Toshihiro Nagoshi on Why Japan Hates First Person Shooters

http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/19/why-ja...domain-156025/

Nagoshi was involved with Virtua Racing, Daytona USA, and Super Monkey Ball, so you may know his work. In this interview regarding Binary Domain, he is asked about the differences in taste regarding Japan and the West in terms of genres like FPS. But I don't really understand what he's saying about Western storylines being inferior to Japanese ones. I wouldn't doubt that translation and differences in Japanese vs. Western expression gets in the way of relating to the feelings and story as opposed to how a native would perceive it (which is partly why alot of translations tend to be awkward) but I don't know if I'd say Japanese stories are any less cliche than Western ones. I do agree with him on concerns about the west focusing too much on realism vs. Japan's more stylized looks. That's something that is emphasized by them that isn't as much in the west, but I do agree that Western games can be alot slicker production-wise too. Still, it's interesting to hear his opinion. You should also check out this interview with Keiji Inafune on the taste differences: http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/eas...eastvswest.htm

He's commenting on FPS games specifically, and I can agree with him that the plots of those games generally aren't culturally universal, especially when we're talking about the military-based shooters.

I don't see the focus on realism as being "problem", what I see as a problem is the lack of variety.

There needs to be a mix of looks and design directions... That way it caters to a variety of tastes and no everything looks like everything else.

Story wise I agree with you. There are TONS of cliche and hokey stories in Japanese games. They would just need someone to take a game made for a Western Audience and put it through a competent localization... not just to get the language right, but to make it more appealing in a broad sense. Not many will put in that kind of effort since they may have to fundamentally change a good deal of the game.

I don't think I have seen even one truly brilliant video game storyline. They are all derivative. I completely agree that FPS are the last few generations' worst offenders at derivative pop culture story telling though. Really though, none of the stories told in any video game would make a good kid's novel or super early dime novel. It is the interactive aspect, character development, gameplay, playtesting for better gameplay, and other aspects that makes a game feel like a great story. I wish the game industry would get back to its roots and stop trying to be the hollywood I hope is dieing a horribly slow death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

I don't think I have seen even one truly brilliant video game storyline. They are all derivative. I completely agree that FPS are the last few generations' worst offenders at derivative pop culture story telling though. Really though, none of the stories told in any video game would make a good kid's novel or super early dime novel. It is the interactive aspect, character development, gameplay, playtesting for better gameplay, and other aspects that makes a game feel like a great story. I wish the game industry would get back to its roots and stop trying to be the hollywood I hope is dieing a horribly slow death.

---

I agree with you. I read one user on another forum saying how 99% of games are shallow, and that if you turned even the best video game stories available into movies they would just look like your run-of-the-mill Hollywood blockbuster at most. Take the alleged Call of Duty movie for instance. How can they separate it from any other well-done war movie except in name-only?

Likewise, I can tolerate the cheesiness of stuff like Final Fantasy X among others for the gameplay. The story is just meant to give it some direction but otherwise I wouldn't pass it off as good literature, since I am a fan of books myself. I can watch cheesy action movies that are cliched if it at least does the formula well enough, but in the end it's still entertainment. And that's what gaming is to me, since it's about INTERACTION.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5233

But I don't really understand what he's saying about Western storylines being inferior to Japanese ones.

---

That's not what he said (unless I missed it). He only said that Western video game storylines do not appeal to Japanese tastes.

I think there are various reasons for why the FPS is not popular in Japan. One is that the genre started out on the PC, and the PC game market in Japan was and still is almost completely nonexistent (outside of h games...!). So while Americans were getting hooked on Doom and Half-Life and every other PC classic in the mid to late 90s, these games were not really played in Japan. The genre just never took off. Another reason, as he mentions, is that "ultra-realism" is a very Western trend in film/games and this is in stark contrast to tastes in Japan where fantasy and melodrama are still the norm. The FPS genre is really marked by this ultra-realistic flavor these days.

I've played Binary Domain. My impression of the storyline is a mix of every action movie James Cameron has directed. The game is part Terminator, Avatar and Aliens. The story is a total train wreck!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obviously

He's commenting on FPS games specifically, and I can agree with him that the plots of those games generally aren't culturally universal, especially when we're talking about the military-based shooters.

---

Yeah, this. I don't think he's saying "Western developers make inferior stories to Japanese devs" at all. Rather, the stories and thematic content prevalent in this type of game just doesn't appeal to Japanese sensibilities in general. Nagoshi cites "the realistic image of guns and military" as one of the main reasons, and basically says that Japanese people aren't comfortable with guns.

There's another implication in the fact that story was discussed so much. I think another problem is the focus on online multiplayer. Many FPS are sold on the online multiplayer, with single-player/story mode being a token inclusion, if they even bother with it at all. I don't think that type of gameplay appeals to Japanese gamers. LAN parties were never a huge deal in Japan. Japanese kids/teens don't play capture the flag, laser tag, or paintball.

Still, there's always exceptions. We're always hearing that FPS in general aren't popular in Japan, not that different kinds are popular over there. If it's just things like story and content and stylized versus realistic visuals, what of games like Tron 2.0, Portal, and Geist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

I don't think I have seen even one truly brilliant video game storyline. They are all derivative. I completely agree that FPS are the last few generations' worst offenders at derivative pop culture story telling though. Really though, none of the stories told in any video game would make a good kid's novel or super early dime novel. It is the interactive aspect, character development, gameplay, playtesting for better gameplay, and other aspects that makes a game feel like a great story. I wish the game industry would get back to its roots and stop trying to be the hollywood I hope is dieing a horribly slow death.

---

There is a lot of truth in this. I remember reading that when Doom was in development, Tom Hall, one of the founders of id, created this complex story for the game. John Carmack was totally against it and famously said "Story in a game is like story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important." They got into a big fight and Tom Hall ended up resigning over it, and Doom as we know and love it has pretty much no story just as Carmack wished.

Film critic Roger Ebert also made a bold statement that has been misunderstood by pretty much every gamer in the world, but which I find insightful. He said that games can never be art. Of course, everybody over-reacted when they heard this, but what he meant was that games, by their nature, are mutually exclusive from art. When a game starts to become art it is no longer a game. Based on that, you can see that some games that are considered very artistic in their design or storytelling, such as Gone Home, are not so much games as they are interactive art experiences or some such. Some games may even alternate between being a game and being art.

Whether this makes any sense or you agree with it or not, the point is that story comes in a very distant second in comparison with actual gameplay in how I judge a game. It is almost entirely inconsequential and simply serves as a tool on which to base the gameplay and graphics. I wish the industry would stop trying to focus so much energy on creating amazing stories since they all pretty much suck in the end.

I still find Planescape to have an excellent story. I think there are a few that have the potential to be really good stories, but they would obviously need to have a fair bit of work done.

The medium is just a totally different beast from a set in stone format like a movie or book. Even the choose your own adventure novels have far less options for play than all but the absolute most shallow and straightforward games.

I think the thing that holds many games back, more so than just the story, is the quality of writing of said story and the associated characters (which also tends to get compounded with bad acting).

That's been getting a hell of a lot better lately in some games... but it's still B movie level (or worse) in all but the best cases... and even those are basically just passable.

I also don't think games are exclusive from art... because what is art? It's entirely subjective. Does Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans deserve to be called "art" any more than a game like Shadow of the Colossus or the Mass Effect games?

What about those minimalist paintings that are only a few fleks of paint on a blank canvas?

But that, in itself, is a whole other discussion with no real resolution save for one's own personal take on it.

Roger Ebert's pronouncement looks at the medium through a limited lens. With respect to the definition of art and what constitutes it, we are so used to the upper echelons of society defining art: Invalidating one in favor of another. Why is a painting done by Picasso noteworthy while street art is looked down upon? It is only recently that street art done by the likes of Banksy is commanding attention. And who in the end has defined his work as noteworthy but the upper crust of society! Art is simply not a thing that exudes beauty. It can evoke feelings and emotions. And it can also conjure up ideas and thoughts.

Atari 2600 games may be simple but it's inherent simplicity a game can possess an artistic quality to the viewer.

The point I am trying to make is just like a painting, movies can do all of these things and so can a video game. Each of these things can be visually appealing to the eye. Each can tell a story and evoke emotions. And finally each medium can lead a viewer to a realization or thought that was only brought to the forefront after experiencing/watching the specific medium. It has been my belief for quite some time that eventually we would see an amalgam of big budget movies with video games. And it's also my belief that we've yet to taste the sweet nectar, the apogee of what can be achieved through the mishmash of both mediums. But rest assured we will one day soon. We are now in the midst of experimentation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEGA.GENESIS1989

It has been my belief for quite some time that eventually we would see an amalgam of big budget movies with video games. And it's also my belief that we've yet to taste the sweet nectar, the apogee of what can be achieved through the mishmash of both mediums. But rest assured we will one day soon. We are now in the midst of experimentation.

---

I think we are already there. What are the COD/MOH games and the like but the big budget Hollywood summer blockbusters? Low story, big effects, and are predominantly about "Turn off brain, kick back with popcorn and enjoy". They are virtually identical in terms of their objective.

The indie movies and indie game scenes are also very similar. Focusing on some lone interesting aspect, or trying something new, often just for the sake of trying something new.

I think where it falls down for me personally.. is that a movie is not the same as a game... Movies benefit from a tightly focused experience that is controlled by the director and screen writer(s). SOME games are similar... but so many more are great simply because the game gives you agency to act upon it... it may lay out the pieces to the puzzle, but ultimately the exact way you put them together is up to you. It becomes something personal.

Mass Effect 1/2 and most of 3 are good examples of it... do the overall games really change that much with the different options? No, not really. But it gives you enough nuance, both subtle and gross, to make that playthrough definably yours. It's your main character making those dialog choices, making the call about who to take out, who to leave behind, who to focus on, and in some cases, who is going to die.

A movie cannot offer you that same experience, it's predetermined and set. No matter how much you might want it to be different, it's going to stay the same every time...

It's fundamentally a different thing, even if the "audio visual media" aspect of it is very similar.

Story isn't the same thing as art. Art doesn't have to be narrative.

The thing about Ebert's statement was that he has (IMO) a completely different conception of "art". A lot of people didn't catch the fact that he also said that "hardly any movies are art". To him, it's a romantic concept; "art" is an aspirational status bestowed upon only the truly great works. But that's not how most people use the word "art" in ordinary conversation. Especially people immersed in the art world. Art, to me, includes the lowbrow, the kitsch, the camp, postmodernism and dadaism. It doesn't have to be fine art to be art.

In any case, I don't see the story of a game as an aspect completely separate from everything else. A game's story isn't just its cutscenes and written dialog. The real "story" is everything that happens from start to finish. And if you look at it that way, games can provide compelling stories on par with any other medium.

The Japanese don't have anything against VIOLENT games, just more modern military games. They much prefer fantasy - the more fantastic, the better. Monster Hunter is huge in Japan, for example, while games like COD aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

The Japanese don't have anything against VIOLENT games, just more modern military games. They much prefer fantasy - the more fantastic, the better. Monster Hunter is huge in Japan, for example, while games like COD aren't.

---

That makes me wonder... if you tweaked COD and it was the exact same game... but with a setting similar to like say... trigun, or bleach, or something similar to that (or anything big and popular there right now) and tweaked all the story/dialog stuff to follow suit... How would that do in Japan?

All the gameplay mechanics would be the same, it would basically just be like one of those old doom reskin jobs.