Miyamoto worried over abundance of gun-focused games

@Legend-KiIIer @MVan86

Not really when they're growing up in a society that highlights pointless violence over light hearted fun. Of course they're going to choose to play CoD because most kids tend to want to do what everyone else is doing and it started off with adults playing it and then slowly went down to children because it got to the point where that's many adults and teens were playing.

@abHS4L88 @MVan86 its their choice on whatever games they want to play.

@beast70

The difference with teachers and children are that (I shouldn't even be explaining this because it's so obvious) teachers already have developed minds and are well educated, so a game like CoD is actually not a bad thing for them because it can help blow off some steam and keeps their minds sharp. Whereas kids are a completely different story and yeah, I'm not going to explain it again. And I didn't say it makes you dumb, I just said it gets in the way of their imagination and creativity because that's all they think about.

Just a quick example, if you read my posts, I did say I babysat a kid, and when he wasn't playing CoD guess what he was doing? Going on youtube and watching CoD videos, or other games similar.

@abHS4L88

what? are you implying games with guns make you dull there is no studies,facts, or science to back that up. Many of my male teachers in my school(back when I was in school) played COD, clearly they are not dumb.

@MVan86

I'm not saying he did, but I wouldn't doubt if that was part of the reason because like I said, it's something I've been noticing a great deal of (or lack thereof0 in my experiences.

I know there are other FPSs that have more unique settings, but the primary focus has lately been the military FPS.

@abHS4L88 Once again I ask where did Miyamoto-san say that he's worried about these games on the grounds of creativity?

Besides which, okay yes the military FPS often sets you as a soldier - but there are other FPSs that are set in deep worlds/universes.

@indicaX

I've been doing child care for the past 4 years, I've worked with hundreds of children, experienced 5 different schools, and even worked with kids from Japan and Korea.

Very much the idea of "killing" each other has been around for ages, I did a lot of that too as a child, but what did we use to create those games? Our imaginations and it's really amazing to see the completely fleshed out worlds kids can come up with just to play a simple Cops and Robbers type game or Super Soldier game.

What these games are offering does little to expand the imagination and creativity of children, especially when the primary subject of their conversations are what their favorite kill streak or achievement was when playing online. Suddenly any sort of outdoor activity is constantly being turned into a war zone where all the kids are soldiers shooting guns. I don't recall the last time I heard a kid calling themselves a space ranger, cowboy, detective, no, it's all the same and that's what makes these kinds of games damaging. I also stated that I worked with Korean and Japanese kids, these types of games aren't anywhere near as widely popular over there and I've noticed how imaginative and creative these kids are because they don't spend hours upon hours playing a videogame that offers nothing else but the same experience of killing someone else in one setting as a soldier.

And have you read my comments? I hardly believe I sound like the type that goes nuts when something I disapprove of arises. I told the other person that while these games are stifling the creativity of children, I did state that it really doesn't affect their behavior that much because a lot of kids I know who play these games are still very well behaved and disciplined.

Miyamoto is not out of touch with gaming, which is why his games are always some of the most successful games out there along with being some of the most well received critically. I would love for you to give me one game that he's made that flopped both in sales and reviews. The fact that his games alone move hardware sales shows what a prominent figure he is and needed in the videogame industry.

@MVan86

This falls under parental supervision. Is it the games' fault these kids parents aren't doing their jobs? The developers? No thats just shotty parents.

I'm saying the want to "kill/compete/humiliate" your friends/rivals is a base emotion that even the most sheltered children will indulge in when around others their age. Video games or not.

@indicaX I'm a male, and my library has only 6 non 15+ games in it.

My concern with letting young children (ie under 10 as the other poster mentioned) have access to 15/16+ rated games is simply based on the fact that there's some pretty explicit content in them.that they're not really ready for. It's one thing for kids to play Cowboys and Indians (with either toy guns or just with their hands), it's quite another for them to see lots of blood being shed.

@abHS4L88

What is it doing to their minds? Any facts to back that up? Or are you just going off your opinion?

Kids have been "killing" each other since the world began and long before video games. Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers, Army/War Games...Sound Familiar? What games did you play as a child?

These are all shallow games with clearly defined roles that kids have been playing for ever. Almost as shallow as Playing House or Having a Tea Party which teaches little girls that they are supposed to be homemakers and breeders.

The medium has turned digital, but that is all it's still the same ugly beast.

It seems to me you are one of those sky is falling types of moms/marms who run around screaming "won't somebody please think of the children?!?" for every rap song/game/comic/movie that rubs you wrong.

Miyamoto is so out of touch with gaming, he's fooled himself into thinking he is relevent with core gamers, he is not.

Good luck re-inventing the landscape. Wii had such longevity and staying power :-)

@abHS4L88 Well that is a relief, though I still think the level of violence in those games is not appropriate for them.

I don't agree with that, simply because I think if Miyamoto-san had that concern he'd express it explicitly - particularly as he is not a native English speaker.

@MVan86

At least, for the most part, the kids who love those games aren't horrible kids or trouble makers, I just don't like what it's doing to their minds.

Yeah, I know that's what Miyamoto said, but it's much more than just a safe environment, like I've explained.

@abHS4L88 Well I'm also stunned by that and I'd have serious concerns regarding those children's parents...

Personally I did not read 'creativity/imagination' into his comments, simply keeping them in a safe environment.

@MVan86

You were close, but from my experiences working at schools and child care, it's actually 6-12 year olds. I was especially shocked when I had kindergarten kids telling me that their favorite game was CoD (or something similar).

From this quote, "I have a hard time imagining--particularly for young generations of gamers--how they sit down and play and interact with that." is where I feel he was also talking about how these games mentally affect children. The 3rd grade boys at my job, all buy one of them love games like CoD and are pretty much simple minded, the one boy who doesn't care for those games and instead plays age appropriate games, most intelligent and mature minded one. That's not the only case, most of the imaginative, intelligent and creative kids I know are the ones who've stayed clear of these types of shallow games.

@abHS4L88

You're awesome!

@indicaX

Did I say all mature gamers are immature? Did I say that Nintendo didn't have anything kiddy? And lastly did I say that if you don't agree with me you're immature? I said any gamer that calls Nintendo kiddie because they're clearly not looking at what Nintendo truly offers, instead just looking at everything at face value.

Yeah I'm a Nintendo fan, they're my favorite in terms of gaming, but doesn't mean I don't enjoy other gaming consoles either, I actually have more games for my 360 than I do Wii. I'm not bias, I just see the bigger picture.

Killing people for the sake of killing people? Having a follow up a year later that only has minor tweaks, more maps and weapons for the sake of killing people all over again? Real mature. And how is Mario in any way immature? Nearly all of Mario core games require a great deal of skill to beat. Yeah I agree Kirby's aimed more towards children, but since when is having some light hearted fun considered a bad thing?

@iHarlequin @jlwood830

Sorry, you're still missing a crucial point. The flaw is here - "A citizen with a pistol fighting against a soldier with a rifle is as free as a citizen with a pitchfork fighting against a soldier with a sword - the amount of power increased on both sides of the scale." That's simply not accurate. Prior to the introduction of firearms, societies were generally (though there were exceptions) ordered into peasantry and warriors. Though the peasantry would fight, wars were usually decided by the elite - the warriors who trained constantly for battle while the peasantry did the work, had all the food they needed, and had far, far more effective armor and weaponry. They kept the peasants in line in time of peace, and in war kept away the similarly-equipped warriors from other states.

This relationship changed fundamentally with the introduction of firearms. Give a half-starved peasant a matchlock and a few weeks training in how to use it, and suddenly he can kill the best-trained, best-armored, best-mounted knight on the opposing side. THIS is the factor that broke the feudal lords, and eventually the monarchies. It made effective rebellion possible. It wasn't simply the ideas of revolution and democracy that changed the world, or the economic realities of colonial life; equally necessary was the killing power of the average person, and that power came from firearms. Without them, industrialized democracies - and all the technological and cultural advantages they brought - could not have come into being. And THAT is what makes them mankind's greatest (technological) invention.

@jlwood830 That's true, but the argument I originally contested isn't. If you're going to argue that guns are the most important invention, the best angle to do so is by saying that the tension between two nations when one starts to get the upperhand military-wise leads to the other nation investing in technology research. Even then, you're saying that the researched technology has the potential to be the most important invention, not the weapons.

@maxwell97 And I disagree. There are several flaws in your reasoning:

1) Feudalism didn't end because of the introduction of firearms - they may have catalysed the process, but the true transition occured because there was a generalized exodus from feudal castles and noble lands to the buroughs (also known as cities) (represented by the burgeouis: tradesmen, mostly). Without enough peasants, the noblemen didn't receive enough taxes and didn't have enough men in their levies to protect their 'citizens' (which only recognized these nobles as their ruler BECAUSE they could offer them protection). A citizen with a pistol fighting against a soldier with a rifle is as free as a citizen with a pitchfork fighting against a soldier with a sword - the amount of power increased on both sides of the scale. 'Non-human' predators hadn't been a real concern for several centuries by that period - getting killed by a bear or a mountain lion was a possibility, of course (as it is today), but it wasn't a major concern.

2) I never said weapons don't matter, or are unimportant. I said they aren't the greatest invention and, more importantly, that they play a lesser role in conflicts and tension between nations when compared to wealth and economy (but have a role nonetheless). I understand that civil safety and the protection of a society from itself (e.g. criminals), and the protection of the state against its citizens (in a possible rebellion or revolt), is directly related to how much power the 'opressors', the government, have, and how much power the 'opressed', the people, have. Again, this is completely unrelated to what I initially contested (that guns are the greatest inventions).

To expand on what I've said, take the Cold War. If you ask anyone who has studied it, the unanimous answer will be that it contributed to the advancement of technology at a pace unseen before. The space race, the necessity to create new technologies - initially for weapons, but afterwards converted to a more domestic and daily use (to avoid having a monetary loss, discoveries intended for military purposes were converted to domestic utility, and sold). But again, this just means that the need to improve firepower acted as a catalyst towards the improvement of technology as a whole - and this has been true before guns existed: the ability to wield fire, transitioning from wooden spearheads to stone spearheads, the manipulation of metal to make more durable and effective weapons, the several improvements in bow & arrow technology, the creation of the crossbow, catapults, tribuchets, etc.

Syria may not benefit from certain technological advances, but that doesn't mean that guns are pushing their nation towards progress. Weapons have evolved throughout mankind's history, and they changed little to nothing until nuclear warfare was discovered. And even with nuclear warfare, I'd argue the greatest inventions are derived from it (and not it by itself): nuclear energy and nuclear reactors.I state again: I never said guns are unimportant. I said that they aren't mankind's greatest invention and that there are other measures of power that matter more than how many nuclear bombs a country has.

@iHarlequin

I didn't say "those with the bigger guns take what they want from those with the smaller guns." My point was that guns are necessary to protect yourself and what you produce from those who would otherwise harm you - whether that be another nation, your own government, or a criminal. It's not a coincidence that the end of feudalism in the West (and, for that matter, in Japan) and the beginning of the industrial age were immediately preceded by the introduction of firearms. They ended the tyranny of the elite warrior-classes and made their fortresses obsolete. In a broader sense, they levelled the playing field - a citizen with a rifle is more free than a citizen with a pitchfork, because he's much more difficult to victimize. And, of course, let's not forget that they're the reason we don't generally have to worry about non-human predators.

So, I stand by my statement. Sneer at my "ignorance" if you wish, but when it comes down to it, weaponary (or, more generally, the use of force, from handcuffs to nuclear weapons) is the basis of any society, and they're differentiated only in how they use force. Ask the people of Syria how much good their internet connections are doing them right now. If you imagine that we've "progressed" to a point where weapons are unimportant, it's only because someone you don't see is working the weaponry for you.

@iHarlequin Maybe not guns per se, but military development in general has pushed society along at a breakneck pace. And where technology was not created by or for the military it has been greatly advanced by their use and advocacy of it.

@maxwell97 That'd be true if you lived a few centuries (more like millenae) ago. It's been a while since raw firepower has played a larger role in a nation's safety than financial strength and alliances. If guns dictated how the world goes - and if it works how you say it does (those with the bigger guns take what they want from those with the smaller guns) - we wouldn't have 'rising' nations (BRICs) and competing nations (China, Germany, Japan) against a nation that has more firepower than the rest of the world combine (the U.S.A.).Guns didn't lead to any new discoveries. They didn't change human life significantly. They changed how warfare works, and with the introduction of nuclear weapons they created a scenario of global peace because it's better for everyone, but they didn't make any significant changes to the quality of life or break any boundaries as far as human development goes. The capacitor (or, to hit a closer note, the internet), and several other inventions, did. It's ignorant to think we still live in a society ruled by nature, where the strongest and weakest are categorized according to their weapons (or lack of thereof).

@Raxyman

Yeah, I read an article (forgot where, I think it was IGN) stating how those of us who grew up in the 90s probably had it the best in gaming because we were exposed primarily to AAA titles that all offered different experiences from each other so it made it pretty easy to know what was a great game and which ones sucked whereas kids now really don't have much of a clue of what makes a great game and which ones just want to take your money. Back to the boys who like bloody games, I babysat one of them for a bit and when I saw his game collection, other than Mortal Kombat and CoD, the rest were crappy super hero games and Transformers >.>