"Japan used to rule video games, so what happened?"

[TedNugent]

These stories sound boring and overrated.

In that way, they remind me a lot of Shakespeare.

 

[Farage]

Maybe people got tired of Final Fantasy?
Which one are they making now? LXXXVIII ?

 

[Morality Games]

These stories sound boring and overrated.

In that way, they remind me a lot of Shakespeare.

Contrary to hipster belief, Shakespeare isn't overrated. But enjoying his plays fully requires digesting substantial quantities of historical and literary context.

Also, they're plays; they're meant to be consumed visually, with costumes, props, and acting communicating much of the mood, character, and setting; people have a tendency to read them as narrative poetry, which they aren't. They're script and stage directions, which is like 10% of the Shakespearean experience.

 

[LundB]

ITT: Lots of people who think that all of Japan is Akihabara, all modern Japanese culture revolves around animu and video game crap, and all Japanese are otaku trash.

lol believing that animu and video games are the core of mainstream Japanese culture. It's hilarious when western weeaboo types believe that, thinking it's a nation full of people who will totally understand them and their love of shitty animu, then get slapped in the face with reality (reality being that the average person will not appreciate their weeaboo tendencies any more than they did back home).

 

[Morality Games]

ITT: Lots of people who think that all of Japan is Akihabara, all modern Japanese culture revolves around animu and video game crap, and all Japanese are otaku trash.

lol believing that animu and video games are the core of mainstream Japanese culture. It's hilarious when western weeaboo types believe that, thinking it's a nation full of people who will totally understand them and their love of shitty animu, then get slapped in the face with reality (reality being that the average person will not appreciate their weeaboo tendencies any more than they did back home).

Not sure its all one way or all the other on that point. Weeaboos generally need a reality check, but Japanese seem to like that the pop culture interchange isn't entirely one sided.

 

[Lyric Suite]

There was never an argument on my part regarding the perceived superiority of Japanese/Western games.

But it was on my part. Your interest in joining the argument was made evident by you replying to it. Don't try to wiggle out yourself out of a corner now. Either you stick to the argument or fuck off.

Now, is western gaming superior to Japanese gaming? Yes or no?

Also the article does not claim that Japan made the best games (again, reading comprehension).

Irrelevant and besides the point at present.

And the whole best games argument is an exercise in futility since your subjective and fiddly arguments about "possibilities inherent in the medium" and "japs not taking the medium as seriously as westerners" are neither objective nor easy to define to the point that you could use them universally to judge games "scientifically". In other words, if I give you an example of a well designed, good Japanese game, you'll come up with a BS excuse why it can't qualify as a good game (or one that's equal to a good western game)

Nice try at tu quoque. My argument is that it is you who is trying to come up with BS excuses for why western gaming isn't in fact superior. The fact that Japanese games can be well designed is completely besides the point (as is the fact a lot of western games have truly shit design, to forestall future fallacies). My attempts at explaining why this is the case were a lot more charitable to the Japanese than your own reversed racist bullshit (the Japanese have better IQs trololo), but they were nothing more than that, attempts at explanation. The only thing that i consider to be self evident here is that western gaming is superior to Japanese gaming. End of rhine.

When it comes to the "Japanese games ruling video games", it was during 80s(*) and 90s when majority of the most commercially and critically acclaimed console and arcade games were Japanese. As console&arcade games (especially in the US) had a larger market share and were more well represented in mainstream media than computer games, it's justified to say that they ruled the market both in terms of sales and in the eyes of the average, casual consumer. Even if NetHack, Alpha Centauri and Deus Ex are better individual games than any Japanese game of that time, it does not matter (enough) in the large historical perspective, even when you do acknowledge their design merits.
(*)Though in arcades the situation was more even. In the early 80s it was something like 70/30 between US/JP. As time went on Japan started dominating the arcade scene.

Where the article makes a mistake is when it calls Japan the spiritual home of video games. Spacewar, 1st generation arcade games&1st and 2nd console generation consoles and all the noncommercial computer games developed in universities during the 70s were American.

Again, this is all besides the point. But, in the interest of concluding this argument, i find this interesting:

Even if NetHack, Alpha Centauri and Deus Ex are better individual games than any Japanese game of that time

Or ever. And even then, was there any "time" in which western gaming didn't have better "individual" games than Japanese gaming? I mean, present decline excluded, of course.

rather my point was that you worship American culture/you're a wanna-be American.

Ho, please. This kind of shit only ends up undermining your case.

What the hell is the original premise? I never claimed that Japanese games>Western games

Indeed, because it was me who claimed that western games>Japanese games, to your everlasting chagrin apparently.

I only disputed the following statement "So what you're saying is that the japs can't have actual depth and complexity in their games ? Narrative wise, at least."

But i never said that, and that sounds more like a counterargument to my argument in the first place.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Kagemusha (影武者 literally "Shadow Warrior"?) is a 1980 film by Akira Kurosawa. In Japanese, kagemusha is a term used to denote a political decoy. It is set in the Sengoku period of Japanese history and tells the story of a lower-class criminal who is taught to impersonate a dying warlord in order to dissuade opposing lords from attacking the newly vulnerable clan. The warlord whom the kagemusha impersonates is based on daimyo Takeda Shingen, and the film ends with the climactic 1575 Battle of Nagashino.[3]

SO SHAKESPEARE, DAWG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kagemusha

Seven Samurai[1] (七人の侍 Shichinin no Samurai?) is a 1954 Japanese period adventure drama film co-written, edited, and directed by Akira Kurosawa. The film takes place in 1587 during the Warring States Period of Japan. It follows the story of a village of farmers that hire seven masterless samurai (ronin) to combat bandits who will return after the harvest to steal their crops.

WOW, SO SHAKESPEARE!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Samurai

The film opens on a woodcutter (木樵り; Kikori, played by Takashi Shimura) and a priest (旅法師; Tabi Hōshi, Minoru Chiaki) sitting beneath the Rajōmon city gate to stay dry in a downpour. A commoner (Kichijiro Ueda) joins them and they tell him that they've witnessed a disturbing story, which they then begin recounting to him. The woodcutter claims he found the body of a murdered samurai three days earlier while looking for wood in the forest; upon discovering the body, he says, he fled in a panic to notify the authorities. The priest says that he saw the samurai with his wife traveling the same day the murder happened. Both men were then summoned to testify in court, where they met the captured bandit Tajōmaru (多襄丸), who claimed responsibility for the rape and murder.

Which work of Shakespeare does this shamelessly copy, I wonder?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon

These stories sound boring and overrated.

In that way, they remind me a lot of Shakespeare.

detected.

 

[Kz3r0]

Japan invented grinding as core gameplay feature, it's enough to declare them the worst.

 

[Jasede]

Maximum derp.

 

[TheGreatOne]

But it was on my part. Your interest in joining the argument was made evident by you replying to it.

I replied to you replying to a comment about how the perception of what is depth (not the same thing as complexity) and hardcore are different between the two regions. Neither you nor WhiteGuts talked how Western/Japanese gaming are superior in that post.

Don't try to wiggle out yourself out of a corner now. Either you stick to the argument or fuck off.

The same way you wiggled out of explaining how Planescape: Torment is more deep than Silent Hill and now are trying to do to your claims regarding the article when it was pointed to you that it did not in fact claim that Japanese games used to be better even though you claimed so yourself?

Now, is western gaming superior to Japanese gaming? Yes or no?

In what regard? I already told you that there are more complex Western games and that there are more Western games that excel in writing/story telling than Japanese games (though part of that is due to the fact a lot of Japanese games are never translated to English and stuff gets lost in translation but I digress). What you have to realize is that these are still subjective things. The same way you consider Western games superior but don't discredit all Japanese games, some people can appreciate the complexity of some Western PC games but still feel that Japanese games are better as video games.

My argument is that it is you who is trying to come up with BS excuses for why western gaming isn't in fact superior. The fact that Japanese games can be well designed is completely besides the point (as is the fact a lot of western games have truly shit design, to forestall future fallacies).

I already told you that Western games are more complex. That does not mean that I think Western games are superior, because there is more to video games than being just complex. What you fail to realize is that I don't look at games in nationalistic, black and white terms because it's meaningless. 95% of Western games are shit. 95% of Japanese games are shit. I enjoy playing well designed games regardless of their country of origin. Making argument that one region would be superior is asinine when the two different regions excel in making different kinds of games. I like steak and I like ice cream but I'm not going to decide that one of them is superior to other since I enjoy both and they're too different to compare. If it was stake vs stake or ice cream vs ice cream, I could decide which of the two was superior.
To dumb it down for you: I like both old CRPGs and platformers. I can't decide which of them is "better" or "superior" because they're such different genres and provide different kind of entertainment. CRPGs are more complex, but that is not the same thing as being better, especially when talking about entertainment.

And even then, was there any "time" in which western gaming didn't have better "individual" games than Japanese gaming? I mean, present decline excluded, of course.

I like SMT: Nocturne and Monkey Island. SMT: Nocturne is the more complex and challenging game, but that does not mean that I think it's the superior game or that it proves Japanese superiority. Again it makes no sense to compare apples and oranges when they have different design philosophies and goals.

Ho, please. This kind of shit only ends up undermining your case.

As long as I'm a japophile for liking some Japanese games, you're a self loathing European who listens to God bless the USA with a tear in his eye.

But i never said that, and that sounds more like a counterargument to my argument in the first place.

Go read my original post again. All this asinine talk of which region is superior didn't come into play until later on. You're saying that Western games are superior because they're more complex, but the person you were replying to wasn't talking about complexity but depth and hardcoress, stating that japanese games are deep/hardcore in a different way than Western games are.

 

[Lyric Suite]

No point arguing with people like you, since you'll always deflect the main points using the most pathetic of logical fallacies (and always end up relying on relativism as your basic line of defense, since you have nothing else to lean on. Apple and oranges indeed). So i'm just going to declare victory since my point is self evident to anyone with half a brain. Western gaming is superior to Japanese gaming. I know it, everybody here knows it, and no amount of sophistry on your part is going to change this quite obvious fact. The end.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Maximum derp.

You are just into it because of the faggy art, admit it.

 

[Jasede]

No, that was in response to "The Japanese invented grinding as core gameplay."
Made me laugh all day, it's funny on several levels, troll statement or not.

 

[Machocruz]

Game design peaked in the 90s and early 2000s, on personal computer, and it happened mostly in the west, with a few notable contributions from Japan. I think the animation analogy is almost entirely apt; the west has rarely risen above fun, brisk entertainments, while Japan was regularly putting out ambitious, crazy, thoughtful, and/or visionary works, or at least tried. I praise a game like Super Metroid to the sky, but what it is really? It's an arcade game set in a labyrinth with an elementary sci-fi plot and Alien influences. Not exactly reaching conceptually, and not particularly challenging or complex, it's just masterly executed. Silent Hill 2 is one of the few games with writing that I think rises above meaningless hack work, but that didn't come until later, after we'd already seen heady and relevant ideas addressed in Ultima games and Planescape.

Japan dominated video games like pop stars dominate music; it's a dominance based on what the mainstream is aware of, not on achievement in the medium.

 

[TheGreatOne]

No point arguing with people like you, since you'll always deflect the main points using the most pathetic of logical fallacies (and always end up relying on relativism as your basic line of defense, since you have nothing else to lean on. Apple and oranges indeed).

Translation: you realized that your arguments of how japs dont take gaming as seriously as murrikans "because that's how I FEEL about it" and how Silent Hill 2 cant be as good as PS:T "because I SAID SO AND UR DUMB" don't hold any water so you had to change the subject to the superiority argument. And naturally superiority is measured by what you feel is "progressive" and "taking the medium seriously" rather than qualities that can be measured more objectively.

So i'm just going to declare victory

How does the saying about playing chess with pigeons go again? Have a medal for your achievement, you deserve it.

Game design peaked in the 90s and early 2000s, on personal computer, and it happened mostly in the west, with a few notable contributions from Japan. I think the animation analogy is almost entirely apt; the west has rarely risen above fun, brisk entertainments, while Japan was regularly putting out ambitious, crazy, thoughtful, and/or visionary works, or at least tried. I praise a game like Super Metroid to the sky, but what it is really? It's an arcade game set in a labyrinth with an elementary sci-fi plot and Alien influences. Not exactly reaching conceptually, and not particularly challenging or complex, it's just masterly executed. Silent Hill 2 is one of the few games with writing that I think rises above meaningless hack work, but that didn't come until later, after we'd already seen heady and relevant ideas addressed in Ultima games and Planescape.

That Super Metroid example applies to a large amount of those peak era PC games and classic CRPGs too; nothing that revolutionary when it comes to the concept&vision (nor were they that complex or challenging), just well executed and designed games.
I don't see how the 2 year time gap between Planescape and SH2 is in anyway relevant, Tactics Ogre: Let us Cling together which is one of the more "mature" and well written JRPGs with C&C was released in 1995.

People who put "mature video game writing" on a pedestal often seem to forget that mature writing/storytelling and decline have almost always gone hand in hand. There are games like U5, SS2 and AC that break that rule, but Fallouts, Troika games (except ToEE), Planescape, Ultima 7, Longest Journey, Gabriel Knight 2 and Sanitarium among others represent decline in the fact that they tone down the challenge&video game part of the game in order to focus more on telling a story to the player, which is the exact route that modern AAA gaming and WRPGs have taken, stuff like Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us.

I'm not picking up a fight here, I agree with you mostly, a lot of my favorite PC games are from that era. Just worth stating (again) that the seeds of decline were planted during the silver age of CRPGs.

Japan dominated video games like pop stars dominate music; it's a dominance based on what the mainstream is aware of, not on achievement in the medium.

That's the articles point too. But it's not like Western dominance of the video game market has been based anymore on achievement, the 2002-present day time period was and is the time of decline. Japs still have some respect for the notion of making games that are supposed to challenge the player rather than put them on a 6-10 hour long interactive move on rails experience, which is something you don't really see in Western retail games (=not counting indy games) of this era. Thought I don't deny the fact that even if Japs had dominated 2002-2014, the direction (moving away from video games to interactive movies) would've still probably remained the same. But during their reign of terror, it wasn't that uncommon to see challenging games that didn't hold the players hand doing well commercially (which were not as complex as PC games of the time, but atleast represented the same school of thought when it comes to game design: it's the players' job to figure things out and teach themselves to play so they can overcome increasingly harder obstacles)

 

[Machocruz]

That Super Metroid example applies to a large amount of those peak era PC games and classic CRPGs too; nothing that revolutionary when it comes to the concept&vision (nor were they that complex or challenging), just well executed and designed games.

I'd say games like Civilization, Ultima Underworld, Ultima Online, Rainbow Six, Last Express, System Shock 2, Wing Commander, etc. exhibited either more ambition, innovation, or depth than any console games. I say this as a person who didn't even begin playing most of these games until post 2001. The difference in scope and sophistication in various areas were immediately apparent to me. Maybe it's due to me being uninformed of what was out there as well, but I have yet to see the JRPG as fleshed out in RPG systems as Arcanum, or even Baldur's Gate, or a J-strategy game as detailed and complex as Alpha Centauri, or J-stealth and level design as developed as Thief's. For every Fire Emblem or Romance of Three Kingdoms, there is a western game that is "more." Japan has a tendency to arcad-ify genres, which makes sense given their history and strengths. And 80s pc games didn't foretell how far some genres would go in their evolution.

I don't see how the 2 year time gap between Planescape and SH2 is in anyway relevant, Tactics Ogre: Let us Cling together which is one of the more "mature" and well written JRPGs with C&C was released in 1995.

And before that we had Ultima 4 and 5 and their themes which were ambitious for the time. Point is that during the peak decade, the west was two steps ahead in several areas, with Japan following if stepping up to the standard at all. But go into the comments of any East vs. West topic on a mainstream site , and you won't see this acknowledged by more than a couple old timers.

People who put "mature video game writing" on a pedestal often seem to forget that mature writing/storytelling and decline have almost always gone hand in hand. There are games like U5, SS2 and AC that break that rule, but Fallouts, Troika games (except ToEE), Planescape, Ultima 7, Longest Journey, Gabriel Knight 2 and Sanitarium among others represent decline in the fact that they tone down the challenge&video game part of the game in order to focus more on telling a story to the player, which is the exact route that modern AAA gaming and WRPGs have taken, stuff like Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us.

I'm not picking up a fight here, I agree with you mostly, a lot of my favorite PC games are from that era. Just worth stating (again) that the seeds of decline were planted during the silver age of CRPGs.

I'm making no attempt to place mature writing up on a pedestal above play mechanics. I only brought up story to highlight my point above about the west leading in that time period. But I will put a story that makes an attempt at being socially/culturally relevant or has any intellectual or dramatic weight at all above ones that don't. Or being at least competently written is enough to put a game above the vast majority, as in the case of Deus Ex, which I don't remember if it contains any commentary, but I do remember thinking it was a professional quality script. Honestly it was an opportunity to slide some praise SH2's way.

That's the articles point too. But it's not like Western dominance of the video game market has been based anymore on achievement, the 2002-present day time period was and is the time of decline. Japs still have some respect for the notion of making games that are supposed to challenge the player rather than put them on a 6-10 hour long interactive move on rails experience, which is something you don't really see in Western retail games (=not counting indy games) of this era. Thought I don't deny the fact that even if Japs had dominated 2002-2014, the direction (moving away from video games to interactive movies) would've still probably remained the same. But during their reign of terror, it wasn't that uncommon to see challenging games that didn't hold the players hand doing well commercially (which were not as complex as PC games of the time, but atleast represented the same school of thought when it comes to game design: it's the players' job to figure things out and teach themselves to play so they can overcome increasingly harder obstacles)

You'll get no argument from me on this. I've said this numerous times here on Codex, and elsewhere, that Japan understands the function of a console and explained why their games don't get the "popamole" tag as often as western console games do. Even when they do try to give you the Hollywood experience, there is a substantial game component with a respectable level of competence required. Metal Gear Solids for example are normally not hard, but you actually have to try not to get spotted or killed by a boss. manual dexterity and tactics are required. And which country is it putting out Reveangences, Dark Soulses, Fire Emblems and Monster Hunters into retail space?

When I say game development peaked in the 90s and early 2000s, I'm indirectly remarking on the decline of western development afterwards. You hit on almost exactly what I was suggesting, although I would place the very last hurrah at the release of VTM:Bloodlines in 2004.

 

[buzz]

The west/PC gaming ideology:

Spoiler

The east/console gaming ideology:

Spoiler

In the "western school of design", an ideal RPG boss battle would be something like The Master, a challenge that can be approached from as many possible ways as the game allows (diplomacy, stealth, various methods of engaging in combat, downright ignoring it and so on). In JRPGs though, the perfect boss is somewhat more akin to Luca Blight, an extremely challenging puzzle where you have to (almost) flawlessly execute the right type of moves and attack at the right time in order to defeat it. The west at its best tries to expand the concept of what a game is whereas Japan tries to perfect the concept of a video game at its most abstract form. At least that's how I look at it.

 

[TedNugent]

No one here is really talking about how Japanese game studios are letting the level of complexity of their games sink in order to seek Western appeal.

They are deliberately dumbing down their games because they think that's what Americans like.

And so the decline of the Japanese game developers can be chalked up to two things - one, the general of the console gaming industry, combined with a total disrespect for western audiences' intelligence (which may alternately simply be because of poor execution in aping Western decline).

See case study from the following respectable Japanese game developer Capcom/Team Ninja.

http://www.edge-online.com/features...japanese-industry-one-rotting-limb-at-a-time/

And this man, who claims to understand the tastes of western players, is putting his money on zombies.

But Team Ninja isn’t developing the game. Inafune hopes a western studio will be better equipped to make games with more global appeal – after all, Capcom liked Dead Rising 2 developer Blue Castle Games so much that it bought the company, renaming it Capcom Vancouver, which is currently making Dead Rising 3 for Xbox One. Inafune’s choice, however, is an odd one: Spark Unlimited, developer of such non-gems as Turning Point: Fall Of Liberty, Legendary and Lost Planet 3.

Yet it’s hard to shake the disappointment that, for all his bluster, Inafune’s apparent solution to the Japanese industry’s woes involves zombies, a studio with a poor track record, and sacrificing depth at the altar of spectacle.

Just put some zombies in there, they love that shit. Can you blame them?

 

[Farage]

They are deliberately dumbing down their games because they think that's what Americans like.

Thats very true, except they aren't dumbing down the games they release on Japan :D

 

[TheGreatOne]

I'd say games like Civilization, Ultima Underworld, Ultima Online, Rainbow Six, Last Express, System Shock 2, Wing Commander, etc. exhibited either more ambition, innovation, or depth than any console games. I say this as a person who didn't even begin playing most of these games until post 2001. The difference in scope and sophistication in various areas were immediately apparent to me. Maybe it's due to me being uninformed of what was out there as well, but I have yet to see the JRPG as fleshed out in RPG systems as Arcanum, or even Baldur's Gate, or a J-strategy game as detailed and complex as Alpha Centauri, or J-stealth and level design as developed as Thief's. For every Fire Emblem or Romance of Three Kingdoms, there is a western game that is "more." Japan has a tendency to arcad-ify genres, which makes sense given their history and strengths. And 80s pc games didn't foretell how far some genres would go in their evolution.

I personally wouldn't classify games such as Civilization or Rainbow Six as "ambitious" (maybe because I'm not a big fan of neither series), where as a game like System Shock 2 and especially Alpha Centauri are more profound gaming experiences because not only are they mechanically solid, they also have some philosophical thought incorporated into their storylines. Many strategy games, CRPGs and other complex games are still ultimately video games first and foremost, which is why I think they don't differ much from Super Metroid in that regard. They're not ambitious in the sense that they want to have some kind of message, they just have good gameplay and design.
I agree with the bolded part, like I said earlier, I'm not saying that even the best JRPGs reach the the same heights as the best of their Western counterparts, but some of them have gameplay that's deep&challenging enough, some C&C and writing that's good enough to the point that they're nothing to sneer at. Many of the codex favorite RPGs have major flaws too and are by no means perfect; even games like Morrowind are highly regarded and games like Fallout, Arcanum and even PS:T have simplistic/broken combat. A game like Nocturne, TO:LUCT, D3 or P4 can definitely hang in that crowd.

When I say game development peaked in the 90s and early 2000s, I'm indirectly remarking on the decline of western development afterwards. You hit on almost exactly what I was suggesting, although I would place the very last hurrah at the release of VTM:Bloodlines in 2004.

In 2004 we got both VTMB and HL2, two of my perennial favorites. I don't know if VTMB helped to evolve RPG design that much though. I mean the inclusion of different races to FP(S) RPG was a great move, but at it's core the game is based on the innovations of System Shock and Deus Ex. So I'm not sure if I would say that it helped to evolve game design as much as it refined the innovations of its two predecessors into a stronger RPG (character creation and with it all the race related stuff like Nosferatus having to move via sewers), even if it it did have the worst combat out of the bunch. Though I guess it did serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things as with that trinity of FPS-RPGs the non combat mechanics and player/NPC interaction became more and more refined and elaborate with each game.

 

[Declinator]

I personally wouldn't classify games such as Civilization or Rainbow Six as "ambitious" (maybe because I'm not a big fan of neither series), where as a game like System Shock 2 and especially Alpha Centauri are more profound gaming experiences because not only are they mechanically solid, they also have some philosophical thought incorporated into their storylines. Many strategy games, CRPGs and other complex games are still ultimately video games first and foremost, which is why I think they don't differ much from Super Metroid in that regard. They're not ambitious in the sense that they want to have some kind of message, they just have good gameplay and design.

While I understand and disagree with your point I think it is quite funny to say Alpha Centauri is more ambitious than Civilization when Civ was the origin of almost every mechanic in Alpha Centauri. Rainbow Six was the first of the whole subgenre of first person tactical shooter if I remember correctly and if delving into that kind of unknown territory is not ambition then I wonder what is.

Maybe they didn't try to "have a message" but I cannot help but feel that that is only a good thing. Not because trying to send a message would necessarily decrease the quality of the other aspects of the game though that is likely but because I think that having a message is in itself already something that compromises quality. I would take superior gameplay over any kind of message or deep philosophical ruminations anyday nevertheless.

I don't know if VTMB helped to evolve RPG design that much though. I mean the inclusion of different races to FP(S) RPG was a great move

FP meaning first person? You do know that different races were already a feature in first person RPGs back in 1981 (Wizardry)? Or perhaps you meant the inclusion of new races which I guess is true but I cannot think of that as evolution, more like sideways movement.

 

[tuluse]

I personally wouldn't classify games such as Civilization... as "ambitious"

Civilization came out in 1991 and pretty much defined the 4x genre since then. If it's not an ambitious game, I don't think such a thing exists.

I mean fuck, procedural generation of an entire world, AI that can sort of play the game, dynamic creation of cities, borders. It supports a huge number of units on the map at once. The worker improvement system means the map dynamically changes. The tech tree.

It might be the most ambitious game ever based on what it was building upon and accomplished.

 

[Machocruz]

I personally wouldn't classify games such as Civilization or Rainbow Six as "ambitious" (maybe because I'm not a big fan of neither series), where as a game like System Shock 2 and especially Alpha Centauri are more profound gaming experiences because not only are they mechanically solid, they also have some philosophical thought incorporated into their storylines. Many strategy games, CRPGs and other complex games are still ultimately video games first and foremost, which is why I think they don't differ much from Super Metroid in that regard. They're not ambitious in the sense that they want to have some kind of message, they just have good gameplay and design.

Oh I wasn't referring to a message or narrative, but mechanics and game types (what I mean by 'conceptually'). Console games were still either arcade action games, comparatively primitives rpgs that were barely more sophisticated than Wizardry or Ultima 3, or simpler strategy games, but nothing especially new was being introduced and nothing evolved in a significant manner from what I remember. Super Metroid was just more Metroid while Ultima Online was something quite different from MUDs, its closest relative. Maybe I'm just not up to speed on all the kinds of games that were on computers before 1990, but it seems like both new genres were being created at a frequency not seen since and huge leaps were being made in established genres from that point until early 2000. Plus, 3D level design has never been better, no one has taken Ultima 7 to the next level, modern western games are just dumber versions of games that came out in the 90s, certain approaches were never taken further but instead scaled back, games were made assuming a certain level of player competence, RPGs were including more freedoms and reactions to emulate tabletop, etc.

Also keep in mind that I said the games were either ambitious, or innovative or deep. Some games were one, two, or all three things, and in one or many ways (mechanics, concept, plot)

The main point is simple: That period, in my opinion,is the highest that video games ever progressed, or at least certain genres, and it happened mostly in the west*. It's inspired by your and LS' argument, but not meant to take the side of either. It's more of a response to the article and comments below the article and the idea of dominance. And I'd say it's more about console vs. PC, as the west hasn't ever released much in the way of brilliant console games.

In 2004 we got both VTMB and HL2, two of my perennial favorites. I don't know if VTMB helped to evolve RPG design that much though.

No, what I meant was that I felt it was the last significant western game that was designed for a pre-decline audience, or with a pre-decline mindset, not that it was an evolution or a benchmark for any other reason.

*I don't think Jap games ever peaked, overall, they've been steady with slight inclines and declines. E.g. you can find a fighting game today that is just as good as a fighting game from any other period. They never reached the heights of the very highest PC games (a feat no country's console developers have been able to), but that means they haven't fallen as far.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

No, that was in response to "The Japanese invented grinding as core gameplay."
Made me laugh all day, it's funny on several levels, troll statement or not.

It's also false because Ultima

 

[TheGreatOne]

While I understand and disagree with your point I think it is quite funny to say Alpha Centauri is more ambitious than Civilization when Civ was the origin of almost every mechanic in Alpha Centauri. Rainbow Six was the first of the whole subgenre of first person tactical shooter if I remember correctly and if delving into that kind of unknown territory is not ambition then I wonder what is.

Well yes in that case games like M.U.L.E, Ultima 7 and Underworld and maybe even Shenmue and Daggerfall (though I don't know if having a huge gameworld adds much to the actual enjoyment of gameplay) are ambitious games.

Also: http://gamingbolt.com/top-10-most-ambitious-games lulz
"Another world: I bet you've never heard about this game"

FP meaning first person? You do know that different races were already a feature in first person RPGs back in 1981 (Wizardry)? Or perhaps you meant the inclusion of new races which I guess is true but I cannot think of that as evolution, more like sideways movement.

Yeah, first person+3D, first person view has been in RPGs since forever but RPGs that play like FPS games are a different story. There isn't a good acronym for describing games that are from shooter perspective but don't have shooter gameplay like Thief, Arx Fatalis, Ultima Underworld and Amnesia (or those new indy games with no gameplay where you just explore environments).