the amount of people in this thread who seem to have only read the title is rather large, but not suprising...

Alright, just shut up.

Look, I don't agree with either side (those defending Miyamoto and those against him). I think he's a great developer, and I agree with his point here; although I believe he has no real basis to make it. However, making pot shots at any degree to those who disagree with him is just pathetic. Seriously, VG dollars? That's just so lame. A lot of people in this thread need to fully understand what he's really saying, sure, but a lot of people also need to hop off their high thrones (while at the same time removing themselves from the base of Miyamoto's throne).

So, people cant disagree with Miyamoto and if they do they are only fanboys who want VG$? I dont know but that doesnt seem convincing knowing that aparently VG$ dont mean nothing.

I think there might be something there. They're blaming the man for putting them down. They're striking out against a percieved socio-economic adversary, and asserting their rights as the common man.

Or it's just a coincidence.

But don't you think it's interesting... that having a low VG$... leads to communism?

For those saying he's never made a violent vidoegame didn't miyamoto have a hand in Killer Instinct?

Edit: Yeah he was a producer on Killer Instinct.

Well compared to film, literature, theatre, music and television eg pretty much every other medium games do have a greater emhpasis on violence. Though this has been changing since the release of games like the Sims last decade.

While I see and agree with his point, I think the root of the problem is that the videogame industry is steadily becoming a one dimensional industry; and there is a certain "Echo Chamber" effect from many of the experts within the industry.

To understand what I mean, how many major studios are putting significant effort towards producing games that are drastically different than previous games? Certainly, there are some interesting hybrid games or a heavier focus on certain features, but most of the games are clones or sequels to popular games; which were themselves clones or sequels of popular games. Without providing new experiences it is difficult/impossible to attract new gamers into the market, and those that currently enjoy videogames will slowly become more and more bored with what is available.

While I don’t want to see them try to produce clones of these games, I would love to see Sega, Capcom, Konami, EA, Sony, Microsoft, Activision-Blizzard, Square-Enix, and Ubisoft produce their Wii Fit, Wii Music, Endless Ocean, Nintendogs or Wii Sports. While Nintendo’s games may not (always) be entirely new, they have all been drastic departures of what was being done by most studios at the moment.

I could not care less about Shigeru Miyamoto. I don't praise game gods and I don't go running around calling devs "geniuses". However, what he said about violent games is pretty clear. He is not saying not to make them, he is saying not to be bound by them. You can make 10 violent games but you should have at least 3 other titles that deviate from that formula.

Just because Miyamoto hasn't made too many excessively violent games doesn't mean he knows nothing about them. For God's sakes, he's been in gaming for like 30 years.....30 YEARS!

You're factually wrong; again, Nintendo have done studies concerning why different people don't play video games. Whether your think these studies are conclusive or not is irrelevant, as they are, regardless, a basis on which his statement may be built.

Why are people only reading the title not the interview...Ugh

This is the section of the interview, read it

There's nothing in your games that risks offending those of a nervous disposition. But many people seem to fear the effect violent games have on society. What are your thoughts on titles like Modern Warfare 2? Why aren't you interested in making games like these?
In our work, we are trying to make video games as relevant as possible for a wide ranger of generations of people. I do not think we should limit the audience to a particular category, for example, young kids or young males, or a limited number of people. At least, that's how I've been trying to make my own games.

This is in response to the "Why don't you make games like these?" part of the question. He states that he prefers to make games that appeal to a much wider audience, he doesn't really want to focus on one demographic only on all his games. And he says that just his way of making his own games. He doesn't say making violent video games are wrong.

We just talked about the opportunities for the Academy recognising video games as an art form. We really appreciate that kind of opportunity because that can change the mindset of the general public, to how they conceive video games per se.

Classifying games as Art can change the publics mindset of how they percieve what video games are. It can change the public's view that video games are bad, waste of time, too violent, just for kids, etc.

But when it comes to the question of how each individual game designer or developer should make their games, I don't think we should try to intervene in how they are trying to express themselves in whichever format.

Developers use video games to express themselves and to push different ways of interacting in a video game. Miyamoto is saying that developers shouldn't be told how to express themselves in the games that they make. He feels that they should be allowed to make the games they want to make, INCLUDING VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES.

It's a question of how we can make the appropriate communication so that only the people who are appropriate to play with a particular game are able to play it; how we can make enough information accessible to the parents - what types of games can be played by their children.

Here he feels that video game companies need to better convey to the public that certain games are only appropriate for certain ages. Ex. GOW3 is only appropriate to the 17 and older crowd. Miyamoto apparently thinks that the current age rating system used in different countries isn't enough and would like more information passed on to the consumer so they can make an imformative choice choice.

That goes for us as video game companies - and our marketing people must be very careful as to how they are promoting which types of products to which audiences.

Same as above but he adds that the marketing departments have to be careful as to how they market a game. In other words, don't market a M rated game to a 10yr old.

I think most importantly, from the viewpoint of the evolution of the video games, we have to be very careful about the very great potential video games have as a way for people to express themselves.

He's saying video games have potential to allow people to express themselves in many different ways, he thinks all developers should keep that in mind. With dealing with a form of entertainment that allows people to express themselves so greatly, it has to be handled carefully. 

Sometimes, games designers tend to focus their attention on a limited particular area of their expression. That is simply narrowing down the potential of what video games can do. I really hope each individual creator has a wider view so they can appreciate and try to expand the potential of video games.

He's saying alot of developers tend to focus on aggression and violence in alot of their games. He's NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM SAYING THAT THAT IS BAD! He is simply saying when you focus on only one form of expression you limit the potential of what a video game can do. There are so many other ways developers can express themselves and appeal to new audiences. He hopes that developers will have an open mind and try new ways of expressing themselves and see the wider potential video games have other than just violence. HE'S NOT SAYING VIOLENCE IS BAD or that they shouldn't use this form of expression.

When you say 'focusing on a limited area of expression' what do you mean? Do you mean the aggression you find in many adult games?
[Nods] Joy and fun is something I'm always seeking for, myself. Also, specifically about the excessive violence, I think the video game creator has to bear in mind and understand the unique interactive nature of video games.

Like above, he just wants developers to keep that in mind and understand how different people interact differently with video games

He never once said violence was bad, that it could damage video game's potential, or that developers shouldn't put violence in video games.