Miyamoto: Violence Narrow Industry's Potential

While I'm not disagreeing with him, violence sells :-|

Not to long ago, wacky games used to be the norm ( I mean look at some of the games in the PS1 library..). However, every company now wants to be uber realistic and shooting now, which is a taint on the industry right now

Violence < Gameplay

Portal is the best example I can think of a non violent FPS game. And judging from the clues Valve left, Portal 2 will innovate even further on the puzzle/platform/FPS mash up.

It's was rather morbid for something "non-violent". I wouldn't say it was non-violent, just most of the violence was perpetuated at the player, so it wasn't rewarded.

If that's the case Mario is violent because you can fall to a bottomless pit while killing turtles and mutant mushrooms.

I think Miyamoto was referring to the "run and gun" game archetype.

I think being violently shot to death by robotic turrets, or gased with deadly neurotoxin by an insanely malfunctioning AI take a certain morbid reality to the violence that trumps the LSD trip that most Mario games are.

the thing about people playing this violent is because there hadnt been any 1st party games from nintendo for a while so... why not?

He just mad because the Wii isn't getting attention anymore. Heck, cartoons have violence in them. To me, games don't promote violence. That has to do with the aggressor. Most serial killers are busy killing and running. Very few plays games in my personal opinion.

off-course he is going to say that, nintendo has been milking mario, zelda, and alike for years. just a thought would wan't to die from a bullet (ie: every decent FPS)or from a flaming fire ball hurled at your face (ie: Mario)

Nintendo..

It was great a decade ago. Now, Mario/Pokemon/Zelda/whatever are just rehash of old ones with prettier graphics.

Also don't forget the ever-ballooning name. World, Galaxy, Universe, etc.

That's complete BS!! I said earlier on a previous post that all the nintendo kiddies from the past 15 or 16 years [like myself] have grown up and we all have new gaming tastes. The whole Mario/Pokemon/Zelda/whatever franchise are aimed manly at the kids and once in a while grown-up who wants to relive it's gaming past. If Shigeru Miyamoto wants to make "innocent games" for the kids and the rest of the family go ahead; but let other gaming companies offer games for a much older and "mature" audience to be played on the wii cuz right now i don't have the cash for a PS3 or XBox 360 which i could only use on mature-oriented games like Dante's Inferno. And I'm also pissed that RE5 is not on Wii while the PC, Xbox 360 and Ps3 has it. Bottom line: Shigeru Miyamoto doesn't want Nintendo to compete with Sony or Microsoft on the graphic side and mature audience side of the gaming industry and isolate the wii for the "Rated E for Everyone" category console. Which it ain't fair!!!!

PREACH!

The entire point of the violence in Portal was to use satire and a wicked sense of humor. Not to be taken seriously, instead of the Mario world.

Obliterating goombas to save the princess is serious business. srsly

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/16551/or [...] 595555.gif

Seemed to me all he said was make a variety of games because there are quite a few game niches and target audiences.

Well, thats great, cuz I have no clue what he is talking about. WTF is this article about? Blah, Blah, Blah.... Whatever...
Is teabagging violent? Miyamoto needs a good teabagging.

Nintendo also has other franchises that don't rely on game violence, like Harvest Moon, Brain Age, and the gimmicky "Wii ______" games. He's not saying game makers should avoid violent games, just that there should be more diversity in play experiences. Nothing wrong with calls for innovation and non-traditional designs.

This is comming from a guy who has a serious hate for turtles, and goombas... (joking of course)

What do you think he would say when he is 'on-course'?

Example: Dante's Inferno. Was hoping they would do something more than just a hack and slash. That was a great opportunity lost.

Since history was new the act of survival has been violent. In the world today we have the technology necessary to elimate most violence from our lives but in order to be happy healthy human beings we crave that lifegiving stress whether we realize it or not. Some might argue video games begat violent tendancies. I would argue that video games are an outlet for the normal violent tendancies we have as living breathing sentient creatures with the compelling need for survival.

What he's actually saying is that all of his "goofy" games can't compete and make him money against all of the "violent" games out there....

Violence doesn't make a good game, gameplay does. There are plenty of violent games out there with great gameplay as well, but gameplay comes first.

I agree with Miyamoto, almost all the games I see made today are nearly 100% violence, what happened to the puzzle games? The adventure games, the racing games (okay they are still there but few), the good old RPG's where you had tons of mini-games? I want all of that to come back.

I hate it when those in the enterainment industry start talking about their products within the context of serving a higher purpose. Give it a rest already! Look, I'm sure we all agree that Mother Teresa was a great humanitarian. She won the Nobel Peace Prize, is known the world over... she was a great human being; but nobody dreams of being Mother Teresa.

When you played Mass Effect 2, did you find yourself saying, "Wow, I wish I could play as the mediocre dock worker who fell alseep behind the crates." Or when you were playing Dragon Age Origins, were you thinking, "I wish I could play the role of Dagna, the little Dwarf girl who wants to study at the Mage Circle even though she can never cast magic herself." Of course you didn't. In all probability, THAT is what your life is already like. You want to play as the hero (or the villain). You want to be the person that kicks ass and takes names. You want to be the person that saves the universe, or that is the MVP of the game, or you want to be Kaiser Soze or Tony Montana.

The point being, games (and movies and TV shows) shouldn't try to be anything other than entertaining. A successful game is one that leaves you feeling like, "Wow, that was awesome game! I can't wait for the sequel!" It is NOT one that leave you saying, "Well, that game really taught me a lot about social injustice and the plight of the down-trodden. It was really worth the $60 that I shelled out for it."

I agree with the essence of Miyamoto, however, most game designers really don't have that option, it's always nice when a game like Little Big Planet does well, because it was that rare sort of "Feel Good" fun.

Designers with ideas that are too far outside of the box either have to side with Indie Developers (and as such see much less Market Share - Hot Head Games, for example), their ideas get swept under the table (ignored), or they have to make such huge concessions to make it a game selling formula (But is it enough like MW2 to push X sales).

It's hard to convince execs and the like to stray from the game winning formula, even if they had an idea that would turn out to be a huge hit.

And before anyone says it... yes I realize that is not exactly what he was saying. However, that's where those dialogues usually end up going.

I think it's time for Hugo House Of Horrors to put out a new game!

I think many people miss Miyamoto's point... A shame, since most developers could take a page.

He's NOT saying "make kiddie games." Rather, he's cautioning against everyone making Modern Warfare and Halo clones. Because while sure, the frat-boy crowd may love 'em, the point of the fact is... There's only ONE Halo, and ONE Modern Warfare. If you make a clone, you're instantly resigning yourself to be in their shadow; you'll never out-sell them, you'll never be remembered.

Miyamoto's success in games has come from, as it appears, thinking not from the "winning formula" like the bulk of others' titles are, but starting with the gameplay itself; basically, he appears to decide on what sort of gameplay would be "fun," then thinks of a pretext to put it in later. So while dozens of companies are going, "I wanna make a futuristic Sci-fi shooter starring a grizzled ex-space-marine," he starts with something more like "I wanna try this cool new gameplay idea/mechanic."

All told, I'd say it's paid off for him. IIRC, Nintendo has an utter monopoly on the "top 10 best-selling games ever;" one has to go to #14 or so to reach the first non-Nintendo game. Coincidentally, while it contains violence and an M-rating, the theme is FAR less serious than a "gritty war," the graphics are downright colorful, and the game's main draw was its huge, open sandbox environment. (the game being GTA: San Andreas) In other words, Miyamoto's own ideas applied.

No, that's a "successful game" according to the big-wig school of thought, which DOESN'T really pan out well. It results in the same cookie-cutter games that are forgotten 4 years after release.

Rather, a good game does NOT leave someone waiting for a sequel; they keep playing it, for years, even. In this respect, I'd say it goes beyond mere "entertainment," as that word has way too many connotations with themes like "shallow" and "empty." A good game is NOT something that'd be fit for renting over the weekend and never playing again, but rather, one that draws you back, be it with loads of content, modability, or simply new challenges.