A friend of mine (who plays piano in an awesome band you ought to listen to, by the way) recently asked me why I haven't written so much about Braid. Well, the answer to that is because I think I've made it fairly evident my strong opinion of the title -- notice, by the way, that we're having an impromptu David Hellman Week at SVGL?
And really, I feel like my critical peers are pretty universally agreed on it -- it's immersive, it's innovative, it marries gameplay with narrative message, it's aesthetically pleasant, and I think the fact that it represents one designer's fairly pure, unadulterated vision is a great thing to stand behind.
But I recently had an email convo with another friend of mine, Sean, who is a designer, and he had something of a different opinion -- he feels we lose a learning opportunity when we (both media and designers) decide a game is "perfect" and refuse to criticize it just because it's done great things. So I got his permission to reprint some portions of our email exchange, and I'd be interested in the opinions of the SVGL army, too.
From: Sean
To: Leigh
--------------------------------------------
I hear a lot of comments in the press and from critics about how original Braid is, and what a brilliant design, and I don't entirely agree. I'm not saying it's a bad game, but I think it's being a little overrated. I'm not going to get nitpicky about the same little things that every game has problems with, I'm just interested in Braid's high-level design decisions. So here are a handful of things I don't see the press talking about that I think about while playing.
If I had to tell someone quickly what Jonathan Blow is trying to do with games, I'd say he is pushing for stronger integration of theme, narrative, and gameplay. He emphasizes (though I haven't heard him use this word) a holistic approach to design, where every aspect of the game is intentionally planned to enforce the overall theme.
So for me, Braid makes a weird decision right from the beginning -- the explicit narrative is told in text, optionally, between worlds. Why? It doesn't get rolled into the level design directly, and what is going on per level has very little to do with the narrative itself. It feels like an optional component to the game, which feels directly contrary to what Blow purports to be doing. I'm not saying that I have a better solution, and I'm not saying that it's worse than any other game on the market that uses cutscenes; but, it doesn't seem to fit into Blow's stated goal for his game, and so I don't understand the decision.
Second, the overall gameplay is a questionable choice. Braid is a puzzle game at it's core. It has some platforming elements, but the real trick is solving the puzzles to get each puzzle piece. Specifically, Braid is a logic-puzzle game, where the player's goal is to figure out which sequence of actions get him the desired goal. I have two problems with logic puzzle games. The first is, there is no replayability. Once I've solved a puzzle I'm done with it. The second is that if the puzzle is not obvious in the first few seconds, it becomes a game of, "What was the designer thinking?" And if you're stuck, that's not a fun game.
On that note, Portal has the same problem but since I never got stuck for more than about 10 seconds, it just never bothered me.
On that note, Portal has the same problem but since I never got stuck for more than about 10 seconds, it just never bothered me.
Contrast this with Chess, or Go, or Checkers, or any number of familiar games. In the video game world we have Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, Ninja Gaiden, Mario, and any number of other games. These games fit into a lot of different categories, but the thing they all have in common is giving the player a set of rules (a gameplay space) and allowing him to explore that gameplay space to improve his skills. To me, this is the real strength of games (not just video games). Give the player a skill set, and allow him to improve at that skillset.
Going right back to Raph Koster's "theory of fun," learning and improving at this skillset is what makes us enjoy games in the first place. The problem I see with puzzle games is that their skillset is limited (a fixed number of puzzles ship with the game). Other types of games have the potential for much longer-lasting fun, and along the way as I learn the skillset I can watch myself succeed or fail and understand why. In a puzzle game, failure means, "failing to figure out the designer's thinking," which is less fun or interesting than a lack of skill on my part that I can try to improve upon in the next attempt.
Going right back to Raph Koster's "theory of fun," learning and improving at this skillset is what makes us enjoy games in the first place. The problem I see with puzzle games is that their skillset is limited (a fixed number of puzzles ship with the game). Other types of games have the potential for much longer-lasting fun, and along the way as I learn the skillset I can watch myself succeed or fail and understand why. In a puzzle game, failure means, "failing to figure out the designer's thinking," which is less fun or interesting than a lack of skill on my part that I can try to improve upon in the next attempt.
Ok, those are my high-level questions about the game. I have some lower-level questions, too, but they are less important. All that said, I appreciate what Blow is trying to do. It's a conversation we need to be having in game development and we're not having it often enough.
Too often when I send videos of Blow's talks to developers I know, I get the response, "Yeah, so? Most of that is obvious." And my response is always, ok, maybe it's obvious -- but no one's doing it. At least he's trying, and at least he's talking about it, and he's willing to throw his work out there to the world for us all to judge.
Too often when I send videos of Blow's talks to developers I know, I get the response, "Yeah, so? Most of that is obvious." And my response is always, ok, maybe it's obvious -- but no one's doing it. At least he's trying, and at least he's talking about it, and he's willing to throw his work out there to the world for us all to judge.
From: Leigh
To: Sean
--------------------------------------------
You raise a good point about Braid. What I think is phenomenal about it is the environment, firstly -- it really does create a mood and feeling, and what I think is so admirable about that is the way the quintessential game mechanic -- you can go back and fix things -- meshes with the main narrative, the message of forgiveness.
But I wholly agree with you that the idea of it being presented through text is a little bit dichotomous. I mean, I love Braid, I love what it stands for and I love the experience of playing it, but I'm not sitting here saying it's the second coming of christ (like Portal is).
Your criticism regarding the logic puzzles though, might be a matter of your taste. Not every game's replayable -- most books, for example, are not re-readable infinitely, but that doesn't take away from their experiential value. If you watch a movie twice you don't necessarily get a different experience each time, but that doesn't mean people don't enjoy seeing their favorite movies over and over.
[Once again, header art by David Hellman -- hey David, email me if I should stop posting it! <3]
[UPDATE: Freelance designer Charles Joseph Pratt points us to his blog post in which he largely agrees with Sean.]
20 comments:
Well, I don't know if I'm obligated to reply here, buuuuuuuuut I can't help but retort some of these arguments. Hope I'm not coming off as rude :(
Also there will be slight spoilers contained herein:
--
"So for me, Braid makes a weird decision right from the beginning -- the explicit narrative is told in text, optionally, between worlds. Why? It doesn't get rolled into the level design directly, and what is going on per level has very little to do with the narrative itself. It feels like an optional component to the game, which feels directly contrary to what Blow purports to be doing. I'm not saying that I have a better solution, and I'm not saying that it's worse than any other game on the market that uses cutscenes; but, it doesn't seem to fit into Blow's stated goal for his game, and so I don't understand the decision."
--
Well, the game is about a guy who is trying to figure out a failed relationship. The puzzles are the central metaphor of the game. The text gives us background, but really exists to set up the theme for each level. For instance, the world 2 intro text ruminates upon the consequences of making mistakes, and then introduces us to a game mechanic in which we can infinitely correct any mistakes that we make. And so as you solve each puzzle, you (as Tim) also exploring that philosophical question.
The fact that they are abstract merely seems, to me, to be an aspect of Tim's personality. He's the kind of guy that overthinks everything. And when you see the end, and realize that he's been in denial about what really happened with the princess, it makes more sense that he'd attempt to solve his problem through abstract thought exercises.
--
"I have two problems with logic puzzle games. The first is, there is no replayability. Once I've solved a puzzle I'm done with it. The second is that if the puzzle is not obvious in the first few seconds, it becomes a game of, "What was the designer thinking?" And if you're stuck, that's not a fun game."
--
The frustration you feel when you don't immediately "get" a puzzle is one of my favorite parts about Braid. The puzzles in Braid are difficult, but not due to arbitrary game logic. They are difficult because they require extreme amounts of lateral thinking. There is not a single puzzle in Braid with an "unreasonable" solution. They are sometimes difficult, but that makes solving them all the more satisfying. For my part, I hate it when I figure out every puzzle immediately after seeing it. This just means that the solution is too obvious. See: most Zelda games in recent memory. With the possible exception of Phantom Hourglass, at times.
--
"Contrast this with Chess, or Go, or Checkers, or any number of familiar games."
--
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You do realize that Chess, Go, and Checkers are all basically puzzle games... right?
Anyway... I just have to disagree re: puzzle games in general. I actually used to look down on puzzle games in the same way, but after playing games like Portal and Braid, which successfully use puzzle designs as narrative devices, it occurs to me that the real future of the medium lies in puzzle-like game design. Puzzle-based gameplay generally allows for much deeper levels of psychological interaction, which opens up lots of room for expression. I'm actually hard pressed to consider another model of gameplay which is better suited towards actually integrating narrative and play. I mean... so far the standard bearers of narrative games have been, what... JRPG's and adventure games? And various offshoots, like survival horror. Not exactly elegant things, design wise. And hey, I can think of one recently released horror game that does do a comparatively elegant job integrating narrative with play, and it's... basically a puzzle game!
(Talkin' bout Siren: Blood Curse, of course).
Oh, a little tidbit I forgot to mention in response to that first quote: The story in Braid isn't really the point. The game isn't trying to integrate plot with gameplay so much as it is story themes. The plot is Macguffin, set up as an excuse to philosophize.
At least, that's how I see it.
Ok, I just can't even read this exchange, because it opens with a ludicrous strawman:
If I had to tell someone quickly what Jonathan Blow is trying to do with games, I'd say he is pushing for stronger integration of theme, narrative, and gameplay.
...
So for me, Braid makes a weird decision right from the beginning -- the explicit narrative is told in text, optionally, between worlds.
I'm not sure from where Sean gets his characterization of what Jon is trying to do. Since Jon has given many talks, many of which are available on his website or youtube, it's not hard to discover what the process he went through with Braid was, or what he's said his goal was. And the above description doesn't match.
But maybe that's not really what Jon Blow was intending. Or maybe his goals changed over time. So let's set aside what we can get from him explicitly, and accept that we should try to conclude from the game what the intent was.
But wait! How can you look at the game and use the same set of data to conclude that the author was trying to do X, but that the author did X poorly?! Maybe you could take that as a sign that the author wasn't trying to do X, instead!
There are idiots out there who see a couple videos or only play World 2 and go "I see that this game is just a Super Mario Brothers clone, and it's a really bad clone". And yes, it is a bad one of those, but that isn't the point so wtf. And this criticism seems to manage to make the same sort of mistake.
So, I dunno, maybe the rest of the discussion you had has more of interest to it, but that was just too much of a turn-off for me to be willing to sit through it, especially with it as long as it is.
I also think it's kind of obnoxious for him to give this subtle "I'm not going to get nitpicky about the same little things that every game has problems with", because, seriously, what stuff? The game is pretty damn bug-free, and if there's small design details he disagrees with, I'm not sure I buy his characterization of those details as "problems".
(Full disclosure: I playtested Braid, and wrote maybe 0.1% of the code, but did not contribute to the design. Also, my name is also Sean, so it's particularly affrontful!)
From the talks Blow as given that I've listen to or read I think Sean's characterization is reasonable. But either way, I don't think it invalidates Sean's criticism of Braid's narrative being delivered through text and that "what is going on per level has very little to do with the narrative itself."
I don't think Blow's intent really matters when it comes to analysis of Braid. Blow criticises Bioshock's Little Sisters when he says that the decision to harvest or save them has very little impact on the game play. This is a perfectly valid criticism regardless of whether or not the designers of Bioshock ever intended for the harvest/save decision to have any game play impact.
Blow's view is that that decision not having an impact on game play lessens the impact of the decision (and creates a disconnect between the game play and narrative), just as Sean's view that the text based narrative of Braid having little to do with the game play effects the impact of the narrative.
(Full disclosure: I was a programmer on Bioshock, but did not contribute to the design.)
My personal opinion is that Blow was trying to marry the themes of the game play with the themes of the narrative, not necessarily deliver narrative through game play. And I think he did an excellent job of it.
It's interesting, I'm a designer as well and I feel exactly the same way as your friend, almost word for word, about Braid. I'll also note that a lot of my designer friends have similar qualms as well.
Braid is by no means a bad game, but I think there are a lot better examples of what Jon Blow is after out there?
Also, Toups, you could make a sound argument that formally Checkers, Chess, and Go are puzzles games (maybe), but Go alone is mind bogglingly more complex than what people normally associate with a 'puzzle'. For instance, Checkers was only just 'solved' by a computer. If processing power continues to increase as it has, it will still (maybe) take another 750 years to solve Go.
Anyway, I just wanted to mention this strange coincidence. I wonder if you looked into if there would be a wider discrepancy between what critics and what designers think of Braid.
These complaints seem a bit nitpicky. The overall premise is spot-on though: the press trips over itself whenever something new or fresh comes up, and they practically refuse to offer any valid criticism.
Such as: the platforming in Braid isn't terribly precise (maybe because of the 360's D-pad), and for the most part this isn't a problem, but in one or two parts of the game you're expected to do something very very exact and the controls get in the way.
If this were a straight platformer like Mario, it'd be inexcusable, but Braid gets a pass because usually you get as many tries as you like, from whatever point you like thanks to the rewind mechanism. It still doesn't quite excuse controls not being as tight as they could be, or, conversely, having puzzles that the controls don't quite support.
There's also the matter of pacing; maybe it's on purpose, but World 6 doesn't have the mind-bending time mechanics of 4 or 5, with one, maybe two notable exceptions. It just seems weaker compared to the other two worlds. World 6 is harder, I believe, but achieves its difficulty mainly through frustration and pixel-bitching.
I actually think the platforming is quite important, even though I agree that, at it's heart, Braid is a puzzle game.
Specifically: I think it's not only a metaphor that the player understands, but a metaphor for how Tim sees the world.
Tim is what, late 20s to late 30s?
One metaphor that will be vivid for someone that age is that the world fraught with obstacles is, essentially, a platform game.
And not just any platform game: it's Super Mario Bros.
Somebody on a forum I'm on wrote a post that is best summarised as oh my GOD why can't they at least come up with some original enemies? goombas? flytraps in pipes? and I'd argue that the intertextuality is really important: Tim is visualising his troubles as a platform game, and as the platform game that he knows best, and is practically part of his DNA.
It's also part of our DNA as gamers; it's the ur-platform game. So, as a player, you can get over the platform-game mechanics - bounce on enemy, avoid flower, left/right/jump - and focus solely on the problems the level presents.
It certainly made me think that whatever else Tim is or might stand for, I'm pretty sure he's a gamer.
The holistic approach to games narrative is exactly what I've been wanting to see for years. Ico and Shadow of the Colossus took steps in the right direction, and Portal nailed it for the first time.
Still unable to play Braid as yet until we get the pc version, but maintaing the narrative as seprate from the levels could hurt the idea unless you pull a No More Heroes and have the level structure and distinction be part of what the game is trying to comment upon. There seem to be a fair few indications that Blow was aiming for this.
First up, hooray for your friend Sean in commenting on the value of criticism. Even if everybody did basically agree on a subject, there can still be a valid succession about what everyone's personal experience was. That's part of what art is: it becomes a deeper experience if you compare your reactions to those of others. ryan makes some excellent point in this regard: when the designer finishes the game, his intent ceases to matter; his game becomes an autonomous work that can inspire radically different interpretations.
And besides, obviously everybody does not basically agree about anything, as this discussion has shown. My two cents:
- I don't agree that the basic inclusion of text is where Blow went wrong. I think it could have worked to set up the atmosphere if he had let somebody else write it. Basically, Blow's writing is just plain bad - to quote the excellent Edge Magazine review: "...[it] feels a little trite in its self-conscious obscurity."
- I feel it's actually liberating that most reviews I've read ignored the faults of the basic play mechanics to concentrate on the game experience as a whole. This is what game criticism should be about - debating the merits of games on the basis of the execution of its ideas, not on the basis of its nuts and bolts. Maybe that explains the discrepancy between critics and designers that Charles mentions: maybe designers are just "programmed" to focus on the mechanics, because that's what they do for a living? For me personally, complaints about the controls are completely irrelevant in the face of what Braid does achieve: the "twist" in the final World had me as gut-punched as Bioshock, Portal and Half-Life 2 episode 2's defining moments. Those moments, when the player, for a few fleeting seconds, is in perfect sync with the designer's intent and ideas, don't come along very often, but it's why I play games.
I think that there are a lot of good things to say about Braid, but I don't think that complaints about its controls or design are irrelevant. Basic technique and craftsmanship is the foundation of every artform. Would you excuse a filmmaker who didn't know how to focus a lens even if you really identified with the subject of their movie?
Also, I would say that designers 'aren't' programmed to only think about mechanics, though you're correct that we put emphasis on them. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with Braid if I didn't think that a lot of other games, Protal, Passage, the games of messhof or Cactus, were so much better and just as deep and interesting thematically.
I don't want to speak for all game designers, but I think the feeling is not that Braid is a bad game, but just that it's not that great.
Of course I didn't mean to say it was THAT black and white. If a game's mechanics get in the way of the author's "grand design", then of course that's not irrelevant. I only meant to say that in Braid's case the perceived flaws in its mechanics are, to me, completely overshadowed by the successes of its overarching form and function.
But I seriously don't see how you could drag Passage into this discussion. Its artistic merits aside, obviously a work that has no game mechanics to speak of can't be criticized for them. Apples and oranges, mate!
Hmm, you'll have to define how you're using the word 'mechanics' because I think we're missing each other. To my mind Passage has a lot of the same mechanics as Link to the Past. How are you using the word?
Wait, are we talking about the same Passage that just has you walking left to right through an extremely pixellated environment? Apparently I completely missed the point of the game if you're comparing it to the third Legend of Zelda...
Well, obviously there's a lot more to do in Link to the Past but mechanically AND thematically Passage takes a lot from classic adventure games. Perspective being the most obvious one, as well a maze with hidden treasure, an escort mission, etc. Even the tombstone when your wife dies is taken from an indie adventure game.
Now, Passage has some important additions, like a score and the inability to backtrack, but one of the things that was so interesting about the game was that it framed its discussion of choice and mortality within the tropes of a familiar genre.
Yeah sorry, shouldn't have opened my big fat mouth about a game I didn't play for more than five minutes (to paraphrase Bart Simpson: Damn consoles! You've ruined my imagination!).
Still:
"one of the things that was so interesting about the game was that it framed its discussion of choice and mortality within the tropes of a familiar genre."
Uhmm... kinda like Braid?
Haha, yes, touche!
It's true that that's one of the things that I like a lot about Braid. Truth be told I pretty happy to live in a world where a game like Braid can exist and maybe be successful.
While I would say that there is much more of possibility space to explore in Passage (especially given its size) than Braid, they are both interesting takes and reinterpretations of familiar genres.
"meshes with the main narrative, the message of forgiveness."
Really? You take away forgiveness from the main narrative?
I think it's open to some interpretation, mainly because it's a bit vague, but there's a quote at the end of Braid that was used at the Trinity test of the first nuclear bomb, "Now we are sons of bitches."
My take away is that it's more about obsessiveness, the pursuit of anything at the expense of the repercussions or ethics of the end result whether it's in science or relationships.
In this case, the "princess" could be the first nuclear bomb; he pursues this goal, and once it's reached says, "Oh shit." In fact, that's what pretty much happened to everyone involved with the Manhattan Project. Alcoholism, regret, etc. But not forgiveness.
I mean, SPOILER AND ALL, but the final level shows you what's really going on, and you're not rescuing a princess.
That was my interpretation as well. That is was about addiction and obsession in its different forms.
I think the argument that puzzle games are limiting because they offer only a single solution, after which you are "done," is to an extent an observation more than a critique. It's a little like saying (clumsy metaphor coming), "The thing about apple juice is it's so sweet. I don't really like sweet drinks." We (game designers) are paid largely for our ideas and opinions, so maybe this isn't a surprise, but I've found that a large number of us tend to define games more narrowly than perhaps we should.
I don't mean to put words in Sean's mouth, but his implication would seem to be that a puzzle game is somehow a lesser experience for being experienced only once, and therefore being less "skill-based." I would argue that, in the case of Braid specifically, but also in puzzles (and puzzle games) generally, there IS a skill developed. Sometimes, as in Braid, that skill is developed over a relatively short experience, but the skill one develops in understanding and utilizing the tools available in Braid is very real. Granted, those skills don't translate to a nigh-infinitely replayable experience, but that's largely a function of the limited number of levels. If, for example, the game had included a level editor, there's no reason the experience couldn't have been drawn out through numerous permutations just like Chess or Go. The fundamental systems Blow is using are sound.
On the subject of story presentation, I'm of two minds. On the one hand, given that the story presented in the books feeds heavily into the overall feeling of the game (the sense of loss and regret that permeates so much of the intangible spirit of the game), it does seem odd that it is presented in such a seemingly optional/random way. On the other hand, isn't that entirely the point? Why, for example, force the player to move through multiple books, rather than simply presenting it all in a single book (or even a text crawl at the beginning of each world)? I can think of two good reasons: first, it reinforces the cerebral, patient nature of the game. It says very directly, "This may look like a platform game, but if you think you're just going to butt stomp mushrooms, you have another think coming." Second, presenting each chunk of "story" (really more "memory") in a series of books is much more akin to the way memory works. You can skip parts. You can look at the books out of order. It is, to some extent, non-linear (or, at least, potentially nonlinear). That may be subtle (too subtle?), but I think it ends up having an interesting effect, at least subconsciously, on the player.
"...most books, for example, are not re-readable infinitely..."
Really? I'd say most good books (which, admittedly, is a much smaller group than "most books") are highly re-readable. Nearly everything good I've read from "Goodnight Moon" on up has has benefited from multiple readings. Once you're no longer reading just to uncover plot, you're often much more attuned to thematic and structural content.
For a game to be considered to have "high replay value," it usually needs to offer unlockables or new modes of play. By contrast, the book on your shelf is the same every time you pick it up; what changes every time is YOU, and the meaning you can glean from the very complex and always ambiguous code we call language.
Post a Comment