Podcast #02 - General Questions 2

[@alexruiz5521]

Time stamps: 00:00 Introduction(of sorts) 18:17 Platinum´s rigid design 36:00 Games industry what to address and what not to address 50:14 Game aging as actual criticism 01:01:08 New GOW without kratos 01:10:41 Thoughts on HL2 EP3 summary by Marc Laidlaw 01:18:32 Playing games at night 01:28:37 Game problems to fix 01:36:05 Worth of an objective POV when looking at games 01:47:16 Quality of immersion in games 02:03:25 Pacing in games 02:04:49 Difference between developer intention and developer laziness regarding a weak segment in a game 02:12:26 MGS movie I hope someone found this useful.

[@jacobogarcia8111]

Alex Ruiz I did, thank you very much

[@budspudsy436]

Thanks m8

[@DATskorge]

Alex Ruiz Thank you, friend

[@rafaielw]

Y...You are spoiling it ...Delete this tweet...

[@HeckPoliceman]

>20 min introduction Why is Matt so kawaii

[@swagmantheturd8892]

I feel asleep at some point (no offense, I was just tired :P) and in my dream I remember listening to some dude talk about Last Guardian while I was eating chocolate.

[@ArchHippy]

...and then Hideki Kamiya showed you pictures of his waifu.

[@Elgar337]

@@ArchHippy and looked smug at the dreamee's approval.

[@ZioBlader]

Killer 7's perspective actually comes from the games of Human Entertainment/Spike where Suda originally worked. Remember the Twilight Syndrome-sequence in a certain Spike Chunsoft's game? Twilight Syndrome-series (PS1) was designed by Suda51 and it is on-rails 3D-game but from the sideview-perspective, like 2.5D-games. Killer 7 is just like that but with more dynamic camera angles. It would be, funnily enough, a sidescroller without those. (RE probably did influence Suda but on-rails-style of movement with some artistic camera angle choices and shifts are specifically a trademark of early Suda-games)

[@matthewmatosisextra]

I wasn't aware that part of that game was based on an actual game. Thanks for the info.

[@SaiNarayan_]

How about 'Osmosis with Matosis' or something for a title :D It's cheesy as hell but lean into it!

[@OrbitalAviator]

Matosis with Matthew?

[@FaurenLaust]

funny video game man is the perfect name for the podcast

[@johnnyvanguard8978]

"Kept you waiting huh" - Mathewmatosis 2K17

[@magentasound_]

"Kept you waiting huh" - Mathewmatosis 2K36

[@matthewmatosisextra]

Kept you waiting heh

[@looinrims]

@@matthewmatosisextra keeping us waiting for part/episode 4 xD

[@WenBilson]

Your voice is so wonderfully relaxing, I listen to you to fall asleep. Which isn't a comment on the quality of your subjects and input on those subjects. You're a great critic. Love ya. xx

[@kristianj.8798]

The fact that Trico in The Last Guardian doesn't respond so immediately and perfectly, which so many people complained about, is actually an ingenious thing about the game, and it ties into Fumito Ueda's personal goal, which was to simulate a creature in-game that felt believably like an animal. As any pet-owner knows, animals obviously don't do everything you tell them to do, as you're telling them, they need to process whatever it is you're expressing on another level, which is something that contributes greatly to Trico feeling so real in a way that no animal ever has in a game, in my experience. Also, all that tricky communication is a large part of what makes it feel all the more incredibly cathartic in those climactic moments of the game where Trico _does_ do exactly what needs to be done; all that trial is what makes those moments truly count. It's a big reason why the ending especially affected me so deeply; and if it was any other way, I have a hard time imagining it be nearly as impactful

[@PrideOnInsightGamer]

1:45:20 - 1:47:10 - This is good food for thought, Matthew. Thanks again for opening my mind to something new. I'll never forget this!

[@Spitz643]

I would argue that part of the point of The Last Guardian is to build a bond with the cat thing and people who maybe don't know how to articulate this well believe that it becomes harder to bond with an animal that is actively working against you. I'm not saying it would need to be one-to-one controls but when in some cases the animal is responsible for your death, it builds animosity between the two and if it continually keeps happening it can break immersion.

[@thomasmaddox8688]

I know this is old, but I strongly feel that while this can be true to a certain extent, it can also be beneficial for the animal to sometimes get in your way and do things you don't want. Anyone who's ever dealt with a puppy that doesn't listen well can attest to how annoying they can be at times when they get themselves into trouble constantly, but it's also kind of endearing because it appeals to our natural parental instincts. Maybe it's not a good fit for Last Guardian, I haven't played it myself but it seems like the dog thing is less of a pet and more of a partner who you rely on rather than taking care of it.

[@chasepalumbo2929]

@@thomasmaddox8688 you nailed it.

[@alanritchie7850]

Odin was a god of war and perhaps the most important god in Norse mythology. He was also the god of wisdom and such. He was a complex and multifaceted god. Tyr was also the god of war and courage. Odin superseded him, but Tyr was remembered because he was the only god brave enough to chain the giant wolf fenrir. He lost his hand as the result, but the Norse honored his brave sacrifice

[@EnwardHiggins]

Hearing Matt refer to the cars outside his window to Chinese water torture made me fucking lol

[@hoodedninjax3]

would never have thought you saw the leftovers. its one of my all time favorite shows and would be cool to hear more of your thoughts on it

[@CtisGaming]

1:55:00 The more elaborated critiques of the Last Guardian's movement go into how it doesn't properly communicate when you're doing the right thing. Trico takes 30-45 seconds to react to your commands sometimes and repeating a command will actually cancel it or immediately undo it. He'll also do the opposite of what you tell him at times as well. This directly counteracts any hope of growing a bond with him and actually increases your animosity towards him. FatmanFalling's short video on it and Dodger from the CoOptional Podcast give some examples and details on this. This also fails to communicate to the player whether what they're doing is correct or not.

[@Zachawry]

Matthewmatalksis?

[@justkiet]

Yes

[@successfulfailure7563]

Stop

[@Playboipete]

yo this is super lit. please keep doing these... my favorite content of yours..

[@AustinOnSugar]

For me the flaws in Trico's design go beyond responsiveness. The idea that this big pet dog neither listens to you nor understands you perfectly doesn't bother me in the slightest. Since you brought this up in a question about immersion, I think that's a perfect place to focus with the AI's faults. Obviously I don't think anyone who loved The Last Guardian is mistaken. It could just be that I had a bad experience, but from the reviews I've seen I can't be the only one. Immersive gaming is, to me, a balance between the idea of coaxing the player in the right direction without the developer's hand being shown in the process. The more immersion-breaking moments of games are the antithesis to this; when you're no longer thinking about the world around you and how to navigate it and more trying to guess what the developers are thinking. You hear these complaints far more in puzzle games and stuff like Ace Attorney, but I think something like The Last Guardian can run into this snag as well. Trico is, at the end of the day, a complex AI program interacting and reacting with the player character. There's only one Right Way to get through the game, and you need to work with Trico to do it. There were points where he would get up on a wall I thought was inconspicuous. He's not up there sniffing something neat, or checking something out. He's perched on a wall because _that's where I'm supposed to go._ Even worse, there were instances of him perching in multiple places where I can't see any path forward, he'd fail to catch me in a situation he's clearly supposed to, or even just his lack of reaction missing a barrel I toss his way: it hits him in the face and then he forgets about it. None of these are game-breaking, but they all called attention to the idea that Trico is a program first, an animal second. It was an ambitious undertaking making a game centered around an unreliable/inconsistent AI, and I admire everything the team did to pull that off. For the most part I believed Trico was a real dogriffin. But then he'd stand on a random wall for a while and I'd remember 'Oh yeah. This is a game with puzzles and solutions,' not a wondrous castle-grounds that me and a big dog thing are trying to help each other escape.

[@jplee101]

I think Naturalistic vs. Systematic approach is a false dichotomy. You can have a naturalistic approach VIA interlocking game systems, that's basically what immersive sims are (Deus Ex, Thief, System Shock, Prey, Ultima Underworld etc). And the entire JRPG genre is kind of a counterpoint to the idea that Japanese games tend to be systems focused, though there are exceptions of course. I think a really interesting example of naturalism is the Trails series, which you probably haven't played since they're pretty niche and tend to be very slow paced. They're essentially an attempt at making NPCs seem alive and real via brute force. While Western games like Gothic or TES try to make the NPCs seem alive via a systematic approach like day night cycles and schedules, Trails just gives every NPC a metric fuckton of optional dialogue that they cycle through as you progress through whatever the story is in the town you're in. At any given moment you can go talk to any NPC and odds are they'll have something new to say to you. It's impressive just how lively it makes these almost completely static towns feel, though the translation process for the series is supposedly nightmarishly difficult.

[@pwndulquiorra]

Pretty sure you mean Tales, since Trails Games returns a lot of software trials.

[@jplee101]

Nope, I mean Trails. I did say they were very niche. Shit's a lot more obscure than Tales. store.steampowered.com/app/251150/The_Legend_of_Heroes_Trails_in_the_Sky/

[@matthewmatosisextra]

I haven't played the Trails games but, from the sounds of it, the example you're giving is the opposite of what the other commenter meant by naturalism. In a more naturalistic game they would try to make the NPCs feel alive by making them more and more like real humans, in your example they're just standing around but have a lot of different dialog. I think that's very much in line with the Japanese approach that the sound designer was alluding to. Instead of an "actual person" you're getting a focused, symbolic representation of an actual person.

[@jplee101]

The point is that it's trying to achieve the same goal of NPCs that seem more like real people than typical "say one line over and over for the entire game" RPG NPCs They have their own little storylines and stuff that play out whether you're paying attention to them or not and that really makes them feel like they're dynamic even though they never really do anything. I don't really think that's any more symbolic than say, the NPC schedules of Skyrim. Sure the NPCs look like they're going about their day to day business but stop one and talk to him and you're completely taken out of the game every time by the fact every character has the same 1 of 5 voices and they barely have any lines. It's just a different kind of symbolic representation. The illusion of Trails falls apart if you stop progressing the story for a while so people's lines don't get refreshed and the illusion of Skyrim falls apart if you examine it too closely and notice the issues with dialogue or the fact that nothing that happens on NPC's schedules actually has an effect on the game world (ie there is no dynamic economy, no gameplay reason for NPCs to eat or stay warm or sleep or whatever). What makes the dialogue symbolic and the schedules naturalistic? They're both trying to accomplish the same goal using different methods and both succeed to a degree.

[@matthewmatosisextra]

Well technically everything in a game is systematic because games are just systems at their core. You could say that everything in a game is just a symbolic representation of an actual thing. I'm not sure that systematic vs. naturalistic is the right way to phrase what was actually being described so I'm trying not to get hung up on that. Personally I wouldn't say that schedules are inherently naturalistic, Majora's Mask doesn't feel "naturalistic" to me. The Skyrim approach of mixing many (half-baked?) systems together is what I understand as naturalism. Trails focuses on one thing and does it well and because of that you might be less likely to pick holes in it, making it actually more immersive in a way. (Again speculating I haven't played it.) When NPCs don't even pretend to have a schedule then you might not find it weird that they have no effect on the economy etc. I'm also thinking that this could be the kind of thing that operates on a sliding scale over time. Years ago it was a nice touch if an NPC just sort moved around one or two tiles at random, making it look like they were doing something. Now we expect them to go places and even interact with other NPCs. If Capcom made a game back when it was only viable to have one footstep sound per material and now they have two has the game become more naturalistic? I don't have an answer to that, just food for thought.

[@CthedrulWtr164]

Hey Matthew, just wanted to say it's SO GREAT you're doing a new episode of the podcast and you might be doing this more. I honestly love these. And plus your opinions pretty much match mines when it comes to the topics at hand so i have someone to validate my opinions now! Lol, joking of course. But seriously, it's a good podcast tbh. Got this playing in the background while doing studying too and it helps Lol. Hope to see more episodes soon and just wanted to fanboy a little bit and say I've loved the channel since 2015 and I hope to see more from the Extra and main channel soon! Keep it up!

[@benjaminbeltran7004]

I discovered your channel yesterday, thank you for the amazing work you did regarding how to enjoy Bayonetta. I've never played it before, it was very cheap on steam and I've been a pc only player for like 10 years maybe 15 so i haven't had the chance before.. Anyway. Regarding the topic of graphics: It always bothers me how people equate "good graphics" to "realism" and whenever i hear anybody say something of the sort, i make an effort to help them understand how great art direction can do miracles with low budget "obsolete" graphics. Btw i think Bayonetta is one excellent example of that, graphics are clearly old gen, but the art direction is timeless. I've also noticed japanese devs tend to work this way. I think Japanese Devs are more like artisans and Americans more like Engineers. Personally i tend to prefer the artisans.

[@gomibot7974]

i feel like the complaining about tank controls in old horror games is really really overblown. i never played survival horror for a long time specifically because i heard so many people talking about how badly they've aged and how bad the controls are. then i finally played silent hill after some stubborn nudging from a friend and found it took me all of 30 minutes to get used to it before getting totally immersed. i've since played all of SH1-4 and RE1-4 and am just so frustrated at myself for listening to everyone who told me those games were unplayable.

[@Alberto-vx4ev]

What you said about Nintendo and how they don't lean on graphics as much as other devs/teams is one of the favorite things I've heard in recent memory

[@MAYOFORCE]

>somebody in a hundred years will watch the simpsons You talking about the first 10 seasons or season 130?

[@chasepalumbo2929]

Really appreciate that you did these. I can tell you thought your channel out a lot more than KZbinrs usually do.

[@sinklar7946]

I'm a simple man. I see Matthew, I watch and leave a like(seriously please make more reviews).

[@SpartanG062]

Thanks for answering both of my questions Matt.

[@FrankieSmileShow]

I'm curious about what people don't like of the Witcher's combat. I haven't played the latest game yet, only played a bit of the first game, but I am interested in combat design for RPGs. Do the battles feel too similar to one another? Too simple on the tactics/strategy side? Too simple on the execution/action side? Maybe it feels like its stuck in-between a strategy and an action focus and feels satisfying at neither? Or maybe does the combat feel too "separate" from the rest of the game, so it feels like an interruption to your play instead of a continuation of it?

[@rodrigopacheco12]

it's better than most action RPGs out there, but that isnt saying much is it? It sells well the idea of being a Witcher, and you can easily get killed if you aren careful. But its one of those combat systems that creates a disconnect between combat and non combat. You know how in assassin's creed you are running around doing parkour but the moment you enter into a fight, you get into a combat stance circling around the enemies with your weapon drawn? The Witcher 3 is the same, it has two types of gameplay, and you soon get annoyed that you are forced into the combat stance when enemies are nearby, especially since you can no longer jump. There arent many combos or weapon options either. Its always sword and the magic moves are very scarce. Some enemies also have bullshit patterns and annoying defensive mechanicsms that force you to wait. Its serviceable and good, but its not the heart of the game, it just serves to take you into the game's better aspects.

[@LN.2233]

for the first game, all the combat is clicking your left mouse until your cursor lit up and then repeating that to do a combo and eventually killing your enemy. It isn't good nor would I say it's even better than most action rpgs, it's just servicable.

[@chasepalumbo2929]

My guy, you like easy, shit games. Own it.

[@jane-wing]

I identity so heavily with that rant about sequels.

[@jay_hot]

Great Podcast, hope there's more :-)

[@PantsuPirate]

The point about combat in The Witcher 3 is interesting. I had to drop the game because it felt like the game had an overreliance on combat whilst it should be excelling at dialogues, storytelling and worldbuilding. It seems like the developers expect you to get bored if you aren't fighting someone or something every ~20-30 minutes. If you are used to better combat though the combat in The Witcher 3 is more of an annoyance than anything else. After playing playing for roughly 10-15 hours the fights became more and more annoying to the point where I just had to drop the game because they kept pushing fights in my face often even under circumstances where there was no real need to fight anyone. Please keep in mind that I only played a bit past the end of act 1 (roughly 20h) so I wouldn't know if this issue persists throughout the rest of the campaign or the downloadable content. Either way thank you for the podcasts Matthew. I'm enjoying these quite a bit.

[@magentasound_]

completely unrelated but things like 20h to get through act 1 is a massive reason i don't play games that are reportedly amazing like witcher, that type of time is ridiculous for some people on a single game

[@PantsuPirate]

Yeah seeing that 20h mark on my profile surprised me quite a bit considering that I really didn't do that much.

[@PacdemonStudios1]

Funnily enough this was the same problem I end up having with every Zelda game. Zelda doesn't have particularly good combat, and when I'm walking around the overworld I want to ride around, take in the scenery, and listen to the sick jams Koji Kondo whipped up for us. The problem is that there are enemies that will pop up and ruin the experience thanks to the dynamic music system that plays the little combat jingle every time you make eye contact with an enemy, interrupting whatever song is playing. I'm just going to run straight by them, they pose no threat to me (yes, even in BotW) and don't offer any interesting gameplay since you effectively only have two forms of attack (standing attacks and jump attack). BotW is actually one of the worst offenders of this, particularly with Skulltulas and Chus, which pop up randomly out of the ground but have so little health you just end up chucking bombs at them so you don't wear down your weapons. Moblins/Bokoblins/Lizalfos are also not very interesting to fight after the first few hours since you're never in any danger once you get 5 or 6 hearts. The only exceptions are the camps, which I don't really count since you can very easily avoid those unless you want to do a quick raid for treasure. And yeah, Witcher 3 is like that for the whole game. Unlike the first one, which knew it was an RPG and had both the combat system and encounter rate to reflect that, 3 seems to think it has to be an adventure game, brawler, and RPG all at once.

[@joebailey8294]

I feel like it does get better the further you get because you are allowed more options. What I think is intended by the combat is for you to use all the options available to you (oils, potions, decoctions, signs etc.) along with all your sword swings because that is what a Witcher would do. It feels much better to use the beastiary and plan/use the stratagy best fit for the enemy. (plus it gets you more invested in the role playing which I think is the point)

[@PantsuPirate]

I very much agree with that. The quest structure in combination with the games "dossier dialogue" really makes them more of a chore.

[@daemongo1202]

I found it a bit weird that there were multiple question about who is at "fault" for not liking or fully appreciating a game, as if it means something has gone wrong. Wouldn't it make more sense to chalk it up to taste, rather than some kind of incompetency by the developer or player? Fighting games come to mind as the clearest example for me; I can see that they have a dedicated fanbase, I can see that they have a lot of depth, and I understand that to really play/appreciate them I would need to dedicate time and effort to mastering their mechanics. But ultimately, I'm just not interested; it's not the game's fault, it's not my fault, it's just not how I'd personally choose to spend my time.

[@wonderguardstalker]

Something that is hard to ignore when it comes to some games is that they get a bad rap for seemingly undeserved reasons. God Hand and W101 got a few bad reviews (IGNs review of God Hand was devastating to the game) and some would argue that has less to do with taste and more to do with someone not engaging or completely misunderstanding a game. That becomes a problem and “fault” plays in because in the case of a reviewer it can spread what is essentially misinformation. It’s a complicated topic but ultimately there is such a thing as “fault” at least that id argue

[@ribbit01]

Yeah you've hit the nail on the head. Well said.

[@mandatorial]

Your point about last guardians environment is interesting. I always thought that the reason they chose narrow corridors was for the opposite reason: that in an open environment it would be harder to restrict what the AI could do at any given moment; whereas on a linear path it would be easier to ensure what the AI would do and not to glitch out because they could test each progression step by step, and the randomness of the AI would be confined. I would like to you to elaborate on that if you think I'm wrong.

[@DrLilo]

Re clipping: There is a fairly effective solution that can be applied in SOME situations. You can actually code the materials to artificially draw in a spacially incorrect order. So the floor of the Wind Waker boat's texture could be programmed to draw above the sea texture even though it's actually a lie, in terms of where the polygons physically are.

[@FrankieSmileShow]

I more or less agree with what you say about the player having to approach the game the right way to enjoy it, and this being up to the player to have the right mindset and judge a game on its own merits. But that said, as a developer, I think it is still *useful*, from a game design point of view, to consider this problem as being a mistake on our part. Its possible that the game does a poor job communicating to the player what this ideal approach is, what the correct mindset for the game is, what sort of personal goals they should have as they play. There can definitely be problems with a game design's intent being unclear. If there is one way to play the game that is the most fun, I think the developer should take seriously the issue of many people playing it differently, and think about ways to improve the introduction of that mindset to new players. If you take the bayonetta example with many players only getting the worst possible trophies, it could be useful from a developer's perspective to wonder whether they failed to "sell" the idea of mastering the game to these players, whether there is something they could be doing better to convince more new players that they should be trying to get better trophies, or helping them figure out how exactly they are playing wrong, etc. Is it possible these spectacle fighter / high mastery action games presume too much about players' *natural* attraction to getting a high score?

[@rodrigopacheco12]

that was my question, thanks for expressing my thoughts better than i could

[@L33PL4Y]

Bayonetta most certainly failed me in that regard when I played it. I didn't see any reason to care about what grade I was getting after levels. In fact, as I went through the game trying my hardest to kick ass only to end up with poor grades despite my efforts because I had no idea what criteria the game was scoring me on or how to improve my scoring, it only served to make me feel insulted. I got bad grades on levels, so I tried my hardest to improve on later levels as I played through the game, only to consistently be told that nothing I was doing was good enough without being given any feedback whatsoever on how I could be doing better. Because of this I played the game through once and never played it again. If the game had given me feedback I could learn from to improve my grading and gave me a reason to give a shit about my score beyond the negative reinforcement of making me feel bad for not meeting whatever its mysterious expectations were, maybe I would have played through it again to improve and maybe I would have enjoyed the game a lot more than I did. Being told you suck does not on its own make a player care to improve, especially when you don't tell them how they can improve. It just feels like you're mocking them at that point, and you should never want your audience to feel insulted by your product; you should want them to enjoy themselves and motivate them to improve their play style through helpful hints and positive reinforcement.

[@Axle117]

I partially agree with you about the point on graphics being too much of a focus. However, I do wish the switch had powerful hardware, just so it would be more likely to get 3rd party support. If 1 of the 3 consoles is drastically weaker than the others, it'll be left out of multiplatform titles.

[@ThisAlbino]

Graphics got as good as I needed them to be late in the PS2 life cycle. As long as the resolution matches my monitor, and the frame rate is good, I'm fine with that.

[@Pan_Z]

The combat in The Witcher 3 isn't amazing, but it's far from abysmal. The combat in The Witcher is just another tool to put you in the shoes of the protagonist. It's a mechanic that serves to further the narrative, not just be another random thing for the player to do, in a vain attempt to make TW3 some jack of all trades game.

[@SaberRexZealot]

Pan Z Red Dead Redemption. Everyone loves that game but the combat is as barebones as it gets, not counting the "dead eye" mechanic or horseplay. In fact most people just use the snap aiming function. Still utterly adore the game, but the rest of it from presentation, storytelling and general atmosphere draws you away from how simplistic its structure really is.

[@magentasound_]

"tool" implies you can choose to use a different tool instead of combat, i haven't played witcher but i doubt thats the case most of the time, it doesnt seem like a game where if you don't want to fight you can take another approach for most encounters. Is it?

[@SaberRexZealot]

Matty Kennedy I agree. The simplicity is what makes it work so well. It feels authentic and true to the game world. If John was pulling off suplexes and casting thunder on his enemies it would be a little distracting.

[@Pan_Z]

Actually, there are a lot of encounters where you can talk your way out of fighting.

[@Betrix5060]

Tool in this context means something the devs can use to achieve a design objective. In The Witcher 3 there are a decent number times where combat is averted, and others where it is present but subverted. Irrespective of the agency given to the player, which is often quite significant regardless, the devs still can utilize it to achieve their goals. This makes it an important tool which most certainly improves the game.

[@starbomber6241]

While I like your point on how Nintendo has to work within their own limitations, I think the reason people have a problem with Nintendo's hardware is that OTHER developers will have to also compensate for it. Portability is a good selling point for the Switch but if power is sacrificed for portability, developers won't develop for it. And I don't think developers would even feel forced to change because 1 of the three console manufacturers has less power than the other 2 (and the smallest install base),while the strongest console in the market (At least until Bone X comes out I suppose) has the largest install base, why wouldn't they develop for that instead?

[@JakeDeeJake]

I'd like to see a video on that. Nah but seriously that graphic topic still feels important and you have great platform with a strong recognizable voice now. Could maybe finally make a difference.

[@moralesfox]

Could you put an mp3? I'll really appreciate it if you do that.

[@matthewmatosisextra]

soundcloud.com/user-815025388/podcast-2-more-games-related-questions It's up on Soundcloud for now but I've only just found out I can only have one up at a time unless I pay for a subscription. I can't really justify that so I'll look for some alternative in the future.

[@habencon4082]

You can download the apk Videoder for that kind of stuff.

[@Neonecron]

What about Bandcamp?

[@YARGGG_GG]

i know this podcast was long ago, but i still wanna say that witcher 3's combat is fine. it is not for everyone, but it is pretty multifaceted and allows for differing playstyles (what with the different builds focusing on fast or strong attacks, your magic signs, alchemy, bombs, etc)

[@rodrigopacheco12]

Regarding the Platinum question, i guess i framed that second point badly. Of course games can be more than one type of experience, thats one of the big appeals of gaming, that wasnt what i was trying to imply. My point was more how the game maybe does not do the best job at teaching the players how to get good at the game. Taking for example Super Mario Bros.,unless you master the core mechanics of that game, you will not beat the game. It is only when you become comfortable with the jumps and reactions the game demands of you that you are able to beat it. You finish a bullet hell shmup by getting good at it.(Although the unlimited continue system kinda turns it into a Bayonetta situation, but lets avoid that for the sake of argument). Something like Bayonetta however, you can beat the game with the same combo and dodge spam and alot of people do just that. They dont feel incentivized to get into the combo system because its not a requirement to beat the game, at least in Normal difficulty. I know this is an unfair comparison, a 2d vs a 3d game, but thats the challenge of design, isnt it? if you put something in the game, you would hope that the player uses it, otherwise its filling a game with unecessary flare. Design by subtraction as some important dev guy who i cant recall once said. The stone awards arent really the best way to tell a player to get better at the game, in fact they come across as quite condescending and lazy. It seems the game is just content with giving a shit ton of combat combos and freedom that only really seem to overwhelm the player like a Figthing game, when a game like DMC1 gives you much less combos but is in turn a much more focused game that demands the player to understand the enemy pattern and the character's moveset in order to beat the game, while also giving the score system to players who want more of the game. A person who doesnt care for getting better grades at a game will not get better at the game, where as that same person who cant see the ending of a game will be more inclined to get better at it to reach that goal. My point is, enemies in platinum games should demand that you know the ins and outs of the game mechanics in order to get past them. Which isnt the case for most of them. It is true that you need some level of skill to see Bayonetta's credits, but what im arguing here is that the skill required to beat it isnt high enough and that in turn represents a design flaw. So, when I see people leaving the game dissatisfied, part of me blames the devs for not grabbing the player and not just the players who dont even give a second chance at the game and play it a second time. Yes, games can provide different experiences for different people, but I think you would agree that devs usually have one type of experience in mind when creating a game, and its their job to direct the player towards that experience. And i still totally agree with you that the player also does have a responsibilty to know what that experience is. Using another game as an example: Nier Automata is a game that asks you to replay the game after the first ending. If the game didnt give enough incentive for players to do that, most would abandon it. Luckily, the game tells you that there is more content to see and the second playthrough has enough differences in the gameplay and story that make the second playthrough less repetitive even though the game is basically the same. This example is much more subjetive because it's based on the story and plot aspect of the game, but the devs knew well enough that they needed to justify that second playthrough somehow otherwise it would be boring and redundant to play the same campaign again. And there were still players who didnt feel invested enough in the game to do that. Same can be applied to Bayonetta. Once you finish it, is there really an incentive to go back at it, besides getting a better grade at the end of a mission?(im aware that getting good at the combat is in itself a reward to the player). And an argument can be made about how wether or not a game that doesnt demand you to get good at it in order to see the credits is a valid and worthwhile experience, which was the discussion i was trying to arrive at. There are numerous games out there that intentionaly require no skill at all to beat, but Bayonetta is an hardcore action focused game. If players find an optimal strategy they can exploit over all the other gameplay possibilites, then thats a design flaw is it not? Im sure you still stand by your argument, but hopefully this comes across as more understandable.

[@astrobeef8231]

I couldn't agree more with your answer for God of War and keeping Kratos. I've recently gotten into game development by myself, and my friend keeps pushing me to make addicting games that people can play forever, but that's not what I want to do. I want to make games you play for a few hours, and then you're done.

[@joacimtorneus]

Really sorry if this actually comes up, I'm leaving this comment immediately since I would almost certainly forget it otherwise. Your point about "there's a ton of combat but it's just not very good, so it ultimately becomes a negative" is something I've seen a fair few people say about Nier Automata. Since I know you recently played it, did you feel the same way there? If you're planning a review I understand if you won't answer of course. I was just curious since I've seen that game come under more and more fire for its combat lately despite initially being praised. I personally thought it was pretty good, though suffering from major balance problems, but I'm not really in a position to judge it against other renowned action games since I haven't played all that many.

[@CaptainZlex]

Cars were going out the window? What's going on?

[@originalsinquirls1205]

Not many are as knowledgeable or self-aware about what they discuss; I'd be hard pressed to name someone. It comes across in the way you wax over the purpose of mechanics versus the outcome. It's partly why I subscribed. And I think your reviews are more objective because of the amount of speculation in them. You'll often say how you feel about a mechanic, but you address the important issue: whyt he mechanic is there and who may appreciate it. I mean, of course there's a bias, but you're pretty good at minimizing it I think.

[@joebailey8294]

"sure as shit amn't" Irish as fuck

[@ChaseFace]

*_Papa's home!_*

[@flameandchip]

Call it MatthewMoretosis

[@SpinalChamp]

Do you have any opinion on the Wario Ware games?

[@asdrfdeertg]

Need more of this

[@joebailey8294]

I think you'll really like The Witcher if you go into it with the right mindset.

[@L33PL4Y]

You're nearly 30? Same! When's your birthday?

[@KazuyaMithra]

For the platinum design question, I felt the Transformers game really suffered critically from people playing it once and not trying to figure out the maneuvers you can do in that game without the game telling you. Thankfully Saurian Dash and John Chin have told people.

[@chendawg3062]

Odd question, but do you think you'd be willing to go back and try DmC with a free copy? or is it more of a time thing? I agree that the new Dante was a little annoying, but I thought the combat and level design was still top notch for anyone who enjoys action games as much as you seem to.

[@matthewmatosisextra]

It's a time problem as well. I have a lot of other games I'm much more enthused about that I'd rather play first. Maybe if that list starts to dwindle I can get around to it but I doubt it.

[@peri5966]

Mato-cast! X3

[@moomoomang]

FATHER TED. BEST SHOW EVER

[@duc_mallard848]

Hi there. Have enjoyed your videos. This is good background working trash. Thank you. It is a shame that you have to qualify everything to appease outrage but that's the medium. To get to my point, I think that people are different and that's a good thing. We don't all need to agree. Thanks again, keep it up

[@darthhole6818]

Half Life 3: The Trade of Cards

[@stobie8128]

In regards to the discussion on combat, my thing with (for example) the Batman Arkham games is that they don't necessarily feel as satisfying as they could (despite overall enjoying them). Like combat segments definitely look and flow well because Batman moves and fights like Batman should, you wouldn't expect him to be extremely fast or god like in movement because he is just a man who knows martial arts. However, they don't feel as rewarding to play because you only really need to use 2 buttons to win each fight (punch and counter). If you could use button combinations to perform attacks (more akin to something like playing as a character in a fighting game) then the experience would feel abit more challenging and skill based, because as it is, it feels kind of shallow, for me anyway. I mean I know you can use gadgets during combat but normally you'll just be using the same attack pattern. I also don't like the lines that appear on enemies heads before they hit you. Those just feel like glorified quick time events (although playing on hard mode disables that).

[@Zakotou]

I know a lot of people think they're stupid, but trophies/achievements are one thing that every platform has except for Nintendo's, even Steam. Personally I like them, it's fun to collect things and they don't take anything away from anything

[@highdownhybrid]

This could really do with timestamps and a more concise intro

[@MirageMiM]

This comment contains Spoilers I don't mean to be a contrarian, in fact this comment should be taken as something like a confession of sins as much as a conversational counterpoint, but FFXV is my favorite game on PS4. The core combat is incredibly casual and low skill ceiling and the story is an absolute mess in terms of presentation, they literally cut some footage from a CG trailer into the game as a dream sequence and it's embarrassingly jarring, but the story itself is very good. Also I'm not sure if this is intentional, but the story revolves around this bittersweet camping trip and then (SPOILERS) the main character sacrifices himself at the end: it sort of implies that the New Game + is like his afterlife, that after he dies he's reliving his adventure with his best friends. I'm not sure that's what SE intended, but specifically you get some items in NG+ that seem to hint that way: that NG+ is an afterlife. So if that was intentional, or even if it's not, you can interpret the game itself as being something like a time looping looped sequence of events that the dead MC is reliving every time you play ... and it's a series of events that's worth reliving because it's a very bittersweet comfy adventure.

[@DATskorge]

DrTheKay God forbid somebody thought that an idea is cool which you don't

[@MirageMiM]

DATskorge thanksbro. maybe I do have autism, but I like FFXV. It's comfy

[@gilgamesh310]

Regarding the Trico in TLG, I wouldn't have minded him not following commands right away, if he actually progressed more as the game goes on, and became more obedient, as your trust with him developed. It would have made a lot more sense thematically and been less frustrating to contend with during gameplay. As he was, he frustrated me to no end at points.

[@thelastgogeta]

I believe there is a cap of 5 continues in TW101 but might need to check. Regardless, I don't use them since they don't feel good similar to items (though it does feel necessary for the last major level for me) and it lowers your score. I wouldn't mind losing more time and the score being left alone instead since there are a few unskippable cutscenes of moderate length. On the initial idea of replaying a game for more, the earlier Sonic games and pretty much everything from Devil May Cry to Nier Automata have mountains of rewards (which they also let you know it exists even if not so clear) for learning the games over many playthroughs. Perhaps it is a result of players and reviewers being conditioned by titles with very little substance beyond the core story and sidequests (see your 800th Korok Seed). Most of us are clued into the quirks of DMC or Sonic to look into getting Secret Missions or Emeralds. It may not be universal beyond us though. ... Might respond to more later.

[@insertsomememereferenceher8483]

My take on the "game has aged" argument is not that the game itself has changed, but that game's design suffers from problems that become more apparent the more capable developers become of avoiding those problems or smoothing them out in newer releases. Most NES games are incomprehensible unless you grew up playing the NES or sat down and put the effort in to understand them later. It's not that the games are bad, or have actually aged themselves, but that their design is nearly unrecognizable from the way most games have been designed in the past twenty years or so. I'd say there some validity in bringing up the fact that some issues with an older game are more noticeable ten or twenty years down the line than they were at release, as developers improve upon aspects of its design and have much more powerful technology to work with (for instance, the copypasted corridors in Metroid, Zelda 1's bomb walls that are impossible to distinguish from regular walls, or the clunky and slow pace of battles in early JRPGs). However, the "aged poorly" argument often boils down to "it doesn't control like the standard modern game in its equivalent genre and therefore needs a remake to make it exactly like that game." Castlevania's controls are an example of something that is often bashed as having "aged poorly," but are actually good design; it stems from a desire to make the player think before committing to an action, and it does exactly that. It's just that many games have become increasingly focused on being convenient to play since then, and therefore there are few modern games that approach controls this way (Dark Souls being an obvious exception.). I doubt a new 2D Castlevania would adhere to this, and even as early as the SNES, Genesis, and PC Engine games there were efforts to "streamline" the Belmonts' movement.

[@ThePlatefish]

name idea: "the Black Screen podcast"...

[@GurenMarkIII]

Askewmatosis

[@L33PL4Y]

I like it, but it sounds more like the word "askew" than a portmanteau of "ask" and Matthew."

[@yabo_san]

the definitive edition of the dmc reboot is actually a pretty decent action game

[@UncleLowbrow]

I think my immaculate question was just a fluke, because this comment is going to be cluttered as fuck. Anyway, I think a lot of the elements of immersion can be conflated with the elements of suspension of disbelief. For some players, certain mechanics of the game can be "immersion breaking," while for others, they aren't. A good example of this would be the weapon degradation system from Breath of the Wild. While I didn't have a problem with it, I know of many people who just couldn't get past it. It kind of relates to my previous question that you didn't answer, because it's all a balancing act about how much "fun" abstraction you can suspend to get immersed in the world, and how much "immersive" simulationism you can forgive to enjoy fun or deep gameplay mechanics. I'm not entirely convinced those attributes are mutually exclusive, but that seems to be the case most of the time. And this balancing act of abstraction and realism is one of the most important ways for developers create potentially immersive games. Although I'm not saying all games should strive for both. A more specific way of developers doing this is by introducing mechanics that heavily encourage you to do immersive things. These can have gameplay functionality, like armor in BotW or the Souls series, there isn't anything quite like dressing a certain way because it looks cool, or because it's appropriate for the occasion. They also sometimes don't really have any functionality, like many of the gestures in the Souls games. The ability to have your character sit down and rest after a tough boss can really go a long way towards pulling you into the world. I also can't be the only one who sometimes uses disadvantageous camera angles because it looks cooler, right? So while I'm slightly disappointed you didn't touch on how immersion is fostered from a developer side, I'm still blown away that I never thought about how a player's competency factors into the equation, and is probably the most insightful thing I take away from this video as a whole. Thank you very much.

[@matthewmatosisextra]

I probably should've talked more about the developer side of things. I think the reason I focused more on the player side is because it's something that's more relevant to me right now as a reviewer. Right now I can't do anything about the games themselves but I can try to push people to enjoy new things or enjoy things on a deeper level. The examples you give of armour and gestures make a lot of sense. I'd like if BotW had an option to sit down at camp fires and pet the dogs. Glad you managed to get something from the answer anyway, thanks for the question.

[@rodrigopacheco12]

a game that makes the player walk slowly because the environment around him conveys importance and tension will always be ten times better than a game that forces a walking section on the player because the drama of the plot demands it. I too also use disadvantageous camera angles cause it looks cool.

[@specknacken6507]

Regarding the controls and Tricos A.I. in Last Guardian: I have absolutely no problem with it if i approach the game as an "immersive experience" (you don't like that word but i still hope you know what i mean). Ueda himself said that making Trico act like a robotic companion (even programming him like Agro from SotC who in comparison acts very coordinated to the player) would completely break the vision of the game. However my gripes come from the more "outside" factors of the game specifically Trophies and Speedrunning. Why is there speedrun trophy (5 hours i believe?) in a game where a huge chunk of your progress depends on a sometimes "inreliable A.I."? Why do i get encouraged to incapacitate a certain number of armors when it is the most awful and frustrating thing you can do in the game and goes completely against the idea of just letting Trico handle the "combat"? If we're talking about a "best of the best speedrun" situation how would a perfect runner beat the other perfect one (breaking a world record for example)? Because he had more "luck" with the A.I.? I know i'm talking about a niche part of the gaming community so i completely understand if y'all like "Who the fuck cares?" I just think Last Guardian as a medium to experience shouldn't have trophies at all(i know WHY it has to have them because of Sony etc.). It was the first game where i finally got the "Trophies break my immersion" argument. I legitimately believe that Last Guardian DOESN'T WORK with a trophies/achievement system AT ALL! It's the least "videogamey" game of the ICO trilogy BY FAR imo! I'm someone who platinumed the ICO/SotC Collection and had no problem with an achievement system being there. Yorda is a precise and controllable A.I, combat while simple is to the point and works. Progress is very much 100% in control of the player. The speedrun trophy makes sense. SotC gets only really frustrating at 2-3 colossi in Hard Time Attack because of Wanders sometimes random behavior especially in the HD Collection. The system still works as most of the trophies are related to fighting as fast as possible (where you can retry as much as you want) or collectible related where you're under no time pressure. Hell you can even unlock a collectible "radar" item and the game itself has a Time Attack mode. To just simplify my points: Last Guardian when played without trophy notifications or any attention spent on "challenges/achievements" is a wonderful wonderful game. Speedruning/"Platinuming" Last Guardian where you have to do things which where definitely not primarily intendet (you CANNOT convince that the "boy vs. armor" combat is in ANY WAY fun!), and you just see Trico as a "companion A.I." that you want as much control of as you can get, is fucking godawful! And just to clarify: I'm neither a speedrunner nor a trophy hunter. I play games pretty casually unless the achievement system makes sense or it is pretty comfortable/interesting/fun to 100% a game like i mentioned with ICO/SotC.

[@matthewmatosisextra]

You've answered your own questions, the trophies are there because Sony stupidly mandates it. I reckon Ueda would've excluded them if that was at all an option. There's any number of reasons why the trophies are they way they are. Perhaps the team were so disinterested they just let Sony choose them, perhaps they tried to create them but Sony pushed back for more "gamey" things as a selling point to a larger audience (yes publishers really can be this stupid), perhaps the team themselves made the trophies outlandish on purpose to discourage people from playing that way. It seems like you were able to enjoy it for what it was and that maybe the trophies actually helped you to do that. Anyway, The Last Guardian isn't meant to be played that way and it isn't meant to be speedrun so judging it by those criteria is a waste of time. Let's just enjoy the game for what it is and speedrun something else.

[@chasepalumbo2929]

Funny you never replied to Matt’s rebuttal. Telling

[@specknacken6507]

@@chasepalumbo2929 Why should i? I wrote a comment, he replied and we are all cool with that i believe. Don't need to answer everything if all i'm saying is "Yeah i agree dude.". Especially when i answered my own question in this case lol. However reading my comment now i should've been more clear that the whole trophy/achievement nonsense did not in any way ruin the whole game for me. The Last Guardian, even moreso than ICO and SotC, is a game where i really have to be in the "mood" to play and enjoy it. That was certainly not the case when i wrote that wall of text so there you go.

[@Dylanfaganmusic161]

Matts-views on shtuff??

[@nodthenbow]

This comment went off the rails pretty bad, so a lot of it is not fleshed out as much as I would like, but I'll post it anyways since it close enough. I don't want anyone to think that this is my full thoughts on the subject though. Also I say "you" but I'm not trying to say the reader or the players just a person concept thing. I just don't know how to say what I mean I guess. Bringing back old characters from finished series is marketing through and through. If the story/character is carried on, it is up to the writer to bring back interest and to justify that bringing back the old characters was a worthwhile thing to do. If the old character is remade it is up to the players to ignore that the character doesn't fit with their past and the writing needs to be read without the other games as context. I'm not saying that it's up to the player to enjoy what was written, just to look past the marketing needed to make the project happen. As an example, when you judge Spec Ops: The Line you ignore the multiplayer even though it is part of the game as a whole. Everyone knows that the only reason the game has a multiplayer is because the publisher wouldn't fund a shooter that wouldn't appeal to CoD fans. It is the same reason an old character would be brought back, the only difference is that it is harder to ignore. I'll also qualify these statements by saying that I'm not speaking in absolutes. Sometimes bring old characters back is worthwhile simply because the story doesn't really matter. A good example is in fighting games, characters are in the story so you can see what they play like when you get to the meat of the game, not because they are actually relevant at all. Not every game handles the forced integration well either, sometimes they just suck like DmC. They want to make the characters their own thing, but also try to retell and reference the old stories, and because it connects itself to a better version it causes you to think about.

[@elbvidya1968]

For me, PS2-generation graphics are perfectly fine for me to enjoy a game. Lower than that (like 2D pixel indie games) starts distracting me and I feel like some potential for fun is lost.

[@exeledusprince9165]

I didn't dislike The Last Guardian because of trico. The way the game controls is great, everything feels as it should. My problem with it is that I feel so unfulfilled because nothing made sense to me plot wise. Its hard to explain, but I will try to by comparing it with Shadow of the Colossus. Nothing in that game is outright explained, but we can speculate easily due to the straightforward goal. Make a deal with a diety like figure to bring back someone important to the wanderer. We can speculate as to who the lady is to the wanderer, because its such a down to earth concept. Knowing about what the colossi are isnt really all that important, we just know we need to take them down. The game makes you feel this Is a negative thing due to the feeling of vulnerability at the finale, the shift in tone the soundtrack makes when you slay one, and the negative effects it has to the wanderer's body. Spoilers for the last guardian here. I didnt get any of this in the last guardian. I know that If things are explained too much, they become boring, and maybe I'm just dumb or Don't get it, but I feel like I had no idea, or could even begin to speculate as to what trico is, the beasts connection to the humans, the mirrors, or the... machine thing at the end. (Sorry for the run on sentence there) It was all just nonsense to me, and I kinda feel bad for saying It bluntly like that, but I didnt feel satisfied or like the game had any closure. I was considering Playing through again to see if I can pick I anything on a subsequent playthrough to help me with this. I'd love to see to review this game sometime in the future to maybe help me with this, too.

[@Red-nl4lk]

1:09:46

[@Galaxy40k]

You mentioned Dead Space as having "great atmosphere," but I'm surprised you played the game, given your stated fear of spaceship-and-alien horror. What makes it so that you can give Dead Space a shot, but not Alien: Isolation then?

[@matthewmatosisextra]

I find sci-fi horror is a bit more effective on me in general but it's really just xenomorphs that are my problem.

[@SvensPron]

Coming here from the future to tell you that they are indeed relying on graphical fidelity to sell you the new metroid game lmao

[@SeightJam]

No they aren’t. Not to mention we’ve seen literally one teaser so there’s nan Olympic leap to conclusions.

[@GreenEyedDazzler]

The way he talks about God of War is exactly how I feel about the announcement of The Last of Us 2

[@iopklmification]

Yes, exactly. I too wanted the Norse God of War to be the protagonist.

[@mirrorblade6268]

The trans of us really shit the bed.

[@MmmDoggy]

Don't you think its a bit restricting that you don't play games you don't think you'll like? After all, games need to be played before you can really get a good idea about it. I thought I would hate PUBG but here I am with over 120 hours played. There are a million different factors that can impact enjoyment about a game other than just one aspect of it (the combat, for example).

[@matthewmatosisextra]

I've had a few good comments on this topic now so I'll bring it up on the next recap segment if I remember.

[@darthhole6818]

MmmDoggy You sound like one of the people who thinks exactly like a publisher would want you to.

[@PacdemonStudios1]

ehm

[@Wakka9000]

i wish i understood hype behind 101, since it is easily worst game i played in 25 years

[@joebailey8294]

Matthew McPodcast

[@barryherbers6090]

I don't think I agree that Deus Ex works as an example against giving players one intended experience because the Dev team clearly wanted everyone to experience the game as a multi-choice game. If players finished it one way literally without knowing and 'feeling' that there were multiple potential ways to play (which would be nuts because the game is well-designed), I think the dev team would say they'd failed to design the game properly (even in some weird situation where not all players necessarily played the same way). Still not saying a game has to strive for the same experience for every player, but I feel it would be a very avant garde concept and not one which applies to Deus Ex as all players are meant to experience that game as 'organic' and having many play options. Thoughts?

[@OrpheusHart]

I also feel like that graphics have, more or less, peaked. I was impressed by the the ps3/360 but ever since then, we have been seeing diminishing returns and we are now at the point that the advancements in graphical fidelity can only be appreciated by those with highest end PCs and the knowledge to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k, and even less than that care.

[@DesuLuckyStar]

Maybe i'm too cynical about the current state of valve but i could easily see no one currently at them even giving a fuck about the leak. Probably too busy putting in a new microtransaction in CS:GO or Dota or something.

[@concustduck]

why does nintendo get free pass with endless sequels for mario and zelda

[@yumiharitsuki]

besides the NSMB series they come so apart from each other and are so widely different from one another with staggering defining qualities that other sequels pale in comparison (like how 6 Uncharted games that feel so samey, or the endless Assassin's Creeds and so on)

[@liquidgeorge]

Consistently high quality.

[@concustduck]

why call it mario if there so different why not make a new ip

[@concustduck]

i don't understand what would confuse people about the same developer making a new platformer ip

[@megasoniczxx]

They aren't radically different to the point where they are unrecognizable from each other (think going from sonic adventure to sonic and the black knight) but different enough to distinguish themselves enough to stand on their own and serve as either an evolution or a different spin on the mechanics established in the series.

[@jimbo5266]

IMO, continue systems absolutely KILL many arcade games, like Metal Slug. I really think playing them with infinite continues is so bad. You'll end up getting too far in the game without actually being good at it, so you'll just keep dying over and over in later sections and eventually hate the game. Playing a game like Metal Slug with limited continues is so much better, because there's actually risk, and if you're crap at the game, you'll be forced to practice more on earlier, easier levels, and you'll enjoy and appreciate the later levels more that way.

[@SaiNarayan_]

Regarding whether a game has "aged", I don't know if saying that a game is exactly the same experience as it was back when it was first released is accurate because there's also a cultural context to games that everyone brings with them into the experience itself that informs it. And that'll affect a lot of things like how a person perceives the subject matter or their opinion of the technology used in the presentation, i.e. their opinion of how it looks and plays. Just my two cents, I see what you're saying in that saying a game has "aged" isn't really useful criticism without any other qualifiers, but it does approach at some inklings of whats going on.

[@TMTLive]

As for the "ending when it's good" thing: I wish Berserk started and ended with the golden age arc.

[@1SWINZ1]

When you bring up the whole West Vs East thing, and you question the validity of that... What you really mean is: The whole entire world Vs Japan, right? lol I mean, that in itself proves the validity of the question. That it's everybody Vs Japan. I think this underlying truth demonstrates why this is even an issue in the first place. To your point, I do remember Kamiya saying that when Shinji Mikami shown him the ropes, he was taught not to go around fixing every single problem with a game, but rather to find the good aspects of the game and make them better. And maybe that's the difference between Japan and the rest of the world. I mean, the West tries to bring EVERYTHING up to a certain level of quality, whereas the Japanese games usually focus on perfecting the important parts. It also might be that Japan takes games more seriously, as a medium. In the West, many people -developers included - are almost ashamed to be gamers, and so to feel better about themselves they try and direct this medium in to being more like movies. I think games are much more socially acceptable in Japan(although I could be wrong... I just don't think I am!), and as a result, the devs have no problem just making a damn good video game without trying to be anything more than that. At least, that's what I sense. In regards to The Last Guardian: It is sold as a game, therefore it's only right that it is judged as a game. Personally I love the Silent Hill series but I would never claim those are good as games. They're not! And I think that, since they are sold as games, I can't really fault anybody for writing a review where they say the gameplay sucks. Yes, it is besides the point and not what the developers were trying to achieve, but they're not wrong. Same with TLG. The "big, unresponsive companion" thing isn't really a good game design idea. I think games like TLG would be given a fairer shake if they weren't sold to us as games. Then we could judge them on their own merits. But as long as they are sold as games they will be judged as games. I don't think that's rigid thinking, I think that's just the reality of what a "game" is.

[@ibrahimal-rouqaishi5280]

I don't know what you mean by "sold to us as game". Rain World is also unresponsive and outright unfair at times and it is still one of best games I've ever played. Games have interactivity compared to other mediums, and that's what sets them apart. I think many consumers are still very narrow minded on what a game should be.

[@1SWINZ1]

@@ibrahimal-rouqaishi5280 If it's the interactivity that sets them apart, then is Windows OS a game? How about a DvD menu? Of course not! Saying games are nothing more than the interactivity is such a broad definition that it doesn't actually mean anything. "But I like the game therefore it is a game!" isn't really an argument. As I said, I love Silent Hill, but if I were to judge those as games they are abysmal. Funnily enough, if people accepted this, and we separated things like The Last Guardian and said that it it's own thing, I think we'd get more of those kinds of experiences, and they would sell more, because they'd be more acceptable then. You might feel like they are games, but you're never going to get everyone to agree with you, and these "games" will continue to get lambasted either until they improve their gameplay(if indeed they actually have any because a lot of them don't) or come out and admit that they're not trying to make a good "game", and so it should therefore be sold as something else; Because it has a totally different focus, compared to a traditional game. Admitting this would also free the developers up, allowing them to make whatever they want without ever worrying about the "game" side of things. And I can think of more than a few games that included the "game" side of things merely out of a sense of obligation, and not because they were actually passionate for it, right? To me, your perspective is what's allowing this to continue, and it's actually limiting developers.

[@pwndulquiorra]

@@1SWINZ1 Okay a few things wrong there. Firstly, your comment on the Windows OS and DVD menu being games due to interactivity is incredibly pedantic and seems to prevent you from understanding the point. The point is not that interactivity separates games from everything else, it's that interactivity is what separates games from other FORMS OF ENTERTAINMENT. There is no interactivity in movies, novels, music, or many other forms of art and entertainment and video games are separate on that basis. Sure there's interactivity in browsing your favorite website but nobody's saying that the interactivity makes it a game or even entertainment. And sure people can find entertainment in browsing websites but at that point you're just splitting hairs. Secondly, he did not say "I like it therefore it's a game" he said that a game being unresponsive or unfair doesn't make it an automatic detriment. It seems like you are either intentionally misunderstanding or you don't understand naturally and that is causing the majority of the communication issue here. Thirdly, your comment seems disproportionate in severity when all he was asking for was clarification on what you meant. Fourthly, you seem to have a very narrow idea of what a game is or should be and that's precisely the thing he commented on with his final sentence. Judging Silent Hill as a game results in it being a bad game doesn't really mean anything if we don't know how you're judging it. Are you judging it on its merits compared to other games in general or are you judging it based on what it's trying to achieve and how well it achieved it? Are you comparing it to all games ever released or only games that were out at the time of its release? And what parts of it make it a bad game anyway? Is it bad because its combat is poorly designed or because its combat is a bad fit for its goals or genre? Is it bad because its story is bad or poorly presented or is it bad because the narrative doesn't synergize well with other elements? Is it bad because everything in general is put together poorly or is it bad because it has a single crucial flaw that simply can't be ignored? Without knowing your criteria saying "It's a bad game" doesn't really mean much. What I'm getting at is that many games can be restricted in terms of design philosophy because people have this idea that games need to be one way or another in an overly rigid sense and the fact that you think The Last Guardian should be a separate thing from games is proving his point. Finally, you say not everybody would agree with him that things like The Last Guardian are or should be video games but that only further demonstrates the point. If video games were seen as acceptable to the full extent like other art forms, then developers would be allowed to make whatever they want. Ironically enough, it's your view that such things should be separate from the medium that's restricting developers and you don't even seem to realize it.

[@1SWINZ1]

@@pwndulquiorra Ok, so those videos on KZbin that were shot with a 360 camera are games, then. Sarcasm.... I think it's astonishingly obvious what I meant by Silent Hill being a bad game, you're just choosing to misunderstand. "Thirdly, your comment seems disproportionate in severity when all he was asking for was clarification on what you meant". I have no idea what this means. Try reading it in a mickey mouse voice if that helps, lol. I mean, you're projecting the "severity"

[@pwndulquiorra]

@@1SWINZ1 Honestly, no I wouldn't say it's astonishingly obvious what you mean by Silent Hill being a bad game. Some of that may come down to me not having played it but the real problem here is that Silent Hill's quality wasn't the point, it was that any game's quality can be judged differently depending on what metric you use. As for my comment you chose to quote, I was stating that the previous commentor simply asked you to clarify some of the things you meant as they were quite obviously confused and your response was incredibly roundabout, mostly irrelevant, and didn't even seem to answer the question he provided. That said, perhaps I phrased myself poorly so let me put it a different way: when someone asks for clarification on what you meant, the appropriate response is to clarify, not to critique arguments that weren't even made. Also, I'm noticing more here that you've chosen not to have an actual discussion, simply to shut down those who respond to you. It was less apparent in the previous response because some of it seemed like a degree of pedantry and focusing on the wrong part of the comment but this response of yours is just flat out dismissive. And just for the sake of clarity, no it's not projection. If you got that from the sheer amount of words I typed, I'm just very verbose.

[@Spyderist]

gamergate was a mistake

[@AssailantLF]

Matthewmatosiscast

[@doublebassman123]

Matthewmatocast

[@habencon4082]

Podcasis

[@knights_alchemy4771]

FF XV's Demo didn't feel good, bu the actual game is not like that

[@valkyriefandango252]

Just keep calling it 'Podcast,' it suits you. That other name you said was cringe.

[@TheSp0rki]

Its funny how he always talks about the wonderful 101 and persona/shin megami tensei games when he's off script. Kind of annoying but endearing at the same time.

[@matthewmatosisextra]

Just imagine how annoying I'm going to be when the Switch versions of both those things come out.

[@TheSp0rki]

I'd love to see videos about persona/smt games as you mention them in a positive light so often and personally I don't really see the appeal. But yeah you do you man.

[@8pac37]

My problem with the new god of war is basically this: 1. The game does not play like god of war from what've seen. 2. The setting has nothing to do with Kratos in any way. Kratos fighting any gods that aren't greek makes no sense, since in GOW there has never been a point in which they make clear that there is more out there than the greek gods and those mythologies are mutually exclusive. 3. It seems that Kratos is just a shoo-in, so they could save marketing money and let the game market itself by using the GOW name. I am pretty sure the game was not inteded to be a GOW game at some point, which would explain the slow combat instead of character action combat. 4. Instead of getting an interesting new character and new world, we get kratos once again, bc Sony is not willing to take any risks.

[@retractingblinds]

I think it's actually understated how bad the combat is in the witcher 3 and it's what you spend the majority of the game (at least 80% of it) doing. I want you to imagine if mario's jump height in the first mario brothers wasn't altered based on how long you hold the jump button. Instead, he could still jump at any height and the game just randomly selected that jump height because it looked a little different. The Witcher 3 treats combat very similarly, where you have a dozen different attack animations for just a standard light attack. It might sound cool on paper, but imagine this, right? You expect a certain number of things from any mechanic in a game. How long does it take? How much damage will it do? How will it alter my characters position? All of these things need to be predictable. Dark Souls didn't need a dozen different animations for the same attack and would have made a lot of extra work to get it all properly balanced time wise. The Witcher 3, like the witcher 2, never asked that really important question about the consistency of its mechanics. You will never know how long your attacks will take, they are inconsistent. You don't know how they'll alter your position, it picks from a set of abilities randomly. It's absurd that such a poor design was approved not once, but twice and exacerbated because the witcher 2 had the exact same issue. That's how bad the combat is.

[@mandatorial]

Matthew, I love your content, but 2 hours is a bit long without guest podcasters.. or maybe cut it up in separate episodes.

[@TOGYS7]

Remove Bayonetta's mole.

[@jacket2038]

ThatOneGuyYouSaw I like it. Gives her a grounded face but she still is drop dead sexy.

[@TOGYS7]

Delete urself

[@MonkeysInMyHouse]

ThatOneGuyYouSaw nah. moles are my fetish

[@alexruiz5521]

2B also has a mole, it´s like a platinum thing. ROFL

[@TMTLive]

No.