The 3 main Game design schools of thought.

[Pandaprewmaster325]

Today I would like to discuss what I think is the 3 main mind sets when it comes to game design I call them school of thoughts and they are:

1-western school of thought: the design philosophy for American/western European games can be summed up by being the most casual out of the 3 , usually western games are not very complex or deep when it comes to game mechanics , they also can be the easiest in terms of difficulty one very positive feature about western games is they are always well polished allowing for a smoother experience they are also characterized by being fast paced overall the most appealing of games to casuals.

2-Japanese school of thought: japan has and was and will always be a big contributor to gaming their games lean more to hardcore and dedicated fans in terms of mechanics they are above western games the game mechanics can be complex but not overly complex and not surface level either , they can be really difficult and do offer challenge for those seeking it , however they are somewhat less polished than western games this means its very likely to run into couple bugs or exploits there or there its not bug riddled however when it comes to pacing Japanese games are slower paced compraed to western games this is very noticeable when it comes to RPG games , despite western games being more relevant than ever japan still has a sizeable share in gaming and will always do its games are a nice blend of borderline hardcore and casual experience.

3-Eastern European school of thought: here it is the final boss of games eastern European games! They often include vast and pretty complex mechanics compared to the other 2 they also happen to be the most difficult of games pretty punishing the player for the slightest of mistakes my gripe with this school of thought is polished products are something rare to see in it , eastern European games are riddled with bugs and glitches and sometimes straight up poor balance decisions exploits that can be game breaking and more insane bugs , they also are the slowest in terms of pacing you gotta have a lot of patience to fully enjoy these games , these games often have smaller fanbases but are really dedicated when it comes to the game , always leaning into hardcore gamers.

few things to note are japan way of making games also seems to apply to those countries surrounding it so you can also call it asian or east Asian school of thought.

and these were the 3 main schools of thought for game design im sorry south America but I didn't play any games made there nor do they seem to make games to begin with.

Oh and japan seems to not make strategy games so the competition here is between western and eastern games nor do I know a first person shooter made in japan even then western games are more arcadey than eastern games when it comes to RTS and FPS.

 

[fake-kun]

I'm not sure if you can generalize different level design approaches like that. It reeks of national stereotyping, to be honest. There are many easy and simple Japanese games, and many hard and complex Western games. And what you said about Eastern European games just seems like a more polite way of calling them poorly tested, glitch-infested garbage.

 

[Stingy Perry]

I’m sorry but I tend to disagree, you see most of the deep narrative driven and innovative game concept are made by Japanese game devs.

 

[DanVzare]

Hmm, the 3 schools of thought between regions I always gleaned was:

Americans: Love solving things with violence. Guns go bang bang. (First Person Shooters like Doom)
Europeans: Love solving things with wit. Mind over matter. (Adventure games like Tomb Raider)
Japanese: Love solving things with solidarity. Friendship is magic. (RPGs like Final Fantasy)

Of course there's exceptions. But that just what I figured, considering what types of games were popular in those regions for the longest times. Games popular in America were always fast paced, while European and Japanese games were always slower paced, with Japanese games having much more of an emphasis on narrative than either American and European games. Of course, I'm basing this on tastes from two decades ago. I think everything has become a lot more homogenized as or late.



Honestly though, when I clicked on this thread, I thought it was going to be about general game design. Such as how everyone has collectively decided that games have to be as optimized as possible. That there needs to be as little time as possible "preparing to do the thing" so you can spend more time "doing the thing". A school of thought I'm against, since I love the mundane act of having to equip items, cycle through menu options, and walking to my destination. But then again, clearly I'm in the minority on that.

 

[Strategist]

yeah, none of this narrative you are presenting here holds up to basic scrutiny. There are plenty of complex American games (sims like Civilization, RTS games like Starcraft/Warcraft) as well as simpler ones. Same with Japanese games, you have plenty of hardcore games like Dark Souls, but a lot of very easy and simple JRPGs like Pokemon or something like Puyo Puyo or Mario games.

Eastern European games might be the most accurate, but only because there is such a small sample of developers from that region. If Eastern European devs were as prolific as Japanese or American, I believe you'd see the same amount of variety from that region. Also, I'd hardly call something like CDProject Red as a developer with a small fanbase.

 

[NanoSoft]

I kind of get those categories.....but. I believe in a gaming infinity where each element of a game category is unique. Games often borrow from each other in many ways but are still unique enough to be own interpretation of existing things it becomes its own thing, so it is worthwhile to keep exploring new games, new formulas, etc. :]