CN: I think it makes more sense now. You know, as an XBLA game, at a time when people are playing shorter games. I said to Brandon earlier today that I probably originally played Rez for, let's say, between three and five hours. But it was an amazing three to five hours. It was great. I really love this game, even though I haven't played it for years, and I'm really looking forward to it. I'll buy it right away when it comes out. I think it fits really well, when at the time, it was actually sort of too different.
TM: Thank you very much. I have to thank you... I think Rez is not a simple game. It looks simple, but it looks abstract, and artistic, maybe. I think six years ago, people had to buy a package, so I think there was a big challenge there. You had to pay 40 or 50 dollars. Now, on XBLA, you can play easily, and play a trial, and buy [it] immediately if you like. We keep the costs not high -- not expensive -- and there's not much other cost. There's no transportation cost.
I have to thank people like journalists who've tried to explain, "What is Rez?" It's really difficult to explain, and has been for five or six years. I'm really happy, because I had that kind of advantage of people with Rez. The Internet and blog culture helped, also.
BS: As we discussed last time, it's definitely not simple, especially if you look at it as a critique of Kandinsky, which we talked about last time. Since it traverses the opposite path of Kandinsky's art career, which I think was really interesting. It's too bad that most people won't get to realize that. I got to look at a timeline of his art, and how it went from realism to abstract. It was so clear that this was the reverse of that, and it was traveling back down in the other direction. It's too bad that not everyone will realize that.
TM: Yeah. [To be successful] we needed
a mass-market title, a realistic game, like a scroller, or racing, fighting,
or adventure. I think we have to succeed this kind of game with something
[else]. I got a big inspiration from Kandinsky, but I think... not [directly
in] the game, but it's a very strong concept inspiration in the creation
[process], all the time. If we never had the main [inspirational] effort
like that, I think there would be something wrong.
BS: What other artist do you think one could draw inspiration from, for a game like this? Like, other kind of kinetic artists, like maybe Jackson Pollock? Do you think it's worth visiting another artist as well for a future title?
TM: I don't have any [of those] inspirational paths now, because I'm always watching the other industries and other media. I think in the next five or 10 years, I think the barriers or the hurdles will be breaking and melding, and making some new chemistry within the entertainment industry.
I think interactive media is really difficult to create -- a fun, interactive experience. I think that we have a chance. "We," means us, game developers or creators in this industry, leading the new era, and connecting with the other media.
BS: I think it would be great to see a Dadaist game, or a cubist game, or something like that. It seems like it would be really... you could almost teach people art history through games. It'd be really cool. I think since the power of the systems are to the point where you could actually do it, and deconstruct this kind of thing.
TM: Even with the movie industry, they
have had a long history, like over 100 years. And the many movies from
Hollywood are mass productions, but there are many, many, many independent
films, and they're changing the meaning of expression. It's a new challenge.
I think this would be a good balance,
especially if you have that kind of balance, because I think the game
industry is still a baby industry -- just 40 years. I think in the next
10, 20, or 30 years... I can't imagine the future, because if you watch
the visuals, it's so real, but it's fictional, like CG computer graphics.
But you can't [tell] if it's real. Then, what do you do? I think if
you have a strong concept or skill, then yeah, you could do it.