Do you think western devs go too far for realism and "cinematic experience" with their games?

Do you think western devs go too far for realism and "cinematic experience" with their games?
Is a game with it's own style always better?

shut up and post more froppy

It should really be left to the player to make the game look fun.

Battlefield, Magicka, and Ring Runner did this best IMO.
Instead of trying to control how the game was played, they let the player do all sorts of stupid shit.

Cute froppy or lewd froppy?
I have the former

lewte?

That's part of it, but the other problem is game development costs skyrocketing in general and poor budget management. A lot of developers and publishers put more of their money into the marketing and outward appearance of the game instead of just trying to ensure that the game plays well or does something of its own.

>Lewding the frog
Stop

That's exactly the opposite of true.
Outward appearance costs far, far more than good gameplay.

What actually happens is that a company will always go for outward appearance and marketing if they can afford it, but if not they'll go for gameplay.

The result is that low funding actually makes games better, and game development costs skyrocket as companies pour all their funds into marketing and graphics.

Though there's some exceptions: For example, VALVe will go all-out in both gameplay and graphics (or at least they did when they made games), and Nintendo will barely put any work into gameplay or graphics.

>Do you think western devs go too far for realism and "cinematic experience" with their games?
Yes. And diversity pandering.

>Is a game with it's own style always better?
Not always. You can have a game with a unique style but the gameplay/flow is still bad (see image). It only works when everything is done well. But a game with a unique style and good gameplay/design is going to be better than a game with good gameplay and generic design.

That money could also just go into making more content for the game.
>Nintendo will barely put any work into gameplay or graphics.
This varies wildly depending on who is doing what. Game Freak is an awful developer but Retro Studios is quite competent.

>Game Freak is an Eastern developer, based in Japan
>Retro Studios is a Western developer, based in Austin
What did they mean by this?

Got you covered senpai

I think a lot of it, and I am guilty of this as you can see, is that when people think "Western devs" oftentimes we think of AAA games and their developers. The AAA Western gaming experience is honestly kind of miserable. However Game Freak is one of the worst developers to ever achieve mainstream critical and commercial success.

>and Nintendo will barely put any work into gameplay or graphics.
Yay! Massive generalizations! There's no way anyone could prove this wrong...

Mario Kart 8 is a game that has ridiculous levels of details in design. There's a difference between graphical power and graphical design. And Mario Kart 8 has so much stuff that even after 100 hours of playing the game, you'll still notice small things. Like how your characters head bobs up and down to the music or they added a walking path all the way up Mount Wario despite you never needing to use it for gameplay. They could have easily phoned all that in. Then when it comes to gameplay, Mario Kart 8 fixed pretty much every flaw Mario Kart Wii had.

And this is just for a Mario Kart game. Not one of their really expensive games.

A game with its own style always gets ignored

Maybe because that game was fucking retarded. It was a basic platformer with dancing animations, how exciting...

>diversity pandering

I'll take your lack of an argument as you admit I'm right and are just mad.

No they don't.

post some facts idiot

fact: you are gay

not an argument

>facts
Why don't you, since you're challenging the point. Western games clearly put token minority characters into their games, with no other goal except to fill a diversity quota.