So did Miyamoto say that "everyone who doesn't do it like me is boring"? Sounded to me like Miyamoto said the other companies are boring because they are too alike, not because they are too unlike Nintendo.

In that case he's just objectively wrong.

“I have never thought of games as a means of storytelling.”

There we have it. This is why I find Nintendo boring. This is why I abandoned Nintendo consoles and never looked back. They leave my imagination drifting and disengaged. I grew up with reading as a hobby, with narrative and storytelling always close at hand; a typical Nintendo game, to me, is devoid of soul and lacking in magic. There is no depth, nothing to entangle you in that world. It's a flat, uninspiring, and static experience for me.

Which is fine, actually. Some people like that. What isn't fine is the ignorance some people show by saying the Nintendo way is the "right way". That's bullshit. Absolute bullshit. It's just one way of many. If the Nintendo way was the only way, I'd leave gaming--again, actually, as the SNES left me cold until I found FFVI, a game that blew me away with complex characters and an interesting storytelling.

Nintendo could never have made ICO, which changed gaming for me. They could never have made Valkyria Chronicles, the most memorable game I played last gen, which genuinely had me in tears and thinking about it for days after. They could never have made BioShock, Deus Ex, or Fallout 3, could never have made Mass Effect or Dragon Age. I give thanks to the gaming gods that developers looked beyond the limited vision of Nintendo, or else I wouldn't even be here.

Nintendo's arrogance amazes me. They look around at all these people who are fucking ENJOYING THEMSELVES playing other types of games and they act like somehow everyone is doing it wrong. It's not wrong if they're having fun, Nintendo. It's just you who are narrow-minded. I'm really starting to dislike Nintendo; not because of their games but because of their attitude.

Gameplay should be the fundamental element in any game, if there is a good story backing it up, all the better. I will use Heavy Rain as an example, a very cinematic, story driven game, with great graphics...however the gameplay sucked big time. It was just one big QTE or Simon says, with you pushing an analogue stick in the direction prompted, or shaking your controller up and down. I've seen games on the Wii with similar gameplay mechanics, and they were dismissed as a waggle fest, for all its cinematics and cut scenes there just wasnt a lot to do from a gameplay perspective. One of the best games to strike a near perfect balance of story and gameplay is Mr Miyamotos very own Pikmin 3.

Rather than expecting great writers to gravitate to video games, video game makers ought to study storytelling so that they can improve their trade. And storytelling in games is a lot different from storytelling in film or other mediums. I actually think games have much more in common with books in the way their stories are presented and the tools they give to writers.

Also, Miyamoto's comment about needing more children in the theater reminds me of Finding Neverland.

I don't know what a "typical Nintendo game" is, because as far as I can see they have an extremely diverse selection of games. You can easily avoid the "typical" games while enjoying the meatier ones. You don't have to buy Nintendo consoles or play their games, but if you think they all follow the Miyamoto Creed of Absolute Minimum Narrative, you're mistaken. Even Miyamoto's own games wind up with great stories somehow, especially Pikmin. And I'll take Zelda games with their extremely subtle and powerful themes over the supposedly great but ultimately bland or downright poor storytelling found in most cinematic games.

wow so arrogant...instead of embracing the art form he shuns it. For a company always talking about innovation and new experiences this is completely closed minded....welp thats nintendo for you.

i love there games but they make it harder and harder for me to respect them as a company.

The push towards making games "cinematic" is one of the worst things ever to happen to gaming.

Gaming is its own unique medium; trying to make it a poor copycat of another cheapens and degrades its identity.

Surely combining elements from other realms will occasionally provide for unique experiences that may very well be worth the money but if you truly want gaming to develope and make a stand on its own then there has to be this genuine core radiator based in what specifies the genre - which, as is case for gaming, revolves around the deep rate of interactivity endowed.

The sense that you can in fact affect your surroundings even from real-time perspectives adds up great practice in taking responsibility, often by seeing its adherents act out in the opposite direction... Who cares- it's just practice anyway. Contrasting how litterature will only convey you the long-term takes at life.

Many great gaming works, especially from the early 90s, often have forms of written depictions integrated- hence siding with litterature to make this interactive world's details or briefing more tangible to a human mind, similar to how we have commentators in sports; we just need someone to hold our hand, after that, we can do anything.

"Miyamoto: What can games learn from film? Nothing"

The title of this thread and the article is misleading: Miyamoto never said video games have nothing to learn from film. Here's what actually happened according to Telegraph's article:

When I (Robbie Collin) ask him (Shigeru Miyamoto) if he thinks the games industry can learn anything from cinema, he seems mildly horrified at the thought.

“When you play a game, one moment you’re just controlling it and then suddenly you feel you’re in its world,” he says. “And that’s something you cannot experience through film or literature. It’s a completely unique experience.”

How Robbie Collin drew the conclusion that Miyamoto believes games can't learn anything from film puzzles me.

Did I miss something in the article?