Jonathan Blow Interview: “No Compromises”

By: Derek Yu

On: September 3rd, 2008

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!

Posted in Community, Interviews | Tags: JonathanBlow

Helm

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.
Kongming

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.
Kongming

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.”)
Kobel

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.
Kongming

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.
Kobel

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.
Kongming

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.
rodnonymous

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.
Guy

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?
Kobel

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?
Kongming

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.
Guy

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.
Kongming

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.
Guy

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.
http://del_duio.sitesled.com Del Duio

Didnâ€™t he spend like Â£150,000 on braidâ€¦ NOT AN INDEPENDENT GAME!

If he spent it on chips & beer it is. Maybe Stop & Shop head razors?
Kongming

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.
Guy

>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.
Kobel

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.
Guy

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.
Zoltan Incredible

“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 itâ€™s just interactivity then weâ€™re making graphical choose your own adventure novels which is, you know, just fine, but I wouldnâ€™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?
Kobel

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.
Zoltan Incredible

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.
Guy

I just don’t understand what is gameplay art. It would be like saying “dialog art”. It doesn’t make sense to me.
moi

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.
Kobel

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?
Paul Eres

“I think one day weâ€™ll have to start pondering wether captive market games( XBLA,PSN,WIIWARE,IPHONE) are really â€œindieâ€ 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.
Sigvatr

How old is Blow anyway?
Critic

@ 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.
Hooker with a BeViS

@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 â€œdialog artâ€. It doesnâ€™t make sense to me.” <--Epic fail! ..dude!
Hooker with a BeViS

@Critic:

“Compromise does not suit my personality very wellâ€ sounds like theyâ€™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, Iâ€™d like to draw attention to the fact that I havenâ€™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?!
Guy

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.
Guy

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.
Hooker with a BeViS

@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, didnâ€™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) =)
Guy

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.
Hooker with a BeViS

@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 donâ€™t understand what is gameplay art. It would be like saying â€œdialog artâ€. It doesnâ€™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 wonâ€™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!
Hooker with a BeViS

@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 donâ€™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?
Guy

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.
Hooker with a BeViS

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!
Kobel

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).
Guy

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.
Kobel

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.
Guy

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.
haowan

“Christ that got a little tl;dr”

lol
Hooker with a BeViS

@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!
Kobel

You don’t understand what I mean by gameplay communicating? I just provided a bunch of examples!
Hooker with a BeViS

OMFG!!!
Hooker with a BeViS

@Kobel Pwning Guy:

“I would appreciate it VERY much if you did not tell me what I think.” (..and the whole post)

I LOLLED!
Guy

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.
Hooker with a BeViS

@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?
some other guy

@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.