Jonathan Blow Interview: "No Compromises"
Posted by Derek Yu Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:17:00 GMT
Matthew Boyd (Three Panel Soul), who interviewed Tarn Adams for Kwanzoo.com about a month ago, just did another, shorter, interview with Jonathan Blow, where they discuss Braid, Microsoft, and the nature of being an independent developer.
I feel like there is enough compromise in the game industry. Everyone compromises on everything all the time. If I want to make something different, that really stands out, then a good way to do that is to not compromise. Plus, compromise does not suit my personality very well. It tastes bad.
In the past, I’ve noticed that before Braid was released, some people have took issue with Jon being vocal about his opinions regarding the games industry and the development process. Has that changed at all for you guys?
In any case, I’m digging these interviews. Keep ‘em up, Matt!
He is like Zarathustra from Nietzsche’s novel, waiting 30 years in his cave and then bursting out into society to spread his wisdom.
Also in the book, no one cared.
”..some people have took issue with Jon being vocal about his opinions regarding the games industry and the development process. Has that changed at all for you guys?”
In short, no. While I think he has good things to say about as often as he comes off as elitist and ignorant, I don’t think the fact that he has made a great game changes the value of what he’s said. This since the issues I had with the parts I thought was bad wasn’t that the points themselves where bad, rather that they present a very narrow-minded view of the games industry.
I can see this changing now, however, since he seems to be taking in the feedback he gets from Braid to at least some degree. I think he’s clever enough to see it all in a bigger picture and if he just thinks back to how he reacts to this criticism when he start dishing out his own, he might be more humble.
Wait … how is he like Zarathustra? He talks constantly!
Anyway, nice interview :) Taking issue with someone for having strong opinions is kinda silly, I hope people are more relaxed than that.
“Compromise does not suit my personality very well.”
ooooh, what a bad-ass. Way to be modest, Blow.
“Plus, compromise does not suit my personality very well.”
Yeah, yeah, we get it. You’re an uppity douche-bag.
Or maybe he just takes pride in his work.
OR maybe he’s an uppity douche-bag. For a quick reference, check that picture he posed for above. QED
What’s up with everyone bashing Jon Blow all of the sudden?
Jon Blow bashing is not a new phenomenon.
Anyway, while I think Jon Blow has some interesting and important insights on the game industry, he would do well to be less arrogant about it.
I am not sure what all the hype is about with this game. While Blow has nailed down some interesting variations on the Mario theme and managed to roll into a mature setting, I am not convinced that this is the ground breaking independent project that people are trying to make it out to be.
I think any time anybody completes a half decent game on their own in this day of multimillion dollar game development, we immediately assume there is some sort of genius at work. But this is how it was done back when gaming was in it’s infancy. Single man development, no studios and these guys were pioneering game elements…many of which Blow lifted for his own game.
I don’t believe there are any truly original concepts in Braid, just some very smart mixing of existing elements. And I have trouble with people who dismiss the Sands of Time or Mario as not being a major influence. I would hazard that once a game concept such as time manipulation is out there and implemented in a form that can be analyzed, it becomes very easy to adapt that concept to your own projects. That’s all Blow has done with Braid, and at the end of the day it’s what Mak did with Everyday Shooter.
We have to stop acting like these guys are the gods of gaming and recognize that many of the supposed original ideas these guys are supposedly creating have been lifted from the mainstream studios they so often reference as the downfall of gaming.
P.S Say what you will but Fez (another game being over idolized) is just reworking of Paper Mario…hopefully you see the trend here.
I disagree, Joel. Johnathan Blow not only invented nonlinear plotlines and surprise endings, but time itself, for use in his game Braid. Therefore, he deserves to be showered with mancrushes.
I think whether we succeed or fail at making something interesting or original, the most important thing is never to try and just to accept the way things are.
Also, try not to have too many opinions or care about things. The news told me that only elitists have opinions, and that I should just let rich, corporate people take care of everything for me.
no, elitists call their own games special while breaking down most of all the other games in existence.
opinions have nothing to do with it.
I’ve heard Jon Blow discuss something like three other games in a negative light in lectures, mostly to bring up points about things he didn’t like. Three games are hardly ‘most of the games in existence.’ Anyway, it isn’t elitist to dislike some games, to think some things have worked and some haven’t.
There isn’t anything wrong with being opinionated, but I do think there’s something wrong with taking part in a culture which encourages mediocrity, and becomes terrified whenever anyone expresses an opinion, overcome by this “don’t rock the boat” hysteria.
It’s fine to disagree with his opinions on any number of points pertaining to those opinions, but if you disagree simply because he’s an ‘elitist’ then you’ve just bought into a bunch of brain-washing designed to keep you stupid and docile. Yay!
No one’s terrified by Blow’s magnificent presence, and there’s no elaborate government conspiracy to keep people from liking him. They’re just sick of his moaning.
But please, by all means, don’t let the brainwashed sheeple stop you from fantasizing about him.
Of course it isn’t a fucking conspiracy. The word is thrown around on the news constantly specifically because it works. From overuse, it has become enough to accuse someone of being ‘elitist’ instead of having to actually deal with an issue. This doesn’t require a shady mastermind behind the scenes, it requires enough utility in the mechanism for it to be used over and over again until it becomes a convenient crutch that reinforces the status quo.
No one is making a single point about how he’s wrong about this or about that: everyone’s just pissed off that he gives talks and cares about shit in a world where this is unpopular.
The allegation of ‘conspiracy nutjob’ is a similar idea. Did someone hold your hand and make you type that? No, but you wrote it all the same because it makes you feel justified in dismissing someone’s opinion without addressing it.
You didn’t invent the idea of accusing me of being a batshit conspiracy theorist, but you’ve seen it around enough to have co-opted it, since you find it useful.
Stay puft everyone, I am taking the next marshmallow tractor to the horsehead nebula.
MrBlow is a skilled game developer and deserves credit. However, he has a much greater skill in underground marketing. Telling journalists “the man” is evil and he’s “fighting for creativity and innovation” - damn! It’s like feeding candy to a baby, they just eat it up! He’s my hero, very few indies know how to do viral marketing and journalist wrangling and opinion making. Introversion are probably the only other I can think of, but he’s the master of this particular technique.
I personally think Behemoth’s marketing plan is more honest. They have a consistent style, very visible at conventions, free web games, merchandise, consistent quality. It’s a slower process, but they’ve built a bigger following i.e. castle crashers seeming to sell quite a bit more than Braid. Yet, in truth and under a harsh microscope it’s a gorgeous but simple and somewhat repetitive game with a fair few bugs.
Making a good game is a vital but minor element of the marketing recipe. Study these marketing gods carefully and take note.
I seriously don’t get all the hostility towards this guy. Not one bit.
Dismissing Braid as an interesting variation of Mario and Sands of Time can only come from someone who didn’t play the game.
Yes, he comes off as a zen-kung-fu-feng-shuei master, but just because he loves the sound of his own voice it doesn’t mean he can’t do a great game.
I think people probably just envy him a LOT as I do not see why bashing him or his ideas would be appropriate in whatever possible way.
While I may agree with about 80% or more of what he says most of the time, I don’t think anything he ever said was plain bullshit or bashing for the sake of bashing or hearing his own voice.
“Plus, compromise does not suit my personality very well.”
Didn’t he spend like £150,000 on braid… NOT AN INDEPENDENT GAME!
ITT butthurt whiners.
Is anyone else amazed someone with the last name Blow managed to get through school with a such a high sense of self?
..sigh.. people are such pussies for whining over someone having a strong opinion.
Let’s see the score list:
Blow has voiced his opinion and backed it up with analysis for what he feels is valuable in a game. On top of that he’s deeply passionable what he does.
The typical Blow critic (not all) has expressed disdain for blow’s arguments becouse they are.. elitistic?.. and why is this… ?… anyone?!… huh?
..And for the record, if you want to blame someone for elitism; you can blame me.. You snively little disagreeing, life-wasting, sacks of no good sofa potatoes!
yawn
Braid was pretty short and nothing all that fantastic. Just a puzzle game with a dumb and pretentious story.
Maybe with a puzzle editor and a little less adherence to his fruity little dream-story, it would be good.
Didn’t he spend like £150,000 on braid… NOT AN INDEPENDENT GAME!
So now spending money to hire people makes it non-independent? That’s a rather close minded idea. It’s similar to arguing that only free games are truly indie… not true.
Is anyone else amazed someone with the last name Blow managed to get through school with a such a high sense of self?
I don’t think he would be teased that much, (sort of) knowing how he has been into martial arts and stuff for just about whole his life.
On the other hand, perhaps the contrary is true and therefore he became how he is now. Wouldn’t be much of a surprise either way really.
To make use of a tired internet jokememe: Random internet blowhards dislike high-achieving intellectual. Film at 11.
This guy is amazing. He can say the most inoffensive thing ever, and people will still be baying for his blood.
I remember when he had the nerve to say that the Prince Of Persia games didn’t do much with time manipulation other than use it as a replacement for extra lives, which was completely true (and didn’t stop them from being great games, either), but it still enraged a lot of people.
It’s fascinating how ‘I don’t like to compromise’ becomes an amazingly offensive and elitist statement when this guy says it, but from anyone else, nobody would even raise an eyebrow.
To those getting upset at everything Jon Blow utters, you really do need to get introspective for a moment. The reason for your anger probably has nothing to do with him - you’re just being irrational, and are searching desperately for something to get angry about.
Plenty of video game players love martial arts but would suck in a fight, and most of them probably got more shit. Anyway if he was going around punching everyone who made a joke about him that says plenty by itself.
Despite all this pseudo-psychology, I don’t have anything against the guy as I don’t know him, and I tend to agree with the few things he’s said. Personally I’d rather have an uppity elitist douche bag than just some jerk who wants money anyway.
Can someone clarify what he actually did to make people so mad at him because he seems like a pretty reasonable guy to me..?
Jonathan Blow and rabid bashers! Together, they fight crime!
In all his criticisms of other games I’ve read, well heard actually; I’m talking about his GDC talks, he’s specifically pointed out how much he admires the games he’s talking about. The criticisms are usually centered on things like not taking an idea to its logical conclusion, or compromising on an idea for it to fit in a more conventional game.
People seem to be mistaking criticism for bashing. Bashing is what people do to unpopular games because there’s no repercussions.
The thing is though, caring about your own idea, nurturing it, even perhaps thinking that it’s a good idea isn’t pretentious or self-serious it’s just honest. It’s unhealthy to submerge yourself in false modesty when you’re passionate about something.
“Plus, compromise does not suit my personality very well.”
This comment about compromise is a direct attack on most other commercial games and it’s pretty cunty if you ask me.
Yeah, he has been lucky enough to be able to develop a game like Braid that had a pretty good budget all things considered, but let us see how he would handle working on a multi-million dollar high profile title, with suits breathing down his nech, asking for milestone builds and features to satisfy the latest trends the’ve learned about from some people who claim that “YOUR GAME NEEDS TO HAVE FEATURE X TO SUCCEED IN TODAYS MARKET”.
I realize he wouldn’t want to work on a game like that, because large teams and large budgets often mean loss of individual control, but some people has to…and not many developers are iD or 3D Reals and can keep until the game is perfect. Not fair, but that is unfortunately the way it works.
Just saying’…
He said compromise in the games industry, not that Warren Spector is some halfhearted developer that thought Deus Ex was just “good enough” (as an example).
I think commercial developers would ideally like to do without the suits’ opinions as well, just their money and support. If only developers got as much slack as the Duke Nukem Forever team…
i love jon blow.
plus, he could kick your ass.
@Sokurah, so the “latest trends” and “milestone builds” may not make the game any better but we should pat the developers to the back becouse it’s just so damn hard work?
Then again, so is working on a game with a small team, becouse your team might lack the muscle big companies have. And one person might have to have a broader area of responsibilities to cover.
..Both ways probably have their pros and cons.
In the end I’d rather spend my time with and pay for a game that actually compels me to play it, keeps my interest and entertains me. Latest mainstream trends just aren’t my thing. This is only a matter of a personal taste however.
“I realize he wouldn’t want to work on a game like that, because large teams and large budgets often mean loss of individual control, but some people has to…”
..No they don’t. If it’s so bad then they could pursue other interests. No one puts gun on their heads and forces them to work there.
So you’re just saying.. but I just didn’t get a grasp what you were aiming for?
@Sokura, If a cook works in a restourant where the chef treats his workers badly and has lousy conditions. I’m not going to tell him I loved his food if I didn’t.
“Didn’t he spend like £150,000 on braid… NOT AN INDEPENDENT GAME!”
Try to get hold of that much money on your own risk to make some game which could mean your bankruptcy if it don’t sell. THIS IS MORE INDIE THAN INDIE, SUCKER!
Don’t talk bad about Jon Blow or he’ll totally beat you up with his black belt on. Hiyaaaaa!
Whoever mentioned the fact that he ‘does martial arts’ is a complete and total douche-nozzle. That only gets a kid beat up 100 times more. Keep that in mind.
Comment threads like this one make me really disappointed with the internet. Seems like a lot of you guys are just waiting for the new thing to fuel your discontent. I think most of this random internet rudeness says more about the mentality of the net user (and video game enthusiast to be more precise) than Braid or Jonathan Blow or anybody else you’ve decided is hateworthy this weekend.
Jonathan Blow is making constructive and positive contributions to his field and the discussion around it and most of you guys aren’t. It’s not about elitism and it’s not about pretension, it’s just that: positive, negative. Don’t make the internet into more of a negativeland than it already is. If you don’t like something, have a reason for it other than ‘that guy ticks me off, what with all his… talking and stuff’.
Helm, you and Blow should hang out. You are both pretty fucking pretentious.
It’s interesting. Commercial game creation these days has become such a team-oriented undertaking that an “I don’t like compromise” attitude can’t possibly be helpful unless you’re either doing a game entirely by yourself, or in charge of a small group of like-minded individuals. It sounds like Blow has managed to put himself in that sort of position, which is good for him, but it sounds like he wouldn’t be terribly pleasant to work with.
Reading these comments is embarrassing, to say the least.
So, to sum up, he’s elitist because he doesn’t like some games and attempts to create a better one, he’s pretentious because he has opinions on things and he’s a douchebag because he doesn’t want to compromise his vision?
Riiight. Way to go, internet people.
I like his style as well as his arguments. Unfortunatelly, quite a lot of people cannot distinguish between self-confidence and arrogance - for those ants, any degree of valueing oneself or… gasp… seeing oneself as “above average” - regardless of it is justified or not - is illegal according to their slave-morale. They are even saying that themselves about themselves… their problem with him is not the validity of what he says, but “how” he says it. In other words: “It doesn’t matter if what you say is true and makes sense… the content doesn’t matter - all which matters is that you act and present yourself as if you are something special - which is forbidden.”
Pops, you are a pretty shitty troll. Go away.
To be fair, I think the guy is a little bit pompous, self-important, and humorless. But you know what? I also think he has some of the most inspiring ideas on game design and production I’ve heard in years. The fact that very few of his critics in this thread seem to be able to accurately represent his arguments and instead resort to setting up flimsy straw men speaks volumes. Guy may not be perfect, but he’s saying things that need to be said; and now he’s proved he can walk the walk while talking the talk.
@ corpus:
No, that’s not why he’s a douchebag. He’s a douchebag because he is a ‘martial artist’ and because of the way he poses for pictures.
Jenga, you are also a shitty troll. Go away.
Look, try to approach it with some modicum of intelligence. Don’t agree with his philosophies? That’s fine. I don’t agree with some of the things he says.
However, you have to respect him for having the balls to voice his opinion, and you should endeavour to at least consider it logically. Don’t dismiss it offhand or make inane ad hominem attacks.
As jsticker said elsewhere, what’s the point of only ever listening to people you agree with?
Few months ago, when he was just a guy making a pretty indie game, I wanted to ask: why do I have to love Job Blow?!
Now, when he’s a guy who made that pretty indie game, suddelny I need to ask: why do I have to hate Jon Blow?!
What did this guy did to be suddenly hated for the stuff he was loved few months ago? Umm… made a good game? Doesn’t sound too terrible to me, to be honest :/.
Wow shinygerbil! Congrats for your game man :beer:
game reporters are using the indie rockstars and their ‘rebellious’ attitude and their constant whining against “the man” as a selling point to create a new buzz in an otherwise dull industry and to sell stories. But one day when they’ve used them as much as they can, they’ll throw them away as old rags, and some people will be left on the cold floor, bleeding and sobbing.
people grew tired of Bart simpson, didn’t they? Eat my shorts dude.
The whole matter of calling collectibles unethical game design and implying that designers who resort to them hate their players kind of looks more like an admission of guilt than a call for action now that his game full of stars to collect is on the scene.
The point was that those collectibles are a reward for no actual accomplishment, not that collecting = bad. The question is what the in game rewards are actually rewarding. See, this is what I’m talking about.
If people have issues with the way Jon Blow expresses things, they should listen to Chris Crawford. Their heads will explode.
That will be a good thing.
I think the dislike of him comes from this: he was one of the few indie developers to be famous in the indie games scene before he even released a single game. He even won an award in the IGF without releasing anything. And despite that he got a lot more attention than people who had released dozens of fun games.
I don’t think that’s a good reason to hate someone. I think he’s a good person who also happens to be very good at gathering attention around himself. Being good at getting attention (either positive or negative) is a good trait for an indie developer to have. There’s no such thing as bad press, and all that.
I like most of what he says about games – in fact some of the stuff he has said are things that I thought only I believed, because I’ve never seen it out of anyone else before. That made me like him. People like people who are like themselves, I guess. Though I’m not as good at gathering attention around myself as he is, I’m definitely about as self-assured, i.e. I don’t say things like “in my opinion” or “at least that’s what I think” or “I could be wrong” very often, because I believe what I believe and don’t need to put on warning labels.
I was still a bit annoyed that he got all this positive press without actually doing anything, a few months ago he was about as famous as cactus was, even though he hadn’t released anything yet, but now that he released a game that part of him doesn’t annoy me anymore.
I haven’t noticed much attention being paid to Blow except in the context of Braid. Why does everyone say he’s so good at gathering attention to himself?
A lot of it has been about Braid, but a lot of it was just speeches he gave or interviews with him.
To clarify what I meant: there are thousands of really great indie developers out there, ones who have released plenty of great games. Yet a lot of them have never been mentioned on this site at all, and Blow has a full two pages of entries with the JonathanBlow tag (click on the tag to see them) on this site. Many of them are not about Braid at all, but just about something Blow said or did. Does he really deserve that much attention? Did all those others really deserve to be ignored? It seems disproportionate to me.
Even if they were only about Braid (and not all of them are), does a single indie game deserve two pages of preview posts, and so many other games don’t even get review posts? I know Derek and the other editors can only write about what catches their eyes, and they can’t be everywhere at once, I’m not blaming them. I’m saying Blow is good at doing things which get him noticed and talked about. And to be successful you have to have that skill.
As an aside, this entry is a perfect example – it’s not really about Braid, it’s about Blow saying he never compromises.
@Paul Eres: I don’t agree with you, you see, if that was true, then everyone would hate phil Fish too. Yet noone hates fil phish, actually people find him kind of cool and I agree with that.
There must be something else.
The Fish backlash will come once Fez is released. Just wait for it.
So I guess my next question is, how did he end up giving speeches and interviews when he had not yet released any games? Is he some sort of game design theorist or something? Or does he just happen to know the right people?
@moi: I don’t particularly like Phil Fish either, nor dislike him, I don’t really know him. My friend Patrick Dugan did meet him and tells me he’s cool though. Plus, Phil Fish often posts on the forums here, and often comments on blogs, and Blow doesn’t (to my knowledge, anyway), which makes Fish seem more down-to-earth and approachable than Blow. I also think Fish has released games other than Fez? You don’t see 30 entries about Phil Fish, either. So it’s not really a good comparison.
@Craig Stern: I believe it’s largely a combination of knowing the right people (being good at networking), and just plain hard work. It takes work to prepare and give speeches, and not everyone is willing or even able to do that. I’m certainly not, I’d have too much stage fright.
Just a few thoughts:
Personally, when I listen to Jon Blow speak, my ears perk up. It’s not just that Jon takes the time to prepare and give speeches - he’s passionate and thoughtful about what he’s saying.
I should also mention that, aside from Braid, Jon’s also been running the Experimental Gameplay Workshop for quite a while now, and it’s an integral part of GDC each year, in my opinion.
Also, Paul, re: number of posts per person - please keep in mind that writing a game “review” (even though it’s more like impressions!) takes me probably 3-4 times as long to write as a post like this.
And I am sensitive to the fact that people think we only cycle through a few favorites on TIGS (even though I disagree), but I’m limited by how often I can actually update the site. The fact that the people who take issue with this never actually offer any new people/games to post about doesn’t make it any easier for me! So speak up! I do listen.
@Paul Eres: Blow didn’t exist entirely in a vacuum before Braid. While I don’t really feel like digging up his resume, he was a columnist Game Developer Magazine, he’s worked on various games and middleware in the past, etc..
If indie projects are all that matter, he has a few prototypes on his site. They’re not polished, but they’re interesting in their own right.
If polished commercial indie projects are all that count, I imagine most of your favorite indie game makers don’t really matter (Cactus, Kenta Cho, Phil Fish, Derek Yu, Jon Mak, etc.) :).
Some people have Took issue? Does this mean Pippin messed them up somehow? Hrm.
Anyway, in my opinion, it’s good that he is vocal about his opinion. I don’t know if his opinion is the best one - I think other independent developers should try to speak out a bit more, too.
Just for clarification: I am not jealous of Blow, I do not hate Blow, and I am not attacking everything in sight because my parents beat me or some shit like that. I haven’t read the interview with Blow, or much of anything he has said; I haven’t played Braid either, but would love to if only I had an x-box. The game looks like fun. However, the “Compromise doesn’t suit my personality very well” line does make him look like, in the words of Mitch, an uppity douche-bag.
How is that, exactly? Is it his dislike of compromise or the fact that he mentioned it that makes him a douche-bag? If the former, do you think that compromise tends to produce interesting art? If the latter, do you think he should have lied?
re Derek: That was part of my point actually, that it wasn’t your fault. He makes it easy to write up a quick entry about him, because he does and says things that people like to tell others about. But the effect is still that he gets more exposure than others do, just through the natural forces of how journalism works, not through any sort of incompetence or malevolence on anyone’s part. As for recommendations, usually when I find an interesting game that I think needs some recognition I pass the news along to Tim (just cause it’s easy to talk to him on instant messenger), although half the time when I do that I learn that he already reviewed it and was three steps ahead of me :D
re Impossible: I didn’t mean that he was in a vacuum. It makes sense that he used to be a games journalist though, I didn’t know that about him. But are you really saying that those things he has done makes him more deserving of two pages of entries about him when many other more accomplished (up until Braid’s release, that is) people had none? My point isn’t that he or the editors here are at fault, my point is that news works in a certain way, and he acts in a way (perhaps not even intentionally) which makes him get a disproportionate share of attention. Just through the natural forces of how news works, not through any conspiracy or ill-intent.
re Kobel: I think it’s more that, by saying that, he’s saying that other developers do compromise, and that he doesn’t. So it’s putting himself above others in that way. I don’t think anyone believes they compromise the quality of their game for external reasons. So the point isn’t that compromising artistic integrity is good, the point is that he’s saying that most people compromise that, and that he doesn’t. Which may or may not be true.
That was a good interview and worthwhile read. It sucks that so many of these responses are just insults.
That seems like putting words in his mouth, but okay. It seems to me that if one wishes to publicly dispute that stance, which he does certainly seem to take, then it’s their responsibility to provide arguments to refute his rather than just calling him names.
It is, I believe, generally accepted in the industry that design by committee rarely produces good results. Is the chain of command typical of publicly owned game developers and publishers any different from this theoretical committee? The argument that because these organizations are structured this way BY LAW they must to some extent have mediocrity introduced to them seems to me to be a fairly solid argument, and one worthy of being actually debated rather than brushed aside in favor of straw men.
re Kobel: I think it should be debated, sure. However, he wasn’t talking about designing by committee or the infrastructure type stuff, he wasn’t talking about the structure of corporations or any of that – he was talking about the personality. Him saying that compromise isn’t in his personality is tacitly saying that compromise is in other developers’ personalities. I.e. that it’s a fault of their character, not a fault of how teams are set up or a larger number of cooks spoiling the broth. If he had just said that designing by committee is a bad thing, it wouldn’t be such a controversial statement.
I suppose that could be one interpretation; however, having seen him speak about how publicly owned companies are legally obligated to not produce products that are personally meaningful to one person I think that that probably relates to what he’s saying here. That is to say, yes, he IS saying that compromise is in other developers’ personality, because it HAS to be for them to work in that kind of environment. Remember, compromise isn’t a bad thing! But, unfortunately, the kind of compromise that is NECESSARY to work in a company of that size and professionalism can by its very nature stifle honest creative output. So, again, what’s so all-fired offensive about saying that anyway?
As an aside, I don’t believe he meant it to be offensive to other developers. Interviews can be off the cuff and unprepared, he probably just said something that sounds worse than he meant it.
But I also think that kind of reflects his general, unchallenged outlook toward other developers expressed in most of the interviews I’ve seen with him: that most everyone else is doing it wrong, and he’s doing it right.
Which is also why people tend to hate Chris Crawford – even though I think Crawford is a great man, he does have the same approach of thinking he’s just about the only one in his field doing worthwhile work, and that the vast majority of the people in the industry are doing little to nothing of value.
@Paul Eres: I wouldn’t quite call him a games journalist. His articles were all pretty hardcore technical stuff. Generally when I think of “games journalist” I think of “game reviewer.” But I guess you’re right.
I think he’s as deserving as Cactus (at 3 pages) or Pixel (also at 2 pages.) He’s made a great game, he hosts the Experimental Gameplay workshop and he has interesting things to say, at least some of the time.
I dunno, from what I’ve heard his stance is that the way the companies do it is great for making money and is pretty damn good for making entertainment, it just sucks for art. Does that mean they’re doing it wrong? No, it means that he and they have different goals. I think that perhaps just trying to make that distinction is offensive to people in some way, though I’m still not really certain why.
Probably people just insult him because they know from his interview now that he reads people’s comments and they want to make him sad :( or angry X|
re Impossible: Understood. And I agree that he’s as deserving as Cactus or Pixel now. But I meant back in early 2008 or 2007, before he released Braid. But for me it still comes down to this: Pixel has created something like three (four?) great games, Cactus has created exactly one billion great games, and Braid created, at the time when most of those entries were written, none.
Maybe that’s too simplistic of a way of looking at it, but I tend to expect a site about indie games to give more attention to people who create them than people who (again, up until Braid) just talk about them. It might be simplistic, but I come from the Ohrrpgce community, whose motto was “shut up and make your game”, often abbreviated SUAMYG.
re Kobel: I’m sure some people insult him just to make him angry, but I didn’t intend it like that – as I said in early comments, I agree with most of what he says and think he’s a good person. I just also think it was somewhat annoying that his admirable and important ability to gather attention around him takes space away from other equally deserving indie games, and that simply because someone’s better at seeming more newsworthy doesn’t mean that they actually are more newsworthy.
As a simple example: I think Iji is a better game than Braid, or at least on the same level, and I think many people who read this blog would agree, but how many previews of Iji did we get? None?
(Compared with, like, 17 Braid previews).
I also want to quote a relevant part of this interview which I found interesting.
*
Matt: Microsoft does seem to have been fairly supportive of you when you put your foot down, like saying there wouldn’t be any in-game hints.
Jonathan: Yes, for the most part. However there was one change they insisted on making that I got very mad about. I came very, very close to yanking Braid off Arcade and making it PC-only.
Fortunately, the change only affects the trial version of the game, not the full version. So in the end I decided it was not so bad, even if ultimately I felt dirty for letting that kind of Microsoft bad-decision-making wash across the game, even just a little.
Matt: What was the change, or would it be better to just not say?
Jonathan: It was just making the free demo version short like it is now. I wanted it to be longer, because I figured that the important thing is to communicate to the player what the game is really about, and to let them make an informed decision about whether they want the full game. I believe that if the game is a high-quality, compelling experience, people will want to play the rest. But Microsoft didn’t want the demo to be so long. They wanted it to be a lot shorter. I argued with them and we reached a compromise. But like I said before, I don’t usually like compromise. It tastes bad.
*
I agree with him there. I love long demos. The demo of my game is a full third of the game.
It’s also interesting that one of the big complaints about Braid is that the demo takes the most boring part of the game and uses that to try to sell the game. I suspect this led to a lot of lost sales.
re people saying that to make him angry: That was really just a joke, I didn’t actually think that’s the reason why most of the acrimony exists.
re Braid demo: Curiously enough, I said almost the exact same thing in the IRC channel. In fact, I’m pretty sure we’d be hearing a LOT less “Super Mario” ripoff stuff if the demo had showcased a bit more of worlds 4-6.
I haven’t tried Iji yet (hope to have time this weekend, it looks great), but I honestly thought Braid was pretty amazingly brilliant and one of the best things I’ve played in years. I hope that doesn’t make me biased. :)
I’m going to bed now, but it’s been a pleasure talking to you, and I’m glad this discussion has been so civil (in rather sharp contrast to the discussion that spawned it). Good night.
@Paul Eres: Pixel has made one great game and a few good games. Cactus has made a lot of fun diversions, but most are stylized mini-games. Blow’s prototypes (http://number-none.com/blow/prototypes/index.html), while not as polished as anything Cactus has put out are in many ways more interesting, and he has 4 of them publicly available. He was working on this (http://number-none.com/happycake/index.html) before he started development on Braid.
That’s 5 games besides Braid, 4 of them you can play.
Jon is someone who clearly wants to figure out the nature of things, whether it’s the meaning of gameplay, the development process, or the relationship between indies and the rest of the industry. Or, you know, himself. I don’t know if we should hold it against him that he thinks out loud about his own role in the big process. I believe it is a really good thing for the community to have someone like Jon who creates discussions about these things.
Daniel’s relative quiet as a game developer is also very admirable, but it’s hard to capture that on a site for indie game news.
Also, I wouldn’t think about it like… for every Jonathan Blow post some great indie game didn’t get mentioned. The posts don’t really compete with one another in that way!
And ultimately, I think the kind of coverage you’re looking for is the kind that Tim already provides on IndieGames.com. And Tim does that job well enough that I don’t see too much reason to try to do it, too! I want to promote as many great games and developers as possible on this site, but I’m not very concerned with being “fair,” per se, when it comes to who gets how many posts.
I think that’s fine personally Derek, but in that case maybe the site’s tag-line should be changed from “unfiltered” to something a little more apt? :)
Well, consider too that Blow was getting interviews and mentions in places like gamasutra, kotaku, joystiq, etc., before he even released a game and before anyone even knew if his game was any good. So it’s not just restricted to TIGSource, I was just using it as a close-at-hand example.
And even if you don’t strive for fairness, I think at least striving for variety is a good idea, hearing about the same games so often gets a bit boring. (Again, no offense intended to Derek or the other editors, this is just intended as constructive criticism, feel free to ignore it.)
*“Plus, compromise does not suit my personality very well.”
This comment about compromise is a direct attack on most other commercial games and it’s pretty cunty if you ask me.
Yeah, he has been lucky enough to be able to develop a game like Braid that had a pretty good budget all things considered, but let us see how he would handle working on a multi-million dollar high profile title, with suits breathing down his nech, asking for milestone builds and features to satisfy the latest trends the’ve learned about from some people who claim that “YOUR GAME NEEDS TO HAVE FEATURE X TO SUCCEED IN TODAYS MARKET”.*
The irony in that though is that games do not NEED feature X to succeed in todays market… that’s just a marketing myth.
I realize he wouldn’t want to work on a game like that, because large teams and large budgets often mean loss of individual control, but some people has to…and not many developers are iD or 3D Reals and can keep until the game is perfect. Not fair, but that is unfortunately the way it works.
Perhaps making games in an even bigger team would be fine with him, as long as he himself decides where ‘his’ game is going. I don’t think that having a 10million$ budget or 180.000$ budget matters AT ALL. There are games made for far less than 10million that easily outdo higher budget games..
To compromise in the games industry means going for mediocrity and a higher chance of financial success. That’s not what Blow is looking for.
Most developers that are backed by stockholders and so on that have a multi-million dollar budget, do not take chances. That in practice means they will compromise on just about everything, trying to squeeze in as much as possible, usually as main market oriented as possible, often resulting in a quite mediocre product.
I think if big AAA developers would concentrate on far smaller markets, then they probably would make better games for less money.
@ haowan:
It HAS been changed. Look at it. It’s a hastily done fruity in-joke, but it’s been changed.
Regarding criticizing games. Don’t forget that games are art. So measuring how good is a game, is like measuring how good is an art work. In other words, there is no standard for measuring how good is art(or a game). Art is really in the eye of the beholder, the “goodness” of art is subjective. So how do we measure what is a good game? Is it how popular and successful it is? (The most popular and successful computer is actually solitare) Is it the production values? Is it how fun people are having with it? But that is completly subjective. In other words, you can only say why YOU don’t like this game or that game. Or why YOU don’t like the games from the big companies. But you can’t tell other people what games to like or not, or if they are stupid or smart for liking one game or another. In other words, its really complicated, and lets just concentrate on making more games rather than talking about it so much. I think.
Haha, this is a very defeatist kind of relativism. Nobody is trying to find a grand robot overlord kind of objective measure of GOOD anyway.
But criticism, like art criticism in your example, isn’t about deciding on some fixed rating of quality for a thing, it’s about finding out what a thing is doing and how and why. Asking these questions lets you determine your own role, what works and what doesn’t, and maybe lets you discover your own tastes.
And absolutely we should talk about it, because if you don’t know what the game you’re making does or how or why then why are you bothering?
PS: what does that have to do with anything in this discussion in the first place?
Compromise is necessary for a commercial product. It is bad, bad, bad, bad, BAD for art. So, I don’t get what the issue is with Blow disliking compromise. Unless you’re stupid enough to think artistic integrity is just “pretentious” crap.
“Pretentious,” by the way, is the stupidest, emptiest criticism ever. So you are a fucking idiot if you use it about Blow or anybody else.
Have a good day.
If pretentious is empty, is accusing someone of pretending to be something as much so? ‘Pretentious’ CAN be an empty criticism, but it isn’t inherently so.
To call someone pretentious is to shape the accusation “I think you’re full of shit” so the burden of proof somehow appears to rest on the so-called pretentious person himself. For whatever lingual reason it’s supposed to be self-evident that the pretentious person is pretentious, whereas if you accuse someone that they’re full of shit it only follows that you are asked to qualify the statement.
I’m glad to see the latter part of this comment thread be more about discussion that just nerd rage/venting.
Yeah, what Helm said. It’s just a cheap tactic to make somebody look bad without actually addressing their views or arguments.
If you really think somebody is pretentious, don’t call them that. Prove it with your arguments.
Look, the only place I’ve ever heard pretentious used legitimately was an art criticism class. How likely is it that a bunch of semi-anonymous video game geeks would use it legitimately? Or even understand what the word actually means? (Hint: it does not mean “uses big words and has thoughts I don’t agree with.”)
Oh, if your argument is that pretentious is USUALLY used poorly as a shitty placeholder insult, I totally agree. I just don’t think that it’s invariably used that way, or is even an intrinsically derogatory term.
Kind of splitting hairs, aren’t you? As a practical matter, it’s always going to be used that way. Like I said, the only time I’ve ever heard it used legitimately was in a much more serious and thoughtful context than you’d find in the Internet.
I suppose, but I value the language. Because of this, I don’t like to see a) a useful word dismissed out of hand, or b) people being imprecise in defining the bounds of that dismissal. ‘Pretentious’ is a good word; let’s not let the random interweb retards ruin it for the rest of us.
That said, most of the people here use it in the way you describe, which is why I tried to be more specific when I described the ways in which he has rubbed me the wrong way in his lectures and interviews.
Okay, I think we’ve exhausted this particular thread, so let’s talk about something else.
For what it’s worth, I tend to agree with your opinion about the man: don’t really like him personally, but he definitely has interesting ideas.
RE: Compromise
I feel that the notion of compromise being bad for on on the very face of it to be a bit foolhardy. That sort of statement would see the songwriting of the Beatles dismissed out of hand in favor of their solo work because the so many of the songs were formed out of a compromise between John and Paul.
I don’t think big commercial game companies compromise. At least not more than the “Reasnoable” compromise. Reasonable would be admitting you can’t make the perfect game. You can put all the features possible in one game. You can’t make a MMORPG in which you can marrey the hulk(among many other things). I am not talking about money. I am talking about the scope of a game. If you make the scope of the game so huge, then the game becomes a monster to design and program. And even if you do make such a game, some people will still prefer solitare over your perfect game.
However, it is sensible to claim that big companies make alot of fps clones, but then, so does indie developers(not fps clones, but other clones). And making clones is not always bad.
I am not sure why some people so dislike big game companies. As long as the games big companies ship are not broken, I don’t understand what you have to complain about them. Do you think big companies make games that most gamers don’t like? I don’t think so. But if so, why do gamers buy these games?
Do you disagree that trying to make something appealing to as many people as possible lowers the possibility of creating an experience deeply significant to a few?
Uhh, rod, bad example. Many of their songs were actually written by just one or the other (and later on by George), and the ones that were written by both were collaborations, which is not the same as compromise at all.
Guy, you don’t get it. Companies are required, by law, to make a profit for their shareholders, so they tend to be conservative with their investment, preferring things that are guaranteed to make a profit. In the context of video games, this usually means producing things in established genres, usually imitative of or inspired by existing popular titles. Even creative, well-known game designers can be pressured by their employers to make things more derivative, more generic, more “safe.”
Now, you can’t really blame them for having this goal. Like I said, it’s a legal requirement, and besides, there’s no point to a corporation that isn’t making profits. And this kind of behavior is hardly limited to video game companies; pretty much any company in any medium with creative expression has the same behavior. But there’s no question that this is rather unhelpful for artistic expression or systemic (e.g. gameplay) innovation. So, this is why we talk about compromise being bad.
Let me give you an example. Imagine for a second how things would have been if Van Gogh had had an “Artistic Board” overseeing all his works, telling him which colors and types of brushes he was allowed to use, which kinds of brush techniques, which subjects he was allowed and not allowed to paint. This sounds pretty terrible to me, and it’s guaranteed to result in some terribly and impersonal art (if you can even call art by committee actual art… but that’s another argument). That’s the situation video games are in: forced to yield to financial interests that don’t give a fig about innovating or making good art.
I don’t see why there should be negative corrlation between the two. Can’t it be both? But what do you mean by deeply significant? A game that people will remember after playing? a game that people will become a fan of?
I mainly play games for fun, if I had many hours of fun with the game, then its significant for me. I am sure there are plenty of games that were on the mainstream, and yet were significant to at least a few. BF1942 was pretty cool. Never winter nights was awesome. And I am sure there are many more.
Okay, it’s nice that you had fun and all, but we’re talking about games as art, not games as entertainment. There’s no question that commercial products succeed at the latter; that’s what they’re made for.
Fine, so would you prefer to play a game that makes you suffer but is great art? instead of playing a game that is shallow but alot of fun? Maybe fun is the wrong word.
I would say “enjoy” instead. If I enjoy the game, then its a good game in my opinion. I do appreciate a game that would make me emotional about it. And then you can say this game is art. But I got emotional about popular commercial games as well. They are not many, but they are also not non existant. However, I still think that a game should be fun. Because fun is the main quality of games. A game that is not fun, is like playing music that sound horrible. The horrible music may have alot of artistic value, but it really sucks as music.
Didn’t he spend like £150,000 on braid… NOT AN INDEPENDENT GAME!
If he spent it on chips & beer it is. Maybe Stop & Shop head razors?
Okay, there are several problems here. First of all, music is a bad example. The way we judge music as art is different from the way we judge narrative art like novels, films, and (of course) video games.
So, music that “sound horrible” is generally not going to be regarded as having much artistic value. Of course, “horrible” is a rather subjective assessment of music, but whatever, that’s another discussion.
Fine, so would you prefer to play a game that makes you suffer but is great art? Well, I don’t know about you, but I enjoy appreciating good art. A game that I would consider of high artistic value, even if the gameplay is horrible, would still be enjoyable to me. So I find this question meaningless.
A “shallow but fun” game is a lot like a high concept Hollywood movie: it’s an enjoyable way to pass time, but ultimately forgettable (unless the special effects or concept are really good) and it’s not something that’s going to change or give meaning to your life. So, I’m okay with some games being like this, but just as I would not want every movie to be a big-budget special effects extravaganza, I don’t want every game I play to be shallow-but-fun.
The ideal situation is for gameplay to be integrated into the “art” in an art-y game. Gameplay is the thing that makes games special, and games should embrace it. When I talk about games being better art, I’m not saying I want a graphical version of a Choose Your Own Adventure novel; rather, I want something different and new, something interesting, the synthesis of the traditional visual and audial arts with interactivity.
I am not entirely sure what do you mean by this, because its pretty general(except for something different and new). Something different and new, commercial games do that. Although many times they just clone games. So we have this checked.
the synthesis of the traditional visual and audial arts with interactivity? What are traditional visual and audial arts? So 3D graphics is not traditional art? You will have to elaborate this more. However, I do think that some commercial games do excel in visual and audial arts, and I don’t mean in the technical aspect.
If we take WOW as an example. I think WOW has one of the most stunning visual arts. And it does not have a very advanced graphics engine. Its just the art is beautiful.
Guy, I think the reason you’re having some trouble here is that you’re thinking people are saying different things than they are.
NO ONE is saying all indie games are original, or that no commercial games are: The argument is that the environment commercial games are produced in is, by its nature, somewhat hostile to innovation and non-cynical emotional expression. Some games break through the first barrier, but it’s EXTREMELY rare to see one break through the second.
No one is saying there’s something WRONG with a game being fun and entertaining: Just that those shouldn’t be the highest goal of EVERY game. Kongming did a better job of explaining this than I think I could, so I’ll leave it at that.
And yes, many games, such as WoW, CONTAIN art; but what can make the gameplay itself artistic, make it emotionally expressive? What does the gameplay say? For some reason, almost no one seems to think about that, but gameplay, NOT INTERACTIVITY, GAMEPLAY, is what sets our medium apart from the others. If it’s just interactivity then we’re making graphical choose your own adventure novels which is, you know, just fine, but I wouldn’t call that a game either. And as long as many games settle for a game where the communication of the gameplay is fundamentally divorced from the communication of the story then they will NOT be a unified artistic piece.\
And, for the record, I think a little suffering helps the sugar go down. I sure as shit know I wasn’t having FUN during Silent Hill 2, but it was one of the strongest and most evocative gaming experiences I’ve had, regardless.
I agree with you about non cynical emotional expression. But thats not a problem of only the game industry. Thats a problem of society.
I really don’t know what makes gameplay artistic. I think the art is the whole package, of gameplay, visuals, story and etc. Of course every game has a different feel to it. Though I am not sure how expressive it is. What emotions does mario is trying to convey? What emotions does R-Type is trying to convey?
Usually games who try to express emotions, borrow from other mediums. Such as literature and movies. They contain cut scenes and etc. Or they try to express something using the visual arts.
Or games who truly look and feel like work of art, are usually abstract and bizzare. Thats not necesseraly bad, but they are very few, and not necesseraly the most enjoyable games.
Either you are saying very smart things that I don’t understand, or we are trying to make sense on something that doesn’t have much sense in it.
“I agree with you about non cynical emotional expression. But thats not a problem of only the game industry. Thats a problem of society.”
Sure, but you might say that the independent field is more hospitable to a fringe element that can step away from that. Maybe just a little, but still.
“but gameplay, NOT INTERACTIVITY, GAMEPLAY, is what sets our medium apart from the others. If it’s just interactivity then we’re making graphical choose your own adventure novels which is, you know, just fine, but I wouldn’t call that a game either.”
Nonsense. “Game” is already a sensible blanket term for all sorts of things that don’t fit the narrow definition for any number of reasons; like say they’re programs we run that we interact with using a controller. Anyway it’s quite possible to have something interactive which doesn’t rely on fixed states (choose your own adventure) OR cutscenes OR text and still not have gameplay AND still be a game and very much exploit the uniqueness of the medium. Noctis is the first thing that comes to mind but there are many other examples. It would be silly to waffle over calling it a game or not because in any case that’s its context and primarily the people who play it are people interested in the thing we call computer games. Do you see what I mean?
I haven’t played the game in question, but why would it be silly not to call it a game? Would there be something wrong with it as an artistic piece if it wasn’t one? I don’t think it detracts from any piece of interactive art to say that it isn’t a game, all I’m saying is that gameplay is the thing that most strongly sets games apart as an expressive art form.
No it wouldn’t detract from it, but it puts it in the wrong discourse, if that makes sense.
The terminology isn’t entrenched for “interactive art” or heck even “toys” or “simulators” are still held under the blanket term of games. Even though these things have diverse intents and are structurally very different they still belong more to “games” than any other field.
I guess actually I’m saying I agree with you! I see what the weakness of the discourse does. There’s this absurd argument that resurfaces regularly* which goes something like “a game is supposed to be fun it’s a game after all and you play it.” Which is silly, it would be like saying “they’re called comics for a reason, sheesh, because they’re comical! Comics must be funny!” The name you give a medium doesn’t mark a kind of pre-destiny for it. It’s just that the discussion isn’t broad enough yet to allow examining these things in separate terms.
*To be fair this is usually in response to things which are really gamey.
I just don’t understand what is gameplay art. It would be like saying “dialog art”. It doesn’t make sense to me.
I think one day we’ll have to start pondering wether captive market games( XBLA,PSN,WIIWARE,IPHONE) are really “indie” when the content becomes more and more heavily controlled by the operator and when the games and devs get as much media buzz as for mainstream games.
Guy: It’s when the rules of interaction define the narrative. The best example I’ve seen of this, and I know it’s going to sound like I’m regurgitating Blow but I’m pretty sure this is the reason why HE’S so focussed on this game, is Rod Humble’s The Marriage. In that case, there’s NO externally imposed narrative, and everything the game has to express is expressed through the rules of its gameplay. This is a style of art completely distinct from that of a branching movie type story or something along those lines.
And do you think there isn’t an art to writing dialog?
“I think one day we’ll have to start pondering wether captive market games( XBLA,PSN,WIIWARE,IPHONE) are really “indie” when the content becomes more and more heavily controlled by the operator and when the games and devs get as much media buzz as for mainstream games.”
Perhaps, but if the only thing Microsoft changed about Braid was the demo length, so I don’t think it’s a huge amount of control. It’s still control, though.
How old is Blow anyway?
@ Kobel: Again, I’d like to draw attention to the fact that I haven’t read the interview (I might yet, all these responses got me interested). I was merely stating that, taken out of context, as it is on the front page, that line of Blow’s blows (sorry). Like I said, I only read it out of context, and someone saying to you, “Compromise does not suit my personality very well” sounds like they’re just trying to look like a bad-ass, and hence, is douchey.
@Guy: yeah like writing words on a paper to construct novels and books from them, or writing dialogue for a movie script isn’t art? Duuuh, durr?! :P
“It would be like saying “dialog art”. It doesn’t make sense to me.” <–Epic fail!
..dude!
@Critic:
“Compromise does not suit my personality very well” sounds like they’re just trying to look like a bad-ass, and hence, is douchey.”
this taken out of context sounds even more douchy to me.
“Again, I’d like to draw attention to the fact that I haven’t read the interview (I might yet, all these responses got me interested).”
why the heck you’re even critisizing then? I mean? Jeebus what?! Taking in the context sounds you’re just arguing about the sake of arguing.. which is.. kinda.. odd?! What’s the point? I mean, I might’ve missed something, here but I’m just gonna shoot this at you coz i’m just too tired to be more politically correct. Like really.. What?! Why?!
Kobel: It is true that there are many types of games. I just personally don’t like the type of art that goes too far from the classic games. But perhaps it is inevitable that games will follow other forms of art such as painting.
Have you seen paintings of Miro? The guy put 3 big white canvas next to each other. In each canvas there is a single black line drawn. He said it took him months to draw those. Now this kind of art is not my cup of tea. I don’t like to study the life of an artist just to understand why he drew a picture of a single line. I am afraid that I will not enjoy games that will follow this kind of art.
Fortunately, indie developers are making game of all sort and types and eras. Both classic, modern and the artistic post modernism type of games.
But please, do not tell me that a game about marriage is more artistic than a game about a tough guy that beat the crap up of street thugs with his bare hands.
Hooker: Dialogs are not art, they are only part of the art work. Dialogs serve the art, it is not art by itself. Of course some books must have dialogs to be complete, but if you will take a book and pick out only the dialogs from the book. You wouldn’t say the dialogs are an art work that stand on their own. The complete literary work is art, the parts it is composed of are only the material the art is made of. Maybe a better example would be saying that oil paint is art. It is true the a painting work of art use oil paint to be created. But the oil paint is not art by itself. However, gameplay might be a bit different, and maybe I am wrong. There is art into gameplay, choosing the right gameplay to make your game enjoyable is kind of an art. But gameplay can rarely stand on its own as art. Even in the marriage the guy had to use graphics, didn’t he? There is no sense in making a game that does not communicate with the player at all.
@Guy: by same analogy pictures on comic books that heavily rely on textual narrative are not art. They are however.
Dialogue is art for example in the form of play. Whole plays are written mainly in sequenses of dialog.
“choosing the right gameplay to make your game enjoyable is kind of an art.”
Surely you MUST accept that gameplay can be something else than well balanced interface that makes gameplay easy and enjoyable. Still gameplay comes in to picture if we want to convey the feeling of how certain vehicles or characters move in a simpler example. Art of gameplay pretty much relies on how to transform users actions into interactions, and from there creating reactions for to player further to interact with. That leaves much to work with an interactive media like games. And I think minority of that could be comparable to your linepainting example.
“Even in the marriage the guy had to use graphics, didn’t he? There is no sense in making a game that does not communicate with the player at all.”
So what? Don’t tell me that games are composed of something else than gameplay too, coz i already know? I could say as well that “without gameplay the would’t be much of a game. Just graphics on a screen” which is self explanatory and half-assed argument.
also, do you consider graphics and sound as the only way to communicate with player. I’d say WITH GAMES the gameplay is where everything major is composed of. Prove me wrong though.
Infact I think mindset like: “gameplay is not art” is very closely related to the mindset “game’s are not art”. This is debatable but surely TIGSource is a bit hostile place for that (and rightfully so) =)
Hooker: Can I call you a whore instead? (just kidding)
Err, dialogs is not art. The play use dialogs. The play is art. But dialogs themself are not art. Its like saying words and sentences are art. You can use dialogs in an artistic way, but then dialog are part of an artwork. Thats my opinion at least.
But I think we are getting into a discussion of things that are very abstract. What I am trying to say is, its really difficult to judge gameplay on its own as art.
You can analyse a game by the experience that people are having with it. You can say, this kind of gameplay, combined with the other elements of the game, created this and that experience for those people. But I think trying to analyse what experience certain gameplay creates for people? Thats a stretch in my opinion. Think of super mario game mechanics. All the jumps and head bumps. Can you analyse the artistic value of these mechanics detached from the super mario game? Does it not have any artistic value on its own? Does that mean super mario is not an artistic game because of lacking gameplay art?
I do not care if you analyse the gameplay artistic value, I do not care if you make artistic Miro like games(You probabbly don’t ask me anyway). However, I am afraid that in the search for more artistic games, there will be less plain ol fun games such as mario classics and etc.
To tell you the truth, I think the gaming industry is getting old. Back in the good old days of NES and SMS, games were alot more childish, innocent and made to appeal for kids. The characters in the games were kids themself, or characters appealing to kids. The games were not easier than today, as like some people like to think that games for kids are easier and not challanging.
Then games became more mature. The games became more violent, more full of male hormones. Like final fight, street fighter, and all those beat em up games. These kind of games appeal more for teens.
Afterwards game grew a little older. The main character was no longer a buff ruffian, but rather a more mature cool guy. And the games became more realistic. Things to come to mind are max payne. All those WW2 games started showing up.
Of course there are exceptions to all these. But I think the general direction is that game industry is getting old. Now some people want to make these artistic games(I am not saying that is bad) that appeal for alot more mature audience. Games that little kids will probabbly get bored from, or won’t understand what the game is really about.
I do not critisize the game culture, it has developed the way it has. I am just trying to say that, the games you call more artistic, are not necesseraly an evolution of games. They are not better than games of the good old days. They are not more artistic in my opinion. They are just different. And if the game industry isn’t making these kind of games, that doesn’t make it a bad thing. Its just the current trend.
@Guy (can I call you “Gay”? ..not kidding.. drrrrrrrrrum roll please!)
“Err, dialogs is not art. The play use dialogs. The play is art. But dialogs themself are not art. Its like saying words and sentences are art. You can use dialogs in an artistic way, but then dialog are part of an artwork. Thats my opinion at least.”
You’re splitting hairs. dialogue isn’t itself an artform and there’s not an entire artform called “gameplay” but not to say it’s the integral part of video games is just stupid. Also, by definition - art doesn’t only include finished works of art - let me lend you my dictionary:
ART = 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
LOOOOOK HERE | | \|/
a. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities:
And originally what you debated was that:
“I just don’t understand what is gameplay art. It would be like saying “dialog art”. It doesn’t make sense to me.”
Maybe this was a misunderstanding in communications, but I took it pretty much as if: “there is no artistic merit in gameplay like there isn’t in dialogue”. or what the hell your comment was supposed mean anyways?
and I’ll hold my stand that that analogy was utter FAIL.
“Does that mean super mario is not an artistic game because of lacking gameplay art?”
It had a significant amount of gameplay art during it’s days when it was first games that utilized it’s ways of momentum and physics. Play other jump and run games from that era and you’ll notice the difference.. which brings me to..
“Think of super mario game mechanics. All the jumps and head bumps. Can you analyse the artistic value of these mechanics detached from the super mario game?”
Uh yes I can? how about the gliding momentum of a player? Let’s think about other jumping games where the character had movement like on rails. Instant stopping when you stop pressing the button. Mario had that “barely on my fingertips control” now that is pretty superficial and not artistic you say? WRONG. Compare it to braid where there’s idea’s like, “how about the direction player takes changes the way we experience time in the game”. It’s still the same thing.. it’s just on a different level. That is gameplay in action and it’s there to be analyzed if you will.
“You can analyse a game by the experience that people are having with it. You can say, this kind of gameplay, combined with the other elements of the game, created this and that experience for those people. But I think trying to analyse what experience certain gameplay creates for people? Thats a stretch in my opinion.”
..maybe then it’s a strecth to fucking analyze what kind of music sets the right mood in an FPS game or in a certain type of movies etc. etc. etc. the examples are limitless. Yet WE DO!
“Of course there are exceptions to all these. But I think the general direction is that game industry is getting old. Now some people want to make these artistic games..”
..That didn’t have much substance.. the industry still makes games for teens. only same things that got teens interested in SNES era still get teens AND 20-30yrs interested. There’s just audiovisual development and target audience is BROADENED. (kids play, but now adults play as well). This is the bigger market and it’s pretty simple logic and mathematics so it’s not that hard to figure out. Of course games industry is older than before. The artistic games are not here becouse the industry is older. They’re here becouse:
1:It’s easier for artists with not much backround in videogames to develop games with todays technology. (not necessarily a bad thing - more out of the box thinking)
2:The oldskool grew up and got passionate about making games and are spending time thinking about how to be creative without having two floors worth of an artistic department and CGI experts and another of marketing researchers shoving latest research down their throats.
What you’re saying is that some are making artistic games because suddenly - “games got older”.
“Games that little kids will probabbly get bored from, or won’t understand what the game is really about.”
actually a lot of artistic games remind me more of those older nes-“kiddygames” (If you will) than these newer games. and even more so, those older retro games you completely mentioned..
for atari.. and commodore.. and amiga..
..whose targer audience was pretty much from both sides of 20year olds. (Samantha Fox strip poker.. lolwut?)
It’s funny what you said about evolution in the end and what I just explained here. And now I’m probably just splitting hairs but:
”..more artistic, are not necesseraly an evolution of games”
uh..yes they’re part of it..? Evolution has no destionation.
..Congratulations on writing a lot with basically NO SUBSTANCE!
@Guy”I do not care if you analyse the gameplay artistic value, I do not care if you make artistic Miro like games(You probabbly don’t ask me anyway). However, I am afraid that in the search for more artistic games, there will be less plain ol fun games such as mario classics and etc.”
a question: what is a Miro-like-game? How do you see such a game? What is the game equilament of Miro’s line paintings? If such game exist did you have to pay for it? Do you think that people who like to make “those mariolike games” are the ones who’ll make those Miro-type of games? What are you afraid then?
I think we don’t understand each other. By artistic games, I thought we were talking about games such as an example was brought here. The marriage.
I think the marriage target a more mature audinece. The art in marriage was to use gameplay to express thoughts, concepts and emotions. The marriage represented managing a marrige using gameplay.
It was obvious to me that the pink square is a girl and the blue square is a guy (Although I thought the circles were aliens trying to mind control the couple ;P ) But you don’t actually see a sprite of a girl or a guy, you are suppose to understand this from the gameplay and simplistic visuals. Now what does mario gameplay represent? The effects of oppressive communist regims on middle class men?
That is what I ment was gameplay art, as kobel tried to explain to me. I agree that gameplay have an artistic value in the form of talent required to create a good gameplay.
The game industry did grow old. It is true that there are all kinds of games, that people of all kind of ages enjoy. But I am talking about what the majority of games are. And games today are alot more realistic rather than bringing you a whacky fantasy world, full of imagination that provide you escapism from reality. Realistic games ruin the escapism, because they bring reality into the game.
That is what I ment by a more mature industry. In the case of indie games, I agree that the variety of games is different from the game industry.
Artistic game, although they are abstract and can have a non realistic world, bring too much thoughts and emotions of grown ups into the game. Making it about serious real life stuff.
You’re right.. in the beginning i really couldn’t grasp what you’re aiming for. And I’m still surpriced of your worry.. (and find it a bit unrational)
The more they bring the realism into the games nowadays in mainstream, it works the opposite. i.e: everything looks and sounds real but things that are unrealistic stick out, so I still don’t see what you feel so afraid of. You’ll get your escapism. The Independent development is different but you’ll have options and no one forces you to play too “serious” kind of games. The marriage is intresting “art” game I think that, and it’s definetly more something that’s for a person who’s interested in exploring gameplay elements and maybe getting the same vibe you get from going to an art gallery. It’s not a bad example. And some developers might get cool ideas for more linear games from the as well. What I really think is that you’re afraid that when you want to go out and watch a Van Damme-flick the new trends force you to watch a marathon of home videos by David Lynch - twice!..
but I’ll say, fear thou not. For one marriage, there’ll always be 5 cave story-ripoffs (and they can still rock).
Forgive my earlier hostility, but I really didn’t get your point and it bugged my insomniatic brain!
Christ that got a little tl;dr, but let me see if I can address your point Guy: You’re saying, essentially, that gameplay is a medium like oil paint or like the individual words that make up a novel, rather than art itself, correct? And that is true of the fundamental gameplay itself. However, what is EXPRESSED through that gameplay is artistic, and many games completely ignore this avenue of expression, which leads to either incomplete or, what’s worse, contradictory messages. I’m not holding up The Marriage as an example of a better game, or even as a superior piece of art; I am merely saying that, from the games I have seen, that is the game which most purely uses gameplay to express itself. There is no narrative; there is nothing but necessary information in the graphics. There are only two things communicated to the player outside of the gameplay, and those are the title screen and the color of the squares.
The other game can certainly make itself distinct in other ways, but odds are its gameplay isn’t as expressive, and there’s a good chance the game could be improved to make the gameplay match the narrative and visually artistic elements. That isn’t to say the other game is bad; its music and story and visuals may make it an EXCELLENT piece of art. But as long as its implementing the medium of gameplay without fully understanding and exploiting its potential, it will be limiting itself as an expressive game and will be less good than it COULD have been.
Just a last point: I do not feel that there is anything intrinsically more artistic about the subject matter of marriages than that of violence or indeed any other subject matter you could name. I will say that most TREATMENTS of violence in modern media tend to be shallow and cynical, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a rich subject. But, what do you think a game about violence communicates when every time you kill someone with your bare hands, if you leave the screen and come back again, they’re back alive? What does it mean when you don’t have the option NOT to kill anyone? What does it mean when every ‘human’ in the game exists for the sole possibility of being killed or being rescued? In short, how will gameplay like this lead me to understand the nature of violence any better? If it doesn’t, then it’s not properly communicating at the level of gameplay, and the game may still be fun, and may even by provocative and thought provoking at the level of narrative, but it is ultimately limiting itself as an art form and a medium of communication (if there’s a difference between the two).
Kobel: I have a problem with the gameplay as art as you describe it. It seems the gameplay as art, as you describe it, has a purpose in expressing grown up issues, in a grown up and realistic manner.
You think that games that express reality, that express coherent ideas have better gameplay.
I think what games can bring which other mediums do not are fantasy, amazing and whacky worlds. World which are very different than reality. Escapism worlds. Games can be really good in providing escapism.
What you are desribing as gameplay is very distant from the gameplay of fun games such as mario and cave story and etc. You want realism, you want that games will make sense to you. Games can be fun when they not make complete sense, but rather they present you a fantasy world.
Of course, it is alot easier for kids to relate to these kind of worlds than grown ups. Maybe that is why you don’t want these kind of games.
In matter of fact, realistic games are many times alot more boring. There is no sense to go on fighting against the mafia with your bare hands, if your game tries to be realistic. You will probabbly die after messing with the first thug you meet. Oh, and no continue also, there is no continue in real life. All those WW2 games, there is nothing fun in going into war in real life. So I suspect that the more the game will immitate real WW2 battles, the more the game will make you suffer rather than enjoy.
I would appreciate it VERY much if you did not tell me what I think.
Once again, I think you may have misinterpreted me. I am NOT saying that all games need to communicate realism, or mature sentiments. I am saying that much of the time people don’t look at what their gameplay IS communicating, and that limits their powers of expression. Please try to stop taking my examples so literally and look at what I’m trying to actually demonstrate with them.
Ok, But I don’t understand what do you mean by gameplay communicating. What does gameplay communicate? That sound very general and abstract to me. Unless I misunderstood you.
“Christ that got a little tl;dr”
lol
@Guy
I think you completely miss Kobel’s point. What you spend countless messages, paragraph after paragraph is your subjective opinion that “games should be amusement ride becouse that’s what I enjoy”.
What Kobel elaborately points out is that you can use gameplay elements to create the illusion of the “life” and “death” for example. This is WHEN INDIVIDUAL WISHES TO CREATE A GAME THAT USES GAMEPLAY ELEMENTS FULLY (optional - see?)
You only say: “But me likes not.. game not fun! not play. Makes me think of think I want not!”
I say: fine?! But why keep forcing it. Just go back to your WOW.
I also have to strongly disagree with you and I think you made rather rushed conclusion when you said:
“I think what games can bring which other mediums do not are fantasy, amazing and whacky worlds. World which are very different than reality. Escapism worlds. Games can be really good in providing escapism.”
So are books and movies. Really.. i do not have to add. When I read a book I direct my own movie about it inside my head. Actually even more. When a charater smells something. I smell it. Such are the powers of imagination. Sure it’s different than games. But for fuck sake. Still.. in the end it’s you pushing a fucking button and watching a cutscene. Pushing a button and going level up! Do you catch my drift? And what comes in mind about escapism and games can be good about it. But when you say newer games aren’t better than older. I’d say games aren’t any better escapism than movies or books… or drugs. We can debate the health side of the issue but I have no interest on that.
What I still gather is that you have no valid argument for your case. And when you think about wehat Kobel said about life and death. That could be an interesting integral part of a gameplay in a game that COULD AS WELL BE SET IN A WACKY FANTASY WORLD. Imagine it:
Two worlds: in other death exists. you kill something, it dies forever. this creates a different form of interaction with player and surroundings. In other: life is artifical and everything sets back to a “normal state” after time passes. During gameplay you travel trough both worlds and employ their specialities to solve puzzles/advance story/whatever.
See it could work (not the best example, I know) and GAMEPLAY that conveys REALISM (partly) could still advance and enchance the playing experience. alos.. I think you should distinguish realism and advanced gameplay. They don’t always mean the same thing.
“Oh, and no continue also, there is no continue in real life.”
Well sure. I mean you can make an example that makes the artistic gameplay look bad by making an example that looks really bad. However, I’m not really following how WW2 type of games even connect to artistic gameplay.
And I could also make, and probably made in this post that “press button, watch cutscene which to me is really boring”-remark which is of same level. I know however, that not all less interactive games are that bad. =)
I also found this on your earlier post and it cathed my attention - I know a bad analogy when I see one:
“The horrible music may have alot of artistic value, but it really sucks as music.”
Uh.. I study music as a major and sorry. But what actually is this “HORRIBLE MUSIC” and when do you determine when “music sucks as music”? (this is hilarious BTW) Do you think there’s chords or melodies that are somehow regarded as having a “better quality” than others? No.. Where does musical culture come from:
Repetition and cultural trade. Studies show that some cultures have more tones in their scale than we europians have. With NO EXEPTION these are cultures that developed in isolation. In other word.. when we live our lives hearing same scales and harmonies we come to appreciate what is familiar to our ear.
Music that is strange to our ear sounds bad. It’s only natural. Also. Each person has an ear cavity of different diameter and an outer ear that is different shaped. It changes the way different tones and frequensies are heard from person to person. Also your favourite movies & games could have soundtracks that are of atonal composition. So to say “music that has no clear scale and static harmonal center is not non music” ( a lots of trafitional european music also uses a lot of modal chords and tones that go out of set harmonies so it’s not valid anyway) is also very dangerous argument if you haven’t got anything to back it up. Just wanted to point that out. Next time: eating a food that tastes bad to somene, tastes bad to that someone.
okay.. good.. ! I’ll go get some sleep!
You don’t understand what I mean by gameplay communicating? I just provided a bunch of examples!
OMFG!!!
@Kobel Pwning Guy:
“I would appreciate it VERY much if you did not tell me what I think.” (..and the whole post)
I LOLLED!
Kobel: The problem with examples is that it is hard to figure out the general rule from them. You told me not to take them literaly, so I don’t know how am I suppose to take them. I think the problem here is that you are trying to formalize something that is far from being formal.
Gameplay is the logic and rules behind a game. I believe most games do not communicate anything with their gameplay. What does super mario mechanics communicate? What does chess rules comunicate? Gameplay are just rules to make the game challanging, fun, immersive, etc. It usually do not express emotions, ideas and concept in a direct manner. The combination of gameplay with other elements, which create a whole game, can express emotions, thoughts etc.
Unless by expressing something you mean something different from thoughts, emotions and etc.
@Guy:
Just play indie game called “execution”.
Come back and say you didin’t get it.
“What does super mario mechanics communicate? What does chess rules comunicate?”
I’m sorry but are you a total idiot?! I mean, isn’t it bit easy to throw bunch of examples of like that, where there isn’t gamplay that communicates in the same level as was explained before. Play “execution” and you’ll see. it’s short and quick example and something like that could be used in a longer more fruitful game. And still. Gameplay that communicates deeper ideas could come from same kind of technical standpoint as anything else in gameplay - it’s just fishing deeper.
The ability to experience things what execution makes us is where the difference to other mediums come in to picture. Not just: “I think what games can bring which other mediums do not are fantasy, amazing and whacky worlds. World which are very different than reality. Escapism worlds.”
I’m not saying all games should be like execution but you’ll get the picture. Geez. Play it and say it didn’t have a message and it didn’t make you emotional and think, OK?
@Hooker with a BeViS
uhh… “Execution” doesn’t explain anything either. It’s just a simple game that plays on the player’s assumption to make a simple and short-sighted comment on death. >_>
GAMEPLAY is related to MECHANICS. Executions mechanics state that if you push a button you can kill this person. That’s it. It’s STORYLINE expresses what the creator was trying to say, NOT the MECHANICS. KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
@some other guy:
“uhh… “Execution” doesn’t explain anything either. It’s just a simple game that plays on the player’s assumption to make a simple and short-sighted comment on death. >_>”
simple yes. Short sighted maybe. It’s subjective.
“GAMEPLAY is related to MECHANICS. Executions mechanics state that if you push a button you can kill this person. That’s it. It’s STORYLINE expresses what the creator was trying to say, NOT the MECHANICS. KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.”
Well KNOW THE DIFFERENCE OF WHAT IS BEING SAID. so F U C K I N G U G H back at you, hombre! no one says mechanics can’t be used to express storyline or that it’s JUST the mechanics that express storyline. Think about call of duty 4 when player gets to experience nuclear explosion and withers to death becouse of radiation. BESIDES visuals there’s a lot of GAMEPLAY that tells you the story - instead of just reading a text that tells you someone died of radiation, or just watching it.
And if it’s not the mechanics that make the experience in “execution” what it is, then tell me what it is? Or are you those people who whined becouse they lost the game becouse “no one told me what to do” or “I don’t get this game”. It’s not the perfect game but a good example of delivering what for example Kobel was talking about.
in other words…. NO U!
Sigh. Okay. “I believe most games do not communicate anything with their gameplay.” No, but they’re made with the ASSUMPTION that they don’t and so they end up contradicting themselves. When enemies respawn, it communicates that they have no individual identity, that they’re a faceless swarm, that there’s no reason not to murder them. And we attach that to supposedly human characters.
To look at your examples of games which don’t communicate anything… Seriously, Chess? From Wikipedia: “Chess originated in India,[12] where its early form in the 6th century was chaturanga, which translates as “four divisions of the military” – infantry, cavalry, elephants, and chariots, represented respectively by pawn, knight, bishop, and rook. In Persia around 600 the name became shatranj and the rules were developed further. Shatranj was taken up by the Muslim world after the Islamic conquest of Persia, with the pieces largely retaining their Persian names. In Spanish “shatranj” was rendered as ajedrez, in Portuguese as xadrez, and in Greek as zatrikion, but in the rest of Europe it was replaced by versions of the Persian shāh (“king”).” IT’S A MILITARY TACTICS GAME. It communicates principles of commanding a military force! I don’t think you could have picked a worse example of a non-communicative game if you tried!
Moving on, I again cite as example The Marriage. There’s almost no communication outside of the gameplay (I related the exceptions earlier), but the rules of the game define the nature of the story and relationship. Surely you don’t claim that the title screen and the color of the squares communicates everything that the game altogether communicates? And, in that case, you must admit that all else that is communicated comes from the gameplay, the rules of interaction. Are my examples REALLY so obscure?
Kobel: seriously. You claim that when enemies respawn, it communicates that they have no individual identity.
Well in chess, when the pawns can only walk forward. It communicates that the pawns are absolutly loyal. That they cannot run away from the battlefield in fear. In addition, all pawns look the same, which implies that pawns do not have any personality.
More over, the chess pieces are either black or white, that communicates that war is dichomaty. That there are no merceneries, there is no treason in the battle field, no cunning and etc.
It present a very shallow image of the battlefield, which express the wrong kind of message to the player. Plus, where the hell are the archers?
All that is true. What’s your point? That Chess isn’t the most realistic simulation of battle ever? I THINK WE CAN AGREE ON THAT.
I understood from you that some developers are not aware of what their gameplay express. Or that the gameplay express something different from what they intended. So I said, chess also does not communciate what its inventors were ment for it to communicate.
I don’t think that developers that create games with respawning enemies are not aware of what their gameplay communicate.
I think you are just interperting their gameplay in your own way. Which is different from what the developers intended.
I can say that respawning monsters represent a possible era in humanity, where bigger brother intentionally created RBFs(Respanwable Biological Freaks).
So normal people will fear them and so bigger brother could protect the people from those freaks. In matter of fact, bigger brother encourage heroes to set out and kill those freaks, because it gives the noraml people the feeling that soon the heroes will free them from the RBF.
Only that either the heroes die and respawn again, which explains continue. Or the heroes win, but then bigger brother invents a new villan, hence the sequel.
So you see, its not that they didn’t think of what the gameplay express. Its just you didn’t think about it enough.
Also Kobel. As I said eariler, the marriage does not express what its inventors ment for it to express. I understood from the game that its about a boy and a girl(blue and pink squares). And that the circles are aliens that try to mind control them. So “I think” he should fix his game, because it didn’t express what he intended.
Okay then you agree that gameplay communicates. So I think we’re done here.
EPIC WIN KOBEL! =D
@Guy also your respawnig theory sucks in such magnitudes I don’t even want to point out how much you missed the point. =)
You’re making up a backstory, not making an example of what gameplay expresses.
But as Kobel said it. We’re done here.
Ok, and you agree that the marriage was not more successful of being aware of what its gameplay communicate, compared to diablo with its respawning monsters. Then we are really done now.
I don’t really but it’s not relevant to the conversation. The important point to understand is that gameplay communicates, and by looking at what we’re communicating we can improve our games.
Wait. Is the reason this has been taking so long is because you didn’t want to ‘lose’ an argument? An argument is a search for truth and, though it has some recreational elements, it is NOT a competition! Goddammit. What a waste of time.
Wait a minute, Diablo monsters didn’t respawn! XD
Guy is a pretty tough guy, fails arguments and as a person, and fears nothing.
No, I just didn’t understand what your point was.
I ment that gameplay communicates different things to different people. So first of all, you can only look what the gameplay communicates to you. Even “worse”, the same game can comunicate different things to the same person at different times.
What I disagreed with you, is that the people from the industry are unaware of what their games communicate or that being fully aware to what your game communicates helps you make better games.
The latter won’t necesseraly help you because, as I said, there is no one thing which gameplay communicates to all the people or even the person itself. And because, you would probabbly won’t know what the game communicates until you have the final product or some prototype.
My point is, there is no right approach or wrong approach to developing games. I think that eventually developing games is primarly a matter of experience. People with more experience in game developement will develope better games compared to their previous work. Also, since developing games is also a matter of trial and error, sometimes you have good luck and sometimes you have bad luck.
That make sense to me, because many other fields of art require experience, trial and error and a bit of talent(90% work, 10% talent).
If you could calculate what a game will communicate, before having a prototype, then its not art. Its sience.
Its about what feels right for you about the game, experience with your own previous work and other peoples’ work. Thats my opinion at least.
That’s like saying because everyone takes something different away from a film it’s not worth taking the time to rewrite the script or edit the scenes. It’s still worthwhile to THINK about what you, as the creator, are trying to say.
Hell, I think you are right. They don’t respawn o.O
On the other hand, I don’t think you will know what your game will say before you actually make the changes you thought of making. You need to play your game in order to feel what it says. You can imagine what it will say in your head, and try work on that direction. But you cannot know up front what the your game will say before making the changes.
What I am trying to say is, I think no developer developes a game without any thought of what this game will say, and on the other hand, developers can’t know up front what their game will say, before making some prototype.
@GAy, you talk too much and say very little.
It’s all relative what kind of games you want to make.
You say: “My point is, there is no right approach or wrong approach to developing games.”
Then later you say: “If you could calculate what a game will communicate, before having a prototype, then its not art. Its sience.”
You’re not making any sense. I agree on some point that you’ll learn by trial and error as well, and there’s no right and wrong is relative to the point what kind of games you make. But I disagree with your attitude and aproach to some degree. And why it IS art after you’ve made a prototype? Scientists and engineers design protypes as well? It’s not like Coulomb drew his machine out of his ass. Sigh.. you’re just making zero sense.
You can have a scientific aproach into making any art, infact many greats have had that. there’s no denying that.
“you would probabbly won’t know what the game communicates until you have the final product or some prototype.”
Jonathan Blow makes prototypes before starts a full project and has talked about the importance of protyping games. People actually make gameplay prototypes without fancy graphics and soundeffects. Nothing wrong with that. It’s like making a sketch for a drawing.
Infact ask any art major, music major, film making major, and you’ll see there’s science involved studying these arts. Infact TRIAL & ERROR is science on itself.
It’s the undereducated that say such banalities:”if you calculate and think, it’s not art” ..calculations are highly regarded in the fields of architechture. which is also considered a form of art.
And I can say from my own experience. I made a lot of music before I learned to analyze it, and it wasn’t bad. But the variety of styles which I can operate in after I learned to analyze and started to study has broadened to another level. There’s no saying my music is better - like in gameplay or graphical art there’s hard to argue what is of better quality so that’s beside the point - I simply have more KNOWHOW. Nowadays when someone asks me to do X music for X work I could say “OK” instead of “I’ll try” which was what I said before.
Thinking and analyzing the effects of gameplay are no different than thinking about i.e: harmonies in different musical styles.
actually your arguing about yourself with your final paragraph:
“Its about what feels right for you about the game, experience with your own previous work and other peoples’ work. Thats my opinion at least.”
No of these aren’t anything you can’t analyze. Infact if it’s about what feels right about earlier games and other games, you could say you’re already analyzing it in some level.
also. I won’t be replying to you anymore. because:
You start each post with a new different than before “but my point was being” which clearly shows you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing and that you’re probably a great moron!
I recommend you stop talking out of your ass. Good riddance!
And you know, even if you can design and think up front what your game will say. Not all developers are capable of doing that. You won’t necesseraly make better games than those developer who are a little slower than you.
Gay the slow developer says:
“And you know, even if you can design and think up front what your game will say. Not all developers are capable of doing that. You won’t necesseraly make better games than those developer who are a little slower than you.”
..after he said there’s no right and wrong in game developing just couple of minutes ago. Go figure what this nonsense means.
So? What does whether you design the gameplay to communicate before after playtesting have to do with whether the message of the gameplay is significant? That’s a red herring, like communism.
ANd you know what. I think saying what you said before is just a very poor excuse of being too LAZY to not even try!
INTERNET ARGUMENT!!!
everybody loses
Now you are saying something new, what is important about the message of the gameplay? It is only important if its important for the developer or for the player. And then its important to them.
I was talking about the experience from gameplay, which could be fun, suffering, enlighting, make you think about something and etc.
What is important is, does your game achieve what you want it to achieve? How would you know if it achieve that? You just play it and feel it for yourself. Or you play it and think about it afterwards.
What ever is your way to achieve what you want, if you believe you achieved something you are happy with, then whats the problem?
I can sit and think what my gameplay says, I can sit and experience my gameplay first hand. I can do some of this and some of that. I am not sure what is the right amount of each. I am pretty sure that every developer is doing some of both to some degree.
Though I argue with you that doing one more than the other is better or worse. After all, our time is limited in this world. And you can work on your game for 20 years if you like. Thinking about it, playtesting, thinking about it more. Analysing and doing whatever for 20 years. And eventually some person will play it and say it sucks. Or even worse, you won’t like your own game. But maybe working 20 years on a game is what suits some developer out there?
So I am not sure what you are trying to aruge. I am not sure what kind of thinking about the game you are suggesting to do. And I am not sure that this thinking will necesseraly improove your game, or will be better from spending your developement time in other ways.
It’s important because it’s a channel of communication, like the music or the art or the dialog. If you shut any of those off, or have them contradict each other, you’re lessening your game.
In my opinion, if you want to create gameplay that achieve a certain goal. You simply need to try to create that gameplay. You would probabbly not successed the first time, no matter how much thought you put into it. You might not successed the second time. But after several attempts, you will get better at it.
So in order to create the gameplay you want, you just need to practice in creating this kind of gameplay.
But maybe there are other ways to achieve that.
Of course gameplay is important, I am just not sure what kind of thinking do you suggest to do about it. I suggest that simply creating more and more gameplay, gaining experience in creating gameplay, will improove your ability to create better gameplay.
You just need to think “wouldn’t it be cool to do that?” try to develope this idea, and see if it is really cool or not cool. Of course some gameplay may take a lot of time to develope, so you have to think if its worth it. If you are not experience, you should probabbly try something safer, but then again, many people don’t want safe, they want awesome. So I am not sure what to suggest them to do.
… Are you suggesting that I think entire games should be developed on graph paper? If so, no. If not, then why are you bringing all this up?
Because you were suggesting that in the game industry, they don’t think enough on the gameplay.
And because I am not understanding what you are trying to say that should be done differently than what is already been done by most developers.
Think about what gameplay communicates. They don’t. Assume that it doesn’t communicate anything of value. Etc.
We’re just going in circles here, I’m out.
You are saying that an industry developer isn’t developing his game right. But you also didn’t write anything that this developer can read and understand what he needs to be doing differently. You just said, think about gameplay communication, but developers already do that.
I am sure that a game developer from the industry that will read what you wrote, will not be enlighted about how he needs to change his development process. He will just feel like you know something he don’t, and you don’t want, or can’t explain what is that thing.
Wow, I can’t believe you guys are still talking about this.
Just out of curiosity: how many times would you guys say Guy has shifted goalposts?
Geez, I can’t believe I’m still answerimng but I feel i’ve gone past some point and I think I’m just drawn to idiocracy.
“I am sure that a game developer from the industry that will read what you wrote, will not be enlighted about how he needs to change his development process. He will just feel like you know something he don’t, and you don’t want, or can’t explain what is that thing.”
No one forces him to change anything. And look the whole thread and you’ll see how much space takes on it. You can’t say with a straight face we haven’t tried to explain it to you.
“You just said, think about gameplay communication, but developers already do that.”
On some level yes. Mostly not in the level it could be thought about. You gotta have problems man. You read something and get the weirdest of pictures: “He’s saying that developer don’t think about anything of their gameplay” When do you got that from anyone. Quote please.
@Kongming: I have no idea anymore, I lost my count after dozenth time.. =P
On the other hand this is very entertaining.
Kongming, I was just trying to understand what kobel was trying to say. I think he was clear enough, and did not elaborate his point. So I tried to say different things and each time he told me thats not what he ment. I am sorry I cannot mind read people.
Bottom line, he said people are doing something wrong in developing their games, not thinking of gameplay communication. But I didn’t understand what he suggested those people do differently from what they are already doing.
@Guy: “Kongming, I was just trying to understand what kobel was trying to say. I think he was clear enough, and did not elaborate his point. So I tried to say different things and each time he told me thats not what he ment. I am sorry I cannot mind read people.”
As far as I can tell. you didn’t understand what he was saying and made an obscure reference that didn’t have anything to do with what he pointed out, which he then told that he didn’t mean it. It was you who actually constantly shifted your goalposts, while it was kobel who was trying to say the same thing different ways, yet keeping the main focus where it should be. Unlike you - you rambling maniac. Absolutely everyone can see that from the discussion here.
“Bottom line, he said people are doing something wrong in developing theirgames, not thinking of gameplay communication. But I didn’t understand what he suggested those people do differently from what they are already doing.”
You know.. i’m still waiting on that Quote for that I asked on my previous reply. I take it you don’t have it and you’re talking out of ass. I’d like you to quote where did Kobel say people are doing something terribly wrong when developing their games. Also quote what I asked you to quote before, on my previous post. If you are unable to deliver, I take you have zero credibility to have any arguments with.
It seems to me almost like you’re a bigger gamehouse developer (or aspire to become such one day) with a very low self-esteem that hurt his feelings only becouse someone noted that you can actually do something different from mainstream. No one said you have to. I’m not thinking you’re an idiot coz you don’t share my opinions and becouse you like different things. I think you’re an idiot becouse you’re the one unable to commicate your thoughs coherently. All you write is pretty much nonsense, filled with red herring.
Don’t say you’re the one who’s sorry about not being able to read minds. It’s you form all of us that makes less sense.
I also have to read your post like three times to get your message, coz your english is like fucking HORRIBLE. Mine is not perfect but JEESUS! What the hell is THIS supposed to mean even?
\|/
“I think he was clear enough, and did not elaborate his point. So I tried to say different things and..”
Wait? When someone tries to explain something to you and you don’t understand, It’s you who starts to ramble something? Excuse me but I see a problem here.. Either that was a typo (besides not using negative on was) or you SERIOUSLY NEED TO GET YOUR HEAD FIXED. What makes you think that when you don’t understand someone the correct action is to start talking about something thinly related to the subject, but not quite? IT’S UNPRODUCTIVE AND ILLOGICAL!
If you don’t understand you’re not writing a screen long posts about something, and then claim, but I don’t understand. You sit down and stay put, and keep on the point. And shut up.. and LISTEN.