By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Miyamoto: Violent games may damage “the potential of what games can do”

Carl on 29 March 2010
Mr Khan said:

You're missing his point, i think. He's discussing the potential of video games to reach people, and how the companies that are focusing exclusively on violent games, and especially on violent games as the kind of games that really push the industry forward, as being potentially harmful. Because when all of your highest-quality products are focusing on a small audience, what does that say about the potential for growht?

If that IS what his point it should have been made more clear. And thanks for actually making it easy to understand and not talking in riddles.

@Khuutra
That makes much more sense, and i agree with it fully. He should just straight up say that next time... Or hire you to say it for him ¬_¬



                            

Around the Network
grapeape on 29 March 2010

In the end people will buy what they enjoy...if a develop creates a cute puzzle game and sells 50,000 copies then creates another generic fps and sells a million...guess what his next game is going to be.

The issue isnt really violent or non-violent the issue is making something compelling to play and much of that is based on what the audience wants more than what the developer was trying to convey.



Khuutra on 29 March 2010
Carl2291 said:

If that IS what his point it should have been made more clear. And thanks for actually making it easy to understand and not talking in riddles.

@Khuutra
That makes much more sense, and i agree with it fully. He should just straight up say that next time... Or hire you to say it for him ¬_¬

He totes did, though:

There's nothing in your games that risks offending those of a nervous disposition. But many people seem to fear the effect violent games have on society. What are your thoughts on titles like Modern Warfare 2? Why aren't you interested in making games like these?
In our work, we are trying to make video games as relevant as possible for a wide ranger of generations of people. I do not think we should limit the audience to a particular category, for example, young kids or young males, or a limited number of people. At least, that's how I've been trying to make my own games.
"Relevant" is the most important word here, I guess, but I admit it's easier to understand in the context of past conversations he's had on the subject.



LordTheNightKnight on 29 March 2010
Carl2291 said:
Mr Khan said:

You're missing his point, i think. He's discussing the potential of video games to reach people, and how the companies that are focusing exclusively on violent games, and especially on violent games as the kind of games that really push the industry forward, as being potentially harmful. Because when all of your highest-quality products are focusing on a small audience, what does that say about the potential for growht?

If that IS what his point it should have been made more clear. And thanks for actually making it easy to understand and not talking in riddles.

@Khuutra
That makes much more sense, and i agree with it fully. He should just straight up say that next time... Or hire you to say it for him ¬_¬

That and if one thinks all the worthwhile video games are full of gore, that is a limiting factor to games just as much as it would be to any other media.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

milkyjoe on 29 March 2010
Carl2291 said:
milkyjoe said:

You're missing the point rather spectacularly here. Rockstar make GTA/Manunt. These are violent games. They also made Midnight Club, two Austin Powers games, and a version of Earthworm Jim amongst many other non-violent games.

Shigsy was talking about the companies that only make the violent ones.

Like who?

LordTheNightKnight said:

You missed the sentence right before that, which wasn't even about violent games. Talk about misquoting.

"Sometimes, games designers tend to focus their attention on a limited particular area of their expression. That is simply narrowing down the potential of what video games can do"

He was asked what he thought about "violent titles such as Modern Warfare 2". If anyone misquoted, it wasn't me... It was whoever wrote the article putting that in a section about his thoughts on violent videogames.

Like who? There's a perfect example in the article. Infinity Ward have done nothing but Call of Duty so far. That isn't to say they shouldn't or that it's a bad thing, but there is only so far they can go with one type of game marketed to one type of gamer as they will at some point hit maximum exposure within that target market. Diversification is key to true success.



VGChartz

Around the Network
dunno001 on 29 March 2010
Carl2291 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"Just because Rock* make GTA/ Manhunt doesn't mean Ubisoft can't make Imagine Babyz/ Just Dance."

Did you even read what he said?

I did, and the point still stands. Maybe i should expand on it...

Rockstar make some exceptional violent videogames. And in the PS2 era, they they showed us the "potential" of videogames in the sandbox genre. Just look at the differences between GTA3 to GTA:SA (i'm confident they will do the same this generation too with GTA4 - GTA5).

Now, are you really saying that what they did would possibly damage "the potential" of what videogames can do? Seriously? You could go to the gym, get tattoo's, gamble, take driving lessons... GTA:SA was a HUGE game, and one of the best ever created.

Look at the differences between Call of Duty and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. HUGE differences, and it's payed off too as you can see with the sales of the franchise. It's not "limiting" anything at all as new things are being found and improved upon all the time.

He was clever to cover what he said with the last quote.



I guess we're seeing this in different ways. How I'm seeing this is that if you want to make violent games, that's fine. But if all you're willing to do is violent games, that's a problem that narrows the scope. Further narrowing this scope is the publishers who see these violent games, and decide to jump on the bandwagon, just trying to push the envelope. If this is something they truely want to do, he's saying it's fine. But doing it and following just for the sake of it is what narrows the view of the public at large. Violent games have been cited in the media since the 1990s as a problem; Nintendo (and specifically, Miyamoto) has seen this trend, and decided he doesn't want to follow it. But he still works on a wide swathe of games that he enjoys making. He's not pidgeoning himself to just 2-D Mario.

Want a good sign of damaged potential? You've given a good example already with RockStar and GTA. What happens if someone wants to make something vastly different? It's going to be backburnt, since it's not a violent game. GTA accounts for the majority of RockStar's money. And if it's non-violent, now it won't be looked at seriously. RockStar is pigeonholed into a violent games company, limiting what they can do.

This phenominon hits systems also. Look at the XBox, or, as some people like to call it, the Shooter-box. (I'm not going into a discussion about this term and its accuracy, rather, I'm looking at its usage.) Most of the best-selling games for it are FPS. And this stigma it has, means that a new company is more likely to look at the 360, and think of making a shooter for it. Obviously, these aren't the only games on it. But it has the reputation of such, which limits how seriously people will look at it for other genres.

No, sorry, Miyamoto knows what he's talking about. People should make what they want, not what's popular. This is why he doesn't chase after the violence mantra. It just so happens that most of his games are popular. Whyso? My guess would be that he's known for putting his heart into his games. Even his "flops" (relatively so) still have soul to them. Make the games fun, and have it come across. This is how to expand gaming. But if everyone keeps chasing the violence because it's the "hot" thing, it'll only set further in people's minds that video games are a violent bunch, and continue to fuel idiots like Thompson.

-dunno001

-On a quest for the truly perfect game; I don't think it exists...

darkheart709 on 29 March 2010
Khuutra said:
Carl2291 said:

Looked like he was to me. I dunno, maybe i misread it.

Still... I disagree with what he says here anyway.

I want you to get ready, because at the end of this post I'm goign to tell you that you're wrong. I'm not goign to do it now. I want you to read the post.

What Miyamoto is referring to here is the ability of games to appeal to people outside of the current game-playing population, and he's right. Games right nonw are played primarily by a very specific band of people, and Nintendo is working very hard on attempting to expand the possibilities in thi way. They've done enormous studies concerning why people don't play video games throughout different age groups and the two genders, and one of the biggest returns is the fact that may people falsely characterize video games as being full of mindless violence.

Nintendo has sort of started a shift in the way that people see video games, has taken long strides toward makingn games into something that anyone - anyone - should be able to play an not b put off by, but they can't do all of that work by themselves. Miyamoto isn't sayingn people shouldn't make violent games, he's no even saying violent games are bad, he's saying that the public perception of videa games as a violent medium is one of the things keeping people like my grandmothers from buying their own systems. The problem, he outlines, is not even one of content so much as it is of image.

Nintendo is trying very hard to change that image. Miyamoto unquestionably would prefer it if other people tried to help them in changing that image, but that doesn't mean that violent games aren't worth making or that the level of violence in games or even the number of violent games isnt' acceptable. All he's saying is that the image of gaming has to become something more varied than the image currently associated with it.

When he says that, he's right. The image of video games is thrown back at us all the time by th mianstream media when they're talking about anything except for Nintendo consoles: video games are seen as the equivalent of drug rings and also lethal weapons all at the same time. Video games are treated as one of the ills of society, and in order for the industry to truly expand it needs to shed the image of being homogenously violent.

Do you disagree with that assertion?

someone put this in the openining...quick

 

this thread's title is so misleading



Monster Hunter Tri

Name: Silver

ID: 94BRVX

Helios on 29 March 2010
Soleron said:
SmoothCriminal said:
Lastgengamer said:
Is Miyamoto right about this?

Has he ever been wrong?

The part where he keeps on making 3D Mario games even though 2D sell much better.

I mean, I enjoy the 3D ones more, but it doesn't make business sense.

Yes it does. His point concerns creative freedom and diversity. 3D Mario most assuredly sells to a (partially) different demographic than 2D Mario, but more importantly, it is a kind of game that Miyamoto wants to make and proliferate. There is nothing wrong with that, even from a business standpoint.

 

For me, this interview was notable because it is the first time I've heard Miyamoto talk about games as if from the point of a 'visionary creator', as a means of expression. It is good that he makes a note of that aspect of game design as well.



elticker on 29 March 2010

waw this guy is really cocky. he never created a violent game and probably never played any and he is dissing it and you people actually agree with him. wtf. I never started dissing baby games like wii fit so he better stfu before i knock him out and show what the world is truely about not some shitty cartoon game. Last i heard there was a war in afganistan and iraq i would love to see him go into a fight and win cuase to me he sounds like a pussy.



 

 

Khuutra on 29 March 2010
elticker said:
waw this guy is really cocky. he never created a violent game and probably never played any and he is dissing it and you people actually agree with him. wtf. I never started dissing baby games like wii fit so he better stfu before i knock him out and show what the world is truely about not some shitty cartoon game. Last i heard there was a war in afganistan and iraq i would love to see him go into a fight and win cuase to me he sounds like a pussy.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?post=3292261&page=1&postnum=29

Not what he's saying.