Okay then explain it. You say gameplay is one of the factors that don't make TLOU good, implying that it's only the story, so if the MP is popular which is only gameplay, then does that not refute your point?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
BOTW, RE2, Sekiro, DMCV, Nier, FF7R - Have japanese devs surpassed the western devs?
- Thread starter Fredrik
- Start date
Okay then explain it. You say gameplay is one of the factors that don't make TLOU good, implying that it's only the story, so if the MP is popular which is only gameplay, then does that not refute your point?
I for one am glad ND stayed away from that thought process lol. About having enough "enemy variety" or boss battles... that's exactly what made it special. They didn't force that garbage.
I said the gameplay was serviceable. You claimed I said it was bad. That's a straw man. And you're trying to change the argument. Just stop.
I felt it was the weakest part of the package by a large margin. TLOU was a really good and enjoyable experience overall. However, the gameplay is not what made it exceptional. That was the story and characters. You may like it, but it left a lot of people expecting great gameplay from a great game underwhelmed in that regard.
Western games are real good at emulating movies. I'll give them that.
But aside from indies and smaller studios I rarely get too much enjoyment out of their designs and publishers being greedy assholes has reached so far into the DNA of a lot of the big names that I actively avoid playing their games.
I don't think "surpassed" is the right word though. The minute you compare you put people on the defensive. People who like TLOU and GOW2018 aren't the bad guy unless they just say their game is "better." While I think JRPG writing in general was at its peak in the PS1/PS2 era, there's been some good surprises since.
Just like there's a bunch of tropes in western game dev with brooding dudes or military dudes, there's just as many off the assembly line copies in JRPGs at times. I think the comparison is apples to oranges in that regard. I'm glad to see the JRPG comeback stories lately though, and japanese games in general to me have always been more fun to play across the board. Somewhere people got in their head that we have to have "realism" to be a good game and that gaming needs to "prove themselves" to other media, and I've never agreed.
But aside from indies and smaller studios I rarely get too much enjoyment out of their designs and publishers being greedy assholes has reached so far into the DNA of a lot of the big names that I actively avoid playing their games.
I don't think "surpassed" is the right word though. The minute you compare you put people on the defensive. People who like TLOU and GOW2018 aren't the bad guy unless they just say their game is "better." While I think JRPG writing in general was at its peak in the PS1/PS2 era, there's been some good surprises since.
Just like there's a bunch of tropes in western game dev with brooding dudes or military dudes, there's just as many off the assembly line copies in JRPGs at times. I think the comparison is apples to oranges in that regard. I'm glad to see the JRPG comeback stories lately though, and japanese games in general to me have always been more fun to play across the board. Somewhere people got in their head that we have to have "realism" to be a good game and that gaming needs to "prove themselves" to other media, and I've never agreed.
I would also argue that a lot of the recent Japanese AAA games are great specifically because of what they learned from western games.
BOTW feels like a western-style immersive sim in many ways, and if you look at interviews it's clear Nintendo got that from Skyrim and Minecraft. Zelda 1 back in the day was likely at least partially inspired by the Ultima games.
Resident Evil is debatable. RE2 remake just feels like they modernized the controls from RE4 and mixed them with the original structure of RE2. You can't deny though that RE7, at least from a market perspective, was inspired by recent western horror games like Amnesia and Outlast. But those games were already superficially similar to classic RE. They were just more modernized interpretations of the original Alone in the Dark formula.
More generally speaking, a lot of recent big-budget Japanese games seemingly just learned certain QOL features from western games, combining them with their own styles of game design, which is all we really wanted them to do in the first place.
BOTW feels like a western-style immersive sim in many ways, and if you look at interviews it's clear Nintendo got that from Skyrim and Minecraft. Zelda 1 back in the day was likely at least partially inspired by the Ultima games.
Resident Evil is debatable. RE2 remake just feels like they modernized the controls from RE4 and mixed them with the original structure of RE2. You can't deny though that RE7, at least from a market perspective, was inspired by recent western horror games like Amnesia and Outlast. But those games were already superficially similar to classic RE. They were just more modernized interpretations of the original Alone in the Dark formula.
More generally speaking, a lot of recent big-budget Japanese games seemingly just learned certain QOL features from western games, combining them with their own styles of game design, which is all we really wanted them to do in the first place.
To be fair, in the game's the OP listed, there is actually not so much 'weeb' in those games. In fact I've seen a vocal minority criticize DMC5 for losing it's anime aesthetic for photo-realism.
It's just to me that Era tends to have an incredibly narrow idea of what makes good gameplay. Many of the most popular western games around today are almost entirely just gameplay with little in the way of story. But because they aren't what people on here like, they act like they don't exist.
This is silly. Devs have varying strengths and weaknesses. In the past, we asserted that eastern devs struggled with shooting mechanics and aspects associated with it, while western devs struggled with melee combat and movement. However, I think we're increasingly reaching a point where there are fewer and fewer differences between devs, especially geographically or ideologically, and it comes down to development team strengths/makeup and priorities. I remember years ago David Jaffe was speaking of the original GoW and remarked how he knew that in terms of gameplay that DMC3 was the superior game, and while DMCV mechanically is a deeper game than GoW (2018), GoW more successfully advanced its gameplay relative to DMCV.
Can you explain what specifically about the gameplay was poor or that you thought other TPS did far better? Presumably you realise there's a lot more to what constitutes as good gameplay than enemy variety?
From your posts it almost sounds like you might value bosses and enemy variety more than actual gameplay depth and/or diversity, quality of AI, better combat arena design, greater variety of approach options, better animations and control options/fluidity etc.
Eg, more limiting stop and pop cover or corridor shooting is considered better to you so long as the things you're shooting are more varied, whereas more dynamic and diverse combat gameplay is less prioritised?
Some of Era, certainly.
I think that's where some are unable to draw the distinction between gameplay they don't enjoy or that isn't as appealing to them personally, vs what actually constitutes as poor or bad gameplay. Eg, the inability to appreciate that a game can still have good or even great gameplay, even if it is gameplay they didn't personally enjoy.
Last edited:
Both sides learned a lot from each other over the years. for example this is what Dan Houser from Rockstar said about the inspiration of Mario and Zelda on N64:
(Anyone who makes 3-D games who says they've not borrowed something from Mario or Zelda is lying — from the games on Nintendo 64, not necessarily the ones from today. But I would argue in that regard we've certainly been more sinned against than sinning.)
Every TPS game out there is using RE4 perspective.
Souls is everywhere.
Team Ico started a whole culture of building video games in an entirely different way, in focusing on the interactivity not the game of (win or lose). RiMe, Gris and Journey are examples for games that were heavily influenced by them.
Inspiration between the two sides has been going around in circles for longer than most people realize.
Souls itself started as a successor to King's Field which may or may not have been From Software's response to Ultima Underworld.
Ico was directly inspired by Another World and the original Prince of Persia game.
I wouldn't say surpassed they are better at certain genres and western devs are better at others.
Hey, it is always convenient when someone wrote the exact same answer you'd give.
To use your own example of Gears of War: Early game they introduce quick melee/close damage enemies like wraith/clickers/lambent wraiths, then enemy soldiers and so on. Late in most Gears games they start freshening the encounter design by doing things like putting heavies like snipers/boomers/heavy chain gunners on the field *while* simultaneously swarming you with say clickers. Which forces the player out of their routine stop and pop to deal with the clickers first to avoid being swarmed by them, which would force them out of cover and into the sights of high damage heavies in the back of the field. They use enemies with distinct purposes you've fought one on one before and mix them in more and more interesting ways that forces the player to change behavior.
To give an MUCH better example is this great video just released of Doom Eternal, which greatly emphasizes the specific mechanical design of each enemy and how it forces the player to change behavior and stay engaged.
Designing DOOM Eternal's New & Classic Demons
SUBSCRIBE for More Free Game Docs ► http://bit.ly/noclipsubscribeBecome a PATRON to unlock more videos ► https://www.patreon.com/noclipHugo Martin (Game Dire...
youtu.be
This is not to say that TLOU is *completely* deficient in that department, it's not. And as I said in my first post and you agreed with, mechanically there's a great deal of complexity in terms of the gameplay systems and how they are integrated. Certainly more than enough to equal the types of systems found in Japanese games. The tension of remaining in stealth and not alerting enemies can make a great deal of difference in how an encounter plays out. But fundamentally, the gameplay variety rarely changes. I sneak around waist high walls and throw the occasional can to grab a guy in the courthouse, and I do the exact same thing in the hospital at the very end. Really the one exception to this is when you play as Ellie in Winter and she has different mechanical strengths and weaknesses than Joel like with her pocket knife instead of shivs. Frankly I don't even think the lack of variety is a huge problem on its own, TLOU is my favorite game from last gen, but it is a noticeable flaw on an otherwise masterpiece of a game if only because the campaign is substantially longer than your average Gears game. It's not that encounter design is bad or anything, it's just the one thing that could be improved, especially since ND campaigns run a bit longer than your average linear game campaign (which is also great in itself!).
I think seeing in previews that ND are adding dogs that can track you and new ambusher behaviors demonstrate that ND is aware of this and are pushing for more mechanical interactivity with enemies for the sequel.
Last edited:
You said "filler/cookie cutter" and now you are calling it "serviceable". Between moving goal post and claiming lacking "variety" in enemy type (which is factually incorrect) as well as boss fights (in a game that aims to be grounded) I say we're done. Cheers.
I know, but I don't think it is fair to mention one and not the other. also I don't think overall that Japanese games this gen became better mainly because they were inspired by western games, they were also inspired by their rich game culture and experience and their past works, and some of them are unique and don't really have any equivalent in the west. of course, the opposite is also true.
To use your own example of Gears of War: Early game they introduce quick melee/close damage enemies like wraith/clickers/lambent wraiths, then enemy soldiers and so on. Late in most Gears games they start freshening the encounter design by doing things like putting heavies like snipers/boomers/heavy chain gunners on the field *while* simultaneously swarming you with say clickers. Which forces the player out of their routine stop and pop to deal with the clickers first to avoid being swarmed by them, which would force them out of cover and into the sights of high damage heavies in the back of the field. They use enemies with distinct purposes you've fought one on one before and mix them in more and more interesting ways that forces the player change behavior.
To give an MUCH better example is this great video just released of Doom Eternal, which greatly emphasizes the specific mechanical design of each enemy and how it forces the player to change behavior and stay engaged.
Designing DOOM Eternal's New & Classic Demons
SUBSCRIBE for More Free Game Docs ► http://bit.ly/noclipsubscribeBecome a PATRON to unlock more videos ► https://www.patreon.com/noclipHugo Martin (Game Dire...
This is not to say that TLOU is *completely* deficient in that department, it's not. And as I said in my first post and you agreed with, mechanically there's a great deal of complexity in terms of the gameplay systems and how they are integrated. Certainly more than enough to equal the types of systems found in Japanese games. The tension of remaining in stealth and not alerting enemies can make a great deal of difference in how an encounter plays out. But fundamentally, the gameplay variety rarely changes. I sneak around waist high walls and throw the occasional can to grab a guy in the courthouse, and I do the exact same thing in the hospital at the very end. Really the one exception to this is when you play as Ellie in Winter and she has different mechanical strengths and weaknesses than Joel like with her pocket knife instead of shivs. Frankly I don't even think the lack of variety is a huge problem on its own, TLOU is my favorite game from last gen, but it is a noticeable flaw on an otherwise masterpiece of a game if only because the campaign is substantially longer than your average Gears game.
I think seeing in previews that ND are adding dogs that can track you and new ambusher behaviors demonstrate that ND is aware of this and are pushing for more mechanical interactivity with enemies for the sequel.
I love all the franchises mentioned, but I had far more combat gameplay and encounter variety in my play throughs of TLOU than I did Gears. With the latter, the mechanical gameplay difference mostly boiled down to the diversity of weapons (which are fun to use and experiment with), but outside of a handful of enemies, I never really felt pressured to go beyond the standard stop and pop cover strategy I'd employed from the very start.
I didn't really feel too pressured to in TLOU either, but I appreciated there were more avenues from which I could explore a greater diversity of mechanics and approach options, thanks in part to a greater variety of mechanical options, eg the stealth, on the fly crafting and tools/explosives (which often require scavenging in the middle of combat encounters), use of environmental objects, the stealthy bow and arrow etc.
I wouldn't say one has poor or mediocre gameplay just because I preferred the other. To me they're both highly competent in gameplay, but just have slightly different approaches.
I haven't played Doom Eternal (it's not out yet), but I'm glad you brought it up because Doom for me is a great example of what I'm talking about with subjectivity clouding judgment. I didn't personally enjoy Doom (2016) a huge amount, I found it monotonous, repetitive (despite any enemy variety), the level design cumbersome to explore etc, but I wouldn't say the gameplay was bad or mediocre, it just wasn't for me.
Like TLOU, the actual controls, movement, mechanics, animations, feedback, design etc in Doom is all highly polished and sophisticated, it just didn't appeal to me on a subjective level.
So all the biggest most successful multiplayer games are Japanese? Because multiplayer games live and die by their gameplay.
Wow.
I had no idea we have Japan to thank for COD, Overwatch, Rocket League, FIFA, Destiny, Fortnite, Minecraft, Dead by Daylight, LoL, DOTA, Plants Vs Zombies, Minecraft, PBUG, Warframe, Mortal Kombat, Forza, For Honor, Rainbow Six Seige, Battelfield, Battlefront, Borderlands, CS:GO, Team Fortress, L4D, GTA: Online, Roblox, Sea of Thieves, WoW, Civilization, Age of Empires, Total War, Ark: Survival Evolved, Elder Scrolls Online, Hearthstone, Smite, Paladins, and NBA 2K.
What an amazing country! If only Western devs could learn from them.
Last edited:
Depends on the game and the aspect. Like for example, I generally prefer the feel of Japanese fighters but Western fighters have much better netcode. I prefer how Western games do choices and tutorials but I tend to find that Japanese games have more memorable characters/stories. It's give and take. Depends on what I'm in the mood for.
Mechanically I'd say they are generally superior, at least outside the indie space. Western big budget still has an edge in visuals and scale in most cases.
We are done. You can't even tell when two people with different names and icons are talking to you. lol
I think there's a disconnect here because I never said one has poor or mediocre gameplay. I also completely agree with literally everything you're saying in terms of gameplay systems, diversity of mechanics, crafting, etc. I further agree there's more mechanical depth to TLOU than Gears. My specific point was all those things are excellent. My first post was refuting someone saying they weren't good.
All I said was if there was *any* weakness at all to TLOU it would be that it rarely shakes things up due to lack of enemy variety. You're saying you don't think it's a problem because the gameplay systems are so good. I know they are good, that's what I said in the original post you replied to. That doesn't change that there's more the enemies could have done to push you out of the tried and true over a long campaign, and seemingly they will do it more in the sequel.
My bad, I was confusing you with the poster who stated the gameplay was serviceable and not the reason the game was enjoyed.
And yes, I agree with your points, including how they're seemingly looking to expand on the said weakness in the sequel, with the dogs etc.
I dont think I've ever seen this thread with the op preferring western games. It's always someone going "western games are trash" like they got something to prove. Anyway, some on era seem to think that "stylish" melee is the only real "gameplay" and ignore everything else, and Japanese games have that as the imo only thing they do better than westerns. Not to mention, the Japanese ignore entire genres. Kinda hard to say they're better than someone else if they just do the same 3 genres and ignore everything else
It's all good, I was starting to think that might be the case. FWIW can't wait to replay TLOU before 2!
I didn't think it was poor, I thought it was okay--not top tier stuff. The weakest part of the package. As far as what other TPS games did better, it depends on the game. Some do some things worse but come out way ahead IMO due to other factors.
Gameplay itself is a package within a package, and there's a lot of factors that can make it great. Let's look at similar titles. RE4: dated controls and doesn't control as well overall than TLOU with worse AI, but it's a far better game gameplay wise due to the encounter design, the environmental design, the enemy variety, and bosses (bosses and enemy variety are a great way to add diversity; TLOU felt very samey to me throughout). What about Vanquish? That's mechanically the best shooter still out there with a wealth of gameplay options. These games both play a lot better due to different reasons.
TLOU really only excels in animation and AI compared to others in the genre. while it's certainly cool, it lacks comparatively in other key elements which do mean a lot more to gameplay. TLOU could have way better control options with crazier encounters, it could have better enemy design and variety, really fun boss encounters, etc. All of this could add a lot to it.
It's kind of like comparing GoW 2018 to the older titles. People love both, but for different reasons. The engrossing combat and encounters of the originals are absolutely killer. The new one, while the combat is still decent, lacks in the same way TLOU does. It's good fun, but it's different. It comes down to the individual, but lacking these sort of things really does impact a game for me negatively. I love that old school design. Souls ain't killing it for no reason. Other people clearly love it to. People don't swear by Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta, and DMC as the best playing games ever for no reason. Depth of controls, encounter design, enemy variety, and bosses all make a huge impact. Different genre, I know, but I think you get the idea.
Agree or disagree, it's all good as long as you understand where I'm coming from.
I've always preferred Japanese games, since they're the ones making most of the games in my favourite genres, and I think their games generally have better art design and music. In contrast, I dislike first-person shooters, so a number of the biggest Western games have little appeal to me. Still, I have been fairly impressed by many Western independent games of late.
Lol this is the wrong forum to ask this question and get an unbiased answer. Also why does this always keep coming up? You got people that probably can't name 3 multiplayer games and you ask them if Japanese devs are better than Western. Lol
As much as I love RE4 (in my top 10 of all time), I can't agree with you on encounter design or level design, not in actual combat outside of a handful of encounters anyway (eg the opening). RE4 in so many engagements is essentially super basic and limited in how combat plays out (funnelled duck shooting almost), hell pretty much all the RE games often are. At times almost feeling like a slowed down Time Crisis or something, with the way waves of brain dead and slow ass zombies just mindlessly funnel themselves towards you in narrow corridors or rooms.
This feeling is exasperated thanks in part to both the controls, enemy AI and arena/level design. I found encounters are on the whole more dynamic or diverse in TLOU, as you not only have so much more mechanical and mobility depth/diversity, but the environments and arena design better facilitate the extra mechanical and mobility variety too, offering more pathways, flanking options, verticality, cover, environmental objects etc than your average RE4 encounter, and you can do all this so much more fluidly and precisely in TLOU too.
Honestly, enemy variety and bosses are the only listed things I'd give to RE4 in terms of the combat gameplay anyway. Controls, movement, animations, AI, mechanical variety, approach options, arena design etc, I'd all give to TLOU, hence I can't see how someone can label the gameplay in TLOU serviceable at best whilst simultaneously championing the gameplay in RE4.
Last edited:
I would agree with that statement, but I would say RE4 is overall the better package due to how much better it does what it does better. Different strokes.
I see you didn't mention Vanquish. There's a remaster coming on PS4 and it is pretty cheap on PC. Give it a whirl some time if you haven't played it and need something to play. Mechanically, it's just phenomenal.
Vanquish isn't very good though. It puts a few cool gameplay aspects on top of a very mediocre 3rd person shooter.
Join me in not thinking in these binary terms. It always seemed unfair to me to compare the entire western world as if it were some united development force from Poland to the states to one tiny island nation.
That's why I said mechanically. I'd say it's very good. But there's undoubtedly issues outside of the mechanics.
It's only mechanically the best shooter out there if the only mechanics you care about are ones that allow you to go over the top. That's what I see with a lot of posts talking about: "Great gameplay", they equate bigger, flashier, and busier with good gameplay. That isn't to say those games actually had bad gameplay, far from it, but slower doesn't mean worse. Which I feel a lot of people don't really get? People think slow is bad outside a few examples (Souls games for one).
And that's fine, different strokes for different folks. My point was more about how I think you're conflating gameplay quality with subjective preferences.
On Vanquish, I've actually already played the game. I really enjoyed but didn't love it, and disagree with the notion that the gameplay is the best in the TPS business. It may be fast, flashy and frenetic, and have some really cool elements (boosting, sliding, slow down etc), but in some ways I found it to be more style than substance, with a bit too much bullet spongeyness, poor AI, repetition etc.