Izuna Talk Podcast

Had expected Tai to already make a topic about it, but he didn't! So I'll do it for him  

Tai has started a podcast called Izuna Talk (great name) where he'll sit down with action gamers / challenge runners and just talk shop. I had the honor of being the introductionary guest! So expect a big NG2 fanwank haha.
Personally, it was a lot of fun to be a part of, and I think this idea is a great one and I wish Tai all the best. Keep an eye on the channel if you wish, I know he has dreams of inviting plenty of other cool guests (way cooler than poor ol' Raeng).

Enfin, here's the link!

Great discussion, fantastic podcast

Would love to see a Roy X JTB podcast, also one that is just birdman yelling at Roy to play CL for 2 hours.

Already watched and subscribed. Tai had a great idea and his talk with Raeng was very interesting. You touched a lot of action games and even Pokémon
I look forward to the next episode!

> birdman yelling at me for 2 hours to play CL
That's less than I usually get per day so I'd count this as a win for me!

Looks like I need to free up my work schedule. I have over 200 hours of leave.

Seriously though, give the podcast a watch @Birdman, I give a mention to you a few times too (nothing but love).

Thank you Raeng for making the post, really appreaciated. I didn't want to be a shill and post it myself lol, especially after not posting for so much.

hedfone wrote:Great discussion, fantastic podcast

Would love to see a Roy X JTB podcast, also one that is just birdman yelling at Roy to play CL for 2 hours.

RedShot wrote:Already watched and subscribed. Tai had a great idea and his talk with Raeng was very interesting. You touched a lot of action games and even Pokémon
I look forward to the next episode!

Thank you guys I'm glad you enjoyed it, if you have any feedback or criticism just let me know.
Got a positive response in general so I'm really happy, can't wait to work on the next episodes.
Actually JTB was one of the people I thought about having as a guest, but that will be a bit later and if I manage to get him on board lol.

Try get Saur too.

I don't know who that is, what does he do?
Send me a link.

>I don't know who that is
That's a crime. But you may yet redeem yourself.

Bayo 1, Wonderful 101, Transformers, Viewtiful Joe. These are what I mainly know him for. He's also one who got sick of all the bullshit.

He appeared in this podcast. Well worth listening too.
https://caneandrinse.com/viewtiful-joe/

>just birdman yelling
I'm the last person you want. It would be way worse.

> I'd count this as a win for me!
You'll win when you start doing as you're told.

>(nothing but love).
It's not like it could be otherwise.

Saur will never join for the simple reason he quit action games and the community. I reached out to him a year or so back for an interview too. He noted something along the lines of that he'd given up on gaming and that the hobby had changed so much he felt it not worth it to keep up with it or something or another. I can completely understand, though it really is a shame.

I saw he made some quick DMC5 videos. I think he's just not willing to make the big indepth guides but he might do a podcast.

For real? Cool to know he's at least back into the fray somewhat. In that case if you could get him, he's a really great player. Also was in direct touch with Platinum Games iirc.

> You'll win when you start doing as you're told.
Just be cute, here's a list of games you've recommended to me (from the top of my head) and what I've done with them:

• Zone of the Enders 2: bought + played + beat + all difficulties + 100% completion on 3 systems (PS2/PC/PS4) + few world first challenge runs
  
• Haunting Ground: bought + played
  
• Chaos Legion: bought + played
  
• Okami: -
  
• Knack II: bought
  
• Cold Fear (pretty sure this one was you): bought + played + beat + all difficulties
  
• Transformers Dev: bought + played + beat
  
• Wonderful 101: bought an entire console + played + beat + all difficulties
  
• Shadow of Rome:  bought + played (currently in progress)
  
• The Evil Within 1: bought + played + beat
  
• The Evil Within 2: bought + played + beat + all difficulties + 100% completion + few world first challenge runs
  
• Dino Crisis (I think this was you too): -
  
• OZ: -
  
• Bujingai: bought + played + beat
  
• Blue Dragon: -
  

And here's a list of games I've recommended you play and what you've done with them:

• Ninja Gaiden II:
  

Step up your game Bird!

I'll admit you've made a solid start.

Whatever happened with Haunting Ground?

>Cold Fear
Pretty sure that was me. I never got to play that extensively due to the PS2 I played US imports/swap magic stopped reading the disc.

>Ninja Gaiden
I can tell you for sure I'll play GoW to death before NG2. Not dealing with that piece of trash 360 anymore. I have the GoW 1&2 collection on PS3 (and the Asia version for some reason) and GoW3 on PS4. Actually got plans to get through these but other shit keeps coming up. Really wish all of them were on PS4. Might play them after I'm done with this Okami stuff.

You really need to get on to Knack 2 though. Really want to hear your opinion on Very Hard and the mechanics in general. Probably more than all the games on that list.

Royta/Raeng wrote: he'd given up on gaming and that the hobby had changed so much he felt it not worth it to keep up with it or something or another.

Surely only for an audience? A toxic one if it's how it feels, OK then. Just play for yourself. Never mind others. I can't imagine to quit something I enjoy.
I read the two-parter on PlatinumGames TW101 blog (I even printed it on paper). These are not the words of a quitter!

>You really need to get on to Knack 2 though. Really want to hear your opinion on Very Hard

Knack 2 very hard is so similar to GOW, Roy would love it

Great podcast guys, really enjoyed it. I've subscribed and look forward to future ones! Is the plan going forward to look at a specific game per episode?

> Saur
Yeah, he did a couple of labbing videos for DMC5. I think somebody asked him in the comments of one of them what was next and he replied with something along the lines of saying that he wasn't pulled back in to gaming like he'd hoped, and has basically quit again. It's a shame, he's really insightful. I particularly like his system guides for W101 and Transformers on YouTube.

I think he wrote (or co-wrote?) some of the FuturePress guides for Platinum's titles - I think I have a pdf of the Bayo guide somewhere but I never found one for MadWorld. Was always curious what high level play for that looked like, but I'm not prepared to spend silly money on a pre-owned copy to find out.

Gregorinho wrote:Great podcast guys, really enjoyed it. I've subscribed and look forward to future ones! Is the plan going forward to look at a specific game per episode?

Thank you man!
More than specific game I'd like to focus on specific players, so will probably talk about couple of games for episode,depending on the guest, but I'd like to keep the focus on the player and how they approach their favourite titles more than the game in and of itself. But of course discussion of the design of their chosen game and the history of it will still be there.


>Saur
I actually checked out his youtube channel and I didn't remember the name, but I watched some of his Transformer's tutorial back in the day. It would be an interesting guest for sure considering he worked on the bayo guide and all that. But considering he quitted gaming I don't know if he'd be interested in it.
I arleady have a couple of people in mind for the next episodes, but I will try and contact him in the future and see what happens.

> NGII
Get a X1X. Fantastic retrogaming machine that one. Or Series X. Only costs half my country's capital if bought in NZ.

> Haunting Ground
Didn't want to hurt your feelings, but I really didn't enjoy the game at all. Managed to get to the lighthouse(?) where you push the guy off and honestly just couldn't muster up the energy to play it any further.

> GoW
At last. Would recommend starting with GoW1 if the plot at all interest you (cannot skip cutscenes).

> Saur
What I wrote was nearly verbatim what he sent to me when I tried to get an interview with him for Stinger. Can't say anything else. IIRC he went into accounting and is trying to find the challenges there.

And yeah he helped with the Futurepress guides, you're right.

> Madworld silly money
What? Wasn't that game like less than 50 cents used at one point?

>but I really didn't enjoy the game at all.
Why? I remember you saying something about the stalkers appearing too much when you were trying to progress.

>if the plot at all interest
It isn't. Kill all who oppose is good enough for me.

>Mad World
Usually goes for $10 here if you can find it.

> MadWorld
Might not have been clear sorry - I meant that the guidebook is expensive, not the game (already got a copy of that). The cheapest I've seen the guide was around €45 euros from an international seller, and then the next cheapest after that was around £90, and then over £100 for a brand new copy.

Royta/Raeng wrote: IIRC he went into accounting and is trying to find the challenges there.

 While that sounds in tune to a 'secret legend' web status, the hypothetical thought of that is enough to bum me out.
I'm not even kidding.
Lifestyles, eh?

Did I hear dunkey mentioned? You DO NOT mention that useless trash without brutal insults.

I don't think Saur is against just talking about games. Wouldn't hurt to ask.

Here are some classics from him.

It's weird isn't it? A story holds your attention for the duration of the narrative, but a beautifully crafted system has no "running time".

I find it bizarre how the gaming audience today places more value on a game's narrative than the game itself; it's like obsessing over the design of the wrapper and throwing away the chocolate.

It simply proves how little they understand the mechanics which define this genre. If you give these people a visual approximation of what they enjoy, they will blindly defend it. But if you give them something which truly increments and evolves the raw mechanics of what they enjoy, they will actively oppose it.

This is not a conversation I'm interested in. Thank you so much for trying to post my videos out, but I don't care to engage with these people and have completely given up on the gaming medium and its cancerous audience. I'm going to finish the last couple of episodes and then I'm done with gaming.

Yeah man, it's been a long time coming but I'm done with gaming. I barely play games any more, I don't understand the direction the medium is going and I understand the gaming audience even less. I have an interesting career in finance which allows me to explore and manipulate complex systems, this has replaced the itch I normally use these types of game to scratch.

I have been approached recently for some commercial project within the gaming industry, which I may engage in on a professional level, but as far as trying to engage with the gaming audience via YouTube I really don't have anything more to give.

When you let ignorance and mediocrity fester the result is always the same. Studios like PlatinumGames need to lead and control the discussion surrounding their games, else the cancerous elements of today's gaming audience will drag their output through the dirt.

I don't see the point in continuing to make videos or play games to be honest. This genre is so dead now; we get one game every few years and the gaming audience will tirelessly ensure that they will not be viable on the market. When these games disappear for good (which they certainly will soon), the so-called "gamers" will have only themselves to blame.

I know what you mean, it feels like gaming has been hijacked. I have next to no motivation to continue,

Yeah, I wish it was possible to do something about it, I was hoping this series would make some sort of difference. But like a cancer that's been allowed to fester for too long, the situation is now beyond help.

I think these people are doing a great deal of harm to the art of game design and are directly responsible for the death of medium-scale game development.

The problem with gaming today is the "Triple A" design mentality of huge budgets, with such a massive budget comes an increased risk catastrphy if the game fails. So studios must stick to tried and tested formulas, there simply isn't any incentive to experiment and create interesting new game mechanics.

The stylish action genre has always existed within the "medium scale" game development band, these games are built to enable spectacular action created by the player via deep and complex game mechanics.

The problem with the gaming audience today is that they actively oppose any game which dares to be built on this premise. The flt refuse to support the work of even the desigers who were responsible for the games they enjoyed previously. They ignore the evolution of game mechanics and view games based on a very shallow "surface" level appraisal. They do themselves and the gaming medium a massive disservice at every possible opportunity.

Gaming in general these days saddens me, I don't understand how it's come to this. The "Triple-A" mentality at the major publishers has killed medium scale game development. Games are now completely homogenous because they cost so damn much to make; there is no incentive to take risks with new game mechanics, studios are forced to play it safe and only present tried and tested design templates.The gaming audience of today disappoint me equally. Instead of demanding the best from studios, they actively attack any game which dares to buck the current trend. The gaming audience of today will fall for worthless, vacuous shit like No Mans Sky over and over, but each and every time a game comes out which is truly special they make damn sure it isn't recognised. I don't understand gaming any more and I understand the audience even less. I've been playing games since 1982, I've watched the medium develop from humble beginnings to incredible heights through amazing feats of imagination and engineering. If I told my young self what gaming would be like in 2016, I never would have believed it. Games now cost huge amounts to develop because the gaming audience today values Hollywood style production values and narrative over actual game design.This isn't what I signed up for and outside of the few bits I do here on YouTube I really don't see much point in clinging on. I put a ridiculous amount of work into my content, but look at the response I get. Most of the gaming channels on YouTube are nothing but homogenous celebrations of mediocrity, yet look at their audience numbers.

I gave up gaming a couple years ago unfortunately, so won't be posting any more. If the right game comes along maybe I will try to get back into it, but I'm not at all into what the medium has become.

Yeah it's a shame, but I'm working extremely hard on this series as it's the last thing I'm doing with gaming. I've given up on the gaming medium now, I thought Bayonetta 2 would be the game to re-ignite my passion for it, but it has had the opposite effect. I did have ambitions to become a game designer, but I've given up on that as I now have a successful career in film distribution.

There is also the constant drive to turn gaming into a more "acceptable" form of entertainment. Look at how the gaming press critique games today; they base their reviews around the non-game elements of a title and only give a passing mention of the actual game mechanics. If they cannot instantly master something, then it's "broken". This I feel is the most pressing matter the gaming medium needs to overcome.

I really like that chocolate bar/wrapper analogy. I think you can apply that to both narrative and graphics in modern gaming. It disappoints me that in typical big-budget games, the element that seems to get the least attention is the actual gameplay - the bit that makes games unique over other forms of entertainment.

I've just had a random thought about Fortnite. So, it's mainly marketed at kids, right? It's got a cartoony art style and, to my knowledge, very little story (it is a multiplayer game after all). Kids don't care that it's not photorealistic. Kids don't care that it doesn't have some compelling narrative. The game still makes silly amounts of money from the battle pass, and it's because they find it fun. We could argue about how good we think the mechanics are, but it's audience thinks it's got fun systems to interact with. They like the fact that their game is gamey.

I think fun is what has been lost with the effort to make gaming a more "acceptable" form of entertainment, as Saur puts it. To make it more "acceptable", gaming has been made more like something people are already familiar with - movies. A strive for hyper realistic visuals, strong narrative and enough interactivity to pass as a game but not too much so your average controller-holder can coast through to the end.

I don't blame Saur for getting out of the game, to be honest. I never had to be so careful about what games I bought when I was a kid going through shelves of PS2 games in second-hand game shops. I was pretty confident that whatever I picked, I could have fun with it.

Sorry, Saur-related but a bit off-topic/ranty there. He'd be a great guest if he was willing, but it sounds like he's moved on from things now. Worth a try though, I'd say.

>Saur

Reading all the quotes he looks like someone who is really opinionated, he also puts up a lot of great points regarding what is happening to the industry and how it has changed the way people look at games. I'm not gonna lie seeing all this, together with the fact that he worked on the bayo guide, makes me really interested and I'd love to have it as a guest. Even talking about the reasons that made him give up the hobby would extremely interesting, but it all depends if he's willing to come or not.
I arleady have an idea for the next 2 episodes or so, but after them I'll definetly try and contact him and see what he thinks about it.

>Fortnite

I think it's a problem with perception. For some absurd reason the general public creates this distinction between single player game and competitive multyplayer ones, where the latter are expected to focus on strong mechanics for a great gameplay experiences (if you think about it doesn't apply only to Fortnite but even to all the other competitive games like DOTA,LOL and CS:GO), while singleplayer games should be "pure entertainment" so they should give you a specific experience, with great story, cinematic presentation and a focus on emotional storytelling.
Of course this perception has been created both by gaming journalism and the AAA developers who pretty much made people used to this type of games and even more than that made people used to judging a game by graphics and story and ignoring the gameplay aspect. And yeah, the chocolate bar analogy is perfect for this.

>Making game more like movies

Exactly that, by trying to validate games as something that it's not just for kids they focused on emulating movies and books and so put all of the emphasis on story and cinematic.
Which is really strange if you think about it, because it's pretty much the only artistic medium that doesn't want to focus on what makes it special and different from all the others, which is of course the interactivity and the active role of the player. It would be like if comic books started to stop using drawings and just copied books just to make the medium more acceptable.

Episode 1 is up on youtube. This episode's guest is SetnaroX, a style player for both Bayonetta and Wonderful 101. We talk about Stylish games in general, his history with the games, his views on Bayo 2 and more.

Sorry for the audio quality on my hand, I had to record late at night so I had to keep my voice down to avoid waking up everyone in the house and unfortunately I had some problem with the recording and couldn't save it as separate audio files. I tried to fix at best as I could,but my voice quality my be a bit uneven at times.

https://youtu.be/JBYZd1F6Kgk

As always any feedback or criticism is more than welcome, let me know what you guys think.

Going to give this a listen while painting minies tomorrow, should provide ample entertainment! That and I finally get to hear Set's voice haha.

Watched half. Will watch the rest later.

>Game telling you how to play.
>can cause players to use most effective strat. No experimenting.

Aside from basic controls/rules, I don't think anything should be explained.

I'm currently working on a guide for Okami and it's insane how much the game has that it doesn't tell you. But what it DOES tell you is the main way to defeat an enemy, which means the majority won't bother with anything else.

Take the bud ogre which is this turtle like flower thing. Instead of a shell it has a closed flower. The object is to attack until it falls. It won't take damage from normal attacks. When it falls you use Bloom to open the flower and attack the core. The game goes out of its way to tell you this, even drawing its own version of Bloom for you to trace over. Not once as a tutorial, but every time.

In my testing I've found more obscure ways to defeat this enemy by putting together existing mechanics that you wouldn't think would have any effect. Since Bloom can only connect to things that can be bloomed, no one would ever think to use it other than when the game tells you.

I found that you can use it on the bud ogre before weakening it. But this doesn't open it up. Instead it causes a sort of hitstun and forces it to spew acid upward and rain down around it.

Ok. Now what? Then I applied another mechanic which is using Gale to blow things around. The game makes a point that you can blow flying types out of the air and blow away fire, but not that you can blow away liquid. So what happens here is you blow away the acid and it appears to hit the ogre and put it into its weakened state.

My point is that the majority won't even consider anything like this and I blame the game telling you the basic way to do it. Another issue is that it's just so much easier.

But imagine if everything I just said was spelled out in game? Never have to think. Never have to consider applying brush techniques in different situations. No thought process at all. Like games these days, never leaving the tutorial. The character constantly reminding you where to go, the button prompts for basics like climbing when it's already fucking auto-climb, enemies glowing like a traffic light systems showing you which attack to use. This is where accessibility took us. It trained people to be dumb. It's already over. Might as well just spell it all out now because we're never going back.

>Telling you you're doing bad

So it should. People need to stop taking ranking so seriously anyway. Realizing they suck ass would be ideal. Get better or get over it. You still suck even if the ranking isn't there. You'll still beat the game. You'll still win. If not then play something else that won't hurt your poor little feelings.

Even when games don't make them insecure they still cry when it's just too hard for them which winds up at the same conclusion. Crying for removal of whatever is making them cry. Should we remove all forms of difficulty as well? Oh wait yeah that is what they want. Proof the game telling you you're doing badly means zero. The fags who complain about this only want pats on the back at every step and should never be catered to.

>Finding little things

Yes. I love this. I'm always finding little things, and now and then bigger stuff in older games. Finding tons of undocumented shit in Okami right now. This guy would probably like Okami.

>Forgot enemy names

I get this as well. Been playing Chaos Legion for like 15 years now and the names still escape me, mainly because they're weirdly spelt foreign sounding names. I've seen a list but no idea how to pronounce them so I just make up names based on how they look. Fast spikey, running spiky, tall guy, fat shield guy, red bird, etc.

>Mini games

For me it's case by case. I love Bayonetta's combat but the mini-games are so horrific it's hard to get back into the game.

But then take Lollipop Chainsaw which has quite a few, and I have no issue. I find them funny and they're pretty easy. Zombie Baseball is generally hated but I found it easy and fun to a degree. Zombie basketball is one I actually liked and wished there was an unlockable mode.

>Forced to move camera
>Offscreen enemies attacking

I never had an issue with this. In Chaos Legion, I'm often adjusting the camera on the right stick, little knocks with my thumb. I own the camera.

I've always argued that offscreen enemies are no issue. The fact that you can even say they're offscreen means you have knowledge of them so you can prioritize.

This is what I got from about an hour in. When I get home I'll listen to rest and make some notes.

>appealing to casual scum

Should never happen. As you guys said, they want to beat the hardest modes. Easily. Backward was the word you used.

In other words they want it all without having to work for it. Having an optional mode doesn't work. As long as it exists in the game they want to accomplish it but not by learning how to play well. Why even play such a game in the first place then?

Souls should NEVER get an easy mode. These people should stay locked out.

Nothing else to add really. One thing I was going to talk about in my previous post about Okami was that most encounters aren't hard at all and that can lead people to not think outside the box. On the other hand I don't think a game necessarily has to be hard to be good. Okami, outside of some of the devil gates trials is pretty easy yet it's still in my top 5 best games of all time because the mechanics are fantastic and it's just so fun to play.

> easy mode

Haven't given it a listen yet. That said a quality Easy Mode I do feel should always be an option. But then I'm talking about a well designed on like in Doom 1 and Ninja Gaiden Black. Ones that ease players into the game by giving them a few safety nets like easier enemies, more healing items etc but still requiring them to actually play the game. None of that 'Ryu now auto blocks" stuff we saw in NG3's Hero Mode.

Dark Souls with an Easy Mode should be very possible. Disable online, add some more summon signs for NPCs, remix some enemies so that there's less ambushes. Ease them in. Don't play it for them.

> Easy Mode
I have a pretty hard line stance that in a perfect world games should have a wide range of difficulty levels. I love Doom Eternal on Nightmare or Urban Reign on Very Hard and the fact that there's easy modes doesn't hinder my enjoyment of the harder modes. As Roy noted, you should be able to make an Easy mode that doesn't just play the game for you. I don't really like it when games offer an "automatic" mode though - at that point I think it's fair to ask why someone would bother playing, or maybe even ask the devs why they bothered creating a system that they're allowing people to ignore (rather than simplify). When I'm old I'd like to think I'll still want to game, and I might have to turn the difficulty down when my reactions aren't as good as they used to be.

>Ones that ease players into

Is this really what they're asking for though? To be eased in?

>doesn't hinder my enjoyment

Sure but a lot of bad practices won't.
I feel it leads to the dumbing down of other modes or just harder games in general.

Like I said, even when you give these players their special mode, as long as higher ones exist, they want to beat them. But then they complain it's too hard and it's nerf time.

That said I'm not actually against easy games, it's more the mentality that wants to do away with challenge or mechanics.

@Birdman

>Game telling you how to play

I completely agree as I said in the podcast, discovery of both mechanics or little interaction like the one you mentioned are the life and blood of the medium.
And you are right about accesibility, this want to make everything for everyone is what is ruining the medium. Mostly comes from greed, but the problem is that it made both the masses and the journalist used to this crap, so they actively demonize games that trust your inteligence and let you make mistakes and try things out.

>Telling you're doing bad and catering to whiners

Again I completely agree. Setnaro it's not actually the first person that tells me that they feel bad when a game give you a bad rank makes them feel like scrub. I think it's mostly a lack of confidence, but it won't be a problem if the loud majority (and of course I'm not talking about people like Setnaro here) would stop complaining and demanding game to be dumbed down in the name of accesibility. Again other than being completely stupid, it's a great disservice to the artform as it limits what creator can do.
There's is also the thing that if you never get challenged. you'll never really learn how to approach this kind of games and seeing how people are completely used to this AAA dumbed down games, it's a infinite loop.
Stuff like this is also the reason so many people think that Dark Souls is the hardest game ever, they got so used to dumb easy shit that when a normal game came out it seemed impossible.

>Cameras and offscreen enemies

It's not something that really bothers me per say. I think part of the reason is that I grew up with Monster Hunter where you had to claw to move the camera properly. And offscreen enemies are not a problem either, especially in games where you have great mobility and free targeting like NG2 or with strong audio cues with Bayonetta.
That said I have to concede that a camera is mostly an artificial barrier,  especially when you see games like GoW that completely fix the "problem" having be fixed and giving you a clear view of the battlefield while still keeping the strategy of keeping enemies off camera etc. Or even W101 that frees up the right analog to create another mechanic that would have not been possible with a traditional camera system.

>Appealing to casual scum

Absolutely, sometimes gatekeeping is more than necessary.

And btw Birdman, if you ever want to be a guest in the podcast just let me know. I'll be more than happy to have you.

@Everyone

>Easy mode

The problem is not if its well designed or not, but the fact the people want to force it in every single game not understanding that in some game, not everyone, it can and will ruin the experience.
Dark Souls (especially DS1) and Demon's Souls are the most apt example. If you read any of Myazaki's interview you'll see that he never intended to make an "hardcore" game. What he did is build a believable world and setting and the difficulty was a consequence of that. Difficulty in the game is part of the story telling and it works to create this bleak
inhospitable wrold. Also through challenge and gameplay it also reinforce a lot of the themes of the game like hollowing, perseverance and the heat death of the universe.
What he did was simply focusing of giving the players a sense of accomplishment, and make sure that everyone got that same exact feeling by not letting them change difficulty or have an easy way out (outside of in game solution like summoning which opens you up to invasions).
And the fact that you can't change the difficulty means that everyone will get this same experience both from a balance and storytelling point of view.
If you just add an easy mode you completely ruin an important part of both the design and the director's vision and you get a lesser game for it.

Here's are a couple of excerpts

‘”We don’t want to include a difficulty selection because we want to bring everyone to the same level of discussion and the same level of enjoyment,” Miyazaki said. “So we want everyone … to first face that challenge and to overcome it in some way that suits them as a player.”

The creator continued: “We want everyone to feel that sense of accomplishment. We want everyone to feel elated and to join that discussion on the same level. We feel if there’s different difficulties, that’s going to segment and fragment the user base. People will have different experiences based on that [differing difficulty level]. This is something we take to heart when we design games. It’s been the same way for previous titles and it’s very much the same with Sekiro.”‘ (*1)


Having the game be "difficult" was never the goal. What we set out to do was strictly to provide a sense of accomplishment. We understood that “difficulty” is just one way to offer an intense sense of accomplishment through forming strategies, overcoming obstacles, and discovering new things. Our goal of a sense of accomplishment was the basis of the game since the early stages of development, and we never strayed from that. (*2)

And the same argument can be applied to the reverse. Take Animal Crossing, the game is designed to be an escapist fantasy in a relaxing, friendly world that should become part of your daily routine. Adding an hardcore mode to it would completely destroy this design and transform it in a different experience in general.

The problem, and the irony, here is that even if we are the one always being called "elitist", we are not the one demanding an "hardcore mode" for every game. And this demand comes from this, frankly toxic, idea that every game should be for everyone. which is both idiotic and pretty much only exist within this medium. Like I said in the podcast, you never see people complain that a book or movie is too hard to understand and should have an explanation for all his themes, so it doesn't risk that people don't get it. And I think the reason is that games are still not recognized as art and so don't have the same cultural credibility that books or movies have.
Also people should stop treating games like they are some prime human need. If you don't like or can't play a game just play the hundreds more you enjoy, there are a lot of diverse experiences for you to find.


*1 https://twinfinite.net/2018/06/from-softwares-hidetaka-miyazaki-talks-about-why-souls-games-dont-have-difficulty-settings/#:~:text=News-,From%20Software's%20Hidetaka%20Miyazaki%20Explains%20Why,Don't%20Have%20Difficulty%20Settings&text=Another%20notable%20feature%20of%20the,to%20get%20through%20the%20level.
*2 https://www.gameinformer.com/games/demons_souls/b/ps3/archive/2009/11/05/feature-demon-s-souls-director-discusses-difficulty-sequels-and-more.aspx

> Easy Mode / Dark Souls
Just going to preface this comment by saying you'll get anti-Souls bias from me because I dislike the sub-genre.

Having said that, you could make difficulty levels that reinforce the bleak/harrowing tone that DS goes for. You could make a mode that is challenging for "easy" level players, and a mode that is challenging for "hard" level players. I don't believe that there absolutely has to be one difficulty level for everyone. There are people who claim it's not that hard - what about those gamers? Did they miss the intended experience because they were too good? Maybe a hard difficulty could have alleviated that.

I don't really like Miyazaki's "we never intended to make a hard game" quote, and that might just be because of my bias. To me, it absolutely feels like they intended to make a hard game. The bonfire system (replacing the more traditional and frequent checkpoints in other games) makes it harder than it "needs" to be. Being able to lose souls, which function a bit like XP/currency, makes the game harder than it "needs" to be. Many action games offer a similar level of difficulty without inconveniencing the player to the extent DS does.
I don't like the logic of "the themes demanded the difficulty" because there are times when that just doesn't work. Dante in DMC and the Slayer from Doom are badasses that make their jobs look easy - I suppose with Miyazaki's logic those games shouldn't have hard modes, because those characters would beat most of their enemies completely unscathed. To me, it just sounds like he's reluctant to say he wanted to make a hard game (and I don't know why, because that's one of the reasons the fan base like it).

> Not every game should be for everyone
I agree, but I don't think catering to multiple skill levels is necessarily making a game for everyone. I'd like DS more if it played like Bayonetta - however, I don't for a second think that the next one should play like Bayonetta though because that'd be such a betrayal to its fan base (and like it was suggested, I'm happy to go and play something else that I do like). I don't think multiple difficulties is that sort of betrayal. Or, at least, it doesn't have to be if thought about carefully. I don't mean to suggest that we should make action games more like "movie games" (TLOU, GoW18, Uncharted etc.) and completely gimp the level of interactivity. I may not have signed up to this forum if I didn't get to play DMC3 on Very Easy as a child, as that was the game that gave me a baseline interest in the genre.

> Animal Crossing
I'm just playing devil's advocate on this one, but I don't like that game because it feels like having a second job. It is intended to be relaxing and friendly, but it's also a game that asks you to pay off a mortgage!

>when a game give you a bad rank makes them feel like scrub

Maybe it's just me, but I feel good when I see those bad ranks or results when I first start out. I'm all about self improvement.

>Absolutely, sometimes gatekeeping is more than necessary.

And the thing is I don't want this, but when you spend a bit of time spoonfeeding these pricks and they spit it back in your face you get to a point where you stop caring.

>And btw Birdman, if you ever want to be a guest in the podcast just let me know. I'll be more than happy to have you.

Probably not the best idea. I frequently rant, and I'm not even remotely known for anything in any game. I could probably talk about what games I like, but I usually play stuff no one else does.

>You could make a mode that is challenging for "easy" level players

I feel like the only reason they scream for an easy mode is butthurt though.
How would you do this kind of mode? What is challenging AND easy?

>Maybe a hard difficulty could have alleviated that.

I'd say a hard mode forces improvement, where an easy mode never does. It's a step backward, and again, I just don't believe anyone wants one to ease them into higher modes.

>Did they miss the intended experience because they were too good?

I'm not sure how to answer this interesting point.
I think we've all played something we really like and wished it was harder. For me I play Okami, and consider it one of the best games ever made, but I wish it was harder. Years of experience in harder games no doubt contributed, but it's largely easy even then with a lot of safety nets. I still enjoy more than almost every game I've ever played due to the fantastic mechanics and other elements.

I think I'm not against a game being easier, just the crying for easier modes/nerfs.

>never see people complain that a book or movie is too hard to understand

Probably because you just watch those, and there's no skill involved.

> Hard mode forces improvement, easy mode doesn't
> Nobody wants a mode to ease them in to the harder difficulties
I think it's easier to reply to these together. I'd agree that you're typically right, but I'm sure devs could come up with a way of making players improve even at lower difficulties. After all, the feeling of improvement is one of the best things about action games, so I think that is something devs should treat as a priority anyway. If your game doesn't require players to improve, on all difficulties, then it's a bit of an issue in my opinion.

Sadly, most people aren't interested in repeat playthroughs of games, they're happy just to see the credits and be done with it. Admittedly, it must be pretty hard for devs to capture the attention of people like this and get them fully invested in the systems they create. I think Kamiya's games tend to be good examples of lower difficulties easing you in, as the top difficulty is often considered to be the intended experience. For example, at the top difficulty in Bayo you lose Witch Time, and I think in W101 you lose the slowdown when drawing weapons. They give you them initially to ease you in, but then reveal at higher difficulties they were actually a crutch and you never truly needed them to begin with. How you actually encourage someone to keep playing through all the difficulties is tough to manage though.

> How do you make something easy AND challenging
Well, my thinking for this is one is that it wouldn't be easy AND challenging for people like us at Stinger. Maybe if we don't think of the names of difficulties so literally, but think of them as relating to different levels of player. Most games (including action) need to be somewhat challenging or they won't entertain the player and engage them, even at a low level. So, maybe Easy mode could be challenging to somebody who isn't particularly skilled at gaming, or somebody who isn't physically/mentally able to play at higher difficulties. I don't think of Urban Reign's Very Hard mode as being literally very hard for the majority of missions because I've learned how to play it over the years. So, my logic is that Easy doesn't have to actually be easy in a literal sense, but rather some level of challenge for a less experienced/able player. If players behave like you see on GameFAQs where they shout and scream and rant about how the game is too hard and bad and whatever else, just let them be. If you offer them a lower difficulty with simplified systems and they still won't engage with it then the devs tried. There will still be others that appreciate a simplified mode even if they aren't vocal about it on the internet.

> Never see people complain that a book or movie is too hard to understand
There are definitely criticisms of narratives for being too convoluted. For movies, Inception comes to mind. For gaming, the MGS series has been criticised for being needlessly complex (just thinking about the story here). I'm a big MGS fan but there definitely comes a point when Kojima was obviously stimulating himself over how clever he thinks his story is. I'm sure there are other works of literature where people thought they were hard to follow, too. I think you could probably have the same debate over complexity in narratives as we are having now with difficulty in games.

I'm sure there have been books that may have used a lot of vocabulary that people weren't familiar with, and were more difficult to follow. It might not just be a "problem" (if it is one at all) for narratives, but also the actual writing of a story.

Listened to the whole episode! Found myself mostly in agreement with Tai. There were some interesting topics but Set seemed a tad ... uncomfortable talking about some things due to his fanbase I feel? Not sure "uncomfortable" is the right word.

I really agreed with what Tai said as I said the exact same thing while listening, regarding "I'm not demanding their games change, I'm demanding mine stay the way they are". Which I think is the big change and keeps reminding me of Star Trek. When the movies relaunched the series...it wasn't Star Trek anymore. It was generic Sci-fi. So yeah. Also a bit of the discussion I had with Laque here regarding Metroid.

> Easy Mode
Oef, big discussion haha.

The biggest two reasons against a good Easy Mode I can think of are these:
- it wastes resources better spent on making the difficulty modes that matter even better;
- it runs counter to the vision of the game i.e. a challenge to overcome like Dark Souls.

The latter though, you can work around it I feel. Dark Souls already does that in a sense by providing overpowered options or online, allowing one such as DSP to just cheese the game.

Demon's Souls honestly already had a really good tutorial stage where you were immortal (try dying in it, it doesn't work, you have infinite health). I think if they were to expand on that and give an area to practice and learn, while also having it offer a bit more than just a lineair hallway, it would be great. Put some NPCs in there, a few hidden illusory walls etc, teach players the 'rules' of the game.

> Souls difficulty
I think there's always some revisionistic history going on, but I think it's important to note that Demon's Souls was just "lets do what the fuck we want because the game is destined to flop". I will say there's a definite desire to go back to oldsk00l in it, though the checkpoints and loss of XP mostly are there as a counter to the checkpoint heavy / zero punishment upon death that was current at the time.

> multiple skill levels
I think this is more also about multiple learning levels. I am a slow learner for instance. I generally start on Easy or Normal at best because I like my first run to just be enjoyable without dying and trying out a ton of stuff with a big safety net. My first run on NGS2 was Acolyte and my first on Sigma was on Dog. We all know how big I am on NGII and its ilk now, some players just need that or like that.

I think one note I would like to bring up is that difficulty would be better if it was more consistent and well done. Hard Modes are often heavily phoned in (just pure damage boosts) while Easy Modes play themselves. But also Normal in one game is vastly different than Normal in another, even within the same series. Yakuza 4 on Hard is easier than Yakuza 3 on Normal for example.

>Did they miss the intended experience because they were too good?
Interesting point as I remember I had this with Demon's Souls. I died a total of four times as I kept count on my first run. Two were due to gravity, one on man-eater and one against Dragon God because I didn't have a clue on how to handle him.

> ranks
I honestly wish I could just turn them off, especially during challenge runs. Getting a world-first only to be greated with a "D-rank" sucks. It also really ruins my initial playthrough by constantly reminding me I am not playing correctly. This made the new Hitman games a big chore for me too.

> Birdman isn't known for any game
The fuck? Are you actually passing up a chance to talk Chaos Legion for two hours? Hell I'll join in if you want haha.

> Never see people complain that a book or movie is too hard to understand
This part didn't align with me either. Because there have been. Even in comics. Grant Morrison's Batman is widely controversial as it's super different, so people either hate it and even petioned it to be made non-canon while other consider it the zenith of Batman's writing. Even the way Bruce is written, everyone has "their Batman", and when there's a depiction where he's different you get "that's not my batman, terrible comic, they should change it". Plenty of people hating on old movies and books for being "too slow" or "too convoluted" and asking them to be remade with modern idiologies or methods. I remember a lot of modern readers starting Dune were absolutely spiteful about it, same with LOTR.

>If players behave like you see on GameFAQs where they shout and scream and rant about how the game is too hard and bad and whatever else, just let them be.

I guess this is all I've seen for years. Can't see anything else.

> Birdman isn't known for any game

Not by many like these other guys.

>The fuck? Are you actually passing up a chance to talk Chaos Legion for two hours?

I can talk about CL anywhere though. I've been posting CL stuff for years. Didn't do any good.

And I don't trust myself not to say something extremely offensive.

>Getting a world-first only to be greated with a "D-rank" sucks.
But you must have went in to that type of run knowing this. How can it really affect you?

>It also really ruins my initial playthrough by constantly reminding me I am not playing correctly.

Good.

But wait. What about games that don't have a score popping up, but you still get your ass kicked initially? What's the difference?

> talking about CL didn't do any good
IIRC at least 3 people played it because of it, I'd count that as a win.

> But you must have went in to that type of run knowing this. How can it really affect you?
Still sours it for me for whatever reason.


>It also really ruins my initial playthrough by constantly reminding me I am not playing correctly.

> Good.
I don't see this as good. It punishes experimentation and just having fun on your initial playthrough. It's why I prefer end-of-the-game ranks instead of constant popups that say "hey remember you were having fun experimenting with mechanics earlier, well fuck you". Worst thing I remember was playing Blacklist where there's a hostage you have to save from 3 soldiers. I popped a smoke grenade and shot all three without them being able to do anything only to see -1000, -1000, -1000 pop up because I killed them. Just rubs me the wrong way.

It's not about the reminder that I suck (partially), but mostly that it immediately puts me in "performance mode" instead of "experimentation mode" if you get me.

I'd just prefer to switch them off if possible. Ranks are meaningless anyway but they still annoy me haha.

> It punishes experimentation and just having fun on your initial playthrough.

Only if you let it. I don't know I guess it's just me.

> I popped a smoke grenade and shot all three without them being able to do anything only to see -1000, -1000, -1000 pop up because I killed them.

Wait, what happened here exactly? You were supposed to kill them and you did so efficiently and the game punished you?

>but mostly that it immediately puts me in "performance mode" instead of "experimentation mode" if you get me.

I kind of get it on paper.

But what about just getting owned in a game that doesn't show anything? Do you not still have a visual representation of getting destroyed in the form of getting hit, declining health bar, etc?

I think it's a personality thing yeah.

> stealth example
You were supposed to disable them non-lethally. Hence me killing them was punished. By comparison Chaos Theory does this only in the end-mission screen iirc.

> getting owned without the game showing me anything
That's fine for me. On my initial run through though I tend to get annoyed if a fight takes me more than 3 tries depending on how much time it wastes me with runback/unskippable cutscenes/unskippable phase transitions of a fight etc. My first run really is just "For the story" haha, or "for experimentation". I just immerse myself generally speaking, have fun, take my time, slow walk, read the logs, etc. You can only have your first run through a game once.

> Stealth Example
Good point. It kind of irks me when stealth games let you play lethally but then also tell you it's the wrong way to play. I get that it's kind of like the "easy mode" way of playing for less skilled players, but if the devs really think it's so bad I'd prefer it if they just made me do it non-lethally.

It was one of the things I disliked about MGS5. You have so many lethal options that'd be interesting to experiment with, but you get bonuses for no kills (so no lethal weapons), no alerts (so you shouldn't use any weapons that aren't silenced), and no traces (so you can't use the majority of your equipment). I think the game's ranking system is dynamic enough to let you get S-Ranks through time bonus, no deaths, accuracy bonuses etc., but it makes playing lethal (or loud) a bit of a speedrun mode. It's a good and bad ranking system at the same time.

> Chaos Legion
I'd say that I played it (or at least bumped it up my backlog queue) based on your recommendation, Birdman. I didn't finish it because I kept getting crashes in the emulator, but for what it's worth I liked the game. Capcom have a suite of underrated and lesser-known action games so it's good to have people that champion them.

Even then, just an end-of-the-stage rank would solve that for me like the way MGS2 did it. I really liked their 'emblem' ranks too, fun system. In Splinter Cell it's especially weird since you have two buttons, one lethal and one non-lethal, for melee. Both are OHKO, yet one penilizes you while the other doesn't. So you never do the cool knife animations haha.

>Good point. It kind of irks me when stealth games let you play lethally but then also tell you it's the wrong way to play.

Wasn't it some of the MGS games that gives you both options and each is valid? Like different sets of points if you tranquilized or KO'ed everyone?

Tai, regarding your interview questions. Do you come up with those beforehand or just see where the conversation goes? I'm going by your timestamps.

@Gregorinho

>Easy mode and Dark Souls

Regarding people that think it's not really an hard game, I'm one of them. To me it's a normal ps2 era game difficulty wise. That said even with that the game is never trivial, you still need to think, pay attention to what you're doing and you will still be challenged both by bosses and level/world design. So, generally speaking, every player will get a similar experience and a sense of accomplishment. Of course a perfect equal experience for everyone is impossible, but still what you get is enough to have that "sense of accomplishment" and get the general message.
Of course, you can disagree with this, but my main point was not about difficulty. What I meant was that the design decision of a creator (be it subjectively good or bad) should not be changed to cater to the whiny majority in name of hollow accesibility. And adding an easy mode, even if you think that it  could be designed in a good way, still goes against that design decision.

>Easy challenging

I get what you are saying and it's a really good point, but I don't think that is really possible to design difficulty in that way. How can you quantify the level of skill or of experience of a generic range of people?
Also how can you decide how to design for that specific range?
And even if you could do that, you will still need to spend an enourmos amount of time and resources to design a ton of different option (because at that point you would need to have spectrum that starts from "guy who never touched a controller" to "guy that beats every game, NUR no damage).


>Bonfire system and losing souls.

The Bonfire system is a checkpoint system, but it makes death have consequences, something that was severly lacking in contemporary titles.
Losing souls I would argue that makes the game easier. As long as you don't die twice in a row without getting them back, you'll have a net gain in experience without having to grind. I also disagree that it's a incovinience (at least in DeS and DS1), the levels, the shortcut and the aggro ranges are designed so that you can easily go back to where you died without needing to kill every enemy in the way, especially for boss battles.

>Not every game should be for everyone.

I think you misunderstand what I mean with that. What I'm arguing here is that a game should be free to create a specific experience (be it hard, easy, relaxing, disturbing or wathever) without needing to cater to everyone. Having a very easy mode in DMC3, to use your example, is perfectly fine because the game was designed with it in mind, so that people can start with very easy and work for there (or be content with having enjoyed the story in ve).

>Animal Crossing

I don't like it either, because I don't like the sense of routine and the fact that it gates content based on time. But the game is generally relaxing and friendly, yes it ask you to pay a mortage but it never gives you a time limit on it. If you don't care about upgrading your house you can avoid paying and nothing bad will happen.

>People complaining about books or movies

Of course calling a book or movie convoluted or needlessly complex is more than fair and the same applies to games.
What I was talking about was the "It's too convoluted and I demand you change it so I can understand it" kind of thing.


@Birdman

>Gatekeeping is necessary

I agree that is not a good thing, but it is necessary especially if you want to build a focused community.
And to be clear when I say gatekeeping, I mean "gatekeeping the wrong mentality/behaviour" (ie "x is offensive I deamnd you change it" type of stuff). I'd never suggest that you need to gatekeep based on skill or lack of knowledge. Helping  and welcoming new players is one of the most important thing for any community or hobby.

>guest in the podcast.

You don't really need to be  known for a specific game (even if you're pretty known for Chaos Legion tbf), you're both knowledgeable and opinionated, you don't really need any other "requirement".
Also don't worry about ranting or saying offensive things, I seriously don't care. I'm not one to limit what people can say and my objective is not creating "professional controlled content". So every guest is more than free to say whatever they want and critique anything or anyone they want, even if it can be considered controversial or offensive.
So really, if you're interested you have a spot.

@Royta

>Setnaro seemed uncomfortable.

I got the same feeling and that is why I didn't push the topic too much or tried to have a discussion like the one we are having here. I just said my point and closed it there, as I didn't want to put him on the spot.

>Different learning levels

I'm the complete opposite in that sense. I always start on the hardest non limiting difficulty available. I need a good level of challenge and a game that forces me to use its mechanics to properly learn. If I start on easy or normal, I usually develop a lot of bad habits or I get bored and start to autopilot and then, once I reach the higher difficulties I need to pretty much rewire my muscle memory and that really slows down the learning process.

Again a good point, but it's way to vague of a concept to able to design a system around it imho. How slow is a slow learner and how fast is a fast one?

>There have been people demanding to change books/movies/comics.

Then I guess I was just lucky and never encountered any of them lol.
I thought it was because stuff like comics and games are still not recognized as art, but if it happens to movies and books too then it's just a universal thing. Kinda sad really ahahaha

Birdman wrote:
Tai, regarding your interview questions. Do you come up with those beforehand or just see where the conversation goes? I'm going by your timestamps.

Both.
I do prepare some question beforehand, but if I see the conversation going somewhere interesting then I'll go with the flow. I much prefer having a more free and genuine conversation even if it means missing out on some of the question I had prepared.

I always like the stories of how other people got into games/action games. I noticed most are specialists of a certain game/s and I really enjoy hearing how they got there.

Who's next?

Tai already spoiled that Khayaam will be next! Really looking forward into that deepdive in (A)RPGs. Should be fantastic!

> Losing Souls
I think it's a neat mechanic but other games are already improving on it. The way that first big Soulslike (forgot the name) let you use the souls you lost as a AoE Buff while near it was neat for example. I do feel the checkpoints are a tad annoying in how they're constructed, especially lateron. In the original they were meant to give pressure (which worked), but later-on they seemed hellbent on making the treck back as painful as possible (like no i.frames on entering a fog-gate).

> gatekeeping
It's such a cursed term at this point, but I think we're all on the same page regarding it. Hobbies are hobbies you like because of what they are. If you don't like a hobby, don't demand it change to fit you more. Find a hobby that fits you more.

> Birdman on the podcast
Again, I'd seriously be interested in this. Birdman is one of the best action guys I know and helped me a lot earlier on. Love to give it a listen.

> slow learner
I think just having a safety net-mode is all you need. Some games I pick up pretty fast, but in others it is nice to have some functions disabled. Fire Emblem had an easy-mode in later titles where character death wasn't permanent for example, which I used to get to know the game better. For some this will definitely breed bad habbits, so you really need to design the mode well. Of course I personally later-on did bonkers challenge runs (you know me...) with it, but I always start small. My personal gripe is that most games seem to have changed the Easy Mode's "safety net" to "give us the controller" i.e. Vanquish's easy mode having you auto aim or Ryu auto-blocking on NG3's "hero mode". That's terrible.

If Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 didn't have an Acolyte Mode, I don't think I'd have made it into the genre. Ditto with RE4's Easy Mode.

>Khayaam

Must have missed that part. Should be good.

>Birdcast

If I did, I wouldn't want to talk about any of this negative shit really. Just no point discussing it anymore. I haven't posted thing on Gamefaqs or even looked at anything for a while now and don't plan to. Should've done this years ago.

>Birdman is one of the best

TRUTH.

>and helped me a lot earlier on

Did I? What with?