The Lyricism Of A Tycho Rant

Just wanted to draw attention to the latest Penny Arcade post, entitled The Secret Weapon. Not so much for the comic (which hasn't been uploaded as of this post), but for Tycho's discussion of the PS3, which is absolutely hilarious. Click the link above to hear about the "gimped" PS3.
Or watch the pretty pretty trailer for White Knight Story, which is, as he points out, the only game shown for PS3 so far that might actually be worthwhile.

For an unrelated tidbit, click here for more game trailer goodness. This one is called Lost Odyssey and it's for the Xbox360, and it is stunningly beautiful.

It's easy to see the appeal for Xbox and PS3 when you watch these trailers ("see" being the operative word). Whereas with the Wii, the main appeal (from what I've heard, of course) is felt when you play. This is a much more difficult sell and requires huge, swaying-in-the-breeze, tanuki-sized balls on the part of Nintendo. It is a gamble. Microsoft and Sony can just show you a video of the game, with all its pretty colors, and your mouth begins to water. That is, the part of your mouth that, for whatever reason, craves video games. Nintendo on the other hand invariably has to show (either in cut-away, or picture-in-picture) someone playing the game, excitedly swinging away at the air like a madman. Which isn't even required for playing the system, because the controller (or Wii-mote) has much more sensitive and intuitive controls, allowing you to play with subtle flicks of the wrist rather than head-cleaving power slashes. But Nintendo has to show these things so ignorant non-gamers (the very people they're trying to bring into the fold) understand just what the hell is going on. So when Grandma walks past the display case she can see someone jumping behind their couch, popping back up and firing away at the screen, at which point she makes the conclusion that she still has no interest in playing video games. Because they are just "silliness."
Anyway, my point is, Microsoft and Sony's systems are very appealing in their own right. Video games are a visual media, so it stands to reason that better visuals means better games.
But they are also a tactile media, which stands to reason that better interaction means better games.
Two different ways of looking at it. Which is right? Well, Nintendo's of course! What did you think I was going to say?
In all seriousness, I think it just comes down to the individual gamer. Cost is a huge factor for someone like me. If I was a rich man (yadda-badda-dadda-dee) I would have no hesitation in buying all three systems, and whatever games I wanted without a second thought. But my pockets are not that deep. So I have to consider what I'm getting for my money. On the one hand, I can buy a 360 or PS3 for a lot of money and reap the benefits of really fast processing and amazing graphics and sound, because if we're still assuming I'm a rich man I'll also have the biggest HD television known to man. For all its talk about HD and Blu-ray, Sony hasn't really said much about everything you actually need to own in order for that to be worthwhile. The component cables alone are outside my price range. Do they really think the average gamer/consumer has that kind of set-up at home?
Nintendo's Wii is a lot less money and offers a brand new kind of experience, with the addition of nicer graphics (just not as nice as its competition). Throw Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, etc. into the mix and it's a clear winner in my opinion.
However the tide turns when all three systems have been released, I don't think sales numbes should be the deciding factor. Whichever system is the biggest seller doesn't necessarily make it the best system. I'm in the camp that considers video games an art form. More importantly, it's an untapped artform. I have yet to have an emotional experience while playing a video game that has equaled that of my favorite movie or CD. Video games have this potential. I think the interface of the Wii is a small step in the right direction. Nintendo is trying to blur the line between the gamer and the game. If we're moving toward holodeck technology (bear with me here) then motion sensitive control will be a huge part of that. I'm not just daydreaming. The military is already working on this kind of technology to train its troops. The more realistic the experience the more accurate the training. At some point in the distant future video game technology will reach this level. Realistic graphics will be a part of that, sure, but it will not be the most important part. You could make an engaging holodeck-style game completely set in a crayon-drawn stick figure world as long as the body and mind felt like they were there. The eyes will follow.

Addendum: I started to mention the importance (or lack thereof) of sales when it comes to video games before taking a right turn and discussing video games as art. I meant to connect these two ideas before I got sidetracked by the whole holodeck thing. The point I was going to make was that, like music or film, sales aren't the best indication of quality. So, while it's important that video games make money we shouldn't let sales necessarily dictate the direction of the industry. If you created games based solely on what sells you'd end up like the Fox Network, creating cheaply produced crap while canceling all your critically acclaimed series. Or in video game terms: more Grand Theft Auto, less Katamari Damacy. More hype, less ingenuity.
The video game industry isn't quite to this point yet. It still falls into a sort of niche market, unlike CDs and DVDs which are absolutely everywhere (including cereal boxes). So the people buying video games are generally very educated and very very picky. Just read any video game message board, you'll see some very heated opinions. The gaming public as a whole is a lot less likely to put up with commercial bullshit than is the movie-going public. This is gradually changing. It has to if the industry is to survive. The biggest roadblock is the fact that there is no standard media for video games. Right now we have three major devices to play games that are exclusive to those devices. With CDs or DVDs you have a ton of different companies producing hardware, but the software is universal. I'm not saying the game industry should necessarily go this route, but it is a difficulty.
Nintendo's primary goal with the Wii is to bring video games to a wider market than ever before. The problem with a wider audience, however, is that we'll see a lot more companies appealing to the lowest common denominator. Again, this will mean a lot more Grand Theft Autos, a lot more Final Fantasy games that focus more on graphical prowess than actual playability. MTV just bought the company that made the immensely popular Guitar Hero game. If MTV's smart it will leave the company alone and simply profit off their work. If it's more like MTV it will suck all the life and joy out of the company and release Guitar Hero: the Ashlee Simpson Edition. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Irwiisponsible? (the worse these get, the more I enjoy them)

The latest Penny Arcade news post points out a little article over at joystiq.com which, in so many words, explains why you'd be foolish to buy a Wii over an Xbox360 or PS3. Their rationalization? Microsoft and Sony will lose money on every system they sell whereas Nintendo will be making a profit for every Wii sold. They claim that Microsoft and Sony take losses on their consoles because of their confidence in the product, whereas Nintendo is too insecure to accept a loss.
Mwuh? In what other industry would such an argument hold up? I read it as just the opposite. If Microsoft and Sony were so confident in their incredible systems, wouldn't they charge more? This article doesn't take into account that Nintendo has never taken a loss on any hardware. They've never had to, because as a company run by intelligent people, they develop new hardware that is both advanced and reasonably cost-effective to produce. Microsoft and Sony, on the other hand, in their never-ending race to one up each other in processing power, create monster systems that cost a lot of freaking money. Those companies have always considered better graphics the sole definition of next generation gaming. Nintendo always uses the next generation as an opportunity to make new steps in innovation. They invented controller rumble features and anolog control sticks, ideas which were quickly implemented by Sony (and Sega, at the time). They are now considered standard for video games. Notice how after Nintendo revealed the motion sensor nature of the Wii's controller, Sony comes out after a long silence and says, "oh yeah, us too," revealing a much more primitive level of sensitivity.
The Nintendo DS opened up a lot of new gameplay possibilities. Gamers seem to appreciate that, seeing as how DS sales are putting Sony's PSP to shame. This demonstrates Nintendo's philosophy vs. Sony's. Innovation vs. more of the same. Remember the original hype around the PSP? Now, unless you go to a PSP-specific website you're not likely going to hear much about it in the gaming community. It's not a terrible system. There might be a few decent games out for it. But it is being stomped by a system that is graphically two generations behind. Remember how many other handheld systems came and went, defeated by the simplistic pea-soup colored graphics of the original Game Boy?
Now this Joystiq article basically calls the Wii a glorified Gamecube, based on the fact that the processing power isn't into the next stratosphere like its rival systems. It manages to ignore the fact that the play mechanics are brand new, meaning types of games never before possible in addition to more traditional style games. That is a claim Nintendo alone can make in this generation. Also unique to Nintendo is the Virtual Console (almost the most exciting feature of the Wii, if you don't include any of the new games), and the ability to play your friends online for free. No subscription fee for online play. How come the people jawing away about Nintendo's profit greed never mention that? And since when did Microsoft and Sony obtain the status of the friendly mom-and-pop companies, trying to save the consumers a buck or two (never mind the fact that Nintendo's system is the cheapest by far, almost a third the price of PS3). Sure, Nintendo's making a profit. They're a business. One of the most successful businesses in Japanese history. They've never been in the red, despite Japan's troubled economy. As a Nintendo stockholder, I for one find that comforting.
If you read these articles carefully you might begin to wonder what Sony reprogramming camp the author spent the week at. How are PS3 devotees pointing fingers at Wii's price tag and crying fowl? I believe it comes down to the fact that Playstation fans have a $600 price tag ahead of them, and many of them are secretly beginning to wonder exactly what they're getting for their money. Sooner or later you have to start rationalizing, at which point you start to make arguments like, "I'm slightly annoyed that Nintendo is so uptight about taking losses when it is pretty much standard in the game industry" (taken from the comments of the article linked above). Well, it's never been standard to Nintendo and they've been around longer than anyone. Hmmm, coincidence?

Addendum: This guy at eToychest has written a very similar article, with the same idiotic point of view: "This is not to say that Nintendo should not be making money off the Wii, but it is clear that Nintendo is doing something very radical with their approach to the industry." Again, this is clearly written by someone whose outlook on the gaming industry has been mired solely in Microsoft and Sony for the past five years. How is Nintendo being radical by following its exact same successful business philosophy since 1889? How have these people run popular gaming sites for so long with such a limited (and cynical) view of the industry they claim to love? It's like listening to people explain why they still wholeheartedly stand behind their vote for President Bush.