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

[Zod95]

happydolphin said:

Zod95 said:

 Oh, you were talking about creativity. Now I see what you mean. By the way, I believe making 50 Zeldas and 200 Marios is even less creative than to use violence as the vehicle to popularity. But that's a different matter. I understood you point and you're entitled to your own opinion. I just don't agree with it.

Regarding the 2nd paragraph, if you accept there are many non-violent games on PS3 and X360 and the dominance of violence is just in sales, right there you are giving the answer to your own question: the few games that use violence are the most successful ones. Why do they use violence? To be successful XD

Whether there is one or 14 final fantasies (I need to use a non-Nintendo IP because you're clearly exaggerating as there were not 200 Mario games), it doesn't change the fact that the games present worlds that are very creative and intricate, and that a foundation of violence is a cop-out, in general, to the complex ingenuity required to come up with a fantastical world the ideas of which are not based on violence.

@2nd para. I know. My point is that they have too strong a presence and it's truly a representation of companies settling for the quickest cash-grab at the expense of depth of fantasy. That's the real answer.

Mario: 173 titles (close to my estimate)

Zelda: 51 titles (very close to my estimate)

Final Fantasy: 154 titles (I believe some are collections or special editions)

 

In regards to creativity, let me pick some of the games you put in the violence list (as a cheap way to success) like Assassin's Creed, Batman Arkham Series, Resistance, Fallout and The Elder Scrolls to tell you I find these games very creative in terms of environment and very innovative regarding gameplay, making them masterpieces holding brand new experiences to gamers. And when I think about the best stories in videogames, I think about The Getaway, Bioshock and Metal Gear Solid. And guess what...they are violent. Because, instead of thinking "let's create a non-violent story", the developers behind these series think "let's create the best stories no matter what"...so they have no restrictions at all.

Comparing to the games you've mentioned, Final Fantasy shows some creativity but it's always the same japanese romantic style, no real innovation in story telling (in my opinion). Mario and Zelda show no creativity at all: it's always the same story over and over again. Regarding gameplay, Mario shows some diversity in certain games like Mario Galaxy and New Super Mario Bros...but even on those titles I heard some experts saying every idea was copied from other games (so I would not call it creativity, although there's quality). Yet, Mario and his movements are always there and, after 173 titles, people become a bit tired of that and want to try something new. Zelda is in a quite similar situation as Mario. I personally don't agree with the logic of milking a series to last decades and have tens or hundreds of titles. Developers need to reinvent concepts, create from scratch, think about new ideas and sell us brand new experiences. That's how the industry evolves, not with series that last forever.