Design Reboot: Jonathan Blow's MIGS Talk about Hacking Game Design

I ran across this link this morning to Jonathan Blow's slides from his recent talk at MIGS called "Design Reboot."  I think it's worth a look as it feels relevant to all those who want to think of games as art in the future.  BTW...this is the kind of thinking that  continues to convince me that Roger Ebert is a fat bloated movie prick.

“Design Reboot”, Jonathan Blow, Montreal International Game Summit 2007

I think he hits on my take on games as a predominant art form.  Specifically, I believe games have the potential to be the major art form in the near future, but will never do so in their current state.  In fact, some of the most successful games right now, the games that define our industry to non-industry folks, work against this (Madden 200X, WoW).  Of course, games can be art on many levels, but I feel the spirit of "games as art" is about games as teachers...games as thought provoking entities that teach us something about ourselves that we otherwise would not have considered.  Something real and something "deeper" than just hand-eye coordination and being at the top of a leaderboard.  Ebert approached things all wrong as he slammed games for never having the chance because they gave up authorial control and handed control to the player.  So, he assumes games are about story...I say games are about experience.  So are movies and literature...about experience.  Story is just one way to give experience.

Comments

[Jeff Freeman]

I don't think games have the potential to be a major art form in the near future...

I started writing this reply before I finished reading your post. Heh.

I did that because right off, I knew what I thought the obstacle to it being, and so began.

But then I decided that I ought to see why you believe otherwise...

And so also read what Ebert was getting on about, more or less accidentally. I hadn't been looking for it specifically, because I don't care all that much what Ebert has to say about video gaming's speech impediment.

Anyway, back to it: I didn't see an argument supporting the time-frame, really. If I read you right, you're essentially saying that games have the potential to express an idea, soon.

I agree with that, and think that no more is necessary for them to be "art".

I also agree that in their present state, they aren't doing that, and so aren't.

In terms of the ability for them to do so - which you say is an ability they'll have soon - I am of two minds:

On the one hand, I don't think it's something they could be doing in the near future, but is in fact something they could be already be doing, if they would just do it.

That is, if they were made to express an idea and in a manner that allowed an idea to be expressed, then they could be art right now.

On the other hand, I don't think it's something they could be doing in the near future, nor now, nor for a very, very long time, because of the manner in which they are made.

Here's what freaked me out about Ebert's justification for his opinion. I already had my rationale formed and ready to type here prior to having read Ebert's opinion up there. I just expected his opinion to be something along the lines of "they aren't movies, and that's why", or the like.

I believe the problem is one of authorship.

Imagine my surprise to read that Ebert's why-for used the word authorial. I was just positive that the dude had already said what I was about to say.

Then I got over it, because the issue is not one of authorial control being surrendered to the player.

Authorial control being in the hands of the player is only an illusion. It's part of what goes into making a game, with good games doing a better job of creating that illusion than bad ones.

It is a lot of the reason why games aren't all designed procedurally by fairly primitive bits of code.

So I guess he can be forgiven for thinking it was real, since making people believe it is real is what game developers put a bit of effort into doing.

But the problem begins a step below authorial control.

It's not that it is surrendered to the player, but that it's never established to begin with.

At least, not typically.

That problem is in the development process itself, and not at all in the nature of the medium.

He's saying something like, "Without authorial control, it's impossible for the author to express an idea."

That might even be right. It's just not the problem with games.

Games simply do not have authors.

Without authors, it's impossible for an author to have authorial control or for the author to express an idea.

Games don't surrender authorial control to the player, but rather the entire development process conspires to strip authorial control from the hands of any one person. Should anything resembling the expression of an idea somehow emerge on its own, the entire development process conspires to silence such out-bursts where there's so much as an implication of making a statement with which anyone might disagree.

Statements which which no one anywhere ever would disagree are not ideas at all. They're equal to the expression of fact, even when they're not facts. About as "artistic" as a math text.

For games to express an idea, there'd have to be control given to an author; permission for an idea worth expressing to be expressed.

Then if it's done so in a manner more appropriate to the game medium than any other and skillfully... it would be "game as art".

Done else wise, which is far more likely, it'd still at least be "art despite game".

So it's just that "having an author" thing that needs to be done.

I don't believe there's even the potential for that to happen in the near future.

[Mundinator]

Jeff, I agree with most of what you are saying.

First, I am in fact saying that games are not acting as art for the most part. They are lacking something that can take them to a loftier place. A place where people like Ebert may actually be convinced to by a 360.

As a developer myself I am saddened to see, more than once, studio heads speaking against the idea of a project visionary. I hold close to my heart the idea that a project needs ONE person at the end of the chain of decisions. One person who can uphold the vision of the game. I might be able to call this equivalent to the author (literature) or director (film). Games dev teams sometimes have this role and, it seems, they have it a lot less as games become more complicated.

You see, when you make a film or write a book you have a single point of view so it is MUCH easier for a single person to control. The director sees every single shot that is filmed. The author writes every single word. The game visionary can't possibly see every moment for every player. It is what makes the interactive media so much more complex.

So, I believe as dev teams start to better understand how to divide the work in a somewhat consistent manner (no two dev teams consist of the same team positions), people with a vision towards a type of interactivity will emerge.

I disagree that Ebert is referencing this idea...this idea that games could be better with better development processes. I believe he was truly saying that games will forever remain a lesser media because they cannot craft a consistently conveyed thought. He believes they are and will always be about their mechanics and not something greater.

I say this is exactly why he is a critic and not a filmmaker himself. He is able to judge, but not grasp what progress can be made. Once a critic, always a critic.