It
is no secret that there is a huge cultural divide between Western and
Eastern styles of video game development. Due to the way each region
of the world developed on similar, yet fundamentally different, lines
over the centuries, the games developed by each regions cater to
wildly different tastes and demographics. The most obvious divide we
see is the one between Role Playing Games developed between the two
regions of the world. Though both derive from the same RPG systems
(like Dungeons and Dragons), they each took those systems in wildly
different directions indicative of their cultures. We are all at
least somewhat aware of this since we distinguish between Western
style and Eastern Style RPGs, but what really separates the two? This
week will be dedicated to answering that question.
The
first key difference between the two styles of RPGs is that while
Japanese RPGs generally tend to emphasize being part of a team,
Western RPGs have a higher focus on the individual. We see this
manifest in a variety of ways. In Eastern RPGs, like Final Fantasy,
the player rarely takes the role of a single protagonist. Instead,
they play as a group of people who are working together towards a
common goal. While there is often a very clearly designated “lead
character,” (Cecil in Final Fantasy IV or Cloud in Final Fantasy
VII) they were always just the head of a group and not a significant
figure that can do everything by themselves. Even in the later games
of the Persona franchise, which borrows many tropes from Western
RPGs, the player character is the team leader. Though exhibiting
great power in their own right, they have party members and teammates
to rely on. Their powers are even a direct result of connecting with
others and forging bonds, still indicative of the team aspect of many
Eastern RPGs. Compare this to RPGs developed in North America and
Europe. In games like The Elder Scrolls or Mass Effect, the player is
placed squarely in the center of the action. They are directly
responsible for doing things. It is not a small team of individuals
completing objectives and advances the plot, but rather one person.
Even when the designers give the player squad-mates (like in Mass
Effect) or companions (like in Skyrim or Fallout), the protagonist is
clearly the driving force, the strongest character in the game, and
the one who takes control at key story events. The lead character's
individual contribution to the plot is highly valued over the
contribution of other characters.
Another
way in which Eastern and Western RPG design are separate is in the
way they allow players to interact with the plot of the game. In an
Eastern RPG, developers generally have a very tight reign on the
narrative. There is a plot to the game, yet the player has limited
ability, if any, to influence it. When they are given agency, it is
only with regards to minor details. A good example of this is the
blitzball tournament near the beginning of Final Fantasy X. The
player is technically able to win the tournament. However, if they
do, they will only receive a slight reward for it. Otherwise, the
plot advances as the same way regardless of whether the player won or
lost, and it is never mentioned again past that point. This is not a
criticism of the game, but merely an observation of what JRPG
developers expect of their players. On the opposite side of the
world, Western RPGs have a very strong focus on player choice and how
that choice influences the narrative. Players are given a higher
degree of freedom to poke and prod. Developers ask players to look
around, gather information, and make decisions that will directly
affect the game experience, if not the overall plot of the game.
While absolute freedom is impossible, since games are just programs
and thus have constraints, they try to loosen the reigns as much as
possible. The ability to make choices that affect the events of the
plot is best exemplified in some of Obsidian Entertainment's latest
works like Fallout: New Vegas and Alpha Protocol. These games force
the player to choose between several factions, each with their own
views on the events at hand, and pick sides. Another example of
choice in games is the Mass Effect series, despite my
criticisms.
The plot itself will generally remain generally the same, but the
player can impact events and change many of the series's key events
in significant ways. Choices have consequences and the franchise
forces the player to live with them. In essence, Eastern games took a
few liberties with the concept of role playing while Western games
tried to stay truer to the concept. Both are valid tactics, it all
comes down to the designer's preference.
The
final point I will make with regards to the difference between
Eastern and Western RPGs is the JRPGs tend to be of a generally
slower pace than their Western counterparts. Though there are
exceptions to the rule (like the Star Ocean franchise), JRPGs are
usually turn-based or semi-turn-based. Battles focus on taking in all
the relevant information and making good moment to moment decisions
into order to win. The speed and flow of battle is intentionally
slowed in order to give players time before committing to certain
actions. Tactical thinking and good strategy is much more important
in these games than speedy inputs or reflexes. The Final Fantasy
series is very well-known for this. They pioneered the Active Time
Battle system that has become a staple of the franchise and one of
the most enduring examples of turn-based gameplay. For a while, the
West used turned based systems as well. They worked well for the
isometric RPGs of old (and still do). Though even back then, those
turn-based games had a faster pace than their Eastern counterparts.
Now that we have come to modern gaming, Western-style RPGs have
become more action-oriented. Instead of being an outside force
directing a group of people in a turn-based fight, games like The
Elder Scrolls and Mass Effect have the player actually play as the
main character in a three-dimensional space, moving around and
engaging enemies directly instead of being some omnipresent overlord
directing from over the shoulder. While they are not always as quick
and visceral as shooters and action games, Western RPGs were always
significantly faster and more direct than their Eastern equivalents:
It has just become more pronounced now. It is the player themselves,
as the Dovahkin or Commander Shepard, who goes through and defeats
hundreds of enemies. However, it is worth noting that this one is
even less of a hard and fast rule than my previous two points. It is
more of general trend and there are multiple games that deviate from
it.
I
must once again stress that this is not meant to criticize the style
of either region. Like my earlier comparison of Fallout
3 to Fallout: New Vegas, it is more of a
compare/contrast between development styles. Depending on the goal of
the video game, be it in mechanics, plot, etc., both of them have
benefits and drawbacks inherent to their design. Though unlike the
Fallout comparison, these two styles could effectively be considered
separate genres entirely because they are that different from each
other. It is fascinating that two groups can take the exact same
inspirations and achieve different, yet equally viable results from
them. This speaks to the cultural differences between us all. It is
not a bad thing by any means. In fact, I think it is to be
celebrated. That is why games are treated as forms of expression and
speech. They speak to us and to our sensibilities. All these
different people and philosophies brought together by a love of
entertaining the masses. Truly, I can think of few things better than
that. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment