Jonathan Blow: Game design: the medium is the message

A call to buck negative constraints and inspire awe in modern game design.
Jonathan Blow at CreativeMornings Portland, September 2013. Free events like this one are hosted every month in dozens of cities. Discover hundreds of talks from the world's creative community at creativemorning...
Don't miss a video. Subscribe! bit.ly/1jeJwut
Follow CreativeMornings:
/ creativemornings
/ creativemornings

[@PurpleFreezerPage]

I've watched maybe like 10 conference talks like this so far, and this is the first one to rock the boat at all. What's wild is I didn't realize the industry needed boat rocking on this level - but it does.

[@bzsgzs]

"more and more away from being an artistic exercise and more and more of being an engeineering process..." "by the time you fullfill those constraints, there is not much room left to do anything interestng..." "structurally invasive... changing bearing toward the audience" "those constraints invade the work, and changes the work that could be produced..." "the shape of a container dictates what can be contained" "anyone who tries, that kind of enderver with full forthrightness, with full honestly, and not just kidding themselves that they are trying to do that, but really really, putting everything they have as a design into trying to do that, then even you don't make it, it puts you into a rare and previledged group of individuals. " what a boss.

[@brunocontenti8577]

Thank you Jonathan Blow and Brian Moriarty for being true to yourselves and the best game designers out there.

[@reallyjolle]

I bored my gf so much by watching this video that she took out her phone and started playing a free to play game.

[@shavais33]

lmao

[@0ktothorp]

Man, I love this guy.

[@MichaelAKaras]

The game 'Journey' inspired feelings of awe

[@minch333]

+Michael Karas ehhh... It wasn't actually a game about anything though, it wasn't about a concept or an expression that really meant something to the developers. It's not actually an honest work of art. There were some very talented people working on that game (especially the artists) and some interesting concepts (read my first sentence again if you think I'm contradicting myself by saying this), but as evidenced by one of these concepts, it was only pretending to be an expression of those emotions that it took the player through. It was actually designed around a known story structure that, on a subconscious level, is known to take players through these very basic and generic emotions, and it was doing so in order to be successful. What's interesting about the game is that it told this story structure through its mechanics alone via mechanics as metaphor, but the story structure in question was the Hero's Journey (hence the name Journey). It's the same story structure used in star wars, the hunger games and many more vapid products of entertainment that manipulate the viewer's emotions through a perfectly balanced landscape of base stimulations. It's success is so unsurprising when you think about how it emulates such a well established path to success, with such an emulation not deriving from an existential belief in its intrinsic importance, but through scientific evidence of its appeal. I liked its multiplayer mechanic though!

[@minch333]

+Banana Bread It kind of is though. I don't how the structure itself can be decided upon because it expresses something deeply personal when it's known to have such generic appeal. I don't know how it can decided upon to explore something unique when it's so un-unique. I watched an interview with one of the lead developers of Journey who said himself that they based the game one the hero's journey precisely to create a strong engagement curve. When you use the closest thing to a scientific formula for narrative, specifically to lull your audience into a series of emotional states, I don't see how you can call that expressive or deep. And of course you can mix things up, using the structure as a template. An example would be the matrix. It used the hero's journey but also clearly wished to express things about free will. This is why you get works lying on the spectrum between honesty and manipulation. Blow says himself that as a developer, you have the choice of where you want to fall on this line. He admits that his own games include a bit of manipulation. He argues that in order to be successful you have to comply to mass's demands for such manipulation and that you need to be successful to keep making games. A story without the hero's journey? It is hard to imagine one due to its saturation in the market, but just looking at my book shelf next to me shows a plethora of examples. There's Hunger by Knut Hamsun, Journey to the End of the Night by Celine, The Book of Monelle by Schwob, Story of the Eye by Bataille, Tristram Shandy by Sterne, Doctor Faustus by Mann, Yes by Bernhard, I wouldn't even say that Narcissus and Goldmund by Hesse follows the structure in anyway, despite hitting some of the structure's points such as the call to adventure and the rejection of the call. The rejection to the call is certainly not done in order to humanise the protagonist, and he spends the rest of the book basically just fucking other people's wives. Journey pales in comparison to any of these books, and I say this as someone you thoroughly enjoyed the game. I just saw it as dumb, pretty fun.

[@ScoutmasterWard]

+minch333 Your critique is valid. I think that what you fail to realise is how a postmodern game that does not employ metanarratives (such as the monomyth) would be at its core unsatisfying. You seem to want an experience that has the labyrinthine ambiguity, the complexity of a postmodern novel. But as a gamer expending real time and sweat to navigate a game world, such experiences may not create meaningful revelations, but rather disenchanted users. Games cannot help but be about conflict, agon, winning and losing. Decentralised game environments, and some sandbox/open world games, may seem like aspirational attempts, but they inevitably resort back to the same power up structure... in more diluted terms. The Heros Journey may seem a cheap method to accomplish this goal, the alternative is surely more obtuse, and potentially orthogonal to the medium. Games may not lend themselves to the existential terror and ambiguity that books do, because they are unfungable with the experience of the player... who would rather not be the protagonist in these morbid stories, but a hero forging forward with a sense of meaning and control.

[@minch333]

+Banana Bread Dude, when we are talking about manipulative writing techniques, it's pretty ironic to edit your post! Kidding of course. I actually started reading save the cat the other day. It's making me very angry. I would say that your argument though is analogous to saying that candy crush manipulates its player base not WoW, when both do it's just that CC is much more egregious in its manipulation.

[@minch333]

Banana Bread I agree

[@knapperr1959]

The Witness proves you an amazing dev Jon

[@hanniffydinn6019]

What a shit version of myst with no music , characters or plot ???? You are a fucking idiot. Braid was just a mario rewind clone.

[@egdman]

+Hanniffy Dinn The Witness has music, but you need to earn it.

[@hanniffydinn6019]

egdman So fucking stupid. It makes the original Myst owners seem so amazing, compared to the pretentious non-game The Witness is. At least the new Myst Owners are doing a proper new Myst game out this year. Check out the Obduction Trailer, now that looks like a proper myst like game.

[@MaherBaba]

+Hanniffy Dinn nice meme

[@onedeadpixel10]

Hanniffy Dinn The Witness was never intended to be the new Myst. it was inspired by its atmosphere.

[@SotNist]

I try to tell people this kind of stuff all the time, about game design having a lower ceiling and being self mutilated from inception, but it rarely ever takes root. I hope people take heed with what he's saying, as he knows his shit.

[@Nyocurio]

wtf why would you not record the Q&A at the end???

[@onefoxstudio]

Incompetents are everywhere 🤘🏻

[@beaal5641]

Excellent Lecture.

[@UntangledKnots]

Have never played this guys games but after this speech I would sure like to. And Yoko Taro’s games have inspired awe in me so I am sure Jonathan can too

[@barryherbers3905]

Goddamn, the stuff Jonathan Blow says toward the end, you'd think this was spoken word poetry! It's so amazing and inspirational.

[@TheBuzzSaw]

It stopped before the Q&A at the end. That makes me a sad panda.

[@RupeeUltra]

We don't take kindly to your types around here

[@chao3948]

@@RupeeUltra what do you mean

[@jiratrello]

Great speech. Last ten minutes especially is so inspiring.

[@TheCrippledWerewolf]

Ahh, the person who is designing a video game that will force me to buy a PS4 by the end of year. One of my favorite designers. And a talk that gives me hope that this free-to-play model is all just another phase.

[@NunSuperior]

Great talk. The business model you choose for a game has great impact on the design.

[@ax23w4]

An amazing talk! Jon Blow puts a LOT of thinking into these subjects and I believe he's right about it.

[@FelipeBudinich]

I was clapping by myself at the end, haha, *awesome* talk.

[@floatingchimney]

34:07 Papers Please made by "Lucas Covar"? lol It's Lucas Pope!

[@YASxYT]

Very inspiring guy! It's so nice to see someone who really cares about games - about the truth of games.

[@jasonjasonjasonjasonjason]

I am looking forward to the witness so much!

[@dedicateddark]

You really do understand.

[@FuriousCoder]

Great talk. If they only goal of any creative endeavor is to make money for the creator (or the publisher), then we're trapped in an endless circle of moving money around for cheap thrills, which is ultimately meaningless. If instead we take the risk to create experience that potentially change our perspective, and inspire or push us to advance ourselves, even in some small fashion, then we are actually providing a valuable service to Humanity. Ironically, that provides a much better value than the easy buck.

[@GeoKureli]

I came into this video already contemplating that I want to leave my company - lo and behold, he shows a game from my company as one of the "bad" instances. I need to make a decision, do I want to make game that I enjoy playing, or buy a condo this year?

[@christopher6267]

buy a condo then build games

[@GeoKureli]

then I'm pretty much locked at my current job until it's paid off Edit: I've decided to do both, kiss my sleep time goodbye

[@Duartuss]

And how did it turn out?

[@magne6049]

George Kurelic yes, how did it turn out? I hope you would like to share, regardless if it went how you wanted it to go or not.

[@tryfanevans7047]

How did it go?

[@sync232]

Not all games can be F2P, thanks Jonathan! Insightful.

[@phoenixdecode8194]

Why no video of the questions??

[@TheLavaBlock]

Interesting talk. Thanks

[@minch333]

This is what separates art from science. Science grows through construction and refinement and the flaws are obvious and uncontroversial. True art grows from criticism, I'm sure that Jon's games would be much worse off if he hadn't been slowly developing his own ethics on gaming. Mainstream games are too similar to science. Their mechanics and visuals are refined to 'perfection' and they employ psychological tactics to entice and keep players in. Ironically, both braid and the witness are trying to express something sciency. They express the scientific phenomenon of discovery, the 'ah ha!' moment in research, through playing with time and (what appears to be) graph theory. But it is the love of this feeling that the games are about, thus taking that 'ah ha!' moment into the realm of art. Anyhow, I hope some day that Jon starts focusing more of his energy on what he wants to do with games rather than what others are doing wrong. Unfortunately, since a lot of folk haven't even considered his criticisms before, I don't really see that happening. I'm not saying he isn't productive, just that it's a shame there aren't that many developers on Jon's side. Even Ed McMillen, as much as I love his games, is way more focused on the fun of his games than the artist potential. I guess to make a comparison to music, candy crush is like Miley Cyrus, Ed is like Alt J and Jon is like Ravel. Sorry if this seems pretentious, I guess if I can't write this under a Jon Blow video, I can't write it anywhere!

[@StupidSystemus]

Braid is pretentious, so your comment is right at home :P

[@maggot1995]

StupidSystemus xDDDD fani

[@Ludocriticism]

"Mainstream games are too similar to science." That was so well-put I'm jealous.

[@GuillermoValleCosmos]

I think you are confusing science and engineering. The flaws in science are far from obvious and uncontroversial. There is ton of controversy in science. Also, to me science has given me the most meaningful experiences of awe. I don't think its neither ironic nor a coincidence that braid and the witness try to express something sciency. Art+Science=Wonder

[@JohnSmith-ox3gy]

Engineering is related to science. One is direct with a purpose the other can go anywhere in pursuit of truth. Essentially creators of Candy Crush are playing an interesting game with a main goal of making money by engineering a product utilizing IT, psychology and game design as tools. The difference from their developement to mr. Blows is the primary goal.

[@themachinist1000]

This is a fantastic speech and sorry to be so off topic but is that his stomach rumbling at 16:51?

[@ThyAsianMan]

+Sean Siegfried You're an evil person.

[@SinDigital]

the microphone shadow on the canvas

[@PabloGnesutta]

#theWitness

[@clivemakongo]

for papers please it could be interesting to have a bribing system to have people overlook stuff you want to do. Add a way to get bribes from people and add your own money. I think that, though a different game in a way, could be a good game.

[@MsBickle76]

Thank you!

[@eugkra33]

Which show is the drama at 2:04?

[@jaerivus]

I haven't gone back to check, but I believe that was the Game of Thrones still.

[@Louthsk8er]

Great stuff

[@TheOddball007]

Wow. Great presentation Jonathan. I can't help but feel some of the issues you've raised are the largest criticisms of some of the largest games currently on market such as Bungie's Destiny and various MMO's. Games one invests both time and money into grow an expectation to be carried away in some sense of awe as you put it. Yet to me at least, despite wilfully wanting to embrace them and be carried away in emotional elation, I've found the latest experiences hollow, void of any true depth, and disingenuous. Hopefully as time goes forward the gaming industry matures and rests into a more mature medium than the current trend.

[@flyingburningman4602]

Like last of us 2?😂

[@senarodrigo]

Does anybody have a link to the clip he's talking about?

[@KrullMaestaren]

Jonathan Blow hold an interesting talk where he compares the history of games with the history of TV series and movies. While at the same time explaining what is wrong with many F2P games in a simple way. #gamedesign #f2p #gamedevelopment #jonathanblow

[@aseq2]

I agree with most of the points made in the talk. There will always be a market for both types of games, as you can't really play an awe-game while you commute. But I like the 'call to action'-kind of attitude. I wonder what JB thinks about episodic games (Final Fantasy Dimensions for iOS, for example), where the first part is free so you can get at least a feel for the game. This, because the junk games definitely make it harder for awe-devs to make their game pay upfront. Oh, and if that guy in the quote had ever been to the pyramids of Gizeh he wouldn't have included them in the list. Man, that must have been the most disappointing tourist trap I've ever been to.

[@dandymcgee]

If everyone reached the ideal state of mind, there would be no need for the commute, and therefore no need for commuter games. An unrealistic goal, but worthwhile to ponder.

[@ssssmemyself]

Dat garage band loop

[@BaronWombat]

I very much appreciated how Jonathan objectively deconstructed how the commercial constraints impacted the structure of product. I do not agree with his subjective feelings about F2P game structure. He is elevating deep narrative engagement, and rather ignoring the fun of mechanics and puzzles. My own subjective opinion is that there is an audience for all of these. I feel like he is a chef complaining about people eating fast food instead of enjoying only epic 2 hour feasts. Yes, a lot of the freemium models are cheap Zynga knock-offs, but one CAN create engaging games that connect to players under the F2P constraints, much like how a chef CAN cook a good fast food meal without becoming McDonalds. Both take a lot of planning, passion for the end result and acceptance of the possibility of a lower profit margin if not enough of your audience values the difference. I submit 5 Guys and In-N-Out as very successful examples of great product in the McDonalds sphere. I like to think my own Tail Towns Friends on Facebook is a pretty good F2P that is a positive engagement for players.

[@JayXdbX]

I think the problem is that he was very broad about the subject matter so the odd exception, while being high quality is also going to be picked up. However, for every 100 F2P games that don't milk the user for all they, i'd be willing to bet i could find another 10000 that did. This is where the problem lies; a honor system on the developers side must be in place for this model to be considered good and most of the major publisher are anything but honorable.

[@jordenchris]

Please tell me how games like LOL or DOTA2 (F2P games) would have been any different as P2P games. I mean hell, even if they just gave you all the skins and released more skins every so often as paid DLCs, the game still hasn't changed at all. F2P can be done well.

[@jordenchris]

***** Sure I have paid money in the game anyway, and in fact I paid for the game anyway even though there were plenty of free codes out there. Because I am a firm believer in helping out those companies that are good. But yeah, you could very easily play this game without paying any money, DOTA even more so then LOL because you get all the heroes straight up.

[@InsertSh33p]

He's not really talking about games where paid content doesn't effect gameplay. I think League and Dota are still conventional games by his definition.

[@alexnoman1498]

They are only F2P because they want to provide the paying players with engaging opponents. Anything else is a side-effect. Different model, more or less the same dynamic.

[@PurpleFreezerPage]

I really really value two things in art, and they're at odds in f2p vs paid games 1) accessibility. I want every child, office worker, parent, and world leader to be able to play the game, alone or with loved ones. F2p makes games veeery accessible. 2) Creator's vision - customer focused. I want this game to be one thing - an experience crafted for people to gain happiness/meaning from. Not an ad, not a scam, not a time waster. Paid games usually do that best.

[@callebo]

The clip he's talking about: watch?v=6SZMn_711s4

[@fearingalma1550]

A prescient chat, no? Now the whole damn industry is built on shaking people down for cash even for games you have to spend full retail on. But what Blow didn't see coming was gacha games trading characters and story for profit.

[@rev087]

You're not alone pal :)

[@ZeroZ30o]

44:00

[@MichaelPohoreski]

Free-to-play, aka, Pay-to-Progress's biggest sin: **Doesn't respect the gamer's time nor space.** i.e. Brave Frontier, Burning Blade, Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, Smurfs Villages, etc. They go hand-in-hand with _grindfests_: Defiance, Destiny, Eve, Guildwars, Path of Exile, Warframe, WoW. They are monotonous "games": Genocide, get phat loot, rinse repeat for 100 levels.

[@LammaDrama]

starts at 15:26

[@richardlambert9137]

Satoshi Tajiri believed so much in Pokemon that he took pay cuts in order to see his dream come to fruition....all these FTP games are about is making money. I think the lesson is, dont let the pursuit of money water down your art, or really any selfish gain...such a thing is really unpleasant to the taste. That also goes for "fan service"...you cant please everyone, so why try.

[@TamataruKo]

So... that Marshall McLuhan (media anthropologist) quote in the title comes from Jonathan Blow? This man was one of a kind already, I can't believe he's also into the scholar side of multimedia. I was in awe before than anyway.

[@onedeadpixel10]

TamataruKo he is all about approaching game design from an academic perspective. I hope you checked out his other talks and writing.

[@brynhendry2899]

Team Fortress 2

[@KettlePal]

This game was originally not F2P

[@i-make-robots]

TSK. TSK. TSK. Augh!

[@BehindTheVideoGames]

I think he raises some good points, though he isn't really seeing things outside of his own perspective. Which is the problem a lot of people have, so I will not fault him for this. Specifically I mean his opinion on f2p games and their movement on people. It is easy to say, Candy Crush is not a good game, but this isn't really taking into account other people's experiences with the game. Obviously, if you do not believe Candy Crush is a good game, then one would be forced to assume that the same opinion can be applied to games like Tetris or other puzzle games. They are made with different goals in mind, a game's purpose isn't to expand on the bounds of human understanding but rather, as an art form, to communicate the intentions of its developer, to the user. Think on this a moment, a game about driving a car through flaming hoops, can be shown in many different lights, however, it depends entirely on the intention of the developer, and how he/she wishes to communicate to the world, or the users. The car could be out running a giant monster that stands for something intensely personal to the developer and allow the users to interpret the meaning of this in many different ways. The car could be customizable and allow the user to purchase things to do so, or allow them to purchase another life so they can go on without losing their recent progress along the road. The car could have turbo boosts on the bottom and suddenly the game is about timing and challenge, allowing the player to brag to their social circles on how far they made it. The point here is, that the game can mean so much more than just transcending our current understanding of the universe, yes I said it can mean more than that, by being about having fun. One person could be having a bad day, or just trying to go home and they don't have time to sit in front of their gaming consoles, or perhaps are waiting in line, or using the toilet (admit it, you've done it) and their world could use a little brightening up. So they turn on their phones, and play a game. However, the compensation model for mobile games doesn't work the same as it does on other systems. Which brings us to how the f2p model 'works', and I mean works as in, it is the correct way to do it. Small purchases over a lifetime of a gamer allows for players to pay in a manner that benefits them in the best way, a network of micro transactions across a large user base gets the game, and its developers the well 'earned', and I say earned as in they produced what was asked of them and typically more, so they are getting paid what the user allows, money. In short, there is an old saying "Man cannot live on bread alone." The same applies to all things in life, I enjoy deep story driven things, but with various things that increase my stress throughout the day, I need something that can actually help with that, some people get enjoyment out of going to the beach (travel expenses) or going fishing (equipment and licensing expenses) or watching a movie (....movie expenses? yeah...) or hanging out with friends, which usually leads to getting something to eat, watching TV or playing board games (expenses, expenses, expenses.. ). You get what I'm trying to say, I however, just play games, that's it, and there are a lot of people like me, hence the mobile game market and the f2p model. I can play hundreds of games for free and focus my attention on the ones that I actually enjoy, thus giving my time or money to that developer, whether from watching ads or paying for game currency. Will there be deep thought games on the mobile? I do not know, but the real question should be, SHOULD there be deep thought games on the mobile? Now that is something that will be determined by the users, once more people develop for mobile platforms in the future, we will see where that goes. Until then, the market is flooded with a dominate amount of games designed in the f2p fashion. My case, of course being, that this is NOT a bad thing. To reference the quote in the video, "The shape of a container, determines what can be contained." Well the container of the phone, is currently shaped as something that can be positively used for the user, by being something simple, that will be fun for the user. (Notes for the Reader: the caps are used only to emphasize the words, not for yelling.)

[@MichaelPohoreski]

GameBrothers The problem as Jon correctly summarizes is that bad games don't respect the gamer's time. A little RNG is fine but when it becomes a crutch for the entire (shallow) game, i.e. Destiny, it is abusing the gamer's time. As one gamer said: _"Doing repetitive tasks over and over again with the hopes that the end result is slightly different isn't compelling gameplay."_

[@MichaelPohoreski]

GameBrothers Freemium hijacked the word free which means "No Strings Attached." Instead you get this: * cdn.baekdal.com/_img/2014/taxi-inapp.gif From: www.baekdal.com/opinion/how-inapp-purchases-has-destroyed-the-industry/

[@BehindTheVideoGames]

These are some good points as well, and I want to say that I do agree with a lot of the things in this talk, I however do not necessarily believe there is anything ethically wrong with making something with the intent of getting money for it, after all the means by which developers get their money is providing their creation. I just felt obligated to address the stigma towards f2p models. The model certainly isn't perfect and can be exploited (a good example comes from the f2p MMOs that have RNG that create market depressions and prevent new players from enjoying their time unless they spend a lot of money or cheat. Though that is another discussion entirely, or rather it is one I do not have time to fully discuss at the moment.. ) in any case, the model provides a means for the developers to show their product and ask for the money afterwards. I don't really care for pay wall timers,, or blocking portions of the game (unless a demo version was clearly displayed E.G. Turbo Flaming Car 'Lite') but rather, additional costumes, bonus items, continued play (on an arcade level, pop in a few more quarters to get further than your friends) because in doing so, the developers generate the money for their game. Mobile platforms don't really sell very many games for very much money, so larger development calls for a different payment standard. That being said, I do agree that f2p can become a little over the top in some situations, I just don't think it is insidious in nature.

[@crazymaner2003]

What absolute bollocks. Balance of Terror from TOS is as dramatic, exciting and tension filled as any show on TV now. Twin Peaks is also a greater work of art than any show of TV on at the moment and I highly doubt David Lynch would say the constraints of TV got in the way of his vision or art. And in a lot of cases great art is the result of constraints and limitations. Great TV is being about being able to write a fantastic 25/45 story, not prolonging stories into entire seasons.

[@tauruxbis]

You musn't have been paying much attention. He did mention that there were exceptions and really good shows that were made at that time. He's talking about general trends and clearly stated that his description was an oversimplification of how it really is.

Remeber that Season 2 was far worst than 1 (in Lynch's opinion) just because of TV constraints.

[@TamataruKo]

+crazymaner2003 David Lynch got badly pressured by the tv station and he dropped off Twin Peaks season 2. The series dragged on until its demise precisely because they wanted to make it an unending soap opera. Right now, there are also constraints in television about the perfect formula for a tv series, just that these formulas vary, as opposed to soap-opera which I dare say was the only genre in the 80, transitioning to the '90. by that time new types of series had emerged (action with detective and police investigations as an example). I hope I'm not talking nonsense Twin Peaks is truly great, but people wonder even now how come it got approved and broadcast on tv in 1990-1991. It was a real miracle I believe. an exception too

[@Armaan8014]

Responding to a 4 year old comment, but I came down here to see if anyone was talking about TP. Just want to mention that TP was not just an exception, but one of the shows that CAUSED the change in trend he's talking about. I wish he'd talked about that as an example, the way he did for HBO. TP is one of the reasons the style of TV shows changed.

[@twistedknight]

Man please! stop moving from side to side!!!!! It's driving me crazy.

[@lleon79]

Watch "Indie Game: The Movie" he is like… some kind of crazy, like very nervous and hyper active.

[@TamataruKo]

+Erick Pombo play Braid. it's a game he made. it'll definitely calm you down :)

[@scalabrineplayoff3pt46curr7]

ugh...I have jonathan's hairline. it's annoying.

[@otakurocklee]

I don't think his analogy with television holds at all. In the 70s and 80s, audiences were limited by a handful of shows on tv. They were forced to consume whatever was shown. The producers could get away with producing low quality. They watched Six Million Dollar man because there wasn't much else there. Plus there were fixed time slots... fixed number of shows that could be shown per day... on few channels. Today, there are millions of games... free and paid... available instantly. Variety of levels of quality, variety of styles. Nobody's playing Candy Crush because of a lack of good quality games. They're playing Candy Crush because they want to play Candy Crush.

[@jblow888]

otakurocklee I presume you are too young to have grown up in the 80s? It was typical to have cable TV with dozens of channels.

[@MookNop]

+otakurocklee I think your complaint hinges on a really fragile fallacy. They weren't FORCED to watch anything. If they genuinely didn't like the show, they could have turned it off and read a book. His point was that the people watching Million Dollar Man (and now the people playing F2P games) were convinced that they were enjoying the thing they were consuming, and that only in retrospect can we objectively see how terrible this stuff was. Just because there are millions of games doesn't mean the ones getting play are any good. People still watch reality TV.

[@otakurocklee]

I never said the ones getting play are good. That is not my point at all. I'm saying people play the games they want to play despite whatever better quality games are out there. Today people still watch Jerry Springer because they like Jerry Springer. It has nothing to do with being ignorant of better quality shows. And some people play Candy Crush because they like Candy Crush. It has nothing to do with being ignorant of better quality games. To say that people play CandyCrush because there's nothing else better out there, or they don't know about the better stuff out there is ridiculous.

[@computronium8]

They’re playing Candy Crash or Fortnite bc is a trend. One of the biggest issues that players (casuals and experienced ones) have to deal nowadays are the specs barriers. Most people can’t get the last VGA winners bc they don’t run in their PCs and videos games for consoles cost around $60 each, so the problem is the medium itself. That’s why we’re living in the Bad TV age of games, most players don’t have any clue about that

[@Ali009Ahmed]

Micro-transactions can continue to live in the world of gaming as long as they don't interfere with the experience of the player and are only paid for appreciation of the product.

[@ItsAllGoodGames]

Had me until Gone Home... walking simulators ehhhh u too soft Blow

[@Spiderboydk]

Gone Home was novel when it came out, and it's not atrocious as a walking simulator. Gone Home is all about emergent storytelling, and is better executed than successors like Everyone's Gone To The Rapture.

[@fearingalma1550]

@@Spiderboydk I haven't played Gone Home but people that criticize walking simulators need to understand that they aren't the target audience. You can have artistic merit, engaging gameplay, and mass appeal with correspondingly high levels of income. Pick two.

[@PurpleFreezerPage]

I think his points are a little too one-sided. Like in general he's just a bit too snobby. He's saying things I regret saying when I discuss media and get too snobby. Don't be so matter-of-fact and universal with your opinions.

[@slynt_]

Snobby is just what people with low standards call people who have better taste than them

[@lorenacoelho9678]

"People playing Candy Crush at the airport probably didn't play games like Final Fantasy VII" - a little bit arrogant, don't you think? References? How can you tell a person has more or less history with games and if such a person is more able to judge what's a good or a bad game? This is the most relative issue you could possibly use as an example. Unless I've missed the part research data is mentioned.

[@lorenacoelho9678]

Just for the record, I'm a Final Fantasy fan and totally a candy crushable one.

[@rcxmh]

I don't think I'd need data to say that the same people watching Jersey Shore probably haven't seen Firefly. Keyword: probably.

[@lorenacoelho9678]

Right. So you actually believe the other games in the universe are not parasites. Tell me how many hours you've found yourself playing games you wouldn't describe as tools of manipulation. That's exactly my point. Data is missing here. You all should consider that you're supposing facts from previous and conventional cultural standards from your own social circle. And that's easy, you don't need to know about videogames to do that. Or about anything else. According to your reasoning, "Jersey Shore people are stupid; Games people are intelligent; Candy Crush people are manipulated by the media". hahahaha.... Whyyyy on earth would people lose the opportuninty of narrowing down likes and dislikes to ascertain levels of intelligence, RIGHT??? keyword: prejudice.

[@rcxmh]

You didn't even use the word prejudice in your paragraph... Anyway, I didn't assign values to the two shows or games, they're just different target audiences. Sure, someone could both read 50 Shades of Grey and Harry Potter and still be intelligent. It's just unlikely there's much overlap between the two audiences. Do I really need to explain why?

[@lorenacoelho9678]

No, you don't. Do I need to explain irony? The paragraph illustrates the word itself. And I understand what you are saying, of course. I'm just adding another [and yet] considerable point of view, and that's what the internet is for. sharing opinions, reflecting, and not only reproducing.

[@paledolphin]

I couldn't focus on his words sometimes, because he was smacking his lips so much, especially after drinking water -- good God, can't you, like, turn the mic away when you're doing that?.. Anyway, to the point of the talk. I can't really call this talk good -- first of all, he states obvious facts (Candy Crush is not Final Fantasy, breaking news, guys!). Second of all, what's the bottom line "go make games like Papers, Please, or Gone Home, or Final Fantasy, but don't do games like Candy Crush Saga"? Well, the difference is not about the drama and/or the laziness of the designers. The difference is in monetization techniques. You can either pay 60$ for a new game on PC, complete it in 10-15 hours, then buy DLC for 20$, play 5-10 more hours, then buy another DLC... rinse, repeat. Or you can just login to Facebook, play 5-10 minutes a day, without paying anything -- and have your "thirst for gaming" gone in that timespan. And without having to pay 60$ for your game too. I'm a midcore gamer, and I love to play free iOS games like Trials Frontier, or various Marvel fightings... But I also enjoy games like Papers, Please, or Dying Light (as of the latest), or even the Final Fantasy he's mentioning. Those 2 types of games don't really correlate -- if I'm on a ride home on a subway, and I have some spare time, I can play Trials, or Candy Crush, or Subway Surfers. I don't need a submersive gameplay and atmosphere, when I have only 5-10 minutes to play. There's really no point in being aggressive to F2P games and their monetization model -- the amount of successful games that are really forcing you to pay them is really, really small. And if you don't want to, noone's forcing you to play them -- that's the real bottom line here.

[@NathanRichan]

"And if you don't want to, noone's forcing you to play them -- that's the real bottom line here." Jonathan acknowledges that. But he also notes that players can be unknowingly manipulated into over-valuing the worth of a game (monetarily speaking) for what he sees are nefarious ends. He knows that free-to-play games have their place, or at least their market... he's just defending games as an art form, which to him, you can tell, is a very personal thing. Essentially he wants to share the joy that games have given him to people whose only experience of gaming is Candy Crush. Whether or not you think there's a 'point' to that (as if he has an agenda) is, I think, missing the spirit of the talk.

[@otakurocklee]

Nathan Richan What are these nefarious ends? Making money? I really don't see what's so immoral about f2p does... it is just another form of advertising... Instead of just watching a video or commercial talking about a game... you get to play a free version... if you like it, you might spend money on it. How is f2p different from game demos? Are game demos inherently immoral... usually they draw in the audience to a crucial moment... then to continue, they need to buy the game... is there something evil about that... isn't that how he sold braid also?

[@NathanRichan]

otakurocklee Imagine if the Sistine Chapel had a sheet covering half of it, and Michelangelo asked everyone that entered the chapel for a small fee for which he would reveal the whole thing. It's just ridiculous. It's almost an oxymoron. An artist who's passionate about his work wouldn't compromise that work just for the sake of money.

[@paledolphin]

Sorry, but you you're not making any sense. The initial question was: how are F2P games different from the retail games? The "F2P-games are like demo-versions of the regular games" is a good point too, by the way. The Sistine Chapel example, though, is... outlandish, at best.

[@ArgosOz]

+Ilya Schibrik I don't think I could buy what I got from Papers Please if it was a game designed around micro payments.

[@pohjoisenvanhus]

90% piracy on PC? Huh? Is this a geographical thing? I can't remember even seeing someone play a pirated game on a PC since the 1990s.

[@StefanLopuszanski]

"Sinister ends"? As in trying to make money? I'm not sure these are any more evil than any other corporate tactic such as advertising, marketing, or brand building. While his point is very good, it is a little off base. He is financially stable and successful. Most indies are not and have to resort to creating games with F2P "evil" models. Doing something experimental and risky typically does not pay off. Braid was a huge success, but there are thousands of indie games that push the boundaries but don't make money. If I had no monetary concerns at all, I'd love to explore interesting game mechanisms that push the genre in new and interesting ways. Unfortunately, the reality is that I'm a struggling artist who has to "sell out" to be able to live. Not that I feel there is anything wrong with F2P things -- if that isn't what you're interested in simply don't play them. However, many people do enjoy games like Candy Crush Saga, so I fail to understand necessarily how they are the end of the world. EDIT: 7 years later and I view F2P fine if it is created in a way to not abuse people's emotions and mentality. But that doesn't seem to be the case for most F2P titles any more so I can see a justification for the hatred of most of them.

[@joseanl]

The thing is, he was financially unstable when he made braid, but he decided to make that type of game anyway, and it paid off. The F2P it's not bad in itself, like blockbuster movies aren't inherently bad, or commercial pop music it's not bad either, in fact, those trends began with really good products! (blockbuster movies with Jaws and SW, Pop with the Beatles), it's just that some mechanics are more safe to implement than others, F2P refuses to make risks by design, since everything must reach to the guy paying you money, while the other game mode its ·"commercial free", really bad things can come out of that model as well, but it is better aimed it to make personal, interesting and artistic risks than the F2P is.

[@StefanLopuszanski]

jose antonio l Jonathan Blow risked it and made it, but there are countless indies who risked it and failed. He can talk all he wants about putting gameplay and the experience above money, but unfortunately most of us can not. If I was assured that any artsy fartsy game I made would actually make money, then I'd definitely focus on that -- but my background outside of game design is in business and minimizing risk is extremely important. Doing art for the sake of art is great -- but most "starving artists" are not only "starving (poor)" but their art doesn't take YEARS to finish like a game does.

[@joseanl]

Stefan Lopuszanski I know that it's easy to dismiss the effort that a programer or an artist makes for over a year in order to finish and polish a game. But I think either you didn't get the message way Jonathan meant it, or he used the wrong word, or I got it wrong, but I think he meant by "sinister end" was the fact that in those games, with few exceptions, the goal is to get as much money as possible from the gamer, so the price he can end up paying is much more money than in traditional games, where the price stays the same, but the game has a big finale. He wants his games to be paid for, it's not that he says that they all should be free in order to become art. It's that, he, like me, thinks that the F2P model is not refined yet so they can get true gaming experiences like when you finish a traditional game and thus they stay unfinished, and they never give you that "big accoplishment" feeling that traditional games give.

[@tauruxbis]

The sinister end is not trying to make money or being profitable, it's making money or being profitable at the expense of the player's experience.

[@StefanLopuszanski]

jose antonio l The goal of any company is, in theory, to "get as much money as possible" from the consumer. His goals are not from the business perspective -- they are from a hobbyist and artistic perspective. If F2P makes more money, why would you not go for it? If you're trying to run a successful business -- not just create art for the sake of art -- why not use every method possible to increase money? You should hate on the consumer for supporting F2P, not on the designers for making it that way.

[@EgypTPHONIX]

He ignored non pay to win free to play games

[@JohnSmith-ox3gy]

Ahmad Hani Whole premium casual genre. Big Fish will remember this.

[@ThatsRaf]

Yeah, he totally ignored all 3 of them.

[@shaynesmith4740]

Hmm... The only way that this talk doesn't make Blow a hypocrite is if he gives away his games for free. He's trying to make the iOs model games seems morally wrong. He's acting like the money making model for home systems/consoles didn't shape the type of games developers made, and that his traditional, non-arcade games are somehow more pure. As an example, RPGs weren't possible at the arcade -- there was no way to make money from them with the pay-for-play model -- so developers didn't make them; on the other hand, the constraints of the home systems made RPGs extremely marketable, so developers made them, and still make them, and make LOTS OF MONEY doing so. The money making system of the console systems dictated the design of the games, not just with RPGs but many other popular genres of games such as FPS and sports games. iOs-style, free-play games are not a threat to Blow or the "traditional" developers exactly for the reasons he gives explaining the evolution of the mobile-gaming model. The types of games he likes and wants to play (and wants you to play) are not possible on iOs EXACTLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE MONEY on iOs. They DO make money on console systems.

[@AdobadoFantastico]

I think you misinterpreted the points.

[@slynt_]

I guess you missed the analogy to cinema. Not really listening, were you?

[@MrBoardNS]

Got damn it! Does he have to spoil game of thrones episodes?

[@Killjoyed95]

Johnny Blow is a tedious man.

[@jianli8530]

dont waste time. all about paying for free game. do it in 5 mins pls

[@jianli8530]

poor speech