Japanese vs American character development

[Frostmarrow]

In Metal Gear Solid for the Playstation the main character, Solid Snake, is a non-character. He is created as non-descript as possible so as to invite anyone to play. However, the fans loved Solid Snake and wished for Solid Snake to develop in the sequel. The game-designers solved this in an interesting way. In Metal Gear Sons of Liberty for Playstation 2 Solid Snake returns as an NPC. An older version of himself with a fully developed character. The player is instead given the character Raiden, an androgynous young man with girly hips and a rash temper to play. Raiden is supposed to be anybody. I didn't like Raiden very much but I loved what they did for Solid Snake.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I've given this some thought and I've noticed this style-difference between Japanise and most American games.

I play a lot of video games and computer games (less so for time being, but still), and I've seen the trend.
There are exceptions, of course, but not too many of them.

I like Japanise rpg-video games more. Their often quite shamelessly linear plot-lines, combined with strong character concepts and plots that actually go somewhere as opposite to drifting plots of Baldar's Gate.

I also prefer games with "real alternative endigs". Preferably with different ending movies. Something I hardly ever see happen in any game. Most alternative endings are kind of "blah", with no real effort put into them. And I find it sort of unfulfilling, that even if I should play my character as mass-murdering chaotic evil in those supposingly open-ended games, it doesn't really affect much. I still get to be hero. Or I get the same anti-heroic options I would get with playing paladin-kind character, just picking few 'nasty picks' near end-game. Game lacking consiquences make every deed in game bland.

But then again, all computer games are pretty linear. Some just hide it behind random-treasures and under bulk of needless npc-conversations and multiple I-don't-care-in-which-order-you-do-these-things-or-if-you-don't-do-them-ever- sub-quests.

Most computer computer/video rpg:s (or any long game actually) I've noticed that first half is in many cases better made, than rest of the game. Sometimes it even shows in graphical details.

Pre-made characters for table top rpg-modules however, are bland and boring. They are basicly stat blocks with a name. And they are loysily min-maxed too, most of the time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

best example would be Final Fantasy, where the characters are pre-assigned to you

Not entirely true. The first Final Fantasy had very much non-characters (they didn't even have dialogue). FF2 gave the characters personalities, but they could develop in any way mechanically. FF3 did similar. FF4 was the first one to basically set character powers in stone, but FF5 was a step back from that. FF6 was a bit of a middle ground, and that middle ground has largely stayed, to varying degrees.

Even plot-wise...if any game was an example of you only playing the characters you like, it would be 6. By midway through that game, you have enough characters to meet any need.

FFX even supports the middle ground -- you can change a character's ability progression greatly.

I think it's largely a difference on script vs. nonscript. A more open-ended game would attempt to let the player have the most control over everything (thus meaning whatever comes out is, to some extent, an outgrowth of the player's own will) While a game that mostly told a story (like the more recent FF games) would have characters that fit the plot, not that fit your concept of what you wanted to be (but if you don't find any character that fits what you want to be, the game becomes uninteresting -- see FF8).

 

[s/LaSH]

This thread makes an interesting point, and one that is largely true.

Here's a perspective some might not have considered: While player choice can allow a player to mould their character towards something they want, if the character is pre-defined by professionals who've been doing this sort of thing for years and getting millions of sales off it, then that character's probably 'cooler' than the character created by someone who's never been paid to design characters.

I'm not saying it's better, mind you. It's just that some people appreciate deep characterisation that they exert, and other people are content to hit zombies with swords and look much cooler doing it.

Considering a number of games now, Deux Ex was good because of the choice it gave you, although perhaps not taken to extreme extremes. (Bonus points to the one who tells me where that's quoted from. It's a game with precisely one plot choice.) You can get bawled out for walking into the lady's toilets half an hour ago, but it doesn't have much effect beyond that.

Gothic, on the other hand... my friend's playing it right now, and it seems to be loaded with choice. Unfortunately, because of this the main character is very, very bland. In fact, when he tries to introduce himself at the start he's cut off by another character, which I thought was rather clever. Anyway, that game's all about making friends and enemies in a small area of land and the continuing relationships that go on once you've chosen an allegiance. (Oh, and beating up orcs with big swords.)

Quick summary of Gothic: You're a convict under a magical barrier. Nobody can get out alive, so the prisoners are running the mines - and because the ore's so incredibly valuable, they keep them running and trade ore for supplies. The Old Camp is the main settlement; the New Camp is a rival group who are trying to escape; and the Sect Loonies are a bunch of weed-smoking religious crazies who are trying to summon something called the Sleeper. You can ally with any of them after completing many, many tasks to prove your worthiness, but that doesn't stop changing relationships - I've seen my friend's character betrayed and locked out of one camp because of the armour he purchased.

The main character does have a certain level of personality all his own, quite beside any sociopathic tendencies you bring along with you (which are a bad idea, because even walking into someone else's hut gets you yelled at). There's quite a bit of sarcastic wit in the game. However, beyond that it's all up to the player... although they do their best to give you choice.

Anyway, Gothic is a good example of a game that is very, very bland in characterisation, but has a deep plot. There's a demo around somewhere, I'm sure. And the Barrier's real pretty when it flares up during a thunderstorm.

One more point: Premade characters are almost a must at cons, especially when you want to try out a new gaming system more complex than Fighting Fantasy. I was introduced to Blue Planet via a premade character and, while I never really understood the system, it really helped run a game shorter than two days. (ie. it took three hours.) Sometimes premade characters are just easier.

 

[shadow]

In most Japanese games there is a complex plot and heavy character development, however the plot is often very linear.

In most American games that I've seen (Might&Magic, Baldurs Gate, etc.) there is a lot more freedom. However, there is little plot and characters are often nothing more than a set of statistics. (Might&Magic comes to mind)

Of course these are generalizations, of course. The question is what style of game do you prefer.

 

[Sixchan]

I've given this some thought and I've noticed this style-difference between Japanise and most American games.

I play a lot of video games and computer games (less so for time being, but still), and I've seen the trend.
There are exceptions, of course, but not too many of them.

I like Japanise rpg-video games more. Their often quite shamelessly linear plot-lines, combined with strong character concepts and plots that actually go somewhere as opposite to drifting plots of Baldar's Gate.

I also prefer games with "real alternative endigs". Preferably with different ending movies. Something I hardly ever see happen in any game. Most alternative endings are kind of "blah", with no real effort put into them. And I find it sort of unfulfilling, that even if I should play my character as mass-murdering chaotic evil in those supposingly open-ended games, it doesn't really affect much. I still get to be hero. Or I get the same anti-heroic options I would get with playing paladin-kind character, just picking few 'nasty picks' near end-game. Game lacking consiquences make every deed in game bland.

But then again, all computer games are pretty linear. Some just hide it behind random-treasures and under bulk of needless npc-conversations and multiple I-don't-care-in-which-order-you-do-these-things-or-if-you-don't-do-them-ever- sub-quests.

Most computer computer/video rpg:s (or any long game actually) I've noticed that first half is in many cases better made, than rest of the game. Sometimes it even shows in graphical details.

Pre-made characters for table top rpg-modules however, are bland and boring. They are basicly stat blocks with a name. And they are loysily min-maxed too, most of the time.

Remember Chrono Trigger? There were TONS of different endings.

I have sort of noticed this, but I don't believe it is completely true. Aside from Bioware's games, there aren't many 'famous' American RPGs. In the same way, there are plenty of Japanese RPGs, but they're all on consoles, and have less customisation than many PC RPGs.

Dark Alliance has already been mentioned...

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Remember Chrono Trigger? There were TONS of different endings.

Sure I do. It's one of my favourites and I've played it many times.

I don't really think new game+ options are different endings though, since they expect you to play game again, and are impossible to have on first time through (without cheats, that is).

Chrono Cross I have, but I didn't really like it. Dunno that.

However, there are more 'kind of different' endings than, really different endings.

For example Star Ocean 2 (japanese, playstation) kind of had different endigs, but not really.
the Torment (american, pc), also had few different endigs, but not really either.

I thought this linearity issue might be more pc vr consoles thing, until I played games like Shadow Madness (american, playstation) or Silver (european, originally pc), and noticed that plot-making and character devolopment issues seem to be cultural style preferance after all. I didn't like neither of those examples, btw, for multiple reasons.

Japanese game market has long console game history, where american and european game market has long pc-history (or spectrum, commandore, amiga etc. before that).

I think that somewhere along the line, when adventure games didn't sell so well anymore, somebody realized that certain type of rpg happened to sell well. And after that every rpg that was made follewed the same basic format.

I've played Mights and Magics, Wizardys, Daggerfall to Morrowind, gold box ad&d games and a lot of games without serial numbers.

And all those games that are termed rpg (unlike those termed adventure) seem to lack strong story-drive. Ok, there is story, but character has little to do with it, you are playing "just some adventuring hero". Only amount of non-relevant much-talking npcs' seem to vary in number.

And those few games that follow style more common to japanese console rpg:s seems to mostly fail IMO. I don't know why, americans and europeans have written many good adventure game plots. Why then does plot seem to be the thing in which those games fail most, if that game happens to have character/s with stats and killable critters aka rpg? My opinion, of course.

 

[trancejeremy]

Maybe it has something to do with language?

Japanese is a lot more complex than English or any European language. So maybe that made user input more difficult? I mean, they're less popular now days, but people still play text adventures.

Most of the plot based games in the early days of the PC were text adventures or adventure games. Maybe the Japanese didn't have that easy outlet, so added the plots to their RPGs.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Also, Japanese RPG's have a strong tradition in Japanese anime.

I defy you to find one popular Japanese RPG that doesn't use an anime stereotype.

So they've got a history of pumping out RPG-worthy fantasy and sci fi plots with a certain character set that works (Here's the strong, silent, brooding hero with a big sword. Here's the healing damnsel. Here's the slightly slutty-looking woman with dark powers. Here's the big muscular meathead), and they do constant variations on the theme.

Also, a note on Chrono Trigger: How much characterization did *it's* main character have? You ammounted to little more than a boy caught up in things, of course being the Hero, but I do believe he never said one word in the entire game. (I think during one ending he speaks....). The other characters are fairly rich and drawn out, however, and the plot very much pushes you along the first time, despire that lack of characterization.

American RPG's don't have that strong of a tradition to draw from. The best thing American RPG's can draw from are things like Tolkien, or action movies. Not exactly the pinnacles of characterization (It may be blasphemey, but it's close to true -- Tolkien's characters were pretty neat stereotypes). And they have the granddaddy of all RPG's, D&D itself. Which was and is all ABOUT customization, and has been and can be, totally independant of plot.

That's where they fill a void the Japanese market largely lacks -- the games perport to fill the void of customizability. Japanese games have reacted somewhat to this (the FF examples above work pretty well...the plot moves very independantly of anything mechanical), but have kept the plots and the stereotypes since those sell both to the Japanese audience (who get to play the main characters -- and, let's face it, these are archetypes that anyone can find and relate to, much like the Learned Wizard or the Heroic Paladin), and the American audience (because they were often weaned on games like Final Fantasy, where plot was important, and many prefer it over customization).

In D&D, I'm more Japanese, I guess (I think my inspiration from the FF games is showing). The players can mostly do whatever they want, but the plot exists rather independantly of their abilities, and grows and is sweeping with colorful NPC's (and I do my best to make the PC's compelling, too). Heck, occasionally I have pregenerated characters with histories that many of my players enjoy taking the riegns of.

Hurm...I guess this is more a cultural thing than I thuoght.

But I think the cultural difference is really D&D vs. Anime. It's flexibility and options (sometimes at the expense of plot) vs. plot and characterization (sometimes at the expense of flexibility). It's each culture's respective Sword-and-Sorcery introduction.

Me? Since I discovered Final Fantassy before I discovered D&D or Tolkien...I guess I'm Japanese.

*whistles a certain '80's melody*

 

[Krug]

Interesting analysis Kamikaze Midget. Think you hit the nail right on the head.