An interview with Braid’s Jonathan Blow.
Matt: Could you introduce yourself briefly for our audience?
Jonathan: My name is Jonathan Blow. I am an independent game developer! Just released a game on Xbox Live Arcade.
Matt: And with said game, Braid, garnering glowing reviews and great sales, I imagine you must be pretty pleased right now.
Jonathan: It’s all right. However, when a game gets a lot of critical attention like Braid has, it becomes a focus of discussion, and then lots of people start saying negative things about it too, and then I end up reading all those things, and get annoyed and/or depressed. Also I don’t have a personality wherein I receive all too much comfort from external validation. But aside from these things, yeah, it’s okay.
Matt: Heh. Well, I guess when you’re in the public spotlight, you have to take your lumps. You’ve criticized a game or two in your time too.
Jonathan: Oh, absolutely. I don’t mind when people dislike things about Braid, as long as they have good reasons for it. What really annoys me is when people start putting down the game but I feel like they don’t understand it very well, or just haven’t thought about things. But again, it’s kind of silly for me to worry too much about that kind of thing, so I try to keep a clear head.
Matt: About Braid, how long have you been working on this game?
Jonathan: I first started the game in December 2004, but had a bit of a break after the initial prototype. I’d say I started it for real in late April of 2005.
Matt: Do you remember what triggered the idea for it?
Jonathan: I just had the idea. With the best ideas, I don’t know where they come from; they just are there one day. There were definitely some influences on the overall design; for example, I had been talking with some friends in email about how we thought that previous games using rewind (e.g. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and Blinx) didn’t necessarily use it in a very good way, and what if someone made a game where rewind was unlimited? But that was really only a small part of the idea behind Braid; the full idea is a lot bigger, and I don’t have an analytical view of where it came from. It was just there.
Matt: How did you decide you were going to really take this thing big time? From what I’ve read, you staked a not-insignificant amount of your own money on this project. I imagine that took some guts.
Jonathan: Well, I just decided that I wanted to finish this project, and have it be good. Originally I thought it would only take a year (which would have been a lot cheaper!) The budget was just a result of taking a long time and being tenacious and hiring people to help.
Matt: How many people worked on the game? I only know of the artist, David Hellman.
Jonathan: Well, it depends on what you count. If you look in the credits, there are a whole lot of names. But, if you just mean people who contributed directly to the content of the game, there are 5; myself and David are the people who put a large amount of work, and there are 3 more people who put a few weeks’ work in, each.
Matt: You mentioned in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that the budget for the game was about $180k of your own money, which you were prepared to lose, right?
Jonathan: Yes, that’s approximately right…
Matt: I’m asking because I’m trying to lead up to asking you about an old quote from December: http://tigsource.com/articles/2008/02/17/jon-blow-says-fuck-that
Jonathan: Yep, I remember that interview. (The link to the old interview is dead, I think, but I have an updated link; haven’t posted it yet).
Matt: Ah, cool. Yeah, I couldn’t find the full context.
Jonathan: I’ll find the link in case you want to post it… one sec.
Matt: Thanks.
Jonathan: http://archive.gamehelper.com/magazine/features/jonathan-blow-says-fuck-that
Matt: So, my question is, how should an independent creator divorce the making of a game from the very real need to buy groceries? How do you pull it off?
Jonathan: You just have to do it. I was spending a lot of money on Braid when I did that interview, but I knew that I was willing to lose it all in order to make the game I wanted to make. I refused to think about commercial viability, because I knew that would influence the game design.
Now, if someone doesn’t have a ton of money to spend on a game, that just means they do what they can do within a smaller budget… to only lose what they are able to lose.
Matt: Most of my insight on this comes from having a roommate at Three Rings. And though they seem to be making the kind of games they want to play, there’s always that aspect of “Ok, how do we use this to pay our people?”
Jonathan: Right, Three Rings is in a very different situation. They have employees to pay, they have to stay in business as a business. Which is a significant part of what I was saying in that interview about how “being professional” hurts creativity and prevents designers from following their designs to their full potential.
Which is not to say that I think Three Rings is a bad company. They are rather a cool company to work for — Daniel James is a friend of mine. But what I am saying is, it does constrain your options. Three Rings can’t just make anything they want, because they have to survive as a company. But a random indie person can. He can make anything he wants, and that gives him the power to do things that Three Rings cannot do, even though Three Rings has a much bigger budget.
Matt: Do you think it’s really such a strict dichotomy, though? As a company, they’re notorious for playtesting the snot out of their products. Rather than constricting, one of their people described it as liberating, counterintuitively enough, as it led to them trying things they’d never try otherwise.
Jonathan: I don’t necessarily understand that comment, but I would say that anyone who intends to do heavy playtesting and then make decisions based on that is in a different neighborhood than I am. Because that’s about throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks, and pursuing that in order to make an entertaining game that a lot of people want to play. Making a profitable entertainment product.
That is not what I do. What I do is make the games that I need to make, because I won’t be satisfied with my life if I don’t make them. This doesn’t necessarily have that much to do with the audience. If my audience were to turn out to be very small, I would be bummed, but I wouldn’t change the games I am making in order to gain a bigger audience, because then what’s the point? I would not be making what I think needs to be made.
So, I don’t playtest very much. I do playtest a little bit, to make sure that I don’t commit some kind of grievous error that I am unable to see. But, I don’t playtest often, and I certainly do not make major gameplay decisions based on the results of a playtest.
Matt: (I think this might have been the interview I was thinking of, if you’d like to read it: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3585/still_alive_kim_swift_and_erik_.php ) [Edit: It was actually this one.]
Jonathan: Yeah, I am pretty familiar with Valve’s playtesting philosophy. They playtest the hell out of things. That’s just not the way I work. Valve’s reason to exist as a game developer is very different from my reason to exist as a game developer.
Matt: You do it for you and you alone, in other words.
Jonathan: Well, not exactly. Moreso than other developers do, but if I were making games just for myself, I wouldn’t necessarily have to release them. But what I do is, I assume there is an audience out there who will appreciate what I appreciate, and if I stay true to my ideals, I will end up with a strong work that they will get something good out of.
Matt: You trust that if you compromise from your decisions, it’s just going to result in a weaker game that maybe more people will “like,” but fewer people will love? Not to put words in your mouth.
Jonathan: I feel like there is enough compromise in the game industry. Everyone compromises on everything all the time. If I want to make something different, that really stands out, then a good way to do that is to not compromise. Plus, compromise does not suit my personality very well. It tastes bad.
But what you said is very relevant — I think a lot of companies try to engineer a game that will appeal to everyone, but in doing so, you get a wishy-washy game that will not impact anyone very strongly. Whereas if you say, this game is only going to be for people who like this game, and I am going to make it as much this game as I can possibly make it, then you can create a strong and enduring work that way. I think.
Matt: Along those lines, how did Braid come to be on Xbox Live Arcade instead of, say, on the PC? I know little about developing for Arcade, but it seems like something where they say “You have to do this, this and this.”
Jonathan: There is a PC release coming soon. I just wanted to release the XBLA version first, because targeting a fixed platform was appealing to me. I could aim to maximize quality of the game. When releasing on the PC, you have to worry about what graphics card people have, or if Nvidia decided to kick your dog this week with their latest driver release, or whether Vista’s annoyingness is going to fuck up your game somehow. On the 360 you know what the platform is so you can plan for all that.
Matt: Heh.
Jonathan: Microsoft does have requirements — and I think the requirements are too many and cause too much needless work to be done. Yet at the same time, I found it preferable to trying to make a PC game. The PC situation is extremely unfortunate right now, and companies like Microsoft/Intel/AMD/etc ought to be working to fix that. Unfortunately they are not doing so, as far as I know.
Matt: In that there’s even more hoops to jump through because of the nonstandard hardware?
Jonathan: Not just the hoops, but the unpredictability. Even after you do all this work, your game is still going to crash on a bunch of peoples’ PCs, or run slowly, or fail to run at all, or only render in shades of blue. It’s a battle that you just can’t win, so it seemed better to release first in a place where I can win.
Matt: Microsoft does seem to have been fairly supportive of you when you put your foot down, like saying there wouldn’t be any in-game hints.
Jonathan: Yes, for the most part. However there was one change they insisted on making that I got very mad about. I came very, very close to yanking Braid off Arcade and making it PC-only.
Fortunately, the change only affects the trial version of the game, not the full version. So in the end I decided it was not so bad, even if ultimately I felt dirty for letting that kind of Microsoft bad-decision-making wash across the game, even just a little.
Matt: What was the change, or would it be better to just not say?
Jonathan: It was just making the free demo version short like it is now. I wanted it to be longer, because I figured that the important thing is to communicate to the player what the game is really about, and to let them make an informed decision about whether they want the full game. I believe that if the game is a high-quality, compelling experience, people will want to play the rest. But Microsoft didn’t want the demo to be so long. They wanted it to be a lot shorter. I argued with them and we reached a compromise. But like I said before, I don’t usually like compromise. It tastes bad.
Matt: I guess this would normally be the part where I ask you about the game being sold for $15 instead of the usual $10, but that always seemed like a tempest in a teapot to me, so I hope you don’t mind if we skip it. Anyway!
Jonathan: Yeah, I don’t mind skipping it. I don’t have anything new to say there.
Matt: Going back to something you said earlier in the interview, when you’re out reading people’s responses to Braid, how many people who have played it do you think “get it” in your view? Most/few/enough/etc.
Jonathan: Well, it’s a very complicated game with a lot of elements. A lot of people “get” at least part of it. I haven’t ever read a forum posting where someone explains the game the way I think of it, but I’ll see if that happens. It’s early yet.
Matt: Heh, well, I guess if you’re going by current schools of art criticism, the creator’s intent isn’t the important thing anyway.
You’re happy enough with its reception, though?
Jonathan: Yes, it’s better reception than I could have expected.
Matt: Any idea where you want to go from here?
Jonathan: I have a plan for the next project but it’s not really something I am talking about yet… I need to do some experiments with it, work on a prototype, and see how it goes and if it’s really what I am working on for the next n years.
Tags: entertainment, web, trivia
Save This or Tell Your Friends!
Popularity: 95% [?]
I dunno… it was an alright game, but more on par with a flash game from something like newgrounds not something I would actually ever pay for.
Hah. I think Luvma_Chine’s comment is such a perfect complement to the interview, since it capture’s Jonathan’s comments wonderfully.
He didn’t try to make a game that Luvma_Chine would pay for. He specifically avoided making a game that Luvma_Chine would pay for. (Here I use Luvma_Chine as representative of any particular member of the internet masses or “potential audience” that a company might consider.)
I’m quite biased. As a volunteer, I’ve worked Jonathan Blow’s panel at the GDC for 3 of the last for years (and attended last February). I’ve seen Braid evolve from the original prototypes into something much more impressive… And those original prototypes were truly, deeply impressive.
I would compare Braid to Ikaruga; though they are clearly different genres, they both attempt to force periodic paradigm shifts. Ikaruga merely shifts back and forth between two paradigms (creating that marvelous “my brain hurts” feeling). Braid takes a much more relaxing approach, but shifts paradigms again and again, always to something new, creating a feeling of going deeper and deeper down the metaphorical rabbit hole. It reminds me of
my love for abstract math, oddly enough.
I think Braid is that rarest of games: one that becomes more appealing the higher your level of education. Those who are capable of truly analyzing games–folks who feel comfortable using words like “narrative” in an academic paper, folks who design games themselves, interactive media theorists, etc.–are going to get the most out of it.
Of course, Luvma_Chine’s comments are not entirely without merit. It is like many of the best “casual” flash games, in that it (for the most part) attempts to soothe and relax. As far as I can tell, Jonathan tried to let the player explore without the need for “hot” negative emotions like frustration, exasperation, alarm, or anger. Instead there is wonder, occasional delight, and poignancy.
Interesting interview, thanks for taking the time. It’s great to see the creative sides in people coming out in the video game industry. I might just have to check out Braid now. What do you think the chances of receiving investments for artist studios/creative teams would be on working as Jonathan did? I suppose it would depend on the investors ideals (beyond making money).
mmm, Thought Provoking.
Small teams can get investor money. The catch is, once you have their money, they get to tell you what to do.
Investors are fun guys.
I dunno, I’m still on the fence about Braid. There were some puzzles that I stared at for hours, but a man I know to be a complete idiot took one look at and figured out instantly. There are some concepts that I simply didn’t have the capacity for. I never found “secret stars” or whatnots, though to be fair some of them get ridiculous.
In all, it’s a game of which I imagine I’ll sing the praises of for the remainder of my years. I just wish the day would come where I have the kind of imagination it takes to “get it” as Mr. Blow (and eight million artists about the world) so eloquently put it.
I played the trial of braid for a few minutes before I found this article. Do I think this is a “thinking” game? Yes! Is the game without frustration? No, I stumbled through a number of puzzles, repeatedly hammering the X button. It is gratifying though, to experience a game that you can’t loose, yet is still challenging. That is a feature that is very hard to achieve. Hats off to the creator of this game. I hope this shows the industry that there are more possibilities than big budget games. The big budget game is a dinosaur that is dying out, and it’s threatening to pull the game industry into another slump like back in the late 70s early 80s.
His argument that indie game developers necessarily have more freedom and opportunity to make what they want and not compromise their artistic integrity is inherently flawed. There are more than one way to limit an artist. Resources being one of them. Sure no one told Jonathan he had to change his vision, but he also had the 180k to make his vision. what if he only had 180$, or 18, or -18k? would that not limit what he could do? what if you told a composer he could only write music for strings and percussion but had to cut his horns? what if all the artist could afford is 2d visuals when he needed 3d? resources can limit the aesthetic expression.
this is just one way an indie is limited, there are many. I think jon has a far too stereotypical view of corporations, the issue of company demands really depends on the company, the issue is more nuanced than jon makes it. I think there is plenty of evidence of game developers sticking to their aesthetic ideal and not giving in to corporate demands just as their is evidence of coping out.
I’m a big fan of puzzle games, and 2D platformers. Braid was a terrific game, because the mechanics were almost perfectly set up to think about things in each of the worlds. Combine that with the underlying presentation and story, and I am very glad I picked up (or downloaded) Braid. I don’t think it’s something that could have come out of a modern game company, but I think he’s being a bit too harsh there, but I suppose he’s got the right to after seeing the project through all of it’s stages solely with his own money and time. And unfortunately, many indie game developers may have brilliant game ideas, not all of them will have the time or resources to spend on them - or will have to modify them for commercial reasons. Hopefully the success of games like Braid will encourage more freedom in the creative process of games, and give corporate developers a reason to give more “out there” concepts a try.
[…] Soul), who interviewed Tarn Adams for Kwanzoo.com about a month ago, just did another, shorter, interview with Jonathan Blow, where they discuss Braid, Microsoft, and the nature of being an independent developer. I feel like […]
I hope I can offer the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the gaming industry to this discussion. When I tell you that I don’t game, I mean it bluntly…I know nothing of game development and while I can get by on a gaming system, I’m more inclined to sit to the side and watch. My friends, however, are religiously loyal to their respective favorite brands and systems.
While visiting one such friend, I had the utter delight to watch a few puzzles of Braid. I believe Simonson captured the game perfectly when he described it as “one that becomes more appealing the higher your level of education.” I began in the middle of the storyline, after the player had unlocked most of the game and finished all but the very last puzzles. Within two minutes, I was mesmerized, both by the art and the story…I’m an author, and while I prefer the written word, I believe that some stories are just better told interactively and that Braid is one such. It is a marvel to watch that plot unfold. I had only a few scenes, a few bits of script, and the descriptions of the player to get involved with, and still, the depth and poignancy were evident…and I never touched the controller. I did watch him rework a few puzzles to show off the creativity in the game, and the controls are intriguing; the gameplay unique to any that I’ve tried or watched.
I disagree with Luvma_Chine in that people who appreciate the game and its concept *would* pay for it. It’s a targeted game, admittedly directed at like-minded people and no one else…and I have to say that I’m sad that the demo was shorter than the creator desired. I believe the story is worth the money, but a lot of people are going to write Braid off as a 2D flash because of that restriction. They’re going to miss something special. Braid isn’t RealArcade material, and really, it’s not even solving a puzzle so the player can reach the next and say they won…and people *will* miss it.
Essentially, what I’m getting at is that while the creator may have had more resources than other Indie developers, he’s also struck on a concept that captured the attention of someone he likely didn’t intend to reach…and likely wouldn’t have, had I found Braid any other way. No, Braid may not appeal to the hardcore gamers, or even those who think themselves well versed in the gaming world, but…It got my attention. Perhaps that’s the benefit of refusing to change his game for anyone else…Braid isn’t restricted to those who game, and I’m glad I found it.