Bluegrime on 29/3/2010 at 03:41
Quote:
Finally, this Japanese/Western dichotomy thing is trending toward some very ugly non-gaming related, almost-nationalist BS. Western game development picked up its pace and suddenly people are drawing lines and talking like they don't overlap a copious copious amount, like Nintendo and Sega didn't create a culture of gamer, that somehow Japan /West game development evolved independently. Nobody needs this kind of revisionist horseshit when it should be and largely is a culture of learning and sharing ideas.
What are you talking about? Who are you arguing with in this paragraph?
EvaUnit02 on 29/3/2010 at 10:28
Quote Posted by Jashin
Western games heavily rely on reaction-based gameplay. You can't dodge, you shoot the other guys before they kill you, then you grab some med packs. This basic underlying gameplay doesn't lend well to shoot-dodge-style bosses, and frankly
bosses in general.
Every one of your posts in this thread uses these extreme absolutist generalisations, quit making these.
There are loads of 3rd person Western developed games with dodge mechanics. Dodge moves just don't lend themselves well to particular styles and genres, like those which use an entirely first person perspective. Eg Namco's Breakdown for Xbox 1. You could execute barrel rolls and round house kicks, but they were disorienting and awkward to use.
I agree with your points about making boss fights which mesh with styles and genres, but there's more to it than that. You have to recognise there are just situations where boss fights don't lend themselves to a particular game's style and would seem not only out of place, but immersion breaking. Like say a game like GTA4 which is grounded in pseudo-realism. Say one of the key antagonists suddenly tried to fight pedestrian Nico by flying around in a helicopter gunship. All of a sudden this fairly serious crime drama (with pseudo-realistic game mechanics and a narrative tone fairly grounded in reality) jumps the shark with a scenario that feels lifted from a B-grade 80's action film, eg Rambo 2.
Quote:
Finally, this Japanese/Western dichotomy thing is trending toward some very ugly non-gaming related, almost-nationalist BS. Western game development picked up its pace and suddenly people are drawing lines and talking like they don't overlap a copious copious amount, like Nintendo and Sega didn't create a culture of gamer, that somehow Japan /West game development evolved independently. Nobody needs this kind of revisionist horseshit when it should be and largely is a culture of learning and sharing ideas.
*sigh* No shit that things didn't evolve independently, like how you can trace the origins of modern JRPGs to stuff like pen & paper RPGs, Wizardry, Ultima, ecetera in their core mechanics. But you've to be seriously blind if you can't recognise different trends in game design depending on their regional origins and culture.
Like how a lot of JRPGs tend to have more passive storytelling, that are more about following a linear narrative with fixed characters - where the player is just along for ride and his choices in character building only really affect say combat, rather than the story vs. Western RPGs which often lean towards putting that narrative in the player's hands, make him feel like he's actively shaping the outcome of things. Eg through non-linear, branched storytelling; your character building affecting options during available in conversation, etc.
How about how Japanese developers like to go ape shit over prerendered FMVs, which maybe very cinematic, but completely non-interactive. These often may leave the players thinking "Gee, this looks exciting, wish I could be playing this instead." A Western developer may approach the same situation with cinematic, highly scripted sequences, that occur during actual gameplay. Eg They might be railroaded and completely linear, but the player might more likely feel like he's a part of the action.
Such differences in game design might not be just influences by regional culture, but also the hardware platforms which are targeted, the heritage of game genres and styles that historically work or grew on those platforms, etc. The examples here should be self-explanatory. Eg certain games in particular genres of certain levels of gameplay complexity/depth only work on PC due to maybe controller limitations or the fact that they only trive on an open platforms that aren't restricted by a lot of red tape. Many 3rd party MMORPGs have been cancelled for consoles because developers/publishers haven't been able to get their economy model to work on these closed-platforms, due to all of the politics involved.
Jashin on 29/3/2010 at 15:46
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Every one of your posts in this thread uses these extreme absolutist generalisations, quit making these.
There are loads of 3rd person Western developed games with dodge mechanics. Dodge moves just don't lend themselves well to particular styles and genres, like those which use an entirely first person perspective. Eg Namco's Breakdown for Xbox 1. You could execute barrel rolls and round house kicks, but they were disorienting and awkward to use.
I agree with your points about making boss fights which mesh with styles and genres, but there's more to it than that. You have to recognise there are just situations where boss fights don't lend themselves to a particular game's style and would seem not only out of place, but immersion breaking. Like say a game like GTA4 which is grounded in pseudo-realism. Say one of the key antagonists suddenly tried to fight pedestrian Nico by flying around in a helicopter gunship. All of a sudden this fairly serious crime drama (with pseudo-realistic game mechanics and a narrative tone fairly grounded in reality) jumps the shark with a scenario that feels lifted from a B-grade 80's action film, eg Rambo 2.
*sigh* No shit that things didn't evolve independently, like how you can trace the origins of modern JRPGs to stuff like pen & paper RPGs, Wizardry, Ultima, ecetera in their core mechanics. But you've to be seriously blind if you can't recognise different trends in game design depending on their regional origins and culture.
Like how a lot of JRPGs tend to have more passive storytelling, that are more about following a linear narrative with fixed characters - where the player is just along for ride and his choices in character building only really affect say combat, rather than the story vs. Western RPGs which often lean towards putting that narrative in the player's hands, make him feel like he's actively shaping the outcome of things. Eg through non-linear, branched storytelling; your character building affecting options during available in conversation, etc.
How about how Japanese developers like to go ape shit over prerendered FMVs, which maybe very cinematic, but completely non-interactive. These often may leave the players thinking "Gee, this looks exciting, wish I could be playing this instead." A Western developer may approach the same situation with cinematic, highly scripted sequences, that occur during actual gameplay. Eg They might be railroaded and completely linear, but the player might more likely feel like he's a part of the action.
Such differences in game design might not be just influences by regional culture, but also the hardware platforms which are targeted, the heritage of game genres and styles that historically work or grew on those platforms, etc. The examples here should be self-explanatory. Eg certain games in particular genres of certain levels of gameplay complexity/depth only work on PC due to maybe controller limitations or the fact that they only trive on an open platforms that aren't restricted by a lot of red tape. Many 3rd party MMORPGs have been cancelled for consoles because developers/publishers haven't been able to get their economy model to work on these closed-platforms, due to all of the politics involved.
Are you shitting me? You just spent time typing up in part the dead obvious that almost everybody on any gaming site would know, much less TTLG, and in part the reiteration of what I've already said? And you're accusing me of "generalization," I mean WTWTF?!
GTA4 shouldn't have boss fights, errrr, DUH!! Games based on reality can't have bosses that are far removed from reality...what a revelation. All this is so obvious I didn't think it needed to be said.
EvaUnit02 on 29/3/2010 at 17:20
Then how about making arguments which don't paint yourself as a clueless simpleton who only thinks in absolute generalisations? Then people will know that obvious, basic fundamental shit doesn't need to be explained to you.
Oh and the whole "Japanese/Western dichotomy" thing? Where do you pull this shit from, I can't remember anyone ever arguing anything along the lines of evolution of game design being mutually exclusive in the West vs. Japan, anywhere. Instead of saying "Japanese-style" I should've said "style of boss battles often commonly appearing in Japanese made games"? The definition is as simple as that, I can't imagine the source of confusion over such a common idea.
When people say, for example "JRPG", there isn't a complex loaded meaning attached to it like you apparently are imagining there is.
Matthew on 29/3/2010 at 17:32
And for the love of god please edit out the huge and unnecessary quote of Eva's post in your reply.
gunsmoke on 29/3/2010 at 17:53
Isn't GTA known for end-game boss fights? GTA3 had the Helicopter at the dam (TOUGH fight), Vice City had the showdown at the mansion , both Lance and the Mobster), and GTA:SA had the EPIC Big Smoke/Tenpenny boss fight. Never finished IV.
Jashin on 30/3/2010 at 02:31
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Then how about making arguments which don't paint yourself as a clueless simpleton who only thinks in absolute generalisations? That people will know that obvious, basic fundamental shit doesn't need to explained to you.
Oh and the whole "Japanese/Western dichotomy" thing? Where do you pull this shit from, I can't remember anyone
ever arguing
anything along the lines of evolution of game design being mutually exclusive in the West vs. Japan,
anywhere. Instead of saying "Japanese-style" I should've said "style of boss battles often commonly appearing in Japanese made games"? The definition is as simple as that, I can't imagine the source of confusion over such a common idea.
When people say, for example "JRPG", there isn't a complex loaded meaning attached to it like you apparently are imagining there is.
We got it ass backwards, pal.
You just said "Japanese approach to bosses" like it meant something, and then tossed in a jumbo of deadpan obvious stuff with a metric ton of verbiage and like 10 tangents. WTF cinematic sequence? What does that have to do with boss fights?!?!
I'm the one who said the bosses are that way cus of the games themselves, broke down the basic gameplay premise and gave 3 detailed examples.
Don't bullshit me please.
Jashin on 1/4/2010 at 03:25
Oh wow, image macro. Trying to put the 4chan in TTLG are we?
june gloom on 1/4/2010 at 04:19
right because image macro automatically equals 4chan
