[?]countries and their colo(u)rs

[Necromancer]

The differences between US and Japanese arcade games is surely due to budget and time constraints.  Tatsujin compared Konami & Capcom and Atari & Midway, but just look at their financial condition in the late '80s / early '90s - the former were riding high and flush with cash (in no small part due to NES game sales), while the latter were being bought and sold and having their staffs cut and reassigned.  Those that were still around were probably too busy perusing the want ads and polishing their resumes to actually spend time coding and creating better artwork.

lol..no way. it looks very stiff, flat and lifeless. it's no big issue to scan some photos and use them as background as the atari dudes did au contraire of drawing everything by hand as the capcom artists did.

You may not like the style, but the use of digitized stuff in NARC was a big deal at the time, and it was widely lauded for its detailed graphics, animation, great sounds, and high color count.

The original Xbox must have had 100 games with no more color than 16.8 millions shades of brown between them.

That's because most of the real world is gray and brown; they were just making everything more realz. 

[sunteam_paul]

I think the Japanese are genetically predisposed to cuteness and colourful things. While westerners naturally go for duller realism a little more (not always a good thing tbh).

[ccovell]

I don't think hardware limitations really come into play, especially comparing OutRun and RoadBlasters.  Both games can put thousands of colours on-screen, so the real difference is in the talent of designers.

Tatsujin's got a point.  Japanese games look better, with better polish on the art.  Culture has a lot to do with it, and you can see the presence, or lack, of an "art" culture by comparing console/PC games from different countries.  Compare old 2-D US-developed PC games with games made in the UK or Germany.  It's like night and day.  Compare the best US-made Turbo or Genesis games with even the most mediocre Japanese/Euro games on the same systems.  The (US) art styles are inferior, and don't work.  Sure, often Japanese games used few colours, but US games often used drab colours.  I remember a period in the early '90s when every second Genesis game seemed to use a combination of purples, dark greys, and browns.  Yecch!
(One of the reasons I was drawn to the Turbo at this time was precisely its bright, colour-cycling graphics.)

Japanese kids grow up drawing 1000s of pictures, copying them out of comic books, anime, Disney, etc.  From a young age they are copying styles, and if they keep at it, they eventually develop their own style (hopefully).  Japanese culture, being very visual, has bred a good pool of talent.

On the other hand, most of us in N. America grew up and never got out of the "shitty kindergarten stick-figure/blob people" phase.  Sure, American comic books have their own realistic style and a storied tradition, but that just resulted in kids drawing the same kindergartener crap, just with more muscle lines on the chest. 

Just compare the "envelope art" sections from old EGMs and from Japanese game magazines, if you can.  Each country's gamers are their future game makers.

[SignOfZeta]

Japanese kids grow up drawing 1000s of pictures, copying them out of comic books, anime, Disney, etc.  From a young age they are copying styles, and if they keep at it, they eventually develop their own style (hopefully). 

Its always been my opinion that kanji plays a huge part in this.

[blueraven]

So American audiences prefer gaudy primary colors, as evidenced my NARC, and are less likely to accept diverse color spectrums (like JRPG's and Final Fight because they are cowboys. Am I getting this question right?

I totally agree that NARC is a tatty classless POS, but for the time it REALLY jumped out at me in the arcades. The explosions and the sound and stuff were amazing. Now it just seems like the most f*cked up thing ever...that the best way to deal with junkies is to hit them with a flame thrower? Evokes thoughts of Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" adverts weighed against contras and cocaine smuggling...shit like that. The war on drugs is sofa king re tar ded.

I agree, Zeta.

[Zeon]

Eh sometimes Japanese art is too gaudy/colorful in general. Don't get me wrong, Japan makes some good stuff, but a lot of stuff (more recently) is this kinda overly gorgeous, shiny, cutesy junk. I will agree that up to the 90s Japan had many varied and distinct styles, and that even games/movies/anime in a similar genre could look remarkable different, and even "feel" different. You had your dark and gritty stuff, you had your gruesome stuff, and you had your bright cheerful stuff. I won't talk anymore on the current state of visuals in Japan made stuff, partly because it doesn't really pertain to the topic (we are talking art from the 80s/90s), and partly cause it all looks like the same artist is drawing 99% of the art for Japan made stuff, and it's really gotten old.

Tatsujin's got a point.  Japanese games look better, with better polish on the art.  Culture has a lot to do with it, and you can see the presence, or lack, of an "art" culture by comparing console/PC games from different countries. 

I agree with cultural influences, but disagree on the "presence or lack of an "art" culture statement. It's just too highly subjective to opinions. I agree some stuff is indisputably poor or bad art. Aesthetically speaking there's not much to stick figures is there? But really, someone's "masterpiece" is another's toilet paper. I've seen plenty of good and bad art from many countries, and I can't say any is particularly "superior". I even disagree with many on what is good and bad.

Compare old 2-D US-developed PC games with games made in the UK or Germany.  It's like night and day.

Stylistically yes, quality no.

Compare the best US-made Turbo or Genesis games with even the most mediocre Japanese/Euro games on the same systems.  The (US) art styles are inferior, and don't work. 

Says you and probably others. I know many who would disagree though. It's all a matter of opinion.

Sure, often Japanese games used few colours, but US games often used drab colours.  I remember a period in the early '90s when every second Genesis game seemed to use a combination of purples, dark greys, and browns.  Yecch!
(One of the reasons I was drawn to the Turbo at this time was precisely its bright, colour-cycling graphics.)

Drab doesn't automatically = crap. There are some excellent pieces of US made art in games and elsewhere that not only make good use of drab colors, but have a good reason to do so. Honestly stuff like contrast and where/how colors are used are far more important than the color choices imo.

Japanese kids grow up drawing 1000s of pictures, copying them out of comic books, anime, Disney, etc.  From a young age they are copying styles, and if they keep at it, they eventually develop their own style (hopefully).  Japanese culture, being very visual, has bred a good pool of talent.

Obviously if you want bright cartoony, and often exaggerated stuff, you'll prefer most Japanese art. If you like more realistic, dark, and detailed stuff, you'll enjoy most US art. One really isn't better than the other, they are just different.

On the other hand, most of us in N. America grew up and never got out of the "shitty kindergarten stick-figure/blob people" phase.  Sure, American comic books have their own realistic style and a storied tradition, but that just resulted in kids drawing the same kindergartener crap, just with more muscle lines on the chest. 

If you are serious about creating art, chances are you will probably constantly draw, mimic, and improve your skills from a young age regardless of culture. The people who are stuck in the "shitty kindergarten stick-figure/blob people" phase are usually ones who casually draw something when they feel like it, aren't serious, and don't practice/immerse themselves with constantly drawing. It may very well be that more Japanese people are inclined from their own innate nature to be artists. Growing up in a culture surrounded by drawing and such may help you out early on to discover your talent, but a presence or absence of a "artistic culture" will not stop those who are truly interested or talented from making excellent art and coming into their own.

[termis]

F'n else.  You know, I initially though Tats was having selective memory, but on looking back at the old Midway/Atari games, he totally has a point.  The colors on US developed games of the era were indeed pretty shitty.

But hey, if there's saving grace, shitty colors or not, I honestly think the US arcade games of that era (mid to late 80s) were some of the most fun arcade games out there.  Paperboy, 720, APB, Tapper, Gauntlet, Rampage, Smash TV, Narc, etc... man, those were great, great, fun games.

[guyjin]

Compare old 2-D US-developed PC games with games made in the UK or Germany.  It's like night and day.

I don't think that's entirely fair. A lot more (most?) Europeans had systems like the Atari ST, Amiga, c64, or Amstrad, which connected to Televisions; while most Americans had PCs, which at least at first were usually stuck with CGA or EGA monitors. Developers (of all nationalities) tend to develop for the lowest common denominator. (see also:why were people still making games for the Spectrum in the 1990s?).

American games that made good use of VGA graphics were often more colorful than their European rivals. Ferinstance, Master of Orion or most of the Kings Quest games. but I won't deny that there was a lot of graphical crap on PCs even into the 1990s.
(I still find it hard to comprehend that ID went from making Commander Keen, a 2D EGA game, in 1990, to Doom, A 3D VGA(or higher) game in 3 years )

[SignOfZeta]

Compare old 2-D US-developed PC games with games made in the UK or Germany.  It's like night and day.

I don't think that's entirely fair. A lot more (most?) Europeans had systems like the Atari ST, Amiga, c64, or Amstrad, which connected to Televisions; while most Americans had PCs, which at least at first were usually stuck with CGA or EGA monitors.

Is this actually true? As a kid I knew basically nobody with a IBM PC. The computer stores seemed to have a bunch of them there...playing Battle Chess in monochrome with beeps and boops instead of samples...but everyone I knew had Apple stuff, Amiga, C64/128, or Atari. I can see how the installed user base would be larger, but does the games market necessary follow when the machines suck so bad at it? I mean, if you have a 286 powered...ATM, more or less, at home, you obviously care more about Lotus 123 than you do about games. Were these same non-game people buying the majority of game software? I suppose that could be the case. After all, most cars sold are minvans or SUVs (ie: not "car people" cars).

Its certainly true though that many of the games we were playing back then were European, but there was some good American stuff.

[guyjin]

Is this actually true? As a kid I knew basically nobody with a IBM PC.

http://www.jeremyreimer.com/total_share.html

I don't have the European numbers, but the PC has dominated the American computer market since 1984.

I can see how the installed user base would be larger, but does the games market necessary follow when the machines suck so bad at it?

pretty much, yeah. people will play games with whatever they can get their hands on - sticks, rocks, rubber balls, and even PCs with Hercules graphics cards.

[SignOfZeta]

Well I knew that PC clones dominated the market, but didn't most of them sit in banks and shit? Nobody was playing games on those. This was the 80s, after all, and home computers were much more rare in general. The philosophy seemed to be to have an IBM at work, and something you can actually stand to look at for home. The biggest users group in my town was the Apple users group. My friend actually had some sort of card in his Amiga 2500HD that was essentially a PC on a board because he needed DOS compatibility for work reasons. After a day of using Deluxe Paint III and playing Faery Tale Adventure and Falcon booting into DOS was extremely anticlimactic.

Its amazing how huge the difference was between one platform and the next back then. Now people actually argue about the difference between a PS3 and a 360. In the 1980s there was such a HUGE range of quality. The difference between a Mac II and a C64 was colossal, yet both were successful platforms at the same time as one another (even though one was 5 years older, and thousands of dollars cheaper).

[Tatsujin]

HAHA!!