Ex-GTA developer explains why he'll never go back to violent games

[Zod95]

happydolphin said:
Violence is cheap, and I believe that's what some Nintendo fans have been posting against in some of their posts. A lot of the games seen on non-Nintendo consoles follow the violent trend and it begs the question "why?". I understand that it makes money, but it is the lazy way to make games.

I would say precisely the opposite. Violence is expensive. To create a very realistic violent scene is far more difficult than to create a cartoon catching star coins. Making childreen happy is cheap and highly profitable (just look at Nintendo yearly figures). Making interesting experiences for teenagers or adults is far more complex, demanding and expensive. I wonder why Nintendo is always stricted to Mario, Zelda and motion mini-games, doesn't invest on foto-realism, simulation physics or borderline artificial intelligence...and people even say the non-Nintendo followers are the lazy ones.

As for your question, the answer is simple: because it's a viable way. Like it's also viable to create racing games like GT, Forza, NFS, Burnout, DiRT, MotorStorm, F1, Project Gotham, etc. Like it's viable to create platform games like Sonic, LittleBigPlanet, Braid, Limbo, Ratchet & Clank, Banjo, etc. Like it's viable to create sports games like FIFA, PES, Virtua Tennis, Skate, NBA, NFL, MLB The Show, Tony Hawk, Hot Shots Golf, etc. Like it's viable to create arcade games like World of Goo, Pack-Man, Child of Eden, Monkey Island, Pixel Junk, etc. And like it's viable to create action games like Fable, Uncharted, Valkyria Chronicles, Final Fantasy, Demon's Souls, Portal, ICO, etc. And none of these games are really violent (and note that none of those are Nintendo's either). PS3/X360 game lists are vast and violent games that appeal because of their violence are a very small part of it.