| Lastgengamer said: Is Miyamoto right about this? |
Has he ever been wrong?
| Lastgengamer said: Is Miyamoto right about this? |
Has he ever been wrong?
I would agree completely were this not coming from someone who has never made a violent/mature rated videogame. And this is supposedly part of the same interview where he talks about ANOTHER Mario game.
| Carl2291 said: Shut up Shiggy ¬_¬ Just because Rock* make GTA/ Manhunt doesn't mean Ubisoft can't make Imagine Babyz/ Just Dance. |
| LordTheNightKnight said: "Just because Rock* make GTA/ Manhunt doesn't mean Ubisoft can't make Imagine Babyz/ Just Dance." Did you even read what he said? |
I did, and the point still stands. Maybe i should expand on it...
Rockstar make some exceptional violent videogames. And in the PS2 era, they they showed us the "potential" of videogames in the sandbox genre. Just look at the differences between GTA3 to GTA:SA (i'm confident they will do the same this generation too with GTA4 - GTA5).
Now, are you really saying that what they did would possibly damage "the potential" of what videogames can do? Seriously? You could go to the gym, get tattoo's, gamble, take driving lessons... GTA:SA was a HUGE game, and one of the best ever created.
Look at the differences between Call of Duty and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. HUGE differences, and it's payed off too as you can see with the sales of the franchise. It's not "limiting" anything at all as new things are being found and improved upon all the time.
He was clever to cover what he said with the last quote.
![]()
| MontanaHatchet said: I would agree completely were this not coming from someone who has never made a violent/mature rated videogame. And this is supposedly part of the same interview where he talks about ANOTHER Mario game. |
Another great point. Just because Nintendo aren't good at making violent videogames doesn't mean they should call them out.
@Khuutra.
I don't care about that really. That's like me saying... "I hate how the Wii has handled it's games this generation. They are really limiting what they can do and are only harming what we currently have"... And then going on to say "But it's Nintendo's system and i shouldn't try to intervene."
Basicly, if i don't care for it i shouldn't call it out.
![]()
"Now, are you really saying that what they did would possibly damage "the potential" of what videogames can do?"
Then you didn't read it, or else you would see that is not what he meant.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
Just like violent movies damaged the movie industry.
Oh wait.
| Carl2291 said: @Khuutra. Basicly, if i don't care for it i shouldn't call it out. |
It's not really like that at all. He's not actually making a value judgment on the trend of violent games. The problem with how violent games affect the way people view games is addressed specificallly here:
SmoothCriminal said:
Has he ever been wrong? |
The part where he keeps on making 3D Mario games even though 2D sell much better.
I mean, I enjoy the 3D ones more, but it doesn't make business sense.
Apart from that, no.
| Garnett said: Just like violent movies damaged the movie industry. Oh wait. |
Seems you read past the title.
Oh wait.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs