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.
