Vanquish: Japan's commentary on Western gaming?

[WanderingFool]

-to sum up, awesome...

I agree, and cant wait to try this...

 

[Iwata]

What other TPS puts you in a suit that can rocket slide all across the battlefield and slow down time? If that's not new, then I don't know what is.

Max Payne did it a decade ago, and better.

Except for the rocket-slide, but I'll take bullet-dodging any day.

 

[Something Amyss]

I really was unimpressed by the game. It felt very much like a hollow imitation of games I wasn't huge on to begin with.

 

[Canid117]

The dialogue is just ridiculously cliche that it has to have been done on purpose

The dialogue in MGS games is unintentionally awful so why cant this games dialogue be the same?

 

[Cheesebob]

Platinum Games are the masters of pastiche and parody: See Godhand, Madworld and Bayonetta. I feel Vanquish is a pastiche of western 'Gears of War' shooters.

Or maybe it could be a "What if the japanese popularised the 3rd person space marine shooter?"

 

[MarsProbe]

I only really tried the demo for this game, sadly it wasn't really enough to hook me in. I guess I was just expecting something different from the makers of the likes of Bayonetta. That game may have been totally preposterous in it's own way, but at least it was somewhat uniquely preposterous (given that there aren't many western games out there where a woman dressed in her own hair fights its own idea of what angels look like)

Vanquish on the other hand just seems too....silver for my liking. And since that last sentence does't make any sense, the game does just seem like a western cover shooter, even mixed with large robots to fight and some bullet hell mechanics. Seeing that I can think I can wait for Gears 3 before I need another cover-based 3rd person shooter, even with it's 5 month delay, I think I'll just pass.

 

[Jonny49]

I wasn't impressed with the demo. If it's trying to be a commentary on Western games then it certainly did it right: Wasted and generic.

Gears of War with a boost button. Not bad, just pretty disappointing.

 

[Delusibeta]

Honestly, I think it's "Platinum Games does Cover Shooters". It's pretty much what I think Beyonetta would be had it been a cover shooter. That said, I do fall into the "OMG-IT-MUST-BE-BETTER-BECAUSE-IT'S-FROM-PLATINUM!" camp, so I may be a bit biased.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Well, I haven't played it yet, but I don't think you should write off all western shooters as tripe in comparison.

Just Cause 2 and Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction are both premiere examples of Third Person Shooters, but they do enough different from each other to make them unique.

Both games are sandbox worlds, both involve taking down corrupt leaders, and both have big explosions. Yet the execution of the two is wildly different.

Just Cause plays like an action movie, whilst Mercs takes on a grim pseudo warzone feel.

I'd say that Vanquish is a refinement of a certain style of TPS, but that does not inherently make it better than other TPS's which are doing something different. Its all opinion based.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Well, I haven't played it yet, but I don't think you should write off all western shooters as tripe in comparison.

Just Cause 2 and Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction are both premiere examples of Third Person Shooters, but they do enough different from each other to make them unique.

Both games are sandbox worlds, both involve taking down corrupt leaders, and both have big explosions. Yet the execution of the two is wildly different.

Just Cause plays like an action movie, whilst Mercs takes on a grim pseudo warzone feel.

I'd say that Vanquish is a refinement of a certain style of TPS, but that does not inherently make it better than other TPS's which are doing something different. Its all opinion based.

You sir are so right. I will comment on some of the other replies later (I gotta beat challenge 4 in Vanquish, so hard). Anyways, Mercenaries is the reason why I hate on Rockstar's sandbox games because Mercs did the sandbox game as best as its ever been done (I haven't played Just Cause 2 yet but I doubt it's as good as Mercs). In my opinion, Pandemic created all the mission areas on the map as if they were small levels in a linear game then they put each of the levels on a big map whereas GTA just creates a big map and then hopes good mission can stem from it. I say this because all the missions can be done in several different ways (I went the stealth route on almost every mission which still can involve blowing shit up) and great care was put into enemy placement as well; it wasn't just let's put a bunch of enemies here. I had so much fun finding ways to complete each mission without pissing off the other factions. That said, I really did not like Mercs2 at all, my biggest disappointment this gen without a doubt.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The dialogue in MGS games is unintentionally awful so why cant this games dialogue be the same?

Firstly, the MGS series has good dialogue. Sure, there's some bad dialogue there too mainly caused by using bad writing techniques over and over, and it's apparent Kojima (and I do love his games) needs to hire an editor. However, Vanquish's dialogue has to be intentional, I don't think anyone would actually think that the dialogue was even trying to be good.

To play devil's advocate, I'll say that rather than a parody of Western FPS cliches, it's a shallow attempt to imitate them.

Now can an argument be made to select between the two positions?

I definitely agree with you, Vanquish is definitely a parody of Western shooters while being better than them at the same time.

Vanquish on the other hand just seems too....silver for my liking. And since that last sentence does't make any sense, the game does just seem like a western cover shooter, even mixed with large robots to fight and some bullet hell mechanics. Seeing that I can think I can wait for Gears 3 before I need another cover-based 3rd person shooter, even with it's 5 month delay, I think I'll just pass.

The thing is if you are playing Vanquish like a cover shooter, you are playing the game wrong, the only reason to use cover is to jump over it slow-mo and kill some robots. Vanquish can be played as a standard cover shooter, and playing that way the game isn't awesome or unique. This is the very reason why Vanquish has gotten a few mixed to bad reviews especially Destructoid's Jim Sterling just playing the game wrong. He said the assault rifle was the best gun, and it's like the worst and weakest gun in the game. There is just no way that Gears3 will be a better game than Vanquish unless the gameplay is just made a lot better. Also, I would actually boycott Gears3 because of Microsoft delaying just because they want to release it in during the holiday season. When I'm really looking forward to a game, I hate a delay (even though I know it's because the developer needs more time), but to have a delay when the game is done and ready just for marketing purposes is just a big fucking insult to gamers. There's a difference pushing a game back a week or two because you don't want it going against some other big time game. And, even pushing a game maybe or month or two past the holiday season to release after the holiday rush is alright because if the game is completely overlooked and doesn't sell, then fans will definitely not get a sequel and no one makes money. But to delay a game like Gears that will sell no matter when it's released is just fucking bullshit.

Maybe they were simply looking to emulate westen games and did it a little heavy-handedly? Your OP seems to show your in the "OMG-IT-MUST-BE-BETTER-BECAUSE-IT'S-FROM-JAPAN!!" camp but perhaps you are looking for meaning where there isn't any. It's also mindly ironic that you say it's "Better than 'Western' games" when it is really only trying really hard to BE a western game. Sounds like gears with a boosting mechanic.

Also being able to move around during 'cut-scenes' is one of the best ideas anyone ever had. I don't want to put my controller down for 20 minutes whilst someones shows me a movie (see; the outaded design philosophy of pretty much all the recent SquareEnix JRPGs). Half Life 2 showed us just how much more involving and even immersive it can be to stay in engine at all costs. Something westren games have nailed leaving japanese ones in the dust is the ability to tell a stroy through the landscape and the game world without resorting to going "Here watch a movie".

What the east has yet to understand is you shouldn't build a 60 hour game, you should build a game capable of sustaining 60 hours of player built narratives and that engages the player so they will WANT to play it rather than just making the same liniar series of corridors puncuated by cut-scenes.

I'm not in any camp, I really rate games based on their own merits. If one of my favorite developers makes a bad game, I'll be the first to call them on it. Also, how could I love Japanese games over Western games when there is not a single Final Fantasy that I actually think is better than a 8/10 game. Last year, my favorite 2 games were Western, Uncharted 2 and Batman. If I were so into Japanese games, I'd be all over praising Demon's Souls.

Interactive cut-scenes are usually worse than passive cut-scenes. #1) You can can't have normal gameplay during key dialogue and story sequences because you need to pay attention what's being said, you can't be worrying about killing enemies and whatnot. #2) Therefore, interactive cut-scenes can only really let you walk about and really not do anything during key story points. Isn't a well directed cut-scene with good cinematography better than letting you just walk about? Interactive cut-scenes can work when used properly like in Bioshock because of the radio communications and audio diaries, it made sense to not have a cut-scene. And, the Metal Solid games stay in the in-game engine during cut-scenes. And, I pretty much agree with the following thread's point:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.241092-Cutscenes-Cinematics-Bad-Storytelling

 

[MarsProbe]

The dialogue in MGS games is unintentionally awful so why cant this games dialogue be the same?

Firstly, the MGS series has good dialogue. Sure, there's some bad dialogue there too mainly caused by using bad writing techniques over and over, and it's apparent Kojima (and I do love his games) needs to hire an editor. However, Vanquish's dialogue has to be intentional, I don't think anyone would actually think that the dialogue was even trying to be good.

To play devil's advocate, I'll say that rather than a parody of Western FPS cliches, it's a shallow attempt to imitate them.

Now can an argument be made to select between the two positions?

I definitely agree with you, Vanquish is definitely a parody of Western shooters while being better than them at the same time.

Vanquish on the other hand just seems too....silver for my liking. And since that last sentence does't make any sense, the game does just seem like a western cover shooter, even mixed with large robots to fight and some bullet hell mechanics. Seeing that I can think I can wait for Gears 3 before I need another cover-based 3rd person shooter, even with it's 5 month delay, I think I'll just pass.

The thing is if you are playing Vanquish like a cover shooter, you are playing the game wrong, the only reason to use cover is to jump over it slow-mo and kill some robots. Vanquish can be played as a standard cover shooter, and playing that way the game isn't awesome or unique. This is the very reason why Vanquish has gotten a few mixed to bad reviews especially Destructoid's Jim Sterling just playing the game wrong. He said the assault rifle was the best gun, and it's like the worst and weakest gun in the game. There is just no way that Gears3 will be a better game than Vanquish unless the gameplay is just made a lot better. Also, I would actually boycott Gears3 because of Microsoft delaying just because they want to release it in during the holiday season. When I'm really looking forward to a game, I hate a delay (even though I know it's because the developer needs more time), but to have a delay when the game is done and ready just for marketing purposes is just a big fucking insult to gamers. There's a difference pushing a game back a week or two because you don't want it going against some other big time game. And, even pushing a game maybe or month or two past the holiday season to release after the holiday rush is alright because if the game is completely overlooked and doesn't sell, then fans will definitely not get a sequel and no one makes money. But to delay a game like Gears that will sell no matter when it's released is just fucking bullshit.

Hmm, that's one way to put it, but they way I see it if a game is a shooter, and it uses cover, then it's still a cover shooter. Vanquish just happens to use the cover in a different way than a game like Gears. Also, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that Gears 3 will be a better game than Vanquish. Though I'm not really sure why you've decided to start comparing them directly. Though snobbery honestly seems like a likely reason. Would it seem like sacrilege to believe that the almighty Shinji Mikami could be outclassed by a "mere" western shooter? Heaven forbid! It doesn't really bother me that much that Gears 3 is being held back to the holiday season. Again, that's just all down to business...release a game in the middle of April, or put it out to coincide with the Christmas rush? I know what I'd do if I was in their shoes. Sure, a lot of people would buy the game if it was released in April anyway, but release during Christmas and you not only catch those people (who will of course be even more desperate for the game) but along with anyone who may not have got the themselves, but may ask for it for Christmas. As for a boycott...ah yes, the old gaming boycott. Don't they always work? Nope, all that happens is, the game is released as usual those that really want the game get it anyway and those that boycott it sit there spinning on their chairs as stubborn as always or maybe inevitably cave in and get the game anyway once they realise how fruitless their little protest actually is.

Anyway, to conclude, I'd say this game would be no more a commentary on western gaming than Bayonetta was a commentary on the way religious beliefs can be distorted by man for it's own end. Or something like that.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Hmm, that's one way to put it, but they way I see it if a game is a shooter, and it uses cover, then it's still a cover shooter. Vanquish just happens to use the cover in a different way than a game like Gears. Also, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that Gears 3 will be a better game than Vanquish. Though I'm not really sure why you've decided to start comparing them directly. Though snobbery honestly seems like a likely reason. Would it seem like sacrilege to believe that the almighty Shinji Mikami could be outclassed by a "mere" western shooter? Heaven forbid! It doesn't really bother me that much that Gears 3 is being held back to the holiday season. Again, that's just all down to business...release a game in the middle of April, or put it out to coincide with the Christmas rush? I know what I'd do if I was in their shoes. Sure, a lot of people would buy the game if it was released in April anyway, but release during Christmas and you not only catch those people (who will of course be even more desperate for the game) but along with anyone who may not have got the themselves, but may ask for it for Christmas. As for a boycott...ah yes, the old gaming boycott. Don't they always work? Nope, all that happens is, the game is released as usual those that really want the game get it anyway and those that boycott it sit there spinning on their chairs as stubborn as always or maybe inevitably cave in and get the game anyway once they realise how fruitless their little protest actually is.

Anyway, to conclude, I'd say this game would be no more a commentary on western gaming than Bayonetta was a commentary on the way religious beliefs can be distorted by man for it's own end. Or something like that.

Again, will you please just stop assuming I think Japanese is better than Western or whatever. And Japanese developers like Shinji Mikami aren't immune to making bad games. He did RE4 (not that it's a bad game though) and people claim that evolved TPSs for some reason, the only thing RE4 did for TPSs was bring them into survival horror games. RE4 didn't evolve TPS mechanics at all, and the controls of RE4 in any normal or fast-paced TPS would be far too sluggish (you couldn't even move and shoot at the same time). I'm not saying a Western shooter can't beat a Shinji Mikami shooter, I'm saying that Vanquish's gameplay mechanics are inherently better than a standard cover shooter; therefore, Gears3 can't be better than Vanquish because Vanquish's gameplay is intrinsically better, not because Gears3 is Western. I'm getting pretty tired of your standard cover shooter since it is just whack-a-mole. Probably the best you can do with a standard cover shooter mechanics is Uncharted 2. Gameplay that's found in Vanquish can take it to a higher levels than the highest level of a standard cover shooter, that's all I'm saying. I don't try to put boycotts together or anything, I personally just boycott certain things. For example, I boycott every game that has day one paid DLC, I'm not going to support a company that does that.

Vanquish is in many ways a parody of Western shooter cliches, that is pretty clear. Whether it's just a parody, or satire, or commentary is up for discussion. Bayonetta wasn't very religious at all, it was basically a story in a fictional setting and it was Umbra Witches vs Lumen Sages. And, the beliefs of the Witches and Sages were truths, it's not like they used false beliefs to control mankind or anything. In the end, Vanquish and Bayonetta were first and foremost made with the purpose to be extremely fun games.

 

[Tallim]

I really like Vanquish for the two things that *most* western shooters are missing. Chaos and intensity. It's supposed to be a war!
Not only did they ramp those things up but they then gave you the tools to get out of cover and deal with it. It's those tools that transform the game into something more than a cover based shooter.

I don't subscribe to the Japanese games are always better camp. I do however think that the culture differences leak through so they feel more fresh and original to us.

As to any subtext the game might have as a commentary or parody. Who knows, it is a damn good slice of action however.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I really like Vanquish for the two things that *most* western shooters are missing. Chaos and intensity. It's supposed to be a war!
Not only did they ramp those things up but they then gave you the tools to get out of cover and deal with it. It's those tools that transform the game into something more than a cover based shooter.

I don't subscribe to the Japanese games are always better camp. I do however think that the culture differences leak through so they feel more fresh and original to us.

As to any subtext the game might have as a commentary or parody. Who knows, it is a damn good slice of action however.

That is exactly the point I'm getting at. The tools (boosting and slow-mo are the main ones) that make Vanquish not just a standard cover shooter is the reason why Vanquish is inherently better than just a cover based shooter. Therefore, Vanquish is better than the best standard cover shooter, not because it's Japanese. That is why I said Vanquish is a better game than Gears3 could ever be. It's because if Gears3 turns out to be the best possible Gears game you can make, Vanquish is still better. Gears gameplay tops out at a level that is below what Vanquish is currently at.

 

[Evilsanta]

I havent played the game yet but i did play the demo and it was awesome.

I do agree with the you but i have only played the demo and i dont think i can comment on the other things you bring up.