Is there a JRPG/Anime/Eastern/Nintendo bias when it comes to game reviews?

It feels like there's this perception that the Japanese are somehow better at making games. I'm not sure if this is just pushed by the weebs, but it feels like some people believe this. Games get boosted for no reason other than being a Nintendo/JRPG/Anime/Eastern title.

Would you agree?

If weebs love their games; at least that's better than gamer's loving to hate on games.

It's been long known that Japan companies like Nintendont and Phony games get a 4 point boost in review scores. :P

No.

Japanese studios often do make great games.

Personally, I have no interest in Pokemon or JRPGs. But, that doesn't mean they are bad games, they are just not something I am interested in.

Nintendo has the best 1st party in the business - that's why their games score so high, and that is why their hardware sells so well despite not having a lot of 3rd party support.

Nice tinfoil hat.

I think this perception goes beyond video games, such as cars and electronics.

Most of my favorite games are japanese. I don't just believe that, I actually know that.

Not that I've noticed, no. Plenty of crappy japanese games get crappy scores. Nintendo's games usually get good scores because they're good games. In case you haven't noticed, they've been doing really solid games since the early 80's.

Speaking of boosting scores though, I've noticed marketing and production values can boost scores tremendously. Sony's games can easily get great scores even though they're bad games, for example.

Nah, if anything there's a bias toward western, story-driven narrative games.

No, but there is a double standard for Nintendo.

Personally my favorite thing about jrpg isn't anything cultural, but the fact they use the cell shading anime art style. I absolutely love that art style, and even a turd game like dbz kakarot, I can at least give it a shot because of the art style. They're bright, colorful, shiny, and sucks you in. The western rpgs use more realistic graphics. That's nice too, but I prefer the cell shading.

There was one western developer that made an rpg in the animation style, called crystalis. It was on gamepass and while I loved the art style, the game itself was just ok. If the developer improves the story line, that game can become a hit.

Nope, it's the opposite if anything.

Yes. Barely any in depth criticism about western game mechanics. How many reviews have we watched or read where the author spends an inordinate amount talking about the narrative and emotional qualities?

https://www.ign.com/articles/the-last-of-us-part-2-review

Pretentious!

The whole thread is conjecture in regards to a biasness for Japanese games. What do you point to? Feelings don't mean anything; feelings doesn't equate to what's true. Unless you're using the word "feeling" as in "think," which America is notorious for, myself included at one point.

I think Japanese games can have more interesting things to offer as it's a different culture.

Nintendo bias, yes. Their franchise have nostalgia factor so reviewers tends to be bit blind on the issues which non nintendo fans tend to criticize.

JRPG bias... Eh idk. For JRPG genre metacritic range 70-80 is normal. Jrpg dont get good reviews unless its a big franchise with high production values like Persona or FF.

Japanese dev... Depends on taste. Personally Capcom is on top of the world right now most of their releases get critical acclaims. But japan also home to garbage like Sonic Team or those people that created Xenoblade 2. Trash.

Reviewers are human and get caught up in nostalgia or hype just like anyone else. At the same time, different people like different stuff. I personally would dock a point or two off the metacritic score of every CoD, Assasins Creed, or Naughty Dog game, but that's just me. They aren't necessarily "wrong".

Maybe look at game scores as a starting point, but it's ultimately on you to figure out what kinds of games you do and don't like.

Not at all.

I don't think Japanese games in general are overrated, I think this is more of a Nintendo thing.

*post that nobody will read*

There's a lot of different angles to this. The era, the genre, the platforms, and of course your own personal preferences. Also talking "critics", or the gaming community and independents? Not really on the same page a lot of times.

If talking mainstream publication reviews specifically, like others said, it likely skews toward the opposite. Western devs consistently showered with accolades for pretty, but ultimately mediocre video games. Though it's not exactly west vs Japan so much as it's budgets, marketing, mainstream appeal and approachability. That's where were currently at.

Japanese devs were way dominant on consoles and in arcades, roughly gens 3 through 6. Most of the quality western games of that time were on PC. A lot of western devs came off looking like trash when making console/arcade "style" genres. Platformers, fighting games, beat em ups, racing games, run n gun, action games, action adventures, etc. and of course JRPGs were dominant on consoles as well. In these spaces, barring the occasional exception, western devs seemed amateur. Even the exceptions rarely stacked up favorably to Japans best.

Though at least in those times western devs were -

1. Making bangers on PC. Multiple sub genres of FPS, immersive sims covering a wide range of genre types, CRPGs, dungeon crawlers, roguelikes, all kinds of strategy games, various sims, etc. with a focus on PCs strengths as a platform and

2. At least in the console space they were trying to nail what Japanese devs were doing and slowly getting better. Still trying to make good takes on gamey ass games.

Now a lot of western devs come off as trash for different reasons.

Gen 6 they finally started finding some mechanical mastery in console centric games, as well as bringing western style games into the console space. Stuff like the Halos, the Splinter Cells, was looking like a bright future.

Then the AAA game happened. Dumb it all down, presentation over substance, exposition over mechanics. The structure in many Japanese teams is one where the rest of the games elements are in service to the gameplay. And it's typically game designers who get promoted to director. Whereas on so many of these AAA western teams, game design is at best on equal footing, though more often a lower priority in service to the wank. And you get guys like writers or artists moving up to the directors chair. Games tested to oblivion with the wrong takeaways, smoothing all edges in fear of losing a single customer.

That's the beef with western gaming that a lot of people have, made worse by their marketing machines and the gaming media that is forever in their service.

I don't think it's an accurate view as that's not the whole story. They still rule certain genres. They still make banger AA games. They're killing it in the indie space, in many cases outclassing Japan in genres they previously dominated. And while rare, occasionally a western AAA is actually pretty sick.

All this to say, it's easy to see where the perception comes from and how different backgrounds will give a wildly different perspective. Most of my favorite games are Japanese tbh, but I understand it's not so clear cut.

Still, to the point of mainstream reviews, would definitely disagree. Can point to examples of both regions releasing big budget mediocre titles and reaping reward, no doubt. Just seems to happen more often with western titles, which to be fair, are more prevalent in that space.

In this case I would argue it is the opposite pretty much, or rather AAA games getting massively overrated.

Most of these games are all flash, no substance, yet they get showered with Accolades, no matter how banal the games truly are. Despite the games having the depth of a puddle. Stories, which would get laughed out in any cinema get hailed as some storytelling masterpiece (looking at you MGS), lackluster gameplay gets overlooked and games which don't trust you in solving the most basic puzzles for you get praised as being smart games (Bioshock Infinite).

Most AAA games as far as I am concerned, tend to usually end up being mediocre when at their best. Yet they continue getting AAA, GOTY Awards, despite interestingly enough, when you looked at GS's Best game of all times list. Most games there were AA games, with the occational AAA sprinkled in? Why is that? Because when all is said and done. The thing that truly mattered in the end was the game's mechanics.

Games do not age. People just don't know any better. And are temporarily dazzled by in many cases... garbage. Just consider how little of a splash Uncharted 4 did on PC despite getting a 10 here.