Joe Nash (4:29)

Amazing. So I know that obviously you mentioned QWOP has, you know, it kind of went viral pre the concept of reality. I definitely was aware of it and I know many of our listeners will be. But folks who haven't encountered. I guess you're over. How would you. How do you describe your games to people?

Bennett Foddy (4:45)

I think a lot of them are kind of absurdist. A lot of them are grounded in simulated physics. Physics engines. I don't know. I mean, I think simulated physics, that's kind of a mouthful. But I guess in the early 2000s there started to be real time physics engines that had fully simulated dynamics and then they started to become available as open Source engines. Box 2D was the one that I made QOP in, for example. So a lot of my work has been around kind of playing with what you can do with those engines. A lot of them. People think that they're difficult. People think that they're maybe indifferent to the player's experience. I don't know. There's a certain aesthetic of that. I resist the idea that they're difficult. I think maybe difficulty is kind of a complicated and overloaded idea. But people think my games are difficult anyway. And a lot of them concern movement, I suppose, like the kind of movement of the player and making that kind of problematizing that in certain ways. I have some things that are kind of outside of that through line, but that's definitely the most kind of recognizable through line of the three most recognizable games in my oeuvre, which would be QoP, Getting Over it with Bennett Foddy. And then you won Baby Steps, which I made with two other people I made with Gabe Cazillo and Maxi Bok.

Joe Nash (6:04)

Perfect. Yeah, we're definitely coming back to some of those games out of the box, like Zipper, I want to talk about. So we'll definitely come back to three of those as well as your collaborators, because I believe at least one of them is a former student as well.

Bennett Foddy (6:13)

Right? Yeah, that's right.

Joe Nash (6:14)

Yeah. Awesome. Cool. Perfect. Yeah. I guess let's stick with a couple of things I want to talk about from what you just mentioned, obviously, difficulty. We'll come back to the difficulty. Concept of difficulty. But physics. So you described, I think it was to Polygon. You said that a lot of your games are essentially the interaction between a physics rig and level design. And I thought that was a really interesting, I guess, kind of basic place to start from designing a game. Can you tell us more about that?

Bennett Foddy (6:36)

Here's the thing. So it was at the center for the Moving Image in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago, and I was trying to kind of express it in this particular way, which is that when you're designing games, there's basically two ways that we get mechanics or sort of like genres or types of play. Some of them, or maybe the majority of them, the designer, maybe not starting from zero, maybe starting from a bunch of genre assumptions, has an idea, and the idea is like a full kind of game idea, and they implement it as they imagined it. Maybe they kind of change course a little bit along the way as they kind of learn more about it. But it's kind of created from whole cloth. But the kind of games that I've been making, especially with physics engines, it's not so much like that. It's more like I'll create a way of interacting with the game world and kind of play with it. And the gameplay loop is sort of found rather than invented. Right. So for qwop, for example, I had a hope that it would be kind of a fully controllable, easy running system that would would have some kind of interesting implications or interesting things that kind of fell out of that system. What it actually is is something that's much more absurd and silly and funny and difficult. Right. And it was sort of like, in a way, it wasn't at all what I was looking for, but I liked what I found. So it feels as though it was a little more discovered. And I think finding things, discovering gameplay in a system is easier when you start with a very rich and deep system. So what's a physics rig is. A physics rig is a relatively small number of entities in a physical simulation and a set of constraints. And the constraints might be the level, the world that it's in, or it might be the joints, it might be the muscles, it might be some other kind of constraint. Right. But it's very, very hard, I think, as a designer to get more than a sort of an intuition about what sorts of constraints will be interesting or what will happen with the constraints. Because physics is complicated and it's unpredictable. And so the way that I approach doing it, or that I have approached doing it through my career is to kind of set up some constraints and see what falls out of that. Maybe I have an idea about roughly what it will be like. Very frequently there are things in there that aren't exactly what I predicted, and then trying to kind of follow what's actually there in the playing with the prototype. I think relative to a lot of other game designers, I probably make more prototypes and throw more away, partly because of this approach. You know, if you're sitting down to make a grand strategy game or a puzzle game, you probably don't throw as much away. You probably sort of sit there and you iterate until you get it working exactly the way you want. But when you're working in the kind of games that I've been making, I think a lot of the time what seems like maybe a good idea, you realize actually for some sort of deep reason relating to geometry or relating to momentum or something like that, there's not actually a gameplay there. So that's why I think it's playing with rigs sometimes it's playing with level design idea. It can be playing with any kind of constraint really, but, like, it just has to be a rich enough set of constraints.

Joe Nash (9:49)

Right, interesting. So I guess a lot of your physics rigs tend to be human form or close enough. Obviously you've had unicorns, but still four limbed, etc. Is that an artistic inclination commenting on human body, et cetera and its usage? Or is that because eight legged alien monstrosities don't make satisfying physics rigs in your gameplay design?

Bennett Foddy (10:09)

I think it's two things. I think first of all there is a relatability thing. I think human bodies make us feel a certain way. Games that are about movement are really about embodiment. They're about feeling like you are the avatar that's represented on the screen. That's kind of easier move for your brain to make if it's humanoid, or at least it's that kind of animal. It's not impossible with a robot obviously. Just like it's more of a heavy lift. And so I sort of feel like that kind of emotional response and that kind of psychological response is easier for a human. So I mean, I think that's the first thing. The second thing is that with video games I really feel like how much I enjoy playing a video game and how people enjoy the kinds of video games that I enjoy playing is kind of opposite. Reading explanation or doing a tutorial or something like that. There are certain types of games where that's totally unavoidable. Like you can't learn to play Catan without being told the rules. There's no way to intuit it. And Catan is a wonderful game.

Joe Nash (11:04)

Right.

Bennett Foddy (11:04)

Like really, I'm not trying to run those sorts of games down. But what I love in playing games, especially real time games, video games myself, is a sense of being able to kind of explore and discover what the rules are and to be able to jump right in and for kind of learning how to do it, being a lot of the fun. And that being the case, the players need help to understand first of all, what are the goals, what are the limitations, what's going on, what can happen, what should their expectations be? There's all this stuff that has to be conveyed by the game designer. We try to kind of pick settings for games where there's just less to do on that front. Right. So if I give you a human body right away, you know, it can't fly, it's fragile, it takes steps of about this size, maybe it gets fatigued, maybe not, but weighs about this much. Like there's all of these intuitions that we have, there's all this stuff that we know, all this common sense that we bring to bear when there is a human body pictured, right. The same thing goes for like, you know, in qop. The situation is he's in an athletic outfit, right? And he's facing left to right. And right away you have a set of a whole thick bundle of expectations and knowledge that comes from the fact that you've watched the Olympics. You know, like you know what his basic task is. In fact, the humor of that game comes from subverting what you're expecting. You see like a very athletic athlete dressed up for a race inside of a stadium and you expect competent running and then it's at the players. It's because of the players incompetence that he is falling over. That's, that's the joke of the game. But you're just getting a lot for it being the human body. And I think as a game designer, I'm just always looking for these sorts of shorthands because that is really what allows us to remove explaining and to remove tutorialization and difficulty curves and all of that stuff that is, you know, has its place. But it's not really the like, if I'm doing anything as a designer, it's to kind of like try to skip that stuff, to try to eliminate that flavor of it in order to be able to give the games a different kind of personality that's maybe a little more adversarial, a little more resistant to the player than a regular video game. So it's more important to my work than it is to other designers as well. I just really need everything to kind of be self explanatory.

Joe Nash (13:35)

Yeah, that's really interesting. Yeah. I want to stick a pin in progression. But I guess before we come back down to that and difficulty curves, obviously there's a lot of similarities thematically between co op and baby steps. I guess I want to start by asking, how did you return to the idea of manual walking? I guess for lack of a shorthand in your first, as you said, going indie. Why come back to that idea?

Bennett Foddy (13:59)

We had spent 2019 making prototypes, made about 10 different prototypes and none of them were about that really. We tried a lot of different things. We had a twin stick shooter, we had a competitive SimCity. We had a lot of different things going on and none of them were really working. And it was actually at Gabe's suggestion. He felt like we could in essence do what I'd been trying to do with QWOP in 2008, which is to make a version of that where you actually can walk. But I Think the kind of core of his idea was more like he's very interested in systems that are driven by control and the way the physics is following that. So he'd made this game called Ape out, which I'd contributed artwork to, and that's an arcade game. It actually does use a physics engine, but when you are moving your analog stick on your controller to the right, it's immediately like, it's not waiting for. It's not applying forces to a physics object, it's setting the position as we used to do back in the 1970s and 80s. We're just setting the position of the controlled object. You could think of that as being like one to one control or something like that. We could call it arcade controls. And I think the kind of core idea that he had was that we could drive a 3D physics rig of a body to make a kind of a co op inspired game where the feet were the kind of like the arcade object. Right? Like, the feet wouldn't be like dynamics objects, they would be canonically controlled by your controller. And I tried to discourage him from that because I thought that was a bad idea, I thought it was too hard. But he made a prototype very, very quickly, like a small one that seemed a little promising. And then we hooked it up to a physics engine and like some, you know, there was some middleware that made a ragdoll follow an object and we hooked up an actual 3D character to it and I made a level for it and it was like, yeah, we're doing this. We just knew, I think right out the gate, after having sort of 10 fail build prototypes, this is quite early on, I said, I have a record of a message to him where I said, I think this is the one. This is actually. This has got legs is the way we often talk about it. But yeah, that's what you're looking for if you're going to spend a significant chunk of time on something, is something that will be worth exploring, that has enough depth to be able to make it worth your while to do polish, to do kind of a detailed world and all of that stuff. We thought we were going to spend about one year, not sort of five or six years, but yeah, like, he just, yeah, just knew. So, yeah, it was his inspiration. But yeah, I think he wanted to do something that was kind of like a fusion of the procedural animation that he'd done for Ape out and then the kind of like the leg placement from QWOP worked really well. I think that's great.

Joe Nash (16:49)

And obviously you Know, a huge departure between those two games is one's kind of a self contained experience. Now this Baby Steps is this like open world narrative journey. And going back to what you said about it, needing to feel intuitive and like trying to skip tutorials, I'm like, fascinating. But how do you deal with progression and skill building in a game like Baby Steps where you've got this fundamental mechanic that's so, hey, we're taking something easy and making it hard and now you need it to continue getting harder throughout.

Bennett Foddy (17:15)

Yeah, I mean, I think our orientation to that changed along the way and in the same sort of way that QWOP becomes about failing and falling over, because that was all I was able to achieve. I think the early prototypes of Baby Steps were much more falling down centric and we had much lower expectations for how good people would get. I mean, the truth is there's just years of design iteration on the walking model, on the control scheme. Just little things like, you know, what happens when you let go of the stick and how is it conveyed that he's at the edge of his kind of polygon of balance or whatever it is? You know, there's just like little changes and you know, Gabe was in charge of that stuff. He would sometimes like, you know, have a shower, thought that maybe we'd been doing it all wrong and come in and make some kind of change. And then little by little over time, it started to be that people, when they got to the end of this little cave that we set them up in at the beginning, most of the players were kind of trucking around almost automatically. Right. So it went from being a game that was going to be more failure oriented, like co op, to being something which is like, no, you're walking around actually competently for the most part and you're falling over when you're trying to go up a very steep slope or on a very slippery substance or do some kind of incredibly technical climbing maneuver. And it enabled us to make the world around the rig more and more kind of complicated and more and more challenging to the point where I just don't think at the beginning we dreamed that it was going to have some of the sort of like jumping between objects or riding on moving objects, all of that sort of stuff. It would have seemed impossible in the first instance, but yeah, it's just iteration, iteration, iteration. It's the longest I've ever worked on a video game, so I never really had done that kind of degree of iterating before. So yeah, it sort of brings out a Different flavor. But these systems are very, very complicated. And the sorts of things that make it hard or easy aren't what you would expect all the time. I mean, we really had a strong aesthetic against having too much in the way of, like, imaginary forces propping the character up. We wanted it to be as kind of plausible as it could reasonably be while still being stable. But the sorts of things that make it go from difficult to easy are concerning things like suppose you're pressing the button to raise the trailing foot a little bit too early. What should happen then? Right. Or suppose you do it a little too late. How should that be handled? How should we handle letting you know when the foot is up or down? Where should the camera be pointed? Like a really big breakthrough we had is to realize the camera should always be focused on his feet. Especially when the camera starts to kind of bump into things in kind of difficult terrain, it always zooms in on his feet. Right. You know, if it has to move at all, that made it massively easier to play. So we're just constantly looking for these little things. And what you end up in a game of this sort of scope, you end up with a titanic pile of minor affordances. Right. And that all kind of blends together into a system that seems simple, but you have, in fact, added this colossal complexity and nuance, really more so than complexity. But it's now, instead of 10% of players finding it easy to walk around, it's now 90%. Right. Like, really kind of inverted that way.

Joe Nash (20:35)

Yeah, I guess that reminds me of the. Is it Super Meat Boy or Celeste? One of them has the famous, like, 2000 line file of if statements for, like, what happens if you land on a platform and, like, have to deal with it? Like, it's like one of those. Yeah, absolutely.

Narrator (20:49)

You know, Fidelity is a financial services leader, but did you know that inside Fidelity is a community of technologists working together to shape the future of finance and tech. Fidelity is always investing in tomorrow, from emerging tech to cutting edge tools that will transform what comes next. Their technologists are encouraged to keep learning so they can expand their skill sets, explore new ground, and stay ahead of this rapidly evolving industry. And right now, Fidelity is hiring technologists to join their team. Fidelity technologists get the best of both worlds. Startup energy that's grounded in the stability of a financial institution. That means support, resources and amazing benefits. Bring your skills to a culture where you're empowered to dream big and build the tech that drives an organization and makes a real impact on people's lives. Find out more@tech.fidelitycareers.com that's tech.fidelitycareers.com Fidelity is an equal opportunity employer why is there always a meeting bot in your Zoom call? Blame Recall AI. Recall AI powers the meeting bots and desktop recording apps behind products like Clulee, HubSpot and ClickUp. They handle the hard infrastructure work capturing clean recordings, transcripts and metadata across Zoom, Google Meet Microsoft Teams in person, meetings and more so developers don't have to build it themselves. If you're building a meeting note taker or anything involving conversation data, Recall AI is the API for meeting recording. Get started today with $100 in free credits at Recall AI Software.

Joe Nash (22:29)

So I guess to get to the topic of difficulty, which I think broadly your fan base is in agreement with you that difficulty is not the right word. You are one of two guests we've now had that has a genre named after them, which is the Folly and Rage game in your case. But you've got this really great blog post out that set the 11 kinds of frustration or I think it was 11 kinds of difficulty that I think captures. I don't know if still captures your current feelings and difficulty, but the different I think you explore different ones those different games. Obviously getting over it is very much, I think one that would put your name on the map quite intentionally. It has your name on it. Yeah, I guess. Talk to us about your feelings on difficulty and your approach to it in games. Or not difficulty, as you say.

Bennett Foddy (23:01)

The idea of the blog post is that we have very limited language I think for this stuff. Let's just put a pin in difficulty for a second and talk about frustration because it's like a thing that at least getting over it and co opa associated with being frustrated. And it's definitely a flavor in my game, but I feel like that's such a blunt, over encompassing word because actually there's all kinds of different feelings that are that we call being frustrated or being annoyed and we don't really distinguish between them very much in English. Anyway, I don't know if it's different in other languages, but I was yeah, just I mean as a player I feel like different senses of being frustrated have very, very different emotional consequences to me. And one of the interesting things about playing video games, not just ones that set out to be hard, but all video games really is they all have a little bit of a mix of different ways of kind of provoking you and feeling like the game is pushing back in some way or offering friction. There are some frictionless Games, they're in the minority, I think. Some visual novels, for example, Even walking simulators, as we call them. It's a genre I'm very fond of where you just walk around and look at things. Even those have friction, right? So it's definitely something that's universal in games. But a big part of design is about controlling what exact feelings that you're provoking. And I just got interested in introspecting on that. I mean, when I play games, whether they're single player games or when I'm playing competitively with friends, one of the main sources of joy for me is to savor the feelings that I'm having. And actually this goes for watching movies and listening to records as well. Like when somebody is trying wine, you know, when they're tasting wine, if they're an oenophile, they smell it and then they put a little bit into their mouth and they kind of taste it on the different parts of their palate. And then they try to kind of put into words what exactly it is that they're tasting. I'm not a wine person, but like, that's what they're doing, right. And I think it's a little strange that people don't really do this, by and large with other art forms, particularly video games, which are really kind of good at exposing, I think, to you, what your feelings are while you're having them. So when I'm playing a game and I'm starting to get on tilt, that's a thing that we can sometimes say, like, I'm starting to choke. I'm starting to become overly self conscious of my actions. Maybe I'm becoming a little heated. I start to feel heat rising in my face. I might feel a little kind of pit of disappointment in my stomach. I might start to become a little bit unsteady or trembly if I become like a little. I get a little bit of a fight or flight reflex or something like that. Those are all things that I think, you know, I'm thinking about that in the same sort of way of sort of like rolling that around in my mouth and tasting it on different parts of my palate. And games have such a rich ability to do different things. That's one of the things that I really am fascinated about with games, what I really am pursuing. So in my work, what I'm trying to do is figure out what the colors are on the palette and then to try to paint a picture with those colors in whatever kind of way. Difficulty, I don't know. I mean, I Think they were sort of stepping out one kind of layer of abstraction. Right. What is difficulty? Well, difficulty is that you expected the game to give you a reward or to say that you're the winner when you did a set of actions and you did those actions and it didn't reward you with what you expected to be success. But it's really built around what your expectations are. I think you see that very easily in a simple game like QoP. Your expectation is you can run to the end of the track because you're an athlete and the fact that you can only go 3 meters makes it difficult. But is it difficult? I mean, I don't know. I mean, if you're, if your expectation is that you can go three meters and that something funny will happen, then it's very easy. Everybody can access the full range of experience in QoP. And it's not like you've missed anything if you didn't get to the end of the track. You had the full experience if you spent 20 minutes trying to walk and kind of going upside down. So it really is about what people want out of the game and it's about what they expect to get and it's about how much effort they expect to have to put in. And then, you know, I think there are situations where games expect a huge amount of work where they don't get called difficult. Right? Like if you sit down to play Europa Universalis, it's just this mind boggling complexity you can't possibly hope to overcome without watching YouTube videos or having a friend to guide you through or something like. But that game's not known as difficult, right? For some reason we would only talk about the difficulty of that game in terms of how the AI plays against you and what the resource constraints are and all of that stuff. It's a difficult grand strategy if the AI is really fierce and is constantly kind of attacking you. But there's just as much friction in that game or way, way more than there is in a lot of my games. Right. I think the same thing goes for accessibility, right? So there's a lot of talk about accessibility. Usually accessibility features for a game are ones that enable you to see the ending, to see all the content, regardless of how good your reflexes are or how good your vision is or whatever other sorts of abilities your body has. But we don't often talk about accessibility in terms of how easily and quickly does the game get you to the core of the experience. It's never deemed that a game is inaccessible because you have to do Eight hours of tutorial before you're playing the real game. If you're playing, like Final Fantasy 12, you're not really playing the real game until you're in about hour 20, 25, 30. And nobody calls that inaccessible because people's expectations and orientations are toward the storyline and the visual content and we get that really easily. So, yeah, I mean, I don't really have like a kind of unified theory about this, but I would just say that just like with frustration, the kind of concept of difficulty seems a little bit overly broad and blunt and not really kind of fit for the sorts of debates and discussions that we're trying to have with them. Maybe just a little more language or a little more theoretical constructs are needed to really be able to kind of crack these open.

Joe Nash (29:14)

Yeah, it's interesting. Maybe it came across this way just because we're talking about your games, but the things you listed on one side and then the things you listed on the other, with the Europa Universalis example, you know, it really does to a certain extent, like the way we talk about difficulty does talk a lot about losing progress of some form.

Bennett Foddy (29:30)

Right.

Joe Nash (29:30)

Which is obviously like something you play with a lot. I know you've been heads down on baby steps the last five years, but I was wondering if you're aware of, like, the growing trend in games that are resetting progress, like hardcore World of Warcraft, hardcore Minecraft, and like the fact that those are becoming super popular and if that hadn't given you any thoughts, because obviously that's something you've been playing with for years now.

Bennett Foddy (29:49)

Yeah. And those modes have been around for a while, but I have noticed they've started to get more popular. The one that I love is RPG maps and Track Mate especially. I mean, there was one called Bennett 48. My checkpoints, which is you have to climb up a building. It was like very, very difficult things and you fall back down. There's no checkpoints. Right.

Joe Nash (30:06)

Amazing.

Bennett Foddy (30:07)

And that one went on to be the. As I understand, it went on to inspire Deep Dip, which is a collaboration between a number of RPG map makers from TrackMania, which is this giant colossal tower that takes hours and hours. And the whole community was involved in a kind of collaborative effort to see who could be the first to beat this checkpointless tower. And then deep dip two, which was even bigger. Again, deep dip two, they had like a community pot. It was like $30,000 for whoever could finish that first on stream. So I love that. It's. I mean, I can't really take credit for this, except, you know, maybe in just a small piece of it, because I feel like, like this kind of sense of hardcoreness, the sense of like really being prepared to send people back a lot, is something that started to really pop off around the time that Dark Souls came out. Like Demon's Souls really sort of started that these fromsoft games, which were like, we're going to in the clothes of a genre action RPG that had become very kind of progress oriented, very number go up oriented, which is really what we mean when we say RPG systems. We mean you can't lose progress, that you're always ratcheting up progress, right? They were like, no, that's no fun. Let's go back to feeling some fear because you can lose a lot of your effort. And it was received, I think, a little coldly by journalists and by a lot of players when Demon's Souls came out. But it started to kind of catch fire. Some people found it had a very kind of passionately positive response to it. And so I think you can kind of see we're almost at kind of peak sending you back now. And then we'll get another backlash. We'll have another 20 years of checkpointing and quick saving and all of that stuff. These things come in waves, they're fashions. And the reason for that is that there are trade offs, right? I mean, I think what you lose when everything is sort of like safe and checkpointed and quick saved and so on, you lose a sense of stakes. Obviously, if you can't lose progress, then you're never really afraid and you're never really stressed. You can't really go on tilt. You're just kind of like oriented and it orients you more and more to the kind of micro successes and failures you have. Like if I'm playing, For example, quake one with my fingers on F5 and F7 to quick save and quick load, I'm just like trying to optimize every little kind of like one second stretch of the game and then I'll save if it was good enough and I won't save if it wasn't good enough. And that's a way to play. And it's like there's a whole aesthetic of that. But what you don't get is any kind of like feeling of like being out on a high wire. And by the same token, when you have a game that sends you back a long way, you have a lot of stakes, you have a lot of stressful feelings or whatever it is, excitement and feeling of it mattering how you play but you never get to kind of really focus down on the micro. So I think it makes sense that it's something that comes in waves and in fashions. But yeah, I think we're at right now probably cresting the peak of sending you back culture.

Joe Nash (33:15)

Yeah, it's really interesting. I don't know, I always find it interesting because I have very much my game playing friends very much fall hard on either line. Like there's a group of us who only play games that hurt us and are incapable of playing games that don't. And there's a group that just like do not want any of it whatsoever.

Bennett Foddy (33:29)

Yeah.

Joe Nash (33:29)

And never teach our cross in any way. We can't even come close to the axis and it's just so. Yeah, it's so fascinating. Changing tact a little bit. I think that explanation was a great example of I guess something I've not strictly game related. But I want to talk about your dual nature as an academic as a game designer because aside from giving us wonderful views and insights into game design and you also have amazing fun with it. I think your IGN reaction to the getting over it Speedrun is art. I just think it's perfect. It's a perfect artifact. But I think you've used that to examine some things that are really interesting. So one that you kind of touched on there when you were talking about Trackmania. You've been incredibly aware of some really interesting gaming subcultures and really spoken about them interestingly. But I think one that I want to chat to you about is well too I want to chat about speedrunning and streaming because I know obviously I'm a big Ludwig fan so the getting over it generation was like a big thing for me. How did you know seeing streamers and I know that your journey very much started with moist critical playing co op and everything as well. How has seeing streamers basically have their careers been made by your games? How does that influence your practice at all?

Bennett Foddy (34:31)

If I'm honest, I didn't really understand even having had that experience with moist critical and qwop and I have watched the occasional let's play. I mean I have to just be honest and say when I'm looking for YouTube of gameplay, I'm always typing no commentary into the search. I didn't want that experience of seeing somebody reacting for me. I felt like it would kind of spoil things for me. And I definitely once started to see streaming take off. Streaming has lots of different forms. You know, I have a lot of friends who watch League of Legends streams, which are really not reaction videos. It's more about watching people who are at the top of something that's very competitive, play it in a way that they can't and like to kind of learn from it and admire it the way that we admire athletes. You know, the peak of a frustrating

Joe Nash (35:18)

experience watching someone grind League of Legends. That is like games that hurt you. It's like no one's done better than that.

Bennett Foddy (35:24)

But so I don't think they're all the same. But the kinds of streaming content that I've been most interfaced with is the stuff that my games have been supporting. Right. So stuff where so called rage game. Somebody's playing a game because it provides emotion provoking, relatable situations that they can have an outsized reaction to on stream and that their fans can kind of like enjoy the entertainment value of seeing their favorite streamer react in a certain way. And when I was making Getting over it, I think it's clear in the script that I was sort of like oriented against that. Right. I wanted people. My orientation was it annoys me that people aren't going to play this game, that they're just going to watch it on stream. And here is this thing where the kind of meaning of it comes from the fact that you're going through an ordeal and you're sort of like in contact with the designer. And I think that game is that for some proportion of the audience, especially people playing it the first time, you know, so I didn't have a deep understanding of what it is that people are doing when they're watching streams or anything like that. I was kind of against it because I knew it was sort of like stopping people from actually playing the games themselves. As it turned out, getting over it came out. And I think probably the great majority of people have experienced it in the format of watching people play it. And that certainly hasn't been bad for my sales and it would be churlish to complain about that situation. So I've tried to have more sympathy for that experience. Right. And to kind of understand that it's playing a different role. There's something that I do believe quite deeply, which is that it's something that's natural and that we should hope for as game designers is that the games are used in ways that were not originally intended. And I think a lot of like the TrackMania RPG maps that I was mentioning before were never envisaged by the designers of Trackmania. You know, that's not a usage that they would have supported Or I mean, maybe they love it, but it wasn't their intention. That's quite clear. And I think that oftentimes the kind of most beautiful aspects of games come from the sort of unexpected usages of folk. Usages of the games and the folk. The house rules and the different. The mods and the modes and all of the. All of these different ways that the kind of player base kind of runs with it. In the case of getting over it, some proportion of people had this sort of experience as I intended it, and that's great, but there was this kind of phenomenon that was much bigger of people using it as a platform for Rage performance. Now, I don't like watching Rage performance. It's not a thing that works for me. It always seems inauthentic to my eye. But I certainly have enjoyed watching reaction content of one type or another in my life. You know, like, I think it owes a lot to Japanese variety shows of the 80s and 90s in terms of format, having the kind of celebrity face in the corner while something interesting happens and you see them react. There's something that's very human about it. There's something that's kind of very basic and deep. And I'm not against the fact that getting over it was a kind of a good platform for that, or at least a timely. A timely platform for that. And I guess, to really answer your question, do I think about it now while we're making games? Yeah, yeah. Now it kind of feeds in. We try to design everything both from a point of view of how this will work for a spectator and how it will work for the player simultaneously. And one of the nice things about that is it actually means that if you do that, if you focus on both, as we tried to do in Baby Steps, it means that games are really nice for kind of hot seat play in the living room with families. And I've heard from a lot of people who said that playing Baby Steps, they had a wonderful experience with like five people playing handing off the controller. It's certainly something we observed when we were play testing it as well. And I think that comes from a kind of an orientation to understanding that kind of stream. Spectators will always be there. I mean, it seems good. I'm happy to have a kind of a broader conception of who the audience is.

Joe Nash (39:25)

Yeah, I've never gotten a sense of how many of the players is, but. So I had a thing with Obra Dinn, where I played Obra Dinn, and I was like, that was amazing. That was incredible. I wish I could erase my brain and play it again fresh. And I had a similar experience of getting over it. But my reaction to that experience in both cases was like, I now want to see someone else go through this for the first time. And I think that those people in streaming get often unfortunately labeled as like the backseaters and like banned and told to go away. But I do, I think that is a like getting over it. I think a lot of the joy is like seeing someone encounter the narration for the first time, seeing someone get bodied by it for the first time. And actually quite a few people have played it and that's. They play it and then go seek a stream out to see someone get that bit.

Bennett Foddy (40:04)

That's interesting. Yeah, no, I didn't think about that. But yeah, we do that with movies too, don't we? Yeah, like if we really love a movie, we want to be able to discuss it with people and we want to be able to share the experience. So yeah, there is a kind of amount of experience sharing like that as well.

Joe Nash (40:18)

But yeah, I guess on the subject of people doing unexpected things in the game, they books perfectly speedrunning. And I guess a very similar question we've had game developers who have spoken about not intentionally putting in sequence breaks, but as they're designing a level thinking about, okay, how are speedrunners going to engage with this? Is that something that's factoring in at all? What was the current record for getting over it? I think is disgusting. But how's baby steps looking?

Bennett Foddy (40:38)

Baby steps? I think the glitchless record is something like 45 minutes now, which is crazy. It's really for a game that you just have to actually take steps in if you're playing glitchlessly. The glitchy one is something like eight minutes. I think it's gotten down to about that little.

Joe Nash (40:53)

The joy of physics based games.

Bennett Foddy (40:55)

Getting over it. Glitchless is like, yeah, 45 seconds. Glitchy is faster. I'm not so interested in the glitchy runs. My preference would be to patch out the glitches. I don't think that you should. I think whatever you've shipped, if it becomes the tech that the speedrunners are using to kind of compete for better times, you kind of have to leave those bugs in because. Because that becomes the little platform of play that they're doing. Unless it's kind of ruining anybody's experience. But you really have to search for the glitch that the eight minute speedrunners are doing. Yeah, I mean I think about this stuff a lot. I was aware of it and thinking about it when I was making getting over it. I think speedrun culture had already entered the mainstream in 2016, 2017. Every time I would play test it at NYU, somebody would say, oh, speedrunners are going to love this. I'd be like, okay, well got to think about that a little bit and try to sort of support that. I don't know exactly what the requirements are. I guess to make a Speedrun or be interested, it needs to not be too random of an experience. If they have to kind of reroll all the time, they don't like that too much. It's good if you leave the possibility of skips open. So yeah, I mean when we made Baby steps, for example, Baby Steps has no invisible walls, give or take. There's like one or two situations in the dark area where we have to do that to stop you from getting soft locked. But in the open world there's no invisible walls. Very, very rare for an open world game. And we just assume like a network security admin assuming that every password is automatically compromised, we assume that every cliff is compromised, every difficult area, rock wall, whatever it might be, you have to assume that they're all compromised and you make the game work. Allowing for that, I think that's how you support speedrunners as best you can is to make sure that the game doesn't crash and doesn't fall over if they do something that's not expected. I think I love that approach as a designer just in really in general. I think about one of the things that I found most inspiring was learning about some of the exploits people use in Spelunky. Spelunky is a game that has certain kind of things that look like they should be invincible. There's an invincible ghost that gets you if you take too long. There are invincible walls, etc. But it turns out everything in that game just has health and the invincible things just have a ton of health. That's such a good way to approach design is to never use absolutes, right? Like just to always kind of leave the door ajar just a tiny bit for people to exploit things. So yeah, speedrunning, it's a nice way to kind of re see your work, to see people again, like reconfiguring it or reconceptualizing it in a different way. Speedrunning makes a game into a different type of game in a way, for the most part they're taking different pleasure from it immediately becomes its own type of Thing it is one of the great beauties of games that they support so many different types of play. Like T. Nguyen, the philosopher who's been book out on games, has this idea that what's special about them is that they're unfinished, that they need to be completed by the players. I actually think this is true to some extent of all artwork. It's always the audience that completes things. Certainly true of architecture, for example, but it is particularly true of games. Right. And I think it's important to say that it's true because we do. And one of the weird things about being a game designer is you're so in control of the world and the rules and all the nouns and verbs that you can get led into a power fantasy of being able to control people's experience. And be able. Like, as long as I polish this enough and I control it enough, I can make sure everybody's having the intended experience and you can't, I think. And it's better to proceed with that assumption from the jump, staying on getting

Joe Nash (44:38)

over it for a second. Then I've got enough question about paper steps, but getting over it. Obviously the full title is Getting over at Bennett Foddy and you narrate it and you bait the player a lot. You've done the fantastic GC talk about that decision. But I guess in terms of putting your name on a game and directly engaging with the player in that way, was the reaction what you expected? Did it work as intended?

Bennett Foddy (44:54)

I think it did. I think it did. It doesn't for everybody, especially the people who are experiencing the game through streams where the audio is muted. It's not going to work in that way. The idea, what I want is to create an experience that feels like the player is in communion with the designer in some sort of way. Not in a way where I'm controlling their experience, but in a way where they sense me as a human being present in the work and putting my name as part of that. But then also just have this narration that starts formal and becomes more intimate through the course of play and try to forge that intimacy by finding points of aesthetic or emotional commonality between me and the player. And I do that by gating, right? Like, basically, like, if you got this far, it means that you must have been enjoying it. Right? Like. And if you're enjoying it, let's talk about what that means. And I think that we have the same taste. I do think that worked. I get a lot of email from people who felt something with that and I. I'm very happy about that. So we can sometimes get people to feel a certain type of experience. We hear from people who played Baby Steps who had some of the kind of intended feelings about that stuff as well. We wanted people to interrogate why and how they play games and why they persevere and what that's really about, and to kind of question their own orientation to getting instructions and getting help and all these sort of different things that we could call masculine types of play, both for men and women. And I've heard from a lot of people playing Baby Steps that it made them reflect on stuff in those sorts of ways. So we do at least get some people to have the experience that we want. We don't have to give up on intention completely, but we just have to have a kind of a loose grip.

Joe Nash (46:37)

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So that's baby steps. I think the post Flash styled games, you have an aesthetic that really describes me as Gary's mod. Maybe I just described too many things as podcasts as Garry's mod, but it feels like Default Assets and Half Naked man in a Pot. And the Baby Steps guy really gives me Attack on Titan Guy vibes. What drives that aesthetic? Where does that come from?

Bennett Foddy (46:59)

I think at first it was a practical consideration. I was making getting over it and I was like, well, I have to control the scope of this somehow. I really love pottering around with 3D art and especially effects art. I could just spend forever rat holing on one visual effect like Lucas Pope does, except that he's much faster and more skilled than me, so it's maybe not such a problem for him. But even in his case, you can see, like, the real pleasure for him is in making like a special effect or a shader look just a particular way. But if I do that, then getting over it takes me 25 years to finish. So I was like, well, how am I going to do this? And then from that point, I was trying a couple different things. I had an early prototype that was like it was all going to be cutouts from historic furniture magazines and jewelry magazines. Like trying to get photographs from high budget magazine ads, cut them out and then make the world out of that. Didn't really like how it looked. Wasn't quite working. But I think from there I realized that if it's going to be kind of like detritus in this way, that assets would actually work fine like 3D, especially free 3D assets, which tend to be a very mixed quality. And a lot of the ideas in the game, the narration, actually flow from how that looked rather than in the other direction. Right. Like, so you might think that I picked an art style to kind of match the mountain of trash idea, but actually came the. It was in the other direction. So it started as a scope constraint and it kind of inspired a set of ideas in the kind of theoretical realm. Yeah, it's interesting to me. I just. To me it's something that is so. Like, there are so many games that are made out of assets now fact. Like, if you're playing the Final Fantasy remakes, you see many of the same megascans plants that are also in the Resident Evil remake that are also in baby steps, you know, like there's not that many different repositories of assets out there. And they are in fact being used not just by cheap or free games on Steam or on Itch, what we call an asset flip, but by things with massive budgets. Now it's just kind of like universal and it has its own set of cultural significance. Right? Like meaning. There's ways of meaning when you use off the shelf parts that it's just kind of visually suggestive of a certain set of things. Right. For getting over it. Particularly the fact that all of the assets are from different free repositories and they don't all sit together. Right. They don't look like they're from the same reality. It gives a kind of a collage or a kind of bricolage sense of. Of unreality or of. Of surrealism. That that is. That is flowing out. And that I started to like. And I guess I started to think while I was doing it, well, this could be beautiful actually to my. By my own lights, you know. Of course, every visual artist thinks their own work is good looking. I don't feel like other people have to feel like that about getting over it. But when I was making it, I was like, I can make this look nice, even though each of the individual assets is kind of horrible looking. And that became very interesting to me. Then we kind of kept doing it in baby steps just because if nothing else, it allows you like. One of the nice things about working in 3D is you can just like from thought to reality very, very quickly. You want to have somebody be like, well, we want a school bus in this game. She didn't actually make the cut, but you can have a school bus pop it in the game, round trip, you know, two, three minutes. You can see if that's a good idea. Oh, it turns out it's not a good idea. So we'll cut it Right. It gives you fluidity. So it does commit you to a certain type of set of aesthetics. You can't do this in a kind of a cartoon aesthetic or a painterly aesthetic or a 2D aesthetic or anything like that. It commits you to kind of like low mid budget contract studio looking stuff. But it's still possible to make that look nice, I think.

Joe Nash (50:59)

Yeah, absolutely. It's a beautiful game. So obviously I mentioned as well your collaboration with Gabe and being a former student, I guess I just want to ask straight up, how did being a game designer alongside your practice teaching game designs, how did those two things work out? It seems like you've kicked game designs around with students and obviously students have gone on to be professional collaborators and it's gone very well.

Bennett Foddy (51:19)

Yeah, I mean I made a couple of games with AP Thompson, made one for the iPhone called Slide the Blocks to Ascent, which I tried to put the tutorial in the title. And we made one called Multiball. And then, yeah, I should say I helped Gabe to finish Ape out and that went really well. I was really kind of happy with how that was going. So we went on to make baby steps together. The thing that I miss about universities is that there is a kind of an intellectual and creative community that you kind of get for free. You get very interesting people coming to ask to do an independent study with you because they have some interesting project and they show it to you and you can just immediately sort of jump into like a fascinating and interesting mutually beneficial situation. The class that I liked the most was a class where students would make a different game every week for the whole semester and you just get this kind of fire hose of interesting ideas. And it's not like I was stealing the students ideas, although I do think there is a statute of limitations on that. If they haven't used an idea after like five or six years, I feel like I should be able to steal them. But no, I mean, I think that the sense of being part of a kind of live creative community where ideas are bubbling around and there's kind of like an economy of ideas floating around. I really miss that. So yeah, I think it's tough. I mean there's not too many. I can say this without sounding too shady. There's not too many games. Academics who are actually publishing games at the same time. And of course there are some very prolific ones. Paolo Petticini down from Pittsburgh and cmu and I think about Eric Zimmerman at nyu and Frank Lance also made universal paperclips while he was at nyu. There are some exceptions to this rule. But the great majority of people teaching video game design are not publishing a lot of games. And I understand that because obviously teaching takes a lot of effort and games takes a lot of effort and it's difficult from a point of view of like breaking your attention. One of the things people generally need to make video games is uninterrupted focus. And it's tough to do that when students are running into your office all the time or you have to kind of keep on putting things down to go and teach a class. But for me, even given that it was still, I think the kind of balance of how it was working was that it was generative, it was kind of more inspiring and energizing than it was a distracting and draining of time. But having said that, there's only certain types of things you can do and I can do a game like getting over it in that context, you know, which is small scope. It took me about a year alongside full time teaching load. I couldn't do a thing like baby steps like that. Right. There's just too, too much work and they. I think one of the things people don't understand if they're not game developers is that the difference in the amount of work between those two types of projects is titanic. You know, it's not like a 4x difference, it's like a 20x difference. Just in the amount of iteration that you have to do, how long it takes to kind of prop up each individual system. All of that stuff is just really kind of titanically different. When people talk about there being foddy in games, I don't even think that the kind of unifying thing is that they're rage games. I think it's that they are really, really small scoped in a very particular way. Right. It's like one level, it's like one system in one level. That's a way that you can keep it very small. So yeah, there's some things you can't do in the academy and that's why I'm not in there anymore. But I do miss that sense of community and I think we will be kind of eternally looking for ways to get it back without being in the academ.

Joe Nash (54:52)

Yeah, it's beautiful. Well, not that you can't have it, but the sentiment. You did mention multiball, which funnily enough, multiball was the genesis of this episode because I only very recently heard of it and was immediately upset I couldn't play it. But obviously, you know, I found out the reasons for that, etc. But then also, you know, you seem to have been fairly aware of that in creating it. Like, how was the experience, I guess, of creating this thing that would only ever be like exhibited and performed rather than released?

Bennett Foddy (55:18)

For people who haven't played multiball, which is most people, it's a kind of a pastiche of emulated games. I played something like 1500 different two player arcade computer console games using MAME. MAME is an emulator that now emulates basically every system from history. So I was really able to kind of go through just a ton of them. And I winnowed that down to about 300, 310 games where I would capture a moment in that game as a save state. Like somebody's about to score a goal, somebody's about to shoot somebody, somebody's about to win a point. And then with the help of A.P. thompson, we wove them together into a kind of like a randomized gauntlet. So I'm now playing against you. It's going to drop us into an exciting moment in a game and we're going to play like 10 seconds until somebody scores a point and then it's going to drop us into another game. So it's like the WarioWare of multiplayer games in a way, but it's also like a trip through history in a way that warioware isn't. And I had that idea bouncing around for years and it wasn't until I had a conversation with AP about it where he seemed to think it wouldn't be that hard to do the technical side, at least for him. Very, very gifted engineer. And MAME is actually set up to do this kind of thing because it has like built in debugging tools and has like automated debugging stuff built in. So what I need to do then was I needed to play all these games, find these save states, that's the easy part, and then go into the debugger and try to figure out which variables change when you score a goal. Like which variables change when you touch the ground, when you shoot somebody, whatever it is. And I had never done anything like this before, but as I got more and more into it, I went into a sort of like a weird obsessive state that I don't think I've ever been in before. When I've been making games, it got like just fixated. Every day I'd be like, ah, I'm gonna do like five more of these. And I would like be like just trying desperately to kind of sometimes if it's like a Commodore 64 game. There's like variables that are hidden in the audio CPU instead of some little pocket of RAM that's not supposed to be used. Or sometimes the really old, like the Intellivision games, it's like the score is not actually stored anywhere. It's kind of like encoded in the graphics memory that's used to display the score. And there's all these little tricks that you discover. And so because it's kind of fascinating, detective game itself just kind of like figuring out how to detect when somebody has scored a point in an emulator. So yeah, we made this experience that you can kind of play as a kind of like a meta multiplayer game, but you can't really release it, of course, because it depends. Even the save states have a lot of like copyrighted code in them and so on. And the ROMs that it depends on, the ROM files are also obviously you can't distribute. So we settled for being able to show it at parties and in other kind of like reasonable fair use situations. And is it one of my favorite things that I've ever worked on? Honestly, it's a very unusual experience. And the reason that I love it is that it gets to the heart of what I like as a player, which is the moment when you're trying to figure out, oh, what does this joystick do? What does this button do? What am I doing right here? How do I play this game? It's that little moment of not being sure how to do it. That's what I love. And in multiball, it's just keeping you in that going like again and again and again. Like, hey, here's a new experience. Here's a new experience. Like, you figure out who you are, for starters, figure out who you're controlling, figure out how the controller works, figure out what the rules are.

Joe Nash (58:46)

Yeah. And all that in a multiplayer scenario, head to head as well, right?

Bennett Foddy (58:50)

Yeah. Because the other person is trying to do it at the same time and you're trying to just do it a little bit faster than them. I love that feeling of being at sea. And I think Multiball kind of produces that feeling better than anything else that I've made.

Joe Nash (59:03)

Yeah, it sounds fantastic. Yeah, great idea as well. And also. Yeah, absolutely. We've had quite a few emulator developers or people have ported to emulators on here. And it's like, you know what you were just hitting on about the detective games. Like some of the things we've heard is just like as a programmer, you're just like, I Don't know how anyone invented that. That's absurd. So I can imagine that being very addicting while we're talking about, I guess kind of, I don't say low level, but like, you know, different kinds of systems. We did mention Zipper earlier. So Zipper is a game for Playdate, which is a show favorite here. We've had them on as well. And Zipper was one of the season one games that I must admit I didn't get very far in because it did completely body me. Tell us about Zipper because before I ask you, I guess the main question,

Bennett Foddy (59:39)

it's definitely outside of my wheelhouse. So it started as a Flash game back in 2008 or so. I had made a little prototype in Flash which same art style, same kind of visual aesthetic. But making turn based games is a totally different skill set than making physics games. And I just didn't have the skills and so I kind of shelved that until about 2015. Cable from panic pitched me making a game for this thing which he said would be out in a year, which was not the case. But yeah, it seemed like a kind of a fun thing to do as a lark and it seemed like the perfect time and place to resurrect the little turn based samurai game that I had come up with. But yeah, I mean to me that was interesting mainly as like coming as a novice into what is effectively board game design, into grid based tactics game design, and to try to bring my own sensibility to that, which I did by creating kind of an input scheme that's unobvious and a kind of traversal scheme that's unobvious. In Zipper, you kill enemies by dashing past them or up to them. Very, very like in the blink of an eye. In a way, I have to confess is inspired by the anime Bleach, which is not a, you know, I can't stand behind Bleach, but I do love the aesthetics of the combat in that it's like a hyper exaggeration of a Kurosawa movie. And I just was trying to kind of like in a turn based format get this sense of like speed, of like blink of an eye movement. And I think it came out okay. I still don't consider myself to be a good designer of tactics games though.

Joe Nash (61:15)

Yeah, I mean I loved it. I thought it was very hard. But yeah, I thought it was really good. And it actually took me many years to realize that you had made it as well, which is a problem. I have a lot with a lot of playdate games. So I think you you know, you succeeded stepping into a different genre as it was. But I guess what I wanted to ask you is you did Flash, which is obviously like some script and I believe baby steps and getting over it at Unity.

Bennett Foddy (61:35)

Yep.

Joe Nash (61:36)

How was the experience of developing for the playdate?

Bennett Foddy (61:38)

I actually loved it. I mean, so the playdate is kind of a minimal API and Lua, which makes it a lot like making Pico 8 games, which I also love. What I love about it is I love not having anything provided. What do I mean by that? Well, there's something that's kind of aesthetically gross when you are making a game that just needs very, very kind of like minor. Let's say I'm making a Pico 8 game and I decide I need a particle system. And my particle system, it can really just be a table of XY coordinates and I can just draw a pixel at those XY coordinates and update. Maybe the table has velocities on them, maybe the table has lifetimes on them. It's just an array and the code I need to traverse that array and move the particles around is like three lines long. So if I compare that to working in Unity where the particle system is like probably a million lines of code and it does like a zillion things which I might want to use, but most of the time I don't. There's a sense of just like inelegance to that or of kind of gross like bloat that I can't escape because it wanted to be all things to all people. Now I'm not a good enough programmer to make a Unity style particle system myself, but if it's 2D games, if it's something like the Playdate or Pico 8 or whatever, even Game Maker, of course it's not very complicated to do something like that. And so I love the sense of only having what I need. And real programmers hate LUA because it's slow. And to be honest, getting zipper working at a reasonable speed on the playdate wasn't easy because there's pathfinding and that, you know, it just doesn't have any CPU and LUA has a lot of weird gotchas in it. Like depending if you, if you traverse an array this way but not this way, suddenly it's slow or, and now you use too many globals or not enough globals, or you gotta try to move these globals inside this table and your metatable, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's as boring and nerdy and stupid as writing in C. And Maybe I should have just written the whole thing in C. But I love Lua because it's so easy to iterate and so much of what I consider to be good game design is about having a tight loop on having an idea and having it running. And when I was making my cricket game for the iPhone in 2008, it's a very, very early iPhone API and didn't really have anything, it's just OpenGL and Objective C. But in Objective C in particular, if I want to add anything, I now have to make a separate class and an interface to the class and I have to do all of this like and so like just the smallest idea taking an hour to be able to get it to happen. Whereas in Lua, oh, my particle class doesn't have a field that I want. I'm just going to access it as though it exists, you know. And now it exists. And this is such a messy bad tech debt generating stuff. But for small games tech debt is not really a problem. In fact, it's so quick to work on the playdate, so quick to work in Pico 8 that if you start to feel you've got tech debt, you just start again and reimple implement from scratch and the tech debt has all gone away. So Yeah, I love Lua, I love JavaScript, I love these high level things, I don't love having to optimize them when it turns out that they're too slow. Like that sucks. But if you're working in the kind of turn based land or in kind of very simple stuff then generally computers are fast, you know, and don't do anything too silly, then you can really work in a very free flowing way in those systems. And so the playdate, yeah, knowing exactly this is the hardware target, this is how fast it's going to be, this is how much memory you have, all of that, that stuff. There's something kind of very freeing about it. Right. Like just really takes a lot of the kind of shit work out of game development and I, I did enjoy working on that device a lot.

Joe Nash (65:29)

Yeah, for sure. I really like that. Yeah, Pico 8's another great call out for that.

Narrator (65:32)

Really.

Joe Nash (65:32)

Yeah, just constraints again. Constraints are good. We like constraints. Yeah. All right, I kept you far too long. So my last question, and you are free to turn down this question, but you have said fairly recently in response to the character design in baby steps that working on character design and animation brings you over into liking big butts and that you, and I quote, had a lot of evidence for this. Please Present your case before the jury.

Bennett Foddy (65:55)

Well, it's hard to do that without visual evidence, but I would invite people to look at, for example, old Bugs Bunny cartoons. Bugs Bunny does a lot of flashing his bottom to the camera. There's a lot of, like, looking over his shoulder when he doesn't need to be looking over his shoulder. There's a lot of turning around. And then as he turns around, his bottom is, like, pointing at the camera for much longer than it ought to be. And once you notice it in Bugs Bunny, you'll start to notice it in Mickey Mouse, you'll start to notice it in anime, you'll notice it. Basically, everything that you look at, 2D animation, 3D animation, you start to notice that the gaze of the animator is much more on the glutes of the characters than you think it might need to be, or that it might be if you were using A and kind of live action. I don't know why this is true, but it is kind of true. And I think it's particularly bad for game animators and character designers because we spend so long we have the character in T pose or an A pose, and we sort of rotating around them and adjusting them. And then, you know, like, I just think naturally, there's a kind of a natural focus towards their butt in the end. I guess part of it is that it's an affordance of the technology, is that their computers, 3D graphics cards are very good at representing bottoms in a way that they're not necessarily for other targets of the sexual gaze. And so I would just invite anybody who's skeptical about that claim. Start looking at other video games, start looking where the camera points in the 3D over the shoulder games that you're playing. Start looking at what is more lovingly animated and where the triangles have been put, all of that sort of stuff. It's definitely not just me, although I didn't restrain myself particularly much.

Joe Nash (67:52)

I'm thoroughly convinced. All right, Bennett, thank you so much. It's been delightful. And yeah, thank you for joining us.

Bennett Foddy (67:59)

Thanks for having.