Keiji Inafune gives a candid interview about quitting Capcom.

[mudah.swf]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=411847

Simply put, Inafune has quit Capcom, despite being able to make MML 3. He hated his job and most of the Japanese gaming industry, and this interview is a epic block of text about his future plans, his thoughts on the industry and why he quit Capcom in the first place. From reading this he seems like an honest, upfront dude and I hope he succeeds in his grand aim of triggering change in the Japanese game industry.

Edit: I link the page rather than C/P the entire article because the interview is a 3 post long monstrosity. That's an English translation of the 4gamer interview, btw.

[Azisien]

Goodbye, Dead Rising 3.

Wait, maybe they'll have someone produce it that actually improves it.

Why hello there Dead Rising 3!

[mudah.swf]

On that subject, what will happen to MM Legends 3? Will Jun Takeuchi, Inafune's replacement, be taking over that project too? Wonder if this means that we'll be seeing a co-op mode of sorts in that game.

Inafune seems pretty stung about not getting the respect as a creator he felt he deserved. Look at this quote:

4G: As you mentioned before, if Rockman sells because Inafune made it, it won't make it out. But if Rockman sells because it's Rockman, the project will survive.

KI: That's exactly right.

For Capcom, it doesn't matter whether a game has the Inafune brand or is made by some anonymous producer. That's ultimately why I made the decision to leave. It's sad to leave, proving that point. It was really sad.

4G: Was the Inafune brand really treated that way?

KI: I got the impression that the Inafune brand was the worst-handled within Capcom. Say you had a beautiful younger sister, and of course other people would say, "Your younger sister is pretty. It must be nice to live with her." But then maybe you look at her and think she's rather average? It's kind of like that. (laughs)

Wasn't this what Kamiya felt when he left? I don't think he liked Capcom's handling of his Devil May Cry, so off he went to form Platinum Games. Sounds like Capcom ended up taking him for granted.

[EVILNess]

That was actually a very interesting article, that makes me sad...

I seriously lost all hope for a new Breath of Fire and it cut the legs out from under my Megaman Legends 3 hype.

[Jagos]

Wasn't this what Kamiya felt when he left? I don't think he liked Capcom's handling of his Devil May Cry, so off he went to form Platinum Games. Sounds like Capcom ended up taking him for granted.

I think it's more telling of the Japanese game industry.

IIRC, Sega had the same problems where the "seniors" get all of the respect and leave the "upstarts" to do their own things. And with Nintendo you don't hear about anything that doesn't have Miyamoto's blessing.

The entire system is borked if you're a newcomer.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

I'm gonna miss Inafune. So I wonder what will become of MML3 and any other titles we was working on. Will he get to finish them a a fare well project to Capcom, or will Cap simply can it?

[Kim]

As mentioned earlier, Capcom is putting different people in charge of the projects to finish them.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Don't know If I should feel concerned or okay about MML3 being touched by someone that isn't Inafune.

Could careless about MMU though. (Has anything else even been mentioned about it?)

[Kim]

I actually don't mind that he's leaving. The guy complains about how far behind western game design Japanese game design is, and the biggest flaws with recent Capcom games seems to be their attempts to mimic Western game design. Then you get stuff like Capcom handing DMC off to a Western developer, since they're soooooo much better, and we get some serious whatthefuck from that. When a guy like Inafune says stupid stuff like he said that reflects and reinforces the stupid thought process behind the company he works for, I'm really not going to get too bent out of shape if he isn't working there anymore. If anything, I'd call that a good sign.

[Jagos]

GO HOME AND BE A SALARY MAN!

FTFY

[Kurosen]

the biggest flaws with recent Capcom games seems to be their attempts to mimic Western game design.
Only insofar as They Are Doing It Wrong.

The shift in gaming philosophies between East and West interest me. We were brought up on games with punishing mechanics because that's how arcade games get your quarters. Then we got games in our homes and kept the punishing mechanics because that's all we knew. A couple console generations later the West finally figured out, "Heeeeey, I already paid for this game, obtuse mechanics built specifically to punish me for wanting to have fun are kinda lame."

And, big surprise, gaming industry explodes.

Meanwhile Japanese developers are still making games with the assumption that overcoming absurd odds and/or arbitrarily punishing mechanics are what make games fun. They know "something happened" to the appeal of their games in the West, but they are largely unequipped to understand what or why.

It's like the automotive industry in the '70s but in reverse. American manufacturers had to undergo a complete paradigm shift at every level of their business before they could begin to catch up to what the Japanese were doing, because the Japanese came into the industry with a fresh perspective. The American response was to imitate Japanese practices without really understanding the "why" behind them. It's ~35 years later and Japanese cars are still better made.

Obviously there's exceptions to, uh, everything I just said. But, I dunno, those are the general trends I've noticed.

Blah blah blah me want MML3.

[Kim]

Only insofar as They Are Doing It Wrong.

Except western developers Do It Wrong in the same ways just as much, so I'd say it's a pretty spot-on rip-off of western gaming. That and they hand their stuff over to actual western developers and get problems, so yeah spot on really.

A couple console generations later the West finally figured out, "Heeeeey, I already paid for this game, obtuse mechanics built specifically to punish me for wanting to have fun are kinda lame."

If this is a criticism of really challenging games it's more than a little ridiculous. If it's a criticism of games that do the really difficult thing poorly I can agree.

Meanwhile Japanese developers are still making games with the assumption that overcoming absurd odds and/or arbitrarily punishing mechanics are what make games fun.

My problem with this is less that there are plenty of exceptions to what you said, since you threw in the disclaimer about that, but that in a number of instances the exceptions suffer for not having enough challenge.

They know "something happened" to the appeal of their games in the West, but they are largely unequipped to understand what or why.

Honestly, this has very little to do with the punishing games you blame it on. When a Japanese game doesn't sell well in the west, there are plenty of easily explainable reasons why, and it's very rarely that "the game's too hard."

[Magus]

Some games are made specifically to be as difficult as arcade titles (or as difficult as your average Computer RPG), but the majority of Western games are not particularly difficult to complete for the average user, so they sell more games to more people. I don't think Brian is saying Japanese games are hard on accident just through poor game design but hard on purpose through stellar game design. However, most people in general at least don't want games to be hard on purpose, they want to finish them. They aren't interested in challenge, the fun for them doesn't come from challenge.

If a game (or IP) is fun but easy more people will want to buy/play/complete/buy more than if it is fun but hard. So you make more money than if you legitimately challenge people gameplay-wise, because far fewer people find "fun" out of a hard challenge of completing the game.

"Bad" games are not really part of the equation here, nobody (supposedly) is buying a "bad" game.

[Kurosen]

"Punishing" doesn't necessarily mean "hard" :themoreyouknow:

Obtuse mechanics, for instance, are a punishment. "Oh hey, thanks for never telling me to do X and Y like that for cool effect Z. That was really radical" i.e. Lost Planet 2. There's a dodge move they don't tell you about that's difficult to discover by accident since it requires precise timing on multiple buttons you wouldn't ordinarily press at the same.

I could go on about LP2's obfuscation. All the different Vital Suits, their different configurations and control scheme, which are technically made available by the game, but they're listed by the VS's name and the only way to know which one is which is to hop into them at random, hit pause (P.S. the game world is still live, you are now an unmoving target!), and check which controls it gives you instructions for. Even then they names are like GVN-60E, GVE-601N, etc.

Aaaaand that doesn't even get into how you can combine different suits Voltron style...but they never tell you which ones or how!

I mean, there's neat easter eggs like unlocking the hadouken in Mega Man X, and then there's fundamental aspects of gameplay. It's okay to be hush-hush about one, but not the other.

I love Chromehounds, Front Mission, Armored Core, Dynasty Warriors, EDF, etc. These games don't have mass appeal in the West for all kinds of reasons I think are dumb reasons to not like these games -- mostly issues with pacing, learning curves, and grind. The punishment and the difficulty of these games have nothing to do with how "hard" they are, but with how hard it is for most people to give a shit about them when it appears the games make no effort to help a bro enjoy them.

The most recent Front Mission is a prime example of Not Getting It when they try to Westernize a game. They clearly understood that Front Mission was a franchise that didn't appeal to the West, so they changed it. But they changed the wrong thing and left in the stuff that keeps people away. Or they changed one thing when they should've been changing a lot of other crap.

"Turn based tactical won't appeal to the Halo kids. Let's make it real time!"

Okay, I'm fine with that. Whatever it takes to get a new Front Mission.

"But let's make sure to force a love story that's super rushed and makes no sense."

Well, you don't need to

"And some daddy issues."

Aww, c'mon, just this once maybe not?

"And a 'strong' woman character who is a super tough warrior but also a delicate flower who needs protection."

Guys.

"And let's spout some philosophy in inappropriate places."

You're not even trying.

"And oh oh don't forget to spend an embarrassing amount of time doing Mecha CSPAN."

Do you really expect Halo kids to keep track of three different fictional political macro-entities identified only by their slightly different three-letter abbreviations?

"We don't want to alienate the fanbase though, so make sure the game forges ahead as if everyone who plays it is familiar with its convoluted history."

ARRRRRGH.

I mean, Halo 3 was the first one I played, and there's a lot of history to that franchise, but I was never lost in an alphabet soup of basically identical factions.

Also this.
most people in general at least don't want games to be hard on purpose, they want to finish them. They aren't interested in challenge, the fun for them doesn't come from challenge.
Like it or not, games today are largely vehicles for narrative. You don't see movies that make you solve a math problem before they'll give you ACT III for a reason.

[Kim]

If a game (or IP) is fun but easy more people will want to buy/play/complete/buy more than if it is fun but hard. So you make more money than if you legitimately challenge people gameplay-wise, because far fewer people find "fun" out of a hard challenge of completing the game.

Perhaps, but this suffers from basically simplifying it to two points. "Hard" games and "easy" games, when it isn't anything so polar, and there will always be disagreements about which games are hard or easy.

Furthermore, I don't think the difficulty is nearly as big of a deal as Brian makes it out to be. Take Demon's Souls for example. I love the game to death, but Christ on biscuit with a side of gravy it's hard. Easily one of the hardest games I've played. It actually sold pretty well, and is supposedly the best selling title Atlus USA has localized. It sold well because it's a "core" market title on the PS3, as opposed to the Wii or something, it doesn't have the same story elements jRPGs generally do, and the entire visual design is incredibly western. I think things like this play a much larger role in how well a game sells than the whole difficulty argument being made here.

"Bad" games are not really part of the equation here, nobody (supposedly) is buying a "bad" game.

Unless bad games are a part of the equation, the equation is rather worthless.

[Magus]

They are part of the equation but I would say the are a small one, they are not directly competing with "bad" games, or if they are, then maybe the "bad" game is not actually "bad", at least in terms of "what sells", although like Inafune said that is part of the problem with the industry is the emphasis on what sells.

Brian clarified what he meant, though.

EDIT: Also being the largest selling Atlus game in the U.S. is not really saying that much, since they always undersell here. But like you said the westernized graphics instead of anime style had something to do with it, since the difficulty was not really lower. But like Brian said, that would be learning something from the industry and changing it instead of sticking with what has been failing.

[Kurosen]

There is no difficulty argument, your point about Demon's Souls proves exactly what I'm saying: "Sometimes they do Westernization wrong and sometimes they do it right."

[Kim]

There is no difficulty argument, your point about Demon's Souls proves exactly what I'm saying: "Sometimes they do Westernization wrong and sometimes they do it right."

Your first post was about games "punishing the player" with things like "absurd odds" and saying that was part of the difference between eastern and western game design, and that that was the reason Japanese game design doesn't sell as well here. That's how your post reads to me. I don't see how I'm misinterpreting it. You later compare challenge to math problems. If that's not a difficulty argument, what is it?

The stuff you bring up about Lost Planet 2 is valid, because it's just simply bad game design, so yeah a game should sell bad if it is riddled with bad game design, but bad game design doesn't necessarily mean that a game will sell bad.

Ultimately, what decides how well a game sells is a number of factors, and how "punishing" the game is is only a small part of that. Visual presentation, style of narrative, target demographic and what console it's on, marketing, reviewer response, what company made it (this can be a really big one), what genre it is etc etc.

[Kurosen]

Your first post was about games "punishing the player" with things like "absurd odds" and saying that was part of the difference between eastern and western game design, and that that was the reason Japanese game design doesn't sell as well here. That's how your post reads to me. I don't see how I'm misinterpreting it. You later compare challenge to math problems. If that's not a difficulty argument, what is it?
Not difficulty itself but the arbitrary nature of the tasks. Also I'm more concerned with "difficulty" in terms of getting into the game as opposed to how "hard" the game itself is. Lost Planet 2 is not a difficult game, but it's a difficult game to get into because it makes no attempt to help the player to understand it. Chromehounds did this. As did the Armored Core series (though that also had some CRIZZZZAZZY in-game actual difficulty). Dynasty Warriors throws a dozen selectable characters on three different teams with a complex history you'll never hope to understand through playing the game. Eventually it lets you play with 50 or so characters, and forces you through a byzantine series of actions unique to each character you would never otherwise discover without gamefaqs.com to get the best weapon for each which you WILL need for the highest difficulty settings which are the only things worth playing once you reach a certain point.

Another example: Blazing Angels 2 vs. Project Silpheed. Both are arcade-y flight games and both can be pretty hard. You get Achievements for every level you complete in both games. Well, not in Project Silpheed. Well, not for completing a level. You have to get all the secondary objectives too. And the game doesn't tell you what they are. Fun?

Take a look at the control schemes for both games if you have a chance. One is straight forward, the other will make your brain melt.

Another example: every single question from FFXI. At least in its first year, it's my understanding they may have fixed this.

I mean, I can do this all day. Obviously some Western games still pull similar crap, but it's no longer the rule. Meanwhile, it's par for the course for a Japanese game.

Maybe "punishment" is the wrong word, but that's what it feels like to me when games pull the "Oh, you wanted to do something cool? Hahaha, fuck you" card. These are manufactured environments, there's no excuse for them to be made obtuse just for the sake of being obtuse.

but bad game design doesn't necessarily mean that a game will sell bad.
No, it doesn't. But more often than not I see Japanese games that make a series of poor game design choices that act as barriers to new players. This includes games I personally enjoy.

Ultimately, what decides how well a game sells is a number of factors, and how "punishing" the game is is only a small part of that. Visual presentation, style of narrative, target demographic and what console it's on, marketing, reviewer response, what company made it (this can be a really big one), what genre it is etc etc.
Absolutely. But if the first thing a player experiences is a barrier (or a series of barriers) to having fun, especially when that barrier was an explicit design choice and not an unfortunate oversight, fuck it, the presentation, style of narrative, etc. won't mean jack.

[Kim]

Absolutely. But if the first thing a player experiences is a barrier (or a series of barriers) to having fun, especially when that barrier was an explicit design choice and not an unfortunate oversight, fuck it, the presentation, style of narrative, etc. won't mean jack.

Actually it will because those are the things the player experiences before even playing the game. They have to have already played the game before they can experience the punishing gameplay, which means either renting, buying, or demoing. Before then they'll have only heard about it second-hand from game journalists or what they can glean from gameplay trailers. Story you can see the style of in trailers. Same with visual style. A title tells you which franchise a game belongs to, which effects sales. You know what console it's on before release, and a core demographic title on the Wii usually won't sell well unless it's from Nintendo. You know what genre it is, and if you like that genre before release, too. They affect sales more than whether the gameplay is frustrating because they're affecting popular opinion long before anyone plays it.

[bluestarultor]

Yeah, just to throw another example on Brian's pile, Eternal Sonata. This is a game that's rife with interesting ideas, but the problem is it's constantly changing the rules on you to implement them. This isn't even like FF13 where things are largely constant and you just unlock more over the story. No, this is where literally every major event that happens, they just go around changing stuff. You only have a certain amount of time to take a turn and then they go decreasing that time, but they also increase the size of your inventory so it takes longer to scroll through and oh, by the way, it now matters if you're in the light or the shadow for what moves you can use and you have a few seconds of free time before your turn now, but if you move the rest gets tossed out and your proper turn starts and AUGH!

It otherwise seems like an interesting game. If they were less schizophrenic about it, it might not have such high barriers to enjoyment.


Edit: Mind you, I didn't get all that far due to the PS3 being at home, but after seeing all they'd changed by the time you got to whenever the Poison Forest was on Phantom's game, it pretty well killed my interest.

[Kim]

Eternal Sonata was pretty rad. I forgive the plot making no sense and the ear-stabbingly painful voice acting because the gameplay rocked, and I got to kick ass as Chopin. I'm pretty sure anyone who doesn't want to kick ass as Chopin is automatically a terrible person. Also: Final boss rocks.

[Kurosen]

They affect sales more than whether the gameplay is frustrating because they're affecting popular opinion long before anyone plays it.
Sure. And if those things speak toward a title or franchise or hemisphere known for producing unnecessarily frustrating access to its content, chances are it's gonna do rather poorly.

[Kim]

Sure. And if those things speak toward a title or franchise or hemisphere known for producing unnecessarily frustrating access to its content, chances are it's gonna do rather poorly.

...Alright I think I'm done with this argument. There's so very much wrong with your argument, but you've got your head so far up your opinion about this singular aspect of video games that having a debate about it with you is a fruitless waste of time. I find it reminiscent of many political arguments.

With regards to the original point of this thread: Inafune is an idiot in the same way Capcom is idiotic of late. Capcom now employs one less of that kind of idiot. This is a net gain.

Peace out.

[Krylo]

Yeah, just to throw another example on Brian's pile, Eternal Sonata.

Actually, I think ES is pretty much the opposite of Brian's problem.

If it had thrown players into the beginning with the combat system as it turned out at the end it'd be a pretty close approximation, because by the end of the game it was pretty tricky.

However, they start you with a relatively basic and light JRPG combat system with a few fun gimmicks to keep you interested. Then they let you play until the game figures you're probably getting pretty good at manipulating it. Then they add new features to combat. Then they let you play with those for awhile. Then they add new features to combat, etc.

It's almost like the entire game is a combat tutorial slowly unlocking more things you can do and making combat slowly harder while simultaneously more effective for your group.

The advantage of this is that it provides no barriers to player enjoyment. It's completely accessible to everyone.

...Unless you're playing you're brother's game and he's advancing without you and you miss the tutorial introductions and don't get the prerequisite practice with each section of the gameplay, I guess.

[Kurosen]

Really?

"The art style of that game looks like an anime. I know that means it's probably from Japan! Other games I have played recently that also looked like an anime and were from Japan have had a variety of gameplay experiences I find frustrating. I am now unlikely to purchase this game without new information refuting my experience," is really so craaaaaaazy a thought?

I'll admit I've done a piss poor job of articulating my position, but I've got my hands in a lot of sinister soups today.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Isn't that how genres in anything work.
Like I don't like any FPSes I've played so if I see future FPSes on the shelf I'm not going to buy them eventhough they may be the perfect game for me. That's how most people's purchasing decisions work.

[Kurosen]

I think this is what both Non and I are saying. But from different angles that are a bit chicken-or-the-egg-ish and we keep missing each other.

He's all "There's a lot of factors!"

And I'm all "Yes, and in the case of Japanese games those factors no longer appeal to a Western mainstream audience 'cause most of us don't dig the unnecessarily frustrating gameplay and/or obtuse presentation we've been conditioned to expect from them...and which they still mostly deliver."

[Kim]

My problem is that "unnecessarily frustrating gameplay and/or obtuse presentation" in the way that you describe it and in the way that it is relevant the discussion at hand is not nearly as big of a factor as you portray it. It might be an important factor for some audiences, but treating it as the primary deterrent for western audiences as a whole is just ridiculous, and yet you keep doing it.

My point with Demon's Souls earlier was that they changed something completely separate from the gameplay, the visual presentation, and that alone was enough to help it succeed more than it would have if the gameplay was the same but it looked more like other games of that genre. The game being frustrating had little to do with that. It's not something that can be boiled down to a single facet of games, which is what you keep doing.

A much more in-depth, valuable discussion could be had about different facets of Japanese games versus western games, the ways in which both appeal or don't appeal to various audiences, why that is the case, things in both story, visuals, history, culture, etc that affect these things. This is not the discussion we're having, and part of the reason why is because you keep returning it to a single talking point.

[Kurosen]

Nope, too late. I will ragequit and insinuate you want do to blowjobs on the Japanese islands.

[Kim]

How did you know?!

[Kurosen]

I have pictures.

They're kinda hot.

[Kim]

Aw shit better go undercover for a while...

[Fifthfiend]

I think we can take the Metroid games' example in reverse whereby Japanese companies which want to appeal to American audiences should take the part of the game where they put in a plot and dialogue and characterization, and then instead of doing all that, don't, and then if anyone tries, beat them with a baseball bat, proud symbol of the traditions of cultural exchange between our two great nations.

[Jagos]

I think we can take the Metroid games' example in reverse whereby Japanese companies which want to appeal to American audiences should take the part of the game where they put in a plot and dialogue and characterization, and then instead of doing all that, don't, and then if anyone tries, beat them with a baseball bat, proud symbol of the traditions of cultural exchange between our two great nations.

I weep inside because of Other M. *shudder*