163: Jonathan Blow's Shifting Intention

[Jordan Deam]

If audiences knew what they wanted and were able to express it, why is Wii Sports so phenomonally successful? Or Brain Training?

I agree. People say that game developers are just giving the players what they want, but the fact is - at least to some extent - they create their own demand. And Blow is right: It's easy to give customers what you think they want; it's much riskier to give them what you would want.

I guarantee there are plenty of developers out there who have ideas about game design as unique as Blow's. The problem is getting paid to implement them

 

[Smokescreen]

I don't know where this great fear of government intervention comes from. I'm not sure what experience, exactly, has inebriated the public conciousness with fear of government control.

Well, the regulation of comic books in the 50s (which fucked that industry over for decades) and of the music industry in the 80's would be good, obvious points to start.

Perhaps we should fear speed limits and stop signs soon as well? If it was arguable that video games could never be dangerous, then sure, go crazy. But I don't think that the scientific opinion leans that direction, nor does my own experience.

So you're deliberately joining two very different ideas (speed limits/stop signs + videogames) to prove your danger index. Except that the consequences of not having the former very obviously can be shown to have harm, where as you admit yourself that videogames do not seem to have the same level of threat to life and limb.

Regulations and rules are required in some places if we don't want to dissolve into some kind of brutal 'survival of the fittest' or 'shit happens, too bad' mentality. The question is: where?

And if it is dangerous, then the only thing that will regulate it is the government. The market will never regulate itself because the market isn't in control. The consumer is.

The idea that the consumer is in control is...not so supportable for me. Because the consumer with the most money will dictate a lot more to and about that market than hundreds of poorer ones, and poorer consumers certainly do not have the power to force the market into doing things for them. On top of that, regulations can pretty much bankrupt a business, if done right (see what happened to EC Comics). I'd recommend The Commanding Heights and Shock Doctrine to see how governments interfere (for good and ill) in markets, and how that can be relevant.

It's worth being very, very cautious of any governmental control over personal expression, and videogames do fall under this umbrella to me. If enough people become afraid of that expression, it will be regulated, make no mistake, and probably regulated by people who have no interest in, as Blow hopes for, pushing the industry to do more for us, and have a lot more interest in making sure Madden XX is safe for everyone and making a fuckton of money.

The thing that Thais and Rogue Wolf overlook is that games really do teach us something-even games that they insist are just 'fun'. We learn by doing, and games give us puzzles to work out. If solving that puzzle merely means: Invest 30 hours into the game to win, that's fine for some, but if that's all we get (and most of the time that is exactly what we get) then there is a problem, and I'd say pointing that out is a good thing.

The idea that games are fun, and fun only (or at their best are only fun) is exactly what Blow is saying is wrong, and I agree with him. They don't have to be more, and certainly fun is a great baseline for a game, but to ask for nothing more is a problem.

The audience Blow is trying to reach are game developers, and his message is that developers have an opportunity to look beyond their genres and "stated customer expectations" and push the field. They have an opportunity to address this "cognitive dissonance" between mechanics and narative, once they identify it and understand how it affects the audience.

The problem with that is; who gives a fuck about developers?
Other developers. If all you do is speak in a language that your own clique can understand, then how can you get your message out there?

The audience Blow is trying to reach has to be everyone, otherwise people won't actually investigate or ask for more from their games. While your point about audiences not knowing what they want is well taken, there are obviously SOME people who want more from their experiences beyond developers, (even if it's newcomers who play for 10 minutes and say: this ain't it) because as you point out; Wii Sports is successful.

But isn't that based on the thrill of seeing someone play DDR years ago?

And where did that come from, I wonder?

 

[Thais]

Guys, I never said that the game has to be "just" anything. A game can be innovative, it can teach you new ways to think (play is the most effective way of learning new skills, after all) a game can raise important issues and new philosophies and be very pretty and artistic and everything else Blow's saying he wants...

What I said is that it needs to be fun. Perhaps I should have said "too" after "fun", but my point still stands. I don't want to turn on a game and feel like I'm being lectured or sermonized at by it. And you know what? Most people, whether they openly admit it or not, probably feel the same. The thing that ticks me off about this interview in particular is that Blow's comments sounds like he's advocating everything else...oh, yeah...and then "make it something that people want to play. But don't discard any of all the stuff that I think is more important that giving people a game they want to play."

After all, it's a videogame...it has to be high art and philosophy rolled into one. And then maybe someone can convince themselves that it's fun to play...so they don't look like an ass for spending all that time not enjoying thier hobby. /sarcasm

 

[stevesan]

If audiences knew what they wanted and were able to express it, why is Wii Sports so phenomonally successful? Or Brain Training?

I agree. People say that game developers are just giving the players what they want, but the fact is - at least to some extent - they create their own demand. And Blow is right: It's easy to give customers what you think they want; it's much riskier to give them what you would want.

I guarantee there are plenty of developers out there who have ideas about game design as unique as Blow's. The problem is getting paid to implement them

I bet you that if people actually implemented every great idea they had, they would realize how much they all actually suck. Forget the mainstream - good luck making something YOU would enjoy! it's not easy. talk is cheap, folks.

Having said that, the only way to realize that a great idea is actually great is to implement it. Nothing more nothing less. That's part of Blow's message to aspiring developers: Just fucking implement it and see. Yes, it'll be tough if you don't know how to do it. So learn, or get a friend to help you. But don't think people are gonna give you money just because the game is awesome in your mind.

Action over thought.

 

[stevesan]

I think Blow's message is pretty simple: If you want to make more innovative games, do it. Prototyping is easier than ever these days.

If you don't have time to do it, well, that's why you're not doing it: you don't have time, or you don't really have the motivation to. Nothing wrong with that, but that's why. Deal with it.

His message is a call to action: There is much unexplored (or rarely explored, or haven't explored in a while) territory in video games, so if you really care about innovation and the health of the medium, go forth and explore - there's plenty to find!

 

[Finnish(ed)]

While I agree with most of what Blow said, I think there is a lot more room for reform. For example, Braid had me jumping on generic enemies and reading the story in text. These are the wrong kinds of traditions to uphold. Games should try to avoid the traditional abstractions and trust their own strengths.

I absolutely hate it when people repeat the words "fun" and "addictive" like they're a mantra. No one thinks that adding nicotine to cigarettes to make them more addictive is a good thing. Fun on the other hand is completely subjective. What is fun for some can be absolute torture for someone else. I could name a bunch of popular games I hate as an example.

On escapism I disagree with Blow. If you are not religious, everything we do, that is not directly contributing survival, is escapism. We are all trying to escape from the feeling that there is no purpose for living, except procreation.

 

[Mr. Bubbles]

Good read. I don't agree with Blow on everything, but he makes a convincing argument, I'll give him that. As for Braid, it was a fun, good game and I liked it when it didn't frustrate me (I'm terrible at platformers).

 

[Smokescreen]

The thing that ticks me off about this interview in particular is that Blow's comments sounds like he's advocating everything else...oh, yeah...and then "make it something that people want to play. But don't discard any of all the stuff that I think is more important that giving people a game they want to play."

It's weird that you're "ticked off" by this guy's comments. Since one of the defining parameters of a successful game is that it is fun (by someone's merit anyway), failing that standard would mean that you've made an unsuccessful game, even if it does include some kind "higher artistic purpose".

After all, it's a videogame...it has to be high art and philosophy rolled into one. And then maybe someone can convince themselves that it's fun to play...so they don't look like an ass for spending all that time not enjoying thier hobby. /sarcasm

It sounds like you're protesting too much. "Don't forget that it has to be fun!" I don't think anyone, least of all Blow, would suggest that people start making games that are work.

World of Warcraft aside.
/I kid!

The fact of the matter is; there are plenty of games to be made out there that can and probably ought to strive to do more, even if what we have now works great for some people. If those games want to be successful, then being fun will have to be a part of them but there is still plenty of room to grow.

@Finnish(ed)-that's an interesting point about escapism.

 

[Thais]

Oh don't start with me Smokescreen. A sarcastic comment isn't an additional "protest".

 

[Smokescreen]

Oh don't start with me Smokescreen. A sarcastic comment isn't an additional "protest".

Uh, once again, your response is disproportionate to the discussion.

You aren't being attacked. At worst, you're being asked to explain. You taking that tone with me is not only odd, but antagonistic, and there's really no reason for it.

 

[Kevashim]

So what precisely is the message behind Braid? I don't personally have the inclination to purchase the game in order to find out; the lack of replayability and expected game-life of around 6 hours have put me off at the price it's currently being marketed at. This is a particular sticking point as there is presently no intention of further development vis-a-vis additional levels or a sequel.

 

[Arbre]

Arrogant? He has a vision, and I agree with him on his views of MMOs. They are terrible. 10% of game and 90% of Satan.
About the art thing? I don't know, it's more a question of putting emotions on the foreground, since I don't buy that art stuff.
The other claim, which is approximatively "use old to make new good with style and spirit", is a good one. If you eventually find new game mechanics, all the better.
That doesn't mean you should refrain from digging for more crazy concepts!

While I do applaud his moxy, I think he may be sailing the wrong way in the storm. At best, he's going to make himself look valiant. At worse, hes going to sink the ship. Either way, he sure as hell isn't going to change which way the storm blows.

You have to consider the context. He's in the indie industry, and there's been a thought going on for a couple of years since the end of the PS2 era and the beginning of the next gen, is that indie games should be looking for innovation.
Innovation was used willy nilly like magic words, and that's a mistake.

If people didn't need the grind that WoW offers, they wouldn't play WoW.

Grind offers nothing. You just have such an impression, but it's ultimately hollow. It's an appeal to the most basic materialistic instincts and toeing cleptomania.
I don't really see why people need those kind of experiences, especially to such an extent. They really look like mid-to-hard drugs to me. Negatively compulsive, empty and dumb stuff which can be played in a semi-coma state.

 

[Sewblon]

Guys, play Braid, seriously. It's the Pulp Fiction of gaming. You will understand what he is talking about when you do.

I had fun with Braid until I found out about the secret stars, then I felt ripped off. But Braid is a deconstruction of sorts so maybe that is the point and I am not smart enough to see that. But Mr.Blow is still much better at teaching by example than by words.