Yoko Taro Quotes

Games, by nature, have more plot options and non-linear qualities than TV and film.

All the stuff I love most in game storytelling is never the big-picture stuff; it's the stuff that feels like curlicues, stuff that's just there because it's a game and because you can do it.

You don't really want to talk about 'Duke' in terms of, how many levels are there, how many guns does it have, how many monsters… It's got everything it needs in terms of that, but it's always been about the experience.

Game Over is a very frustrating game convention. In short, it means, 'If you were not good enough or did not play the game the way the designer intended you to play, you should play again until you do it right.' What kind of story could a writer tell where the characters could play the same scene ten times until the outcome is right?

I love games like 'Flower,' for example - I thought this was amazing. It's great, it's new, it's different, and it's invented something that didn't exist before.

When you really think about it, it doesn't really matter where a game ends. Ultimately, if the player is satisfied with stopping at a particular point, it doesn't matter if it's where the creator intended things to end or not... and so that's where the idea of having so many endings came about.

With 'Heavy Rain,' we're creating something that changes many traditional game paradigms.

As a player, you want to play a lot of games.

I think the difference between 'Heavy Rain' and 'Beyond' is that 'Heavy Rain' still had a lot of references to films. Especially in the mood, and it was a dark thriller... where, in 'Beyond,' we tried to create something truly original and doesn't refer to anything.

I want games to have their own identity.

There are different games for different people and different expectations. Sometimes you want a great story, and sometimes you don't. I don't believe we should have stories in every single game. Sometimes it doesn't matter.

In 'Drakengard', you have magic and non-magic missiles that couldn't shoot each other down.

You're always going to get comparisons. Everybody comes out and says, 'He's the next so and so,' or, 'He reminds me of so and so.' I have so many influences and stuff in my brain, who knows what's going to pop in and come out.

I am conscious of that when I make these games: I try to make a game that has beautiful open spaces, gaps, room for players to enjoy it in ways that were not authored. I never want it to be where you have to follow the rules completely, where you have to do things exactly as the designers intended.

We didn't start at 'Fallout 3' and think about how to add to that. We take a step back and think, 'Okay, if we look at all the 'Fallout' games, what would a new one feel like?' So the focus is not ''Fallout 3' plus this'. Then we start really digging into the world.

Don't copy another writer's style, because that is not authentic, and that's how it will sound. You develop your style over your whole life and through countless influences. Don't impose something artificial.

Half-Life is the finest implementation of a game on rails anybody has ever done

The only art I'll ever study is stuff I can steal from.

The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own.

Most games follow a real railroad plot, no matter what you want, you're following their storyline to its unavoidable conclusion. I'd like to write a game where your character can follow any number of possible story arcs and sub-plots.

Games are not about being told things. If you want to tell people things, write a book or make a movie. Games are dialogues - and dialogue requires both parties to take the floor once in a while

Part of the core of my system, is a way of trying to give the characters more control. If I'm practicing making up what the characters will do, it's never good. In fact, when I catch myself doing that, I try to get rid of that section, and try and let them start making the decisions.

If an artist may say nothing except what he has invented by his own sole efforts, it stands to reason he will be poor in ideas. If he could take what he wants wherever he could find it, as Euripides and Dante and Michelangelo and Shakespeare and Bach were free, his larder would always be full, and his cookery might be worth tasting.

I think what a lot of people see as unique is using different technology or different techniques [to make games], but I feel like, as long as you have a core that's unlike others, that's what 'unique' is.

I did the original Robotron game back in 1982. To me it's still one of the classic 2D games as far as action and decisions per second, and kills per second, and explosions per second. It's super-frenetic and totally involving. There's been a lot of games since, a lot of Robotron sequels. A lot of them haven't even captured the magic of Robotron, much less moving things forward.