention to the needs of the more hardcore gamers. Try to come up with systems that are both simple and intricate; easy to understand yet emergent (This is what we are trying to do with mySims, and I am quite confident that we are going to be successful).
If we don't succeed, the Ps3 will be the last system that inherently treats this medium from an artistic perspecive, presenting our products as such to the consumer. The "big wigs" will destroy the last vestiges of passion and substance in our industry, and we will go the route of TV, cheapening ourselves with each passing year. We need to convince the people holding the money that they will get greater return on their investment if they treat the medium with respect, and we do this by treating our own games with respect. Sony can't tell the players what to think about us. We need to validate their stylish menu with the experience that follows after clicking that button. Otherwise, we might as well get jobs writing for Lost.
-Max
1) backwards compatibility (he is worried, and rightly so, that sony will remove the emotion chip from the US ps3 systems as they have done for the European launch).
2) comprehensive console ownership (as a game developer, he feels it is his duty to own each console that is commercially available, so as to better understand the current video-game climate. It turns out that I happen to appreciate this reason, as it lead to the realization that I am currently elucidating).
3) blu-ray
Before I continue, let me follow a quick tangent and point out that "Play next-gen games" was not an entry on his list. When we left Best Buy with the towering, monolithic monstrocity (of the 60gb persuasion), he carried not a single ps3 game, cradling instead a piping-hot, last-gen copy of God of War II. This was meant to justify reason number 1 and provide the opportunity to see Kratos in gloriously upscaled, hdmi-driven glory.
Again, before I finally attend to my point, let me take a quick tangent. At GDC several weeks ago, I vidied Greg Costikyan receive the Maverick Award and deliver his acceptance speech. His words struck a nerve with me, and I would like to quote a quick tidbit for your consideration:
"A dozen years ago, in an article in Chris Crawford's Journal of Computer Game Design, I asked whether the new interactive medium of games would ultimately become, like the written word, one that illuminates and helps us understand our world, or like television, one of deratiocinated pabulum, to the detriment of our culture and intellectual life."
You can see the whole speech at Greg's blog here: http://www.costik.com/weblog/2007/03/maverick-acceptance-speech.html
He continued with the opinion that we are "not doing so hot." I tend to agree, and I would like to use the current console war as an exemplar of this QUALITY DIPOLE.
This leads us back to the point. I would like to slightly modify this comparison, however, by using Film as a substitute for the written word, not because I think that it is a better comparison, but because I think it is more relevant and applicable to contrast TV with Film than with literature. It also fits very snugly for other reasons, as you will see in a moment.
Now, some of you may point out that the medium of cinema doesn't fit for two reasons. First, movies have become increasingly stale and insubstantial of late. Second, that Film is no longer a good label, as digital methods have permeated that industry of late. Let me address both points: I agree completely. This is why I chose to use the word Film to describe that side of the dichotomy. When I say Film, I refer to movies back when they were one of the premier artistic offerings of our species. This is before the days of fancy digital effects and such a dearth of creativity that remakes are consistently the best option available to the public. This is back in the 50s-70s when Film was truly a medium to behold, when artists such as Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick were teaching us what it means to be human.
So what I am talking about here is 2001 vs. Lost; Touch of Evil vs. Days of our Lives. This is the dichotomy that we are investigating, and this is the metric that we are going to try to apply to the medium of video-games.
Back to my friend and his Ps3. When we finally hooked the thing up (this was a few days later, mind you. Ps3s don't come with HDMI cables, and the only ones they had at Best Buy were the 100 dollar-per-3-feet-gold-plated-and-sanctified-by-god variety that marketing somehow sells to ignorant consumers), we were greeted by an extremely elegant, classy (and black!!! Woohooo!!!!) OS GUI. I should have expected this from sony based on my experiences with the ps2 and their black, particle-infused menus that apparently hover over a RESTLESS OCEAN. Nonetheless, I was surprised by the class that sony was offering up here. When the system first boots up, furthermore, the user is greeted with a fabric-like ribbon, a suave "Sony Computer Entertainment" logo, and a huge orchestral-soundscape moment that fills your room, reminding us of a logo of a major film studio before a particularly potent offering. When you move through the menu and highlight the currently-inserted disc, the entire screen changes into specialized skin, and some inspirational music from the game's score starts playing. This symbolizes Sony's attempt to bring a new kind of dignity to the medium, and it was apparent to me how important this effort was despite their previous blunders with the system.
Let's take a break for a moment and look at the Wii. Nintendo's simple console offers a very different view of the next-gen video gaming experience from the Ps3. The bright white menus with their large buttons and gaudy logos remind me of that toy with different animals around the rim that you point to to make different barn-yard sounds ("I call the Flinstone phone!"). What is really telling, however, is when you notice what Nintendo calls their organization system. These icons don't represent works of art, they represent "Channels." Each one is on an identical, regulation-size button. There is no noticeable difference between the "Wii Shop Channel" and "Zelda: Twilight Princess." Noticing anything here?
What we have here is a direct connection between these two different next-gen paradigms and the dichotomy that I am attempting to apply to our medium. With the Ps3, Sony is clearly saying "Games are serious, artistic masterpieces. When you turn on this system, you are enabling the cream of contemporary art to enter your living room." While I consider this to be fairly arrogant of Sony considering their ridiculous currently-available "next-gen" instances, this attitude is very much in line with my own thinking about the medium than that of the Wii.
With the Wii, its all simple, meaningless games and accessible, complacent artistry. Each is a channel, not artwork, which implies something about the commercial vision of the product as well as its intended significance. These are sound bytes, not speeches, and they are designed for the attention span of the MTV generation. If you don't wow us every 16 seconds, we change channels. The Wii doesn't mind, though, because there are 29 more channels where that came from. In 6 months time, there will be 30 more.
It seems clear that these two systems represent an EMPIRICAL TEST of the afore mentioned question: Will video-games, as a medium, walk the road of Film or TV; Style or Flash?
Before we get to the frightening conclusion of this point, let's first look at some player demographics. The Wii is, so far, the most universally accepted and successful video-game console on the planet. It has managed to achieve wide appeal and transcend the boundaries of the traditional "gamer." We, as gamers, enjoy these simple offerings such as Wii Sports, as they are fun, quick, and offer a break from the usual fare. We bring the Wii home over christmas, and, to our suprise, our parents and grandparents can dig these games also... wow. Next, we go to parties where "cool" people are engaged in "cool" activities such as drinking and beer pong... er... wait, are they playing a Wii? Yes, that's right, Wii Sports has even replaced traditional drinking games among this demographic, something I hardly considered possible a year ago. Is there anyone that the Wii can't please?
Well, to be honest, that person is me. Don't get me wrong. I develop for the Wii. I own a Wii. I play my Wii often (I understand that this is starting to sound dirty, but blame Nintendo. I am going to continue unabated). The bottom line, however, is that Wii games (so far) only provide what I would consider to be cheap thrills; gaming experiences that are neither rare or compelling. There is something extremely interesting about playing virtual golf in my living room, certainly, but am I learning anything or reflecting upon my own life while playing Wii Golf? No. The Wii, through its pop-culture leanings and TV-inspired organization, seems to cheapen what I consider to be the potential for a sacred experience. It can offer me entertainment, but it never takes things to the next level.
Now let's look at the player demographic for the Ps3. Most people who play Ps3 are... um... well, nobody. The largest demographic related to the Ps3 is that no one even owns one.
This seems to say a couple things about the medium. First, it seems to say, based on the direction that Sony and Nintendo decided upon, that Artistry and Popularity are mutually exclusive goals for gaming. Second, based on the resulting popularity of both systems, it seems that artistry and style do not sell; that substance and quality do not correlate to the public interest.
As a game developer, I believe that it IS possible to make games that have broad, mass-market appeal AND stay true to the medium as an art form; that this situation is more a product of specifics and timing rather than the overall direction and vision of the consoles. Nintendo struck a nerve with the Wii, but I think it is more related to the increasingly poor quality of Sony-type offerings over the years rather than the actual quality of the Wii titles. The Wii represents a breath of fresh air in a medium that has become a rather bloated and crusty case of devolution. These games hearken back to the days when a few developers could make an entire game and truly share a vision. These games are simple and fun, and they seem incredible when you compare them to the most recent iteration of The Wheel.
This does not mean that these Wii games are good. In fact, they are not.
The Ps3 IS a good system. The only problem is that they are deepening the same rathole within which we, as an industry, have been trapped. Blu-ray enables (i.e. FORCES) developers to create an obscene amount of content. If we have 50 gigs of space, by golly, we should use it. This represents seriously warped priorities, really, as it imposes design constraints based on what we MUST do, not what we can't do. Furthermore, we have SEVEN processors (well, 6, if you don't count the one that the OS controls... er... well, 5 if you don't count the one that can be stolen away from you at any moment... er.. well...). We are COMPELLED to use all of these resources, independent of whatever game design or message we are trying to convey through this technology. This leads to games that are completely bloated, unfocused, and, in most cases, utterly broken.
We, as game developers, realize that this situation is exactly that: situational. This dichotomy between Ps3 and Wii and the resulting popularity of the Wii system is due to a great many factors, none of which, I would argue, involves the specific paradigm of either system. Yes, the Wii embraces the pop-culture, TV model. Yes, the Ps3 tends to ignore you and stand aloof, almost announcing "You aren't good enough to purchase me" to prospective customers. However, these are just execution details, and they are not married to the paradigm.
The problem is that the Game Publisher CEOs of the world don't see it this way. All they see is trends and dollar signs. The Wii eschews art in favor of entertainment and sells bajillions of units to people who don't usually buy any of our product. The Ps3 stylishly pushes the gaming envelope, and no one seems interested. This is a very simple circumstance and leads to obvious future decisions: From now on, all the money is going to the TV side of video-games ("You do not know the POWER of the dark side!").
This realization, which I have known for some time, deeply troubles me. I know what the future of this medium could become, but I worry for the well-being of us all when the trends seem to favor glitz over quality so strongly.
In the end, the only thing we can do, as game developers, is try to push the medium forward with all of our offerings, no matter what system we release on. If you release on the Ps3 (or 360, for that matter), pay special attention to the needs of the more casual players. Make your learning curves shallower, and make your GUI and controls more intuitive. Similarly, if you are developing for the Wii, pay special attention to the needs of the more hardcore gamers. Try to come up with systems that are both simple and intricate; easy to understand yet emergent (This is what we are trying to do with mySims, and I am quite confident that we are going to be successful).
If we don't succeed, the Ps3 will be the last system that inherently treats this medium from an artistic perspecive, presenting our products as such to the consumer. The "big wigs" will destroy the last vestiges of passion and substance in our industry, and we will go the route of TV, cheapening ourselves with each passing year. We need to convince the people holding the money that they will get greater return on their investment if they treat the medium with respect, and we do this by treating our own games with respect. Sony can't tell the players what to think about us. We need to validate their stylish menu with the experience that follows after clicking that button. Otherwise, we might as well get jobs writing for Lost.
-Max
posted by Max Rebuschatis at 7:27 PM
1 comments
