Jon Blow

Jonathan Blow, unbeknownst to him, has served as a mentor of some sort to me as I’ve discovered my sensibilities in navigating the art form. As I continue forth into my sophomore work, I find it important to declare to myself what differentiates his perspective from mine, as if I am to lack the doing of this, it will lead to a sort of muddiness of goal. Jonathan, if I’ve gleaned correctly from the likely hundreds of hours or so I’ve listened to him speak, finds it of highest responsibility to discover, develop and declare new methods of communication uniquely available to us through simulated interactivity. This, I hope, does not seem reductive, but it is the area in which I believe I simultaneously most respect and most contrast when considering differentiation between our hierarchy of ideals. Yes, I do also find great pleasure in discovering these avenues, but it is not my highest purpose. Instead, I find my highest ideal in communication. Period. Not communication through any particular means. Instead, communication through any means that best suit what it is that I am trying to convey. The only time that I would find it necessary to use these elements that are unique to video games is when doing so most clearly invokes the narrative intent I wish to convey. Yes, narrative. I’d say that, indeed, this is where I find my highest ideal of work. Narrative. The experience as a whole over time. The story, the visuals, the sound, etcetera, all blended into one over time. So, in a deconstructed phrase, the conveyance of information over time. This is my highest ideal indeed. This contrast in ideals may seem subtle, but the resultant impact is so great. Since I care less (I care, just less) than Jonathan about exploring and displaying the unique vocabulary of interaction, and instead care more about the narrative conveyance of the medium as a whole, I’ve found myself seeking an alternate route. Montage of mediums, pixel intentionality, and so forth. (I’m sure that I’ve conveyed these philosophies elsewhere… They are outside the scope of this post.) I wish to use mechanical poetry to enhance a narrative, but about nine times out of ten the best way to convey narrative information is through dialogue. This is typically my default (though perhaps it should be prose?). Any alternate mediums are therefore added only when necessary to create a particular narrative.

Aside: Out of context, this conclusion may imply that additional mediums are to be tacked on to the driver medium of dialogue. This is not the case at all! When I say “alternate mediums are therefore added only when necessary…”, it is important to note that more often than not they are necessary! And furthermore, many standard design practices such as looping and recurring rules are more often than not (if not always) necessary to create a meaningful narrative.