3 ms·

I'm a HUGE Nintendo fan. But non-violence? Just because it's cute doesn't make something non-violent. See Tom and Jerry cartoons. Mario throws fire at enemies

I'm a HUGE Nintendo fan. But non-violence? Just because it's cute doesn't make something non-violent. See Tom and Jerry cartoons. Mario throws fire at enemies and burns them alive. How is that not violent? He stomps on their heads and squishes them into juice. He knocks them into lava and watches them melt. And let's not forget that most video game characters, including Miyamoto's loot and steal anything they can. Link walks into a building and empties every container he can. > I also resist the idea that it’s O.K. to simply kill all monsters. Even monsters have a motive, and a reason for why they are the way they are. He designed Zelda and Mario where all you do is kill every monster. I love all those games but they aren't non-violent. They're just violence disguised in cute clothing. Non-violent might include Animal Crossing, Pilotwings but certainly not ARMS where all you do is punch other people.

zapzupnz 6y ago
I think there's a distinction to be made between a concept which can be violent and a violent depiction, specifically when said violence is depicted realistically. I think Miyamoto is referring to wish to avoid the latter. You never see Mario's enemies burn, you watch them disappear in a puff of smoke. When enemies are jumped upon, they flatten in a cartoonish manner rather than a realistic. Even in Zelda, where some things can be genuinely gruesome to watch, enemies mainly flash red when they are hit rather than spew blood everywhere — and this is a series where most bosses are to be stabbed in the eye! > They're just violence disguised in cute clothing That's called cartoon violence. Yeah, it's still violence, but I don't think it's what Miyamoto was referring to. For Miyamoto, his characters, his worlds, and even the enemies are all like players on a stage. They play their parts, including being the villains, and bowing out when their time is up. It's as they go off-stage, maybe to participate in a kart racer or a round of tennis.
- asiachick 6y ago
  I don't think the distinction matters. The point is you're solving your problems via violence. Don't like what they're doing? Beat them up until they stop. Want their possessions, beat them up and take them.
  - Geminidog 6y ago
    You've actually correctly identified a strange contradiction here. Everyone is talking about how violence is "bad" but at the same time we're ok with cartoon violence. Why? The reason is most people and your repliers included are unable to identify their biases so they talk about violence but violence is not what actually repulses them or humans in general. What repulses humans is gore. The more realistic the gore the more we're repulsed. All forms of violence depicted without gore is something humans are completely ok with. The evidence for what I am saying exists in what we eat. The meat we put in our mouths come from violent houses of slaughter where we kill living things and slice them up for consumption. Most people are totally ok with this, they just don't want to see the actual animal getting killed. But the fact that we raise living things for the sole purpose of slaughtering them later is a something we're totally ok with. It's not gore specifically that makes us repulsed. It's visually seeing gore that is something we're not ok with. As long as we don't see gore then we're ok with gore actually existing in real life. Nothing illustrates this concept better than video games. In video games and movies... No actual violence is occuring! It's just pretend violence. We're more ok with eating slices of flesh violently hacked off of from living things then we are of seeing movies depict fake violence, where no actual violence occurs! People are unable to separate a response triggered by visual stimuli away from the actual intent of "violence" that usually is associated with such stimuli. In their confusion the mistakenly conflate gore with violence and as a result have a deep misunderstanding of human psychology in general. Don't try to find logic behind your instincts and emotions. Things like "reactions" from visual stimuli do not exist because the make sense, they exist because such "reactions" at one point in prehistory helped humans survive predation. Making logical sense is not a prerequisite. That is the problem with your repliers when they try to dismiss your response, they are trying to make sense of something that never made sense in the first place. Either way, congratulations for asking the definitive question and noticing what others are incapable of noticing.
    - yowlingcat 6y ago
      You bring up an interesting point which is how gore removes the plausible deniability of violence from death, a fascinating observation about human psychology which I generally agree with. But I wonder if you're talking about something orthogonal to what GP is -- that is, you're talking about literal violence whereas they're talking about a more meta form of violence, if I'm understanding correctly. The meta form of violence they are talking about is simply the mechanism of "might makes right" -- if I am not misinterpreting them, it's the idea that violence comes not just from the force but from engagement with the opposing character as a hostile threat to be neutralized rather than an independent agent to be reconciled through diplomacy, and that this is a function of the game design. And so a non-violent game design would entail not just removing gore but removing these kinds of engagement styles completely. I'm not inclined to agree with this line of reasoning because I think it rests on faulty assumptions. And I think you call out the prime one pretty specifically in your comment: > People are unable to separate a response triggered by visual stimuli away from the actual intent of "violence" that usually is associated with such stimuli. It's a subtle but crucial distinction, and I think it gets to the core of what makes people make the conflation. Thanks for bringing it to the fore.

zapzupnz 6y ago

I think there's a distinction to be made between a concept which can be violent and a violent depiction, specifically when said violence is depicted realistically. I think Miyamoto is referring to wish to avoid the latter. You never see Mario's enemies burn, you watch them disappear in a puff of smoke. When enemies are jumped upon, they flatten in a cartoonish manner rather than a realistic. Even in Zelda, where some things can be genuinely gruesome to watch, enemies mainly flash red when they are hit rather than spew blood everywhere — and this is a series where most bosses are to be stabbed in the eye! > They're just violence disguised in cute clothing That's called cartoon violence. Yeah, it's still violence, but I don't think it's what Miyamoto was referring to. For Miyamoto, his characters, his worlds, and even the enemies are all like players on a stage. They play their parts, including being the villains, and bowing out when their time is up. It's as they go off-stage, maybe to participate in a kart racer or a round of tennis.

asiachick 6y ago
I don't think the distinction matters. The point is you're solving your problems via violence. Don't like what they're doing? Beat them up until they stop. Want their possessions, beat them up and take them.
- Geminidog 6y ago
  You've actually correctly identified a strange contradiction here. Everyone is talking about how violence is "bad" but at the same time we're ok with cartoon violence. Why? The reason is most people and your repliers included are unable to identify their biases so they talk about violence but violence is not what actually repulses them or humans in general. What repulses humans is gore. The more realistic the gore the more we're repulsed. All forms of violence depicted without gore is something humans are completely ok with. The evidence for what I am saying exists in what we eat. The meat we put in our mouths come from violent houses of slaughter where we kill living things and slice them up for consumption. Most people are totally ok with this, they just don't want to see the actual animal getting killed. But the fact that we raise living things for the sole purpose of slaughtering them later is a something we're totally ok with. It's not gore specifically that makes us repulsed. It's visually seeing gore that is something we're not ok with. As long as we don't see gore then we're ok with gore actually existing in real life. Nothing illustrates this concept better than video games. In video games and movies... No actual violence is occuring! It's just pretend violence. We're more ok with eating slices of flesh violently hacked off of from living things then we are of seeing movies depict fake violence, where no actual violence occurs! People are unable to separate a response triggered by visual stimuli away from the actual intent of "violence" that usually is associated with such stimuli. In their confusion the mistakenly conflate gore with violence and as a result have a deep misunderstanding of human psychology in general. Don't try to find logic behind your instincts and emotions. Things like "reactions" from visual stimuli do not exist because the make sense, they exist because such "reactions" at one point in prehistory helped humans survive predation. Making logical sense is not a prerequisite. That is the problem with your repliers when they try to dismiss your response, they are trying to make sense of something that never made sense in the first place. Either way, congratulations for asking the definitive question and noticing what others are incapable of noticing.
  - yowlingcat 6y ago
    You bring up an interesting point which is how gore removes the plausible deniability of violence from death, a fascinating observation about human psychology which I generally agree with. But I wonder if you're talking about something orthogonal to what GP is -- that is, you're talking about literal violence whereas they're talking about a more meta form of violence, if I'm understanding correctly. The meta form of violence they are talking about is simply the mechanism of "might makes right" -- if I am not misinterpreting them, it's the idea that violence comes not just from the force but from engagement with the opposing character as a hostile threat to be neutralized rather than an independent agent to be reconciled through diplomacy, and that this is a function of the game design. And so a non-violent game design would entail not just removing gore but removing these kinds of engagement styles completely. I'm not inclined to agree with this line of reasoning because I think it rests on faulty assumptions. And I think you call out the prime one pretty specifically in your comment: > People are unable to separate a response triggered by visual stimuli away from the actual intent of "violence" that usually is associated with such stimuli. It's a subtle but crucial distinction, and I think it gets to the core of what makes people make the conflation. Thanks for bringing it to the fore.