Earth Defense Force 5Lol thats true. Idk what other modern Japanese TPS are there. I guess RE6 or Binary Domain ?
Earth Defense Force 5Lol thats true. Idk what other modern Japanese TPS are there. I guess RE6 or Binary Domain ?
For me it's more that the genres I prefer usually lean to the Japanese side of things and the genres I don't care for (FPS, RTS, etc.) are more of a western thing.
One of the main reason for me, the soundtrack of japanese games is most of the time superior.
Japanese developers, to me, have more focus on gameplay, mechanics, and game feel. Western developers often sacrifice these things to pursue narrative, immersion, and story, things I don't care about much at all.
Only finished GoW but have tried 6 of them or previous iterations of them. Its hard to explain what im talking about so ill just give the example of the decision to get the camera way closer to Kratos and also remove the jump. Now its important to say that I love GoW and I think it has the best gameplay/mechanics of the franchise (never was a fan of the older ones) but this slight movement to a certain goal in these AAA games is something that I find off-putting in a specific part of the industry that I dont value as much as other game philosophies.Have you actually played them? Any of them? Or is pretty graphics the metric for "focus on realism"
Not only does GoW's cinematic focus make it an outlier amongst current trends, it also mixes the cinematic focus with other modern trends, for example, because of the pseudo open world, it's five times as long as the other GoW games. Not only that, but it absolutely does not have a focus on realism, the graphics are pretty yes, but they're also very heavily stylized like a film.Only finished GoW but have tried 6 of them or previous iterations of them. Its hard to explain what im talking about so ill just give the example of the decision to get the camera way closer to Kratos and also remove the jump. Now its important to say that I love GoW and I think it has the best gameplay/mechanics of the franchise (never was a fan of the older ones) but this slight movement to a certain goal in these AAA games is something that I find off-putting in a specific part of the industry that I dont value as much as other game philosophies.
Well you could look at something like Vanquish and Gears of War to see differences in how they approach Third person shooters. Idk any Japanese FPS tho. Or Maybe God of War and Bayonetta for Action. I don't feel any big differences when it comes to Racing games though.
I think the comparisons are mostly for Action,Adventure and RPGs.
I bet they'd watch Devil May Cry 5 ;)It's hard to describe the feeling but I recently played the Last of Us again and it feels like a movie that I can interact with (nothing negative about that, I love the game) while persona is more like a RPG with a lot of story scenes.
Like come on man, I have played The Last of Us with people who don't give a fuck about games and they love it because it is like watching a movie. You think any of those people would watch me play Persona 5 for 100 hours. The biggest AAA western games melt games and movies and that goes for content too. Tomb Raider is more grounded than Persona. GTA is more grounded than Yakuza. Skyrim is more grounded than Final Fantasy. The Last of Us is more grounded that Resident Evil 2. There are certainly Japanese games that go that want to do the same, something like The Evil Within. Just because they also have cut scenes does not mean that they feel like watching a movie.
It's hard to describe what I mean, but that the lines are more "sharp" and there are more angles in general.
The bottom one. The Japanese love to have hud elements all over the screen.
The compass being that far out of the corner is a dead give away.
I enjoy both.
Some of the posts in this thread are really, really, really weird. I'm sitting here wondering if some Japanese games fans have literally never played any non-Japanese games that weren't made by Sony or Rockstar. Maybe it's a cycle. People don't like non-Japanese games, so they don't play them, and as a result they don't really know what they're talking about.
People say weird stuff like, "Japanese developers place a higher priority on gameplay." Compared to whom? How does MGS place higher focus on gameplay than Thief? Than Splinter Cell? To Far Cry? Japanese developers were the ones with long, long, long cutscenes while most of the rest of the industry was chopping game narrative down to its bones.
People talk as thought Metal Gear Solid V, for example, is some amazing brainstroke of Japanese game design that is unique to Japan. It's basically a Ubisoft game without the systemic living breathing world stuff because that stuff is really hard to do. Where do people think that minimalist approach to narrative came from? Did they not play Far Cry 2 or something? Also, notice how nobody credits Call of Duty games for their extremely responsive controls? For their approach to storytelling that typically leaves the player in control of their character as much as possible?
I know most gamers don't know anything about game development, but it's kinda odd how many seem completely unaware that gameplay prototyping is the first stage of AAA game development. Before a game gets greenlit, developers typically have to demonstrate how it will play. Why people will want to play it. It's absolutely critical. Nobody sells their game to a publisher or gets it greenlit on the basis of having a cool sounding story. AAA publishers don't care about the story, the characters, the visuals. They don't care so much about why you do the things you do, but rather what you do.
The gameplay loop of a game is typically nailed down when the level design consists of coloured blocks. It is iterated and polished all the way to the end of development, and even after development ends. Developers work closely with playtesters to figure out how to make the gameplay better.
Not to mention all the comments about game music that blithely omit all the games with bold, evocative music so people can trot out some kind of "Japanese developers care about melody while everyone else only cares about mood music".
Far Cry New Dawn was released a month ago. Has a narrative so minimal it attracted complaints. Has a bold and memorable soundtrack that is slightly less bold and memorable than Far Cry 5, which was released a year ago. It's exactly the sort of game that gets ignored in these sorts of threads because it doesn't fit the weird "non-Japanese games are playable movies with bland meandering soundtracks and very little focus on gameplay" schtick.
Watch_Dogs 2 was released three years ago. Was deeply gameplay focused. Mechanics. Systems. Etc. Watch_Dogs 3 will be the same. So will the next Splinter Cell. In fact, as others have probably mentioned, the arguments against "western" game design seem to completely ignore the existence of Ubisoft as a company for the most part. Instead we get this fixation on Sony "cinematic" titles and Rockstar "stray too far to the left and it's game over" games.
Some of the posts in this thread are really, really, really weird. I'm sitting here wondering if some Japanese games fans have literally never played any non-Japanese games that weren't made by Sony or Rockstar. Maybe it's a cycle. People don't like non-Japanese games, so they don't play them, and as a result they don't really know what they're talking about.
People say weird stuff like, "Japanese developers place a higher priority on gameplay." Compared to whom? How does MGS place higher focus on gameplay than Thief? Than Splinter Cell? To Far Cry? Japanese developers were the ones with long, long, long cutscenes while most of the rest of the industry was chopping game narrative down to its bones.
People talk as thought Metal Gear Solid V, for example, is some amazing brainstroke of Japanese game design that is unique to Japan. It's basically a Ubisoft game without the systemic living breathing world stuff because that stuff is really hard to do. Where do people think that minimalist approach to narrative came from? Did they not play Far Cry 2 or something? Also, notice how nobody credits Call of Duty games for their extremely responsive controls? For their approach to storytelling that typically leaves the player in control of their character as much as possible?
I know most gamers don't know anything about game development, but it's kinda odd how many seem completely unaware that gameplay prototyping is the first stage of AAA game development. Before a game gets greenlit, developers typically have to demonstrate how it will play. Why people will want to play it. It's absolutely critical. Nobody sells their game to a publisher or gets it greenlit on the basis of having a cool sounding story. AAA publishers don't care about the story, the characters, the visuals. They don't care so much about why you do the things you do, but rather what you do.
The gameplay loop of a game is typically nailed down when the level design consists of coloured blocks. It is iterated and polished all the way to the end of development, and even after development ends. Developers work closely with playtesters to figure out how to make the gameplay better.
Not to mention all the comments about game music that blithely omit all the games with bold, evocative music so people can trot out some kind of "Japanese developers care about melody while everyone else only cares about mood music".
Far Cry New Dawn was released a month ago. Has a narrative so minimal it attracted complaints. Has a bold and memorable soundtrack that is slightly less bold and memorable than Far Cry 5, which was released a year ago. It's exactly the sort of game that gets ignored in these sorts of threads because it doesn't fit the weird "non-Japanese games are playable movies with bland meandering soundtracks and very little focus on gameplay" schtick.
Watch_Dogs 2 was released three years ago. Was deeply gameplay focused. Mechanics. Systems. Etc. Watch_Dogs 3 will be the same. So will the next Splinter Cell. In fact, as others have probably mentioned, the arguments against "western" game design seem to completely ignore the existence of Ubisoft as a company for the most part. Instead we get this fixation on Sony "cinematic" titles and Rockstar "stray too far to the left and it's game over" games.
I feel like Japanese games have always been more about testing your skill in some way, shape, or form.
On the other hand, many Western games are more about immersion, storyline, environment, or progression.
I love skill-test games (and develop them) so naturally, I've always loved Japanese games and continue to generally prefer them.
Capcom isn't the only Japanese developer. Naughty Dog isn't the only non-Japanese developer.I feel like Japanese games have always been more about testing your skill in some way, shape, or form.
On the other hand, many Western games are more about immersion, storyline, environment, or progression.
I love skill-test games (and develop them) so naturally, I've always loved Japanese games and continue to generally prefer them.
Some of the posts in this thread are really, really, really weird. I'm sitting here wondering if some Japanese games fans have literally never played any non-Japanese games that weren't made by Sony or Rockstar. Maybe it's a cycle. People don't like non-Japanese games, so they don't play them, and as a result they don't really know what they're talking about.
People say weird stuff like, "Japanese developers place a higher priority on gameplay." Compared to whom? How does MGS place higher focus on gameplay than Thief? Than Splinter Cell? To Far Cry? Japanese developers were the ones with long, long, long cutscenes while most of the rest of the industry was chopping game narrative down to its bones.
People talk as thought Metal Gear Solid V, for example, is some amazing brainstroke of Japanese game design that is unique to Japan. It's basically a Ubisoft game without the systemic living breathing world stuff because that stuff is really hard to do. Where do people think that minimalist approach to narrative came from? Did they not play Far Cry 2 or something? Also, notice how nobody credits Call of Duty games for their extremely responsive controls? For their approach to storytelling that typically leaves the player in control of their character as much as possible?
I know most gamers don't know anything about game development, but it's kinda odd how many seem completely unaware that gameplay prototyping is the first stage of AAA game development. Before a game gets greenlit, developers typically have to demonstrate how it will play. Why people will want to play it. It's absolutely critical. Nobody sells their game to a publisher or gets it greenlit on the basis of having a cool sounding story. AAA publishers don't care about the story, the characters, the visuals. They don't care so much about why you do the things you do, but rather what you do.
The gameplay loop of a game is typically nailed down when the level design consists of coloured blocks. It is iterated and polished all the way to the end of development, and even after development ends. Developers work closely with playtesters to figure out how to make the gameplay better.
Not to mention all the comments about game music that blithely omit all the games with bold, evocative music so people can trot out some kind of "Japanese developers care about melody while everyone else only cares about mood music".
Far Cry New Dawn was released a month ago. Has a narrative so minimal it attracted complaints. Has a bold and memorable soundtrack that is slightly less bold and memorable than Far Cry 5, which was released a year ago. It's exactly the sort of game that gets ignored in these sorts of threads because it doesn't fit the weird "non-Japanese games are playable movies with bland meandering soundtracks and very little focus on gameplay" schtick.
Watch_Dogs 2 was released three years ago. Was deeply gameplay focused. Mechanics. Systems. Etc. Watch_Dogs 3 will be the same. So will the next Splinter Cell. In fact, as others have probably mentioned, the arguments against "western" game design seem to completely ignore the existence of Ubisoft as a company for the most part. Instead we get this fixation on Sony "cinematic" titles and Rockstar "stray too far to the left and it's game over" games.
Apex Legends, Call of Duty, Starcraft, Destiny, and Overwatch are all examples of mechanics-first games. Just because you don't like the mechanics in those games doesn't mean they're not the focus.I don't really get holding up Ubisoft like some arbiter of gameplay mechanics because I find their games just as boring as EA or Activision's.
This made me lol.
Ubisoft has been one of the most transparent about their changing intent with game design and industry trends in general. You can literally track the shift in focus from the beginning of this gen to what their games are like now.I don't really get holding up Ubisoft like some arbiter of gameplay mechanics because I find their games just as boring as EA or Activision's.
I feel like you have to ignore like every popular JRPG series for this to true and focus on a subset of Western games.I feel like Japanese games have always been more about testing your skill in some way, shape, or form.
On the other hand, many Western games are more about immersion, storyline, environment, or progression.
I love skill-test games (and develop them) so naturally, I've always loved Japanese games and continue to generally prefer them.
More focus on gameplay
Even most big budget cinematic games like MGS has huge gameplay emphasis over everything else
As a punishment for the posts in this thread I shall stop playing japanese games for the rest of 2019.
The fact we STILL don't have a western game where I can shoot and suplex is enough proof on the matter.
Also...Ubisoft has been one of the most transparent about their changing intent with game design and industry trends in general. You can literally track the shift in focus from the beginning of this gen to what their games are like now.
I was asked for a non-Japanese game that had shooting and suplexes, I named one.