I gotta be honest, his answer to the time wasting question was really just pretentious bullshit. The Witness is really interesting and beautiful but his answer screams "I can't take criticism and I won't acknowledge it."
I can see how it might come across like that but I take something very different from it. I share Blow's experience that this kind of feedback comes from people who have a certain mindset of "I want to just do puzzles and finish the game" rather than "I'm going to try and experience this game in the way it was meant to be played". I think you can have an interesting discussion about if a game should be more open about the kinds of players it was meant to attract, but I don't think the game does anything wrong by just catering to the people who are open to the game being more than just a series of puzzles. For example: [BIG SPOILERS BY THE WAY] The hour long puzzle in the Witness is during the speech/video that is the most important part of the experience of the game. Blow thought it was so important for everyone to actually listen to the whole thing that he made it into a puzzle. If you just view it as a puzzle it might seem like it's wasting your time. On the other hand, if you see it as a way to try and get you to actually listen to the message the game is trying to convey, the whole puzzle takes on a different meaning. Saying that this kind of thing is prerentious bullshit is like saying that artful movies are pretentious bullshit. That trying to get to a deeper level than just finishing a thing is a problem. It's definitely an interesting discussion to have but do note that Blow is very clear in that he wants games to be more than just a collection of tasks to fulfill. He constantly comes back to the point that he thinks games should be more than that. People who complain about it are just looking for something completely different than what he's prepared to deliver. You could definitely argue that communication about things like that could be more explicit and clear, but I actually think that that shouldn't be necessary. Just like prefacing a movie with a speech about how it might or might not be intended as art or just an action movie aren't really a thing (at least, not by the director). It's okay to talk about these things, but you can't expect someone who makes something and who is clear about their vision to even understand this kind of question. Jonathan Blow just views games as a different kind of medium as the people who ask these questions and that means that a discussion about it between those people won't ever leave any of the parties involved satisfied.
![[2019 TGDF] Making Games in 2019 and Beyond (Jonathan Blow)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aVb6-Rkz7W4/mqdefault.jpg)
The Witness is visual ASMR.
yes
Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response
“35 to a hundred hours”
Then me sitting here with my ~300 hour time and 95% completion
Fascinating look at super early builds of The Witness and Braid.
And especially see all those ideas, that stayed till the final version
39:30 TIL Jonathan blow could've made Passpartout.
wow u guys r so lucky to get Jon
I realy like the time wasting question! Would like to hear a more considered answer from blow
It's was pretty stupid question, and guy who asked it isn't really have idea about he is talking
Still a pity we can't get a physical release of The Witness. Its such a masterpiece.
12:21
his response to the time wasting question was weird.
I thought so too
Because it was such a dumb question, without any understanding of how games actually work
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's weird. What part confused you?
@@sagitswag1785it's been 4 years and it's a 2 hour video, so i don't remember what he said, but his game "the witness" is full of time wasters.
first ! haha, that's also a first :p thx for recording and posting this ! Cheers from an Indie in Morocco :)
I gotta be honest, his answer to the time wasting question was really just pretentious bullshit. The Witness is really interesting and beautiful but his answer screams "I can't take criticism and I won't acknowledge it."
I can see how it might come across like that but I take something very different from it. I share Blow's experience that this kind of feedback comes from people who have a certain mindset of "I want to just do puzzles and finish the game" rather than "I'm going to try and experience this game in the way it was meant to be played".
I think you can have an interesting discussion about if a game should be more open about the kinds of players it was meant to attract, but I don't think the game does anything wrong by just catering to the people who are open to the game being more than just a series of puzzles.
For example: [BIG SPOILERS BY THE WAY]
The hour long puzzle in the Witness is during the speech/video that is the most important part of the experience of the game. Blow thought it was so important for everyone to actually listen to the whole thing that he made it into a puzzle. If you just view it as a puzzle it might seem like it's wasting your time. On the other hand, if you see it as a way to try and get you to actually listen to the message the game is trying to convey, the whole puzzle takes on a different meaning.
Saying that this kind of thing is prerentious bullshit is like saying that artful movies are pretentious bullshit. That trying to get to a deeper level than just finishing a thing is a problem.
It's definitely an interesting discussion to have but do note that Blow is very clear in that he wants games to be more than just a collection of tasks to fulfill. He constantly comes back to the point that he thinks games should be more than that. People who complain about it are just looking for something completely different than what he's prepared to deliver.
You could definitely argue that communication about things like that could be more explicit and clear, but I actually think that that shouldn't be necessary. Just like prefacing a movie with a speech about how it might or might not be intended as art or just an action movie aren't really a thing (at least, not by the director). It's okay to talk about these things, but you can't expect someone who makes something and who is clear about their vision to even understand this kind of question. Jonathan Blow just views games as a different kind of medium as the people who ask these questions and that means that a discussion about it between those people won't ever leave any of the parties involved satisfied.
Because it was such a dumb question, without any understanding of how games actually work
The question is referencing a specific criticism made by the youtuber Joseph Anderson.
been sucking down a few too many noodles there Blow? Stacking on that weight bro, and it's not on the heap