I don't know about his philosophy, but I do know that I enjoy anything with gratuitous violence, gore and/or destruction.

oh and I forgot about gratuitous nudity. NO ONE must forget about gratuitous nudity.

I like to destroy Akrid's especially the asshats that can roll.

I have one purpose in my video game life, and that is to completely annihilate anyone or thing put in front of me. Oh, and as Sadistic said, ogle gratuitous nudity.

To a certain extent he is right, but not to the point that I can say he is even 20% correct. Some of the best selling games (Sim City, Civilization, Sins of a Solar Empire, Warcraft, Starcraft, etc), require building and maintaining.

To a certain extent, one could say American games is to destroy, Japanese games is feel up underage kids. Does that mean the Japanese have a fear of little kids.

It's bizarre, my favourite genre is FPS, but I love creation and 'upgrading.' I think that's why, while FPS is 'my thing,' I love Deus Ex and Stalker, over say Quake 3 or CoD4 (which isn't the same kind of 'creation' to me.)

I also love team multiplayer games far more than deathmatch. And I don't mean 'Team Deathmatch,' but actual classes, with roles to fulfil during the game.

gotta say that after I had built my cities in SimCity, I'd then go and create a few natural disasters to mess up the status quo.

so yeah even in our creationist games that destruction factor is still inherent

wtf, I've been destroying crap for the last 20 years mostly on Japanese games:

eating pills and ghosts, breaking bricks and princesses, shooting ships, whipping zombies, blowing up hitler's face, leveling up, street fighting, crashing cars, breaking metal gears, shooting zombies, mannequin nurses, and pyramid-heads, all on japanese games.

I read the first few sentences and was ready to make a sarcastic comment about someone from the Sonic franchise talking about Americans destroying video games but after finishing the article, I agree.

It's pretty obvious if you look at the two biggest Japanese and North American franchises; Final Fantasy (and Dragon Quest) both involve lots of numbers, class customisation, item collection, questing, and general character management. Halo involves shooting the fuck out of everything in sight as a one man army.

Even in a more macro view the comparison of Japan = RPG and North America = Shooter/Sports shows the same thing.

Looks like someone is still pissed about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Get over it already, we've destroyed way more stuff in the decades after those two little incidents.

I think he's pushing a very jaded japanese view of things. Don't forget, many japanese still think the U.K is all tea and crumpets.

This interview sound like he's not addressing the real problems in japanese games, for it is the other way around. Bare with me.

The west creates (Unreal 3 engine etc) and the japanese do little but the same, which in turn can destroy (Square and FF look stupid next to Mass Effect, while Mass Effect was flawed in places, Bioware tried to break new ground and take rpgs forward, while Square are not).

I don't see the japanese really innovating in 3d tech. And by his definition games like C&C, Sim City etc should sell a lot in japan.

Personally, I feel I enjoy all kinds of games, now more than ever, I can switch between what he classes as create and destroy games, and get just as much fun from either. As for the japanese gamers, I feel their tastes will also adjust in time and the 360 and MS will play a vital part in all that.

Just how are the sales of C&C in japan, anyway?

It's too broad of a generalization in my opinion. At times I play aggressive games to wind down, but I also play games like Harvest Moon for the same reason. Regardless most games with supposed destruction in them that I've played were Japanese. Games Like Kuon, Silent Hill, Metal, etc..

Why do we make generalizations like this? So we can actually say something sweeping that helps us understand things about the differences between groups of people. Generalizations are unfairly demonized but, as long as you remember their respective level of validity, there's nothing wrong with contemplating the widespread differences between people.

I think a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that the interviewee described the West as a bunch of crazy psychopathic destructive forces, hell bent on blowing the shit out of their enemies because we're just that crazy! His actual comments are far more low key.

An American developer could easily say that American games are a result of our interventionist mindset. That we can't stand by and let shit happen. We want to act. Not because we're some kind of heroes but because stuff like the rise of fundamentalism scares us. It scares Japan too but they're very isolationist by comparison and so they recoil back and build up walls around themselves to ward off the things that we deliberately confront. Years ago, before the World Wars, the situation was actually almost the opposite. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was a tremendous shift in confidence for both sides. Neither solution is definitively better. They're just different.

Also important to remember, not all Japanese games are made for strictly their own people. Hence, we've all played Japanese games that had their fair share of going forth and slaughtering our enemies. And American games that focus more on creating stability by focusing inward.

Depends really.
Love making stuff in games like building a house with items in the middle of half life 2. But build with intention to destroy mostly.
But it seems too muh of a sweeping sttement as the goryisr stuff iv seen has come outta japan.