By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Miyamoto: 'What can games learn from film? Nothing'

Zekkyou said:

A surprisingly small minded view coming from someone so creative.

Gaming is an expansion medium for entertainment; there's room for all kinds of games. Some people enjoy games like Heavy Rain that try to immerse them in a story. Some just want something like Mario, LBP or Viva Pinata that they can just jump into and enjoy. Others want games like MGS or TLOU, that have a bit of both.

As long as it's something people enjoy, it's worth making. I don't have much time for those that believe the world should warp itself to be exactly to their liking.

This



Around the Network
AgentZorn said:
Maraccuda said:
I will take a game over a cinematic experience 9 times out of 10.

BTW, I dont think Miyamoto was sounding arrogant. He was being very fair to other companies.

People don't seem to read beyond the thread title anymore.

People don't seem to read outside of what they want to see. 



ClassicGamingWizzz said:

I guess i am the one  Arrogant and closed minded for liking the industry as it is with games of all tastes where people can make a game with an amazing story.

Did someone accuse you of being arrogant and closed-minded for having said like?



I get where he's getting at as well as where everyone else  here (who disagrees with him). 

Videogames have become more than just video games, which is actually a bad thing if you really think about it (I mean really think about it).

 

Stories in video games have not been the same ever since the end of the 6th generation. Stories in gaming has (for the most part) always been restricted by the game's setting own setting. But ever since the surge in more sopshiscated hardware and more and more would-be develoeprs seeking the need to to express themselves more, games in general have suffered because of that. Develoeprs have deviated away from their own game's setting and allowed their stories to be the main focus instead of being one of the huge cogs (or components) that makes the game appealing enough to play. 

In other words if you want a compelling story look for the games that have a likable setting. Thats how stories in games went by orginally. Not by character developement, not by heavy overly dramatic dialog, not by its artistic look and, definintely not by the emotional turmoils of the character.

I don't want to play an ineractive CGI movie. I prefer a game with a good setting that will entice me to play.

I'll pick a game like Warcraft III over a game like The Last of US anytime. 

 



ITT: People who are hastily responding to a misleading headline and not actually reading the article.

Seriously guys, read the actual article. He doesn't say what's in that headline at all, and the author of that article should be massively reprimanded for his terrible headline.

With that out of the way, I do agree with him to the extent that many AAA games are trying too hard to be like films when it comes to storytelling. Games can tell stories in ways that films cannot, and that's by allowing the player to interact with the world. However, most modern games make users experience their stories in ways that are much like films, so in those moments you are more of a passive participant and less of an active one. There are ways to tell a story without completely ripping the user away from the experience as well as ways to not just simply "feed" the user a story. Games like Journey and Kid Icarus: Uprising are good examples of the former, while games like Metroid Prime and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask are good examples of the latter.



NNID: TheCCluc

Around the Network
sundin13 said:

I feel like most people in this thread aren't actually reading the quote:

"They want to tell stories that will touch people’s hearts. And while I understand that desire, the trend worries me. It should be the experience, that is touching."

Do you disagree? Games like The Order are getting a lot of flak for showing you a story, instead of giving you the agency to make you feel like you, as a player, fit into the world. I think Miyamoto's vision is idealistic and blunt, but arrogant and close minded? Really?

PS: Why is the title quote nowhere to be found in the article?

It's just entirely hypocritical, because Nintendo games don't do that either. In fact, I don't see how non-narrative games are more immersive than games trying to tell a story. If anything, it's the opposite. 



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

outlawauron said:
sundin13 said:

I feel like most people in this thread aren't actually reading the quote:

"They want to tell stories that will touch people’s hearts. And while I understand that desire, the trend worries me. It should be the experience, that is touching."

Do you disagree? Games like The Order are getting a lot of flak for showing you a story, instead of giving you the agency to make you feel like you, as a player, fit into the world. I think Miyamoto's vision is idealistic and blunt, but arrogant and close minded? Really?

PS: Why is the title quote nowhere to be found in the article?

It's just entirely hypocritical, because Nintendo games don't do that either. In fact, I don't see how non-narrative games are more immersive than games trying to tell a story. If anything, it's the opposite. 

Hes saying that story shouldnt be the main focus. Gameplay should be. Hes old school that way and the reason hes the most successful game developer of all time.



SubiyaCryolite said:
“Perhaps we needed more children here,” says a lot about the man and his expectations.




Veknoid_Outcast said:

I completely agree with Miyamoto on the differences between video games and movies, two mediums that are miles apart in narrative structure, in spite of the video game industry's desire to merge the two.

Here's what I wrote about this subject early last year: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5094029

Simply put, despite any aesthetic similarities, video games, by definition, can never obtain the same level of, for lack of a better word, immutability, of movies, or novels and symphonies, for that matter. Games are determined by others' interaction with them; the game designer and the game player combine to create an interesting set of expectations and experiences. With movies, there is no player, there are only viewers. The movie designer's product is, again, immutable. It is art in its purest form.

Video games, conversely, are interactive art. Their greatness comes from the way in which others interact with and, subsequently, change them. They are built around rules, mechanics, challenges, and goals. Those games that abandon those rules, goals, and measurements for victory cease to become games; they become mere representations of a movie, or a story, or a play, existing in a no man's land, neither game nor movie.

So, again, I agree with Miyamoto. When video games stray too far into the realm of cinema, they suffer.


Have you,by any chance, played The Walking Dead: Season one, Beyond: Two Souls or Heavy Rain?



naruball said:

 


Have you,by any chance, played The Walking Dead: Season one, Beyond: Two Souls or Heavy Rain?


Well Ive played Heavy Rain and enjoyed it. Now that I know the ending, there is no reason for me to play it again...