Support NeoGAF

[Sothpaw]

Yea bros Blizzard and Valve are all about bleeding edge graphics and average gameplay.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

fucking hate these generalizations

Completely agree, just look at how different are the opinions of a handful of famous devs, many of very similar origin.

Warren Spector(2)
Ken Levine
Cliff B

etc

 

[SapientWolf]

Call of Duty is absolutely not focused on gameplay mechanics.

To the extent that gameplay is a major consideration in its design, it's A) To make the gameplay experience 'smooth' (eg. high framerate on consoles, eschewing more gameplay-oriented mechanics like projectile size, speed, variable trajectories, so that the game can use 'real' guns that are immediately intuitive, etc), and B) to facilitate 'awesome things' happening to just about each and every player (ie: Why every person who has ever played Call of Duty and had arms has at least one story within their first two weeks of playing about that one game where they went 20/0). Neither of these things are the same as the 'mechanics, for the sake of solid mechanics' approach that is more common in Japanese game development.

That's assuming we're talking specifically about multiplayer, anyway. It's even more obviously not about gameplay mechanics in the campaign.

CoD has a lot of really interesting stuff under the hood when it comes to things like netcode, aiming and hit detection. And that's on top of the killstreak mechanics, XP and leveling, perks, accessories and weapon balance.

Mechanics are the rules that govern the game. Given that definition, I'd say that the multiplayer end is absolutely focused on mechanics.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

CAPCOM U HAVE 2 BE KIDDING ME. Such balogne.

 

[LiquidSolid]

Haha, how on earth did I miss this thread before? Oh Cacpcom, using the hacks at Ninja Theory to represent an entire industry. And then complimenting yourself on your gameplay when you've produced a lot of mediocre to bad games over the last few years.

If I'd criticise the western game industry of anything, it's that most studios seem to just cut and paste gameplay aspects into their games. Take a little bit of x, a little bit of y, mix them together and add sweet graphics and a badass story. It can produce some good games but it never feels particularly new or interesting.

 

[Retro_]

Capcom doesn't have any moral high ground on this front. They've pushed out two fighting games in the last 18 months long before the whole "game logic and getting the systems down" process was close to completion.

This isn't an east v. west issue. It's a publisher issue.

CAPCOM U HAVE 2 BE KIDDING ME. Such balogne.

Haha, how on earth did I miss this thread before? Oh Cacpcom, using the hacks at Ninja Theory to represent an entire industry. And then complimenting yourself on your gameplay when you've produced a lot of mediocre to bad games over the last few years.

If I'd criticise the western game industry of anything, it's that most studios seem to just cut and paste gameplay aspects into their games. Take a little bit of x, a little bit of y, mix them together and add sweet graphics and a badass story. It can produce some good games but it never feels particularly new or interesting.

Isn't this Hideaki Itsuno speaking personally, not Capcom as a whole?(he only refers to DmC as that's a project he has ties to)

and I think he has some ground to stand on with these statements as he and his team have produced two of Capcom's best selling and critically received titles this generation

I'm sure the provocative headline was meant to illicit responses like these though.

 

[Retro_]

Also when the hell did Itsuno become the Director of DmC?

 

[Spinluck]

Your problem is that you are confusing gamplay with combat. There's more to RPG's then combat and there's where Western RPG's excel at, giving choice and the ability roleplay. Then you have games like Deus Ex:HR which offers such a varied play style. That's unseen in Japanese RPG's. Deus EX HR gameplay wise>DD and DS imo, but that's an unfair comparison.

I think it's ironic.

Dragon's Dogma and The Souls games deviate from what the typical JRPG's are like, and give you Western RPG like freedom.

 

[Mandoric]

CoD has a lot of really interesting stuff under the hood when it comes to things like netcode, aiming and hit detection. And that's on top of the killstreak mechanics, XP and leveling, perks, accessories and weapon balance.

Mechanics are the rules that govern the game. Given that definition, I'd say that the multiplayer end is absolutely focused on mechanics.

Sure, but you have to be deliberately obtuse to not recognize that killstreaks and perks are objectively bad mechanics from a "smooth, engaging-for-everyone" gameplay perspective and objectively great from a "let someone feel really badass" perspective.

Figuring out how to massage gameplay choices into making the player feel awesome doesn't mean you're now favoring gameplay over that awesome feel. Just the opposite, in fact.

 

[H_Prestige]

The best games ever made have come from Japan. He's spot on.

 

[rohlfinator]

The original premise is a ridiculous over-generalization.

Sure, but you have to be deliberately obtuse to not recognize that killstreaks and perks are objectively bad mechanics from a "smooth, engaging-for-everyone" gameplay perspective and objectively great from a "let someone feel really badass" perspective.

Figuring out how to massage gameplay choices into making the player feel awesome doesn't mean you're now favoring gameplay over that awesome feel. Just the opposite, in fact.

Not sure what you mean by "smooth, engaging-for-everyone" but letting the player feel badass is part of almost every modern game to some degree, Western or Japanese. Not sure how that's a bad thing unless it's the only thing, which is not at all the case for CoD.

And being able to customize your character and strategy is now objectively bad gameplay?

 

[Htown]

Doesn't this say more about the upcoming DMC game and Ninja Theory than it says about Western developers as a whole?

 

[evangd007]

CoD has a lot of really interesting stuff under the hood when it comes to things like netcode, aiming and hit detection. And that's on top of the killstreak mechanics, XP and leveling, perks, accessories and weapon balance.

Mechanics are the rules that govern the game. Given that definition, I'd say that the multiplayer end is absolutely focused on mechanics.

Weapon balance, killstreak balance, perk balance, and map design have taken a gradual nosedive since CoD 4. CoD 4 was exceptionally well balanced, but I've long thought this occurred by happenstance: all the pieces came together to make something great, but the designers didn't realize what made it great and have since been unable to replicate it.

Resident Evil? Metal Gear Solid? Final Fantasy?

Seems instead of east vs west the takeaway is big budget games made anywhere will focus on cinematics / graphics to garner more sales.

These are some of the most mechanically sound games in their respective genres.

 

[njean777]

Weapon balance, killstreak balance, perk balance, and map design have taken a gradual nosedive since CoD 4. CoD 4 was exceptionally well balanced, but I've long thought this occurred by happenstance: all the pieces came together to make something great, but the designers didn't realize what made it great and have since been unable to replicate it.



These are some of the most mechanically sound games in their respective genres.

Black ops was pretty balanced, and the maps were great imo. IW took a nosedive while Treyarch has been getting a lot of the mechanics right.

 

[HyperCubed4]

The best games ever made have come from Japan. He's spot on.

Wait, I'm confused. Fez wasn't made in Japan.

Spoiler

just try me, Fish

Seriously though, I enjoy Japanese games quite a lot. If I had to choose, I'd rather play games made by Japanese developers as opposed to Western developers. I'll always love you, Atlus.

 

[D3RANG3D]

Eastern European devs are like the best of both worlds. Sure their games are a bit janky but they're highly ambitious.

truf

 

[Daydream Sequence]

Translation: "America, why you no buy Dragon's Dogma?!"

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

There must be something in the watercooler at Capcpom that makes dev leads spout inexact ruminations about Western design methodology.

I think he's trying to emphasise the fact that Japanese developers think about the game logic and how to make it fun before they start developing the other areas of the game. As opposed to western developers who build the game world first before adjusting the gameplay. The best example really is skyrim vs dark souls.

It has a lot to do with western developers and how important graphics are in order to sell a game. It's all about the trailers and screenshots. They want the game to look amazing because every extra screenshot is extra media time and more publicity. Gameplay isn't as critical because it's more important to make u shell out the dollars first. It's only once you have the game can you really give the game a workout.

Secondly I find most western games are either indie or massively mainstream. All the b grade titles are gone. Of course t doesn't make financial sense to have these titles. So most of the gameplay mechanics in western titles are easier to grasp for mainstream games. That's how you make more money. In Japan many adults still play games and watch anime and such so the level of entry is a lot older and they can grasp deeper concepts. But I guess in America it's all about getting the widest audience as possible. That's why I think games like ratchet and clank look amazing but to be perfectly honest is not very challenging. Pretty sure any 7 year old kid could pick it up and beat it but he would have a harder time beating ninja gaiden.

So I think its not that western devs don't want to make gameplay complicated but I think they get blocked by the publishers who insist no one will probably play it if they make it hard to grasp

The real dichotomy is not visuals vs "gameplay", but rather streamlining vs not. To make things perfectly clear: "dumb-down" and "streamline" are the same exact thing. The only difference is that people will say dumb-down when they disagree and streamline when they agree.

I was going to quote myself explaining this in detail, but I couldn't find the thread where I talked about it. So to make it brief...

The most popular idea in the minds of western developers is that they want to get rid of anything which might interfere with whatever dopamine trigger the game is suppose to give. The Japanese are more interested in the traditional ideas of game quality and don't care if that alienates players. Naturally the former tends to provide more games which are accessible/shallow and the latter provides games which are deep/overcomplicated. This isn't even necessarily a comment on a game's overall depth, simply the methods to get there. It is true though that Japanese games tend to be more rewarding because they are not checkpointed to hell (e.g. consider how player friendly Super Meat Boy is vs something like a Hard Corps: Uprising. Super Meat Boy is deceptively considered a "hard" game too.). I could write a lot more, but frankly, I don't want to get much deeper into it.

These ideologies can be seen split through the genres. One example. The most popular The WRPG developers of the past now make FPS and TPS games which hold your hand because that is what is most accessible(popular). Whereas the most popular JRPGs piles on ton and ton of sub-systems despite whether they are useful are not.

The "visuals vs gameplay" thing probably comes from a perceived unimportance given to mechanics by western devs. The mechanics in Ninja Theory's games have been abysmal imitations while the aesthetics have often been praised. Maybe as an action game dev Itsuno recognizes the bad combat. Maybe not.

To clarify though, it is not a universal phenomenon(though it still fairly applies to "indie" devs, I'm not making an exception for them). It is "modern" western game design we are talking about here. So it shouldn't be a surprise that a few titles on PC, usually made in Eastern Europe, don't follow. If you think I'm being unfair by segregating these games from the rest, then what does that say about the critics which marks these games for not being modern? Another thing to consider is that now more so than ever western game design bleeds into Japan and to a lesser extent the reverse is true.

More seriously I think that game design in the west has gone though a phase of being too cynical for it's own good. It is literally now just seen as an optimisation for an equation where you try to get people playing for x amount of time in order to produce y amount of additional sales or advertising revenue. Which is why many who fancy themselves a being "creative" people like to pretend that game design doesn't exist and that they are artists creating a new wave of fantastic narratives.

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.

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?

I am hoping that future generations of gamers will look back on this generation's bland cinematic scriptfests with the same disdain we have for those Sega CD FMV games of the mid-90's.

Japanese developers excel at extremely 'logical' game design systems. This seems to be why they dominated fighting games for so long - western developers make good 'realistic' martial games, such as boxing and MMA because the design complexity ceiling is limited by realism. Every character is basically the same kind of human being, using similar moves, with only small variations in speed and strength between them.

By comparison, the full-blown fighting game is complex and tricky, with a wild variety and disparity of character move sets and tiered, layered game play systems that all have to interlock and remain (ideally) relatively balanced amid the spiraling branches of player choices in every situation.

Generally, if your game involves this kind of lock-and-key mechanics, I guess it would be described, western developers often feel as if they're a lot more rudimentary and vague in how the game's rules interact. That doesn't mean western games can't be 'complex'. But underneath the apparently complex systems, many western games feel janky if you rip the systems apart too much. I'd wager the average player never notices this because they don't play games with too much focus or to blow the game out. So western games do better with the western mainstream right now. Only in the area of competitive first person shooters do you see people getting deeply into the mechanics. And surprise surprise, the design standards for competitive shooters in the west is a lot tighter.

Even so, Japanese designers have a love of 'systems'. Rather than start with the picture (western style) and try to think up a few kinds of game play that fit within the picture, Japanese designers appear to start with abstract gameplay concepts and see if they come up with a fun and interesting set of mechanics.

To western eyes, this makes a lot of Japanese games 'nonsensical' because there can be all these layered systems involved with a character throwing a punch or walking across a room. This often is perceived as "bad design" or "they didn't do it right". From the Japanese perspective, it seems the fun part of the game isn't pretending you're watching a movie and making stuff happen by pushing the button at the right time, but in mastering a game system and excelling at playing the game as a game.

And of COURSE these are generalizations, and of COURSE there are plenty of specific western or eastern games that dip into each others' territory. But over a long enough timeline, I think the observations in the OP are generally true. The general trends in western and eastern design stand out if you've played a lot of games from both cultures.

Unfortunately for Japanese game makers, western game publishers have found the solution to making popular games the last half decade is to throw a hundred million dollars at the developer in order to fund the creation of tons of audio-visual assets and craft lavish experiences that impress in sheer scope and in how movie-like they can be. To be entirely fair, western developers have also proven to be better at making use of that infusion of scale and cash, than most Japanese companies. Western developers used the new tech better, scaled up better, and found more efficient production methods so they could, you know, make towns in HD. Sadly, entirely apart from design priorities and methodologies, Japanese developers have been hobbled by their own production techniques and management style, apparently preventing them from keeping pace with the west in producing AAA games.

I want to thank you gentlemen for making up for the usual willfull ignorance and trolling that comes with a thread on "game design" and "Japan" in the OP for all the good it will do.

 

[DeadTrees]

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?

Well, yes. Repeatedly. Over and over and over and over and over and over again.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled my-stereotype-can-beat-up-your-stereotype thread.

 

[a secret-boss]

I expect masterpiece from FF Versus

 

[LQX]

I wonder if those that get caught up with these sweeping generalizations actually play a good assortment of games. They almost never seem to as they over look so many great games.

 

[Ydahs]

Pretty big generalisations, but Japanese games I've played recently are often refined in the gameplay department. They're also generally feature packed, something which I love.

 

[rohlfinator]

There are certainly generalizations you can make about the differences in philosophy between eastern/western game design, but to suggest that any significant number of developers start with visuals and build the gameplay later seems pretty absurd to me. I'd love to hear some of developer-GAF chime in, because that sounds completely backwards from everything I've heard about the development process.

And "gameplay" used in this context is an utterly meaningless weasel-word which is basically used to let the speaker pick and choose which games have "real gameplay" based on the types of mechanics he personally prefers. "My favorite genre X has actual gameplay, genre Y is just mashing buttons / clicking on stuff / numbers in a spreadsheet / (insert overly reductive criticism of genre here)". It's kind of like how the word "fun" gets tossed around as if it's an irrefutable end to an argument.

 

[Grayman]

i thought capcom started with DLC.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I still don't understand the realistic graphics obsession. Games with a more artistic style always look much more appealing to me.

 

[enzo_gt]

While it is a generalization, there is truth to it. It's all about flashy graphics in the west, as demonstrated by so many threads and comments on this forum. We have super pretty games like Uncharted that have no depth in their gameplay and complete gameplay turds like Skyrim winning GOTY awards everywhere. Then there are Dragon's Dogma and Dark Souls, which murder any western RPG in the gameplay department, but get critized for their visuals.
This is why I can't get excited for games like The Last of Us or Beyond, because I can already see the flat gameplay and corridor levels that give the player no freedom. Sadly this seems to be a trend for many many big releases.

I don't think it's a coincidence either that most great action and fighting games are Japanese.

But hey, this is coming from a guy who got so bored by Uncharted 3 that he turned it off and started playing Chrono Trigger on his handheld with super shitty graphics, so what do I know ;-)

This is a beautiful post. I agree. Make that heavy generalization too.

Though I do generally enjoy western games more because they excel in the genres I like most (racing for example).

The Uncharted series is a great example of the attention given to flash over substance. The franchise pretty much prides itself on it's flash and builds the gameplay around it. Once you break it down, the core shooting mechanics are terrible and completely third rate (which subsequently leads the competitive multiplayer to suffer in quality as a result), and the platforming is as linear as many of the other games that get criticism for the same stuff, but are not as pretty.

But you know what? That's what people like. If the gameplay is sufficient enough (key point here), some pretty visuals can turn a mundane experience into something more vivid and ultimately more enjoyable. I enjoyed the fuck out of Uncharted 2. Yeah, maybe if it hit some higher notes in the gameplay department I'd rate it even better, but it's pretty good all things considered.

This is perplexing coming from Capcom. Although they make the finest fighting games around, a genre that thrives on substance over style, they're other pursuits, into Western territory especially, are increasingly focusing on graphics over gameplay. Yet at the same time, they're doing stuff like DD (taking people's word for this games depth). But you know, it's Capcom, etc.

 

[D3RANG3D]

While it is a generalization, there is truth to it. It's all about flashy graphics in the west, as demonstrated by so many threads and comments on this forum. We have super pretty games like Uncharted that have no depth in their gameplay and complete gameplay turds like Skyrim winning GOTY awards everywhere. Then there are Dragon's Dogma and Dark Souls, which murder any western RPG in the gameplay department, but get critized for their visuals.
This is why I can't get excited for games like The Last of Us or Beyond, because I can already see the flat gameplay and corridor levels that give the player no freedom. Sadly this seems to be a trend for many many big releases.

I don't think it's a coincidence either that most great action and fighting games are Japanese.

But hey, this is coming from a guy who got so bored by Uncharted 3 that he turned it off and started playing Chrono Trigger on his handheld with super shitty graphics, so what do I know ;-)

>Dragons Dogma
>Dark Souls
>RPG's

Not action games...

The best RPG would be Mount and Blade and it has better combat than both.

 

[GoofsterStud]

Hmmm
Model 1: Virtua Fighter | Model 2: Virtua Fighter 2 | Model 3: Virtua Fighter 3
Model 1: Virtua Racting | Model 2: Daytona and Sega Rally | Model 3: Scud Racer

*scratch head*

While I think Western Developers have improved significantly, I don't see any reason to discredit Eastern Developers when they were on their A game.

I still don't understand the realistic graphics obsession. Games with a more artistic style always look much more appealing to me.

The combination of both is better. <3
Granted Artistic vs Realistic is all about preference. We all have different preferences. Some only like Realism, some only like Artistic, Some like both and are selective. Preference is personal.

why does this look so cool

 

[Riposte]

>Dragons Dogma
>Dark Souls
>RPG's

Not action games...

The best RPG would be Mount and Blade and it has better combat than both.

Mount and Blade is sooner a strategy-action game than a RPG. RPG isn't even a genre.

 

[D3RANG3D]

Mount and Blade is sooner a strategy-action game than a RPG. RPG isn't even a genre.

Except you can actually role play I am son/daughter of a smith blah blah, and it affects your stats

 

[Riposte]

Except you can actually role play I am son/daughter of a smith blah blah, and it affects your stats

Dark Souls:

I'm a member of the Princess's Guard and the lost son of Gywn, and it affects your stats.

 

[D3RANG3D]

Dark Souls:

I'm a member of the Princess's Guard and the lost son of Gywn, and it affects your stats.

Action Game

But can you play a Bald female and you get hated on for it?

 

[Zaventem]

Having a realistic art style doesn't mean your game can't be visually and artistically pleasing.Why is this nonsense being thrown around in this thread.

 

[Risette]

Eastern European devs are like the best of both worlds. Sure their games are a bit janky but they're highly ambitious.

This sounds like the worst of both worlds.

Which is true.

And then complimenting yourself on your gameplay when you've produced a lot of mediocre to bad games over the last few years.

Itsuno has created some of the best combat systems ever so I think he has room to talk.

 

[Riposte]

Action Game

But can you play a Bald female and you get hated on for it?

I agree, Dark Souls is an action game.


East Europe (along with devs like Paradox and a few indies) isn't a best of both worlds, they are the best of an old, forgotten world.

 

[Dead Man]

Basically, his statement is a wash.

You can find examples pro (demon's souls, GT5) and contra (FFXIII, MGS4, RE5).

I'd say it's more game budget correlated thing than geographical.

Big budget releases tend to be highly polished but low risk in the gameplay department.
Low budget games, the other way.


Western developers just tend to release more AAA budget games than Japanese.

Bingo.

 

[TEJ]

You can name some random indie game to show western games aren't all about graphics and name FFXIII to show Japanese games can be about impressive graphics, but that doesn't change that there are general trends and differences between eastern and western development.

There are a metric shit-ton of non-indie mainstream western games that focused on gameplay and had shitty visuals. A lot of the stuff I can think of from the 80's, 90's, and even up until last gen had janky/awful visuals but great mechanics.

 

[Femmeworth]

Itsuno has created some of the best combat systems ever so I think he has room to talk.

Crediting one person for an entire combat system is silly, at least in this day and age. Not that you are the first person to do that.

 

[D3RANG3D]

I agree, Dark Souls is an action game.


East Europe (along with devs like Paradox and a few indies) isn't a best of both worlds, they are the best of an old, forgotten world.

Europe as in Western Europe is the best of both worlds because they don't take themselves super serious like American/Canadian devs, or just go full wacky like Japan.

Nothing wrong with either extreme but it gets a little tiring.

Eastern Europe is awesome because they make hardcore PC centric games.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

East Europe (along with devs like Paradox and a few indies) isn't a best of both worlds, they are the best of an old, forgotten world.

On maps of general gaming knowledge, Eastern Europe is blank save the ominous message "Here Be Dragons".

 

[Deleted member 30609]

 

[Sianos]

Gameplay vs. Graphics is a misnomer. Both are required for a video game to be a video game. A video game without gameplay is just a video and a video game without graphics is just a game (like poker or tic tac toe). The issue is about which area receives more emphasis and sacrificing in one area to inflate the other.

You can have games with great gameplay and graphics: Rayman Origins has solid mechanics and spot on controls, but also a beautiful visual style and overall atmosphere. Just Cause 2's world is sprawling and pleasing to the eye, but the underlying mechanics are fantasticly satisfying and control well. This is all subjective, but I'm sure you could think of a game that doesn't sacrifice in either department.

Without considering cultural preferences, a good example of sacrificing in one department to raise another would be the original Deus Ex vs. Human Revolution. The original Deus Ex had more prominent rpg elements, more complex gameplay, and more openended levels. But it sacrificed in the visuals department: environments aren't extremely and it isn't as flashy. Human Revolution has more detailed environments and higher quality effects, but isn't as openended as the original and is slightly dumbed down/streamlined. Both are fantastic games: the difference comes down to which element had more emphasis placed upon it.

Taken to an extreme it would be Battlefield 3 (Campaign) vs. Dwarf Fortress (Vanilla). Battlefield 3 is super-realistic, with visceral explosions and hyperdetailed environments, but the gameplay has been overly dumbed down/streamlined and focuses a bit too much on quick time events, which in my opinion diminishes from immersion and the gameplay experience. Dwarf Fortress is super complicated with deep mechanics and endless possibilities with user generated worlds and the ability to mod in almost anything, but these features aren't really explained and the ASCII graphics are almost nonexistent. Neither is a bad game, but most likely someone who prefers a streamlined cinematic Battlefield 3 wouldn't enjoy a complex sprawling minimalistic graphics wise Dwarf Fortress.

In my opinion graphics should augment gameplay, serving to make the enjoyable game with solid mechanics and fantastic level design more presentable but not the main focus. To others gameplay should augment graphics, making a cinematic experience more exciting and dramatic because you control the action. Neither of these opinions are wrong.

The only wrong answer is to oversaturate the market with one type of game that leans far to one side. Think cinematic Call of Duty clones with beautiful graphics and visceral excitement but overdone dumbed down cover based shooting and quicktime events versus strategically deep Dragon Quest clones with complex yet solid gameplay mechanics and a a characterized world but an overdone setting that isn't quite as detailed and visually appealing. Catering entirely towards one market alienates a segment of the playerbase reducing sales and making all your games melt together in a bland mess. Variety is what makes games so fun: Dear Esther and Gal Civ 2 are great for their own reasons.

To sum it up, an industry wide balance between creative new ideas and fantastic presentation with outliers leaning extremely far towards one side or the other is better than the entire industry shifting in one direction barring a few exceptions.

 

[Anticitizen One]

I miss the 90s when games used to have great gameplay AND great graphics. See RARE, Nintendo (SNES/n64 eras), Playstation era (Tekken 3, FF VII-IX, RE 1-3, MGS), etc.

Now adays developers are like "well we can't do both duhurrr"

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Seems like quite a generalization. That said, most of my favorite games come from Japan. I still think the best console ever made was the SNES so take my opinion for what you think it's worth based on that.

I'll take Chrono Trigger over Skyrim any day.

 

[revolverjgw]

I miss the 90s when games used to have great gameplay AND great graphics. See RARE, Nintendo (SNES/n64 eras), Playstation era (Tekken 3, FF VII-IX, RE 1-3, MGS), etc.

Now adays developers are like "well we can't do both duhurrr"

All music today sucks Led Zep 4ever

 

[Htown]

Mount and Blade is sooner a strategy-action game than a RPG. RPG isn't even a genre.

Both of those sentences are wrong.