What Miyamoto's Anti-Violence Statement Says About Gaming
by Anthony Perez

Shigeru Miyamoto, famed creator of Mario and so many other Nintendo franchises, denounced "excessive violence" in videogames during an interview with London's Channel 4 News.

"I don't want to curb freedom of expression but I am concerned that many developers focus just on excessive violence in order to stimulate people's mind. I believe that there are more ways of grabbing players' attention than violence alone. 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. Nintendo's mission is to improve and to take advantage of cheap technology to create reasonable and affordable entertainment. Our games are good value."

I usually cringe when people talk as if violence will lead to the downfall of society, but I do agree with Miyamoto's point. Videogames should be doing more than champion violence in hopes of getting people excited and invested in a game. What games have been able to achieve even better than some films, is a visceral experience that pulls players into the action. Films excel in getting their viewers to invest their emotions into the experience. That is a response most games have failed to replicate.

What is so exciting is to see the potential that's already been exhibited by so many games. Games like Mass Effect and Shadow of the Colossus are good examples of games that pull players into a very emotional and gripping story - though that term is used somewhat loosely in the case of Shadow of the Colossus. What they exemplify is the potential for games to strike progress in that emotional direction through starkly different methods. Mass Effect does so with its grand story and hours worth of dialogue, while Shadow of the Colossus does so almost purely through gameplay and no dialogue.

Hell, even games that rely so heavily on over-the-top violence can even be considered legitimate in their own right. In a recent opinion piece on our very own Jacob Stustman took a look at the gratuitious violence in videogames and defends its use in some games as a way to push forward an overexagerrated yet appropriate style not so unlike the hyper-stylized violience in movies like 300 and Sin City. He argues that those examples of violence as well as their videogame equivalents, such as next year's MadWorld, shouldn't be seen as harmful or grotesque because they are exaggerated to an extent that drives home their intended stylistic goal that couldn't possibly be replicated in the real world.

The violence then, its inherent schadenfreude, works in a game like Mad World because it is severely blunted by the style. You're not just witnessing your virtual representation tear a beating heart out of a chest Temple of Doom style. You're watching a manifestation of it, an imperfect version of a more perfect system. It is only in this manner, as abstract and otherworldly as it is, that Mad World can get away with so much and never be considered grotesque.

The differences between what Miyamoto and Stutsman say even represent the cultural differences between the East and the West. In the West, we thrive on action while the East leans more toward the fantastical and abstract; a universe where the violence of the West is not only unacceptable but also unnecessary. These opposing viewpoints work best for all gamers since it ensures that no matter what we prefer, we will definitely have a game that entertains us.