Nintendo's famed designer says "there are more ways of grabbing players' attention"
Shigeru Miyamoto has said he is concerned that too many studios are using violent games content to attract players.
Speaking to Channel 4, he urged that there are other ways to make interactive entertainment appealing to players.
"I don't want to curb freedom of expression, but I am concerned many developers focus on excessive violence in order to stimulate people's minds," he said.
"I believe that here are more ways of grabbing players' attention than violence alone."
He also said that parents have a responsibility to play in making sure children play games with the right content: "I also hope that parents take advantage of age ratings when letting their children play."
Advertisement
Miyamoto also took time during the interview with the UK TV station, conducted during a recent press tour promoting Wii Music, to address the credit crunch issue. He said Nintendo's value-oriented consoles helped dodge any economic turbulence.
“We need to eat in order to live, that’s our first priority. But entertainment and the enrichment of our souls must come in second place," he said.
“Nintendo’s mission is to take advantage of improving and cheaper technology to create reasonable and affordable entertainment. It’s very good value."
Sorry, Nintendo is a complete trash company!
I don't have time for kiddy games! Bring on the violence man! You need to get gamer's attention by making Mario games eh? enough of that trash!
No need to be playing a fantasy game when there is violence in reality (outside your house).
I just feel sorry for Wii owners, they are missing out big boys games, now they are complaining that there isn't any good game to buy!...LOL
You want me to buy your Wii again? come up with a good violent game!
Wow, the first comment seems a bit retarded. Aside from that.
I agree with Miyamoto to a degree. I do think that this onslaught of violence in games is a somewhat negative trend in gaming. I think that he's right that there should be freedom of expression, but where do we draw the line?
I like games, all games, violent ones, colourful ones, long and short. I do see a problem, however, with the more and more frequent occurance of younger (and older) people acting out what they see in games in real life.
The attitudes of people are changing, and it's coinciding with the change in media. Media is becoming colder, and more vicious, so are the people of our great nations.
I don't think violent videogames, movies, or TV programs are all to blame, but they're certainly a big part of it. Although games have a rating on them, even the big gaming sites like IGN and Gamespot are writing reviews with some pretty harsh attitude in them. When words like whore, bitch, and details of how enjoyable it is to impale someone are listed as the best parts of the game (as well as open for readers of all ages to read) it makes me wonder what our youth are getting in the way of a moral middleground.
It's an even tougher thing to manage when a lot of families are faced with two working parents and very little in the way of parental or moral support.
Basically, we're sitting here whispering the words "be a good person" and then bombarding our masses with messages of violence, greed, and overindulgence.
Again, I play games of all kinds, but my morals are already set. Don't do wrong to others, don't do wrong to yourself. The question we have to ask when faced with a media as we have today is, how many people are really learning the difference between wrong doing and right.
Anyway, that's just my opinion, as free to have as those who have the oposite opinion.
Caid Johnson
let us take a look at the reality of what type of games developers and publishers can actually bring into tthe market now.
1. Licensed Games (requires IP license)
2. Sequels (requires IP ownership)
3. Sports Games (usually require licenses)
4. Truly Original Games (very hard to sell especially in the creatively conservative US... "but we cannot do any numbers on this... it is too risky"... yawn)
5 Games on Nintendo platforms (hard to deal with and compete with Nintendo.... to get sufficient sales)
6 Casual PC/XBLA etc. Games (good room for creativity... usually need self funding to completion... never AAA
7. MMOs (require huge investment in tech and support.. require funding)
8. Racing Games (hard to break into the established market
9. RTS (works on PC but has never really cut it on consoles)
10. Adventure Games (not exactly box office right now)
11. Platform Games (apparently these are out of fashion too)
12. Fighting Games (not so popular right now it seems except some leading brands)
13. Action Adventure Games (would seem to be some room here for new titles... but expensive to produce)
14. Violent Shooting Games (the perfect seller... works well on both PC and consoles (particualrly PC) no license needed... no creative gameplay really needed... it is mainly about level design not game design... lapped up by every market in the world.... the way to get noticed is to induce even more outargeous violence than in previous games.
In short the blinkered approach of retail and Acquisitions in publishing houses cuts out 90% of potential game tyoes that could be brought to market. This means that from a dev point of view vilolent shooters are one of the few game types that can compete without the need for:-
a. priority terms with hardware manufacturers
b. a license to beef up the title
c. reliance on just one platform for all sales
d. particularly creative design teams or producers
e. waiting for people in acquisitions and buying departments to have to get it
The one major problem with violent shoters is the competition because everyone is doing them.
So if we really want a solution to this problem then we must encourage the whole market to open up to creative developers again. Miyamoto is in a unique position.. he is a creative genus but he has always had Nintendo backing him. He does not know what it is llke to feel like you are bagning your head up against a brick wall trying to sell original ideas to people who either do not get it, or do not have enough balls to take a risk on it. T
he problem for the industry is the lack of incentive for the people buying games in publishers and retailers to take risks. The public can only by from the choice of games offered to it, if the only games in the shops are the same types of games from the same old tired genres then that is what they will buy... the way to encourage them to not buy violent games is to offer them some compelling alternatives
That last comment has it spot on!
Most developers are getting very lazy in what games they make but its usually the fault of the publishers.
I don't think developers are becoming lazy. The reality is, publishers, and dare I say it, the general public, do not see enough value in developers that go out on a limb in an effort to try something a little different. Different obviously doesn't mean good, but it appears that acquisitions departments aren't really willing to invest quality time in truly sorting out the good from the bad, quite simply because there's little incentive to take the risk even if there is potential. If it doesn't meet a predictable set of criteria, which Jon went some way to outlining, then it's pretty much ignored, and so are its creators - unless their talent can be harnessed and used to meet a publisher's agenda.
It's obviously a huge can of worms, with a history of burnt fingers, overworked developers, incompetent developers, and blinkered publishers providing the backdrop for the relatively stale state of the industry. Unless you're Miyamoto, iD, or any other privileged developer/designer, it's ridiculously hard to be given a fair chance. I think many developers have become disillusioned and feel that in the long-run, it's just not worth being creative because it's too much hassle, and the countless rejections based on issues that have nothing to do with the quality of your game end up stripping away any motivation.
John I am with you 100%. To be truly creative you need to be motivated,and to constantly maintain momentum. You also need to really believe that your product:-
a. really is good enough to at least to justify it's pricepoint
b. can actually get VC or publisher support at some point
c. will see the light of day when it is finished
d. won't make you bankrupt in the process.
Unfortunately the creative designers in this industry outside of the big publishers and developers have been so undermined in recent years because so few new concepts easily tick all 4 points outlined above... and the first point about product quality is the only one they are in control of. The sad thing is that the more professional and experienced they get the more cynical they become... The problem is not only confined to original games. Speaking to a few friends recently I reckon that the average designer does about 6 - 12 pitch documents a year for products that they have got a less than 10% chance of actually securing the contract... what a waste of time and a despicable waste of talent as well...
I am so happy now that our industry is so "professional" that we can totally overlook the virtues of actually making any real profit at all from our designers.... why should they waste their time creating ground breaking when they can be put to much better use hacking together some document designing a game around some tired old license.. that can be cherry picked for it's best ideas along with 6 other similar documents and then collated as an entirely new design by the publishers external department and shipped off to some budget development house in India. Now that is what I call professional.. it is just a different kind of creativity ;)
I work on a game design course, and I think some of the problem lies with who is buying these games also. while we encourage free thought and original ideas, alot (and I do mean ALOT) of the 20+ year old (mostly male)students we get are stuck in the same world as xino (see first and point proving post). When ask to analise and design games we found that 90% of the work developed was of the fantasy/Si-Fi/18+/violent/"You killed my brother now I'm getting my revenge..." type of games, even after 3 years of pushing them for new ideas. The only ones that come up with fantastic, original and borderline insane ideas are the few woman students we have on the course. When asked why this was they seem to be of the opinion that it's because they don't spend every waking moment on a console/computer playing games. My point it seems is that I agree with Jon Hare and maybe we should stop being such "Fanboys" and offer some alternatives....like buy some Wii games lol.
I'm a big fan of GTA4 by the way....just to contradict every thing I just said. In my defence though I have the forsight to realize that Saints Row 2 isn't worth 40 quid :D. Gears 2 will probably be the same to be honest.
Wrong target. Developers don't get to choose their subject matter 90%+ of the time. They are working on franchises, sequels, "me-toos" and other easy-to-market products that the publishers and marketeers insist on having. Many devs would love to do something different (even if some wouldn't). It would be wrong to blame publishers for being scared of failure in the marketplace, but they can be blamed for not having vision, just once in a while.
