February 06, 2004
By Jason Nuyens
As humans, we are all designed to think in a certain way. Since we are raised with an abundance of information, our brains have been trained to habitually categorize all data sent to them. In turn this allows us to make key decisions in a timely manner through filtering un-necessary data. It makes a great deal of sense, really. Imagine, if you will, the chaos of going to your neighborhood supermarket for the groceries completely devoid of any information filtering. Upon entering the supermarket, you would find yourself stuck at the fruits and vegetables section while your mind tries to decide on the first item on your list. In this case, lets say oranges. Should you get Sunkist or no-name? Sour, sweet, or combination? Big or small? Meanwhile you missed your big meeting with the boss and will now find yourself glazing over the classifieds in the weeks to come. In reality, most people get to the fruits and vegetables and say I need oranges, apples, and pears. Your sub-conscious mind feeds you very quick yes or no answers to help you make decisions you didnt even know you were making. You reach out and grab four oranges right away because they look alright.
With videogames, both the hardcore and casual players have their own set of categories (those two titles are considered categories of their own, for example.) It makes life a lot easier for people to just put everything into categories. GameCube is the kiddy console, Xbox is the computer geek console, and Playstation 2 is the Cool kid console. And since most of the population considers videogames to be one of a thousand aspects of their life, they can only dedicate a small portion of conscious thought towards it.
But as avid videogame players, I expect more from us. It is surprising that nobody has sat down to write a comprehensive paper on game design philosophies. In fact, most of you debate about games all day without even knowing that there are deeply rooted reasons as to why you are for or against. And that is exactly what I set out to prove. If I am successful, then your views on games will change. I hope to help you all find out what kind of a gamer you are, and more importantly, understand the doctrines of the opposition.
Our entire study of game design philosophy plays off a very simple hypothesis; Game design is, more or less, radically different when approached from Eastern or Western cultures. An audacious hypothesis, no doubt, but as we dissect game theory you will see why this is the basis for all thoughts you have about a videogame. After we uncover the truths about eastern and western design, we will go over some case studies using currently popular titles. Finally, well discuss a bold new foray in game design that happens to be featured exclusively in two of Nintendos own titles! Lets begin, shall we?
East Vs. West: The Defining Traits
Take a close look at your videogame library. If you dont have a library of games, just try and recall the last ten games that youve played. Do you know who the developers and publishers were for these games? Chances are that you have surrounded yourself with titles that follow a particular game design ideology, even if you didnt know it. So the big question that everyone has is: What is Western and Eastern design, and how are they different?
Western and Eastern game designs are, as the title suggests, game design philosophies that are traditionally adhered to in their particular cultures. Companies like Nintendo and Sega, two Asian development studios, follow Eastern designs while Bathesda Softworks and Westwood Studios, two north American studios, follow Western designs.
The trick to uncovering the differences between the two doctrines of design is all in the games scope. Here is where we see the most contrast. Typically, Western developers will concentrate on a macro scope with very few micro details. By comparison, Eastern games typically will have a micro scope with a large amount of micro details. So when a developer approaches a genre of game, if they are an eastern developer they will typically try and keep the scope of the gameplay limited, but polish every aspect of it. Western developers approaching the same genre might find themselves creating a gigantic scope for gameplay and relying on that to keep their vision afloat. An RPG from the west will have expanding non-linear stories whereas an eastern RPG might play more like a digital novel.
But there are more differences than just scope. Some rudimentary concepts you may not have even thought about may be the reason you like/dislike certain games. For instance, there are key differences in control in eastern and western designs. Notice how a lot of people make reference to how Nintendos games have tight control? The funny thing is that a lot of people dont even know what that even means. As you can imagine, control does have a lot to do with the responsiveness of the character. Does the character feel floaty as if they dont have weight? Is the button layout desirable for the game? These are the obvious aspects that you all know by now. But wait, there is more. Western and Eastern design can divide it even further. Go grab a copy of A Link to the Past if you have it (or even The Wind Waker). Try using your sword and take note of two things: animation and the control interrupt. Control for eastern games typically allows characters to be controlled faster yet more unrealistically for the above two reasons. Allow me to explain: When link uses his sword, he pulls it out and slashes faster than any human can. The speed of the animation is actually a key control principle adhered to in the East. Its so fast that you can slash then quickly run away if need be. So believe it or not, graphics actually do have a close relationship to control. Keeping the animations extremely quick keeps the player in control of the action. Coupled with the ability to interrupt your own actions is the holy grail of game control. However, this is at the sacrifice of realism. For instance, in Enter the Matrix, while in combat you do moves that will take whole seconds to complete without any way of interrupting your characters actions. This makes the game more realistic in looks, which is a perk for those who play Western games. But for eastern players it will often remove them from the action. By contrast, a game like Viewtiful Joe will allow you to interrupt your own moves right in mid swing.
As was mentioned earlier, the story in western and eastern games is usually approached in opposite ways as well. Depending on the genre, an eastern studio might create a game with a story that plays like a novel. Usually there is very little back story to be found, and if there is a story at all, it usually plays like a chapter book. Western games typically will have some form of branching story that often has massive amounts of back-story to read up on. If a Western developer creates a story-intensive game, it might remind you a lot of a videogame version of a choose your own adventure book. And lets not forget the themes and art styles of these stories either.
More often than not, western developers choose to stick to realism for their art styles. In the East, developers will often create stylish art designs for their games. Typically the East is also very generous in their use of color as well, while western games are happy with a dark palette of colors to choose from. Is it not interesting that even the use of color can be attributed to camps of game design? There are some obvious exceptions to the art styles from either category, but for the most part these will ring true.
Even elements such as game menus are fundamentally different for both camps. As you will see in the case studies, the approach for an eastern and western strategy game are worlds apart due in large to the use of menus. Eastern games will give you very little choices usually, because of their smaller scope. This also means that you wont see as many menus in their games as well. Western design usually follows that giving the player a choice is always better than forcing them into something. So in a game like Zelda, you cant ask any towns people where the village elder is. They might blurb something about their wonderful flower bed while in a western developed game a menu may come up to ask you to choose a topic of discussion (thus pointing to the large scope once again). Its not that Eastern games dont use menus and Western ones do, its that eastern games will use far less typically from genre to genre.
So in essence, the difference between the two schools of thought still comes down to scope. Eastern developers will sit down and say lets set out to try and do these three or four things as best as we possibly can. A Western developer will say Lets attempt to create this giant vision and concentrate on the big picture. Now lets take a look at some case studies so you can understand first-hand our theory.
Case Study 1: Animal Crossing Vs. The Sims
So what makes the two games represent their respected schools of design? The Sims is western in many ways, and Animal Crossing, eastern. The Sims allows you to customize the lives of a family using a point and click interface. It follows the western design philosophy that focuses on a large scope, while trying to fit in as many options/collectibles/etc as possible within that realm of expansiveness. Essentially you control almost every aspect of a familys life, and as the name suggests, it acts as a simulation. In true western style, simulation is really at its core in many ways. Make literally thousands of micro-managed decisions that lead to whatever end. For people who like western games, they normally get fun out of having full customization and a simulated life that really does seem almost plausible (your house will burn down if youre neglectful for instance).
Animal Crossing on the other hand is an eastern take (though it was released before The Sims) on a similar concept. Instead of having a giant macro scope in the game, it centers on a couple of key concepts and attempts to make them interesting. You can fish, catch bugs, grow orchards, or have quick conversations with your town animals. So what makes it different? First, the control is 100% hands on character control. There is no point and click, no console with menus or statistics. You are represented with a character avatar in the game (usually a generic human person). Next, the game has you doing things that are not nearly as expansive but attempt to retain a charm and simplicity. Instead of constructing every aspect of a real household in a simulation style, you move furniture around by hand in denominations of what seems to be meters instead of pixels. The entire game was designed from the ground up to also not have any real consequences with it. Your house wont burn down, and people wont send death threats to you in your village. However, the idea was to make you feel attached to the village in different ways to always make you feel as if youre really a part of this community. Another thing is that the game doesnt take itself too seriously, which is yet another eastern concept. Instead of giving off a sentiment of simulation, it attempts instead to make an alternate world with its own kind of charm.
Case Study 2: Pikmin Vs. Command and Conquer/Age of Empires/etc.
The representatives from the two camps in this case are Pikmin for the eastern world and Command and Conquer (or insert any other western developed real-time strategy) for the west.
In western real-time strategies you have to, for lack of a better phrase, micro manage on a macro scale. By this I mean that you can customize and manage different things like armor upgrades, and at the same time you have a very large number of things that you have control over. It uses a very menu-dependant interface with the world, and more often than not, has you acting as omnipresent god. They often have a simulated approach in that they attempt to be as realistic as possible in recreating what could possibly be a real skirmish or war. Many times the games has you more as manager (some games more than others) of everything from resources, base construction, army strategy, and more. Usually very popular with western gamers with its focus on simulation and micro management of a very large campaign.
Pikmin, developed by Nintendo, is essentially an eastern approach to strategy games. Mouse point-and-click interface is non-existant. Instead, all actions are performed through an in-game character. You make Captain Olimar run around and he can call his little Pikmin helpers to his side. Once by your side, all you need to do is run around like in any other 3rd person adventure and throw them near something. Once thrown, the pikmin will quickly react to objects near by. There is definite lack of micro management (practically no management to speak of) and menus in the game. All the functions in the game stem from the idea that pikmin will naturally interact with something when thrown nearby an object. So if you want them to brake down a wall you throw a bunch of them nearby and they will quickly race towards the wall and begin chopping at it. If you want them to attack a giant foe, throw them at the enemy and they will run at them and latch on. Pikmin reacting on their own is actually an eastern way of getting around using menus. Again, the game takes on a smaller scope than western design but with more micro ideas like having weaknesses on giant enemies that need to be exploited (you normally dont find that in western strategy games since the micro management of battles is not feasible due to the already large scope of the game).
Case Study 3: Morrowind Vs. Skies of Arcadia/Final Fantasy
This is the final case study for now. We have games that are really the front-runners for representations of the two ideologies; Morrowind for the western world, Skies of Arcadia/Final Fantasy for the eastern world.
Morrowind, like the other western games covered, has you micro managing details and choices in a large scope. The big thing here is that you have a great deal of control over how the game unfolds. You can choose what you want to say to people, what you want to wear, how you want to act, where you want to go, etc. There hundreds upon hundreds of items and enemies. Combat is simple hacknslash mechanics with a myriad of different enemies. The key is an attention to the scope and not micro details. For instance, although things like AI and combat arent very detailed/polished, the game instead is attempting to make up for that by having hundreds (maybe thousands) of different aspects of the game to explore. The game is driven by menus with choices, large inventories, journals, etc. The western ideology drives a pure vision of real role playing by affecting the entire in-game world. Obviously people who like western games get a great deal of satisfaction out of seeing their baby mature and affect the world surrounding him/her. Stories are non-linear by the nature of it.
Skies of Arcadia by contrast is more akin to a novel with only a few spots for choice. It is as if you are playing a book with lots of plot twists, action-adventure, and scripted character dialogue. Customization is usually limited to equipping a weapon and armor (although in Skies there is a point where you can sail the sky world in search of crew members) and that sort of thing. The big difference, as I mentioned earlier, is that stories are dramatic and lively because of their scripted nature. They dont have any flexibility usually, but because they are scripted they have a storyline with tons dramatic moments (including climactic battles and the sort). The scripting allows dialogue to be wittier when permitted (but still less flexible), since timing and flow of the story is completely in the hands of the developers. People who are into eastern style games enjoy being the character in the game, and to see what might happen in the next chapter so to speak.
The closest thing I can liken this to is that Western is like an insanely complex choose your own adventure book with even less scripting than that, while eastern is like playing a novel chapter by chapter and following a character through scripted tribulations and dramatic moments. Once again, this is another case where the two styles are worlds apart. And as it usually happens, the RPG category is the most die-hard for gamers (has the most fanatical following on both sides).
This brings us to that topic that just had to come about: The games that fall through the cracks. In particular, I would like to talk about a new brand of game design I refer to as the fusion design. I have only found two titles to use this brand new design, and they both happen to be Nintendo joint-ventures. The two games are Metroid Prime and Eternal Darkness. I hope youre quickly running through the games in your head and analyzing how they are either eastern or western, because that will help in the following discussion.
Both Eternal Darkness and Metroid Prime have been engineered from the ground up as the only titles of their kind. They both use a fusion of eastern and western ideologies so tightly knit that they become a unique experience unlike anything the world has ever seen before. It could be said that they take the best aspects of both teachings and puts them all into one package. In Metroid Prime you have tons of micro details in the game, but with a very western setting and design. The same could be said for Eternal Darkness, which has gameplay that is very reminiscent of Nintendo made games and even a linear story (typically an eastern trait), but has a very western setting. Both have extremely tight controls, great cameras, menus, and high amounts of polish.
So is it any wonder that these two games have garnered enough critical acclaim and industry awards to sink a ship? By no means am I saying that developer talent didnt come into play. But the facts cannot be denied; a game that is both Eastern and Western design by nature has the best chance of satisfying the most people! People who love western games will get the themes, story, and design they look for. Those who love eastern games will be hooked by the tightly woven gameplay. In all honesty though, the fusion design might be a Nintendo exclusive characteristic, because of their unique relationships with other development houses. Because Nintendo can work so closely with western developers, the title that is given birth to is really from a marriage of eastern and western philosophies. And it is in the humble opinion of this editor that all studios involved are/were incredibly talented to boot.
Hopefully this insight into the two design camps will help you to understand what kind of gamer you are. If we can all understand why we like a particular type of game, it makes it easier to find other games you will enjoy. Likewise, understanding what you like is also to understand that which you dislike. If you are a fundamentally eastern gamer at heart, you might understand what it is that is appealing for a western gamer. In fact, we should be able to rid ourselves of nasty good or bad labels altogether. For instance, if someone says Morrowind is better than Final Fantasy you can kindly point out that they are just from two different lines of design. To you the eastern approach might be ideal, while someone else will see the western being tops. If people begin to understand what camp they normally find themselves in it helps to see how someone else may have completely opposite tastes. Its not the game-by-game tastes that are different usually, but rather the tastes for the entire design philosophy that the games follow.
There is still a great deal to talk about, but I would like to open the floor to questions and comments from you, the reader. There are lots of little details to talk about, such as Where would a game like Metal Gear Solid lie in this model? I encourage anybody who has further thoughts or questions on the subject to e-mail them to me at their leisure.