Izuna Talk Podcast

> helped me out
By showing me there are people with brainpower for starters.

> khayaam
He mentioned it on Twitter I think, so can't blame you.

> Birdcast
I think keeping it positive is very understandable.

>gatekeep mental midgets
Sounds about right. Flip their cribs so they may be as prisons.

>keep it positive
Whatever works for you lads. More for me.

Like Roy said, next guest will be Khaayyam. We arleady recorded the episode and I finished editing and converting today, so if everything goes fine it should be up tommorow afternoon.

Listened to it. Will post some thoughts tomorrow.

I listened to bits of it, really interesting thoughts on RPGs as I haven't really ever gone deep into RPG mechanics. The Monster Hunter segment hurt my soul though, I think I was right there with you in that conversation, especially when he started talking about using Longsword haha. Will listen to the rest later, cool stuff.

Birdman wrote:Listened to it. Will post some thoughts tomorrow.

Looking forward to know what you think!

HotPocketHPE wrote:I listened to bits of it, really interesting thoughts on RPGs as I haven't really ever gone deep into RPG mechanics. The Monster Hunter segment hurt my soul though, I think I was right there with you in that conversation, especially when he started talking about using Longsword haha. Will listen to the rest later, cool stuff.

I actually really enjoyed the MH talk, it's always fun "debating" with someone who has a complete opposite opinion on the matter, especially considering the different way he approaches the game (ie not full efficiency or TA attempts). For how much I hate World, at the end of the day it comes down to different design decisions (and while not a good MH for me, World is still a great game) which are present in most of the main team games, so so it's easy to see how someone who likes the main team would like World.
I'd have loved to continue and go way more in depth with everything but at that point it was 4 am and the episode was arleady way too long lol. I'm actually thinking of trying to get a World speedrunner on the show, I think a full debate on World vs old gen would be really interesting, maybe after Rise releases and we see how World's design decisions have evolved.

Was interesting to listen to. My biggest take-away with the Tales bit and casual players, is that I was one of them so I could connect with them a bit. Symphonia was more about the adventure for me initially. I didn't know that you could cancel attacks into specials and just spammed the highest TP move, because more TP means stronger right?

Somehow I managed to beat it. It wasn't until later runs that I started to realize you could cancel level1s into 2s etc. Same with other RPGs (Golden Sun, Pokemon) it was always just going the 'hard way' i.e. upping numbers until you got the harder moves and hit hard enough to kill things. Grind it out. It wasn't until I was older that I'd use buffs, debuffs etc. Right now I'm playing Grandia 2, loving it, but mostly for the combat and how creative you can get with it. Back in the day I never would've used buffs in it for example. "Why buff when I can hurt them" would've been my thought haha.

>Turtles game console Vs arcade

I don't play these but hearing about those differences was really interesting. Pretty much completely different games.

>Brave Fencer Musashi

Played it a little. Played the second one a little too. Weird game.

>focusing on other games instead of DMC which everyone was doing.

Same for me. I was playing DMC3 & 4 and could've made videos but by the time I got a computer and equipment, the internet was overloaded with them. That and when I tried to discuss combo ideas and tactics, DMC elitists would talk down and sometimes abuse me for not doing what they would do. Promoting the games freedom while at the same time telling you not to use it. That community has been shit since day 1.

>Witch and Hundred Knight

I have this. Played a few hours but didn't get enough info to form a real opinion. Went on the backlog.

>DMC parries

Oh man. The losers would not let you do this. They'll tell you, in the game about so called 'player expression', that you're doing it wrong. But add it to the list of dumb shit I've heard out of their mouths. I've even heard a few criticize moves for not doing enough damage. Hold on, I thought you want to keep the enemy alive for style? I wasn't allowed to main Lucifer.

>something about builds
>how one can become the answer to everything
>get bored

I really disagree with this. It's not that it's untrue to someone, but it's absolutely a 'speak for yourself' thing.

Every RPG I touch I go for the same things. I look for debuffs mainly, and try to build based on them. Not just in one RPG, but all of them. And I don't get bored of it. I love poison and always use it.

And they aren't the answer to everything. Maybe in games where end of the day damage outdoes everything, but it's your choice to build in such a way.

>grinding

I agree it's not an ideal system and most go for the numbers.

But I'll still do it. Grind that is. Why? Not to win. It's because I want all the skills fast so I can start tinkering with them as soon as possible. If the game provides good shit, I'll run it again later under stricter conditions.

Like recently in DQ11 S I found that metal slime island and there were some skills and I needed to know what they did. I wasn't going to get them for a while fighting normal enemies so I farmed metal slimes and leveled up until I got them.

Because here's the thing, the game doesn't disappear or self destruct just because you played a certain way. You can go back any time and start a new file and apply whatever conditions you want.

>Square/Enix games can be beat without grinding

I didn't know this. That's neat. But like I said I'm still going to do it at some point because I won't see all the skills unless I do. Not to get power that let's me ignore mechanics, but rather get access to MORE mechanics. Once I'm done with whatever the game has to offer, I'll replay with conditions. DQ11 S has the draconian options. Those sound nasty.

>Bravely Default

I have the first one but no time to deal with it. Played a little and loved it. Looks like it has tons of options.

I wished I jumped on that ps4 KH bundle awhile back when it was on like a 80% sale. Not gonna pay $100 for a KH collection. Definitely will pick them up next sale.

Are the re releases considered better than the ps2 OGs?

Haven't listened to the podcast yet, will do so soon.

hedfone wrote:
Are the re releases considered better than the ps2 OGs?

Yup, they are the final mix version (more content, rebalancing, secret bosses previously only available in the ps2 fm japanese version) and run at 60 fps (at least 1 and 2 idk much about the other titles).
Afaik the ps3 version had some problems but I don't know if they fixed it, the ps4 one is great tho.

@Birdman

>Builds

Of couse it's subjective. If you have a go to strategy and find it fun go for it.
The thing is that the general public doesn't really experiment with anything and think that the strategy you see described on a game guide it's the only one available. So they default to grinding to the "correct level" and using that without ever engaging with the mechanics on a deeper level.

>Grinding

Wanting to get all the tool asap is a fair point, it greatly depends on how the game is balanced and does it gates progression. Square games are usually well designed in this regard, pacing skill unlocks so you almost never feel like you're missing something. The problem is that if you spend too much time getting the skills you want then, you risk becoming too high level and making everything trivial. That's why "base stat" option like in KH3 (or even how KH2 gives you skills at level 1) are so cool as they give you all the tools while still keeping the challenge high.

And, of course, you can always do another playtrough and try different stuff, but the point we were making is that pretty much no one does that. They just default to grinding and don't care about using tools outside of the strongest attack available (hell you can see this stuff even in action titles like Nioh) because they're convinced that mechanics are not important.
Just look at how people are so easy to dismiss buff, debuffs or status ailments because "they don't do anything useful" and the complain rpgs are grindy.
So it's not a condemnation of grinding in general, but of the general mentality that doesn't ever go beyond that.

>general public doesn't really experiment with anything and think that the strategy you see described on a game guide it's the only one available.

Reminds me of the MHW and The Witcher 3 communities. In both, I went in talking about my builds only to be criticized.

"Why would you do that?"
"The DPS is blah blah blah."
"That move isn't worth using."

And many more.

>Square games are usually well designed in this regard, pacing skill unlocks so you almost never feel like you're missing something

I'm playing DQ11 right now. I started grinding on metal slimes to get every skill. I always felt like I was missing something, mainly because the skill trees hide certain abilities until you learn the surrounding ones. I don't see the point in hiding them.

>becoming too high level and making everything trivial

On a first time playthrough, that doesn't matter to me, because my intention is to get hold of everything. To have all the abilities and mechanics in my hand.

But yeah, the majority who don't care for mechanics have no interest in this.

One thing that being all powerful is good for though, is you can do challenges with it like how fast can you beat a boss. This leads to trying different set ups. I recently saw a DQ11 final boss fight where they beat it in a few moves. There's another place where you fight a series of battles and are only allowed to use 8 moves. I think I saw someone do it in 4. I want to see if I can get it lower. So there's still heavy use of mechanics even at max power. Some of it you have to come up with yourself.

>you can always do another playtrough
>no one does that
>So it's not a condemnation of grinding in general, but of the general mentality that doesn't ever go beyond that.

This is it.

Not really much different from those who blast through action games chugging healing items or using some strat they found online rather than learning how to actually play.

>doesn't matter to me
Helps to not be a filthy one-and-done casual, yes.

>There's another place where you fight a series of battles and are only allowed to use 8 moves. I think I saw someone do it in 4.

I got this wrong. It's around 30 moves and someone got it down to 8, with 4 maybe being possible if things went right.

My point still stands. Even if the game is made easy to win, there are still interesting challenges like this, either already present of made up yourself. I might be able to find a blend of characters, equipment and abilities that get that turn count lower.

Something I forgot to mention was that I like to experience an RPG at full power first. This is also a mechanical thing. It shows the limit that can be reached vs the toughest the game has to offer. It actually gives me a lot of info on how a challenge/non grinding playthrough would go.

Listened to all 3 now, some thoughts on tutorials, accessibility, and ways of playing games:

I agree that this is often a balance between helping the player understand and preserving the feeling of discovery. The general distinction here is between telling people how to play the game and telling people how to understand the game. Doom Eternal's tutorials are a bit of the former, as Raeng pointed out: "Shoot the Cacodemon with a grenade" is not the only way to deal with them, but it is pretty efficient and what the game tells you to do, so people default to only doing that even when it's not the most fun or even best course of action. I think these types of messages are mostly unnecessary and are best left as player-driven discoveries.

Fighting games (shit take disclaimer: I am terrible but I talk to my friend, and he plays a good bit) are a genre that greatly benefits from the latter. Frame data is a fundamental concept that determines which actions are safe and unsafe, and which player has an advantage. Without understanding what frame data is, you aren't even really playing the same game as someone who does, as what's happening on screen seems unintelligible and random. Bayonetta 1 (shit take disclaimer: only beaten on Normal) has an excellent action example in Dodge Offset. Dodge Offset is the crucial mechanic of the game, but you might be forgiven for not realizing this given the flashiness, puzzles, and set pieces using Witch Time and the comparative obscurity of Dodge Offset as just another entry in the movelist. But the structure of the Wicked Weave combos, the gold-plated enemies, and the general pace and enemy aggression all click into place when you understand Dodge Offset. Foundational concepts like these need some sort of explanation, as they are prerequisites to meaningful creativity in the game.

These concerns are also inescapably linked with human psychology, as how you frame a game and its systems pushes people to interact with them in different ways. This relates to what was said about RPGs and how people default to grinding. While a major factor is that the community has decided that grinding is the way to play the game and beat hard content, some of it is also how easy and attractive experimentation appears.  Megaten does a good job at steering people away from grinding with its Pokemon-like demons (although Megaten came before Pokemon). You constantly replace your non-protag party members entirely, getting new demons is usually pretty easy, and the fusion system is built around tinkering and experimentation. Then, when the player is faced with a challenge, the natural first course of action is to iterate on party compositions instead of brute-forcing through with just one.

Shmups are another example: Many people simply play through the game by credit feeding, because they don't understand how the game is intended to be experienced, i.e. lowCCs and/or scoring. ZeroRanger tackles this in a couple ways: by tying extra lives (per run) and extra continues (across runs) to score, players are pushed to engage with the scoring system to some degree, while giving them freedom on where and how much they do so. Additionally, the game's small story hook leads up to the true final boss, who uses spare continues as lives, and if you lose your save file is deleted. This sounds harsh, but you can play through the game quite quickly, and those who want to see the ending of the game's story are pushed to complete it all the way through while using as few continues as possible. But wait, this is a lowCC run! The player was "tricked" into understanding the game structure without even telling them. Structuring things this way is extremely potent (and I think Monster Hunter can do this pretty well in the action game realm) but seems quite hard.

TLDR: Some parts of games are non-obvious but integral to understanding the game as a whole. These should have tutorials as they don't impede creativity, but are rather a prerequisite for it. Human psychology is also an inescapable force in how players learn, and it's techniques can be used powerfully to subconsciously help the player best experience the game.

I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of the "tell them how to play in a broad sense, not word for word". Instead of saying you can grenade a Cacodemon, hint at that such types of interactions are possible, allowing players to experiment. Hell you could even just keep the tutorial as it is, and end with a little sentence that says "but there are other ways, can you find them all"? That might already be enough.

Just a little stearing in the right direction is all that is necessary.

It's funny how Dodge offset always comes up though, as so many people don't even know that basic mechanic exists or what its added function is to the grander whole of Bayonetta. Myself included at the start. Same to the Essence management in Ninja Gaiden, which is never explained and just has to be found out.

Don't disagree with anyone's opinions on discovery with game mechanics (I like it too), but I did find it interesting to hear Hugo Martin's (Doom Eternal director) take on it. He likened playing the game to driving a race car at top speed and said (paraphrasing) "if we have something to tell you while you're driving, we better be loud and clear about it". I couldn't really fault that train of thought, even if it does take away a lot of the opportunities to discover things.

Another of my action favourites, Urban Reign, has a reputation for being difficult or even unfair. I would imagine this is because most casual players and reviewers didn't figure out that you need to use your super moves to break out of hitstun, or the AI will enjoy bullying you over and over. To my knowledge, the game doesn't explain this, and it's pretty essential to playing. To be fair, I'd imagine that most gamers are at least subconsciously aware that in games you generally lose control of your character for a moment when you take damage. I wouldn't say it's obvious that you are able to cancel your hitstun, and you wouldn't figure it out accidentally without mashing the right buttons at the right time. I do wonder if the reception of the game would have been different if they taught the players a little more about how to play.

Discoverey is great for engagement and longevity, but I wonder if some games are scared to allow too much discovery (vs teaching) out of fear that they might get bad reviews, complaints online etc.

It's a bit what we talked about regarding Team Ninja. In some cases, the level of commitment you need to get a basic understanding to even enjoy a title from them is out of this world. And I can see why that's such a discussion point. It can really make or break a game (at least in terms of popularity / success). There's definitely a balance possible.

> the Hugo quote
Flashy, and understandable. On the flipside, if you're racing at top speed, why slow down at all? I.e. why explain at all? To take the Cacodemon example, since the grenade is most likely everyone's first upgrade and people have the grenade launcher, I think we can be sure that 90%+ of players will fire a grenade at it and he'll swallow it. Isn't that just as strong?

There's a pretty fun example in Super Mario World. Near the start there's a shell and 10 enemies:

http://www.mariouniverse.com/wp-content/img/maps/snes/smw/yoshis-island-2.png

Now, what this does is if you hit the shell (pretty solid chance this will happen) is that the shell will attack the 10 enemies in a row and give a 1UP. For some players this will be the conclusion "ah, so killing 10 enemies in a row will grant me a 1up". For others it will be "ah, so killing some enemies in a row will grant me a 1up". Lastly, some will just go "huhuhuh I killed them good".

In that sense, you can ask yourself what the balance would be between a situation like this and a pop-up box showing Mario doing it and hitting home "if you kill 10 enemies in a row you get a 1UP".

You know what I mean?

> I think we can be sure that 90%+ of players will fire a grenade at it and he'll swallow it

Curious if this sort of logic could be stretched out, and applied along the entire game; Try to more consistently time giving the players a new weapon with the introduction of new enemies. The new enemies are unfamiliar, meaning that players don't know how to deal with them, but simultaneously, since players have a new toy, they're gonna wanna see how it works. So the first thing that they're gonna do is fuck around with the new weapon on a new enemy, and discover something in the process.

Of course, I can think of a few problems with this idea off the top of my head; Mainly complacency and predictability, but it's just a thought.

One thing that's always annoying with these things is that a lot of players are going to be too dumb to get it and might even need neon-signs, twenty popups and a flashing icon and game-pause when the thing that's talked about is taking place. You then have to ask the question: "will I cater to these idiots".

But I think this type of organic learning definitely has a place. On the flip side I also feel just the 'trial by fire' learning has its place. You can sort of compare the first level of NGB and NGII that way. NGB's is a slow crawl, starting with a climb where you can get used to the controls and walljump. NGII has an IS ninja trying to grab you in the first fucking frame before you even know what jumping is.

Both have a place imo.

PS: Firma, were you the one playing ZoE2 in my friendslist? If so, saw that you finished it, did you like it? Or is that someone else? I'm bad with user names on Steam haha, apologies.

>You then have to ask the question: "will I cater to these idiots".

Answer: No you shouldn't and they can fuck off.

I still find it bizarre that anyone needs to be told what to do.
It shows they're dumb as shit and aren't interested in mechanics on any level. You can spell everything out or not, and these dipshits will still scream no.

> Do you cater to them?

Ideally, you wouldn't have to, but in this economy, that's probably gonna be a large chunk of your playerbase. Maybe when you boot up the game, and it's showing you the options before you start the game, allow players to turn on tutorial prompts, and/or pop-ups, while warning them that the latter might railroad them into one specific playstyle or something. Or hell, even a light penalty of some kind.

>ZoE2
Haven't been playing Zone of the Enders 2 recently. I would've been playing Dishonoured 2. Gotta get around to it at some point, though. Maybe that can tide me over until Nioh 2, or if it's really as good as you say, I'll ignore Nioh 2 when it comes out.

> Organic teaching
This is obviously the preferred way to do it, as you can teach a player without having to beat them over the head with information, interrupt their gameplay etc. It does rely on players behaving the way you want them to, though. In the example mentioned, you probably would expect most players to try shooting the Cacodemon with the sticky 'nade launcher. I wouldn't think to try firing the 'nade from the Frag launcher, though, seeing as it doesn't stick and doesn't explode on contact - logically, it doesn't sound very useful against airborne enemies. Perhaps they were concerned that they needed to tell players that weaknesses were overhauled from Doom 2016, assuming they would try to play it exactly the same way as that game.

I know it was criticised, and I won't try and tell anybody they were wrong for doing so, but I think Doom Eternal still allowed for sufficient discovery despite how much it tells the player. Admittedly, they do tell you almost every property that every weapon and mod has, but they don't necessarily tell you every application of those properties. For example, you can unlock the faster weapon switching upgrade, but that doesn't necessarily prompt you to think that weapon switching will cancel all of your reload/recovery animations and allow you to do massive amounts of damage quickly. They also don't tell you that you can use a Frag to extend the length of the Marauder's stun (enabling you to do one-cycle kills if you're quick enough), but you might think to try it once you understand how the faultering mechanics work. I don't think they tell you that you can avoid/reduce the movement speed penalty of the Destroyer Blade mod by bunnyhopping, but you might think to try it if you're an arena FPS vet (or you might discover it by accident while panicking in a fight). The devs made a decision that some information is critical for beating the game on your first run and that it needed to be taught, for better or worse. At least they allowed the option to disable tutorials for those that didn't want them.

The Mario example is a good one. A perfect example of teaching without having to create a "lesson" for the player to stop and learn. You would think that players should learn from these - why would the game put a shell and exactly 10 enemies in front of you, otherwise? It's interesting that this sort of teaching is done in a game arguably made for kids too. Nintendo trusted kids to get it right in the 80s and 90s, but now there's more evidence to suggest devs don't trust the modern gamer. With the Dean Takahashi's of the world writing on games that they aren't competent enough to play, I'm sadly not surprised.

It's hard man. For example, Vanquish. It has a bit of a similar style to Doom Eternal, in terms of enemies having specific weaknesses etc. You can delimb enemies for example, and it all works well and good. But there's no real 'tip'. You just shoot at them and stuff happens and maybe you delimb them and go "huh, that's neat". I'd like to think people would experiment more or be open to it.

Perhaps, and this is an infinite discussion, it is more the problem with certain games these days having too much 'one way to play' in a sense. In Vanquish you don't need to delimb, in Mario you don't need to do 10-kill streaks for that U.A.V. ... I mean 1UP. It's a bonus. Then it isn't too bad, because the basics in those games are really simple. Press a button to dash, it goes empty you are a sitting duck. Mario jumps on enemies, they die. But games are getting so complicated (at times for the sake of it I feel) that maybe that's why it feels the need for the tutorials? Since it has a very specific idea on how you "should" play?

I'm rambling I feel haha.

>but in this economy

If we're talking the current economy, any dev's best bet is to remove any form of advanced mechanics and thinking.

>large chunk of your playerbase

Who hate mechanics whether you spell them out or not. I've been watching this for like 15 years. Maybe more.

>warning them that the latter might railroad them

They don't care. Majority don't want to think too much so this is a plus.

>Or hell, even a light penalty of some kind

This will stop them from playing entirely. They can't even handle trophies that are remotely difficult to get.

>Dean Takahashi

Dishonest piece of trash who went on to play the victim and claim he wasn't being serious.

I don't give a fuck what anyone says. Majority of game journalists are trash.

>I'd like to think people would experiment more or be open to it.

Cool idea for a fantasy novel.

>journos are trash
Beneath even casual filth, yes. Your jaded self amuses me greatly. It is a hard thing to see the truth and not delude yourself with hallucinations of hope.

>can't handle more than joke and progression trophies
Even that proves a task by their standard. GoW's crew understood that well (and I despise them for it). An obvious move to please the mainstreams and pull in 'trophy hunter' cunts (like Waffles).

>almost all wish just to have shallow 'fun'
Just how it is. And the money flows from these types, thus they pull the tides. Sort of like fujos and other riffraff concerning other media. It is from these types that profits are made, so they call the shots with far greater authority (matched only by busy body ideologues).

>driving a racecar analogy
The difference here is that there is no danger of crashing and dying while playing a video game, you just restart back at the checkpoint. This ties a bit into things that are initially unfair but subsequently fair, in that the initial unfairness is more bitter the larger the consequences of failure are. Doom 2016/Eternal having only Ultra-Nightmare would be a pain in the ass, not just because of the difficulty spike, but because you would get "gotcha'd" by some enemy you haven't seen before and sent 5+ hours back. Conversely, if the only consequence for failure is a checkpoint 10 seconds back then who cares, let the player die and experiment as much as they want.

>Urban Reign, SMW examples
This is what I was trying to get at, maybe I went on too many tangents. If a mechanic is both essential to gameplay and non-obvious then it needs a tutorial. This crosses the line of experimentation and creativity for me because you can't even really do either of those things without understanding the fundamentals. Without knowing Dodge Offset Bayo 1 seems random and bullshit: why are these hair fists and feet here, these gold-plated enemies are BS, etc. But once you know it, you can begin to make strategies for using Wicked Weaves while dealing with enemies' mobility. If the player can't figure out the foundational mechanics easily then you need to tell them, otherwise they will be trying to read hieroglyphics without a Rosetta Stone.

The Mario example is not a foundational mechanic, as you can play the game just fine without getting 1ups from shells. In those cases "secret" tutorials are the best, which is what Nintendo used in the example. The foundational mechanics of Mario are the basic movement elements, all of which are pretty intuitive and can be figured out just by pressing buttons. Thus they can get away with not using tutorials for the movement.

I brought up shmups because if you don't understand that they are supposed to be played by going for lowCC runs, then the game is incomprehensible. Why are all these systems here if I can just put in credits when I die? In the arcade, the credits were real money, so the limiting factor here was obvious. But outside the arcade, this no longer applies. Then the relationship between the player and the game is risking complete collapse, so the game has to step in and do something.

>one complex way to play
If the fundamentals of the game are very complicated, then yeah you're in trouble tutorial-wise. People are gonna have to practice a while before they even get to really play the game, which can be quite demotivating. But on the other hand, a deluge of tutorials is exhausting and looks really bad. Here you need to really, really focus on how you're gonna convey the fundamentals to the player in a way that doesn't make them quit, or you need to cut back on the complexity in the fundamentals.

> Infinite discussion
There are few topics we could spend all day going round and round - this one, game difficulty, definition of action etc. I like having a place to discuss them, but there's never really a conclusion to these conversations.

> "One way to play"
Tough one, this. This is another thing comes down to subjective opinion (like most stuff with gaming). I personally feel like the majority of games offer "one way to play" and I'm okay with that. There are a bunch of different routes you could take through a level in Mario, but to me they all feel like the "same" way to play because of the simplicity of the game (I move with the d-pad and press jump until I reach the goal). Other people might say that's the definition of having multiple ways to play and totally disagree with me. Just depends how you see it.

> Current economy
I'm just grateful that we still get good games coming out. There's a lot of crap to wade through, but gems still pop up every so often.

> Let the player die
If a player doesn't know how to fight an enemy, they die. When they die and don't know how to stop dying, they get frustrated. When they get too frustrated, they stop playing. This is something devs probably feel they need to be careful with. I agree with the point though, if I die and get to respawn at the start of the same fight then it's no real hardship.

> Why are all these systems here if I can just put in credits when I die?
I think you raise a point similar to one Tyr did in another thread on Shmups. I have to say though - do you think players explicitly think "I won't learn the game, I'll just put more money in"? If players are spending money on a game you'd have to assume they're enjoying themselves, and you have the desire to learn the games you like. If you don't want to learn the intricacies of any given Shmup, then I doubt you would repeatedly pour in credit after credit to beat the game, racking up multiple completions. Maybe I shouldn't speak for others, but I don't think I'd do that unless I wanted to learn a game.

>shmups
First off, in the arcade the shmup structure makes sense. You walk in with $5, and you want the most playtime per quarter you can get. The benefits of learning the game are obvious and literally saves you money. However, if you pay $5 to buy the game on Steam or whatever, then "beat the game" by credit feeding in 20 minutes, people often think that's all the game has to offer and refund it. It's all about psychology IMO, most of this is happening subconsciously and depends on how you frame things. The reliance on procedural generation in roguelites, often combined with progression between runs, makes it subconsciously appealing to put in more runs and keep learning. These techniques have been badly abused with Skinner-box structures (gacha, lootboxes, daily quests, etc.) but they can also be applied to help the player.

> Jaded Birdman
Sounds like a protagonist from a Kojima title.

> experimentation vs discovery
It is a hard thing, no doubt about it. I think an apt 'conclusion' would be still though that optional mechanics can be left obtuse, but essential mechanics should be explained, if only on a basic level. Ninja Gaiden tells you how to run on walls and jump, which is the basic element, but doesn't tell you to jump on enemy's heads or that you can do wall-attacks - it hopes you just tinker with the buttons and figure that out yourself. Same how Super Mario World has two types of jump, regular and spin, and doesn't tell you that the Spinjump destroys certain blocks.

Should be noted that Mario games tend to have very, very clear 1-1 stages that force players to learn the basics immediately. In the first screen you tend to immediately learn that you need to walk right. And that enemies kill you if you touch them. Should you die, you'll only be sent back 1 second.

THAT SAID hahaha...

> rosetta stone
... sometimes it is cool to be the archeologist and find the stone yourself and share that information. So not have the game tell you anything, and just let you figure it out. This is what led many people to love titles like Metroid for example.

I think maybe the type of audience you're chasing is the most important to keep in mind. A title like Doom has to take a bigger audience into account than Samurai Jack for example, while The Last of Us really has to explain everything to make it enjoyable for its 8+ million playerbase (or make the game so simple it isn't needed, but that's another topic).

> they stop playing
This does beg the question if that's even a problem. The hard fact is "they've already got your money", so why be careful? On the flipside, if you want to start a series this might bite you in the ass later (see also: The Evil Within).

> arcades
I think this is also a user-thing, as some will use the economy in their mind to think "getting better will save me money", but there's also no doubt players that will just call the game a 'coin-hog' or worse, they will just spend 50 bucks on quarters to beat MUSHIHIMESAMA FUTARI and then brag about it.

> the infinite discussion
Absolute, and as you note I do like that we can discuss them somewhere. Usually talks like this end in memes or just in-fighting on most places, glad to see it just getting a place here!

The thing Raeng said about old information being lost over time is going to be very relevant in the future with Discord as a major discussion platform currently. Not only do you have to be invited to a server to see its contents, but if Discord goes defunct in the future who knows what will happen to all the info kept in pinned posts and conversations. It will probably depend on what small subset people decide to archive somewhere else. Other web-based stuff like Reddit is probably more secure, something like archive.org can host pages even if the original site is down.

A good point. You already see this happening. Certain techniques, like for example the Siegemode-glitch in Doom 2016, aren't really documented anywhere outside of a single crappy video. Similar things are present with more mechanically deep and influencing tricks/glitches in older fighting games like Marvel 2 or ST - you either know them, or don't.

Sites like Gamefaqs famously delete older topics and a Reddit post can easily vanish too, especially when a user is banned. Discord is another good point that I hadn't even considered, that information might as well not exist with how rapidly it goes and how zoned off it is.

You could look to creating a repository of knowledge (and idea I once had, but dropped due to time constraints) for each game, but then you'll always get the question "what if that site goes offline too". Doesn't help that most advanced-mechanics are explained in video, not text, making backups extremely difficult.

An interesting question.

Good points about preserving notes. It really would be a shame to lose findings on tech, strategies, glitches etc. Its kind of the lifeblood of the genre in some ways.

I assume Raeng the Siege Mode glitch you're referring to is the one that allows you to fire it without charging when you swap from another weapon to it? I only found out about that myself a couple of months ago. I think it was on ByteMe's YouTube channel. He's got a few videos on Doom tech, but that's about it. I'm not sure if that's because little has been discovered, or that the tech is just poorly documented, as suggested.

I've started documenting data and tech for Urban Reign - sort of like a "master spreadsheet" of character data and various findings. It's in its early stages at the moment. I'll probably update the topic for it at some point as there is some interesting stuff that I never realised when I used to play it as a kid.

I do like Discord for the convenience of live chatting, and I have wondered what a Stinger-esque discord community would look like, but maybe the forum platform is the best for organisation (especially with the number of lengthy, detailed posts we have on various topics).

Regarding a repository of knowledge - I've thought before that this would be a great idea, at least in theory. A website that would essentially serve as a database of action game knowledge for all kinds of titles, with community submitted tech and strategies. Sounds great on paper, but I'd imagine the logistics of actually maintaining it would be too much for somebody to want to commit to.

Speaking personally, it's not necessarily the logistiscs that put me off of it. I could easily purchase another database for Stinger to host video files, images, text etc. It is more cherry picking the players, giving them access to the system with unique accounts, making sure all the 'repositories' are in a similar style and checking all the content and maintaining it - that's more what put me off from it initially.

If you are open to it though, I'd gladly make a trial with you Greg for Urban Reign on Stinger. You can send me a PM if you're up for it, we can see on how to make it work.

> siege mode
Yeah that's the one. He mentioned it in one of his speedruns at one point which led me to his video on it he posted in 2019(!). It having a weird name i.e. DKSMS (The Dreamer-King Siege Mode Shot) doesn't help either. Stuff like that, but also for instance the Charge-partioning glitch in SF2, DFC glitch in Marvel, Blade Mode Baiting in Metal Gear Rising to even basic shit like Boost Dodging in Vanquish or Block Resetting in Ninja Gaiden - they are all pieces of tech that are getting lost to time to the point that I one time had a talk with someone who claimed he'd "discovered" a new tech in NG2, only for it to be this ancient tech that only veterans knew.


> discord vs forum
I've dabbled with the idea, but my biggest reasons to not do it (at the time) were:
1) information gets lost very quickly in 'the swarm' of messages

2) in high mechanical talk, it helps to really think your thoughts and words through and word them carefully, something that in a quick 'chat' is negated (and thus leads to lower quality conversations)
3) I dislike chats haha, so I'd probably not join in myself which would be a bit weird since it's my site

> "what if that site goes offline too"

I still write stuff down. Everything I post is from my notepad.

>discord

I was on some action game one for a while. But it degraded to mechanically blind losers shitting on anything not DMC.

Please tell me you've got some sort of cloud computing at work to prevent those from being lost is all I ask.


> Discord
I'm not even that old but I still feel like I'm too much of a dinosaur for that. Reminds me of when I had to ask an intern what all this "snapchat" was about haha.

>Transience of online
People vastly overestimate the permanence of the internet.

>Discord and such
Way too gay for me (even before considering security and other issues). Social media/networking is straight trash, as well.

>Reddit
Echochamber Hell of sensitive leftists (more so than usual).

>archive
Fated to be brought down by politics in time (like so much else that tries to be neutral).

> permanence of the internet
A fair point. Even if I were to make a repository, unless I get my shit in order it will vanish in 60 years when I kick the bucket. That said, will there still be a need/demand for knowledge on Playstation 2-era games, in a time where most people haven't even played their Playstation 9 'classics'.

> reddit
It started off so good too.

>started off
I bet that shit didn't last long given the people that code these types of places, admin/mod them and fund them (currently the CCP does a good deal of it).

>60 years
And in 700 a blackhole will devour all Earth-locked matters (so it is said).

>will there be a demand
So long as it lasts your lifetime, that is sufficient (for you *unless you're the sort that desire's a legacy spanning beyond death despite not being present to take it in*).

> reddit
The idea is pretty solid, i.e. a board for every hobby, niche, obsession. It spiralled out of control though. There's a pretty funny sketch out there where a guy realizes he likes to dress up like a pig. In one scenario he's berated and told it's not normal. In the other he finds a reddit-page with 1.000 users that share his obsession calling themselves KinPigs (or something or another), making him feel normal and now going to pig-dressing conventions. Funny comic. I think SBK sent it to me.

> Raeng's legacy
Most of you will probably outlive me to spread the word of good action games. That is legacy enough.

>idea is solid
Don't know about the format to say nothing for the rules and notion of karma (upvoting, downvoting, gold, etc.).

>SBK sent it
No doubt to mock their degeneracy.

>outlive you
Doubtful. I'm older, was born early, don't bother to live healthy, work around/with criminals, etc.

This still happening? Whose next?

I will totally check out this podcast. I am a avid Cane and Rinse listener would be really cool to add some more to the list

I listened to episode 0 today at work and probably one of the most interesting gaming podcasts i have listened to in a very very long time. Awesome work and look forward to listening to much more!!!!!

Birdman wrote:This still happening? Whose next?

Still happening but the next episode will be kinda late, probably around end of february/firsts of march. Unfortunately I'm busy with uni (I have some exams due in 2 weeks) so I had zero energy to do anything else. I was thinking Kagerasimaru for next guest, I'll contact him tommorow and see what he thinks about it. I have a feeling timezones are gonna be a bitch tho.

andthenweplay wrote:I listened to episode 0 today at work and probably one of the most interesting gaming podcasts i have listened to in a very very long time. Awesome work and look forward to listening to much more!!!!!

Thank you very much! I'm really glad you enjoyed it and as always let me know if you have any feedback/criticism.

>Kagerasimaru

Who is this? What's his specialty?

Listened to them all, good stuff! You seem to be a bit quieter than the guests so leveling out the volume would be greatly appreciated.

> Kage
Nioh and Ninja Gaiden Sigma specialist, I also did an interview with him that you can check out here: https://stinger-magazine.com/interviews/interview-with-kagerasimaru/

He's a really stand-up guy, made a lot of content and tutorials for aspiring players.

Unfortunately Kagerasimaru declined the offer.
I still would like to do an episode on Nioh so I'll try and contact some other high level players like PooferLlama and Last To Load and see if they are on board.

Hey, that's odd that he'd refuse! Maybe he doesn't want to share his voice? Odd. Hope you'll get a cool new guest!