Why mainstream and western gaming are a blight on my life or How I learned to hate an industry
As the title suggests this is a rant. Be prepared for a lot of griping about the state of modern gaming in the west, and such. You have been warned.
On Japan and the US: Mature and Obscene and the age barrier
One issue that bothers me on a regular basis is western games industry as well as the western gamer. You see in Japan games spread a wide variety of ages and content, from kid's games to hentai dating sims. It is viewed as something of an art form and various small somewhat hardcore games in the US, are huge over there.
Meanwhile in the US gaming is viewed as children's stuff. Something for the young. Granted a lot of adults game as well, but for the most part it is viewed as a toy. This leads to some incidents involving adult content in games, with ''save the children'' outcry on all sides.
The problem with that is that developers cater to that. Year after year they release abysmal games based on all manner of movies and TV shows. They gear these games toward kids and watch them sell. Thus year after year are shelfs are flooded with garbage.
Of course not all games are kids stuff. So called ''mature'' games, flooded with sex, violence and swearing also come out. In fact some of the biggest sellers in recent years fit this description.
This leads to a confusion between ''obscene'' and ''mature''. Gamers cry ''kiddy game'' against a game that doesn't feature obscene content, even though that game might deal with mature themes. The stigmata associated with being called ''mature'' in the states is because of this confusion.
Yet not all mature games are obscene. One needs look no further then the Xenosaga series and the PS2 versions of games such as Kanon and AIR, to see that a mature yet not obscene game is possible.
Yet in the US, to be considered a ''mature'' game you must carry that big bold M.
Sports Games: Tripe with tweaks on a yearly basis
A major player in the US market is the sports game. These games sell millions of copys year after year. But why? Are they really that good? Do they really change from year to year?
The answer is no. Sports games remain a constant. Sure minor game play and graphical tweaks, as well as roster updates are included in each year's ''Madden''. But does that much new content really need a $50.00 USD price tag? Do they really need to be updated every year in both NFL, NCAA and ''street'' versions? Do they all really need to sell for full price? Money can't be an issue as the major sports game publisher EA Games has deals with the NCAA and NFL to be the exclusive creator of games that use their teams, their stadiums, and their logos. EA has a hold on the market and thus has no major competition, thus they earn most of the money in the genre. Even before they made more then enough to retail each installment of Madden for as low as $20.00 USD. But they didn't because they knew it would sell. And it always does.
It sells to Bubba in Podunk, Idaho, It sells to Richie Rich in Beverly Hills, it sells to Joe Average guy in Some Town, Texas. And since it sells at full price and in its current state, EA sees no need to improve. This kills creativity and overshadows other, more deserving games released around the same time.
The RPG: In America that means Final Fantasy
Before closing I wish to address that issue nearest to me.
The RPG. RPG's come in many different types, from traditional, featuring a turn based battle system, to action with their high emphasis on combat and dungeon crawling.
Naturally many different companies contribute to this genre. In Japan many different companies hit it big, from Nippon Ichi to Square-Enix. But in the states, only one name stands for console RPG's. Square-Enix.
Why? Is it because of their games are better? No. Is it because they cost less? Yet again no.
It is because of hyperbole and a single, somewhat lacking game in the series. That game is Final Fantasy VII. Final Fantasy VII is often spoken of as a revolution in the genre, introducing new concepts and such never before seen. That is a lie, plain and simple. Final Fantasy VII did nothing but bring a some what obscure franchise to the mainstream, with alot of hype and a system change. It added fancy 3D graphics and FMV cutscenes, but it did not add or improve anything. Summons? Final Fantasy V. Active time battle? Final Fantsy IV. A deep and engaging story? Final Fantasy VI. All it did was take the elements of those games, and modernize them.
Yet for that game alone Square is called the best makers of RPG's in the world.
In America games that do not bear the Square-Enix label, or are from an established franchise flounder. Part of it is due to a lack of hype on the company's side. The other is due to the crushing power of Square.
Square has the resources to hype even their worst of games. They can sell games based on a name alone. These smaller companies do not have this luxury. Perhaps if the common gamer would broaden his horizons, instead of living in Final Fantasy and Square-Enix, more over looked classics would be sold. But this won't happen due to two factors.
1.These games often feature game play that takes a bit longer to learn the the common Final Fantasy title.
2.These games often feature sprite based graphics
The American gamer is very graphics based. He cannot enjoy a game without it having top-of the line graphics. This stifles games that feature 2D art and get them labeled as ''primitive''
In Japan though such games flourish. These small companies are actually huge, they release their games to much fanfare. They sell all sorts of related merchandise. Why? I believe it has something to do with the Japanese knowing a good game when they see one and not relying on names and such to sell. Sure they have a few major franchises. But games seen as obscure actually have huge followings on the other side of the Pacific. I also believe that the Japanese gamer is less focused on graphics then he is on game play. Thus even if the game is 2D it is still bought due to its quality game play.
In closing, I believe that the American gamer needs to broaden his horizons. Look beyond the surface and learn to game for the love of the art, not for the love of the technology.
On Japan and the US: Mature and Obscene and the age barrier
One issue that bothers me on a regular basis is western games industry as well as the western gamer. You see in Japan games spread a wide variety of ages and content, from kid's games to hentai dating sims. It is viewed as something of an art form and various small somewhat hardcore games in the US, are huge over there.
Meanwhile in the US gaming is viewed as children's stuff. Something for the young. Granted a lot of adults game as well, but for the most part it is viewed as a toy. This leads to some incidents involving adult content in games, with ''save the children'' outcry on all sides.
The problem with that is that developers cater to that. Year after year they release abysmal games based on all manner of movies and TV shows. They gear these games toward kids and watch them sell. Thus year after year are shelfs are flooded with garbage.
Of course not all games are kids stuff. So called ''mature'' games, flooded with sex, violence and swearing also come out. In fact some of the biggest sellers in recent years fit this description.
This leads to a confusion between ''obscene'' and ''mature''. Gamers cry ''kiddy game'' against a game that doesn't feature obscene content, even though that game might deal with mature themes. The stigmata associated with being called ''mature'' in the states is because of this confusion.
Yet not all mature games are obscene. One needs look no further then the Xenosaga series and the PS2 versions of games such as Kanon and AIR, to see that a mature yet not obscene game is possible.
Yet in the US, to be considered a ''mature'' game you must carry that big bold M.
Sports Games: Tripe with tweaks on a yearly basis
A major player in the US market is the sports game. These games sell millions of copys year after year. But why? Are they really that good? Do they really change from year to year?
The answer is no. Sports games remain a constant. Sure minor game play and graphical tweaks, as well as roster updates are included in each year's ''Madden''. But does that much new content really need a $50.00 USD price tag? Do they really need to be updated every year in both NFL, NCAA and ''street'' versions? Do they all really need to sell for full price? Money can't be an issue as the major sports game publisher EA Games has deals with the NCAA and NFL to be the exclusive creator of games that use their teams, their stadiums, and their logos. EA has a hold on the market and thus has no major competition, thus they earn most of the money in the genre. Even before they made more then enough to retail each installment of Madden for as low as $20.00 USD. But they didn't because they knew it would sell. And it always does.
It sells to Bubba in Podunk, Idaho, It sells to Richie Rich in Beverly Hills, it sells to Joe Average guy in Some Town, Texas. And since it sells at full price and in its current state, EA sees no need to improve. This kills creativity and overshadows other, more deserving games released around the same time.
The RPG: In America that means Final Fantasy
Before closing I wish to address that issue nearest to me.
The RPG. RPG's come in many different types, from traditional, featuring a turn based battle system, to action with their high emphasis on combat and dungeon crawling.
Naturally many different companies contribute to this genre. In Japan many different companies hit it big, from Nippon Ichi to Square-Enix. But in the states, only one name stands for console RPG's. Square-Enix.
Why? Is it because of their games are better? No. Is it because they cost less? Yet again no.
It is because of hyperbole and a single, somewhat lacking game in the series. That game is Final Fantasy VII. Final Fantasy VII is often spoken of as a revolution in the genre, introducing new concepts and such never before seen. That is a lie, plain and simple. Final Fantasy VII did nothing but bring a some what obscure franchise to the mainstream, with alot of hype and a system change. It added fancy 3D graphics and FMV cutscenes, but it did not add or improve anything. Summons? Final Fantasy V. Active time battle? Final Fantsy IV. A deep and engaging story? Final Fantasy VI. All it did was take the elements of those games, and modernize them.
Yet for that game alone Square is called the best makers of RPG's in the world.
In America games that do not bear the Square-Enix label, or are from an established franchise flounder. Part of it is due to a lack of hype on the company's side. The other is due to the crushing power of Square.
Square has the resources to hype even their worst of games. They can sell games based on a name alone. These smaller companies do not have this luxury. Perhaps if the common gamer would broaden his horizons, instead of living in Final Fantasy and Square-Enix, more over looked classics would be sold. But this won't happen due to two factors.
1.These games often feature game play that takes a bit longer to learn the the common Final Fantasy title.
2.These games often feature sprite based graphics
The American gamer is very graphics based. He cannot enjoy a game without it having top-of the line graphics. This stifles games that feature 2D art and get them labeled as ''primitive''
In Japan though such games flourish. These small companies are actually huge, they release their games to much fanfare. They sell all sorts of related merchandise. Why? I believe it has something to do with the Japanese knowing a good game when they see one and not relying on names and such to sell. Sure they have a few major franchises. But games seen as obscure actually have huge followings on the other side of the Pacific. I also believe that the Japanese gamer is less focused on graphics then he is on game play. Thus even if the game is 2D it is still bought due to its quality game play.
In closing, I believe that the American gamer needs to broaden his horizons. Look beyond the surface and learn to game for the love of the art, not for the love of the technology.
posted by N. Sullivan at 2:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home