Jonathan Blow’s Design Reboot

If you’re a game designer, you should probably listen to the lecture Jonathan Blow gave at the Montreal International Games Summit.

Not only do the opinions expressed sound similar to our own. It’s refreshing to hear these points spoken out loud, and so eloquently illustrated.

Contrary to us, Mr. Blow still firmly believes in games as rule-based challenges to achieve a certain goal. But he posits that the learning required to engage in such an activity should be worthwhile. A game should teach us something interesting. And game designers should be aware of what their game is teaching players.

The latter could be a serious problem as the quality of games is currently almost exclusively judged by whether a game is fun or not. This is where Mr. Blow’s tremendously insightful analogy with drugs and fast food comes in. He advocates designing games with rewards that are intellectually nutritious and not simply addictive.

Doing so will not only improve the quality of life of the player. But it will also open up the interactive medium to being capable of addressing the many different types of content that have made cinema, literature and music into the dominant forms of entertainment and enlightment that they are today. Mr. Blow urges game designers to design with the intention of making something “worthwhile or deep or interesting”. Something that is oddly very rare today indeed.

A recording of the talk is available from his website.

The Path is an IGF finalist!

But, it’s official: I have bad taste.

Fez The Path World of Goo

Only 3 of the IGF entries that I found noteworthy made it into the finals. Not Penumbra, not The Night Journey, not even Venture Arctic or Virtual Villagers. Not Fatal Hearts. Not Masq. I truly suck.

The good news is that The Path, also on my list, did make it! We’re up for “Excellence in Visual Art”. The other two from my list are Fez and World of Goo. Congratulations!

Yippee!

Tale of Tales at Game Connection

Game ConnectionThe Shining

We’ll be at the Game Connection this week, in Lyon, talking to many many publishers. Mostly about The Path.

The concept behind the Game Connection is to create a business convention for publishers and developers in the video game industry, so that they can network and meet one another personally. We strive to create an environment for them that is comfortable and provides the best possible atmosphere for doing business.

This means two and a half days of back to back half hour meetings with almost 40 companies. Wish us luck!

Games and values, designers as authors

Mary Flanagan and Helen Nissenbaum have started a project that reminded us of things we have been saying in the past about the importance of authorship in games.

The “Values at Play” (VAP) research project assists and encourages designers to be mindful of what values their computer games promote. We would like to see a diversification of video game values to include positive principles like equity, creativity, diversity, and negotiation, along with the traditional tropes of violence and machismo.

I’m not sure what form this “assistance and encouragement” will take. I’m secretly hoping for some “violence and machismo” in this area. And I’m not sure if the current generation of fun-obsessed game designers will care (or will realize that they don’t). But I think it’s important to put this issue on the agenda. Perhaps in the past, it was ok to design games as if they were footballs, or pogo-sticks or ping pong tables. But, like it or not, with the advances of technology (and new forms of game appreciation in the public), games have become an expressive medium. And, as a designer, you better be aware of what your game is expressing!

Visit Values At Play!
I’d especially recommend the short snippets of interviews (from Tracy Fullerton and Celia Pearce amongst others). Hope we get to see and hear more of these.

Good games, bad games, ugly games

Reading through the avalanches of comments on the inappropriate appropriation of Jeff Minter’s recent Livejournal posts by video games news sites, makes me realize the extent of the immaturity of games as a medium and a culture.

Mr Minter made a personal statement in his journal about how he is saddened by the fact that remakes of old games sell better than new original games, based on sales figures he got from XBox Live Arcade; where his own Space Giraffe game is competing for some measly Dollars with age-old classics like Frogger. In any other subculture, the audience would sympathise with the underdog. Not so in the games industry. Most of the comments advise Mr Minter to “stop whining” and “make a good game instead”. The latter really bugs me.

I may not personally like Space Giraffe as a game any better than Frogger (I don’t know that because I don’t own an XBox). But does that mean it’s a bad game?
Gamers, in general, and often hand-in-hand with the games press, seem to think that there is an objective standard for games to be judged by. That there’s good games and bad games. And more importantly, that everybody better agree on what constitutes a good game. Because if you don’t, then you’re an idiot, a moron, somebody who knows nothing about games, etcetera.

Hey, I may have been guilty of this myself on occasion.

But it’s horrible, isn’t it?

Whatever happened to personal taste? Why can we not simply like or dislike a game? Instead calling it good or bad? And how about different people liking and disliking different types of games? That they don’t like to play a certain game, does not mean that they are illiterate idiots, does it? And even if they are not very knowledgable about games, don’t they still have the right to like or dislike a particular game?

Space Giraffe

I may like or dislike Space Giraffe as a game. But I have no end of admiration for what Jeff Minter is doing: to make a game from his own personal vision, to experiment with game structures and aesthetics, to make something that did not exist before! I wish that the games industry would be more supportive of that. If only because it is thanks to the work of people like Mr Minter that the medium grows and the industry expands.
Or is that exactly what those commenters are afraid of?

I don’t think we can do much about the trolls who comment to blogs. But we can support this work on a higher level. Microsoft, for a start, should realize that games like Space Giraffe require special attention. They need to create a custom-made marketing campaign that prepares the consumer for what the game is really like. And they probably need to create a special channel on their service for games like this. So that it doesn’t seem like they’re competing with games that fall in a completely different category. Next, the press should try to educate the audience about this. Instead of circling around people’s personal online journals like vultures waiting for a juicy bit to rise to the surface. Surely journalists have the experience and know-how to realize the importance of exploration and experimentation in the games industry. They should support this practice as much as they can!

I hope, in the future, releasing a game does not feel so much like taking an exam. As developers, we are interested in hearing people’s opinions. But they are only useful when we know where they are coming from. And nobody has the right to “grade” our work. Games are not right or wrong. Games are liked or disliked. By people. Different kinds of people like different kinds of things. There’s nothing wrong with that.

And game developers are only human. They don’t owe gamers a “good game”… Developers owe it to themselves to follow their vision and make games with love and care.

Worlds, not pictures

Envying the precision of the framing through which Almodovar tells the story of “Todo Sobre Mi Madre”, I was reminded of something a visitor of Vooruit’s birthday party said. She was wondering how come the image of The Endless Forest that was being projected large in the room was not the same as the image that was seen on the interactive consoles. I told her that it was different on every computer: the same world but seen from different angles.

I think this is very meaningful and often underestimated. Framing is a powerful technique but games are not about pictures. They are about worlds. And much like film tells its story through framing more than through acting, as theater did, games need to find the technique that tells their stories. And it’s not framing. It must be related to the worlds that games create. It probably has something to do with interaction, with agency. How does one call the technique that manipulates interaction, like framing manipulates vision?

Interview with Simon Carless

Simon Carless by SimonikerIt took about 4 months to finalize this interview. We’re all very busy, I guess. But here it is. Chairman of the Independent Games Festival and publisher and editor of several websites and magazines about games and games development, Simon Carless is a busy bee. Which doesn’t stop him from dropping by other forums and blogs to participate in this often turbulent community. Or giving interviews to the likes of us.

Enjoy!

Photo by simoniker

We’re brilliant!

If you don’t believe us, read the well thought through article by chris on The Artful Gamer. I quote:

They are brilliant.

Seriously, the article contains a very interesting analysis of different forms of play. And how many computer games seem to miss out on a lot of opportunities for play. It reminded me a bit of our own post about Player-created gameplay but it takes the concept even further.