Which Japanese property should have Western development?

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] new constitution, labor laws, democratization, shake up of the imperial family....which help make the economic recovery and become a respected power possible.texasgoldrush

Are you suggesting that prior to the occupation, Japan did not have a government system based on the west? What was preventing Japan from becoming a "respected power" prior to that?

The Japanese government was based on a European system of monarchy prior to that. The Japanese school system, political system, army, etc were lifted from various western powers once the country was "opened" by Perry and imparted with unequal treaties. However, as far as monarchy goes, the Emperor had no real power. Modern Japan did not simply do away with all of the systems present prior to World War 2, but revised them. Political elements like the diet, for example, still exist to this day.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

Oh, right. I must have missed that portion of Final Fantasy XIII in Gran Pulse that saw me put in around 65 hours there (with the other 15 being the linear beginning) where I had missions where I could choose to either do them, ignore them, what order to do them etc. Granted all of these missions are monster hunts/fights etc, but the fact remains that I can do them if I want to and even select the order I do them in.

Sure, a game with dialogue choices will have more of an edge in how a mission turns out, like if I choose to kill Samara or the Ardat Yakshi (I don't remember her name since she's dead now). The thing is, the whole game is linearly designed. It's a corridor shooter in design. Doom's levels were more open-ended than Mass Effect 2's missions. If I'm going to praise it because I can choose to do Jacob's loyalty mission but ignore Legion's loyalty mission just because that counts as open-ended? The way you level up is streamlined. The way you fight is streamlined. The level design is streamlined. So what if I can decide from a menu where to go, it's still a linear game through and through. I heard all of this ridiculous praise for Mass Effect 2 and it seemed like such a safe bet considering how fantastic the original is, and then I end up with a game that lacks direction in plot, cuts corners for various things rather than trying to improve them and to top it all off features the same type of level design in the campaign as Call of Duty. No wonder it earned so much praise. It's a dumbed down, linear mess. But a series known for being linear like Final Fantasy goes and gets criticized because it stays true to the genre? This is one of those things that I just don't understand and it still doesn't make sense to me. Oh well, to each their own I guess.

First off, yes, monster fights vs storyline is different, which is why I made specific mention that despite my defense of FF13's open nature all of the missions were monster fights. I didn't hold that back. However, the difference between FF13's missions and Mass Effect 2's missions are trivial at best. The real difference is that ME2's missions tell some form of a story while FF13's missions serve as gameplay. However, in the end both games' missions follow a similar structure. You travel through an area, killing enemies to reach a certain objective. In the end, not so different, right? But FF13 still retains the same level of openness that you praised for ME2 when it comes to mission structure, even if they aren't a part of the story (well, technically they are a part of the backstory, but they don't affect the main plot).

Streamlining isn't bad, but oversimplification is. That's what happened in the transition from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2. The level design is not like the first game. When I landed on the Citadel in Mass Effect it was this wide place that I could explore. Same deal with Feros and Noveria. Those places to explore in Mass Effect 2 are gone. Omega is basically a nightclub, the new Citadel is essentially there for a few shops. You can't explore anywhere. When I mention open-ended design I'm not saying that Mass Effect 1 had these grand, sweeping combat arenas, but it was a much better developed game. If I landed on Feros it wasn't just some linear romp for 20 minutes that I would do and never return to, Feros became a destination, a four hour chunk of the game that let me play and explore new areas. Mass Effect was open-ended, Mass Effect 2 is not open-ended.

As far as being character-centric. I agree with you to an extent. As there are 11 or so characters in the game, many of them being new, they need to be explored a bit. Unfortunately all characters followed a set pattern. You would recruit them. Then you would talk with them. From there they would refuse to speak with you until the time for their loyalty mission came, then you would do that, then they would speak with you and all of a sudden you're given the heads up that you can now use the Omega 4 Relay. The characters were not all fleshed out enough (some were, but not all). If anything, ME1 had more fleshed out characters because you practically gathered your party together at the beginning of the game and then you could interact with them constantly and see them change as you progressed through the game. Sure beats constantly hearing "Again? No offense commander but I'm not big on forcing these talks" everytime I try to talk to one of my team-members.

As far as the streamlining between ME2 and FF13, I disagree, though it's a matter of opinion. Final Fantasy 13 streamlined the design of the game to properly tell its plot of refugees on the run from the government. On the other hand, I'm trying to figure out why Mass Effect 2 was so streamlined in comparison to the first. It was unnecessary in my opinion.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Are you suggesting that prior to the occupation, Japan did not have a government system based on the west? What was preventing Japan from becoming a "respected power" prior to that?

The Japanese government was based on a European system of monarchy prior to that. The Japanese school system, political system, army, etc were lifted from various western powers once the country was "opened" by Perry and imparted with unequal treaties. However, as far as monarchy goes, the Emperor had no real power. Modern Japan did not simply do away with all of the systems present prior to World War 2, but revised them. Political elements like the diet, for example, still exist to this day.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Japan was basically an absolute monarchy before the end of WWII, the emperor had sovirgntiy. Postwar Japan's govt. is similiar to the UK's. Repected meaning abide by human rights protocols and international law.texasgoldrush

The Japanese government was based on a European system of monarchy prior to that. The Japanese school system, political system, army, etc were lifted from various western powers once the country was "opened" by Perry and imparted with unequal treaties. However, as far as monarchy goes, the Emperor had no real power. Modern Japan did not simply do away with all of the systems present prior to World War 2, but revised them. Political elements like the diet, for example, still exist to this day.

Japan introduced numerous western systems. To say that there were "some" western elements, or any substantial amount of "greater" western elements after World War II would not be accurate. The west had also made significant cultural contributions to the country prior to WWII. As far as the Emperor being the "official sovereignty" and "ultimate authority," he was more or less a symbol in practice who held no real power. This symbolic aspect had a precedent in Japanese history.

Monarchy is no less western than Democracy.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

The Japanese government was based on a European system of monarchy prior to that. The Japanese school system, political system, army, etc were lifted from various western powers once the country was "opened" by Perry and imparted with unequal treaties. However, as far as monarchy goes, the Emperor had no real power. Modern Japan did not simply do away with all of the systems present prior to World War 2, but revised them. Political elements like the diet, for example, still exist to this day.

Japan introduced numerous western systems. To say that there were "some" western elements, or any substantial amount of "greater" western elements after World War II would not be accurate. The west had also made significant cultural contributions to the country prior to WWII. As far as the Emperor being the "official sovereignty" and "ultimate authority," he was more or less a symbol in practice who held no real power. This symbolic aspect had a precedent in Japanese history.

Monarchy is no less western than Democracy.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] True, there was some Western element before WWII, but from 1868, the Emperor was the offical sovereignity and had ultimate authority, until 1945. However, true western liberal and social democracy did not come to Japan until after WWII. True, Japan did not do away with old systems, but they were radically revised (and even ore Westernized as Japan became a Cold War ally to the West).texasgoldrush

Japan introduced numerous western systems. To say that there were "some" western elements, or any substantial amount of "greater" western elements after World War II would not be accurate. The west had also made significant cultural contributions to the country prior to WWII. As far as the Emperor being the "official sovereignty" and "ultimate authority," he was more or less a symbol in practice who held no real power. This symbolic aspect had a precedent in Japanese history.

Monarchy is no less western than Democracy.

In practice, it didn't work that way. The emperor was more or less of a figurehead.

Their government was based on Prussia's model of monarchy.

Japan's technological development was in constant progress that began rapidly advancing during the Meiji restoration.

If you're suggesting that Japanese reform during the occupation of World War II was greater than that during the Meiji era, you're greatly mistaken.

[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]Your missing the point...I am not talking about games that let you shoot things, I am talking about a particular style, that RE4 uses, that has Western roots. The type of shooter that is like Doom and Quake, where you explore the area (sometimes for combat purposes more than finding things). Modern TPS's are really FPS that took a third person view. They are different from their arcade roots. However, GeoW can be compared to Contra becuase of its setting, not its gamplay.texasgoldrush

Going back to our argument, the point I made was shooting is not a westerrn trait and neither is being action heavy. You proceded to shrink the definition to make up for your failure to actually make the correct point the first time but the simple fact is, being action heavy and a shooter does not at all signify that influence was taken from western games. That's you speculating because you "want" to have a point that you "cannot" prove.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="IronBass"] The point is simply, shooting is as Japanese as is Western. The roots are irrelevant, since every genre has evolved thanks to both markets to the point that it doesn't matter anymore where they started. Nothing indicates that RE4 action focus is a Western influence.ActicEdge

Going back to our argument, the point I made was shooting is not a westerrn trait and neither is being action heavy. You proceded to shrink the definition to make up for your failure to actually make the correct point the first time but the simple fact is, being action heavy and a shooter does not at all signify that influence was taken from western games. That's you speculating because you "want" to have a point that you "cannot" prove.

the first person shooter view and its third person offshoots (those that have a 3rd person perspective, but play like a FPS) are western innovations and thats the style RE4 uses.texasgoldrush

Zelda developed by a western developer? HELL NO! If anything, Star Fox and F-Zero should have western development.nintendoboy16

I agree, but I'm sure dev's from Platinum or something from Japan could do a MARVELOUS job with either F Zero or Star Fox.:) (Even though I personally believe their games so far have been overrated to the moon but hey they have talent.:P)

This thread is getting borderline racist

[QUOTE="IronBass"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]they are on rails games...they are not true TPS in the way we use the term today. I originally said more focus on shooter combat in an earlier post...the "action heavy" comes from the change in direction as well.texasgoldrush

It was 1983 and 1988, of course they aren't 3D TPS as they are now, that's kinda obvious, isn't it?

The concept is exactly the same though. Third person perspective, shoot whatever moves.

[QUOTE="IronBass"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]

BioWare have control of Final Fantasy? :lol:

Those guys lost control of Mass Effect with one sequel and you want them to work on Final Fantasy? I'm guessing they'll probably decide to make it a streamlined and linear game that.... WAIT A SECOND! THAT'S JUST LIKE MASS EFFECT 2! You mean Final Fantasy XIII and Mass Effect 2 have the same basic design but ME2 gets all the praise and FF13 gets all the flack? I just don't get the internet anymore..... So FF13 did what JRPGs typically do: be linear, but got criticized for not being open-ended, while Mass Effect 2 decided to be a linear game that.... earned praise for being open-ended? Wut?

Sorry, not BioWare. If Square-Enix were to give FF to a Western team I would hope for maybe Blizzard or Obsidian. Blizzard have the whole polish thing down and know how to bust out some fancy cinematics, Obsidian on the other hand know how to stay true to something's design as well as put out good stories even if they're a glitchy bunch.

texasgoldrush

You're right. It's better. A lot better.

If you're suggesting that Japanese reform during the occupation of World War II was greater than that during the Meiji era, you're greatly mistaken.

hakanakumono

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="IronBass"]

It was 1983 and 1988, of course they aren't 3D TPS as they are now, that's kinda obvious, isn't it?

The concept is exactly the same though. Third person perspective, shoot whatever moves.

jg4xchamp

horror games like Dead Space and Alan Wake, most definitely, but not modernt hird person shooters in general.texasgoldrush

Over the shoulder button became standard thanks to RE4, being used in games from Gears of War to Batman Arkham Asylum.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] the first person shooter view and its third person offshoots (those that have a 3rd person perspective, but play like a FPS) are western innovations and thats the style RE4 uses.IronBass

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] horror games like Dead Space and Alan Wake, most definitely, but not modernt hird person shooters in general.IronBass

Over the shoulder button became standard thanks to RE4, being used in games from Gears of War to Batman Arkham Asylum.

Yes, some games in Japan used that perspective, however, it is a Western innovation dating back to the 70's. And the modern first person shooter is definitely western, which came with Wolfenstien 3d.texasgoldrush

Some games before it have used it as well, its one of the views on Shadow of the Empire for the N64..true RE4 popularized it, but it wasn't the first to use it.texasgoldrush

The discussion is not about who did it first, but which was the one that did it right andinfluenced other games after. And that was RE4.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] and I am talking about modern FPS and TPS...which RE4 got its style from....not run and gun arcade shooters.texasgoldrush

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] I am not debating the concept of shooting, I am debating the STYLE of shooting. It is true that both the East and the West have influenced eachother, but thats not the point of this topic (it is in a way that I think games of some Japanese franchises should be attempted by Western studios)....the point is that the Japanese industry has fallen behind, an dmust find ways to adjust to the concept of globalization. The West has, the Japanese haven't.texasgoldrush

Going back to our argument, the point I made was shooting is not a westerrn trait and neither is being action heavy. You proceded to shrink the definition to make up for your failure to actually make the correct point the first time but the simple fact is, being action heavy and a shooter does not at all signify that influence was taken from western games. That's you speculating because you "want" to have a point that you "cannot" prove.

Sorry but first and third person views are not at all western innovations. We see in first person and veiw people in third person, applying that to a game is not any sort of innovations, sorry but no. First person shooters and TPS games have their origins in the west since that's where the first one's were created but that doesn't at all mean that any game outside of western culture that pulls a perspective and a genre is now being influenced by western conventions especially because the amount of console games that pull the gameplay and view point to the quality and style RE4 did can be counted on 1 hand. Your point is just grasping, you cannot prove RE4 was the result of looking at the west and wanting to follow that style of game.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

If you're suggesting that Japanese reform during the occupation of World War II was greater than that during the Meiji era, you're greatly mistaken.

texasgoldrush

The meiji restoration was a total upheaval of the country. The occupation saw minor reforms. As for the emperor, he had no real power in practice.

Please, learn your history. It's one thing to argue that Mass Effect 2 was Bioware's greatest gift to man. It's another to argue against historical facts.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

If you're suggesting that Japanese reform during the occupation of World War II was greater than that during the Meiji era, you're greatly mistaken.

The meiji restoration was a total upheaval of the country. The occupation saw minor reforms. As for the emperor, he had no real power in practice.

Please, learn your history. It's one thing to argue that Mass Effect 2 was Bioware's greatest gift to man. It's another to argue against historical facts.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="IronBass"] Becuase ME2 IS open ended. Sure the missions aren't...but I get to choose not only the order I do them, but if I do them at all. Some have a decision that affects the mission as well. During missions, its highly linear, outside of missions, its one of Bioware's most open games they have ever created. Obsidian is hit or miss....Alpha Protocols story sucked, and KOTOR II is not as good as KOTOR I storywise.jg4xchamp

You're right. It's better. A lot better.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]

You're right. It's better. A lot better.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] If you want to enjoy Star Wars the douchebag edition of that universe. texasgoldrush

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Oh, yes, because Star Wars should always be black and white, right, champ? :roll:

DarkLink77

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] and which KOTOR II rewarded extremes, far more than the first game did. They only real grey morality came from the antagonist, other than that, its just as black and white as KOTOR I.texasgoldrush

And hell no, on the characters. Not at all.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] It is.....Japan's current constitution was written mostly by the US as well. The Meiji era transfered power from the Shogun to the Emporer (who during tha Meiji period was far from a figurehead) with a very limited democracy, post war reforms turned a militaristic authoritarian (and outright barbaric) regime into a pacifist liberal democracy...and power was transfered from the elites to the common people. The fact that women could now vote is a huge cultural change for Japan, in which, women lacked any sort of power before.texasgoldrush

The meiji restoration was a total upheaval of the country. The occupation saw minor reforms. As for the emperor, he had no real power in practice.

Please, learn your history. It's one thing to argue that Mass Effect 2 was Bioware's greatest gift to man. It's another to argue against historical facts.

It wasn't hirohito's decision to surrender to the allies. He didn't really hold the power in World War 2.

The difference between the Meiji restoration and the World War 2 occupation would be akin to the difference to writing an essay and editing a few paragraphs of that essay. The Meiji restoration was an upheavel of social, political, and economic change. The occupation did bring some change to Japan, but it was still very much based on the Showa Japan that came before it and the Meiji Japan that came before that, whereas Meiji replaced the feudal system and the traditional power structure - including the Bakufu which had claimed power from the Emperor as he lived in poverty through much of the Bakufu's reign. The occupation couldn't have brought anything equaling the industrialzation of Japan, because it had already happened. Moreover, much of the change that Japan went through was change that Japan took upon itself with the aid of the west in order to counteract China's position in the globe (helping rebuild Japan was part of the Cold War effort).

I'm trying to prevent myself from writing paragraphs to explain to you exactly what you do not know. The best way to summarize it would be to say that you are simply wrong about the historical reality.

Resident Evil.

That said, western devs don't need to touch other Japanese franchises.

DMC will be a disaster. I think it will have a good story... but enslaved's gameplay really wasn't that great. Neither was Heavenly Sword's. Plus, nobody is happy with the new DMC direction. Nobody.

FFXIII was hardly open for most of the game, and you could not backtrack. It was only until Pulse that it was open, however, the gameplay was monotone. ME2's was not. Some missions were wildy different ans some missions do not even have combat. The only difference bettwen the level designs is that in ME1, you could backtrack (mostly pointless). but ME1's environments are still linear other than the Citadel. The Citadel is smaller in ME2 because it plays a far less role, and it uses three other town worlds (which had multiple missions by the way...so they are like Feros and Noveria of the first game). Plus, exploration was the first games weak link. You land on the same barren piece of rock (at least the skylines are nice) regardless of terrain and visit copy and paste buildings. ME2's characters (there are 12 or 13 if you want to count Morinth), especially those from the first game, are pretty much more fleshed out in than in the first game. In fact, Tali was barely fleshed out in the first, but gets huge character develoment in the second. The only character that I can say was not fleshed out enough in ME2 was Grunt, however, its not really a problem due to the fact that he was just "born". Also, you can interact with the characters far more in the sequel than in the first game, four or five dialogues compared to two or three. As for the streamlining...the only issue I had was stacking the diplomatic skill with the class skill. The removal of weapon skills was much needed, as they clunked up the first game. The combat is far more balanced than the first...its very tough to find a cheap winning combo like you can in the first game. In the first game you had ultrapowered skills and combos among the useless ones. Story plays a big differenece in a games openess. In FFXIII, the plot isn't affected by the sidequests, in ME2 (and in FFVI!!!!) they are. FFXIII's Pulse actually throws the games pacing off because it was so intergrated poorly into the story and the monster hunting was boring and monotonous. In ME2, the characters backstories fueled the side quests and even some of the "assignment" sidequests are interesting. The collapsing frighter comes to mind. ME2 does mix up its missions and throws new situations at you. ME2 was streamlined because ME1 had a lot of clunky fat, from broken combat mechanics, to boring exploration, to one of the worst inventory systems I have ever seen. Some may have been an overrcorrection like the near complete removal of the inventory, but then it was fine without it and ME3 could put a iimited, realistic inventory in. And thats why the second is better recieved than the first.texasgoldrush

I'm going to go on a limb and hazard a guess that even if we continue this discussion it won't go anywhere as it's merely a matter of difference in opinion. Honestly, someone like me who played both FF13 and ME2 and came away impressed with FF13 and severely disappointed in ME2, in comparison to someone like you that played both games and felt the opposite.... we aren't going to change each other's minds. But I doubt we'll stop regardless. :P

Anyway, I'm well aware that you couldn't backtrack in FF13. I've poured in dozens of hours into the game. My point is that FF13 and ME2 embrace similar design philosphies but interpret them in different ways. In my opinion, FF13 pulls it off magnificently while Mass Effect 2 stumbles. The thing is, each FF game is unique (for the most part) and so I don't expect the inevitable FFXV to be anything like FFXIII, but with ME2, it's a direct sequel and rather than improving things from ME1 BioWare chose to just cut them out and focus on corridor shooter gunplay.

FYI- I still have no clue why I should have cared about that collapsing freighter. I kept the data for myself and didn't hand it to Cerberus, but still... Hopefully it carries over as something important in ME3 rather than some minor footnote but whatever. At this point I'm almost obligated to play ME3 just to see things through to the end. :P :lol:

Now, there are certain streamlined elements I can appreciate. Case in point the improvement of your combat abilities in ME2 are all lumped together. You level up your cIass and it improves your health and combat skills. That's cool and a little more intuitive than leveling up Shotgun seperately from Pistol seperately from health, etc. That isn't a problem that I had with ME2. The game has CoD design through and through however which I found rather offensive being that CoD has horrible campaign design.

For instance on the mission where I was to find Okeer, I realized I had missed some terminal or something after clearing out a room and so I backtracked to open it and picked up some ammo. Upon returning I'm immediately assualted by the same group of enemies that I killed ALL RUNNING TO THEIR SAME PRE-SCRIPTED LOCATIONS. Wowzers. :P It's basically a Call of Duty RPG now and that's why it's so well-received. Run and gun in tight corridors with scripted enemy positions, make some dialogue choices, periodically bust out renegade/paragon actions with triggers/mouse buttons and all that jazz. The fact that ME2 was so well-received is because it embraces the lowest common denominator. That may be fine for some, but it didn't sit well with me.

Like I said though, we're clearly simply at a difference of opinion here so I don't expect you to agree with me or suddenly change your mind on ME2. I can't stop people from enjoying what they want to enjoy. :P

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] lol what the ****? um it's Resident Evil 4 that is actually influencing a lot of these modern third person shooters. The only western influence one can honestly come up with is maybe the concept/setting/etc. Even then Resident Evil was pretty western audience friendly since day one. jg4xchamp

Honestly, Resident Evil 4 is not given enough credit for influening this gen. Gears of War and Uncharted do both come to mind, not to mention Vanquish (though that should be an obvious one).

Hell, Resident Evil 4 should be credited with popularizing stuff like Horde/Firefight/Zombies, etc. I mean, people keep pointing to Gears 2 as starting the trend, but that's flat out ignorant. They are all influenced in some way by RE4's Mercenaries mode.

I want to say that from the previous console generation, RE4 has carried a significant more amount of weight than people give it credit for. Good job on calling it out first here. And yeah, CliffyB openly admits to RE4 being the influence to Gears of War. Now if only Naughty Dog were more upfront about it as well. :P

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] horror games like Dead Space and Alan Wake, most definitely, but not modernt hird person shooters in general.

NeonNinja

Honestly, Resident Evil 4 is not given enough credit for influening this gen. Gears of War and Uncharted do both come to mind, not to mention Vanquish (though that should be an obvious one).

Hell, Resident Evil 4 should be credited with popularizing stuff like Horde/Firefight/Zombies, etc. I mean, people keep pointing to Gears 2 as starting the trend, but that's flat out ignorant. They are all influenced in some way by RE4's Mercenaries mode.

I want to say that from the previous console generation, RE4 has carried a significant more amount of weight than people give it credit for. Good job on calling it out first here. And yeah, CliffyB openly admits to RE4 being the influence to Gears of War. Now if only Naughty Dog were more upfront about it as well. :P

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

The meiji restoration was a total upheaval of the country. The occupation saw minor reforms. As for the emperor, he had no real power in practice.

Please, learn your history. It's one thing to argue that Mass Effect 2 was Bioware's greatest gift to man. It's another to argue against historical facts.

It wasn't hirohito's decision to surrender to the allies. He didn't really hold the power in World War 2.

The difference between the Meiji restoration and the World War 2 occupation would be akin to the difference to writing an essay and editing a few paragraphs of that essay. The Meiji restoration was an upheavel of social, political, and economic change. The occupation did bring some change to Japan, but it was still very much based on the Showa Japan that came before it and the Meiji Japan that came before that, whereas Meiji replaced the feudal system and the traditional power structure - including the Bakufu which had claimed power from the Emperor as he lived in poverty through much of the Bakufu's reign. The occupation couldn't have brought anything equaling the industrialzation of Japan, because it had already happened. Moreover, much of the change that Japan went through was change that Japan took upon itself with the aid of the west in order to counteract China's position in the globe (helping rebuild Japan was part of the Cold War effort).

I'm trying to prevent myself from writing paragraphs to explain to you exactly what you do not know. The best way to summarize it would be to say that you are simply wrong about the historical reality.

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Gears of War has plenty of influence from RE 4 as does Uncharted. Cliffy B all but admits to it on his end. That whole over the shoulder thing being a standard is attributed mostly to RE 4 being built so well around it. Where as any actual western influence on RE 4 as a game? Hardly. We could argue the over the shoulder view, but even then. It was never a standard in the modern TPS at the time, and it was hardly done well before RE 4.

DarkLink77

Honestly, Resident Evil 4 is not given enough credit for influening this gen. Gears of War and Uncharted do both come to mind, not to mention Vanquish (though that should be an obvious one).

Hell, Resident Evil 4 should be credited with popularizing stuff like Horde/Firefight/Zombies, etc. I mean, people keep pointing to Gears 2 as starting the trend, but that's flat out ignorant. They are all influenced in some way by RE4's Mercenaries mode.

I want to say that from the previous console generation, RE4 has carried a significant more amount of weight than people give it credit for. Good job on calling it out first here. And yeah, CliffyB openly admits to RE4 being the influence to Gears of War. Now if only Naughty Dog were more upfront about it as well. :P

I never said RE4 was the first game to have that mode, brochacho. I'm just saying that for this generation of shooters, RE4 is oft-overlooked as a major influence on the games. They copy the over-shoulder shooting. They copy the Mercenaries. They even try to copy the atmosphere. Like, when you're doing the Urn of Sacred Ashes quest in Dragon Age and get to that little cult village.... TOTALLY RESIDENT EVIL 4 DAWG! LIKE TOTALLY! :D

Hell, games even try and go for the baditude of Neon S. Kennedy 8). Hell, I'm certain AvP 2000 probably got that idea from Smash TV or something if we go way back enough, but what I'm trying to say is that RE4 is a very influential game on so many releases, both shooter, horror, even RPG like I mentioned with that one mission in Dragon Age. Mercenaries has had an effect and I imagine that without it Epic wouldn't have known to take influence with it and come up with Horde. In which case Bungie would have never made Firefight. In which case.... well, I'm out of things to say. :P

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]FFXIII was hardly open for most of the game, and you could not backtrack. It was only until Pulse that it was open, however, the gameplay was monotone. ME2's was not. Some missions were wildy different ans some missions do not even have combat. The only difference bettwen the level designs is that in ME1, you could backtrack (mostly pointless). but ME1's environments are still linear other than the Citadel. The Citadel is smaller in ME2 because it plays a far less role, and it uses three other town worlds (which had multiple missions by the way...so they are like Feros and Noveria of the first game). Plus, exploration was the first games weak link. You land on the same barren piece of rock (at least the skylines are nice) regardless of terrain and visit copy and paste buildings. ME2's characters (there are 12 or 13 if you want to count Morinth), especially those from the first game, are pretty much more fleshed out in than in the first game. In fact, Tali was barely fleshed out in the first, but gets huge character develoment in the second. The only character that I can say was not fleshed out enough in ME2 was Grunt, however, its not really a problem due to the fact that he was just "born". Also, you can interact with the characters far more in the sequel than in the first game, four or five dialogues compared to two or three. As for the streamlining...the only issue I had was stacking the diplomatic skill with the class skill. The removal of weapon skills was much needed, as they clunked up the first game. The combat is far more balanced than the first...its very tough to find a cheap winning combo like you can in the first game. In the first game you had ultrapowered skills and combos among the useless ones. Story plays a big differenece in a games openess. In FFXIII, the plot isn't affected by the sidequests, in ME2 (and in FFVI!!!!) they are. FFXIII's Pulse actually throws the games pacing off because it was so intergrated poorly into the story and the monster hunting was boring and monotonous. In ME2, the characters backstories fueled the side quests and even some of the "assignment" sidequests are interesting. The collapsing frighter comes to mind. ME2 does mix up its missions and throws new situations at you. ME2 was streamlined because ME1 had a lot of clunky fat, from broken combat mechanics, to boring exploration, to one of the worst inventory systems I have ever seen. Some may have been an overrcorrection like the near complete removal of the inventory, but then it was fine without it and ME3 could put a iimited, realistic inventory in. And thats why the second is better recieved than the first.NeonNinja

I'm going to go on a limb and hazard a guess that even if we continue this discussion it won't go anywhere as it's merely a matter of difference in opinion. Honestly, someone like me who played both FF13 and ME2 and came away impressed with FF13 and severely disappointed in ME2, in comparison to someone like you that played both games and felt the opposite.... we aren't going to change each other's minds. But I doubt we'll stop regardless. :P

Anyway, I'm well aware that you couldn't backtrack in FF13. I've poured in dozens of hours into the game. My point is that FF13 and ME2 embrace similar design philosphies but interpret them in different ways. In my opinion, FF13 pulls it off magnificently while Mass Effect 2 stumbles. The thing is, each FF game is unique (for the most part) and so I don't expect the inevitable FFXV to be anything like FFXIII, but with ME2, it's a direct sequel and rather than improving things from ME1 BioWare chose to just cut them out and focus on corridor shooter gunplay.

FYI- I still have no clue why I should have cared about that collapsing freighter. I kept the data for myself and didn't hand it to Cerberus, but still... Hopefully it carries over as something important in ME3 rather than some minor footnote but whatever. At this point I'm almost obligated to play ME3 just to see things through to the end. :P :lol:

Now, there are certain streamlined elements I can appreciate. Case in point the improvement of your combat abilities in ME2 are all lumped together. You level up your cIass and it improves your health and combat skills. That's cool and a little more intuitive than leveling up Shotgun seperately from Pistol seperately from health, etc. That isn't a problem that I had with ME2. The game has CoD design through and through however which I found rather offensive being that CoD has horrible campaign design.

For instance on the mission where I was to find Okeer, I realized I had missed some terminal or something after clearing out a room and so I backtracked to open it and picked up some ammo. Upon returning I'm immediately assualted by the same group of enemies that I killed ALL RUNNING TO THEIR SAME PRE-SCRIPTED LOCATIONS. Wowzers. :P It's basically a Call of Duty RPG now and that's why it's so well-received. Run and gun in tight corridors with scripted enemy positions, make some dialogue choices, periodically bust out renegade/paragon actions with triggers/mouse buttons and all that jazz. The fact that ME2 was so well-received is because it embraces the lowest common denominator. That may be fine for some, but it didn't sit well with me.

Like I said though, we're clearly simply at a difference of opinion here so I don't expect you to agree with me or suddenly change your mind on ME2. I can't stop people from enjoying what they want to enjoy. :P

You know Texas, if you're gonna talk about history on a gaming forum, you should at least get your facts straightThe_RedLion

[QUOTE="The_RedLion"]You know Texas, if you're gonna talk about history on a gaming forum, you should at least get your facts straighttexasgoldrush

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="The_RedLion"]You know Texas, if you're gonna talk about history on a gaming forum, you should at least get your facts straightThe_RedLion

[QUOTE="The_RedLion"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] I got my facts straight...he just refuses to admit it.texasgoldrush

You have been already proven wrong by Haka, no need to bring up anything. Don't you find strange how no one has agreed with you? It's because what you've been saying is not right.

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]FFXIII was hardly open for most of the game, and you could not backtrack. It was only until Pulse that it was open, however, the gameplay was monotone. ME2's was not. Some missions were wildy different ans some missions do not even have combat. The only difference bettwen the level designs is that in ME1, you could backtrack (mostly pointless). but ME1's environments are still linear other than the Citadel. The Citadel is smaller in ME2 because it plays a far less role, and it uses three other town worlds (which had multiple missions by the way...so they are like Feros and Noveria of the first game). Plus, exploration was the first games weak link. You land on the same barren piece of rock (at least the skylines are nice) regardless of terrain and visit copy and paste buildings. ME2's characters (there are 12 or 13 if you want to count Morinth), especially those from the first game, are pretty much more fleshed out in than in the first game. In fact, Tali was barely fleshed out in the first, but gets huge character develoment in the second. The only character that I can say was not fleshed out enough in ME2 was Grunt, however, its not really a problem due to the fact that he was just "born". Also, you can interact with the characters far more in the sequel than in the first game, four or five dialogues compared to two or three. As for the streamlining...the only issue I had was stacking the diplomatic skill with the class skill. The removal of weapon skills was much needed, as they clunked up the first game. The combat is far more balanced than the first...its very tough to find a cheap winning combo like you can in the first game. In the first game you had ultrapowered skills and combos among the useless ones. Story plays a big differenece in a games openess. In FFXIII, the plot isn't affected by the sidequests, in ME2 (and in FFVI!!!!) they are. FFXIII's Pulse actually throws the games pacing off because it was so intergrated poorly into the story and the monster hunting was boring and monotonous. In ME2, the characters backstories fueled the side quests and even some of the "assignment" sidequests are interesting. The collapsing frighter comes to mind. ME2 does mix up its missions and throws new situations at you. ME2 was streamlined because ME1 had a lot of clunky fat, from broken combat mechanics, to boring exploration, to one of the worst inventory systems I have ever seen. Some may have been an overrcorrection like the near complete removal of the inventory, but then it was fine without it and ME3 could put a iimited, realistic inventory in. And thats why the second is better recieved than the first.texasgoldrush

I'm going to go on a limb and hazard a guess that even if we continue this discussion it won't go anywhere as it's merely a matter of difference in opinion. Honestly, someone like me who played both FF13 and ME2 and came away impressed with FF13 and severely disappointed in ME2, in comparison to someone like you that played both games and felt the opposite.... we aren't going to change each other's minds. But I doubt we'll stop regardless. :P

Anyway, I'm well aware that you couldn't backtrack in FF13. I've poured in dozens of hours into the game. My point is that FF13 and ME2 embrace similar design philosphies but interpret them in different ways. In my opinion, FF13 pulls it off magnificently while Mass Effect 2 stumbles. The thing is, each FF game is unique (for the most part) and so I don't expect the inevitable FFXV to be anything like FFXIII, but with ME2, it's a direct sequel and rather than improving things from ME1 BioWare chose to just cut them out and focus on corridor shooter gunplay.

FYI- I still have no clue why I should have cared about that collapsing freighter. I kept the data for myself and didn't hand it to Cerberus, but still... Hopefully it carries over as something important in ME3 rather than some minor footnote but whatever. At this point I'm almost obligated to play ME3 just to see things through to the end. :P :lol:

Now, there are certain streamlined elements I can appreciate. Case in point the improvement of your combat abilities in ME2 are all lumped together. You level up your cIass and it improves your health and combat skills. That's cool and a little more intuitive than leveling up Shotgun seperately from Pistol seperately from health, etc. That isn't a problem that I had with ME2. The game has CoD design through and through however which I found rather offensive being that CoD has horrible campaign design.

For instance on the mission where I was to find Okeer, I realized I had missed some terminal or something after clearing out a room and so I backtracked to open it and picked up some ammo. Upon returning I'm immediately assualted by the same group of enemies that I killed ALL RUNNING TO THEIR SAME PRE-SCRIPTED LOCATIONS. Wowzers. :P It's basically a Call of Duty RPG now and that's why it's so well-received. Run and gun in tight corridors with scripted enemy positions, make some dialogue choices, periodically bust out renegade/paragon actions with triggers/mouse buttons and all that jazz. The fact that ME2 was so well-received is because it embraces the lowest common denominator. That may be fine for some, but it didn't sit well with me.

Like I said though, we're clearly simply at a difference of opinion here so I don't expect you to agree with me or suddenly change your mind on ME2. I can't stop people from enjoying what they want to enjoy. :P

Wow. You mad? I handed you an olive branch there and you mad? Tsk, tsk.

I know my opinion is in the minority. You enjoy stating the obvious? Tsk, tsk.

And you would praise a 2010 release by saying that it having the unevolved campaign design that was successful in 2003 but stale now is reason to find a game as good? Tsk, tsk.

I played Mass Effect 2 as an Infiltrator, thank you very much. Soldier is for baby noobs. Too bad it's the most played cIass in the game by over 50% according to BioWare and that less than 50% of gamers actually saw it through to the end. Tsk, tsk.

I never said ME2 having better shooting made it lowest common denominator. In fact, I agreed with you on the shooting mechanics in previous posts, yet you want to bring it around to try and argue a point that I never made? Tsk, tsk.

Are you telling me that Mass Effect somehow has a story that doesn't involve some crazy evil badasses out to kill everything and that it's your job to stop them? Tsk, tsk.

I've been nice to you, despite you having no idea what you're talking about, and that's how you respond to someone who basically says, "I respect what you're saying since we're talking about something subjective" By acting like you know what you're talking about?" Tsk, tsk.

You've disappointed me severely. I'm kinda sad now. I felt a connection blossoming between us. Now it's wilted and gone away. :(

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="The_RedLion"] Nope, you really need to check your facts, they are wrong. Everybody with knowledge of Japanese history will tell you that.The_RedLion

You have been already proven wrong by Haka, no need to bring up anything. Don't you find strange how no one has agreed with you? It's because what you've been saying is not right.

But he did hold the power to WWII, he and his family were clearly involved with the planning and the military operations. texasgoldrush

Hahahahhaha.

I'm sorry, you are greatly misinformed. I can't keep this up. Someone else has explained it for me:

What role did Hirohito play in World War II?

He didn't do much. His power was not dissimilar to that of a British monarch. Japan was a constitutional monarchy, but by the 1930's the military had pretty much taken over and the Diet had very little to do with running the government, the country or the war. The Cabinet was appointed by the military and the Cabinet pretty much had absolute control. When the military and its puppets in the Cabinet made the determination to invade China, Showa did not disapprove. That was essentially the extent of his input in the discussions. As diplomacy failed to resolve problems with the US and the UK, the military leadership issued a statement that if matters weren't resolved by October, 1941, that Japan would seek a military solution. Showa took the unprecedented action of appearing at the Imperial Conference and address it. Emperors simply did not do such a thing. In his address, he demanded that the concentration remain focused on a diplomatic solution. Slowly, he was won over by the military (many high ranking Japanese government officials of a pacifist bent had already been murdered and plots to assassinate Showa himself had been uncovered and thwarted. It is more than probably that Showa changed his mind out of fear for his own life.

The military ran the war once it had begun. The Imperial Japanese Army in China, Indochina, Korea and even in the USSR during the brief and unsuccessful 1938 invasion did not answer to the Emperor (or to anyone else, as far as that goes). By 1944, Showa was pushing the Cabinet to end the war. Several members of the government were trying to open peace talks. When Saipan fell In July 1944, the Tojo Cabinet fell with it and the peace coalition gained strength and support, but not enough to end the war (at least on reasonable terms). In April 1945, Showa sent a message to "End the war at any cost". That was months before the Potsdam Conference and the Roosevelt/Churchill/Stalin demand for unconditional surrender.

Showa, as the figurehead of the Japanese government, gets the blame for starting the war and for expanding it to include the Occidental nations. The reality is something else.

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100309223517AAyB8y4

I did check my facts, I can bring up the constitution....texasgoldrush

You have been already proven wrong by Haka, no need to bring up anything. Don't you find strange how no one has agreed with you? It's because what you've been saying is not right.

You know Texas, if you're gonna talk about history on a gaming forum, you should at least get your facts straightThe_RedLion

I find small comfort in the fact that he at least does have one thing right. Japan has had problems with admitting to the rape of Nanjing and such other "incidents" as they call them. But I don't have the energy to go point by point in everything else.