TIGSource » TIGArchive » Jonathan Blow Interview: “No Compromises”

http://www.getmagi.com TeeGee

* Head Explodes! *

Hooker with a BeViS

@some other guy:

“uhhâ€¦ â€œExecutionâ€ doesnâ€™t explain anything either. Itâ€™s just a simple game that plays on the playerâ€™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. Thatâ€™s it. Itâ€™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!

Kobel

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” â€“ 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 sh?h (“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?

Guy

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?

Kobel

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.

Guy

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.

Guy

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.

Kobel

Okay then you agree that gameplay communicates. So I think we’re done here.

Hooker with BeViS

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.

Guy

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.

Kobel

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.

Kobel

Wait a minute, Diablo monsters didn’t respawn! XD

Hooker with a BeViS

Guy is a pretty tough guy, fails arguments and as a person, and fears nothing.

Guy

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.

Kobel

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.

Guy

Hell, I think you are right.
They don’t respawn o.O

Guy

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.

Hooker with a BeViS

@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 wonâ€™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 peoplesâ€™ 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!

Guy

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.

Hooker with a BeViS

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 wonâ€™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.

Kobel

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.

Hooker with a BeViS

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!

http://www.kokoromi.org FISH

INTERNET ARGUMENT!!!

haowan

everybody loses

Guy

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.

Kobel

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.

Guy

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.

Guy

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.

Kobel

… 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?

Guy

Because you were suggesting that in the game industry, they don’t think enough on the gameplay.

Guy

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.

Kobel

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.

Guy

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.

Kongming

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?

Hooker with a BeViS

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 donâ€™t, and you donâ€™t want, or canâ€™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.

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.

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.

Hooker with a BeViS

@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 didnâ€™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.

Hooker with a BeViS

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.

Jonathan Blow Interview: “No Compromises”

By: Derek Yu

On: September 3rd, 2008