An In-Depth Analysis of Miyamato's Anti-Violence Statements

First of all I'd like to preface this topic, with a statement about its intended purpose, I don't want this to be a one-sided discussion nor is this topic merely focused on violence and its moral effects, but more so on how it affects gaming in the sense of creative development.

In an interview with London's Channel 4 News, Miyamato had this to say:

I don't want to curb freedom of expression but I am concerned that many developers focus just on excessive violence in order to stimulate people's mind. I believe that there are more ways of grabbing players' attention than violence alone.

We need to eat in order to live - that's our first priority but entertainment and the enrichment of our souls must come in second place.

Nintendo's mission is to improve and to take advantage of cheap technology to create reasonable and affordable entertainment. Our games are good value.

Anthony Perez of Gaming 2.0 offers a very valid perspective, which I myself relate to on some level:

I usually cringe when people talk as if violence will lead to the downfall of society, but I do agree with Miyamoto's point. Videogames should be doing more than champion violence in hopes of getting people excited and invested in a game. What games have been able to achieve even better than some films, is a visceral experience that pulls players into the action. Films excel in getting their viewers to invest their emotions into the experience. That is a response most games have failed to replicate.

What is so exciting is to see the potential that's already been exhibited by so many games. Games like Mass Effect and Shadow of the Colossus are good examples of games that pull players into a very emotional and gripping story - though that term is used somewhat loosely in the case of Shadow of the Colossus. What they exemplify is the potential for games to strike progress in that emotional direction through starkly different methods. Mass Effect does so with its grand story and hours worth of dialogue, while Shadow of the Colossus does so almost purely through gameplay and no dialogue.

Hell, even games that rely so heavily on over-the-top violence can even be considered legitimate in their own right. In a recent opinion piece on our very own Jacob Stustman took a look at the gratuitious violence in videogames and defends its use in some games as a way to push forward an overexagerrated yet appropriate ****not so unlike the hyper-stylized violience in movies like 300 and Sin City. He argues that those examples of violence as well as their videogame equivalents, such as next year's MadWorld, shouldn't be seen as harmful or grotesque because they are exaggerated to an extent that drives home their intended stylistic goal that couldn't possibly be replicated in the real world.

The violence then, its inherent schadenfreude, works in a game like Mad World because it is severely blunted by the **** You're not just witnessing your virtual representation tear a beating heart out of a chest Temple of Doom **** You're watching a manifestation of it, an imperfect version of a more perfect system. It is only in this manner, as abstract and otherworldly as it is, that Mad World can get away with so much and never be considered grotesque.

The differences between what Miyamoto and Stutsman say even represent the cultural differences between the East and the West. In the West, we thrive on action while the East leans more toward the fantastical and abstract; a universe where the violence of the West is not only unacceptable but also unnecessary. These opposing viewpoints work best for all gamers since it ensures that no matter what we prefer, we will definitely have a game that entertains us.

Honestly I think there are a lot of pros and cons that incorporating violence can have on creative development, when and if a developer feels forced to implement a certain level of violence regardless of whether or not it is part of his or her creative vision, then I think it becomes a problem. Miyamato is speaking for a company in Nintendo that I think every gamer, or maybe at least me wants to see succeed at least on a subconscious level. With the Wii, Nintendo looked to push boundaries and expand the interaction between the user and the medium itself, it would be ideal to see the Wii be successful in this drive for evolution. However, as more and more time passes, I think a lot of people have become impatient with the Nintendo platform and the developers working on it, especially the third parties. I think we found out that such ambition for evolution requires long periods of time to pass or at the least a deep evaluation of how a certain technology can be exploited for the benefit of the medium as a whole, and cannot simply be facilitated in direct correlation with the release of new platforms. What is surprising is that many of the games that become the staples of this new generation, are simply expansions and sequels of games of yesteryear. The Wii, the platform of supposed evolution, has indeed lived up to its reputation...Though maybe they are pushing the wrong boundaries, often putting out games that offer such a direct interaction between the user and medium, that core gamers call in to question whether or not they are games in the first place. The point I'm making is that maybe there are limits to gaming as an entertainment medium, which need to be preserved or at the very least be thoroughly observed.

Sometimes i just want to shoot something. Sue me. Face it Mr. Miamoto, Dead Space is much better than Wii Music.

Someone make a game where I get to shoot miyamato in the face and i will buy it, even if its for a console i dont have.

When I play games I want to do all the crap I cant do in real life because of the consequences.

_AbBaNdOn

i agree.

everything in games is fiction, thats why games are fun, not because they are realistic.

I honestly don't have much of an opinion on this. I think the stereotyping of 'east' and 'west' Perez does is stupid but beyond that I can't really grab on to anything. Violence is used in all media, perhaps a bit more in gaming than others but I would mainly attribute that to the repetitious nature of video-games.

Miyamoto has turned into the Henry Ford of video-gaming though.

"Nintendo's mission is to improve and to take advantage of cheap technology to create reasonable and affordable entertainment."

In an interview with London's Channel 4 News, Miyamato had this to say:

I don't want to curb freedom of expression but I am concerned that many developers focus just on excessive violence in order to stimulate people's mind. I believe that there are more ways of grabbing players' attention than violence alone.

We need to eat in order to live - that's our first priority but entertainment and the enrichment of our souls must come in second place.

Nintendo's mission is to improve and to take advantage of cheap technology to create reasonable and affordable entertainment. Our games are good value.

HiResDes

I agree with Miyamoto, except I'd put it in different, more material, terms:many developers focus just on excessive violence because they know ultraviolence sells millions of copies.

Also, the fact he says this is rather funny, given how Nintendo doesn't have any problem with licensing ultraviolent games, since Manhunt 2, No More Heroes (US version) and Resident Evil 4 are all on the Wii.

With the Wii, Nintendo looked to push boundaries and expand the interaction between the user and the medium itself, it would be ideal to see the Wii be successful in this drive for evolution.

The Wii, the platform of supposed evolution, has indeed lived up to its reputation...Though maybe they are pushing the wrong boundaries, often putting out games that offer such a direct interaction between the user and medium, that core gamers call in to question whether or not they are games in the first place.

The point I'm making is that maybe there are limits to gaming as an entertainment medium, which need to be preserved or at the very least be thoroughly observed.

HiResDes

The Wii hasn't evolved much of anything, to be perfectly frank. It's a Gamecube with a waggle wand and a smattering of decent games along with a prolific amount of weak ports and shovelware. Nintendo's true, unstated goal was the domination of the industry through casual software and they have succeeded. They have no vested interest in the issue of violence one way or another and rather use this issue to further promote their image as a family-friendly company. This isn't the first time they've made such comments ("they" being Nintendo and Miyamoto) and it won't be the last.

Also, in response to your last statement, I'm really not clear what kind of "limits" you are referring to. Videogames do often contain violence, and sometimes that violence is excessive, but literature, theatre and cinema also have plenty of works that employ excessive violence so I'm unsure as to why violence in games is such a problem when there are films and books that contain far more examples of gratuitous, horrific violence. This whole issue about violence in gaming really is a crass double standard.

Lastly, Miyamoto has his own design philosophy but in his arrogance he seems to constantly feel the need to foist that philosophy unto others. I respect the man's contributions to this medium immensely but were I only to play the type of games he makes, I'd have abandoned this medium long ago.

Whether or not people grasp this fact, violence is a large and undeniable part of the human condition. To deny this reality in gaming would render the medium flaccid and toothless.

Miyamoto/Nintendo (butting them together in a loose entity) represent only one point of the gaming spectrum. One that does not necessarily rely on violence to get its points across. Good for them.

However, I don't think there should be any limits to what gaming can accomplish as an entertainment medium. There is (and will be) audience for everything, the family friendly approach, the violent one, and everything in between. Let developer teams decide their own boundaries. Let us vote with our wallets whether these boundaries are worth being trespassed or not. If there is a redeeming quality in gaming in this generation full of faulty hardware, microtransactions and rushed out products, then that's variety. That's a quality I'd love to keep.

I'd like to see the breadth and scope of what gaming has to offer grow in the years to come.

i think the more important question is why this country is afraid of breasts but thinks showing dead people on the news is cool. i think violence has its place but i dont enjoy it when its there just to be there. but that is a personal belief. regarding the wii, i dont care if it wants to be violent free and family friendly, whatever. that machine is dull trash to me but that too is irrelevant. just like what other companies do is really none of nintendo's business. its only when nintendo starts to overstep its bounds that i get upset. they are trying to push their view on everyone else.

its really quite simple. if society didn't agree with violence in games it wouldnt be there because no one wouid be buying the games.

Violence has its place. Violence doesn't motivate me either way I just want a good gaming experience.

I mean my favorite game of all time is Jet Set Radio Future. Not a ton of violence there.

I honestly don't have much of an opinion on this. I think the stereotyping of 'east' and 'west' Perez does is stupid but beyond that I can't really grab on to anything. Violence is used in all media, perhaps a bit more in gaming than others but I would mainly attribute that to the repetitious nature of video-games.

Miyamoto has turned into the Henry Ford of video-gaming though.

"Nintendo's mission is to improve and to take advantage of cheap technology to create reasonable and affordable entertainment."inoperativeRS

Agreed on all fronts. The East/West comment is fantastically narrow-minded and Nintendo really is becoming a sort of cheapo game industry mediocrity for the masses.

First off I got to say that your last sentence is very disappointing to me. No offense, but I can't believe you even THINK games are anywhere near there limits as an entertainment medium. There's just so much more games have to accomplish and its WAY to early to predict something like games' limits.

Anyway, Miyamoto has a point that developers can do a lot more than use excessive violence to stimulate the minds of gamers. We all know that games can have players do other things like solve puzzles and build worlds. But of course I don't see the Wii helping out with any of that nor Miyamoto himself. Wii Music is not going to revolutionize anything. I say we need more games that fuse their stories with their gameplay and PS3 and 360 games are much more capable of doing that.

I personally would love to see games that challenge me spiritually, philosophically and intellectually, rather than just banal shoot em ups. Not to say that shoot em ups are always bad (certainly some games that revolve around gun violence do delve into deeper themes such as the Metal Gear series)

I would like to see more games that push the boundaries of artistic expression and become living canvases that we can explore the details of.

I would like to see more games that deal with real human ideals and interactions, perhaps in coping with another characters disease in a realistic way in which you become emotionally connected to them.

I would like to see more games that educate about science and math, and allow you to play around with constructs in order to achieve new ways of problem solving, rather than timed escapes and keycard obtaining mazes.

The video game medium is exciting because of the ability to use your brain to manipulate images and items and to be able to even include other humans in these activities, certainly some of miyamato's games do help evolve the medium, I particularly like where he was going with the Pikmen series. There are lots of directions video games can take, and to me one of the biggest disappointments is that many recent american made games have gone in the direction of many recent american made movies. Rather than offering us worthwhile characters, things that really test consequenses etc, many of them have relied on flashy animated explosions, rapid, vapid pacing, and conclusions that wrap up way too neatly and unrealistically.

It is really disappointing to me the negative impact video games are currently having on movies but perhaps that is better discussed in another thread.

Young people all over have been turning into adolescent thugs and there have been real life violence due to the blood happy video game world and that is another thing perhaps better suited to another thread.

Ultimately as our culture progresses towards technology and away from knowledge and reason there has been over emphasis on the darker sides of human existance, and while it is ridiculous to deny these expressions altogether, as violence is indeed inherent in human beings, there are much more interesting and beautiful pursuits.

[QUOTE="HiResDes"]

With the Wii, Nintendo looked to push boundaries and expand the interaction between the user and the medium itself, it would be ideal to see the Wii be successful in this drive for evolution.

The Wii, the platform of supposed evolution, has indeed lived up to its reputation...Though maybe they are pushing the wrong boundaries, often putting out games that offer such a direct interaction between the user and medium, that core gamers call in to question whether or not they are games in the first place.

The point I'm making is that maybe there are limits to gaming as an entertainment medium, which need to be preserved or at the very least be thoroughly observed.

Grammaton-Cleric

The Wii hasn't evolved much of anything, to be perfectly frank. It's a Gamecube with a waggle wand and a smattering of decent games along with a prolific amount of weak ports and shovelware. Nintendo's true, unstated goal was the domination of the industry through casual software and they have succeeded. They have no vested interest in the issue of violence one way or another and rather use this issue to further promote their image as a family-friendly company. This isn't the first time they've made such comments ("they" being Nintendo and Miyamoto) and it won't be the last.

Also, in response to your last statement, I'm really not clear what kind of "limits" you are referring to. Videogames do often contain violence, and sometimes that violence is excessive, but literature, theatre and cinema also have plenty of works that employ excessive violence so I'm unsure as to why violence in games is such a problem when there are films and books that contain far more examples of gratuitous, horrific violence. This whole issue about violence in gaming really is a crass double standard.

Lastly, Miyamoto has his own design philosophy but in his arrogance he seems to constantly feel the need to foist that philosophy unto others. I respect the man's contributions to this medium immensely but were I only to play the type of games he makes, I'd have abandoned this medium long ago.

Whether or not people grasp this fact, violence is a large and undeniable part of the human condition. To deny this reality in gaming would render the medium flaccid and toothless.

The first few posts in this thread were scary, jeesh.

I read what Miyamoto said agaian I think a lot of us are talking about the wrong thing. He states he is worried violence is the only way developers are reaching us, he thinks there is another way. I dont see him making any deep connections of violence to storytelling or the evolution of games. It seems he is just saying there are a lot of violent games, there can be more big games without violence.

dvader654

Someone make a game where I get to shoot miyamato in the face and i will buy it, even if its for a console i dont have.

_AbBaNdOn

What the hell?!:?

You're going way too far with that statement, man. You're totally out of line.

[QUOTE="_AbBaNdOn"]

Someone make a game where I get to shoot miyamato in the face and i will buy it, even if its for a console i dont have.

ASK_Story

What the hell?!:?

You're going way too far with that statement, man. You're totally out of line.

Yeah... I can't help but laugh though.

[QUOTE="gunswordfist"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

The first few posts in this thread were scary, jeesh.

I read what Miyamoto said agaian I think a lot of us are talking about the wrong thing. He states he is worried violence is the only way developers are reaching us, he thinks there is another way. I dont see him making any deep connections of violence to storytelling or the evolution of games. It seems he is just saying there are a lot of violent games, there can be more big games without violence.

dvader654

A bit of a tangent but you don't like Super Mario Galaxy?

[QUOTE="_AbBaNdOn"]

Someone make a game where I get to shoot miyamato in the face and i will buy it, even if its for a console i dont have.

ASK_Story

What the hell?!:?

You're going way too far with that statement, man. You're totally out of line.

[QUOTE="ASK_Story"][QUOTE="_AbBaNdOn"]

Someone make a game where I get to shoot miyamato in the face and i will buy it, even if its for a console i dont have.

Nifty_Shark

What the hell?!:?

You're going way too far with that statement, man. You're totally out of line.

Yeah... I can't help but laugh though.

I personally would love to see games that challenge me spiritually, philosophically and intellectually, rather than just banal shoot em ups. Not to say that shoot em ups are always bad (certainly some games that revolve around gun violence do delve into deeper themes such as the Metal Gear series)

I would like to see more games that push the boundaries of artistic expression and become living canvases that we can explore the details of.

I would like to see more games that deal with real human ideals and interactions, perhaps in coping with another characters disease in a realistic way in which you become emotionally connected to them.

I would like to see more games that educate about science and math, and allow you to play around with constructs in order to achieve new ways of problem solving, rather than timed escapes and keycard obtaining mazes.

The video game medium is exciting because of the ability to use your brain to manipulate images and items and to be able to even include other humans in these activities, certainly some of miyamato's games do help evolve the medium, I particularly like where he was going with the Pikmen series. There are lots of directions video games can take, and to me one of the biggest disappointments is that many recent american made games have gone in the direction of many recent american made movies. Rather than offering us worthwhile characters, things that really test consequenses etc, many of them have relied on flashy animated explosions, rapid, vapid pacing, and conclusions that wrap up way too neatly and unrealistically.

It is really disappointing to me the negative impact video games are currently having on movies but perhaps that is better discussed in another thread.

Young people all over have been turning into adolescent thugs and there have been real life violence due to the blood happy video game world and that is another thing perhaps better suited to another thread.

Ultimately as our culture progresses towards technology and away from knowledge and reason there has been over emphasis on the darker sides of human existance, and while it is ridiculous to deny these expressions altogether, as violence is indeed inherent in human beings, there are much more interesting and beautiful pursuits.

super_police

I'm sorry, but this is one of the most offensive posts I've ever read in these forums.

Are you really going to come in here and with a straight face claim that violent media creates violent people, even when every shred of scientific data suggests the contrary?

You are aware of the fact that every attempt to correlate violent videogames with increased violent behavior in those who play them has been unsuccessful, don't you? Not to mention that a correlation is not necessarily the same thing as causation, which is what you are asserting in your post.

Also, videogames have had very little if any actual influence on cinema. Perhaps a handful of hack directors, like Brett Ratner and Uwe Boll, have emulated the medium to some extent, but no real artist of any merit has pulled much from gaming as a medium, mostly because gaming as an art form is still in its infancy. Truth be told, most of the violence in games was actually stolen from films because most developers have emulated the look and feel of movies in their games. Films have had a tremendous influence on game design, not vice versa.

Your assertion that humanity is moving towards darker, bleaker expressions and interests due to technology is a fallacy. Humanity has always been fascinated with death and, historically speaking, society at large is actually much less violent than it used to be. People no longer watch executions for entertainment, people no longer watch gladiators hack each other up for sport, nor do they watch children being mauled by lions. Today, most of the violence in our collective lives is completely artificial and the vast majority of people recognize the difference. You also attempt to make a correlation between technology and ignorance, which is simply wrong. I do agree that many people here in the States are by choice ignorant but technology has given us the means to learn about practically anything with the push of a few buttons. People are ignorant by choice and that decision has little to do with the proliferation technology.

Lastly, you claim that "there are much more interesting and beautiful pursuits" than violence, which is frankly a crass and narrow generalization. Some of the greatest stories, novels, paintings and films contain violence so while you are entitled to your personal viewpoint, that opinion, when applied to a larger construct, is painfully ignorant. Practically all of Edgar Allen Poe's work was dedicated to the macabre, as were the works of H.P. Lovecraft, yet you'd have us all believe that the works of the Bronte Sisters or Jane Austin are automatically superior because they address less gruesome subject matter. I guess by that same token you would consider many of the paintings by Salvador Dali and H.R. Giger to be inferior to any number of their contemporaries by default merely because they painted dark, often disturbing images.

I'm honestly not trying to pick on you here, but it's incredibly offensive the way some people look down their nose at violent forms of expression and dismiss them outright, as you've done. Violence is as relevant a subject matter as peace and prosperity and ironically enough, without the threat of violence or death many works of art and literature wouldn't even have a viable conflict, rendering them completely without anything to progress the story forward.

The first few posts in this thread were scary, jeesh.

I read what Miyamoto said agaian I think a lot of us are talking about the wrong thing. He states he is worried violence is the only way developers are reaching us, he thinks there is another way. I dont see him making any deep connections of violence to storytelling or the evolution of games. It seems he is just saying there are a lot of violent games, there can be more big games without violence.

dvader654

There are plenty of "big" games that aren't overtly violent. Miyamoto is once again grandstanding and trying to make himself and Nintendo out to be some sort of enlightened, responsible corporate entity in these "troubled times."

*slice and dice*Grammaton-Cleric

Another fluffmeister bites the dust. You're the man, GC.

I personally would love to see games that challenge me spiritually, philosophically and intellectually, rather than just banal shoot em ups. Not to say that shoot em ups are always bad (certainly some games that revolve around gun violence do delve into deeper themes such as the Metal Gear series)

I would like to see more games that push the boundaries of artistic expression and become living canvases that we can explore the details of.

I would like to see more games that deal with real human ideals and interactions, perhaps in coping with another characters disease in a realistic way in which you become emotionally connected to them.

I would like to see more games that educate about science and math, and allow you to play around with constructs in order to achieve new ways of problem solving, rather than timed escapes and keycard obtaining mazes.

The video game medium is exciting because of the ability to use your brain to manipulate images and items and to be able to even include other humans in these activities, certainly some of miyamato's games do help evolve the medium, I particularly like where he was going with the Pikmen series. There are lots of directions video games can take, and to me one of the biggest disappointments is that many recent american made games have gone in the direction of many recent american made movies. Rather than offering us worthwhile characters, things that really test consequenses etc, many of them have relied on flashy animated explosions, rapid, vapid pacing, and conclusions that wrap up way too neatly and unrealistically.

It is really disappointing to me the negative impact video games are currently having on movies but perhaps that is better discussed in another thread.

Young people all over have been turning into adolescent thugs and there have been real life violence due to the blood happy video game world and that is another thing perhaps better suited to another thread.

Ultimately as our culture progresses towards technology and away from knowledge and reason there has been over emphasis on the darker sides of human existance, and while it is ridiculous to deny these expressions altogether, as violence is indeed inherent in human beings, there are much more interesting and beautiful pursuits.

super_police

Who let jack thompson in here?

[QUOTE="_AbBaNdOn"]
When I play games I want to do all the crap I cant do in real life because of the consequences.

TheLegendKnight

i agree.

everything in games is fiction, thats why games are fun, not because they are realistic.

That's why games like Wii fit and gutair hero don't appeal to me.

Even though I'm not a fan of Miyamoto, I kinda agree with him here. I'm actually turning back to old games like rollercoaster tycoon, simcity, and other such games where you're trying to build something instead of trying to destroy something. There's really few franchises left that don't have the objective of destroying all of the enemy... things... whatever it is. It's not that I don't like all of those games, but enough is enough. I really like ending a game and taking a last look at the stuff I built up, for example a big city, or a themepark, rather than seeing in the ending screen that everything is dead except for me.

I know Miyamoto went off on the violence, but I just wanted to say this too. I think there's still genres dying, and not really any new ones being created, where in the end we're either playing an RPG/FPS hybrid or a strategy game. On the sideline I agree with the gore thing, just because of the popularity of gears of war. I really think the original got most of its high score just with good graphics and lots of gore, and I'm afraid the gears 2 will be the same story.

[QUOTE="HiResDes"]

With the Wii, Nintendo looked to push boundaries and expand the interaction between the user and the medium itself, it would be ideal to see the Wii be successful in this drive for evolution.

The Wii, the platform of supposed evolution, has indeed lived up to its reputation...Though maybe they are pushing the wrong boundaries, often putting out games that offer such a direct interaction between the user and medium, that core gamers call in to question whether or not they are games in the first place.

The point I'm making is that maybe there are limits to gaming as an entertainment medium, which need to be preserved or at the very least be thoroughly observed.

Grammaton-Cleric

The Wii hasn't evolved much of anything, to be perfectly frank. It's a Gamecube with a waggle wand and a smattering of decent games along with a prolific amount of weak ports and shovelware. Nintendo's true, unstated goal was the domination of the industry through casual software and they have succeeded. They have no vested interest in the issue of violence one way or another and rather use this issue to further promote their image as a family-friendly company. This isn't the first time they've made such comments ("they" being Nintendo and Miyamoto) and it won't be the last.

Also, in response to your last statement, I'm really not clear what kind of "limits" you are referring to. Videogames do often contain violence, and sometimes that violence is excessive, but literature, theatre and cinema also have plenty of works that employ excessive violence so I'm unsure as to why violence in games is such a problem when there are films and books that contain far more examples of gratuitous, horrific violence. This whole issue about violence in gaming really is a crass double standard.

Lastly, Miyamoto has his own design philosophy but in his arrogance he seems to constantly feel the need to foist that philosophy unto others. I respect the man's contributions to this medium immensely but were I only to play the type of games he makes, I'd have abandoned this medium long ago.

Whether or not people grasp this fact, violence is a large and undeniable part of the human condition. To deny this reality in gaming would render the medium flaccid and toothless.

I was not referring to violence whatsoever in the part you bolded, but rather the interactions between a user and the gaming medium.

miyamoto is right. but i think it's a development issue. representations of violence in games are used due to lack of imagination IMO. and also, there is a particular kind of violence that is popularised in games, such as gang warfare and army super soldier. i think it gets very boring, though some violence is cartoon in its representation, and other violence is extreme like in manhunt.

but on the other hand, there's so much party game cash-in crap on the wii and ds (and ps2) that i don't think that is necessarily the antidote.

game like LBP and wii music should bring people together, which is what i think miyamoto is getting at.

eh.

Even though I'm not a fan of Miyamoto, I kinda agree with him here. I'm actually turning back to old games like rollercoaster tycoon, simcity, and other such games where you're trying to build something instead of trying to destroy something. There's really few franchises left that don't have the objective of destroying all of the enemy... things... whatever it is. It's not that I don't like all of those games, but enough is enough. I really like ending a game and taking a last look at the stuff I built up, for example a big city, or a themepark, rather than seeing in the ending screen that everything is dead except for me.

I know Miyamoto went off on the violence, but I just wanted to say this too. I think there's still genres dying, and not really any new ones being created, where in the end we're either playing an RPG/FPS hybrid or a strategy game. On the sideline I agree with the gore thing, just because of the popularity of gears of war. I really think the original got most of its high score just with good graphics and lots of gore, and I'm afraid the gears 2 will be the same story.

11Marcel

to me, it's an innovation problem...not a 'good vs. evil' (family fun vs. isolated killing simulators).

you have a good point. building stuff in games could be a big genre.

eh. the whole issue has been over-simplifed. again.

miyamoto should have gone on newsnight or something, not a 5-minute interview. there deserves to be a discussion to a delicate and complicated topic.

I honestly don't have much of an opinion on this. I think the stereotyping of 'east' and 'west' Perez does is stupid but beyond that I can't really grab on to anything. Violence is used in all media, perhaps a bit more in gaming than others but I would mainly attribute that to the repetitious nature of video-games.

Miyamoto has turned into the Henry Ford of video-gaming though.

"Nintendo's mission is to improve and to take advantage of cheap technology to create reasonable and affordable entertainment."

inoperativeRS

I actually agree with the whole East and West arguments, since there are themes that are acceptable in one culture but offensive, or in poor taste in another. From my understanding, there was an interview over the Phoenix Wright localizations in which it was discussed on how the humor in Japan would people uncomfortable over here. For example, one of the characters might make an overly suggestive comment about his encounters with one of the female characters, while in the American translation, sarcasm is used, which many cultures would not find humorous, and would just find disrespectful that someone would just mock another person's comment.

I think most of you are missing his point. All he was saying is that there can be more to games than just violence for violence's sake. And he wasn't just referring to any games with violence in them, I think that he was mostly referring to games such as Postal, that have little redeeming qualities to them and the developers just put excessive violence in them to try and prevent the games from getting landfilled ET style.

P.S. - What is wrong with you guys? Miyamoto is probably the greatest game developer to ever live and is part of the reason why games even still exist, but just because he makes Wii Fit and Wii Music you want to burn him at the stake? You people are such fickle n00bs. Show some respect.

The only thing that I see is Miyamoto stating the obvious. I think he is coming off as pretentious while presenting Nintendo as the "savior" of video game purity. When Mad World is just around the corner he chimes in with this observation. Is it that he doesn't like Mad World?

I'll be honest, I think Miyamoto has contributed a lot to the video game industry but I think right now his focus is no longer the same as it was once before.

The only thing that I see is Miyamoto stating the obvious. I think he is coming off as pretentious while presenting Nintendo as the "savior" of video game purity. When Mad World is just around the corner he chimes in with this observation. Is it that he doesn't like Mad World?

I'll be honest, I think Miyamoto has contributed a lot to the video game industry but I think right now his focus is no longer the same as it was once before.

juradai

I do agree that his focus has changed. Miyamoto's games used to be so imaginative. Now he's doing Wii shovelware a COMPLETE 180.

He was just saying that all games don't have to focus on violence. And I agree and I'm a HUGE action junkie.

gunswordfist

Doesn't that go without saying? Why would he have to even state such an obvious observation? That's why I legitimately asked the question "Does he not like Mad World?" It wasn't a rhetorical or sarcastic inquiry.

[QUOTE="gunswordfist"]

He was just saying that all games don't have to focus on violence. And I agree and I'm a HUGE action junkie.

juradai

Doesn't that go without saying? Why would he have to even state such an obvious observation? That's why I legitimately asked the question "Does he not like Mad World?" It wasn't a rhetorical or sarcastic inquiry.

it's astounding how many people are ignorant that don't even know how to respect. this matter needs more explanation and insight as the interview is even barely long and detailed. I think many people will just make their stupid assumptions with this small interview and post more stupid posts.

still, i have to agree that miyamoto has changed since his legendary days. i hope he still has new ideas for an imaginative and creative game like LoZ.