Do you think there's a prettier game out there than the jet-skiing I've made for DOAX2? Obviously the concept is the same as the first game, but I think if you take each part and look at it as is, you'll find there's no better example of it on the market. And that's how I intended things to be when I made this game.

I think that there is a bit of misunderstanding in terms of the smaller mini-games, like the Butt Battle and Tug-Of-War. This is all kind of coming from a ... tradition if you will... a series of TV shows in Japan where you had bikini models, athletic competition where you'd have bikini models doing those kinds of things. It's almost kind of a joke, a throwback to that, something to make you laugh. And so, maybe in the U.S. there wasn't that kind of TV show, that kind of culture, so maybe people sit down and looked at those mini-games and studied them seriously as a real game, but that really wasn't our intention when we put them in. ["Ha ha ha, I was just joking with the sucky parts! Sheesh!" --Fussbett]

If you think about the activities that give you the most money in the game, it's the volleyball and the jet skiing. We're particularly proud of the jet skiing, and I think if you take that jet ski game on its own, there's nothing that can beat it in that genre. What I want to say is that if you take this game and play it for what it is, that you'll really enjoy it. I know that there's a ton of DOA fans out there right now playing this game and enjoying it. And I want to take this opportunity to thank them, these are the really hardcore fans and that's who I made this game for.

So when it came time to discuss the design philosophy for DOAX2 my first thought was out of all the people that bought the first game in the U.S. -- of which there were quite a bit -- I don't think all of them were satisfied with it. And I think the reason the first game sold well was because the concept was new, but because people were buying and enjoying it. I don't think that everybody who bought the game truly understood what made it fun. So that was the first thing I thought about when approaching the second game.

Basically I had to go back and think "what were some elements in the first game that people didn't understand," in other words what were some areas we could have done better. It's the same thing I did with Dead or Alive 1 -- I went back and looked at what people might not be satisfied with, what might be some problems with this game? So then you go back and solve all of those and that's how you get Dead or Alive 2, which I thought was a polished game for the time. And I believe we were successful in that. Aside from a few areas, I think we were successful in accomplishing that. I think for the most part we were successful at looking at what people in the U.S. might not be satisfied with, removing the aspect of a girl throwing away a gift in the trash and losing it -- which was added to give the original game a different feel, but it didn't necessarily correspond well to the people playing the game. So I think we did well in recognizing those areas and trying to fix them before putting out DOAX2.

You know, everybody thinks their own child is cute, and this game feels like a daughter to me. ["Each daughter I create is sexier than the last!" --Fussbett] What I will say is that I don't typically look back on the games in an objective way until it's been at least three months since release, at which point I'll begin to look back and consider things. There's no particular logic to the 'three months' rule, it's just the way I've always been. For some reason, three months after a game has come out and instead of the game being a cute child, I can actually sit down and see its imperfections. But generally some time has to pass. I think the biggest issue I have with people and their reactions to the game is that not enough people are getting their hands on it. There's a great majority of people out there who once they get their hands on it will actually enjoy it.

I’d like to show everybody some of the new stuff that we’ve been working on in the near future. The only problem with that is that when the other developers see what we’re doing, they’re going to lose all of their motivation to create any game in the same genre, because there’s no way they can beat it.

...

I think as a result of what we do, a lot of times our games tend to be more on the difficult side. It probably just comes from a natural desire for challenge. When I play a game, I want to be challenged by it. That might not always be intentional, but I think it just kind of feeds into that desire to be challenged. I talk about this a lot, but I wouldn’t want to go into a cabbage field with a big knife or a scythe or something and just start cutting down thousands and thousands of heads of cabbage. That’s not something I would find fun. I do think there are probably some people out there who want that kind of experience when playing a game. That’s why, when it comes down to the number of enemies on-screen, I’d rather have good enemies than just a lot of enemies. That’s why I don’t buy into the philosophy of, “Look! We have a thousand heads of cabbage on screen at once, isn’t this great?!”

...

I haven’t seen [the Dead or Alive movie]. I’ve just been looking at the reactions my fans have had to the movie. I haven’t been involved whatsoever in the movie. Ever since the movie was announced, all I’ve said was that I just wanted them to make something that wouldn’t be disappointing to the fans. Looking at the reactions, some have liked it and others didn’t—I think that’s just the way it is.

I respect the people who are in the movie business, and they have experience doing what they do. Once again, I just wanted to make sure that it was something that wouldn’t disappoint the fans, and that was the only place that I had input. If western audiences haven’t had a chance to see it yet, I would be interested to see what they thought when it comes out. Our art director did see the movie, and he said, “It’s not bad for what it is.” He likes movies.