Shenmune really doesn't have more interaction than a modern big budget game, pretty much all of them have decent combat systems even if they mostly involve shooting stuff or they are big open world games with a lot more freedom. Most of the depth is also often in MP, not SP.
vanquish is a pretty low budget game, just like western games with low budget, they had to focus on gameplay because they don't have the budget for anything else (the main campaign was only 4 hours long f.e.). The big japanese stuff: Metal Gear, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy ect. is just as focused on presentation as it's western counterparts. Mainsteam AAA games are (a lot of them anyway) shallow no matter where they come from
Metal Gear and (a decent portion of) FF are pretty gameplay/system heavy, even if they are both massively focused on presentation. Hell, even FF13 which is arguably the most shallow entry in the series, still had a great and original combat system. Even in their big budget releases, when the long-ass cinemas are over with, the Japanese still don't forget you're playing a game. Arcade games are another good example - SEGA at one time had the most powerful technology available (Lockheed Martin Model 1/2/3), what did they use it for? A shallow walk through explosions and scripted events with the occasional QTE? No, they used it to make one of the deepest fighting game series ever.
You can still find many western games that try to deliver the cinematic "AAA" experience on a limited budget - Witcher 2 (simplified systems from Witcher 1), Homefront, etc.
Of course you will find exceptions to the Japan = gameplay first / West = graphics first, but generally I agree with the Capcom guys.
Since no one cared when I first posted it, the difference is that western game design is more concerned with streamlining the experience. With that in mind, it doesn't particularly matter that Final Fantasy XIII aims to be as flashy as any western AAA game (or a game like Super Meat Boy aims to be as mechanic focused as a Japanese classic). The battle system is a bread and butter example of Japanese evolution on old concepts. It's odd and different (and ultimately the most interesting thing about it), whereas common western game design would have it be straight-forward and more accessible (if not also an plain action game instead of a JRPG, like Skyrim is an action game).
I think Kajima misses the point. Disagreed with him before, in a longer post which I can't find.
Yup, western game devs want people playing their game through to the end (you can see lots of western dev interviews that talk about how many players see to the end of their games), and will streamline/do skinnerbox incentives to keep people playing. It's why you see a lot of fans of older western games frequently complain about streamlining (or "Xboxification" as it was called a few years ago). I guess if you are spending millions upon millions to render that really cool looking post-apocalyptic cityscape and the awesome semi-interactive helicopter chase scripted event for chapter 9, you are gonna want people playing to see that! Japanese devs don't really seem to give a shit - you're not concerned enough to better yourself to see the rest of the game, you don't get to see it. Mastery of the game is a reward in itself, getting to see new levels and cool cinemas are an added bonus on top of that.
Also, btw guys - some of the big budget, gameplay heavy western games like Civ, Starcraft... if these weren't already extremely successful franchises from the golden age of PC gaming, how many publishers would take a chance on them today?
really?