My Message close
GAME JOBS
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
May 20, 2013
 
Ringling College of Art and Design
Game Art + Design Faculty
 
Havok
Havok- 3D Software Engineers (Work in Dublin,...
 
University of Central Florida/School of Visual Arts & Design
Instructor or Lecturer
 
University of Central Florida/School of Visual Arts & Design
Assistant Professor
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
Sr. Network Systems Engineer
 
Treyarch / Activision
Technical Animator
spacer
Blogs

  Lost In Translation
by Tom Battey on 03/14/12 08:35:00 am   Featured Blogs
25 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra's game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It's easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra's home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.
 

Do Japanese games just suck?  To say so would be to ignore some fantastic output from Japanese studios in recent years – games like Bayonetta, Street Fighter IV, Dark Souls and Xenoblade Chronicles – but it seems that these few successes are in the minority.  The Japanese games industry is far from the critical powerhouse it was in the late 90′s, and there is a growing trend towards suck, spearheaded by previously untouchable studios like Capcom and Square.

Quantum Theory.  Lost Planet 2.  Knight’s Contract.  Bionic Commando.  I accept that taste is subjective, but come on; a lot of these games do suck.  There’s another trend in the Japanese industry at the moment, one that correlates quite neatly with what I’ll endearingly term the ‘trend to suck’; that’s the trend for Japanese developers to seek a wider audience by designing their games with a Western audience in mind.

I’ve written recently about the lack of audience understanding demonstrated by some game developers, and this rings doubly true for the big Japanese studios.  Their recent attempts, both to revitalise old franchises and to create new ones, seem to be the result of focus testing panels that are reaching to design games to appeal to everyone, and end up producing games that appeal to no one.

The Japanese and Western game cultures are very different.  We like very different sorts of games.  The recent Extra Credits serial on the cultural differences within the RPG genre gives a good introduction to some of the ways these cultures differ and why.  Games designed to fit each culture have been, in previous console generations at least, unique to their culture of origin.

Traditionally, Japanese developers have designed games for a Japanese audience (and Western developers have designed games for a Western audience).  Some of the franchises developed in Japan made their way to Western shores, and some of them became very popular.  I’d suggest the reason we, as a Western audience, loved these Japanese games was the inherent ‘Japanese-ness’ that comes from being designed for their home market.  Quite simply, they were completely different from anything Western studios were developing, and a lot of people chose to celebrate that.

In recent years the global gaming market has changed.  The Western market has ballooned massively, and the Japanese market has not.  It makes sense, in a way; the Western market encompasses the whole of North America and half of Europe, while the Japanese market encompasses only Japan.  This hasn’t stopped a lot of Japanese studios looking at the success of the West, and wondering what they’re doing wrong.

The decision, it seems, was that Japanese games would be more successful if they were more like Western games.  Motomu Toriyama, in an interview months before the release of ill-received Final Fantasy XIII stated that the design process had been influenced by Call of Duty.  Japanese developers put ‘appealing to a Western audience’ as a top priority.  The trouble is, the two cultures are so different that designing a game to effectively bridge them is an incredibly difficult task, and one few studios have undertaken successfully.

A good example is Tecmo’s 2010 shooter Quantum Theory.  The brief was clearly to imitate Gears of War in a bid for that sought-after Western lustre.  The team took the obvious elements of Gears game – chest high walls, sticky cover, a shoulder mounted camera and a roadie-run – and replicated them in what they must have felt was a pretty spot-on facsimile.

What they overlooked was the heart and soul of a Gears game, the pitch-perfect mechanical balance to every encounter, every kill, every Lancer round, fine-tuned mechanisms that could only have been developed by a team with years of experience creating competitive shooting games.

It’s not Team Tachyon’s fault that Quantum Theory sucked; they did the best they could to develop a game to the specification of a culture they didn’t understand.  Their efforts were lost in translation.

The same thing can be seen in much recent Japanese output; Binary Domain, Lost Planet, Kinght’s Contract, recent Resident Evil titles.  These games are seemingly built to fit the idea of a perfect ‘Western’ game – usually a Gears/God of War clone – and finished with a layer of Japanese aesthetics.  The results are games that miss the mark in both markets – too ugly and immediate to appeal to the Japanese home market, and too ‘quirky’ and mechanically inept to appeal to Western Gears fans.  These are games without an audience.

This response from the Japanese industry is understandable.  It does indeed appear that at one time everybody loved Japanese games, and that now everybody does not.  This belief further fuels the drive to appeal to a Western audience by designing more ‘Western’ games, creating a sort of missing-the-point feedback loop (in other words, a trend to suck).  Dragon’s Dogma, Capcom’s biggest game ever, looks like one of the producers watched a Skyrim trailer and got over-excited, and the world remains to be convinced by the Capcom-produced Ninja Theory-designed DmC.

What these studios are perhaps missing is the possibility that what Westerners liked about classic Japanese titles was their very foreignness, the fact that here was something that could never have been developed anywhere in the home market.  Epic Games could never have created Pokémon or Final Fantasy; such titles could only have come out of Japan, and we loved them for that very reason.

In their bid to appeal to a Western audience, the mainstream Japanese studios have only managed to lose what appealed to this audience in the first place.  Do Japanese games ‘just suck?’  No, but Japanese games designed for a Western audience usually do.  If Japanese studios could find the confidence to play to their strengths and celebrate the difference between the two gaming cultures, rather than treating it as something to be ashamed of, I’m positive we’d be seeing stronger games, and they’d be seeing stronger sales.

 
 
Comments

Iain Miller
profile image
I think you're over generalizing a little bit. Monster Hunter is great and there is an audience for it in the West. Maybe not as big as Call of Duty but it's there. There's an audience for games like Dark Souls as well. There are some great Japanese games, but perhaps not as many as there used to be.

Tom Battey
profile image
I don't doubt there's a market out there - I'm one of them. Dark Souls and Monster Hunter Tri are two of my favourite games from the last few years. These are great examples of Japanese games done right - studios playing to their strengths and creating great games.

It's worth noting that there's totally a market for games like CoD and Halo in Japan as well - these games sell pretty well there by the standards of the genre - it's just a much more niche market than those titles enjoy over here, much like the Western JRPG market is considered a niche.

Dedan Anderson
profile image
What i would like to see in an article like this is less conjecture and more facts...

"The Japanese games industry is far from the critical powerhouse it was in the late 90′s, and there is a growing trend towards suck, spearheaded by previously untouchable studios like Capcom and Square."

Support this statement with facts, even metacritic or sales would be nice... show west vs jp now and west vs jp then...

"The trouble is, the two cultures are so different that designing a game to effectively bridge them is an incredibly difficult task, and one few studios have undertaken successfully."

Maybe this is true, maybe not, but give me some substantiating facts that pertain to fun factor and games...

"No, but Japanese games designed for a Western audience usually do."

prove this, both DMC and Street Fighter were both design for the west and do better in the west...

"The same thing can be seen in much recent Japanese output; Binary Domain, Lost Planet, Kinght’s Contract, recent Resident Evil titles. These games are seemingly built to fit the idea of a perfect ‘Western’ game – usually a Gears/God of War clone – and finished with a layer of Japanese aesthetics."

Hmm fact check: lost planet came out a MONTH after Gears of war, i find it hard to believe that it could have been a clone... Curious why even mention God of War and Knights Contract... i agree it's not the best game, but i wouldn't call it GoW clone just because it has Quick Time Events, unless you want to call GoW a Shenmue/Die Hard Arcade clone? And Resident Evil you must be talking about Operation Raccoon City i guess... I think perhaps there could have been better examples to pick from...

THQ just closed 11 studios but no one is screaming Western Games suck...

Tom Battey
profile image
Everything I wrote is conjecture - I'm not claiming that anything I wrote is true, it's just my opinion of a trend I've noticed, and it's a trend I've noticed more in industry opinion and media coverage than in actual sales data.

It would be interesting to see if sales data supports my theory or not - are the sales for a 'poor' 'westernised' Japanese game like Quantum Theory (with a metracritic score of 37) substantially lower than those of a 'great' 'Japanese' Japanese game like Bayonetta (metracritic of 90)?

When I've got some time on my hands I might try and find some concrete data, but as it stands, this is my opinion of the situation based widely from media opinions from around the net.

Ryan Marshall
profile image
Maybe I'm thinking about this too much, or not enough, but the "obvious" problem seems to be developers attempting to make games that they would not personally enjoy, or that they lack the technical expertise to design. Culture has little to do with it.

At least in my basic understanding, most games are designed by taking an existing game and then innovating/improving on the good parts while removing the bad parts. Knowing what works and what doesn't is fundamental to any possible design, and the more of these people you can get together, the better chance you have of creating a superior product.

It would be virtually impossible to design a hit game when you don't enjoy and/or lack significant experience in making games of that genre. Attempting to make such a game, purely for financial gain, is probably not going to work. It's like art.

Tom Battey
profile image
You're dead on, as far as I'm concerned. However, doesn't culture in some way define the types of game people enjoy? Western and Japanese gamers have traditionally enjoyed very different sorts of games. This is a point I perhaps didn't make well enough in the article.

A bigger issue than simple enjoyment - and it is difficult to develop a great game if you have no love for it - is technical experience, and I think this is what trips studios like Team Tachyon up. They have no experience in building shooting games, yet they are developing a title that is supposed to compete with those developed by studios that have built shooting games for years. It would be extremely hard to succeed under those circumstances.

Justin Speer
profile image
"Dragon’s Dogma, Capcom’s biggest game ever, looks like one of the producers watched a Skyrim trailer and got over-excited..."

This critique is incredibly uninformed and dismissive. Why belittle this game? If you want to argue that it's an example of Westernization, consider that nobody owns a thematic setting and it's not as if Japan had ignored/hadn't been influenced by Western fantasy before. Had you heard of Dragon Quest? What about Capcom's own King of Dragons or Knights of the round? I'm also pretty sure that Arthur in Ghosts 'n Goblins isn't Japanese.

From what I've seen Dragon's Dogma looks pretty interesting, and I think it's foolish to write it off for such a specious reason.

Tom Battey
profile image
I'll go into a bit more detail on Dragon's Dogma, as I came off pretty dismissive and did not intend to suggest that the game will be awful when it comes out. Nor did I mean to suggest that the West has a monopoly on dragons because Skyrim had them in, or anything like that.

What I know about Dragon's Dogma is all anyone knows about it at this point - that it's a third-person, open world adventure/combat with a party mechanic, built by the developers of Devil May Cry.

The issue I have with Dragon's Dogma is that it's an incredibly ambitious game with a myriad of elements, that's being built by a studio who have only really excelled at making combat engines. Now I love Devil May Cry, but it's hard to argue its merit outside of its aesthetic and its superlative combat. Devil May Cry has never featured great level design, a great story, or anything like an open world, all of which are promised in Dragon's Dogma.

I hope you can see my issue here, and it's largely apart from the choice of what's generally considered a traditionally Western fantasy aesthetic. This is a very ambitious game, built by a studio who don't have experience designing this sort of thing.

Open world games are notoriously hard to get right - and it's a genre that's been largely dominated by Western games in the past, which only makes it harder to believe that Capcom will get it right on their first try.

It's certainly a very interesting game, and I hope I am proven wrong; I'd love it if it turned out to be fantastic, as in principle 'Skyrim with Devil May Cry combat' is close to my idea of a perfect game. However, I'm going to exercise caution, as I think it's unlikely that they'll get it right this time around. Some reports of hands-on with the game have only worsened my fears; it's up to Capcom to prove me wrong, I guess.

Bernardo Del Castillo
profile image
@Tom, I agree with most of your article. But this is a good point. I have been hearing over and over again, that dragon's dogma is like DMC meets Skyrim, but I don't really agree with that, to me it seems like the game has a much more focused approach to storyline, action and general gameplay. It is open ended , but it also appears quite capcom from the shown footage. It seems that any open ended game that comes out nowadays, depending on its aesthetics and plot, is immediately compared to the current elder scrolls iteration, the current GTA iteration, and now the current fallout.

In my books, Dragon's dogma has more of monster hunter (already huge open ended and very complex on its own) which surprise surprise, is developed by capcom. I believe that they are trying to do something quite interesting, which is adapting things that they know and are proven to work on japan, to a wider (if more generic) aesthetic sensibility. Of course they are adding a whole new layer of mechanics, but I see this as a common developer's ambition, not necessarily a western imitation.

Now about the question, could dragon dogma have existed without skyrim? I'd say yes, Dragon's dogma looks as much like Demon's souls as Skyrim (or oblivion, or morrowind, because lets face it those games are mostly iterative). I just feel that in general many modern fantasy settings tend to blur and merge together. but thats jsut how I see the genre.I might be wrong but for me, skyrim is a joyless husk, more of an evergrowing evermutating tumor in modern gaming, than a beacon of modern western games.

Will dragon's dogma be good? I sure hope so. But I'm not sure if it will do good comercialy and with the audience either way. Marketting of Japanese games seems rather non existant, and additionall there has been a constant atmosphere of slandering japanese production in the last few years, some deserved, most just repetition.
It also seems that their approach to social, online and massive gaming is different, and that seems to be what the cool kids are playing these days.
Anyhow, I still can't understand why Vanquish, didn't get more props. (About SF4 we have different opinions).

Tom Battey
profile image
@Bernardo

I've been looking at some recent Dragon's Dogma footage, and you know what, I think it looks fantastic. It looks more like a Monster Hunter/Dark Souls hybrid, which if done right has the potential to be even more my favourite game than it's original billing as a Skyrim/DMC combo.

If anything positive has come from this discussion, it's that I'm much more interested in this game now than I was when I started writing. Having said that, I'm still going to exercise caution. One, it's pretty easy to make anything look good in a trailer. Two, Capcom's output has been hit-or-miss lately; Monster Hunter is still fantastic, but it's also damn old now. A three, I remember quite a few games delivering grand promises to merge the action and RPG genres into one transcendent uber-genre; some of these games turned out alright. A lot more of them sucked.

I hope that this turns out to be a Monster Hunter scenario for Capcom; an ambitious and initially contentious IP that turns out to be fantastic. If the actual game lives up to those trailers and those promises, I'll be pretty happy.

With regards to Skyrim, I think there are things that the game does wonderfully (world design, its lore and its scenario design) and things it does awfully (every aspect of its combat and it terrible dungeon design). Such has always been the case with Bethesda titles.

On the whole, I still found it a good deal more absorbing than the majority of games these days, largely due to the unparalleled sense of agency it gives the player. It's a game you feel you can really explore, even if all you really end up finding are more shit Draugr fights.

Still, I could write a whole new article (and then some) on the things that game does well and those it does not. Sorry to hear you don't enjoy it quite as much as I did.

Iain Miller
profile image
Can someone explain, in detail, what exactly is wrong with Skyrim's combat? Specifics please.

Tom Battey
profile image
@Iain Miller: Sure thing.

The worst aspect, for me, is the weightlessness. This is apparent in the whole game; your character sort of glides around without any sense of physical weight. It's noticable when you try to climb a hill, and the character moves up an incline at a perfectly even speed until the incline becomes one degree too great, at which point it's like trying to walk through a solid wall. It's noticeable too in the combat, where you sort of glide around doing a sword animation. There's the special heavy attacks, where the character moves forwards at a constant speed whilst doing the animation and then stops, delivering a blow without any sense of momentum or weight.

Worse are the times that an enemy simply doesn't react to a blow from your weapon. If I'm hitting an elf with a sword roughly the size of his entire body, I'd expect him to feel it, and more times than not it seems like he doesn't. Sometimes an enemy will stagger, and sometimes you'll get a cut-away kill cam, but these seem to based on luck and statistics. Most of the time, the enemy keeps on attacking even as your sword passes through him with a sort of thunk sound, giving the impression that you're just wafting you sword back and forth through their body until their health bar has sufficiently depleted.

This is more apparent in fights with larger creatures, especially dragons; fighting a dragon with a melee character involved waiting for it to land, then running over so your screen fills with scale texture and then swinging your sword back and forth until it either dies or flies back up again.

Enemies react even less to magic and ranged attacks. Fighting as a mage often boils down to pouring magic onto a bad guy whilst jogging backward, hoping that their health depletes before they reach you and cut you down. It works the other way around as well; fighting mages as a melee build mostly involves charging forward while they back off and shoot fire/lightning/ice, hoping that you reach and kill them before your health runs out.

Then there's the fact that if you do get low on health, you can at any point pause the game and chug a load of health potions, which turns some of the games tougher battles, especially against the Dragon Cult Draugr wizards, into a war of attrition. You both blast away at each other, and when your health gets low you chug a few potions. The challenge becomes making sure you have enough health potions to outlast their health bar.

Skyrim's combat isn't terrible as such; it's better than Oblivion's, if barely. The ability to dual-wield magic and weapons adds some element of strategy, but largely it still boils down to slashing away with little sense of impact until whatever is in front of you is dead. It's perfectly functional, but considering the size of the game and the amount of fighting there is to do, it's not got nearly enough nuance to stop it from becoming stale.

Bernardo Del Castillo
profile image
Hey Tom!
sorry I never actualy knew you had replied :(

Yes, I did not like Skyrim, but I didn't finish it though. My problem is that it is a huge game with lackong attention to detail in almost all areas. As you say scenaries are fantastic.. but the game rarely really ever tries to give them any special meaning (yes it remains in the hands of the player, as everything else)

One comparison that is veryclear to me is Kingdoms of Amalur, and Skyrim. when you harvest a plant in skyrim... the branch disappears, no fuzz.. but when you harvest a plant in KoA, there is a detailed animation of it crumbling down and wilting. When you get to a bandit camp in KoA they are doing pushups, cooking, jogging, they are alive, instead of waiting uncomfortably doing suspicious ammounts of nothing.
What I mean is, I don't feel as an agent in Skyrim, I feel like I'm walking around in a beautiful cardboard set where everything is profoundly unnatural and rather gratuitous. It gives me too many options but almost no reasons to really care about any of it.

(that and your description of combat, spot on, broom, doubleaxe, don't feel any different).

I would really love to love Skyrim tbh.. but sadly the game doesn't care much.

Tom Battey
profile image
@BernardoI've not played Kingdoms of Amalur beyond the demo, which I enjoyed - it's much more immediate that Skyrim, with a heavy emphasis on visual flare. I suspect there may be a trade-off in depth (in the quest narratives, in the scale of the world, in the character specialisation options) but without playing the whole thing I can't say. It's a balance that's almost impossible to get right, but KoA is certainly on my 'to play' list.

And while I'd not consciously noticed before, you make a good point - a lot of the NPCs in Skyrim do seem to spend a lot of their time standing in front of dungeons, staring rigidly forwards. Perhaps they're just following very strict guarding guidelines...

Jake Shapiro
profile image
I agree Japanese games are going downhill as they pander to audiences, but is it any worse than the trend of Western developers pandering with slews of generic online multiplayer-focused FPSes?

Tom Battey
profile image
It's no worse, certainly - it's just a different issue. Both trends lead to some pretty terminable games. I suppose it could be argued that at least the developers of lacklustre FPS titles know their audience - it's the Call of Duty audience, to a man. It's a depressinly uncreative method of design, and I do wish people wouldn't keep on buying these games, but unfortunately sales figures back these guys up. Until mediocre FPS title stop selling, mediocre FPS titles aren't going to go away.

Kevin Fisk
profile image
I consider myself to be pretty young as I was just a kid during the 80's and 90's when arcades were aplenty but does everyone (including the author) have no memory of this at all? Think back to the old arcade games like Contra or Final Fight with outrageously buff characters, nonsensical translations, and poor use of English lingo. These great games were designed with western audiences in mind 20-30 years ago. Japanese developers have always been making games for Western audience and were quite successful before. To think this is a recent [i]trend[/i] is mistaken.

The only thing the author got right was that western developers moved into the console world and are simply better at developing for a western audience which makes a lot of sense. Also why does everyone feel free to ignore Nintendo when discussing Japanese developer success in western markets?

Tom Battey
profile image
I'd not thought back as far as the golden age of the arcade, as I was never part of the scene - those days had more or less passed by the time I was old enough to spend my own money.

I may have over-generalised with the whole 'targeting a Western audience' thing - I don't doubt Japanese developers have always targeted a Western audience; they'd be stupid not to.

But back then there was no drive for Japanese games to be more like Western games - Western games had little presence in the arcades, much like on early consoles. The Japanese games designed then were still very much Japanese games - I suppose one example I can think of would be to compare Time Crisis (Japanese arcade game) with Quake (Western PC game) - both shooting games, but built with entirely different approaches.

Kevin Fisk
profile image
Yeah, I can see better where you're going with that angle but I'm still not entirely convinced. I think it's more that Japanese developers are required to compete when they weren't required to before. There's a number of new hurdles the west has thrown at Japan like online multiplayer. I can't think of a japanese developed game that has a stable online community that can compare to any of the mainstream FPS titles we have here. It doesn't help that the contemporary multiplayer model for games came from the PC which didn't really exist as a gaming platform in Japan. Not to mention home consoles aren't really that popular in Japan anymore compared to mobile/portable.

Tom Battey
profile image
You're right; in previous generations the Western and Japanese models didn't really have to compete, as they developed primarily for different platforms - Western developers on PC and Japanese developers on consoles and arcade machines.

With the recent generation of online-enabled consoles and Western-driven console franchises, Japanese developers are stuggling to compete where they didn't have to before.

It's interesting that you bring up Nintendo, because Nintendo have always been largely immune to gaming trends, using long-established franchises and a heavily-entrenched fanbase to enable them to do...basically whatever they want. Some things work (the DS, the Wii in 2006) and some things don't (the 3DS launch, the Wii in 2012) but they keep on turning out fantastic games regardless, and people keep buying them.

While I think that Nintendo refusing to acknowledge the relevance of online gaming is absolutely fine so long as they keep turning out great games, I'm worried it won't work for them much longer. Apple and Google are busily cannibalising the casual market that the DS and Wii helped create, and with console gaming becoming increasingly high-budget and online-focused, it could go badly for Nintendo should they decide to try and carry another platform on the strength of their core games alone.

Harry Fields
profile image
Shenmue 3 plzkthx :D

Joshua Oreskovich
profile image
The problem both systems have is the difference between actual and virtual. Games that apply actuality have a much greater chance to connect with the audience than those that don't. As the meme's change so also does the need for greater actuality in video games, where they are virtual.

A couple examples:

Virtual war with actual consequences ~ Battle Field 3.

While you might think the major breakthrough for this game is it's ability to look real, it's not. the major break throughs are what people love in the game itself. Tanks being driven for instance, this is a relatively new concept to games (though it shouln't be) and is as real as video games come to the subject, so it is widely accepted and virtual connection.

Likewise an astoundingly smart progression system (ironic it's EA) with giving relation of rank versus "just levels".

guns that have to be learned versus just used... ect.

While the system is still evolving it's the best demonstration of actual understanding and has the greatest ability to connect. This isn't to imply these ideas are the best possible, but culturally they are ahead of the general cultural knowledge of the avg "console head".

Now look at AoC, the mechanics failed miserably. Typical MMOG crappy grindfest for the most part. why do games rave about is first 20 levels then?

Believability the difference of actual vs virtual.

Yes, it's fascinating to watch multiple beheadings and limbs being toss off bodies like in Monty's holy grail.

But deeper than that is the comprehension, that there is connected realization, inherent in what war does, and seeing that allows for believeing in what is going on. This also happens in connected conscious of the landscape. And it's wonderful to enjoy.

Now what if many years ago when Bilestoad first arrived on the PC in the 80s, it started a revolution in gaming? Instead of simple blood splatters, we had limbs being tossed about in more games than not?

Would that change our perspective?

Of course it would, because we would be searching for something even more relative to our understanding of the actions.

Again, we also see the reality of where AoC succeeds in button combinations. Bringing to life a completely arbitrary action in most MMOGs. We see this same change in Vindictus. Or the Wii.
the issue is the keyboard, and the keypad need to deliver better a believeable experience. It's not a matter of public communication so much a sa disatisfaction with current delivery methods.

there is definitely a cultural difference between Japan and the "west", but if either make failures it's from a lack of understanding both culturals knowledge of what is acceptable virtual reality, and what needs to be implicitly actual.

Tom Battey
profile image
That's an interesting perspective. While Battlefield 3 certainly isn't the first game to feature driveable tanks (though it may be the first in the new generation of Modern Warfare-inspired 'cinematic' shooters) and other games have definately used ranks rather than levels to define progression (I'm pretty sure both the Resistance and Killzone games on PS3 did this), you make a good argument for immersion being a major draw in games, and a correlation between a game's immediacy, or its actuality, and its immersion.

I read an great article somewhere that suggested that the Japanese approach is to create a game that is 'about' something, whereas the Western approach is to try and make a game 'be' something. Traditional JRPG combat is a good example, as it's a visual approximation of an actual battle that we, the player, can't actually see. The implication is that there is an epic battle occurring, but the only interaction we have with it is through a linear, menu-operated approximation. Compare this to the modern Western approach, which tries to render battles as if you are actually right there in the moment.

While there is certainly an argument that immediacy is more compelling and accessible for players, and the current move away from 'traditional' RPG systems (spearheaded by the likes of Bioware), I'd suggest that there is something to be said for the other approach, for games that let us engage with a game's fiction without being right in the centre of it, which whilst less immediate perhaps give us the opportunity to conceive of an experience greater than that the game can immediately encompass.

If that reads like waffle, I'll try to give an example; an FPS game gives a very immediate and human depiction of war through the eyes of one soldier, but says very little about the larger considerations of war, or the idea of war itself. An RTS, in comparison, it's very 'hands-off', but encompasses conflict on a greater scale than an FPS would ever be able to realise. Each approach offers a different perspective on war, and war-games, and each is a valid approach. Not every game needs to be 100% actual to engage a player.

Joshua Oreskovich
profile image
No it doesn't need to be 100% actual, but when the virtual reality is too strong or distracting it's generally far wiser to create believable distinct abstractions versus virtual reality which yanks us out of immersion and loses connection.

The strength western RPGs have: being the center of the universe. Your focus on the puppet representing your ego. When virtual reality no longer works to provide believable contrast to this puppet it has strayed too far from actual representation of what believable fantasy is.

What's believable fantasy then? It is largely subjective to each players experiences or knowledge.
.
But there are common threads.

Common categories like elves and dragons, movie character theme relation, time travel.
Uncommon which could be like folklore, regional history
Rare would like super abstractions, anomalies generally very hard to grasp ideas, religion, politics.

When all these varying fantasy ideas come out partially completed or distorted, they become "virtually"

Ever played Everquest? where everything seems "peculiar" like it's misunderstood or distorted view?
Or where monsters are labeled with "names" like Alpha_Wolf_003?

that's virtual reality. It's representing an idea, but piss poorly. It's the same idea as when players dislike collection quests. It's not the tasking that's the issue it's the delivery method, you know you are being sent to do a menial task. It's a virtual concept, without good connectivity.

The reason for the success of early JRPGs was their handcrafted nature that demonstrated actuality where possible. And they did it amazingly well. Coupled with stories with connected authorship. It doesn't matter if it wasn't "about you" because you still identified concretely so well you literally felt it was you. Or you are there in the moment.

So where is virtual "ok". Only where actuality has no commonly defined understanding. Most of the time this is where the story bring a new idea, like the concepts in DX:HR. There isn't a strong representation of actual so virtual plays the role where abstraction doesn't shed enough light on a subject. In gameplay it should only be where 2d graphics can not do justice to something 3d, or where gameplay cannot be demonstrated otherwise.

Tom Battey
profile image
The issue becomes, I guess, a matter of cohesion in a game's fiction. Whether actual or virtual, if the systems, everything from the character design to the menus, gel with the overall fiction of the game, then the player will 'buy' it. If it doesn't, it becomes too apparent that what they are experiencing is a virtual reality; after all ever game is a virtual reality, but the most believable ones are those that hide it best.

Your Everquest example is a good one, with an arbitrary naming system that bares no relevance to the theme or lore of the game. I'm currently playing Xenoblade Chronicles, which is in many respects a great game, but it has these incongruencies that keep dragging me out of the experience. Like swimwear that is somehow more resistant than a suit of body armour. The reasoning is obvious, if unfortunate - people like to see anime girls in swimwear - but the reality is I've got one character wearing a massive suit of armour, one wearing a bikini, and one with no trousers on; it makes it pretty difficult to become invested in the game's story when these characters are supposed to be my ciphers.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Tech