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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Miyamoto doesn't like Haze's drug focus.

Bodhesatva said:
Legend11 said:
Deguello said:

This fake-outrage "assault on violent games" sensationalism stems from a core flaw in all of the "hardcore gamer" niche in that they expect Miyamoto to somehow make violent games for them as if he is obligated to do so. This is what every game site and even a few mainstream reporters said he should do in 2003 to 2005. At no point has anyone ever said to John Carmack or Cliffy B or anybody "Please make non-violent games." What you usually hear are people just not liking violent games in general, and you mostly hear adults saying this. Somehow this general dissatisfaction is morphed into criticism of particular devs and a request to "not make violent games" is fabricated out of thin air. This is logically flawed.

Some of you fellas may not care for Miyamoto, but it is much easier for those who do to admire him as he has had to endure much much more criticism of the games he makes than Cliffy B and David Doak and those types combined.

I don't think any hardcore gamers want or expect Miyamoto to make violent videogames, it's just not in him and he probably wouldn't make a good one (don't get me wrong he's a good videogame designer it's just that people who don't love what they're making likely won't make something extraordinary).

I think the problem is that many people put down violent videogames and claim they all use violence as a crutch when that isn't always the case. There are many very well designed videogames that just happen to take place in a violent setting because that's what the World in the game requires. It would be just like people complaining about violence in movies but would the Godfather or Scarface be the same movies if they had absolutely no violence? Are those movies less creative because they had violence in them?

As for Cliffy B not taking criticism, I see many people in these forums and elsewhere bashing first person shooters even though the ones he's created like Unreal Tournament are extremely well done and are creative in their own ways.


I largely agree with this -- however, I think the number of games that do not use violence as a crutch are few, and that UT is not among them. 

In short, Legend, we agree in the larger scheme, just disagree by matter of degree. We both agree that some games use violence as a crutch -- I think it's most games, you seem to think it's a lot, but probably not most. Close enough


UT is violent and is a very well designed game.  Also I don't know how many games use violence as a crutch, but I do think there are just as many badly made non-violent games as there are violent ones. 

In fact I just looked on metacritic and found the following:

Xbox 360: 3 of the 10 lowest rated games are violent
Wii: 2 of the 10 lowest rated games are violent
PS3: 3 of the 10 lowest rated games are violent

So if there are so many games that use violence as a crutch or are pooly made why are the majority of badly rated games non-violent?  It shows that a violence in a game doesn't indicate that it has a higher chance of being badly made.



Around the Network
Legend11 said:
Bodhesatva said:
Legend11 said:
Deguello said:

This fake-outrage "assault on violent games" sensationalism stems from a core flaw in all of the "hardcore gamer" niche in that they expect Miyamoto to somehow make violent games for them as if he is obligated to do so. This is what every game site and even a few mainstream reporters said he should do in 2003 to 2005. At no point has anyone ever said to John Carmack or Cliffy B or anybody "Please make non-violent games." What you usually hear are people just not liking violent games in general, and you mostly hear adults saying this. Somehow this general dissatisfaction is morphed into criticism of particular devs and a request to "not make violent games" is fabricated out of thin air. This is logically flawed.

Some of you fellas may not care for Miyamoto, but it is much easier for those who do to admire him as he has had to endure much much more criticism of the games he makes than Cliffy B and David Doak and those types combined.

I don't think any hardcore gamers want or expect Miyamoto to make violent videogames, it's just not in him and he probably wouldn't make a good one (don't get me wrong he's a good videogame designer it's just that people who don't love what they're making likely won't make something extraordinary).

I think the problem is that many people put down violent videogames and claim they all use violence as a crutch when that isn't always the case. There are many very well designed videogames that just happen to take place in a violent setting because that's what the World in the game requires. It would be just like people complaining about violence in movies but would the Godfather or Scarface be the same movies if they had absolutely no violence? Are those movies less creative because they had violence in them?

As for Cliffy B not taking criticism, I see many people in these forums and elsewhere bashing first person shooters even though the ones he's created like Unreal Tournament are extremely well done and are creative in their own ways.


I largely agree with this -- however, I think the number of games that do not use violence as a crutch are few, and that UT is not among them.

In short, Legend, we agree in the larger scheme, just disagree by matter of degree. We both agree that some games use violence as a crutch -- I think it's most games, you seem to think it's a lot, but probably not most. Close enough


UT is violent and is a very well designed game. Also I don't know how many games use violence as a crutch, but I do think there are just as many badly made non-violent games as there are violent ones.

In fact I just looked on metacritic and found the following:

Xbox 360: 3 of the 10 lowest rated games are violent
Wii: 2 of the 10 lowest rated games are violent
PS3: 3 of the 10 lowest rated games are violent

So if there are so many games that use violence as a crutch or are pooly made why are the majority of badly rated games non-violent? It shows that a violence in a game doesn't indicate that it has a higher chance of being badly made.


You've done a logical switcheroo here, Legend. I did not argue that non-violent games are inherently better, I argued that violence is often used as a crutch. Those are distinct statements, and I definitely disagree with the former while maintaining the latter. 



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">

DonWii said:
Killzone3 said:

http://www.n4g.com/ps3/News-56299.aspx

So hes to blame for nintendos lack of mature games.


Considering this thread has pointed out a million things already, I will just state this:

Drugs do not equal mature games.


Seriously.



Legend11 said:
Deguello said:

This fake-outrage "assault on violent games" sensationalism stems from a core flaw in all of the "hardcore gamer" niche in that they expect Miyamoto to somehow make violent games for them as if he is obligated to do so. This is what every game site and even a few mainstream reporters said he should do in 2003 to 2005. At no point has anyone ever said to John Carmack or Cliffy B or anybody "Please make non-violent games." What you usually hear are people just not liking violent games in general, and you mostly hear adults saying this. Somehow this general dissatisfaction is morphed into criticism of particular devs and a request to "not make violent games" is fabricated out of thin air. This is logically flawed.

Some of you fellas may not care for Miyamoto, but it is much easier for those who do to admire him as he has had to endure much much more criticism of the games he makes than Cliffy B and David Doak and those types combined.

I don't think any hardcore gamers want or expect Miyamoto to make violent videogames, it's just not in him and he probably wouldn't make a good one (don't get me wrong he's a good videogame designer it's just that people who don't love what they're making likely won't make something extraordinary).

I think the problem is that many people put down violent videogames and claim they all use violence as a crutch when that isn't always the case. There are many very well designed videogames that just happen to take place in a violent setting because that's what the World in the game requires. It would be just like people complaining about violence in movies but would the Godfather or Scarface be the same movies if they had absolutely no violence? Are those movies less creative because they had violence in them?

As for Cliffy B not taking criticism, I see many people in these forums and elsewhere bashing first person shooters even though the ones he's created like Unreal Tournament are extremely well done and are creative in their own ways.


 This is well typed but flawed.

Paragraph 1 I'm sorry to say is useless.  "I don't think?"  It doesn't matter what you think.  I have proof that both "hardcore" gamers (please notice the quotation marks as this definition still seems elusive) and mainstream press (Steven Kent to name one) asking for and expecting "violent videogames" to show that Nintendo has "grown up."  I can hunt down all of these articles should the need arrive.  and you apparently have left the topic at hand which is actual criticism of non-violent games vs. perceived criticism of violent games.

 Paragrapgh 2  starts wrong because not liking violent video games is not the same as putting them down, and uses the phrase "many people."  Who, exactly?  Certainly not the gaming press or even the mainstream press.  The second setence states an obvious generality not related to the topic at hand ("quality" of violent games rather than whether they get criticised or not.)  And the third sentence deals with movies which somehow enters the discussion through a worm-hole.

 Paragraph 3 is unfortunately the part where you miss the point entirely.  People not liking First Person Shooters is not the same as criticizing  Cliffy B for making them or making violent games. This is one of those generalities made specific I talked about in my post.  My post was about how there are/were professional, gaming, and mainstream press all asking for Miyamoto to make violent games or criticisng him for NOT making violent games, compounded with daily internet idiocy of the same sort.  However, I am not even aware of ONE TIME where a professional or gaming journalist asked Cliffy B or John Carmack or David Jaffe why their games were violent, or why they don't make non-violent games, or any sort of criticism about violence whatsoever.  Thus the fallacy of perceived threat against violent games.

This threat is fake, but IT MUST EXIST in order to contol opinion and discourse about violence in videogames, because as long as there are "two sides" to the issue, you can pigeonhole and label opponents and proponents and stifle real discussion.  Thus the "big story" about Miyamoto looking (keyword LOOKING) unimpressed with an unimpressive looking game with tired gimmicks of drug use that even MIDWAY was done away with after NARC being blown out into some sort of criticism by Miyamoto of violent games.

 It's easy to see if you just look.

 



I'd love to see Miyamoto do a shooter simply becuase I know it would be RADICALLY different from the shooters we know. It would be fun seeing how Miyamoto thinks shooters should be.

Oh and Metroid is in First Person because Miyamoto wanted so I believe since Retro's demo of a thrid person metroid wasn't at all good and as they say Miyamoto "up-ended" the table :) and made them switch.



"She can feel it changing her. It's becoming a part of her, corrupting her. But what frightens her most... she likes it!" - Effects of Phazon corruption.

Metroid Prime 3 Hype Level: Corrupted

Reviews:

1UP - 9.0 

IGN - 9.5

It is a hardcore game through and through. You will get your ass kicked by bosses. You will be stumped by the sometimes complex, but never overbearing, exploration.
"You'll never want to play any shooter with dual analog sticks ever again - it's THAT good.". - Gametrailers