Support NeoGAF

[SapientWolf]

The irony is that Blow says nothing about games as "art." He merely talks about trying to instill games with some sort of value other than trying to make them "addictive" as possible or as Skinner boxes designed to use manipulative techniques to keep the player playing.

So he's pretty much anti-Zynga? Who wouldn't back him up on that one?

The guy making Spy Party had a similar lecture, and I listened to the whole thing. There's some interesting psychology behind the reward systems in games.

 

[John Rabbit]

The irony is that Blow says nothing about games as "art." He merely talks about trying to instill games with some sort of value other than trying to make them "addictive" as possible or as Skinner boxes designed to use manipulative techniques to keep the player playing.

for the record i've just finished the lecture (q&a session playing in the background now). this lecture is really important and quite amazing as to the current state of the game industry and the implications it has on the development of society and its role in the evolutionary process of the human being.

i am quite pleased and in agreement with mr. blow's remarks in his talk. i still think he's kind of a jackass though.

So he's pretty much anti-Zynga? Who wouldn't back him up on that one?

The guy making Spy Party had a similar lecture, and I listened to the whole thing. There's some interesting psychology behind the reward systems in games.

he specifically points out that games like farm/frontierville are manipulative and disrespectful to the player.

 

[Undubbed]

His argument isn't bad, I think. I've been thinking about games having more value for quite some time. In my view, I'd love to make games where the viewer can have something to "Take Home", if you will.

I'm more towards sort of an edutainment type of thing, yet not quite. Where you're on an adventure just like any adventure game, yet you're learning real facts; kind of like Carman SanDiego, but I'm thinking a bit more subtle. You know, a lot less in your face where the gamer doesn't really realise their playing edutainment. And at least to me, edutainment has a habit of being very low budget and presents it's material with a sledge hammer, if you know what I mean. Oh, and they also tend to suck.

So like for example, how about a math oriented game that isn't like Number Munchers or whatever but a real Zelda like adventure game. It teaches math concepts by giving you real in-game related problems that makes sense in that world. And of course, in order to solve you need Algebra or Calculus or whatever. Slapping the gamer with an equation to solve or making the problem make no sense at all in any context is a HUGE NO NO.

But that's just my view on how to make games have a little more value. I can see many people probably not liking my idea though

 

[TimeKillr]

He gives a pretty good argument in this clip if someone would give him a chance. For him, it seems that games that are designed simply to get the player to continue playing for the sake of consumption itself (whether to get them to purchase the game, buy add on content or create a viral marketing space for the game) are games whose sole purpose he is suspicious of. He gives the analogy of someone who falls prey to a con wherein someone is promised something of value such as watch in trade for $100 or a ponzi scheme. The person things the investment they are making has value, but it turns out that that it doesn't really have any value to offer.

That's where he fails.

It seems as if he just doesn't understand the appeal of those games. I understand why he would be frustrated with games like Farmville (and Zynga in general) because they compete for attention with his stuff. It's his way of defending himself - "Look, those games suck, hard. They don't respect players. I respect players, and I don't make nearly as much money. Boohoo".

The problem is people don't play Farmville for the sake of consumption itself. Farmville, by iself, is a form of entertainment. People who play it enjoy it - that's enough to make it work. It doesn't have to respect or not its players, it doesn't have to be a fucking ponzi scheme or anything. It just is PLAYED. It does have value to offer - it PROVIDES ENTERTAINMENT. Not everything people play has to be deep, or meaningful, or anything - it just has to entertain them.

If we dislike people who steal money under the false pretense of a return on it, why should we not also have a problem with people who steal time with the false pretense of getting something worthwhile in return? We are investing our time in games in the same way we invest money, with the hopes of getting something more valuable than that time in exchange. Of course "worthwhile" is somewhat subjective and Blow never denies as much. But certainly a game that doesn't even attempt to offer to do anything more than a cold calculating attempt to use the most efficient way to get the player to keep clicking, keep being a viral marketer for itself on Facebook, is not one that is even presenting the pretense of value. As Blow points out, even the makers of games like "Click the Cow" or "Farmville" wouldn't want to play those games. The game they are playing, the one of trying to "farm" the players in the most efficient manner is much more interesting.

I wouldn't ever play any of the games I work on. Does that make me deceitful? Am I trying to steal anybody's money? Of course not.

The thing he needs to understand is that there are two very different aspect to commercial games: the game and the product.

Farmville is clearly both. As a game, it provides entertainment, people play it, have fun, build their own little farm, etc. As a product, it uses various means of communication to bring players to the game and to make money. It's not dishonest - it's just that YOU don't like it. Blow doesn't either. There's nothing unethical. They are not stealing your money and not giving you anything in return. It's a different way than you're used to, and if you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to play it.

Between this sort of game and a game that is attempting to communicate a profound message that will change the way you look at life or what it means to be human, there is a whole range that most games fall within. But what Blow is concerned about is not making games that are solely about instituting addictive mechanisms that show little respect for the player as a human being. And instead just attempts to prey on them by inducing Pavlovian conditioning.

If Blow is concerned about games that are about instituting addictive mechanisms that show little respect to the player, he needs to call out the following:

Diablo 1/2/3
99% of all MMOs
Every single arcade game ever made (I could come up with an argument about how arcade games are the worst type of game ever made because they deliberately make you spend more and more money to get to the end)
Pokemon
etc

All of these games rely on addictive mechanisms as a means to make money. Yet he's not complaining about those - he complains specifically about those that are COMPETING AGAINST HIM IN THE MARKETPLACE.

As a game designer, I'm also highly offended that this idiot "calls me out" and tells me I should be honest with my players. This is a very, VERY clear indication of someone who doesn't understand how the industry works. I have no problem with the indie scene, and I highly respect it, but people like Blow are what's wrong with the indie scene at this point. If he just made his games and people paid to play them and enjoyed them, it'd be fine. Most indie devs are that way. They don't go out and yell "THE GAME INDUSTRY IS ROTTEN, IT'S EVIL, LOOK, I MAKE REAL GAMES THAT RESPECT PLAYERS" while NOT BEING IN SAID INDUSTRY.

I have every right to say it's rotten and evil, because I am in it and have actively experienced it.

It's just entertainment, people. Live with it.

 

[BobsRevenge]

TimeKillr, Blow actually has a response, in some way, to nearly every criticism you have there in his lecture.

 

[A.CHAP]

Huh. Well, controversy over whether Blow is a hipster (it's 2010! EVERYONE'S A HIPSTER! UGUGUGUUSAH) or whether he's an arrogant bastard aside, after glancing at the presentation...

... there's some "stuff" there I suppose but whenever this new generation of "game theorists" start talking I always walk away with the idea that they are manufacturing an intellectual discipline for the sake of creating one without having paid enough attention to the fundamentals of the genre they're writing about.

In other words, in a world where most game designers still can't make a decent Super Mario Bros. clone, I have trouble taking talk of the transcognitive woolygaggle narmp pharmp of Interactive Experiences all that seriously. It's an avenue to explore, as everything should be explored. But interactive computer powered games and simulated worlds are still incredibly young. Mostly, I see guys who seem full of themselves and intoxicated with the idea that today people are making their amazing high tech revolutionary epics like Heavy Rain. Urging the unwashed masses to become aware that we've already left that silly 'Entendo stuff behind. When most people never even figured out what made that 'Entendo stuff good to start with.

Well said.

 

[Sqorgar]

he specifically points out that games like farm/frontierville are manipulative and disrespectful to the player.

But the question is, is anyone really saying that they aren't? I mean, what's the point of making a lecture stating that farmville is manipulative and zygna is evil? Everybody already knows that. Hell, SF Weekly wrote lengthy article on Zygna to that effect. It's like getting up and preaching that being mean to other people is bad - though I guess that I did work for one guy a long time ago.

 

[Sqorgar]

It seems as if he just doesn't understand the appeal of those games. I understand why he would be frustrated with games like Farmville (and Zynga in general) because they compete for attention with his stuff. It's his way of defending himself - "Look, those games suck, hard. They don't respect players. I respect players, and I don't make nearly as much money. Boohoo".

I do not care for Blow's character at all - I can't listen to his lectures without wanting to strangle him - but I doubt very much that he is saying this.

The problem is people don't play Farmville for the sake of consumption itself... it PROVIDES ENTERTAINMENT.

It does. People do it willingly. But that's why it is called manipulation. Zygna isn't forcing anybody to do anything. They are literally tricking them into doing it. To add insult to injury, Zygna employs a behavior psychologist precisely towards this end. They literally don't care what games they make, even going so far as to purposely clone popular games to use their Facebook status to steal their playerbase. If there is a right way and a wrong way to be a responsible, respectable game developer, Zygna is doing it the wrong way times twelve.

The thing he needs to understand is that there are two very different aspect to commercial games: the game and the product... Farmville is clearly both.

Actually, I think the point is that it is only a product. It is a game only in passing, only in what Zygna has stolen from other developers and designers. There's a game in there, but Zygna doesn't care. It is the very definition of a Skinner Box, a series of rewarded behaviors made much more addicting by the social nature of it all. The game is simply a way to frame those behaviors in a more pleasant way.

As a game, it provides entertainment, people play it, have fun, build their own little farm, etc. As a product, it uses various means of communication to bring players to the game and to make money. It's not dishonest - it's just that YOU don't like it. Blow doesn't either. There's nothing unethical. They are not stealing your money and not giving you anything in return. It's a different way than you're used to, and if you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to play it.

Check out this article from SF Weekly. Then maybe go read this Cracked article. Tell me that Zygna isn't being devious or unethical and that they aren't fully aware of what they are doing and of what they are doing to people.

All of these games rely on addictive mechanisms as a means to make money.

That is true, and there's no denying that purposely creating an addictive experience borders on the very edge of responsible game design. I'd argue that World of Warcraft, for example, is very irresponsible in this regard and that they should make changes to reduce those aspects of the game. But the difference between World of Warcraft and Farmville is that WoW is the way it is because the people who made it enjoy making that kind of game. WoW is the product of a team that made a game first that happened to be addictive. Farmville is the product of a team that made an addiction first that happened to be a game.

 

[Tain]

It's just entertainment, people. Live with it.

Hell, entertainment is all there is!

 

[someguyinahat]

I wouldn't ever play any of the games I work on.

Because they suck?

 

[jon bones]

dude made braid

respect +500

will listen later

 

[APF]

I don't understand the assertion that chess is somehow an objectively stronger game than Diablo, simply because the former does not have a randomized reward system or particle effects. Chess has solid mechanics, but take away its competitive multiplayer and the game could not be more boring. Should we take offense at chess for playing on our Darwinian instincts?

 

[John Rabbit]

That's where he fails.

its obvious you didn't listen to the lecture in its entirety, not at all, or just sat there with your fingers in your ears.

But the question is, is anyone really saying that they aren't? I mean, what's the point of making a lecture stating that farmville is manipulative and zygna is evil? Everybody already knows that. Hell, SF Weekly wrote lengthy article on Zygna to that effect. It's like getting up and preaching that being mean to other people is bad - though I guess that I did work for one guy a long time ago.

actually the question was "So he's pretty much anti-Zynga? Who wouldn't back him up on that one?"; as in the question SapientWolf asked and the one i answered. thanks for joining in though.

I don't understand the assertion that chess is somehow an objectively stronger game than Diablo, simply because the former does not have a randomized reward system or particle effects. Chess has solid mechanics, but take away its competitive multiplayer and the game could not be more boring. Should we take offense at chess for playing on our Darwinian instincts?

the point blow was making about chess is that despite its lack of those "best practices" he outlined it has remained a popular and well-regarded game. attempts to implement those practices into the game of chess have only succeeded in making a more aesthetically pleasing version of chess. the game is fun and enjoyable regardless of how much (or little) you attempt to dress it up. if you made diablo look like a 2600 game and removed the reward/loot system entirely; who would play it?

 

[Princess Skittles]

dude made braid

respect +500

will listen later

The gameplay gimmick and use of gimmick in Braid: Respect +500.

The writing in Braid: Respect -50,000.

 

[APF]

the point blow was making about chess is that despite its lack of those "best practices" he outlined it has remained a popular and well-regarded game. attempts to implement those practices into the game of chess have only succeeded in making a more aesthetically pleasing version of chess. the game is fun and enjoyable regardless of how much (or little) you attempt to dress it up. if you made diablo look like a 2600 game and removed the reward/loot system entirely; who would play it?

The point I am making however, is that if you removed the competitive multiplayer--a "best practice" itself--from the game of chess, who would play that? The answer is, no one.

However I think you might be incorrect in your assumption that adding what Blow termed "best practices," eg user testing or incremental rewards, would not or have not added to the game of chess. Blow (and all of us) are coming to the game far after its creation and after hundreds of years of refinement based on player feedback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#History --indeed, games like Chess are known for having a simple ruleset, but rewarding in the increasingly deep strategies one can develop, eg an incremental reward system. Chess is a poor example of a non-focus-tested game--it's been refined / "in development" for hundreds of years--that does not apply a system of rewards--its rewards are known to be the deep strategies that are revealed as a player increases mastery over a simple ruleset--or modern "best practice" game design-- the inclusion of competitive multiplayer is what makes the game compelling.

 

[robor]

The point I am making however, is that if you removed the competitive multiplayer--a "best practice" itself--from the game of chess, who would play that? The answer is, no one.

However I think you might be incorrect in your assumption that adding what Blow termed "best practices," eg user testing or incremental rewards, would not or have not added to the game of chess. Blow (and all of us) are coming to the game far after its creation and after hundreds of years of refinement based on player feedback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#History --indeed, games like Chess are known for having a simple ruleset, but rewarding in the increasingly deep strategies one can develop, eg an incremental reward system. Chess is a poor example of a non-focus-tested game--it's been refined / "in development" for hundreds of years--that does not apply a system of rewards--its rewards are known to be the deep strategies that are revealed as a player increases mastery over a simple ruleset--or modern "best practice" game design-- the inclusion of competitive multiplayer is what makes the game compelling.

Chess didn't have artificial intelligence during it's hundred-year evolution of mechanics and play.

 

[John Rabbit]

The point I am making however, is that if you removed the competitive multiplayer--a "best practice" itself--from the game of chess, who would play that? The answer is, no one.

However I think you might be incorrect in your assumption that adding what Blow termed "best practices," eg user testing or incremental rewards, would not or have not added to the game of chess. Blow (and all of us) are coming to the game far after its creation and after hundreds of years of refinement based on player feedback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#History --indeed, games like Chess are known for having a simple ruleset, but rewarding in the increasingly deep strategies one can develop, eg an incremental reward system. Chess is a poor example of a non-focus-tested game--it's been refined / "in development" for hundreds of years--that does not apply a system of rewards--its rewards are known to be the deep strategies that are revealed as a player increases mastery over a simple ruleset--or modern "best practice" game design-- the inclusion of competitive multiplayer is what makes the game compelling.

i'm using "best practices" in the context of his lecture, as outlined these were:

-eye candy/ear candy (visual and aural stimulation)
-reward system (loot, etc)
-new goals (breaking long-term goals into short more easily completed steps)
-better storytelling (providing better context for gamer actions)

chess at its core does not utilize any one of these. there is no story, no internal reward system (you win or you don't, you don't acquire armor, or special powers, etc), no smaller goals (the goal is to win), and can be played in total silence with rather drab looking game pieces; even a blind man can play chess. diablo relies on all of these, none of which is a competitive component. in fact, doing so reduces chess out of being a "game" entirely and transforms it into randomly moving pieces on a board for no reason. so lets forget that part since it falls outside of the lecture content.

bear in mind i'm saying this within the context of what he termed "best practices".

you are correct however, in saying that chess does in fact have its own rewards; that of being able to devise or successfully defend against new strategies and tactics. this is exactly the point he sort of sloppily made. the real "fun" or "challenge" or "best parts of the game" happen inside the player's mind, not on the chessboard. he talked about this more during his section on braid where he admits the game as it is consists of very little. the majority of energy expended on completing braid is done outside of the game and inside the player's mind. with a game like diablo, almost all of the "fun" comes from what happens inside the game world and not from within the player.

 

[APF]

i'm using "best practices" in the context of his lecture, as outlined these were:

-eye candy/ear candy (visual and aural stimulation)
-reward system (loot, etc)
-new goals (breaking long-term goals into short more easily completed steps)
-better storytelling (providing better context for gamer actions)

chess at its core does not utilize any one of these. there is no story, no internal reward system (you win or you don't, you don't acquire armor, or special powers, etc), no smaller goals (the goal is to win), and can be played in total silence with rather drab looking game pieces; even a blind man can play chess.

[...]

you are correct however, in saying that chess does in fact have its own rewards; that of being able to devise or successfully defend against new strategies and tactics. this is exactly the point he sort of sloppily made. the real "fun" or "challenge" or "best parts of the game" happen inside the player's mind, not on the chessboard.

I'm speaking to the greater points about ethics, playtesting, and leveraging the power of subconscious and/or instinctual behavior to make a game compelling.

Winning or losing is itself a reward / punishment system. Winning a competitive game against a strong opponent is a goal that can be accomplished, and internal to any given game is a series of smaller goals (avoiding traps, laying your own, etc) that any player may or may not accomplish. If there were less opportunities to do this the game would be less compelling. If there were more, it would be more compelling. If the game of Chess was a game purely of mechanics, and not one that "unethically" leverages Darwinian impulses, then the skill level of your opponent would not matter; indeed, the addition of competitive multiplayer would not matter--the game would be equally as rewarding. Of course, this is absurd. Chess is not a rewarding game if you aren't playing against someone skilled, or aren't playing against anyone (or an AI, etc) at all.

The idea of there being some difference between a reward being "in the mind" vs on some display somewhere is essentially purely semantic / rhetorical. A sense of accomplishment may come from the display of capturing an opponent's pieces, even if one's "score" does not necessarily equate to winning a game. A game without goals is a game that is not fun; it is not a game at all.

 

[EternalGamer]

It is unfortunate that all the people who want to argue against Blow's points can't be bothered to actually listen to him. I actually enjoy discussing the ideas, but I think this is a bit ridiculous when people have the link right in front of them before criticizing the ideas. Basically it means that someone makes a complaint which in turn ultimately just means others have to explain the context that Blow is using a term or the way he develops a counter argument (which he does a lot). For example, the issue of multiplayer gaming and of "fun" and "autonomy" are all discussed in the process of his argument.

 

[APF]

The process of his argument discusses why his point about Chess is invalid? Why not explain how, rather than simply tsk tsk?

 

[charlequin]

The idea of there being some difference between a reward being "in the mind" vs on some display somewhere is essentially purely semantic / rhetorical.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but the difference between an intrinsic and extrinsic reward is a lot more slippery and variable than the people on a crusade against external motivations acknowledge. Any time a game even slightly prompts you towards a certain specific action, you've arguably generated an extrinsic motivation (the game's telling you how great it'll be when you do X, after all) but the effect of that varies tremendously from player to player. Some people feel compelled to beat games (and what's more external of a reward than getting a credit sequence for accomplishing a set, predefined goal?) while others just play for as long as they're enjoying themselves. Some people achievement-whore and hate themselves for it, other people enjoy having unusual side missions presented to them that they can do or not do depending on their own personal judgment of what would be fun. Failing to acknowledge this contextual element makes it impossible to talk sensibly about the issue.

A lot of the commentary on Farmville focuses on it being sleazy because it encourages you to keep playing (shock! horror!) and because it encourages you to advertise for it (definitely somewhat sleazy, but also increasingly easy to deal with due to various platform changes on Facebook.) They tend to ignore that the game can be played indefinitely for free without being gimped in any serious way and that there's a sandbox/dollhouse element of arranging your purchases and laying out your farm that's entirely self-motivated for anyone who chooses to participate in it. I think it's arguably no more manipulative than WoW or Animal Crossing.

 

[GDJustin]

Didn't you ge the memo OP? GAF hates Jonathan Blow now. I haven't read this thread yet, but I already know exactly what all the replies are.

I'm not sure where the negativity comes from. Braid's puzzles were brilliant and Blow has consistently provided great insights into game design on panels and in lectures. Dude is super smart and is actually trying to push the video game medium FORWARD. And he gets hated on for it.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

I enjoyed the lecture, and I agree with a lot of what he said.

Braid was a good game but it wasn't all that progressive; collectibles, levels unlocking etc were still there.

I would've liked him to flesh out his dismissal of "Hollywood Films".

He seems to see aesthetic as a cheap trick that "manipulates", but surely aesthetic is an integral part of a huge number of art forms. Braid definitely missed the mark for me with that. I thought it was quite ugly, particularly the writing.

 

[HK-47]

But the question is, is anyone really saying that they aren't? I mean, what's the point of making a lecture stating that farmville is manipulative and zygna is evil? Everybody already knows that. Hell, SF Weekly wrote lengthy article on Zygna to that effect. It's like getting up and preaching that being mean to other people is bad - though I guess that I did work for one guy a long time ago.

I guess it says a lot about me when the thing that pissed me off the most was referring to Bioshock having difficult ethical decisions. :lol

But then again I've already read a bunch of stuff about how shitty Zynga is.

 

[HK-47]

Didn't you ge the memo OP? GAF hates Jonathan Blow now. I haven't read this thread yet, but I already know exactly what all the replies are.

I'm not sure where the negativity comes from. Braid's puzzles were brilliant and Blow has consistently provided great insights into game design on panels and in lectures. Dude is super smart and is actually trying to push the video game medium FORWARD. And he gets hated on for it.

Oh please he is hardly the only one out there. Plus Braid isnt really that forward. It's a traditional platformer with a time mechanic and pretentious, overblown writing. It's a smartly designed game but its evolution not revolution.

 

[Princess Skittles]

Didn't you ge the memo OP? GAF hates Jonathan Blow now. I haven't read this thread yet, but I already know exactly what all the replies are.

I'm not sure where the negativity comes from. Braid's puzzles were brilliant and Blow has consistently provided great insights into game design on panels and in lectures. Dude is super smart and is actually trying to push the video game medium FORWARD. And he gets hated on for it.

Braid doesn't do anything that forward that any other well designed puzzle game doesn't except for feature tons of pukey writing that sounds like it came from a kid that's spent a dozen years in a liberal arts college.

It's a great little game but it does nothing spectacularly special as a game.

 

[APF]

charlequin:

Thanks, I think you make a lot of strong points above. To tangent on the point you quoted, my perspective is that in terms of a player's emotional experience an internal reward is really no less real than an external reward (if fact, it might be far more real). Games are inherently goal-oriented, even if the player makes up their own goals and the reward is simply enjoying that experience / the "emergent gameplay" of their own creation--eg internal reward vs external stimuli like a cutscene or visible points system.

If a world is simply brilliant, and enables all sorts of compelling emergent play, how is that any less manipulative (in the "stickyness" sense Blow refers to) than a world that directs a player towards set goals? I think it should be evident that creating a world is creating a perspective--and therefore inherently manipulative--and this is core to creating games (as Chess has rules, even it could be said to have a perspective, guiding players in its own dastardly way).

I think the answer partly lies in your point re: the variable effect of extrinsic reward based on the personality of the player, but contrast worlds like Farmville to worlds like Second Life, where as far as I'm aware there is no directed "gameplay" so much as free reign to create whatever sort of experience you desire. Is Second Life any less addictive to its hardcore players? If you give players the tools, they will find their own goals and rewards, and perhaps that's even more manipulative than a simple guided experience. If the weather and scenery is good, where would you prefer you got your exercise: from a treadmill or a hike?

 

[John Rabbit]

The idea of there being some difference between a reward being "in the mind" vs on some display somewhere is essentially purely semantic / rhetorical. A sense of accomplishment may come from the display of capturing an opponent's pieces, even if one's "score" does not necessarily equate to winning a game. A game without goals is a game that is not fun; it is not a game at all.

i partially disagree.

while both forms of reward can be entertaining and satisfying, its one thing to see a giant boss defeated because the game provided you with a giant gun to do so, and another to see a giant boss defeated because of some strategy you worked out on your own outside of the game that involved a knowledge of the game mechanics and how to exploit them for your own victory. i think this is the distinction blow was trying to make. he didn't necessarily say that a reward inside of the game is bad, rather that as a developer, his aims were to involve the player on a more cerebral level rather than simply doling out a bigger gun because after level 7 your current gun doesn't cut it anymore.

to your original question of diablo vs chess: in blow's mind, diablo follows the 'bigger sword' rule and chess follows the "i worked it out for myself" rule.


edit: semi-beaten by charlequin, this is what happens when you only post while at work

 

[APF]

to your original question of diablo vs chess: in blow's mind, diablo follows the 'bigger sword' rule and chess follows the "i worked it out for myself" rule.

Except this is an awfully dismissive characterization of Diablo's loot system; loot whoring games--at least for the hardcore--are all about knowing and manipulating the mechanics of the game in order to min/max your character and gear it towards your playstyle. On the other hand, if your Chess opponents are relentlessly oppressive and unwilling to provide a small amount of leeway, it's likely the learning curve would be too high for you to get any joy or sense of reward out of it. The point is that these characterizations are simplistic and non-instructive.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Every single arcade game ever made (I could come up with an argument about how arcade games are the worst type of game ever made because they deliberately make you spend more and more money to get to the end)

What the shit?

 

[GDJustin]

Oh please he is hardly the only one out there. Plus Braid isnt really that forward. It's a traditional platformer with a time mechanic and pretentious, overblown writing. It's a smartly designed game but its evolution not revolution.

The sum of Blow's accomplishments aren't just "The guy made Braid." He was a longtime colmumnist for Game Developer Magazine. He is heavily involved in the Expirimental Gameplay Workshop, etc. You and many others seem to think that nothing the guy SAYS counts for anything since Braid didn't live up to whatever bar it needed to live up to in your mind.

Blow could have released ZERO games, and he would still be worth listening to, because what he is saying is extremely valuable and insightful.

It's also worth noting that Braid is the highest-reviewed XBLA game ever. And it was his first commercially released title. So... yeah. The guy has earned the right to have a voice in this industry.

 

[John Rabbit]

Except this is an awfully dismissive characterization of Diablo's loot system; loot whoring games--at least for the hardcore--are all about knowing and manipulating the mechanics of the game in order to min/max your character and gear it towards your playstyle. On the other hand, if your Chess opponents are relentlessly oppressive and unwilling to provide a small amount of leeway, it's likely the learning curve would be too high for you to get any joy or sense of reward out of it. The point is that these characterizations are simplistic and non-instructive.

point taken and i agree about it being reductionist (they're just games man!). i would at least posit that in MOST cases, loot/grind games have a tipping point where the game mechanics can be exploited to the point of imbalance in favor of the player. the only game in recent memory that provides a continuous increase in challenge would be demon's souls (maybe the etrian odyssey games but i haven't played those); otherwise there is a point where the player can scheme and plot beyond the scope of the game's challenge, in which case it has become an exercise in simply finding the "best" loot. with chess, there is no point where you can "surpass" the game; even the top chess player in the world is in danger of being defeated by the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th best chess player.

for the record i like both chess and diablo so i'm dropping this argument since we both at least agree that blow's points have their faults.

 

[APF]

I wonder though, in Blow's terms whether a game that allows you to exploit the mechanics to the point of imbalance in your favor is more "ethical" than one which ramps-up the difficulty to match, therefore mandating its players remain on the treadmill in order to eke out rewards...

 

[voltron]

lol I cracked up out loud when I saw the title of this thread. Just because I know JB has a rep on GAF already of being pretentious etc.

Threads like this wont be helping that:lol

Just the phrasing "A Jonathan Blow lecture"... makes it sound so elite. Had it been "A lectue by Jonathan Blow" the guy wouldnt cop nearly as much shit:lol

 

[oracrest]

I just finished listening.


A pretty good lecture, and he touches on some good points. Yeah, he comes off as arrogant sometimes, but his larger issue of wanting games to move from an arbitrary interactive challenge to a more meaningful exchange that affects people on more of an emotional level is nothing but spot on.

It's certainly a trend that is evident already, and there is a lot of experimenting and trial and error that will need to happen as it progresses, but that is something that he acknowledges as well.

 

[John Rabbit]

I wonder though, in Blow's terms whether a game that allows you to exploit the mechanics to the point of imbalance in your favor is more "ethical" than one which ramps-up the difficulty to match, therefore mandating its players remain on the treadmill in order to eke out rewards...

i think he would draw parallels between the carrot-on-a-stick design of farmville (replace difficulty with e-pride) and a game like demon's souls where you're never ahead of the game's difficulty. he would then qualify that parallel with "but demon's souls isn't made by a money-grubbing corporation using metrics" since there's nothing motivating you to keep playing except your own desire (and not zynga constantly using you as a shill).

not that i agree necessarily. demon's souls is all kinds of amazing.

 

[oracrest]

demon's souls is all kinds of amazing.

 

[APF]

i think he would draw parallels between the carrot-on-a-stick design of farmville (replace difficulty with e-pride) and a game like demon's souls where you're never ahead of the game's difficulty. he would then qualify that parallel with "but demon's souls isn't made by a money-grubbing corporation using metrics" since there's nothing motivating you to keep playing except your own desire (and not zynga constantly using you as a shill).

not that i agree necessarily. demon's souls is all kinds of amazing.

Not to press the point, but doesn't this suggest that really all Blow is saying is he Just Doesn't Like free-to-play? Which, being free, makes the charge of being "unethical" a little misguided, don't you think?

 

[HK-47]

The sum of Blow's accomplishments aren't just "The guy made Braid." He was a longtime colmumnist for Game Developer Magazine. He is heavily involved in the Expirimental Gameplay Workshop, etc. You and many others seem to think that nothing the guy SAYS counts for anything since Braid didn't live up to whatever bar it needed to live up to in your mind.

Blow could have released ZERO games, and he would still be worth listening to, because what he is saying is extremely valuable and insightful.

It's also worth noting that Braid is the highest-reviewed XBLA game ever. And it was his first commercially released title. So... yeah. The guy has earned the right to have a voice in this industry.

Hey, I never said he couldnt have a voice.

 

[jvm]

Not to press the point, but doesn't this suggest that really all Blow is saying is he Just Doesn't Like free-to-play? Which, being free, makes the charge of being "unethical" a little misguided, don't you think?

Sorry, but your use of free reminded me of Richard M. Stallman, Free Software, and Free as in Freedom (not Free as in Beer). Our language is so screwed up.

It's kind of amusing to think of Stallman and Blow as similarly polarizing figures in their respective areas.

 

[lobdale]

Every time I see the title of this thread it pisses me off.

Cooler Ranch: A Doritos production.

Sword Face Ninjas: a crayon drawing by Jeff Danson, aged eight.

Peanut Butter Crunch: A Cap'n Crunch cereal.

 

[Kimosabae]

Every time I see the title of this thread it pisses me off.

Cooler Ranch: A Doritos production.

Sword Face Ninjas: a crayon drawing by Jeff Danson, aged eight.

Peanut Butter Crunch: A Cap'n Crunch cereal.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[HK-47]

Every time I see the title of this thread it pisses me off.

Cooler Ranch: A Doritos production.

Sword Face Ninjas: a crayon drawing by Jeff Danson, aged eight.

Peanut Butter Crunch: A Cap'n Crunch cereal.

:lol

 

[WhiskeyKnight]

I think people get annoyed with Jonathan Blow because it seems he's more interested in navel-gazing than actual game development. Braid is awesome. He should let his games speak for themselves.

 

[SapientWolf]

That's where he fails.

It seems as if he just doesn't understand the appeal of those games. I understand why he would be frustrated with games like Farmville (and Zynga in general) because they compete for attention with his stuff. It's his way of defending himself - "Look, those games suck, hard. They don't respect players. I respect players, and I don't make nearly as much money. Boohoo".

If half the stuff in this article is true then the head of Zynga makes Bobby Kotick look like Mother Teresa. The practices being described therein are just completely and utterly indefensible. I understand why he would be frustrated with Zynga because they're the most unscrupulous and cynical game company in existence. It sounds like they would hire the Limbo of the Lost guy and make him head of the art department.

 

[AkuMifune]

Every time I see the title of this thread it pisses me off.

Jonathan Blow Discusses Games and the Human Condition.

Would that have been so hard? Even his fans suffer from the same condition; good ideas delivered in the most irritating way possible.

 

[Shake Appeal]

If Blow is concerned about games that are about instituting addictive mechanisms that show little respect to the player, he needs to call out the following:

Diablo 1/2/3
99% of all MMOs

http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=518

But why zero stars?

Because we spent hundreds of hours doing this bullshit. We’ve spent even more time playing World of Warcraft. Like it or not, we are dull animals that have come out of a jungle where, if it moves, and it makes noise, and produces a *reward*, then . . . shit. It must matter! Right? Why would a brain develop to determine the difference between empty rewards and real ones? It just spent umpteen-million years developing the capacity to recognize rewards which are above the primal level of basic needs — avoiding pain, consuming energy, and screwing as often as possible; the fact that we recognize liars is already kind of amazing.

But if we were all lie detectors, liars would have no place: and they do. In fact, most of our social interactions are based on lies with a genuine basis (restraint is the most basic form of lie — but we won’t get into this right now). Diablo II plays on our vulnerabilities to the hilt. Victory. Ease. Laziness. Suggestibility in a state of confusion. A monster? Kill it. Avast, a thing o’ th’ ground? Pick it up. A dead end? Come about and find another path. A bigger monster? Repeat previous behaviors . . . only moreso.

Atmosphere goes a long way toward making these useless escapades more enticing. For that reason, Diablo would be a one-star game. But when it is nothing but a soulless and, seemingly, cynical attempt to ensnare you, without any thought to *what* feeling “addicted” to an experience really means to a thinking being, then it is evil.

The highest compliment of a game could be considered that you must keep playing and playing endlessly. That it’s just the kind of “one more turn” experience, or “one more round,” or “one more level.” We’ve inadvertently seen that *this* is the environment. This is the selection pressure on entertainment in gaming. Games must make us play them . . . forever and ever. Those twins in The Shining are Blizzard entertainment. Jack Nicholson’s “Here’s Johnny” moment is the hours of your life that go away when you could have tried so many other experiences in the time that you spent killing the same boss, in the same way, for the five-hundredth time hoping not to see Isenheart’s Case fall on the ground again.

Diablo II gets zero stars. It might as well be World of Warcraft, as well, but why say the same thing essentially twice? Besides, the formula in Diablo II is what makes WoW what it is. The fact that it is more enticing and popular is really a matter of refining the grim evil hatched in Blizzard North.

 

[robor]

Would that have been so hard? Even his fans suffer from the same condition; good ideas delivered in the most irritating way possible.

Obviously it's a lot harder than shoving one's ego in a thread that apparently has no purpose other than to show boat his social status on a forum. Oh and broadly generalizing people with no prior association what so ever.

 

[APF]

Sorry, but your use of free reminded me of Richard M. Stallman, Free Software, and Free as in Freedom (not Free as in Beer). Our language is so screwed up.

It's kind of amusing to think of Stallman and Blow as similarly polarizing figures in their respective areas.

Yes; at no compulsory* monetary cost, not free as in liberty.

IMO Blow didn't come across as arrogant or pretentious in this lecture. I did bristle at his saying "we" when talking about practices that are ostensibly the realm of AAA-tier developers / publishers, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[akachan ningen]

Even though I like Braid, everything that Blow said about Braid after it came out made him sound like a big douche. But after listening to this lecture, I have a new respect for him. I agree with pretty much all his points about the current state of gaming.