Game devs the primary cause of console war confusion

It's always interesting to see what developers seem to think of the consoles they work. What they really think of them, not what they're supposed to think of them, I mean. A certain Dr. Andrew Garrett -- yes, the game designer for Electronic Arts -- recently voiced his opinions on the console wars and the PlayStation 3 on a forum at MegaGames. Interestingly enough, the good Doctor doesn't seem to be a fan of Sony's new monster machine. Here's what he had to say:

I make video games, currently working for Electronic Arts on the latest Command & Conquer. Last year, the prediction was that Sony would win the next-gen war, that the PS3 would be the dominant console, just like the PS2 was.

That is no longer the case. The extremely strong performance of the Wii, combined with the miserable performance of Sony has revised pretty much everyone's expectations. Right now, most of us here think the 360 will be on top for this generation, with the battle for second place between Sony and Nintendo (and that's a major shock, as we'd nearly written Nintendo off for the non-handheld market.) Most of us still think Sony will beat off Nintendo, simply due to the older graphics on the Wii, but it's not a sure thing.

My opinion - get the 360 and/or the Wii. Skip the PS3 unless there's a big change in the near future.

Now, I'm a little confused. EA thinks Sony's going to beat off Nintendo but still recommends that people buy the Wii? That's a rather strange way of trying to recommend a product. I mean, yeah ... there are people who are really into the gaming industry and know that units sold aren't always indicative of success, but most internet retards (no offense to all of you) would just be confused by that statement.

Also, someone who works at the largest game development company in the world thinks the PS3 sucks? Come now ... surely that's a bit ... retarded?

And then, you have Julian Eggebrecht making his second appearance in an interview with Game Informer just days after his Q&A with IGN with more kind words for the Wii and absolutely blush-inducing praise for Sony:

GI: What are your thoughts on the Wii?

Eggebrecht: I love it, absolutely. I mean, I love it as much as the PS3. When I read all of those things about how you have to buy a 360 and a Wii, that’s not true. You have to buy a PS3 and a Wii—that’s the perfect combination.

GI: So why Sony and not Microsoft?

Eggebrecht: On the technology front, there is simply more vision at Sony. By now, there’s now more—if not more, at least equal—vision on the online front. I have to say that. When we talked to Sony and Microsoft at the time, Microsoft was very determined and they delivered very nicely on what they wanted to do with the 360. But even back then, there was the, “Well, 1080p? Well, we don’t know about that. Real high-definition? You know what? Let’s do 720p for the games, mostly.” And they’re doing catch up right now, and they’re doing it quite cleverly. But nevertheless, in the early days you had that as a vibe of the system. What was a killer for me was no HDMI. We had huge fights with Microsoft basically going back and forth about, “Please, please, please, please put an HDMI port in there, because only then can you really see the graphics,” and they said, “No, we’re designing the whole graphics chip around being analog.” And they’re retrofitting it now, trying to catch up with the PS3. But all of that vision was there, right from day one, with the PS3. That was very encouraging. Kutaragi-san, in that sense, is on the technology front, and I don’t think anyone would contest that it’s still the greatest visionary in the industry. So, it made it easy. Sony was the clear-cut, perfect match.

And then you have Capcom's take on the Wii. Christian Svensson, Senior Director of Strategic Planning & Research for Capcom insists the console is for a younger audience.

We have more titles coming to Wii than what's been announced HOWEVER, I must admit, many of them (outside of RE which has a long and successful history on Nintendo platforms) are not mature titles (edit: and by that I mean M rated titles) despite the fact that's an area Capcom is known for.

By and large, I don't see the Wii being home to a sizeable mature playerbase outside of some of the early adopters. I see it as being very, very broad with a family focus. If there is a "core player base" on Wii (and it's might be so broad, there might be no such thing as "core"), within two years, it will probably be largely a younger player (or at least younger than 360 or PS3).

You'll see more announcements later this year on this front.

And then you have Square Enix president Yoichi Wada stating that the company plans to stick to "casual games" on the Wii.

Also mentioned was that the company's entire focus has not shifted to the handheld market, but that the release of so many handheld titles was simply the result of good timing. Wada has high hopes for the PS3, despite the criticism the console has received since its release, and that by 2008 things will significantly improve. He hopes that Square Enix will be able to offer its customers a choice in their gaming needs... Casual games (on Wii, DS, and PSP), and High-end games (on the PS3 and Xbox360).

I'm even more confused now. So basically, some developers think people should definitely buy the Wii but haven't made any mention of supporting it with "hardcore" games while others insist it's a "party console". The developers who supposedly love the Wii will not develop for it.

Opinions are divided as far as Microsoft and Sony are concerned. Some think the 360 can't do good graphics and Microsoft has no vision and that Sony has a ton of vision to spare (all this despite the tremendous success of Xbox Live). Others say they don't have high expectations of the PS3. Furthermore, we've seen a tremendous amount of PS3 support announced in the past month alone (with more on the way, I'm sure) but devs still think it's not worth buying?

I usually avoid using insulting language in my posts (mainly because I think it looks rather unprofessional), but this is all mind-boggling and incredibly annoying. Obviously peoples' opinions differ when it comes to their system of choice. What's annoying is that no one in any of the above interviews seems to have any real reason to make the statements they did. All of you, please; Make up your fucking minds.