Legend11 said:
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.
