TIGInterview: Jonathan Blow

By: Leigh Christian Ashton

On: May 11th, 2009

I’d find it hard to believe anyone visiting these pages would need an introduction to Jonathan Blow, the amazingly talented game developer/guru seems to be everywhere at the moment, his game Braid being the darling hit on Xbox Live and having recently stormed onto the PC. I took the opportunity to fire some questions over so that he could pour some honey into my ears in reply (except, being an email interview, i guess it would be my eyes? and metaphorically at that?)

Anyway, without further ado, please read on..

Leigh: Jon, hello, thanks for taking the time to answer some of my questions. Could you please introduce yourself to the crowd?

Jon: Hi, my name is Jonathan Blow. I make games! I started out in games as mainly a technical guy, but recently I have been thinking ever-more about design, and on Braid I cared much more about the game design than the technical parts.

Leigh: Youâ€™ve just released Braid on multiple distribution platforms for the PC. With a longer than average development cycle for an independent developer, you must be pleased to see it finally go out the door?

Jon: It’s nice to have the game (mostly) done. There’s still the Mac port to watch over (though I am not handling the porting of that; Hothead Games is doing it), and the question of whether Braid is going to appear on any other consoles.

Leigh: Though originally developed for the PC, you released Braid first for the Xbox 360, Did this add substantial development time to the project? How complete was the PC version prior to the switch?

Jon: The Xbox 360 version definitely did add substantial development time to the project; there’s a lot of work to do for a platform like that. However, there wasn’t really a “switch”. It was up in the air which platform would be the first release, and eventually I decided on the Xbox 360. At that time the game was pretty much done from end to end, in terms of the number of levels and the puzzle design, though that had been true for a while (the IGF award-winning submission of Braid was the complete game, and that was back in December 2005; I signed with Microsoft in mid-2007). Even after the Xbox 360 was chosen as the target platform, there was a lot of work left to do on the basic game — I was still working heavily with David Hellman to determine how the game would look, and to produce the graphics and do the programming required to place them in the levels.

Leigh: Has the PC version benefited in any substantial way from the inclusion of a port to the 360?

Jon: It was nice to have a solid, well-defined platform to focus on while finishing the actual game part of the game, before having to worry about all the programming involved in dealing with PC compatibility issues. So I think the game benefited some from my being able to focus on a single tangible experience that the user would have.

Leigh: Braid feels like a game you want people to become emotionally engaged in more than just played, do you feel its important for games to be more than a test of skill or memory?

Jon: I wouldn’t ever claim that all games should be a certain way. There are a lot of possibilities for where games can go, and it’s probably a good idea to explore them all.

Leigh: Is it better to elicit emotional responses through gameplay or narrative? Does it matter if either is well done?

Jon: I gave a whole lecture recently about why I think story-based games have a lot of problems. Here’s the link: http://braid-game.com/news/?p=385 . If a designer is thinking about making something emotional through narrative, I would encourage some kind of narrative structure that is not trying to be a conventional linear story. Of course the gameplay route is also full of untapped potential, but there are reasons why it can be difficult to make headway there, which I discuss in the lecture.

Leigh: You spend a lot of time making prototypes of different gameplay mechanics, is it as much about implementation as innovation?

Jon: If you mean about enjoying the craft of programming… I have to admit I don’t really enjoy programming very much any more, because in order to get things done I have adopted a style of programming that makes it as simple as I can, so that it is just easy to get things done, and it only requires time and a lot of typing. So I am not really solving any difficult puzzles or challenges when programming, as beginning programmers might. On the plus side, this means I can program in a relatively efficient manner; on the minus side, it’s a less-engaging activity. I make up for that on the design side; whether I am making a prototype or a full game, it’s about exploring some interesting space of ideas. Programming is now just the implementation detail of how I do that exploration.

It’s not really about innovation so much as exploring interestingness. There is this idea of chasing innovation in game design that I used to be a big proponent of, but that I now suspect is a little bit misdirected.

Leigh: You’re not afraid to throw away cool ideas when they donâ€™t feel right at the prototype stage. A lot of other developers might not be so detached from their ideas.

Jon: These things are true! I try to encourage people to be willing to delete stuff that is mediocre or just kind of good – or at least put that stuff in a closet for some future day – so that they can focus on the stuff that is great. Many people don’t think that way, though. When it is so hard to get anything substantial done, you just don’t want to throw away any of your hard-earned progress. One solution is to make it easier to make progress.

Leigh: Should all games try to innovate? Is re-interpreting the implementation of an innovative new mechanic as valid? I ask because itâ€™s worth noting a number of games have time-play in them now.

Jon: I think gameplay innovation can result in things that are interesting, but at the same time it doesn’t automatically result in something that is deep — often it’s a gimmick. I am interested in deepness and richness of game design. You can get that with deliberate innovation or without; I think the issues are orthogonal. At the same time, I think if a designer is working on something he really cares about, and is really exploring some ideas in his own style, bringing his own particular insight to the table, then he will automatically come up with something different than most other games; furthermore, this will be a deeper, more-compelling kind of innovation.

That’s what I meant earlier about the deliberate chasing of innovation being a somewhat misguided pursuit. Yes, you can make neat stuff that way, but the innovation will come to you for free if you do things a different way, and you are likely to end up with a different result.

To take a specific example, Braid would be kind of interesting if it were a game with gimmicky time-manipulation mechanics, but I think that many players find it more interesting than that because it is built on a core philosophy and a thorough exploration of a certain set of ideas. Players can feel that, even if they can’t say what the philosophy is or explain the ideas being explored.

Leigh: With talk of innovation and emotional investment, there are still some very conventional design choices like jumping on the head of monsters, moving platforms, ladders, levers and collectables. Is this saying fundamentally thereâ€™s not so much wrong with games as they are, they just missing those one or two extra ideas to make them more worthwhile?

Jon: I did these things because they were right for Braid; for another game, I would do something completely different. I don’t think you should take the presence of these elements in Braid as any kind of statement about whether anything is or isn’t wrong with games as they are.

Leigh: Can you talk a little about what inspires your design choices?

Jon: I’d like to, but this is a very broad question. Hopefully in the previous answers I have at least given a little bit of information about this.

Leigh: What about games that you enjoy, are there any real favourites you can say have had an impact on you in some way?

Jon: There are a lot of games that I’ve played that I enjoyed and that influenced the design of Braid. Probably too many to name. Games that currently spring to mind as “favorites” are very different and probably didn’t influence Braid too much (examples: Netrek, and Counter-Strike sometime around the beta 4 – beta 5 timeframe).

Leigh: Since Braid is a platformer, I want to tell you my favourite platformer of all time was The New Zealand Story. Any chance of a remake with time reversal? :)

Jon: I never played The New Zealand Story! Maybe I’ll be able to check it out sometime.

Leigh: Heh, I was only joking, but have you ever wanted to remake any old favorites, felt there was an opportunity missed that you’d like to explore?

Jon: I often get the idea to remake old games, though I usually don’t do it. Actually, though, one of the earlier ideas I was playing with in Braid was that there would be secret levels with remakes of classic games, modified with the time rules of each particular world, accessible when you finished each puzzle. I had an entire remake of Mountain King in Braid at one point. I think it was better than the original Mountain King, with more-sophisticated gameplay, but it didn’t fit what Braid was becoming, so I eventually took it out.

Leigh: Thanks for your time Jon! It’s been really great to hear from you.

Jon: You’re welcome!

Jonathan Blow created Braid for the Xbox 360 and PC which is available now at various digital outlets. You can view the Braid website, Jon has a blog and he is also a workshop organizer at The Experimental Gameplay Workshop

To top it all off, he’s an indie superhero who could talk the hind legs off a donkey, bravo sir!

Posted in Developers, Games and Art?, IGF / GDC, Interviews, Platformers, Windows, Xbox 360 | Tags: braid, JonBlow

Paul Eres

I think Jon somewhat speaks against himself with these two claims:

“I wouldnâ€™t ever claim that all games should be a certain way. There are a lot of possibilities for where games can go, and itâ€™s probably a good idea to explore them all.”

and

“I gave a whole lecture recently about why I think story-based games have a lot of problems. Hereâ€™s the link: http://braid-game.com/news/?p=385 . If a designer is thinking about making something emotional through narrative, I would encourage some kind of narrative structure that is not trying to be a conventional linear story.”

A lot of people enjoy games with linear stories, and a lot more can be done with that than has been done (I’d love to see more games like Planescape: Torment for instance), so why shouldn’t that direction be further explored, just like all the other directions? :)
sinoth

Is that a KoL shirt? :)
Esquar

He’s saying he would encourage developers to try something different, story-wise, than what has already been done. He’s not demanding it though, just suggesting.

There were some cool questions in there.
AGuy

I don’t think Planescape: Torment necessarily counts as “conventional” linear. There were a lot of things you could do that changed certain parts. While for the main story you did travel in more or less a set path, there were also your teammates to consider, and all of the various dialogue choices which contributed a great deal to any emotions the player might have felt.

Connecting this back with the interview, I don’t think he necessarily means avoiding linearity *completely*. (Then again, maybe he does? But that’s my take on it.)
Jonathan Blow

I wouldn’t ever say that a game should not have a linear story. Just that if it does, and it fails to provide a core value proposition besides that linear story, then it’s not going to be as well-executed/compelling/deep/meaningful to people as a story told in a linear medium.

But hey, you can still make that game if you disagree. etc.
magallanes

Hi there:

I played Braid, and while artistically is fine but the rest is meh, in fact is boring.
Trotim

Wow magallanes, that’s a great review.
Gravious

Frankly I’m still in shock that Jon hasn’t played The New Zealand Story..

Surely the finest arcade platformer ever?
http://www.dyson-game.com Alex May

@Gravious:
Maybe at the time! I tried it again recently and it hasn’t stood the test of time for me. Way too hard and punishment-happy. However I still love hijacking some of the weird vehicles that are around, and the secrets were great, really hard to find etc. A mixed bag!

@magallanes: What’s your point?
lol

In my opinion, games are not a very good medium to tell stories to begin with. I’m yet to find a game that beats a good book or a movie, narrative-wise.

They can tell simple stories to support the fantasy but I don’t think telling a story should even be their main goal.

Games offer another kind of experiences, let’s not try to force them to tell stories when we’ve got better mediums for that matter.
http://www.glaielgames.com Glaiel Gamer

Games are fine for telling stories, they just have to be told differently than other mediums. But when a medium is new, people still fall back on trying to replicate what came before it (in this case, movies).

That’s not to say it can’t be done that way. I mean there’s still movies that tell the story like a book does.

It’s ridiculous to say that games are not a good medium to tell a story compared to movies or books just because there hasn’t been a good example yet. I can find games that beat out most of the movies out there. Even so, it’s near pointless to compare, like trying to compare stories songs can tell to movies. Mind trying to compare the story in Bohemian Rhapsody to any movie? You can’t really, because it tells it in a way unique to its medium.

Braid’s pretty close to this, it’s tough to compare to movies or books because it takes advantage of the uniqueness of the medium. It’s tough to explain why without giving spoilers.

I’ve played around with this too a bit. Essentially what I did in Closure was have discovering what the story was part of the puzzle. Movies and books rely on stories to tell. Games are unique in that we can have the story take the backseat. It doesn’t need to be there, and in fact it can remain seemingly hidden from view unless the player cares enough to think about it. That’s what I’ve discovered for how to use games as a unique story telling device, but it certainly isn’t the only way, and I’m sure we’ll see many excellent stories come out as the medium matures.
Vitae

I’d say Mass Effect is a pretty good example of how good games can tell a story in a quality that easily rivals that of movies.
Corpus

Nah, Mass Effect is a pretty bad example, in my opinion. I quite enjoyed its dialogue system, but, really, it was nothing more than an extensive branching story with a slightly unusual method of interaction (the radial selection thing).

I spent far more of the game sitting listening to characters saying things and occasionally moving a thumb to choose my response than I did actually *doing* things and, for that reason, I don’t think that it’s an example of a game that makes effective use of the medium.
PHeMoX

“A lot of people enjoy games with linear stories, and a lot more can be done with that than has been done (Iâ€™d love to see more games like Planescape: Torment for instance), so why shouldnâ€™t that direction be further explored, just like all the other directions? :)”

Personally I don’t disagree with this, I liked Planescape: Torment, but I do think open-ended games and non-linearity in story telling should be the future of gaming as we know it. I mean when it comes to the average kind of rather linear story telling in games, there’s really a good chunk of things that can and should change.

A real progress in story telling would be games with adaptive stories. The whole ‘this happens when you’re evil or good’ kind of thing was a step in the right direction, but somehow most games only briefly touched the possibilities without really daring to go further.

Of course, gameplay ultimately should never suffer (too much) when the emphasis is on a game’s story.
falsion

I really don’t this guy much. He has too much of an inflated ego. All he’s done is made one game and he thinks he is the expert on what makes a game good or not or what an ideal game should be. I mean. Hello? People have different tastes you know. What you may like is not the be all and end all of everything!

Take this bit for instance:
“If a designer is thinking about making something emotional through narrative, I would encourage some kind of narrative structure that is not trying to be a conventional linear story”

Why? Most non-linear games I’ve played never really had as much of an emotional effect as the ones that are often considered linear. Here’s two examples. Say, Phoenix Wright, or Mother 3. Both games can be considered linear, but man are they powerful, they really do make you feel for the characters, and they do an awesome job at conveying emotion.

But then again, this is all meaningless because this is a matter of taste. It’s a matter of Jonathan Blow not having a preference for linear stories.

Yet, he goes around and touts his opinion like its fact. He lectures other people on what his own tastes are.

That’s just mind boggling. Not even releasing a game on your own gives you the authority to do that. Never mind the fact that doing that is just wrong in the first place.
Jonathan Blow

A certain sector of game designers tends to think a lot about what they do; they communicate to each other about what they are thinking, and often that communication takes the form of lectures. This communication is how the design paradigm evolves, and thus how game designs get better over time.

It’s not “mind boggling”, it’s what professional game designers do every year at conferences.

Thanks for the *ad hominem* attacks, though! They really raise the level of discourse here on tigsource.
AGuy

He says he’d encourage it, it doesn’t mean it’s something he’s forcing you to do.. it’s an opinion. I think you’re reading too much into his choice of wording there. Hell, look at the comment he put in above “But hey, you can still make that game if you disagree. etc.” People are allowed to have opinions on how to tell a story, it’s not like he’s forcing you to follow his methods.

Also, he wasn’t saying don’t do linear games. Just that if it doesn’t do something in addition to the linear story that takes advantage of the medium, then it’s not going to be as compelling as something from a medium that is naturally told in a linear fashion (book, movie, etc). At least, that’s what it sounds like to me.
skaldicpoet9

I think that you are missing the point. I don’t believe the Mr. Blow was trying to say that linear stories have no place in games, only that they are somewhat tricky due to the nature of games themselves.

Ironically I was actually thinking about this concept just yesterday. I was trying to think of what the most effective way to convey an emotionally charged story to the player and still allow the player to participate in the story as games traditionally do.

I came to the conclusion that yes, you could develop a linear narrative with a beginning middle and end but that would seem to constrict the medium to too narrow a scope. The player is usually provided with very little interactivity on the game aside from whatever particular style of gameplay it employs. I thought to myself again and came up with a branching storyline the player could participate in through the action of being able to play as one of supporting characters rather then the main character. Think of a Pulp Fiction kind of thing where all of the seemingly dis-separate parts of the story come together in a cohesive whole.

The player gets to experience the actions of the characters around the main character and this in turn gives the player a greater understanding of the psychological make-ups of all of the characters.

It is still just a small idea but someday I hope to flesh it out to a much greater degree. I believe that games can be so much more if we just explore the ways that games can do what other mediums cannot.
Corpus

Jesus Christ, what is it with this fucking weird culture of anti-intellectualism, anti-opinionism, anti-expressionism and, it often seems to me, anti-everything-ism exhibited by so many strange, small-minded people just like yourself, falsion?

Jon Blow thinks, or acts like he thinks he’s an expert on these matters because he IS an expert. He worked for several years, as I recall, as a design consultant, or as some other variety of mysterious, freelancing consultant, on various very large games prior to the release of Braid. Even if it weren’t for that, what does it *matter* how many games he’s released? He spent something like three years developing Braid, and it’s clear that its design and development involved as much careful consideration as ever graced the production of the manifold creations of certain developers of a more prodigious output in that same period of time.

I’m digressing, here.

Do you even know how human interaction works? If nobody ever spoke their mind, how would we ever develop as a species or, on a smaller scale, as societies?

I really have no idea what you think is happening here.
http://www.glaielgames.com Glaiel Gamer

I just love how people equate “successful and well spoken” to “egotistical”
falsion

“Thanks for the ad hominem attacks, though! They really raise the level of discourse here on tigsource.”

That’s just what I think about you in general from everything I’ve read from you, it had nothing to do with my actual argument. This isn’t just based on one article either. You’ve always struck me as a very a pretentious guy with a huge fucking ego.

Anyway, with that out of the way. Let’s look at some other things you’ve said.

“One example that Blow cites is World of Warcraft, which he labels “unethical”, stating that such games exploit players by using a simple reward-for-suffering scheme to keep them in front of their computer.”

Suffering? Who says they are suffering? I know a lot of people who play MMO games because they actually enjoy playing it. Who are you to say its unethical? Did you ever consider the fact that some people aren’t actually being “exploited” but actually enjoy playing such games?

You always make these comments that are really narrow and close minded, that often only stem from your point of view. And then you try to present them as fact, when really they’re just your own narrow minded opinions.

If you want, I’ll pull up some more examples of you doing the same thing.

“A certain sector of game designers tends to think a lot about what they do; they communicate to each other about what they are thinking, and often that communication takes the form of lectures. This communication is how the design paradigm evolves, and thus how game designs get better over time.

Itâ€™s not â€œmind bogglingâ€, itâ€™s what professional game designers do every year at conferences.”

I’ve seen some of these. Like the one by Cactus right? I think I’ve also seen something like this from Hideo Kojima once. But most of the time they’re just talking about what ideas go through their head when they create something. Hell, what they say is usually helpful in the sense that you get an idea of their thought process. While you on the other hand, it always seems like you’re trying to get people to see things according to your opinion, which you often seem to present as a fact when it’s just a matter of tastes and what you prefer. And quite frankly, that’s bullshit.
falsion

I just think like this. Everyone has their own “style.” They all have their own way of doing things, and their own preferences and tastes. And everyone has their own way of doing things when it comes to making games.

There is no correct way of doing something. Everyone has whatever works for them. I enjoy hearing about how people make their games and what thought processes go through their mind. But hearing someone talk about what is “wrong” and what is right when it comes to making a game is probably where I cross the line. Especially when its nothing more than your tastes or preferences presented as a fact when it isn’t, it’s only your opinion.
avoidobject

“Jesus Christ, what is it with this fucking weird culture of anti-intellectualism, anti-opinionism, anti-expressionism and, it often seems to me, anti-everything-ism exhibited by so many strange, small-minded people just like yourself, falsion?”

Here’s the thing though. They’re just video games. Just mindless interactive diversions that you play (or make) in your free time for fun (or in this case, maybe for profit?). Trying to debate the intellectual details of video games is like trying to discuss the finer details of professional wrestling. There are none. Making it seem more complicated and complex than it really is doesn’t change that fact.

Maybe if we were discussing literature or philosophy you could make the argument that seeing it as pointless or trivial is anti-everything, small minded, or whatever.
Edmund

abortion is murder!
Montoli

>Hereâ€™s the thing though. Theyâ€™re just video games. Just mindless interactive diversions that you play (or make) in your free time for fun (or in this case, maybe for profit?). Trying to debate the intellectual details of video games is like trying to discuss the finer details of professional wrestling. There are none. Making it seem more complicated and complex than it really is doesnâ€™t change that fact.

>Maybe if we were discussing literature or philosophy you could make the argument that seeing it as pointless or trivial is anti-everything, small minded, or whatever.

Ahh but you forget where you’re posting. (Unless this is a deliberate troll? It seems suspiciously placed… What the heck though, I’ll bite.)

Many of the people who make games do so precisely BECAUSE they have a firm conviction that games CAN be more, CAN have such nuance, and go about trying their best to prove everyone wrong. Personally? I agree with them, and feel that anyone saying “Games are just for fun and have no intellectual details” is like saying “Comics are just funny pictures with words, and no literary merit whatsoever. Watchmen? What’s that?”

I don’t think there is such a thing as a genre that can’t be elevated to a deep level by people who care enough to do so. And clearly there are plenty of people who care about elevating games. Especially here, of all places.

So yeah. If you don’t want to talk about nuance and intellectual details in games, I certainly won’t try to force you, but please don’t hold it against us if some of us DO actively spend time thinking about how to make games more meaningful and deep, and want to talk about it. :D
http://www.glaielgames.com Glaiel Gamer

falsion: “it always seems like youâ€™re trying to get people to see things according to your opinion”

There’s a name for this… it’s on the tip of my tounge… oh right “communication”

avoidobject:”Hereâ€™s the thing though. Theyâ€™re just video games. Just mindless interactive diversions that you play (or make) in your free time for fun (or in this case, maybe for profit?). Trying to debate the intellectual details of video games is like trying to discuss the finer details of professional wrestling.”

No it’s more like trying to discuss the artistic and intellectual qualities of movies. But oh ya I forget every movie ever made is an actionfest and nobody thinks of them as an art form, cause they are all action movies or comedies.
jim

“Suffering? Who says they are suffering? I know a lot of people who play MMO games because they actually enjoy playing it.”

What about ideas like grind?

And what about all the people who buy gold from gold farmers?
They prove that a sizable number of people think certain elements of MMO games are a stupid waste of time.

They’re probably right.
The “ethical” solution probably isn’t having to pay extra money to skip dull gameplay.
Lyx

Oh dear, is it punk-time again on TIGSource? How does that guy DARE to have an above average opinion about himself, and then still get respected for backing that up with statements which make sense? Scandal! Get back in line, drone!

In other news: Thanks for the interview – both to the interviewer as well as Blow. While i have seen more interesting interviews/articles of him, this one had some interesting questions and replies.

If you read this Blow, then i have a question where your view would be interesting to me. You’ve hinted a few times already that one of the strengths of games is interaction – and that if story is an important part of a game, this interactivity should also cover the story. The classical example for storytelling in games is Interactive Fiction. Now, as you may know, Emily Short once blasted the genre boundaries with Galatea. My question is: What are your thoughts on interactive storytelling in games, via character AIs? The story in such a case isn’t written beforehand – rather, it develops from the interaction between the player and the NPC. The most obvious difference to the conventional understanding of “story” here is that what as a gamedesigner one would be doing, is basically the creation of a story-generator: The NPCs get an articial psyche – they work according to a preprogrammed mechanic – and the story then evolves from the interaction between player and AI. What are your views on such an approach – is it something you thought about yet?
avoidobject

“No itâ€™s more like trying to discuss the artistic and intellectual qualities of movies.”

I disagree. Movies can indeed be artistic and intellectual, sure. But they have more freedom to do so in the sense that they don’t have to worry about sacrificing gameplay for any other aspect because there is no gameplay.

In fact, the reason I used professional wrestling as an example is because really, the story lines of games aren’t that much more complex than the extent of the story lines in pro wrestling.

Both use story in the sense that there is just some small backstory or series of events that force them to do what they’re doing. In wrestling, it’s wrestling of coarse. In games, it’s running around shooting things, collecting things, or whatever the gameplay entails etc.

The story is always just a reason to explain why you are doing something. The reason why you are just running around jumping on people’s heads and fighting a certain enemy, whatever.

Did you know that Bioshock was originally going to have a much deeper and complex story but they actually had to dumb it down in order for it to fit with the gameplay and objectives of the game? Google “Ken Levine on BioShock’s ‘stupid story'” and look it up yourself.

Anyway, what I’m saying is that it’s pretty much pointless to try to make games more than what they are–games.

You can try all you want, but in the end it’s all mostly a bunch of hot air and making something simple seem more complicated than it really is.
http://www.indiebird.com Alex Vostrov

There’s a certain class of person that reacts to confidence with incoherent rage. I don’t really understand these people. Do they feel threatened? Is it some sort of social knee-jerk to try pulling the guy above you down?

The mediocrites populating the Net can go back to their holes. I’ll have a Jonathan Blow or Chris Crawford over false meekness any day. If you’re passionate about a topic and think you have something to tell, don’t hide your feelings damn it! Let your work speak for you and ignore the shrill whining coming from below.
Koholint

@avoidobject
The thing is, why can’t video games be more than just mindless interactive diversions? Who says they can’t be more?
http://www.indiebird.com Alex Vostrov

@Koholint

I still can’t figure out if that post was meant to be ironic or not.

I wouldn’t be too upset if he was serious. The refutation of his ideas must come from the designers. Unfortunately, most of us have been slacking. Let’s face it, the majority of games out there have zero cultural value.

We have a dream of there being something more meaningful, but until we do the gruntwork it’s all faries and pixie dust. Can’t count on Jason Rohrer to swoop in and save us. Anyway, time to get back to the grindstone.
Malasdair

I feel like if you didn’t love Braid you need to take a real hard look at how you feel about video games.

Thanks for this interview!
avoidobject

Okay, I posted a long, well thought out explanation elaborating on what I just said (even providing an example from Ken Levine from Bioshock and how he had to dumb down the whole concept of his game in order for it to work) but guess what?

It was marked for moderation. There is no way I can type that all out again. What the hell?

If a moderator could fix this, I’d appreciate it.
skaldicpoet9

@avoidobject:

haha, obviously a troll.
Lyx

@Alex:

Here’s how to understand such people:

Everyone is equal in everything. Everyone has his own opinion and everything works – in its own isolated parallel world. Nothing is “better” or “worse”. There is no right and wrong, no true and untrue – logic doesnt exist. We are all one homogenous mash of goo. BUT: claiming something else than this, is WRONG and UNTRUE and WORSE.
Person what enjoys indie games

I thought Braid was OK. Gameplay wasn’t very interesting, story was.
falsion

No. I just don’t think there is a right or wrong way to do something when it comes to video games and the to aspects of them. There are some aspects you may not find enjoyable while others may easily enjoy them.

Most of the things Jonathan Blow says are just things he has a preference for and doesn’t have a preference for. That alone by itself would be perfectly okay. But he then tries to act like what his tastes are should dictate how games should be like. Which in my opinion is just flat out wrong.
falsion

*the aspects of them.

typo
falsion

Probably the biggest issue I have is that he acts like an authority figure over this when really he is no more correct than me or you, or even some random game reviewer giving his idea of what a good game is or not.
toastie

Why “when it comes to video games”, falsion? You can use the same argument against anyone speaking about anything with any kind of authority.

It’s an ignorant thing to say and you end up sounding like a troll. If you have something to add to the discussion, please do so, but as it stands now, “Well… that’s.. like.. your opinion, man”, pretty much sums up your argument.
Lyx

“No. I just donâ€™t think there is a right or wrong way to do something when it comes to video games and the to aspects of them.”

You either are not a game designer, or a hypocrite. Just like everywhere else, some stuff works better than other stuff in a game. Of course, there are also things which depend on what a game is trying to do, in addition to general things. Plus, there is the thing called “efficiency” – games in general have a few things in common – like for example, interactivity. That also means that the medium “game” by definition has strengths and weaknesses. This of course doesn’t stop you from achieving something via inefficient methods… the result may still be an interesting games – but it will be “less” compared to what could have been done with a more efficient approach.

No matter how you twist it, there is a reason why topics like gamedesign-theory and -philosophy exist – and the reason is not “because some people like to have rules for the sake of the rules.”. It is because the medium game, just like everything else, has properties which have consequences. Even if we change the topic to something like artistic paintings, the same is the case: Yes, you can draw all kinds of images – and yet, the technique which you use has consequences.

And no matter how creative you are, as long as you do not have a matching understanding of techniques, your work will at best be “chaotic” and at worst never be completed.

But heck, why i am writing this? Probably for other people than you, because you have displayed in more than one occassion that you are unwilling to correct your thoughts even when it is directly shown to you, that you are constantly contradicting yourself in your posts.

– Lyx
falsion

Fine, apply it to anything then. But either way I think it’s just pretentious to try to present things you enjoy about games (or anything) as the way that everything else should be or as the example everyone else should follow.

Like MMO games, and grinding. You may not like it, but other people may actually like creating and building a character in an MMO game. It’s all completely subjective.
falsion

“his of course doesnâ€™t stop you from achieving something via inefficient methodsâ€¦ the result may still be an interesting games – but it will be â€œlessâ€ compared to what could have been done with a more efficient approach.”

Inefficient to whom? Jonathan Blow? Is there some sort of standard for efficiency in designing a video game? Who is to say what is efficient or not?

And nevermind that, all the arguments I’ve seen from Jonathan Blow have been things that boil down to him complaining about things he doesn’t like in video games.

And you know what I still stick to what I’ve said before. Making a single game on XBOX Live doesn’t make you a self appointed judge of everything.
falsion

*this

typo
Lyx

“Like MMO games, and grinding. You may not like it, but other people may actually like creating and building a character in an MMO game.”

ORLY???

So you think that the very same players would not enjoy it more, if all their effort had more significant consequences than just some numbers changing themselves?

Whatever – i think i’m gonna be a bit more productive now, than discussing with a subjectivist-troll. See ya.

– Lyx
http://www.glaielgames.com Glaiel Gamer

falsion:

Blow said this in this interview:

“I wouldnâ€™t ever claim that all games should be a certain way. There are a lot of possibilities for where games can go, and itâ€™s probably a good idea to explore them all.”

He’s also not a self appointed judge, he just happens to get interviewed a lot and the professionals (read: people who matter) see that he’s intelligent, well spoken, and interesting so they keep doing it and inviting him to give presentations.

And you know, saying your opinion isn’t exactly wrong or anything. It’s called normal human behavior.
toastie

The reason why Jonathan Blow gives his talks is not because he’s a “self-appointed critic”, but because most people really value what he has to say. That is the reason why people come to his lectures, conduct interviews with him and generally hold him in high regard.

If you disagree about something, you should think about what it is that you’re disagreeing about and write a thoughtful comment instead of just saying that you disagree over and over again. In fact that is what human communication is all about, as someone mentioned previously above.
http://www.indiebird.com Alex Vostrov

@falsion

You still haven’t put forth any argument other than a form of artistic relativism. That’s rather unconvincing to those of us who believe that a work can posess or lack merit.

In addition, Jonathan Blow’s lectures happen to be something more than a collection of opinions. His criticism of WoW, for example, is carefully reasoned. You might not agree with his argument, but it’s not merely an opinion.
braidfan99

Falsion, what games have you made? Since you haven’t made any games, you can’t say anything. Jonathan Blow has every right to say everything because Braid is the best game ever. Nothing compares to it, and he has every right to be in the position he is in now, which he rightfully deserved due to his work on Braid. Even his comments regarding what other developers should do is completely justified due to how much of a perfect game Braid is.

Maybe when YOU get a game published on Xbox Live Arcade, and become a success like Jonathan Braid you can tell us what your idea of a good game is. But wait, that is not going to happen. Braid was already made, and Jonathan Blow has already earned the position and authority that neither you or anyone else, any other sore loser out there can even hope to attain.