Roundtable: David Gornoski and Matt Casamassina Discuss HD and More
The EIC of NintendoNow.com and the EIC of IGNCube.com discuss Revolution, HD, and the Hollywoodization of gaming.
By David Gornoski - 06-23-05
Print Email
The following is a roundtable discussion between Matt Casamassina and David Gornoski. Matt Casamassina is the editor of IGNCube.com, a division of IGN Entertainment, Inc. David Gornoski is the Editor-in-Chief of NintendoNow.com, a division of E-mpire Ltd. Co. It should be noted that the debate took place using an Instant Messaging service in a casual format but has been edited for clarity. Also, neither individual was fully aware of the other's identity until after the debate.
David: Why add to the culture of negativity that is found in the majority of the mainstream gaming press? Why not take a different stand and offer something different than rival publications? Promoting the Hollywoodization of the industry is the "in" thing to do right now in the gaming media. Why not set yourself apart and take a stand against it?
Matt: Why would I want to do that? I like games with robust production values. Why would I want to take a step backward just to be different?
David: Maybe you don't understand what I mean by "Hollywoodization.” I like games with high production values as well. That's not the point. Hollywoodization is the process of turning the gaming industry into a superficial one. One where the main priorities are things like graphics, pretty pictures, gore, sex, excessive violence, trendy themes, etc. We don't need all of that in this industry. I’m a firm believer in the back to basics approach to gaming. Yes, graphical upgrades are a plus. But they should be seen as icing on the cake, not the main course. You talk about HD as if it's the engine of a car when in fact it's more like leather seats.
Matt: That's a generalization. Higher production values and good gameplay mechanics are not mutually exclusive. There's no reason both can't happily coexist. Nintendo's biggest game this generation exemplifies that strategy perfectly. Zelda is a mixture of epic production values and fantastic gameplay.
David: Well, like I said, production value is a great addition to games. But I think you're mixing good looking graphics with a crisp resolution on your TV. A crisp resolution is not the equivalent of a car's engine.
Matt: HD is important to me, but it's not integral. I'll buy Revolution regardless. However, to dismiss HD simply because it costs more money is disappointing. Why anybody would defend Nintendo on this front is beyond me. The company is shortchanging gamers because it doesn't want to spend extra cash and resources to make games HD compatible. That's it.
David: Well if you read the article it doesn't necessarily defend Nintendo's decision, does it?
Matt: If you read our article, we don't exactly dismiss Nintendo, either. There's a difference between a news piece on our site and a rant in my mailbag section. The mailbag is a forum for editorializing. It gives me a chance to share my opinions to readers.
David: I never said I’m not concerned that the HD decision will hurt sales. But what I addressed was your over-emphasis on the feature, and the name calling and ranting that ensued. As for my question I posed, why do we never hear complaints from the media about Sony and Microsoft shortchanging fans by sacrificing innovation and new gaming experiences for the latest expensive technology extension? It just seems one-sided to me.
Matt: Because Microsoft and Sony haven't done that.
David: They're innovating?
Matt: Yes. Xbox Live was perhaps the biggest innovation this generation. Nintendo copied Sony's EyeToy, meanwhile. To say that neither challenger is innovating is absurd. Fact is all of the companies innovate. However, with Nintendo, it oftentimes seems to come at the expense of technology, at least where next-generation consoles are concerned.
David: Well, online consoles really aren’t anything new. We've seen that since the NES days. I was referring to the Xbox 360 and PS3, where's the innovation? Where are the new gaming experiences? The new genres? You're getting the definition of the Hollywood ideal in gaming – glitzy realism, hip games, over-emphasis on graphical horsepower, etc.
Matt: Hey, at least Sony and Microsoft launched more than one new IP this generation. Has Nintendo released a single GCN title -- other than Pikmin -- that wasn't based on an existing franchise or character? Internally developed, I mean.
David: I don't think re-used franchises should be the basis for defining innovative games. It's how they play. Take Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat for example.
Matt: A great game, yep. It's these types of titles that make Nintendo a powerhouse. But to say that Sony and Microsoft brought nothing to the table is wrong.
David: With PS3 and Xbox 360 we're not getting any new game experiences or new ways to interact. I said where’s the innovation in the next consoles.
Matt: That's impossible to know. Xbox 360 and PS3 have barely shown. We only know about a handful of games.
David: Xbox Live isn't that innovative, by the way. EyeToy, yes. And as we're going to see with Warp Pipe Technology's new online platform, Xbox Live is using antiquated technology and features. It's borrowing the PC online infrastructure rather than creating a new one for consoles.
Matt: I look at titles like Alan Wake for 360 and I'm actually kind of intrigued. Looks to deliver a very unique storyline complemented by amazing ambience and mood. If the next-generation is all about enveloping gamers in believable stories, I think that's innovating.
David: I'm a believer in the back to basics approach to gaming. We don't need to see our industry turn into the next superficial Hollywood - an industry where innovation and family values are shunned. We don't need this overemphasis on resolutions, gore, sexual themes, and "hip", trendy games. We need to go back to the basics, the way gaming used to be. We need to have an industry that's all about exploring new ways to play games and keeping the industry from losing its proverbial innocence.
Matt: Well, I'll just say that higher production values do not necessitate an overemphasis on gore, sexual themes and hip or trendy software. I just have to disagree. And if you think gaming is going back to the basics, you're in for a rude awakening. The biggest-sellers this generation have been anything but basic. In other words, you may want this, but the majority of players obviously do not.
David: No, I never said it was going back to the basics. I’m saying it needs to. Graphics will always improve. And that's an essential part of growth in this industry, but it's getting too much emphasis. Then you look at what's on these consoles today. Most of it is garbage - graphic shooters, immature sexual, perverted games, shallow "gangsta" themes, etc. Quality and wholesome family games have been on a steady decline with each generation. A guy can't even play a game with his kids anymore.
Matt: Sure you can. You just have to pick the right games. But I agree completely about some of the themes in games today. I refuse to play many of the titles out there, Grand Theft Auto included. Shock value, violence and gore do not appeal to me.
David: There is most definitely a large audience out there that agrees exactly with what I’m saying. I call them the "reactionaries" of the games industry. After all, we're seeing this innovative, quirky handheld - the DS - besting the glitzy, beautiful PSP. So that’s testament that there is a large reactionary segment in this industry.
Matt: I expect there will always be an audience for family friendly games. An industry without a new Mario would be a sad place indeed. On the other hand, a console should not be designed from the ground up to be unable to play more sophisticated software. This has been my beef with Revolution thus far and I stand by it. There's nothing that says Microsoft and Sony can't create simpler, gameplay-led software on their next-gen systems. However, Nintendo has already taken itself out of the market for HD gaming.
David: To correct something said earlier, I didn't say high production values put emphasis on gore, sex, and trendy games. I said they go hand in hand as the industry tries to emulate Hollywood's model.
Matt: The industry is growing. I liken it to the Hollywood of the late 80s and early 90s, where gory movies full of bullets and nudity reigned supreme. The GTAs and gangster rip-offs are saturating the place right now, but that won't always be the case. Better technology merely enables developers to more accurately realize their visions. I'm all for it and sooner or later we're going to get some truly thoughtful, compelling titles because of it.
David: Well HD has nothing to do with thoughtful, compelling software. Graphics can help those areas though. One thing about HD. Didn't you say you hate poor performance when it comes to frame rates? Yet, I may be mistaken here though, isn't it true that by making these games built for HDTVs we will see that it will be harder for games to maintain satisfactory frame rates on a regular TV set?
Matt: Yep. Running games in high-resolution could present frame-rate problems on the next-generation consoles. Then again, maybe not. It's too early to tell how it's going to swing because nobody has final hardware yet. It's definitely a very dangerous downside to developing software in high-resolution.
David: We have no clue how the Revolution's graphics will look. We're only assuming they will look worse because the execs have said they are not looking to beef up horsepower. But as we've seen with Japanese imports, more horsepower does not necessarily mean better performance. So which would you prefer: solid frame rates w/ no HD or poor frame rates w/ HD?
Matt: Tough one. I'm a stickler for fluidity, so I'd go with frame-rates. Still, we don't know for sure if HD games will really run bad on these new consoles. It's a potential problem articulated by one developer.
David: That's true, and we also don't know quite for sure if Revolution will not have HD support. So a lot of things are still up in the air. Though I've been wondering about that patent Nintendo filed a while back which was describing a new way to view games with a fixed view point - some have said a reference to some sort of 3D/holographic technology. If this is something they use with the Revolution, will HD even matter at all?
Matt: Don't know. Could render it useless at that point.
David: So as we see, there are so many wildcards with these console developments. Will HD hurt frame-rates? How pretty will Revolution's graphics look? Will they turn around and include HD support for the Revolution? And if this fixed viewpoint patent is used, will HD even matter?
Matt: Well, Nintendo has recently suggested that the so-called "revolution" will pertain to the system's new controller, so I'm inclined to believe that any fixed viewpoint patents are probably not related. Which brings us back to point zero. It's disappointing, of course, that Revolution doesn't (yet) support HD. But the bigger let down, to me, is that this choice seems to suggest that Nintendo is again abandoning one demographic to appease another. The Revolution may appeal to an all-new audience of non-gamers, but there is also an existing audience of hardcore players who would very much like the cutting-edge in technology and the best in games. That they should be forced to choose is, I think, a mistake. Nintendo is no longer the only choice on the market. Gamers can look elsewhere for their fix. It's time Nintendo realized that.
David Gornoski's Conclusion:
I think it's quite clear that Nintendo has created a variety of aspects for the Revolution that all culminate into a "revolution" in gaming. I think the controller is definitely one of the biggest pieces to the Revolution's unique puzzle, but so is the non-gamer approach, virtual console features, and perhaps a new way to view the games we play. Virtual Reality peripherals, fixed viewpoint projections, customizable games--really at this point any of those are possible.
Not including HD support in the Revolution may very well be a costly mistake. But again, at this point we're basing this on speculation. Even the HDTV purchase predictions for the next three years are merely industry guesses. And like we've said, HD support for the Revolution is not totally ruled out. Matt himself has admitted that if HD support would hinder frame-rates, he would prefer no HD support. So what it all boils down to at the moment is we just do not know for sure what is in store. Let us not cast a condemning eye on Nintendo's decision just yet. There are too many unknowns at this stage of the game.
As for the Hollywoodization of the gaming industry, it is really up to the gamers. Ultimately they will decide what the industry will look like by the purchases they make. Do you want an emphasis on eye candy, violence, sex, or hip themes? Or do you care more about challenging game play, innovation, and family friendly themes? The fate of the industry rests in the consumer's hands.
harhar
[/quote]
...
