alrite me and my friend just had this conversation. we both agree that japanese games are better in terms of story but i think american companies can make good games too.

the argument was basically why japanese companies make better games. i think its because they had a head start on the industry. ur thoughts on this?

Head start? hmmm, actually videogaming kind off started in the US with Baer, he is called the grandfather of videogames afterall (or was it the father?).

I think the reason why japanese video game makers have had more success than their american counterparts is because they got the torch after seeing the american drop the ball during the crash in the 80s. After that, the japanese pretty much exploited the medium with just one little console, the NES.

The NES came upon an era where videogames were not even recovering after a huge drop in sales and forget, Nintendo provided harsh business tactics which at the time guaranteed their dominance in the market and it was until the SNES era where they saw competition from Sega (which is pretty much one of the most beautiful and violent times in videogame history).

The Nes provided the entire world with A class entertainment, and the japanese people went just overboard with videogames after that causing that most studios pput more work into making quality titles (and some really weird stuff at the same time) while the american companies still fought for just a place in the industry.

These days, I dont think it matters much as American companies have adopted japanese storytelling and game making and the japanese companies have also adopted some American game elements. We can also blame demographics, while in western shores FPS are all the rage ever since Wolfenstein and Doom, in Japan is more about Adventure and RPGs, and dating sims, goddamn dating sims.

Look at Dante, that screams In your face American attitude from days now passed.

well by head start i didnt mean the very first games ever. i meant the games with actual story and gameplay like the ones for nes and a little before.
but either way thanks u just supported all of my arguments.

Actually, NES games didnt had much story behind them. You mostly were a dude/chick fighting things/monsters/soldiers for some random reason.

I think that we did had the first ever rich story driven game in the NES era with Ninja Gaiden which is one of the things that made the game memorable. But games, with stories, existed before the NES, they just werent that great or epic and were even more straight forward than say, Contra.

Even at games, with actual story and gameplay, wasnt started by the japanese, they did some of them, like Nintendo making Donkey Kong, but overall the japanese came upon at, i think, the third or second generation of gaming.

Here is some background on Ralph Baer for culture purposes:

http://www.pong-story.com/sanders.htm

I disagree that Japanese games neccessarily have better stories. I like to think of the difference between jap and western games as much like that between intuition and logic. This is reflected pretty well in typical storylines. Whereas Jap stories usually try to be different, western stories stick with the tried and tested. Whereas western stories may often seem cliché and dull, jap ones can be (and almost always are) pretentious and corny. Personally I'd rather have a boring story than a cheesy one. Well I'm not really into deep stories that much these days, the gameplay whore that I am, and I'd rather play the game that makes me cringe less.

Graphically I'd say jap games have the edge - contrary to what most will say. Whereas western (particularly american) games are built for high tech physics and ultra gritty (often depressing) realism, jap ones tend to be nicer on the eyes with bright colours and a cartoonish feel. Again it's personal preference, but I don't like things to look too much like the real world (as reality is not a pretty place); I'd rather the graphical power goes towards glitzy special effects and stuff.

As for whether or not the games are better... well that's impossible to say. There are some great games from either side of the world, and some pretty dire ones from each as well. If I had to lean either way... I'd actually say the western world has the advantage right now. Obviously Japan was king up to 5 years ago, and the vast majority of what I consider the "best" games I've ever played are japanese and come from the mid to late 90s era. However in recent years, I can't honestly think of any truely phenominal games coming from Japan (I'll probably think of a few as soon as I finish posting, but none spring to mind off the top of my head), whereas there are plenty I can name from the west. Again I reckon it comes down to intuition vs. logic. The japanese developers seem to be desperately searching for the new gimmick to sell, but when it comes down to making a game in a tried and tested formula (such as a FPS, RTS or MMORPG) the western world has somewhat more finesse. It's a bit like Japan are playing jazz, and the western world is playing the blues. Both are different each time, but since the west confine themselves inside a specific pattern they gain more precision and fine tuning in their experimentation, and whereas the japs have no end of new ideas they often come out a little... untidy should we say.

P.S. I realise there are many hideous generalizations in this post, but that appears to be the whole point of the thread so don't be offended - I'm just working on averages

P.P.S. You may notice I've said "west" instead of "America"; there are many great games from England too you know

I agree with spekkio. It seems that the game developers in Japan trying to be innovative and creative sometimes turn out to be a little too strange for their own good, while the Western (that also includes France and Canada) game developers seem to focus less on new innovation and more on taking what's available to new heights. The better graphical/physics game engines (Unreal,Source) are Western, but the more artistic games (Okami, Katamari) come from Japan. That doesn't mean that Japanese or Western developers can't switch roles (MGS,Spore).

Well I agree with most thinsg that have been said in here. Spekkio mentioned that Japanese games usually have better graphics, and that's what I'm seeing as well, since their production crew tends to be bigger and more skilled than its western counterparts.

As for better stories in the games, when I think about it I'd like to say that Japanese games actually have a better storyline overall, if you compare to western games in the same genre. But I don't know why that is, so I don't have any reasoning behind my logics there. Maybe its just that most games I've played have been that way.

What LunarMaster said about switching styles is true as well. The difference is that Japanese developers tend to pull these off better (MGS / RE4) than western developers (Sudeki)


Actually have you seen any Japanese action flicks? Devil May Cry is very over-the-top action and very Japanese in my eyes, but it's also siutable and appealing to western fans as well.

I've noticed that when they import games, Japan to America, they usually cut out things. Mainly to the fact that they think it's too hard for the Americans to do.

Another thing I'ved noticed, not really a big thing, but the Box Art of games. Some are very different, while some have small color differences.

Yeah the boxcover, I don't understand why we always get the ugly ones, and Japan have the cool ones.

That's a lie, the best graphics are developed on our own native shores. Need I mention the Doom 3 engine, the Unreal engine, and Source engine? ( as Lunar already has ). Sorry, but Devil May Cry or any other japanese developed console game don't hold a candle graphically to what has been done on western shores for the PC.

Now I know you're going to tell me that " It's a PC and has more capability " and while this is true, Doom 3, the Unreal games, and HL2 are still some of the best looking games on consoles as well, even when they're scaled down to all hell. I've never ONCE seen a japanese game, console or PC, that holds a candle to any of these engines.

As for the grand old debate of japan vs USA... I'm a PC guy, so I gotta say USA all the way. Without US games, I wouldn't have ANY of my FPS games or my precious Guild Wars.

USA USA USA!

Second hand is never better, Hickz. US could do the same to them, when the time comes. =p

On topic.

People think that way because they're playing too much Jap games over US. Let's take consoles for example, how many US games can you really find ? I bet 70% of them were made/produced by Japan, Xbox can be made as exceptional, since the console is US product itself, and yet not so many people out there own this console. It's HUEG. lol j/k

Now let's go to PC... No matter what you say, I'm sticking with my StarCraft, HL Counterstrike, Diablo, Warcraft, etc. And all of them got some really nice storyline, if you prefer that. Hahaha, US are dominating this baby.

No I'm going to say that the best graphics is not all about the highest resolution or whatnot shines on most PC games including Unreal 2007. I could say that it's the things you portray, how it's portrayed, bla bla but you all know that. Those PC games don't hold a candle to games like Resident Evil 4 or Metal Gear Solid 3. Two outstanding examples of what kind of beautiful games you can create on the PS2 and GC, and how much they ridiculously outclass games from the same genre developed in the US of A.
Japanese developers can, and usually have made the most of what they have to work with.

Of course, a person with a 3.2 MP phone camera can take a more clear picture than a person with a 1.3 MP camera, but that doesn't mean that this person can't take a better picture.

LOL, but they are the best and most realistic graphics we've yet to see. You can't tell me that the #### pre rendered backrounds of RE hold a candle to any graphic you'd find in Doom 3 run at full settings. You can argue the presentation if you want, but when games like Doom 3 and HL2 have graphics so realistic it's almost scary ( and a far more scary presentation than RE in the cas of Doom ) when you see the person talk ( especially in HL2 with their facial expressions and the like ) there's no way you can say that they're better presented on a machine that runs on the level of a computer that came out 8 years ago.

Not only are the graphics better, but many PC games these days have realistic physics engines that trump anything I've seen on a console, and PC games are always bringing graphics and gaming to the next level. With these better graphics and physics and sound engines, we get a better atmosphere and presentation with these games. Of course not every single PC game in existance is going to have the best atmosphere over every single console game, but you could say that about any system to system comparison.

FEAR is a great example of a modern PC game with a great atmosphere. Not only are we treated to an amazing and realistic graphics engine, it has the creepy atmosphere only though to be found on a console with a game like RE. Not all PC games are graphical glitz with heartless souls, many of them have dedicated teams who want to create the best game possible... Graphically and providing a great atmosphere.

Doom 3 even trumps RE as far as atmosphere goes... It's far more intense and it definitely creeped me out a far bit more than blocky zombies whom I could only shoot by rotating my character around with a #### camera system and awful controls.

I don't expect you to understand anyway, I doubt you even have a computer that can run any of the games I've mentioned on the highest settings so how would you know what the games truely bring to the table without experiencing them?

Also, I've never heard or seen anything about any new and revolutionary graphical, physics related, or even sound related engines coming out of japan.

But whatever, I know you'll take your side to the grave. I just think it's funny that you'd say a game like RE 4 has the graphical presentation of say... Prey. Considering that RE 4 has #### pre-rendered STATIC graphics as opposed to live rendered bumpmapped backrounds that you can interact with.

Lets take a moment to compare a new FPS game called Crysis, to RE 4.

Here's a link to some images, and a description of the different graphical innovations in the game... Keep in mind these are still early screens.

http://www.crysis-online.com/Information/Graphics/
http://www.crysis-online.com/Information/Gameplay/

This is what character faces will look like on high end computers:

http://www.crysis-online.com/Information/C...r%20Technology/

You can't tell me that the " atmosphere " of a game of people made out of blocks is going to be more intense than a game where characters look like that.

Now lets take a look at RE4:

http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image/articl...03002224762.jpg

Mmm, go pixels.

We'll be fair and do a Doom 3 show here too, as that is a game created more around the time of RE4.

http://www.hotzeltopf.de/albums/Doom3/Doom_3_18.sized.jpg
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/53...02092847950.jpg

I'll take real time shadows over pixel shading any day.



And the fact that you don't find Unreal 2007 impressive shows how in the dark you are. There shall be no more replies to you because your argument in my mind is void no matter what you fire back at me with.

wow nice responses.

but when i was talkin wit my friend i came to the conclusion that both sides make good games and bad games. i left that part out cuz i wanted to see what conclusions and arguments the people here would make on their own.

RE 4 doesn't have any pre rendered backgrounds.


RE 4 plays different than the rest, and I've actually played both Doom 3 and RE 4, and I much prefer the atmosphere in RE 4.


It's your opinion what you find to be better use of graphics.
And I've played Doom on the highest settings. And that game is also a great example of making good use of graphics. Mainly for it's atmosphere, the way they use the darkness in the game. But upping the resolution didn't change that experience for me. Going from one resolution to another doesn't nearly wow me as much as seeing the way Kojima uses those "stone age" PS2 graphics in cutscenes mixed with wonderful music to create one of the (arguably) best console games ever. That game has an atmosphere that isn't dependant on simply higher resolution.


Well they work with what they have. The console's are not upgradable so they try to get the most out of the consoles power and make the best of it.

But in this field, you can clearly see that Japanese developers can do a lot more than US developers.


Again, RE 4 doesn't have any pre rendered graphics.


I never said I didn't find it impressive. I think you read my post a bit hasty.

For me MGS 3 and RE 4 make use of their graphics in a far better way than most games I've seen.
They are the best looking games on the current generation consoles in more ways than one. And I don't see the higher res PC games as more impressive in this way.

Comparing pics taken on my 1.3 MP cell phone to my friends 3.2 MP camera, his always look much better, as with the screen shots you showed. But I have definitely taken some better pictures.

If you're talking graphics in terms of power and technology then yes, the west does have the advantage, but taking graphics just to mean "visuals" is more subjective. Just because something takes more processing power, it doesn't mean it will look better. The pre-rendered vs. real time is a good example; pre-rendered will look better if the framework of the game permits this (for instance you can't have pre-rendered graphics in a FPS by nature of the game), yet real time graphics take up more processing power.