However, I do understand why some consider it a slog. There are many puzzles in the game that people will dislike, indeed many puzzles that I disliked. It seems Jon prioritized finding all of the interesting things that they could say about the puzzles in the game over making sure that all of the puzzles were actually enjoyable to a majority of people. My advice is if you don't like an area, just go somewhere else. You don't need to complete every area to roll credits.
It also may be a matter of expectations. Puzzle games tend to be on the shorter side, but The Witness is lengthy. So jumping in expecting to finish in an afternoon is a way to set yourself up for frustration.
I think Blow achieved what he wanted, which I guess makes it a good game in a sense but also it wasn't an experience I enjoyed or can easily recommend to others.
There's a pivotal moment where (assuming you find it at all, which isn't a given) your entire perception of the game world flips around, and walking back through environments you've already explored you're now perceiving them in a completely new way. The closest thing from fiction I can think of is the big reveal in Fight Club, in that it puts the entire plot in new light, except in The Witness the flip is basically unrelated to any of the "content" of the game. Very very impressively done.
It's weird that people seem to really have latched on to some off-the-cuff remarks Blow made on stream about not being an atheist (even though he also called out the false dichotomy between naive atheism and literal interpretation of Christianity). Blow has been open about his experiences with meditation practice and its influence on his game design, and I think it shows. I'm not personally a huge fan of the type of games he makes, but the thing he seems to be aiming for in his use of the medium are interesting enough that I'm definitely going to pay attention.
Hopefully, jai and the engine will help make the next game faster...
I'm sure it builds fast and whatever, but you could make this in python in few weeks.
lol
Which is the same motivation as creator of rust, zig, nim, ruby, perl, python had. They all wanted to make a programming language better at something.
So I don't see anything "hilarious" about it.
That being said, it's a free country (sort-of). Go ahead and devote "a few weeks" to build "the same thing". We'll be patient.
Show us how it's done big guy, it's only a few weeks of your time.
This looks to be the first of Jon Blows games to put writing front and center, so I wonder if the clunkiness goes beyond the trailer. That's not really his forte.
But I do think that the writing was fairly central to the intended experience and design of the game.
I think a 'number of features' metric can work but only for players that already know and like your game, where an expansion with 'Five exciting new areas' is understood as something that they'd enjoy, and I agree it feels odd for a new IP.
Similarly, saying how many years it took isn't remotely a selling point for a new player. If you'd been following the development process then you probably wouldn't care, and if you hadn't you also probably wouldn't care.
It does seem awkward to have to design a trailer for a pure puzzle game, something that essentially relies on things going on inside a player's mind for fun, which by definition won't be visible.
Baba Is You did have something you can show potential players, but I'm not sure there's a trailer that could convey The Witness' 'Oh, I wonder if I can...' moment as it's a very internal experience that comes from playing enough to get to that point.
The Witness was, however, visually beautiful (IMO) and its symbol-based language let the trailer keep an element of mystery and intrigue. Order of the Sinking Star, while potentially also a fantastic puzzle game, seems to not be able to hide anything by nature of it being very clearly a Sokoban-like. Even if there are as-yet-unseen depths to how it treats the Sokoban format, the trailer needs something to work with, and while I think it also looks lovely it perhaps doesn't have the The Witness visual appeal or mystery to draw people in.
Note that when masters like Steve Jobs do it, they mention it very quickly, or they mention the ideals of craftsmen ship, rather than the actual process.
I'm getting "bring your adventure" vibe, similar to The Witness.
Take Thomas Was Alone for example - seemingly simple platform puzzle game with deep and engaging story where you're more interested about characters than new mechanics and puzzles.
In contrast The Witness could be scraped to core puzzles and released as an iPad game for $5.99, but the whimsical island and scattered pseudo intellectual voice clips make it so much more giving you opportunity to pause and think about life.
This seems very similar. A sokoban puzzle game with an entirely optional plot line that leaves a lot for interpretation by the player.
Show me anything that either Blow or Muratori are doing that couldn't be done in an existing language or framework.
People laugh at games with thousand-case switch statements or if/else chains but they shipped and the end user doesn't care about logarithmic complexity. And most of the time it doesn't even matter. What fails with games more often than not is the design, not the code. What features in Jai make it superior to C++ for writing games specifically? Or does it, like Typescript for JS, only exist because of extreme antipathy towards C++?
Time is a resource too, and arguably a far more valuable one for developers than LOC or memory or what have you.
I didn't say anything about hating working on the code, but every example of game code I've seen has been a mess, even in games that are considered well designed. So I have to disagree - the process and finished work often are separable. What are ports if not an example of that?
Moreover, the "survivability" of the process goes beyond just one project. Jon got so burned out on the C++ language that he'd rather create his own language for the next project than use it again. If he didn't have to do that, he'd likely be working on the next title already.
Typescript exist because people want a type-checked language.
Brendan Eich at least has the excuse for Javascript that there was a tight deadline. What's Bjarne's excuse for C++?
But the game is amazing and that's what matters. Nobody wants to play six hours of carefully engineering tasteless crap, let alone (as many did with Blue Prince) six weeks. The 1.0 Blue Prince game was already excellent, unless you run into a nasty save corruption bug on PlayStation, whereas a game made Jon's way might be a soulless waste of your life even though perhaps the engineering is "better" in some sense.
Those are made in tiny teams. You can either spend more time tinkering with the gameplay mechanics and experimenting with the game parts; or you can put on your software engineer hat and make the code better (or, spend even more time to learn how to make the code better in the first place!).
This gets less true with scale of a team, and with 5000 people behemoths you probably should care _a lot_ more about the code; but ROI on improving the code in (relatively! Calling Blue Prince “small” is ridiculous.) small games is very dubious.
Blue Prince is (an extrapolation of) that first game, but it looks and sounds like competent people worked on it, not like something slapped together by a non-engineer in a week. However while you can hire experts to make "You know, like cool jazz for a mysterious underground area" or "Art that looks thematically like it was sketched, but also feels solid enough that you could lean on it" it's very difficult for software engineers to "just" fix the software to get rid of bugs because what's a bug? Only the puzzle designer knows for sure what they intended.
[[Spoilers! Do not read if you are still playing or might play]]
Is it a bug that "Swimming Trunks" don't let you swim? No! That's a Dad Joke. They're Trunks. Large locked wooden boxes. They're in the swimming pool, and if your pool has water in it, that means they're swimming.
When I picked a time from my near future in Shelter, it didn't work, that's a bug right? Nope. The Shelter cares about game time, not real world time. Make sure you know the date in game.
OK but is it a bug that being in Clock Tower at the Sacred Hour doesn't have any effect? Um, maybe? It seems as though the software doesn't believe clocks repeat, so only the first time will actually work. Or, maybe the second does too? It's hard to say. Try again?
I need food but somehow I keep digging up keys and money. That's a bug right? Nope, probably means you have made a Contraption which changed your dig probabilities.
OK, so that's also why my Door facings are weird even though I put my Compass-based Contraption in a Cloak Room? That one's probably a bug.
Still, "If you draft it quite late" ought to mean my Music Room has the key right? Well, maybe, what did you think "Quite late" meant?
"I thought after a few hours would do it". Huh. Well, maybe. "OK, what about Rank 7?". Rank Nine would be better, but it might be enough, depends. "I still get no key, are you sure this isn't a bug?". The most likely problem is that you've done Music Room. If so the most likely key to wrongly believe you did instead is Vault, although Station is also possible. Check the other locations.
ID software once was a small team and they built complex games by writing tight code which was modular and very clear. Lots of their '3d era' contemporaries failed because their engines were sloppy, complicated, buggy and slow.
I'm not endorsing slop, but rather advising against the equal but opposite.
The fact remains that Blue Prince would have been more enjoyable for those people who did see those bugs had some time been spent on better engineering.
My impression is that the Blow/Muratori style works well if you're the only person working on a game, or part of a very limited team, which is fair enough, but it naturally limits the scope of what you can achieve.
This "not caring", from both coder and end user, is why the end user constantly gets buggy, slow, and resource hungry software, be it games, or other kinds.
Both Blow and Muratori would likely advocate for the this type of code to some degree.
You have a very incorrect view of both of them if you think this is the kind of thing they are arguing against.
But even if they did comment on the quality of the code, when they talk about so simplicity they are generally talking about avoiding unnecessary abstractions (usually OOP abstractions), not any of what the OP is talking about.
I know that Jonathan Blow can be abrasive and one-sided in his talks on programming, but I think we should be open-minded about Jai. Yes, he is making this language because he doesn't like C++, but you make it sound like he is hating on C++ just for the sake of it.
I mean, is it really so hard to imagine that someone might not like something about C++? There are plenty of people who think we could have a better systems language, which is why we have seen languages like Rust, Zig, and Odin pop up.
In Blow's case, he has said that he doesn't like Rust because he feels that satisfying the borrow-checker slows down iteration time[1], which is important especially in the early stages of game development when you are still experimenting with mechanics are where requirements and architecture are still very much subject to change.
As far as what Jai offers, it seems his focus is on making a simple but powerful language (contrary to C++'s ever-growing bag-of-tricks), with fast compile times (less than 3 seconds on a full build of his new game), better build and dependency management (no more cmake), and powerful meta-programming features.
In a talk on the language[2], he demos how he is able to use the language's meta-programming features to develop powerful code-analyzing and memory-analyzing tools.
These tools, in particular, hint at his philosophy: lots of ideas in programming like RAII, garbage collectors, and borrow-checking exist to save the programmer from themselves. He's not interested in this and believes that these features come with hidden costs. Instead of accepting those costs, he would rather have a language that gives him the tools to save himself.
Personally, I don't understand the hate. If Jai is a good language, then it will benefit all of us. If it's not, then his making it still hurts none of us.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t1K66dMhWk [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdpD5QIVOKQ
You don't need to design a specific language to implement structs of arrays, you can just... do that.
Also speeding up compilation time really does require a new language or at least a new compiler.
And why would you “go after” any language. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. The only thing going after it is going to do is to drive up the engagement metrics and make it more popular.
We are on a discussion forum. One of the common use cases of a discussion forum is criticism and debate. Yes, we could all simply use the tools we want, and not use the tools we don't, and not waste time expressing an opinion either way, but again this is a discussion forum.
And it's not as if I posted "Jai delenda est" here, I think my opinions are mild compared to what people here have to say about javascript, or C++ or PHP or any other language. I just don't think that a gamedev specific language is a good idea, compared to implementing libraries and frameworks in an existing language. I don't like the bespoke languages used by frameworks like Godot or GameMaker either.
Personally I’m glad that people do crazy projects where they reinvent the wheel. Otherwise we’d never know when we were stuck in local optima.
- Lower compilation times for debug builds. - Better debug messages. - A standard library that comes with a production ready graphics API, so gamedevs don't need to worry about the current state of graphics API and can just dig in. - Standard input API for cross OS development. - AOS to SOA automatic conversion to simplify code that needs to be performant, while retaining a clean syntax. - A context system, which should help with simplifying functions definitions while keeping things strongly typed. - The ability to rewrite ASTs, to do compile time programming. Ideally simplifying code, while keeping runtime speed performant, and keeping compilation speed fast.
This is just to name a few off the top of my head. The performance and API stuff is directly going to help game devs. I view it similar to Odin, something that is in production software right now, where you can have a clean langugae, with a strong standard library and primitives to help you develop quickly.
You can write games in C or Fortran, so why write games in C++? You can write things in C++, why make Rust? Basic worked, why make Python or Ruby?
Why does it need "features" that make it "superior"? It should be good enough that he didn't want to use C++, so he made a new thing...
As to why Rust, there's actual historical information about why Graydon wanted to make it and why Mozilla decided to fund that work after it was started.
Jon has said the intent was that Jai would allow him to make more games, because C++ held him back so much. So, yeah, it would need to be superior to C++ in at least this way, and by at least enough to justify the effort expended, writing C++, to develop Jai.
And IMO C++ is painful enough to use that nothing needs to be "better", more ergonomic is good enough for huge productivity gains.
A syntax to mark structs to be stored as SOA in arrays is the only one I see that doesn't have a modern C++ analogue (besides things like no header files).
Const expressions, defer (but not sure its significantly different than using destructors), some smart pointer stuff...
I assume you need to compare it to C++ from more than a decade ago.
In particular I believe the SOA stuff is gone, my impression (I don't have privileged access) is that SOA is one of those ideas where you think "Oh! This changes everything" and for the next week or two every time you do something you realise SOA would make it better. But a year later you find yourself unwinding some of that SOA mania and you realise eh... this isn't such a great idea that it deserves to be a key language differentiator. It's not useless but it's also not fundamental so maybe write a library or something.
There are a few other data structure tricks which can hit people this way, I remember I had a brief period where I wanted to solve everything with Bloom Filters and then I got better.
In terms of languages you can go try yourself today, the closest might be Ginger Bill's Odin. Shared scepticism for both C++ and modern language trends, syntax is reminiscent though far from identical. I'd be surprised if you hate one but love the other.
Edited: Somehow I removed "no longer" from my initial sentence during editing, which inverted the sense, now fixed.
Some examples that come to mind from my personal experience.
- Compile times. 1-2 seconds vs the typical build times in a C++/Rust game can be a game changer
- Massive compile time capabilities.. you can have an entire content pipeline executed at compile time, all written in Jai
- Builtin Type reflection.. another gamechanger in games for editors and such
- Very easy to debug, the minimalistic approach means the code is not heavily transformed by the compiler thus really easy for a debugger to follow and still performant. Example: loading the same gltf file in my engines in Rust and C++ debug mode is MUCH slower than debug mode in Jai.. again, game changer.. you hit build/run and you're back in the game in few seconds.
- Very easy to learn
- Very ergonomic in its minimalism
- A lot of small things you instantly miss when jumping to other language.. one thing on the top of my head.. the ability to have struct members "overlay" other specific locations.. so you could have a Matrix4 struct with Vector members "forward" "right" "up" etc
- The builtin "context" based "temp allocator".. perfect for games, anything that is needed for a frame goes in there with close to zero allocation time and it gets reset every frame at zero cost
Jai has a HUGE potential if it can survive Mr. Blow's ego.. which is a big big ask.
Compared to the mainstream AAA game cost it's less than minimal, it's pocket change.
And it's not like somebody handed him that money, he made it creating and selling games earlier.
Supposedly the dev budget for the last pokémon game Z-A was only $13 million.
As in, you get to be cranky as long as you're arguing for the highest quality solution
I don't know about you, but there does not exist any amount of technical achievement that will make me brush off sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or anything else. If you are going to be disrespectful to me or people I care about, we cannot work together, period.
By "political correctness" people often mean "the basic requirement to treat your fellow humans respectfully", and that's an incredibly low bar.
And I’d say that misogyny falls under “sexist” in the list of problematic stuff
> It doesn't help that all males currently under the age of 40 were raised to be supercucks
https://x.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/1854708962462982465
Dear lord, yeah, this is why I completely tuned him out years ago. Somewhat ironically it's the Blow fans in this thread that are cherry picking his comments. He's way too online so says things like this all the time, and it's the fans that are in here demanding a smoking gun comment that somehow proves he's awful rather than telling him "sometimes it's ok to stfu" to comments like this that enable and echo chamber him.
And I say this as a fan of Braid and The Witness (at least of the first couple of layers of puzzles...as you go deeper, just like with Braid, you find more and more self-indulgent windbaggery that should have been on the cutting room floor).
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1jh275b/ove...
And everything in that post are bad faith links to secondary reactionary sources.
I don't really know much about Jonathan Blow or Jai or really follow it but it's astonishing to me that anyone could possibly take anything from that toxic subreddit with any sort of seriousness.
I've gotta disagree. By "political correctness" people generally mean to not saying or doing anything that could be perceived as offensive. Especially against collectives perceived to be vulnerable.
For example, in the tiny paragraph above I've absolutely respected my fellow humans, but it can be considered offensive because you can suppose I might be looking to justify prejudiced attitudes.
For an even more evident example, political correctness has to do with the political climate and identity (as you mention: sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or anything else, as well as referring to "those groups"). That is very much detached from treating fellow humans respectfully.
> Trump was my preferred President in the last election cycle but nothing will make me hate him faster than this banana republic shit.
(replying to a post complaining on the direction of government contracts/subsidies under the Trump administration)
> Are you kidding? He is the best President we have had in my entire life, by far. It's a miracle. I just hope it doesn't abruptly go bad.
(In reply to a post ruing Trump’s “showmanship” and wishing that the Republican Party had produced a “legit” candidate.)
Maybe for you. For people like me, voting for Trump is completely unacceptable, in particular after the experiences with the first Trump administration.
I wanted to substantiate this, but I couldn't find the clips (which do exist... I just want to get on with programming and close hn for the day.. not succeeding). I did find that Jonathan Blow tweeted "Nature is healing" after Trump won, so you can get an idea for where his politics are from that. (Still love the guy, even if politically he's your angry uncle.)
But what is neutral to someone is not inherently neutral to others. Or even if it’s neutral to them, it’s still a form of political expression.
I don’t know which of the two happened here, maybe both, but if we’re mentioning one let’s also mention the other.
Edit: just read some tweets and I think I know which one it is XD you were underselling it.
That is 2021 mentality, and the world is over it.
I think the lack of this distinction has led to much, and very painful and bitter online discussion, whereas people in a tribalist political mindset try to pigeonhole others based on a throwaway statement into either a friendly or enemy camp.
I broadly agree with the value that competence is more important in politeness or vibes, especially in people who build critical infrastructure - in fact it is a very very welcome property of these people that they care about things on a level that seems unreasonable to me.
This is true basically of everything critically important in life. One example is security. Everyone enjoys the privilege of using a web browser to visit any website and not have their PC compromised thanks to a variety of measures created by people who care intensely about these things.
If the crash testing on my car was done by people who sought out some amicable middle ground so as to not upset engineers who have to redo the frame of the car after a test gone horribly wrong, and accounting, who gets the bill for it, I would be sweating bullets every time I had to drive anywhere.
Politics imo is the worst sort of tribalism - the idea that people must be sorted into totally disjunct groups who are the bitter enemies of each other - thankfully doesn't translate into practice. Two people might root for sports teams that are eternal rivals, one person's favorite food might be hated by the other, they might disagree on what the important issues are, or what should be done about them, but thankfully that doesn't necessarily stop them from being the best of friends.
That's why there's a blanket ban on discussing politics in every place where people are expected to maintain amicable civility towards each other - family dinners, the workplace, gatherings with friends and acquaintances etc., with everyone usually getting antsy whenever 'politics' is brought up.
No it's not. Politics is the negotiation between two or more people who want conflicting outcomes.
> they might disagree on what the important issues are, or what should be done about them, but thankfully that doesn't necessarily stop them from being the best of friends.
The Republicans are led by white supremacists and they hate me for being transgender. Please stop carrying water for them. Politics matters and shouldn't be dismissed as "sports" or "tribalism"
> competence is more important in politeness or vibes,
I've been a professional programmer for about fifteen years. You could stand to be more polite.
I apologize if I come across as impolite, but I assure you that has not been my intention. Please understand that that there is no hidden meaning behind my posts.
In fact I enjoy the fact that Blow can talk shop about things he disagrees with (such as enterprise software with call stacks 50 levels deep).
The implication was pretty clear to me, in that by reducing politics down to being things reasonable people can always disagree over, you're giving actual bad actors in the space too much credit.
This is utterly false. At best you can claim you’ve heard of a few homophobic racists who happen to be republican . I’ve met just as many who happen to be democrat
Just to easily refute one of your 2 claims. Non-white republicans demographics is growing, not shrinking
Simple example: They want ot fund the police
Their POV: make everyone safer
Another POV: fund bad people
Their POV isn't wrong, it's just different.
Other people have proven he does.
So either you must concede that your initial rebuke was based on insufficient information, in which case why try and act like he has said nothing of concern.
Or his world views fit within your own view and are thus deemed neutral.
His comments are not a matter of opinion. And opinion that extends to affecting the lives of others , including supporting those who affect the lives of others, is very much politics.
So your favourite food is not politics but if you try and affect change that affects someone else’s favourite food, it is inherently political. If you support someone who starts affecting my favourite food, that too is political.
I will still play Jonathan Blow's next game, but I think he is a bit of a hack outside of game design.
Here's a good article that's basically a summary of events (as well as teaser for a book): https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/from-our-lab-to-theirs-...
Its not credible: two viral lineages emerged from the market ~1 week apart before the world knew what covid was; they differ by 2 nucleotides; mutation rates are 1e-6 per base per passage; doubling time is about half a week. A group of sick animals better explains the phylogenetics w/ these constraints. Everything points against lab leak: location, timing, and genetics.
It really boils down to: do you trust a brutal communist dictatorship that has been attacking the West asymmetrically and wants to invade its neighbours to be honest?
Multiple Western governments believe it was a lab leak and coincidentally I'm sure, relations with China have been quite bad since.
If you want to deny sequence data that predate worldwide recognition and controversy related to COVID-19, OK. But the origin question can never be answered with this denial.
They both started this after the Witness came out, 10 years ago.
Since then, guess how many games Muratori has shipped? 0. (He cancelled his announced game.)
Guess how many Blow has shipped? 0 so far, but it sounds close now.
These engineers spent their time ragging on other developers for slinging bad code and doing things horribly, meanwhile those developers were shipping games and apps and all sorts of other stuff.
Heckling is a lot easier than creating. Personally, I think we have an over supply of “ideas guys“
edit: Oh so others are not using it...
John has made two games + one soon in the last 17 years. Braid started off the indie boom, and the witness was a blockbuster hit. Casey works on game engines and optimization, and has an entire video series about writing a game from scratch.
I agree that some authors don't ship any actual software and engineers should stray away from their advice, but this is not that case.
Braid came out the same time XBox Indie Games.
I will say, I do not find a lot of their rhetoric convincing. Especially for people who have never attempted to write the software they are criticizing.
Blow only writes single player games that do not persist significant data to the machine. Nothing bad happens if your save file is corrupted. Nothing of value is lost if scene transitions have a bug.
But they're going to tell me that hyper-scaled multi-user real-time software is written poorly?
Also, I've been watching Muratori's Handmade Hero series. The deeper it gets into the game, the worse it gets. At one point, he's like "Ah, I dunno, we'll implement bubble sort because we don't have time to do any other sort." Followed by a diatribe about why bubble sort is a bad name. It's a fine name. Things bubble up.
Second, merge sort is just as quick to write and faster.
But in general, they alternate between speaking in platitudes and disparaging other software.
Even C provides a halfway useful comparison sort in the box† and they're so cheap they don't even supply the O(1) growable array type
† It's named qsort, but despite the name it might not just be Hoare's "Quicksort". However it also won't be somebody's half-remembered bubble sort.
Part of the purpose of the series of Handmade Hero is to build a game from the ground up with no dependencies. So I don't think he's bringing in stdlib
So he could use that, but goal is to be someone who doesn't necessarily need to do that.
He says verbatim his goal is to be a stepping stone for serious engine programmers (not necessarily "general purpose", but definitely AAA-level), even though obviously we are not going to be making a AAA game for obvious reasons :)
So fair enough, but between that and his claim that he's showing people how to create a "professional quality" game I think the difference between a AAA game and a "AAA-level" game engine has no distinction, it's basically the same thing.
Is what he has done so far professional grade, capable of "AAA-level" games? I don't think so, but I concede that probably depends on what your parameters for "AAA" and "professional quality" are. It might be fine for indie games but it seems to me that Casey was selling an audience on revealing something deeper.
E.g. Casey and Blow often criticise the Visual Studio debugger. It's slow, has quite limited functionality. And it progressively gets worse over time (e.g. it can no longer update watched values at the same speed as you step through the program).
Do they both have to write a debugger to demonstrate how bad it is?
No. Other people do it, single-handedly. See RAD Debugger (https://github.com/EpicGamesExt/raddebugger) and RemedyBG (https://remedybg.handmade.network). Relevant Casey rant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC-0tCy4P1U
And the same is true for a lot of other software.
You don't have to write some software to criticise how bad it is. E.g. I cannot but make fun of Discord for implementing "we will intentionally kill our app if it consumes 4GB of memory and are very good at prioritising fixing memory issues seeing a whopping 5% improvement for p95 of users": https://www.reddit.com/r/discordapp/comments/1pej7l7/restart...
Doesn't mean I have to write Discord to criticise it. All I need is an understanding of rather basic performance and of general engineering practices.
And also, you've probably failed to even understand what they are criticising/saying: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46315616
Casey was criticizing new Windows Terminal got into an argument with Microsoft's project manager that said that it was impossible to implement optimizations that Casey talked about. Well, Casey reimplemented terminal, it was not that hard.
Its like everything these guys rant about you could add on the tagline "...yet the world keeps spinning and we all keep shipping things"
I've shipped a few things over the years, but doubt I have strong takes in programming, besides 'the "properness" of a variables name is dependent on the amount of lines between it's definition and usage.' Doubt anyone will take my considerations seriously.
If someone comes out saying "you guys are all doing this wrong" and yet they can't finish their own project then why would I take their advice seriously?
If you suggest a way of doing software development and you can't even show it working out to completion, what does that say about your proposed methods?
Yes, one can argue that lack of produces results does not give big plusses towards their work processes, but it does not necessarily negate the value of the concepts that they preach. The value of a thing is not only defined by who is spouting it, one must evaluate the argument on it's own merits, not by evaluating of the people yelling about it.
There are plenty of concepts in this world that I cannot make work, that does not mean that the concepts are bad. It only means that the failure reflects on me and my in-capabilities.
And this might be something that you are not noticing: You are making claims about programming practices indirectly by stating that THEIR practices are not worth considering due to lack of shipping anything.
We're not saying games taking longer than a few years are failures, we're saying good games can encompass both approaches. But Casey, and his followers, are doing purity tests to feel good about themselves.
And this is assuming the games they ship are even good or noticeable to the user. I don't much care for Braid or The Witness, and I don't want my favorite dev studios to suddenly write everything from scratch every time. I would have a lot less fun things to play.
This is kind of a joke and I know he was mostly poking fun at Braid but this does speak to how mainstream indie games got in that first wave that hit XBLA.
One, but it was something like three years late:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/499180/Braid_Anniversary_...
If you want advice about making games would you rather learn from the person that routinely ships games or a person that shipped a game once 10 years ago?
Is that a trade off worth chasing? "Potential perfection" with nothing to show for it?
I'm starting to realize caring about all these minutia of details that don't really matter for my professional goals. I know my software isn't special, caring about pumping out as much performance as possible when I just sling JS professionally feels a tad myopic?
What is the point of it just continues the pattern of procrastination towards the actual goals I want to achieve? Does this also apply to them?
What is the point of espousing all these supposed virtues when the output isn't that special? I mean Braid is still good, but let's not act like greener devs haven't put out good games too without all the jackassery baggage.
I do agree that if you take from their "teachings" that every dev needs to optimize every thing, and never use any other language than system languages, that advice is myopic for most devs. However, I don't really see them arguing for that, at least not entirely.
From following their teaching for a while, they mostly preech about the following things which I agree with, even when talking about higher-level languages, technologies.
- Get the clowns out of the car: Don't make things needlessly expensive. Write simple procedural code that maps cleanly to what the hardware is doing. This is essentially stating OOP, large message passing, and other paradigms that abstract the problem away from the simple computations that are happening on your computer is actually adding complexity that isn't needed. This isn't about tuning your program to get the highest amount of performance, but rather, just write basic code, that is easy to follow and debug, that acts as a data-pipeline as much as possible. Using simple constructs to do the things you want, e.g. an if-statement versus inheritence for dynamic dispatch.
- Understand your problem domain, including the hardware, so you can reason about it. Don't abstract away the hardware your code is actually running on too much where you lose vital information on how to make it work well. I've seen this many times in my professional career, where devs don't know what hardware the code will be running on, and this inevitably makes their code slower, less responsive to the user and often drives up cost. There are many times in my early career (backend engineering), that just simplifying the code, designing the code so it works well for the hardware we expect, greatly lowered cost. The hardware is the platform and it shouldn't be ignored. Similarly, limitations that are imposed by your solution should be documented and understood. If you don't expect a TPS greater than some value, write that down, check for it, profile and make sure you know what your specturm of hardware can handle, and how much software utilization of that hardware you're getting.
- Focus on writing code, and don't get bogged down my fad methodologies (TDD, OPP, etc). Writing simple code, understanding the problem more deeply as you write, and not placing artifical constraints on yourself.
Now each of these points can be debated, but their harder to argue against IMO then the strawmany idea of them proposing that you must optimize as much as possible. And they argue that you will actually be more productive this way, and produce better software.
FWIW, you may have some datapoints showing that they do propose what I called a strawmany version of their ideas, but I have seen them advocating for the above points more so than anything else.
---
I do want to add, for Jon Blow, I don't think he has a problem with people using engines. From what I've seen he's played, and loved games that used engines in the past, and had no problem with their output in terms of gameplay or performance. From his talk about civilization ending relating to game dev, he's more concern that if no one tries to develop without an engine, we as a civilization will lose that ability.
He's also said quite openly that if you're only starting, it's fine if you reach for a ready-made engine. It's that you should try and understand how things and systems work as you progress.
I find it very hard to convince people though. It runs counter to a lot of other practices in the industry, and the resulting code seems less sophisticated than an abstraction pile.
These are the platitudes of our industry that no one disagrees with. Like you said, this is what Blow + Muratori teachings can be distilled into. But there is something worse it also assumes, coming from such people.
Both Blow + Muratori have extremely privilege dev careers that a good ~80% us will never achieve: they have autonomy. The rest of us are merely serfs in someone's fiefdom. Blow has his fief, Muratori his. They can control their fiefs but not the majority of us devs. We don't have autonomy in the direction of the company, we don't control the budgets, we don't even control who we interview or hire.
Assuming that this onus of organizational standards has to be placed on someone with no authority to dictate it isn't just. Also as someone who has consumed content from these two for about a good 8ish years as their videos pop into my feed: I've never see them advocate for workers to be empowered to make their environments better. They mostly just trash on devs that have no authority.
With that mindset I need to seriously decouple myself from these people. Plenty of other devs advocate for the same things in our craft while also advocating for better rights as workers.
Wait, how did they gain this "luxury"? Are they trust fund babies or something?
Or did they earn their big stash of money by producing "garbage" and now retroactively are preaching ideals that they themselves didn't follow or what?
This line of "criticism" doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
After all both in question live off money they've made and/or are making from their (arguably) uncompromised quality work.
That is to say their uncompromised quality work has directly resulted in them being able to not release anything for close to 10 years, and practice their ideals in software they ship even if the "shipping" takes 10 years to do.
It would be more fair to say, that most people don't have the craftmanship and skill (and not the luxury) to be able to produce high quality work and software that enables them the so called "luxury".
Ignoring how misinformed that opinion is, I would say The Witness is a very compromised game. Maybe if less focus went into the technical aspect, it could've been better.
> Ignoring how misinformed that opinion is
You are making up some random opinion (that I supposedly have, but that are nowhere to be found in what I wrote).
In the JBlow case - yes, he made his money using C++. So far, he hasn't shown that using Jai is particularly productive for software engineering.
And how would he do that exactly to whatever ungodly standards you are setting for the man?
Many people have criticized C++ in past (which is very easy to do), yet he's practicing what he's preaching in the most direct way humanly possible, he's both (1) designed and implemented a new programming language (that has directly addressed most of the issues), whilst (2) also making a complete non-trivial game in the newly designed language at the same time.
His games have always taken long time to make, and now he's making game + engine + programming language. At the same frigging time!
The only "luxury" JBlow has is that he's an exceptional individual and you're not. He has rare combination of ability, perseverance and work ethic, and by all accounts most people are neither of those things at once.
Most criticisms 99% of time are either misrepresentitive, misinformed jealousy or something to do with politics.
I have no issue with personally acknowledging that some rare individuals are simply way better than me.
And to prevent sounding like a gushing-fanboy, I suspect that his newest game won't sell very well, because his first two games have atleast something to appeal to general public (either visuals of Witness or time travel mechanics (somewhat novel at the time) of Braid) while this game doesn't appear to have the same draw.
This game has too much of a generic-sokoban puzzler vibe to it to appeal to the general public who aren't already ardent puzzler fans (and are there enough of those and can he reach enough of them? etc). And the trailer doesn't help to change this perception.
By providing a result in a way that will be superior to the current status quo. Maybe there will be results, but right now there are none.
I have no idea why you are so invested. I don't care about the man's personality or whatever qualities he has. I look at what he does, and so far, he spent 10 years making a game that you yourself admit won't be even that good.
Of course, you could say that changing the course of the industry not possible in one man's lifetime, so you'll need to gather round more people to get the action going, but this tone actually prevents you from starting a Jai revolution.
>I don't care about the man's personality or whatever qualities he has.
The only thing I'm addressing is the so called "luxuries" you alluded to, and the alleged "luxuries" he has is directly a result of his personality and his qualities.
The only reason you don't have those so called "luxuries" is because you're not even in the same ballpark as good. It really is as simple as that.
> By providing a result in a way that will be superior to the current status quo.
But he's done exactly that.
> I look at what he does, and so far, he spent 10 years making a game that you yourself admit won't be even that good.
I'm not saying that the game won't be good necessarily, I'm saying the game probably might not sell very well (atleast not to justify the amount of money spent from purely business perspective, etc)
There's a difference.
He hasn't. He made a programming language that allows making a sokoban game in 10 years. That's probably not what people need. The industry can make similar games in a course of several months. It doesn't look like a groundbreaking achievement to me. A monumental amount of effort, sure, but the _result_ isn't there.
Plus, _in the past_, he made Braid, in C++, in a relatively practical way. He made money using the industry standards, now he loses money deviating from the industry standards. The question I'm interested in is: why would anyone listen to what the man _says_ if his own preaching makes him lose money?
But okay, you don't want to hear any of that. You keep fixating on the "luxury" part. The reason we talk about JBlow is because he made Braid back in 2008, and it was an awesome game, and it sold well. More importantly, the timing when it released - it was what kicked off the boom of the indie game development back then. He also made The Witness, and although it was also a good game, it was most likely not as groundbreaking as Braid, considering that he chose Braid instead of The Witness for a remaster. And then he complained that it, quote, "sold like dogs**", end of quote. Unfortunately, what was the jewel of the indie game development in 2008, doesn't really excite the audience that much in 2024. The world has moved on.
The music indsutry is well aware of a phenomenon of a "one-hit wonder". If the JBlow's qualities were the only reason he could make Braid and get rich enough to not release anything for a decade, then surely anybody with these qualities could make Braid 2 and do the same thing, correct? Well, nobody can do that. Not even JBlow himself. Not anymore. It's not 2008.
Therefore, yes, it is a luxury.
He made two hit games, Witness was released 7.5 years later.
> Within a week of release, Blow stated that sales of The Witness had nearly outpaced what Braid had done during its first year of release.
> The Witness is widely regarded as one of the best games of the 2010s. The game appeared on 'Best of the decade' features from IGN,[103] Polygon,[104] NME,[105] CNET,[106] and National Post.[107] Edge considered the game the 22nd-best game of all time in 2017
Calling him "one-hit wonder" simply has no basis in reality. He's at minimum a two-hit wonder.
> it was most likely not as groundbreaking as Braid, considering that he chose Braid instead of The Witness for a remaster.
Now you're making shit up on the spot to make an argument. Think for a second will you, how exactly would he remaster Witness? Braid Anniversary Edition was announced on 2020, at which point Witness would merely have been ~4 year old game.
Braid was also made for a 720p console, the Xbox360 Xbox Live Arcade service, so remake atleast makes some sense.
> The question I'm interested in is: why would anyone listen to what the man _says_ if his own preaching makes him lose money?
What exactly is he _preaching_? Not what you have cooked up in your mind, but actually _preaching_?
Why would anyone pay attention to the man who has made TWO hit games in a row, and a third one in his own programming language (that has inspired countless other programming languages like Zig and Odin), yes, why indeed people would listen to an exceptional guy who has repeatedly demonstrated competency and delivered results, whilst always putting it all on the line?
Can you make atleast one hit, not two, just one? Or anything of note?
No you can't, you can do nothing, that's why you don't have the "luxuries" and people don't listen to you, but pay attention to him. You might not like it, but it is what it is.
And you like to comfort yourself with the thought that you don't have some sort of unearned "luxuries", because otherwise you would do great things.
But the reality is that he's exceptional and you're not.
Paul Graham has this wonderful article on this topic: https://paulgraham.com/fh.html
That the game development industry requires a new programming language. So far, the evidence for that is slim. (I mean, metaprogramming with #run is cool, I'm also fed up with cmake. But surely we don't need to throw away all of our C++ tooling for that? Nah, we probably need something more incremental.)
> Calling him "one-hit wonder" simply has no basis in reality. He's at minimum a two-hit wonder.
Okay, I've been corrected. The Witness also sold really well. So he's a two-hit wonder, he clearly had developed a process to make great-selling indie games. I admit that, I admire that. (I only said good things about the guy anyway, why you would call me a "hater" is beyond me.) But now, he deviated from this process. His primary goal now is clearly not to create a good game, but to promote Jai.
> why indeed people would listen to an exceptional guy who has repeatedly demonstrated competency and delivered results, whilst always putting it all on the line?
Because there are limits to everyone's competence. It's like a generalized Peter's principle - being successful in one area doesn't mean you'll succeed in all others that you put your hand in. Even John Carmack didn't really succeed in rockets.
After all, the game dev industry is showbiz. Its ultimate goal is entertainment. JBlow is an entertainer, first and foremost. There are a lot of musicians and actors more influential than JBlow, does that mean I won't be a fool if I listen to their opinions on anything more important than what to eat for breakfast? No, not really. And in the same way, not a lot of people will choose Jai for programming, not in the next 20 years for sure.
> Can you make atleast one hit, not two, just one? Or anything of note?
No, absolutely not. I'm actually the most useless creature of all, good for nothing (other than keeping you engaged, apparently). You got me. And I'm not even trying. I'm not trying to preach for anything, develop new industry approaches or whatever. I'm just humbly making a point: but even if I weren't the most useless, I wouldn't be able to reach the JBlow's heights. Even if I had the same set of skills that JBlow had in 2008. For example, a notable part of the success of Braid was thanks to a contract with Xbox Live Arcade, and where is XLA now? The world has changed. The market has changed. The audience's needs have changed. Becoming an indie dev of such caliber now requires a different set of skills, one that a single person might not even physically have.
At some point, you'll have to admit that (1) it's not only the qualities and the hard work that brought JBlow to where he is, but also sheer luck, and therefore (2) yes, it's a luxury. If you don't believe in (1), well, okay then. But if you agree with (1), from that (2) trivially follows. If it doesn't for you, then it's purely semantics, I guess.
I love how you one hand acknowledge your severe lack of ability and achievement. And yet at the same breath you confidently put forward to know better - than JBlow no less - what the game-dev-industry or world at large needs. Or that you'd even have the ability to gauge evidence for it(or lack of it).
What evidence would even qualify as proof that game-development-industry (or world at large) requires a new programming language?
What is the exact threshold of "suck" that you have to cross before you go "yup, we need something different"? Does such threshold even exist?
And how do you measure it?
> There are a lot of musicians and actors more influential than JBlow, does that mean I won't be a fool if I listen to their opinions on anything more important than what to eat for breakfast?
Is John Blow making bold opinionated statements about fine-dining or something? No? Then what are you even talking about?
Why are you constantly making shit up to discredit the guy?
This is NOT rational behavior, its some sort of ego defense: "like how dare he say bad things about C++, who does he think he is (just some one hit wonder game-designer, just got lucky!)? He has no idea what he's talking about!"
Except, he making statements about a language that he has used extensively for more than 25years at this point. And used it to ship large, intricate, largely succesfull hit-games all with their own engines where he has done bulk of the programming work.
That is to say, you can HARDLY find anyone more competent and suited to comment on deficiencies and shortcomings of C++, and how to improve them and fix them.
Now, just because he makes astute observations about various defects in C++ doesn't make him special, after all C++ is extremely badly designed mess, and it is very easy to do so, and thousands of people have done so.
What makes him special - is that he - has mostly delivered on this (stretching himself thin in the process), whilst also making a large game at the same time. This is very rare and exceptional.
> metaprogramming with #run is cool, I'm also fed up with cmake. But surely we don't need to throw away all of our C++ tooling for that? Nah, we probably need something more incremental.
Who is this council of "we" you're refering to? A council of average Joeys that haven't shipped anything of note and is more concerned with whats "cool"?
You have roughly zero idea what the actual painpoints of making and shipping large games are. His latest game does full rebuilds in 2 seconds, so he can iterate and make changes quickly.
There are no "incremental improvements" that can be done to C++ to suddenly make builds not take MULTIPLE MINUTES.
> JBlow is an entertainer, first and foremost.
This is what you have got wrong, JBlow is an exceptional programmer first and foremost, who also happens to be a pretty good at thoughtful gamedesign, and pretty good at doing public speaking, among other things.
> a notable part of the success of Braid was thanks to a contract with Xbox Live Arcade
Notable part of success is that he made Braid interesting enough to win "innovation in game design" at IGF. Winning IGF ment he got contract with XLA (interested in making money and promoting platform) This is a deterministic process, there's no dice rolls or lottery draws involved here. If you're exceptional and you make exceptional things you succeed sooner or later, statistically speaking.
The whole thought process that if you spawned another much younger JBlow in 2026, he would be attempting to make another verbatim Braid, instead of something completely different - way more attuned to current market conditions is not very bright. He (the young JBlow clone) might not even choose to do games in these market conditions, he might chose to do exceptional, highly influential work in a completely different domain.
What however is highly likely is that he'd be highly, highly successful at whatever it is. Because highly exceptional hardworking people just succeed (unless they are born in Mumbai or Karachi)
I mean, if you're born as an average Joey, instead of being born exceptional, it is _luck_. After all, who would choose to be average when they can be exceptional and bright?
But it is important to acknowledge at which point luck materializes. And the lucky event wasn't XLA at 2008, the lucky event is beign born exceptional.
Most people would call being born rich a luxury. And not - being born exceptional and applying the said talent and hard work to ever more ambitious projects.
> Even John Carmack didn't really succeed in rockets.
He was very successful at engineering aspects of rocketry considering his very small and completely self funded budget. Just not comfortable burning 1mil of his personal funds / retirment money per year (that was still considerable money to burn out of personal stash in 2007/2008)
This is a very bad example you're using here.
Where are you getting a decade from? Consoles ship more often then that.
Square Enix: so so many but at least a few FF14 expansions, FF15, Nier: Automata, Dragon Quest XI, Octopath Traveler, Kingdom Hearts III, Final Fantasy 16, Final Fantasy VII Rebirth
Bethesda: The Elder Scrolls Online, Fallout 4, Fallout 76, Starfield
Epic: Robo Recall, Fornite.
Epic cancelled Paragon and Unreal Tournament and Fortnite is a live service game where they're constantly shipping content so its harder to define single releases but they have new money coming in from new content.
And these are only from the main studio, not the dozens of games published by these entities.
Your square list, for example, crosses 8 different studios.
My original question was poorly worded; I meant how many games -per studio- are being shipped by these big cos?
Arguably teams are tied to and only ever ship a single game so I'm not really sure what you're arguing at this point.
Jon's production from the last 10 year isn't even due to bad software methodology from what I observe, it's mainly seems to be because his company is creating a new programming language tailored to games. This doesn't seem to be done to make money, but rather, to try and fundamentally fixed issues that he perceives in game development. It's a lofty goal, and the compiler itself uses the same software methodolgy that he argues for, and it's quite good.
So I don't think this critism is fair. We should look at the arguments they present, and their multi-decade long careers as a measure of thir authority on this subject.
On one hand I'm sympathetic to this view point, on the other, he's done thousands of hours of YouTube videos and inspired a ton of programmers.
> Guess how many Blow has shipped? 0 so far, but it sounds close now.
Not going to lie, it's probably difficult being financially secure and still hustling like you're broke. I imagine it's more by choice (to do other things) than being unable to ship.
its not a claim if you prove it. Tt becomes a fact.
Blow proved his point by making a full blown programming language where he fixed things he complained about like compilation speed etc.
And then made a whole game in his own language.
Pure engineers deliver perfect and fast software somewhere along the Black Hole Era. Not quite heat death of the universe, but almost there.
Impure engineers deliver "working" code in a deadline, for an arbitrary definition of working. Basically, The Worse is Better™.
That is, his “pure engineers” are not really doing engineering, at least under my understanding of the term, whereas (some of) the impure engineers actually are! :)
There is a massive gap between Handmade Hero and a bloated, unoptimized game. It's one thing to be a purist that wants to do everything Handmade Hero style. It's another thing entirely to claim people who don't do that are hacks who don't care about their craft. There is A LOT to game development other than writing things from scratch.
Casey has made great resources, but I understand OPs frustration. He's created a culture of devs that think people shipping games over 100mb are soulless profit chasers. Animal Well is awesome, but not everyone wants to spend 7 years making a platformer.
I've known plenty of people like him. Clearly smart, but have spent too much of their life being defined by it. And worse, not being told often enough when they're wrong.
[1] https://jacklance.github.io/PuzzleScript/play.html?p=cfdcc6e...
Like a fascist would! /s
I see many individual games (or even just standalone puzzles, even just puns!) of his and I'm genuinely envious of how clever they are.
It hurts to think about what he could have created if he was still around.
The Witness is different, it really does teach you everything you need to 100% it. I cheated on the ship puzzle but it’s totally possible to figure out.
So... why would I want a game with 1400 puzzles? At one puzzle a minute, that's 24 hours of gameplay. There's no reasonable scenario where each individual puzzle is something you can savour while having the game be completable in a vaguely timely fashion. How many of those puzzles are going to be even remotely memorable?
[[Massive spoilers implied, stop reading if you don't want a Blue Prince playthrough "spoiled" in some sense]]
Take the Atelier, if you're Jon Blow that's obviously 45 puzzle boxes, plus 45 picture pairs = 90 puzzles just to spell out the clues before you even try to understand how to "solve" the Atelier and actually inherit the manor [[If you're reading this and thinking "But I did inherit the manor by finding room 46, hey, shoo, you didn't finish the game I told you not to read this]].
> now encompasses around 1,400 individual puzzles that could take completionists 400 to 500 hours to fully conquer
Mostly I just remember being stuck on that @#$%^ art gallery rebus. And having done somthing at some ppint that made it much less likely to spawn, to boot.
The excellent thing about Blue Prince is that it isn't afraid to keep giving you more clues. I've seen people go "Bridge. Bride. I see what's happening - I will write these down" on day one. But I've also seen people walk into Study, look at the chart and go "Huh. I wonder what that's about" and walk out without any flicker of understanding. Those latter people will, hopefully, one day read the Letter in Herbert's private chest freezer, and maybe that's enough.
The Gallery puzzle isn't actually an exception to that, but it's very close. There is one small clue, and two bigger one, and then it's you versus the artist. The small clue is in a document you've never read because you need all those keys†. That document is just another set of clues, sorry, you don't even get another credits rolls. There is only one Credits Roll in the whole game and it's for reaching 46 the first time on a save, even though that's nowhere near all of the game. There's a deliberate fake out, later, but no other actual credit rolls and no explicit end, just the game starts to point out that you can just stop playing at first in subtle ways but gradually quite blatantly. It is just a game, go do something else.
† Technically you could just guess an answer, but this is after all a puzzle game so where's the fun in that?
Also I discovered there are mods for it out there and I may have to figure out how to get them working on my Steam Deck so I can just completely quit worrying about having enough steps/gems/dice/tools and only worry about the puzzles.
There are things that are just intentionally crazy hard, Day One Dare Mode is an example, lots of people had no idea that was even possible but it is and so somebody of course did it. But Bequest mode over a period of interactions is supposed to be a fun normal way to play this game and IMO is a lot of fun. Still, do whatever you enjoy.
I'm saying that, if you removed the Parlour, the Billiards Room, all the Mora Jai boxes, and all the other puzzles that aren't directly related to finding room 46 (including everything after the "tutorial"), you'd have a lesser but still memorable game. Inversely, if you took just the boxes, and the parlour puzzles, and the darts puzzles, you'd have a fun but unremarkable little time waster. I really enjoy spending hours on some the more insane sudoku puzzles featured on Cracking the Cryptic (even if I often end up abandoning many of the harder ones), but have zero patience for supermarket sudoku books.
"1400 puzzles" rubs me the wrong way, like soulless open world games that brag about having hundreds of hours of content. A large part of what makes a truly exceptional game isn't volume of content, it's editing and curation.
There's a lot of people for whom what you're talking about is in fact a huge draw. Everyone likes different types of games, and that's fine; I don't really think we're at risk of losing one to the other :)
I'd also put forward that you can still make open-world games with 100s of hours of content that are still truly exceptional - look at Red Dead Redemption 2, for example.
Btw Patrick's Parabox in full is 364 puzzles (I know this off hand because I left it at 363 for a few months before coming back to finish the last one, and it's one off 365).
> At one puzzle a minute, that's 24 hours of gameplay.
Unfortunately we're not all as smart as you but in TFA he estimates it'll take 400-500 hours to complete all of them.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2121980/Void_Stranger/
For all that is holy, please don't read anything about it. And I really mean that! Just trust and go in blind. You will have an amazing time. It is truly one of the most unique gaming experiences and it is the kind of game you can only play once.
I think he must have spent 9 years working on his new programming language and one year working on the game.
If you are entirely utilitarian in how you approach making a game (as in this case) then you’ll want to create as little as possible to make the game. An existing game engine, an existing programming language, existing libraries, etc.
If your goal is the economic return that making a game will (hopefully!) provide, this is understandable.
However, how I see JB based on his past work and talks is someone who wants to spend their life bringing things into existence. From all available evidence it appears the art of creating and the art of having created is his work and his legacy. The economic return is rhe by-product, but not the goal.
We are in this earth for a finite amount of years, and he is spending his time creating new things. It’s an admirable use of time, and at least from my perspective holds a universe of meaning that working under the utilitarian approach loses.
Seriously, this is why he did it. His ego and arrogance is off the charts and if it wasn't made by him, he thinks it sucks (e.g. he doesn't like Linux, probably because he realizes Torvalds is actually smarter than him). He also doesn't like C++ or Rust, again, it's probably a good indicator he has a deep inferiority complex and so he has to prove he's the smartest person in the world by writing his own, "better" language.
I.e. I don't think he's making a programming language for some "love of creating", I think he's doing it because he has a deep psychological issue/insecurity, which drives his need to always be the "smartest person in the room", his arrogance, the way he dismisses others who don't agree with his viewpoints etc.
Even if you don't like Jon, calling Jai an exercise in arrogance is simply untrue. When he started making Jai in ~2014, there were very few viable alternatives to C/C++ in the systems programming space that offered the kind of expressive power becoming of a langauge built this century. Rust is great, but it prioritising correctness is not always the right choice, especially not for games. Jai introduced many ideas that languages like Zig and Odin ended up adopting.
[0]: https://inductive.no/jai/ [1]: https://github.com/Sharir/jai
*Although there has (always?) been a private alpha/beta release.
Rust and Zig developed features by cutting their teeth on large amounts of real software, not by following one guy's personal project that has no source, no library, no spec available.
Lots of people have seen his talks about the language, so why do you think its impossible it influenced other languages?
Have they heard of Jai? Yeah probably. But it's barely a drop in the bucket as far as the PL design community goes.
Not sure about Rust, but Zig seems to explicitly follow Cathedral-style development model.
Odin's creator has credited Jai as an influence. You can see him in the comments of old jai youtube videos (videos that go into a lot of depth about the language design). Odin's syntax and features are very similar to Jai, the influence is pretty clear. Odin has other influences of course but you could say it's "jai but open source".
Lastly, jai is not open source but it doesn't mean it's not available. You can message blow to get access to it. Many programmers have used it. There are third party jai libraries on github.
> Many programmers
...how many?
[1]: https://jangafx.com
These are orthogonal concepts. Jai can or cannot introduce ideas, and Jai can or cannot be released. As of now, it is in fact so that Jai has introduced ideas, and has been released to a closed group of beta testers.
> How can we claim to know what it did “right” when only a few projects have been built in it?
To judge whether Jai did something right, in my opinion, it suffices to read the documentation and experience someone else programming second-hand and take advantage of its offerings, namely making programming less tedious, more enjoyable, more safe. It appears to me that you set the bar of usefulness or success too high for no good reason.
He's somewhat Musk adjacent in his need to be viewed as smart (but I guess he does so least have way more programming chops than Musk, so I'll give him that).
Regardless, if arrogance drives people to make new tools then we should be grateful for that arrogance.
He built a language for a very specific task: building games. There were quite a few requirements for such a language. Opinionated? Yes. But that's how you get new languages: by having opinions. Along the way he changed the design and the assumptions several times (e.g. built-in SOA structures are gone) while keeping the original goal in mind and using it to build a custom engine and a game while building the language (thus validating the choices made).
If/when Jai is released hopefully sometime next year, I do hope the documentation includes the rationale because he talked a lot about why other languages don't cut it in his opinion in the early days of development.
I don't think I'm the smartest guy in the room, and that's OK. I realised a long time ago that ego/arrogance isn't a great quality and it's far better to have a strong network of friends and supporters, and that doesn't happen if you're an arrogant prick.
And yes, he built the language (which is totally un-needed) because the "idiots" who made all the existing languages, didn't make one as good as in JBlows brain. Despite the fact that there are 1000s of games which are far better than anything JB has made written in C#, C++, Java, Rust, etc. Did Larian need to write a new programming language to make Baldurs Gate 3?
Only JB is arrogant to think that only a new language is good enough for him to make a game with. A game that is just a modern spin on Sokoban and where he paid a bunch of other game devs to use their puzzles! You could write this shit in three.js and it wouldnt look or feel any differently.
Yes, you can do good things with shitty tools. And you could stop and say: this is enough. But then we would probably never have any programming languages at all.
Haskell exists because idiots that made existing languages didn't make one as good as in Philip Wadler's brain.
Go literally exists because idiots cannot use programming languages created by geniuses.
Rust exists because idiots who made all the existing languages didn't make one as good as in Graydon Hoare's brain. After all, all browsers on the market were built in C/C++, who is he to think that he could create a better/different language? Shut up and get on with the program.
C# exists because idiots who created other languages didn't create a language Microsoft wanted to control, and also weren't as good as the one Anders Hejlsberg's brain. After all, Java was already there.
Except Java exists only because who created other languages didn't create a language as good as the one in James Gosling's (and Mike Sheridan's and Patrick Naughton's) brain. Again, C/C++ had already been there, they could've used that.
Is Blow abrasive and shits on a lot of things? Of course. If you can't see past that to what he's actually doing with the language he's implementing, it's your problem.
> Only JB is arrogant to think that only a new language is good enough for him to make a game with.
Lol. I think this is the textbook definition of projection. He literally never said nor implied this in any way, shape, or form.
If anything, creating a new language set him back several years.
GitHub is littered with pet languages that people have made, and doubt their reasons are simply about being "eye-wateringly arrogant".
Moving past that, people paying attention or wanting to use the language, usually means it appeals to them. Jai has fans and supporters, because they are able to look past or are not concerned about his personality quirks, but are focused on the quality and usefulness of the software produced.
The issue is JB has seemed to push custom engines as not simply an artistic choice but the utilitarian choice as well.
I don't know why the conversation always devolves into this. How it goes is "John cares about quality, everyone else only cares about money"
Choosing to prioritize art, story, and gameplay over raw execution speed does not mean you only care about money. It means you care about having a good game. That doesn't mean you can't do both, but if you have a time restriction, it's a completely reasonable trade off to make. Especially if your users won't even notice.
I would rather devs make games for people playing them, not for web devs who have Electron baggage.
I quite enjoyed The Witness but The Looker was just great.
I suppose I was coming in with expectations of a modern Myst and/or Riven, but it was not that.
There was not enough active narrative to keep me engaged with the puzzles and there wasn't enough "reward" in completing them.
All the more reason to try the Looker!
If that was your expectation going in I can definitely understand you feeling underwhelmed.
That said, you may still enjoy The Looker...
It's a pretty short game - a couple of hours, if you don't spend hours and hours stuck on one of the puzzles. (just look up a walkthrough at that point - the game's not so awesome to be worth spending hours stuck)
"All other titles" would be just Braid, no?
http://number-none.com/blow/prototypes/index.html
It's very different from his more recent stuff, but charming.
* spoiler *
I did not notice the environmental puzzles, even after the obvious one at the top of the mountain looking down. I didn't get that that wasn't a one off. Someone had to point them out. I've had other friends who also missed that. It's arguably the game's single biggest reveal / surprise. It was pretty amazing!
That said, only found maybe 20 of them and was not compelled to keep looking for all of the rest.
I loathed Myst, so had avoided The Witness for the same reason you played it; I'll maybe give it a try now.
(Though perhaps unsurprisingly, Blow has only once mentioned The Looker, saying he hates how it devalues his art, and now refuses to talk about it ever.)
This is so fascinating to me, because when I really get a piece of creative art, like I thought I did with both Braid and The Witness, I usually feel like I get some insight and empathy with the person who created it. Yet every time I read or hear from Jonathan Blow ... I do not feel that. So, I guess I've been challenged by art again, hooray!
One of Blow's favorite games is Steven's Sausage Roll. I personally didn't enjoy it because the intellectual content of that kind of puzzle is, as far as I can tell, exploring a large tree of sausage roll states. And while I had a few aha moments playing it, as far as I can tell the way you do that at the end of the day is just to try all the possible states.
personally I've never really meshed with a number of blows opinions but it is interesting to hear his reasoning and where he's comming from which is what opinions are for
ref: https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@nothings/115704420859870435 and: https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@draknek/115704125102372454
I assumed they were friends as there are several videos of them conversing. The parent comment pointed out that Sean agree's with the negatives about Jon, which could not mean much, but the fact that Jon's negative as described in the Dreknek are really bad indicates to me that Sean likely doesn't view Jon as a good friend anymore. This is surprising to me because I really did enjoy one of their videos where they try and solve a problem together.
The fact that Sean agrees with this critical take of Jon is further evidence of how much Jon has changed since the pandemic.
STB Is the intial's for Sean T Barrett, who also created a software library with the same name.
This headline is like writing "Walt Disney hand drew 60,000 frames of Snow White".
(correct me if I'm wrong)
I always got the impression it's been mostly Blow and a partner working on Jai and this new game.
His job recommendation: "there are so many things you can do, go to SpaceX!". Better life advice would be to learn your fundamentals (computer architecture, fp, algos) and be knowledgeable about the direction the industry is going instead of finding some niche and pouting at everything else.
But there are games which are a lot more immersive and have an actual point and have better physics based puzzles and an actual story like portal and talos principle that don't make you feel like you are remotely debugging a crash on saturday night while everyone else is having fun. You either get that or not.
The Witness also has the sublime revelation in it that makes it more memorable than most games. I don't even remember the god's name in TP, but I can envision clearly every Witness locale.
Well, that was pretentious.
BTW the talos principle AI referred to itself as yahweh, if you ever read the bible.
Edit: and chess is uniquely lore-heavy. Even the openings have openings and everything is tied to history. I'm surprised it is even brought up in comparison at all.
What’s cool has been to watch him grow from this young adult who made a game about time to this beast he is today. Hats off my guy. Now finish your programming language!
I don't really get it.
He's made two well received games, now a third one and an entire programming language, and anytime I tune in to his content he seems like a competent programmer with the kinds of opinions you'd expect from any kind of craftsman: sharp and borne out of their own personal experience. I never hear anything that strikes me as inflammatory.
What's there to fuss about? If you disagree with one of those opinions, great!
Maybe this is just what experiencing the world solely through the internet does to people. Makes them prickly and uncalibrated.
As far as politics go, in the past he mostly seemed kind of small business owner libertarian (which, fair enough, he's sunk a lot of his personal wealth into running a game studio). He's seemingly been getting increasingly grouchy about the e.g. state of software development and society in general for some time, and over the past year or so he's started expressing explicit Trump support/appreciation. Possibly exacerbated by the development of this game and Jai dragging on, apparently getting burned by what he considers bad hires (bet he's not easy to work for tho...), and such. Though I would say it feels like it's mostly hot takes on streams or X, not necessarily very coherent politics.
But the indie game scene and many of his former associates are very left wing, and with the political climate, esp. in the US, also being what it is he's quite the pariah in many places now.
Many years ago, during the peak growth of internet cancel culture, Jon made the mistake of saying an uncontroversial truth about occupational interests heavily correlating with gender.
They took that and twisted it into “he thinks women are inferior.”
Since then, they look for any reason to hate on him. It’s political tribe brain rot as usual.
Check out The Witness subreddit. For a game those people claim to love, they seemed to have absorbed absolutely none of the narrative philosophy.
Has there ever been anything on the level of Myst/Riven published in the last 20 years?
I've watched a few of Blow's programming streams which usually spanned both Jai and sokoban development, this was years ago when the sokoban game was clearly an unpolished development mule for the language.
It never seemed like a wise use of resources to try polish that turd of a game concept, certainly not for 9 years. Am I wrong?
sxzygz•1mo ago
[1] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2025/12/jonathan-blow-has-spe...
[2] https://bsky.app/profile/draknek.bsky.social/post/3m7qybidq7...
tormeh•1mo ago
embedding-shape•1mo ago
> I made two free games which were later licensed to be used and remixed in this project.
Seems indeed to be the case. Blow designed (I guess) the mashup and "composition" if you will, but the puzzles themselves have all been designed and licensed by others, so seems the title of the HN submission and article is wrong. Blow didn't design these puzzles at all.
shwaj•1mo ago
frde_me•1mo ago
eudamoniac•1mo ago
jstimpfle•1mo ago
Elsewhere in the arstechnica comments you linked
> But, uh... this isn't a "Linus Torvalds is a jerk" sort of situation. "Controversial" undersells just how outlandish and inappropriate Blow's views are. Blow is a full-bore fascist sympathizer who also doesn't seem to think that women have any role to play in his profession.
What's going on on these platforms? Is there any serious evidence to the strong claims?
swiftcoder•1mo ago
[1]: https://www.redditmedia.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1jh275...
wongarsu•1mo ago
latexr•1mo ago
Does that make a difference? You could levy the exact same argument about the other two in their respective countries in their respective times. Doesn’t make it OK.
incrudible•1mo ago
latexr•1mo ago
Neither was slavery. Was that OK too? And to clarify (though it’s worrying this point needs to be made), I mean morally.
> throwing around certain bad words like fascist
Fascism has a very clear definition. It describes a particular set of behaviours and actions, all of which you can compare to reality and determine if it’s happening or not. It’s an objective word. If anyone is trying to “dismiss” anything, it’s the people pretending it’s subjective because they support its outcome.
jstimpfle•1mo ago
immibis•1mo ago
Why is that? IMO it's because fascist slogans always tend to drift away from their actual meaning, towards things that are socially acceptable to say.
Back in Hitler's time, Hitler didn't give speeches about "Let's kill all the Jews" - he'd rather give speeches about "Let's clean up Germany" even though he clearly wanted to kill all the Jews. When Hitler says "Let's clean up Germany" and the crowd goes wild, you know they're going wild because they're wild about the idea of killing the Jews, not because they're wild about the idea of mopping the floor. At least I assume you would know that now, with the benefit of hindsight. You'd have to be living under a rock not to. And that's not a euphemism for "Let's kill all the Jews" specifically. It's a general euphemism for all the bad things he wanted to do with all the people. It's not like there's one euphemism for "Let's kill the Jews" and a different euphemism for "Let's gas the Jews" and a different euphemism for "Let's kill the gays". It's more like all the euphemisms point to all of the underlying true thoughts, all at once. One loose region of semantic space points to another loose region of semantic space.
You can see how Hitler could have started out saying what he actually meant, but to avoid scrutiny he'd drift towards more innocuous words, but anyone who's been following his whole campaign would know what was meant. It's a bit like Cockney rhyming slang - the pointer drifts until it has no surface-level relation to the pointee, but just because it's not surface-level obvious, doesn't mean it's unknowable (as people who pretend not to recognize the statements often claim).
And if I'm in Germany in 1932 and I'm following politics, and my friend says "I support cleaning up Germany" I'm going to do a double-take. I'm going to suspect he's not talking about mopping the floor and picking up litter. Though, if I'm in Germany in 1932 and I'm ignoring politics, I might reasonably assume that he is talking about those things and get quite confused why my other friend thinks he's a fascist.
In modern fascist dialogue, "men and women have differences" is a pointer to the semantic space containing statements like "women belong in the kitchen", which itself is pointer to the semantic space containing statements like "women should do what men tell them". You can see how this came about because saying "women should do what men tell them" would be unpopular, then fascists justified it with logic like "well women are biologically submissive and men are biologically dominant" and it over time it got watered down to stuff like "men are biologically different from women"
jstimpfle•1mo ago
I of course get where you're coming from, but don't you think it is intellectually dishonest to try and police certain "obviously true statements"? Isn't it similar to banning kitchen knifes because they can be used to kill? Doesn't it put under suspicion a lot of people who are simply following their intellectual curiosity?
I would argue that the ideas you seem to be advertising can lead to similar societal catastrophes as the ones you're trying to prevent from reoccurring.
For sure, the misguided idea that men and women are absolutely, 100% the same, and that any other outcome than some equal distribution between males and females means there must be mysoginy and patriarchy at work (which I don't say you're proclaiming directly), has lead to a lot of real problems in the past decades. And that includes aggressive propaganda against males in general, and against some actually valuable male virtues as well as female virtues, in some circles.
immibis•1mo ago
Or if someone says "make America great again", today. I mean who doesn't want America to be great?
jstimpfle•1mo ago
incrudible•1mo ago
From the perspective of a pre-abolitionist society, it evidently was, but that's not a political issue you're gonna have to deal with in 2025. Consider yourself lucky.
> Fascism has a very clear definition.
First of all, that isn't true. Secondly, even if it was true, it wouldn't matter. You are using the word as a though-terminating cliché. That doesn't work in the long run, you'll just get ignored. As a result, you can pat yourself on the back for calling out fascism while all the behaviors and actions that you believe to be fascist are mainstreamed and affecting people's lives. If I was you, I'd be more worried about criticizing those behaviors and actions on their merits (or lack thereof), rather than trying to tie them to some textbook definition fascism and dismissing them wholesale.
magicalist•1mo ago
...do you not also consider yourself lucky about this? Weird phrasing.
latexr•1mo ago
I sincerely doubt the slaves would agree with you. Just because one group was economically and societally OK with it, doesn’t make it morally OK.
> but that's not a political issue you're gonna have to deal with in 2025.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
Again, I doubt the slaves would agree with you.
> Consider yourself lucky.
That’s a really strange comment. What does that mean?
> First of all, that isn't true.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
Seems pretty clear to me.
> You are using the word as a though-terminating cliché.
Of course I’m not, I barely use the word. Pay attention to the person you’re replying to. What you’re doing is putting me in a box of other people you’ve seen online and making a bunch of wrong assumptions. You’re not engaging with the arguments, you’re fighting against a straw man in your imagination.
Jensson•1mo ago
That is wrong, slaves were happy to be alive instead of killed in most societies. It wasn't "slavery or freedom" it was "slavery or death" in most cases. America is an exception there, but in most areas with slavery it was done to criminals that otherwise would have gotten the death penalty.
Christianity forbade enslaving Christians, so we just killed our criminals for the past thousand years, but before Christianity we practiced slavery as punishment of crime everywhere as people thought that was better than killing them.
onraglanroad•1mo ago
incrudible•1mo ago
I sincerely doubt a vegan would agree that eating meat is OK, but as a society, we agree that eating meat is OK. It might not be OK tomorrow, it might not be OK by some moral standard, but that's besides my point.
> That’s a really strange comment. What does that mean?
It means fighting for abolition then was a much tougher fight than the fight you have today.
> Of course I’m not, I barely use the word.
I may have misinterpreted your position to the effect of "look in the textbook, Trump is a fascist by definition". Indeed, I have seen "other people online" argue to that effect, and they weren't made of straw. If that's not the case, I apologize, but the point stands even if you're not the kind of person it should be aimed at.
wahnfrieden•1mo ago
incrudible•1mo ago
meheleventyone•1mo ago
incrudible•1mo ago
The reason the advice is "do not flip the bozo bit" is because the default is to flip it. It's what people do naturally. If you're running around getting bozo bits flipped, you better know what you're doing.
grog454•1mo ago
It may well have been morally OK to most people (see: moral relativism), and since you're implying it wouldn't have been OK to you, it's worth pointing out that you probably wouldn't have done anything about it in the relevant time periods.
If you're an American you don't even need to try that hard to make moral relativism visceral: was the displacement (and far worse) of Native American tribes "OK"? I'd say no, but it isn't morally urgent enough to me or the 99%+ of Americans who are unwilling to pack their bags and return the entirety of two continents to the native descendants.
CraftingLinks•1mo ago
latexr•1mo ago
enqk•1mo ago
jstimpfle•1mo ago
meheleventyone•1mo ago
wahnfrieden•1mo ago
meheleventyone•1mo ago
bena•1mo ago
You have to twist logic pretty fucking hard to find a reason for him to put 88 in his username. He's a guy who thinks he's way more clever than he is and gets upset when it gets pointed out to him.
WesolyKubeczek•1mo ago
But we live in a world where the least charitable interpretation of anything comes first, so shrug
__alexs•1mo ago
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRT4vNEUIAEJgP3.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRT4vNAVAAAT8JP.jpg
mariusor•1mo ago
They might be misguided or misinformed, but the underlying fact is that women are not as well represented in stem. Just because the reason it's more likely to be misogyny rather than any biological inclination, doesn't make it an outrageous statement in my opinion.
_aavaa_•1mo ago
It completely neglects the actual history of the field of computing, even just the 20th century, where the field was filled with women.
It’s only once it became a prestigious field that women suddenly developed a “biological” inclination against it.
phantasmish•1mo ago
1) It was way before it became prestigious.
And
2) An explanation of this needs to account for a great and rapid shift in favor of women, as far as proportion-of-practitioners, that was happening at exactly the same time as the opposite shift in programming, in both law and medicine.
I don’t know what the actual reason is but “it got prestigious so women got pushed out” makes no sense to me, based on the timeline of events in full context. It was very much not prestigious in the ‘80s and early ‘90s, certainly far less so than law and medicine at that time (still isn’t as prestigious as those, outside tech circles—you can see it in people’s faces. It’s high-paid but lower-“class” than those, to this day)
femiagbabiaka•1mo ago
Related, I think math went through a similar transition.
_aavaa_•1mo ago
CamperBob2•1mo ago
Something interesting that I think a lot of younger people don't appreciate: back in the day, unless your name was Hemingway, it was considered unmanly to touch a keyboard. Anything that involved a typewriter or anything else with a keyboard was distaff by definition, just so much secretarial work. Maybe a journalist's job, if you were feeling generous.
Sounds stupid as hell, and it was, but that's a big reason why women played an outsized part in the growth of computing. First as the 'calculators' in WWII, then as Baudot terminals started to take over, as keyboard operators.
Don't make the mistake of assuming they were all Grace Hoppers or Margaret Hamiltons or Adele Goldbergs, because that simply wasn't the case. Many of them might have been, though, in a less stereotype-driven world.
__alexs•1mo ago
This is "controversial" in that it's a position that is not well supported by evidence and he has repeatedly used his platform in the past to make unsupported claims to the contrary.
mariusor•1mo ago
__alexs•1mo ago
He clearly has right leaning and libertarian views, and seems to be not very articulate or sensitive in how he discusses them so I can see why people might read into that more than they should maybe.
psyopsy•1mo ago
You can say whatever the hell you want. Or you could spend 3 minutes actually looking at public information to see if you're wrong.
__alexs•1mo ago
psyopsy•1mo ago
You’re relying on blatant social media mischaracterizations over real actions.
He actually employs women at parity. You feel like this is unwelcoming.
One of those statements is data. The other is fanfic.
__alexs•1mo ago
psyopsy•1mo ago
Now faced with evidence contrary to your beliefs, you're claiming you didn't say that. When presented with proof, It's ok to just admit that you were wrong.
__alexs•1mo ago
psyopsy•1mo ago
Anyway, call it "defensive" all you want. It doesn't change the historical thread: You argued, at best, his views made the workplace unwelcoming; the data shows he hires women at parity. You're just backpedaling because the reality didn't match your narrative vibes.
__alexs•1mo ago
psyopsy•1mo ago
__alexs•1mo ago
psyopsy•1mo ago
jstimpfle•1mo ago
Never forget that the social neglect is not exactly healthy, and programming isn't actually that prestigious and externally rewarding, except for maybe the compensation that you can currently earn in some places.
Adding that for example in math or other sciences, we are much closer to gender parity.
wahnfrieden•1mo ago
edit: speaking industry-wide. of course there are "not all men" type spaces in local communities.
jstimpfle•1mo ago
__alexs•1mo ago
There are a great number of studies of the social aspects of gender differences in work but I don't have a single authoritative source for you.
KittenInABox•1mo ago
It is much easier to put in the hours of gaming when you're not repeatedly called for your rape or have someone trying to stalk you or similar aggressive behaviors towards people perceived as female in these spaces. I pretended to be a woman in gaming spaces for some time just to see if these women had a point and the level of harassment I experienced is way more than even my most unmoderated cod xbox days. It's a simple voice modulator in chat.
jstimpfle•1mo ago
psyopsy•1mo ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726812...
Plus: Jon never said it's the "primary" factor, as you claim. He said it's a large factor, that doesn't apply at the individual level, but on average. Which is entirely factual and supported by copious amounts of research.
Just because people like you want to be offended by science, doesn't make it wrong, or controversial.
onraglanroad•1mo ago
The very first sentence of the article you linked to says, "Occupational choices remain strongly segregated by gender, for reasons not yet fully understood."
So claiming that its for biological reasons is bullshit. You have no idea whether it is or not. And neither does Blow.
psyopsy•1mo ago
"not fully understood" -> "so we studied it" -> "here's what we found"
Besides that obvious point, the sentence you quoted says "not yet fully understood," not "we have no idea." Those aren't the same thing. We actually have substantial evidence pointing in a clear direction.
- The most egalitarian countries show the largest gaps, not the smallest. - Women exposed to elevated androgens in utero become more things-oriented despite being raised normally as girls. - Male and female monkeys show the same toy preferences we do. Nobody's socializing rhesus monkeys into gender roles. - A 1.28 standard deviation gap in every culture that emerges in infancy and grows as societies get freer is not what socialization looks like.
You're treating "not fully understood" as "both hypotheses are equally supported."
They aren't.
The evidence overwhelmingly favors a substantial biological component. Just because you don't like the implications of that, doesn't make it false.
Seethe harder.
onraglanroad•1mo ago
Think harder kid.
psyopsy•1mo ago
ghastt•1mo ago
You may believe that, but: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9898904/
psyopsy•1mo ago
That study found that when you test 14 monkeys alone in cages where they can’t actually move the toys, you don’t see the same sex differences as when 135 monkeys are tested in social groups with freely movable toys.
The authors themselves say the social context may be necessary for expression. That’s not evidence against biological contribution, but evidence that behavior requires context to manifest.
You don’t disprove hunger by noting that people don’t eat when there’s no food available.
jstimpfle•1mo ago
magicalist•1mo ago
Well, you "haven't read literature on the topic"[1] so maybe leave the speculation at the door or go out and read some literature to cite rather than presenting "ideas [you]'ve picked up that [you] can agree with" as "established"?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46315540
jstimpfle•1mo ago
__alexs•1mo ago
psyopsy•1mo ago
__alexs•1mo ago
Knowing what does not explain something, doesn't tell you what does explain it.
psyopsy•1mo ago
So at that point you're not pointing to a specific confounder, you're basically saying "maybe there's something else." Sure, logically you can always say that. But if the evidence keeps stacking up in one direction and the only reply is "could be something," that's just refusing to update your view.
__alexs•1mo ago
psyopsy•1mo ago
When the data consistently shows gaps widening as social strictures loosen, and your response is to blame an invisible, unmeasurable "conditioning," you aren't doing science at all. But you are insulating your belief from any possible counter-evidence.
__alexs•1mo ago
Note that this outcome goes both ways. We can neither confirm that biology is the main driver nor confirm that it isn't. Life is not as certain as you want it to be.
psyopsy•1mo ago
All of the evidence is solidly on one side, so you’ve retreated to “we can neither confirm nor deny.”
I guess that’s progress?
__alexs•1mo ago
psyopsy•1mo ago
wahnfrieden•1mo ago
CupricTea•1mo ago
Am I supposed to take this seriously?
KittenInABox•1mo ago
CupricTea•1mo ago
Even your pseudoquote here gives me nothing to work with.
"It" doesn't help? Seriously? What am I supposed to make with this vague out of context snippet?
KittenInABox•1mo ago
CupricTea•1mo ago
Presenting it through a community called "SubredditDrama" is poisoning the well[1]. I am not going to entertain that smear tactic.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
swiftcoder•1mo ago
CupricTea•1mo ago
They have no standards, no oversight, no formal methodology, so naturally it attracts gossip-oriented people who want to stir up drama for fun.
KittenInABox•1mo ago
"This is true, the gaming press is super left-wing, but on the other hand they have almost no impact now. I would say that the social pressure keeping "indies" in line mostly comes from them being socially fearful in the normal way. (It doesn't help that all males currently under the age of 40 were raised to be supercucks.)" https://x.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/1854708962462982465
(Feb 2025 for context)"Are you kidding? He is the best President we have had in my entire life, by far. It's a miracle. I just hope it doesn't abruptly go bad." https://x.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/1887599339037663629
"Interest is not the same as ability. I believe it is likely that the sexes have different interests on average, and that biological factors play a large part in this. This is *NOT REMOTELY* a controversial opinion except on Weird Far Left Twitter 2017." https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRT4vNEUIAEJgP3.jpg
"There's a weird disconnect in this vaccine mandate debate: many are still pretending that Covid-19 is of natural origin, which gives such mandates a different feel than they otherwise have." https://x.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/1447601578123296769
CupricTea•1mo ago
Are we seriously going to pretend that men and women—on average—do not differ in their general interests, and furthermore get mad at people for pointing that out?
And I'm not fond of the current administration, but it's a bit extreme to write someone off as a person for liking who is president. You would be writing off literally half of the entire country, and no, that's not something to feel virtuous about, that's just nonsense.
Frankly I think I would rather have a conversation with someone like him instead of someone who would get disproportionately upset at those points.
swiftcoder•1mo ago
immibis•1mo ago
There's clearly something about making a successful game (or book) that just makes you completely lose touch with reality after that.
kragen•1mo ago
> If a state entity does an oopsie in a lab, then forces its citizens to undergo an experimental treatment because of the oopsie, while suppressing news of side effects, and also denying that the oopsie is anyone's fault ... that's just abusive?
Unfortunately Blow was unwilling to come out and state his position here, relying instead on innuendo, so we have to kind of guess what he was trying to say. I interpret him as making four claims here:
1. The COVID-19 pandemic originated in a lab leak.
2. Some Chinese people were forced to accept experimental vaccinations.
3. The government of the PRC suppressed news of the side effects of the vaccines.
4. The government of the PRC worked to prevent investigations into the cause of the pandemic.
Claim #4 is plainly true; the WHO and several other countries have protested this at great length.
Claim #2 probably depends on your threshold for "experimental" and "forces". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinopharm_BIBP_CO... explains that emergency vaccination was available in China in July 02020, and there are plausible claims that Chinese state employees and students traveling abroad were required to take it. This was before results were in from clinical trials, which I think qualifies for most people's definition of "experimental"; the WHO wouldn't add it to its list of authorized emergency vaccines until May of the next year.
Claim #3 seems almost guaranteed to be true, but I don't have direct evidence. The government of the PRC routinely suppresses news, and there are numerous well-documented instances of this happening in connection with COVID, and there are always some subjects in clinical trials of vaccines who have major health problems such as death which may or may not be caused by the vaccine. BBIBP-CorV seems to have been, in the end, pretty safe, but it seems inconceivable that there weren't at least some news of people dying or having terrible health problems after receiving it which were deleted from Weibo or other media ("suppressed"), and that these deletions were carried out because of state policy of the PRC.
Claim #1 seems like the most debatable one, but even that isn't an open-and-shut case. At the time, the lab-leak case was fairly weak, and it certainly hasn't been proven, but it hasn't been disproven either; see https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-r... for an extensive summary of the debate. Because of the truth of Claim #4 it seems unlikely that it will ever be disproven.
More generally, I find deplorable the polarization on partisan political grounds of fields like puzzle games, genetics, and quantum physics. Artistic development, understanding the world, and extending technology are necessarily collaborative endeavors, and rejecting Blow's games because he criticizes the Chinese government seems akin to refusing to use the Schrödinger equation because Schrödinger sexually victimized teenage girls.
swiftcoder•1mo ago
I think you are taking a very charitable view here - the tweet immediately before the one you quote is clearly talking about the US vaccine mandate (not China).
kragen•1mo ago
> There's a weird disconnect in this vaccine mandate debate: many are still pretending that Covid-19 is of natural origin, which gives such mandates a different feel than they otherwise have.
Contrary to your assertion, this is not clearly talking about vaccine mandates in any particular place. And the tweet I quoted previously is claiming (or hinting) that the same "state entity" had caused the pandemic and mandated the "experimental treatment". I'm not familiar with any versions of the lab-leak hypothesis that claimed that covid escaped from a US lab, so I don't think it's a reasonable inference that he's talking about the US vaccine mandate.
On the other hand, he seems to have worked pretty hard to avoid clearly stating any of his positions here, so who knows what he really thinks? Or thought?
swiftcoder•1mo ago
Their covid vaccine program was voluntary up until they tried to establish a mandate in July of '22 (a lot of commentators seem to be confused on this point, as there are mandates for childhood vaccines in China - but these never extended to covid vaccines)
kragen•1mo ago
mariusor•1mo ago
I think he is the latest victim of the Notch-Rowling slide into rightism. It happens when a relatively benign conservatives have opinions that get the internet mob riled up, bullies them, cancels them and thus makes them dig deeper into their righitst believes and moving more and more into hating said mob, extending that hate to the people the mob pretends to represent, etc. It's a bit sad really. I hope he'll come out of it some day, but in my experience he doesn't have the humility of accepting when he's wrong.
jstimpfle•1mo ago
I say that as someone who once made him angry myself when I live-commented in one of his streams because I had a rare disagreement. I was maybe not in shock but at least startled by his reaction. I had presented my disagreement relatively casually.
Now, my impression is that he's tuned down his considerably and developed a more well meaning stance on things over the years. Recently I've found him more on the side of "here's how most people are doing this, I don't like this, maybe I don't think it's sustainable or how you get good results, but anyway here's what I like to do instead, make of it what you want".
mariusor•1mo ago
I'm not a US citizen, but being enthusiastic about other people losing their freedom and freedoms is obscene.
tialaramex•1mo ago
toyg•1mo ago
Isn't he pretty far on the autistic spectrum? It can be very difficult for that kind of personality to re-evaluate something, once they think they have reached a "logical conclusion".
I'm not making excuses, just agreeing that the chances of him changing seem low.
mariusor•1mo ago
I don't know, but I doubt it. He's too well adjusted at being social (his hobbies have him interact with people on the regular, and he's streaming on twitch, and doing public speaking at conferences) for me to think that.
breppp•1mo ago
There are people in this thread comparing Trump to Hitler. I don't think Trump is the US finest president but those of my family who weren't slaves for the Germans were slaughtered.
The fact that people throw comparisons that are false on some massive scale around and it's completely normalized is an example why losing touch with reality is not only a problem of the right
mariusor•1mo ago
jstimpfle•1mo ago
mariusor•1mo ago
jstimpfle•1mo ago
mariusor•1mo ago
jstimpfle•1mo ago
ragazzina•1mo ago
Can it really be considered “relatively benign” when an extremely famous public figure is calling for people who disagree with them to be shot?
NeutralCrane•1mo ago
I can't speak for Blow, but that definitely seems to accurately describe the arc Rowling has taken over the last 7-8 years.
ragazzina•1mo ago
>drives them to support much more extreme views, like what you are describing, that they otherwise might not have.
The view I mentioned was the one that got Notch (one of the public figures mentioned by GP) the reaction from the internet in the first place. A bit disingenuous to say this was a moderate conservative talking point before he got sent spiraling into a far right abyss by an angry progressive mob.
mariusor•1mo ago
I'm not saying these people were rays of sunshine before, I'm saying they could be talked to without them foaming at the mouth and you face palming at how unhinged they were. I was using the meaning of benign attached to tumors.
ragazzina•1mo ago
I am not an expert either, if that episode occurred later than I remember, it could have been as you say.
Barrin92•1mo ago
I think this is letting people off the hook. We're talking about adults in their 40s and 50s here. When people like that 'suddenly' endorse extreme views it's because they had held them back and feel enabled to say them now, an adult isn't going to become an extremist because someone was mean to them online.
I'm 20 years younger than Blow and even at my age I can tell I'm settled enough psychologically that adopting radically different views would require a lot of internal effort. Views don't exist in a vacuum, to believe radical things you have to radically alter all the other things you belief. I really don't think we should people like this like children without agency.
meheleventyone•1mo ago
NeutralCrane•1mo ago
zozzle•1mo ago
What a bizarre time we are living in when "men aren't women" and "women should have single-sex spaces and rape crisis centres" are considered extreme views.
tialaramex•1mo ago
Beware anyone who claims to represent "all" of some large diverse group, such as "Women" or "Floridians".
"Women should have single sex spaces" turns out to be used to justify, "It's OK to be hateful and even violent against women in these spaces so long as your excuse is that you believe they're not actually women" which is bullshit.
Years ago, when I wasn't too tired to spend all day and half the night dancing, I went to Bang Face Weekender - basically imagine a huge multi-room club night except for days and days. I keep the socials for it available because hey, it's a nice memory. This sort of "Single sex spaces" bullshit caused a problem for the last-but-one Bang Face because a new-to-this Security outfit somehow decided it's their job to go remove people who in their view weren't women from a toilet for women. These women weren't causing any problems for anybody else, but because they presumably had the wrong genitals or for some other reason were "suspect" to that Security team, Security dragged them out of a toilet cubicle and threw them out of the site. Other clubbers were of course horrified, and the event runners had to apologise to everybody - because regardless of how many X chromosomes you have, or whether you do or don't have a womb, dragging people out of the toilets because you've got weird ideas about what is or isn't a woman is batshit.
zozzle•1mo ago
As for Bang Face last year, what happened is that security staff kicked a group of males out from the women's toilets. I agree that this isn't an ideal outcome, much better would have been if these men had respected that women's spaces are not for them, and stayed out in the first place. The fact that their removal was treated as some sort of scandal shows how far we've lost sight of the rights of women and girls to have single-sex provisions.
tialaramex•1mo ago
And yet this fact about your belief makes you so uncomfortable that you find yourself trying to pretend that somehow it's the opposite of what you believe.
zozzle•1mo ago
NeutralCrane•1mo ago
zozzle•1mo ago
bmn__•1mo ago
mrgoldenbrown•1mo ago
latexr•1mo ago
The second paragraph in the submitted article has a link to the women claim. I hadn’t seen it before. I have also never personally seen any overt fascist sympathising but then again I don’t follow Blow closely. From what I’ve seen from him, though, doesn’t seem hard to believe. He has very strong opinions on a lot of things he knows little about (and belittles those who disagree with his uninformed opinion), is enamoured with Elon Musk, and is always going on (dismissively, divisively, and dehumanisingly) about “The Left”.
He also has very poor and obvious fallacious arguments filled with bad faith assumptions. He believes in God and (if I recall correctly) his justification was (paraphrasing) “a lot of smart people are not atheists” (weasel words, appeal to authority) then went on to rant about “Reddit atheism” (ad hominem) or whatever. That was on his own stream, by the way, so no chance it was taken out of context when I saw it.
wongarsu•1mo ago
1: https://www.resetera.com/threads/jonathan-blow-the-witness-b...
jstimpfle•1mo ago
It _boggles_ my mind that someone might find it controversial that there are on average differences between the sexes in terms of behaviour and interests. And to throw extremely strong accusations like "fascist" for a totally reasonable assumption or observation like that, I don't have words for that, I think those people have been smoking too much pot.
latexr•1mo ago
That’s not why they’re calling him fascist, but because of things like being a Trump supporter. You’re conflating arguments.
jstimpfle•1mo ago
> Blow is a full-bore fascist sympathizer who also doesn't seem to think that women have any role to play in his profession.
The latter part being argued with a post where he merely opines that the sexes have different interests.
latexr•1mo ago
The quote does not support your point.
jstimpfle•1mo ago
latexr•1mo ago
You even decry the lack of factual evidence in the critic’s case, but for some reason said nothing about Blow doing the same first.
That’s what looks silly to me. You’re not treating them the same.
jstimpfle•1mo ago
latexr•1mo ago
Which I’m not doing.
djeastm•1mo ago
jstimpfle•1mo ago
psyopsy•1mo ago
“It's amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.”
latexr•1mo ago
I even explicitly said I never encountered that claim before. As such, I’m not going to do very stupid armchair expert thing I’m criticising and comment on it. The points I made are on the things I know and reflected on, not on superficial information received three minutes ago.
bialpio•1mo ago
I'm impressed with how well you summarized my thoughts about him. I vaguely recall having this impression about him after I read his technical article (can't remember the topic) and decided that I don't think I need to read more from someone that comes through as an asshole. This was around the time The Witness came out, I'm quite happy that I didn't have to witness (hah!) what sounds like his further slide into the madness.
ImprobableTruth•1mo ago
Seems like the puzzles are novel, but the mechanics are not?
lucraft•1mo ago
christophilus•1mo ago
nilstycho•1mo ago
https://jacklance.github.io/games.html
christophilus•1mo ago
dgb23•1mo ago
For example in the Witness, which I consider one of the best puzzle games ever made, you get a fairly simple core mechanic, but the game builds upon it in very interesting ways. It feels like a journey of learning and always challenges you in some novel way at each step. There are also several revelations along the way, where you discover new layers on top of the core puzzles.
I would expect that this new game will feature similarly careful design.
eps•1mo ago
blarg1•1mo ago
tzcnt•1mo ago
It's also not a game that's very demanding from a technical performance perspective, and really has very limited numbers of active entities / animations, so why should I care about his opinions on game architecture or anything else?
0x1ceb00da•1mo ago
And programming is just pressing buttons on a keyboard.
sean_bright•1mo ago
I tried to play it on iOS and found the controls clunky. Interacting with some of the puzzles was difficult with my thumbs in the way.
eps•1mo ago
IshKebab•1mo ago
I think 3D FPS is generally a terrible interface to puzzles. This is 2D though so maybe it will be better.
ls612•1mo ago
That said I’ll probably buy this game if it comes out next year.
jan_Inkepa•1mo ago
mcphage•1mo ago
jan_Inkepa•1mo ago
koolala•1mo ago
sunrunner•1mo ago
He also used the same thread to mention his own grant fund while not acknowledging that Thekla (Blow’s company) also has (or had at some point) a similar scheme [1]
Meanwhile the various accusations about Blow’s politics beliefs are mysteriously missing, or at least seem to be large extrapolations from other Twitter comments also not cited. Is there something in the thread I missed?
[1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/thekla-raises-grant-money-for-...
johnnyanmac•1mo ago
He sort of went mask off during COVID, so I believe it. I also believe Blow is a smart dude and would try to erase that history right before a PR rally for his game.
I'm not even on Twitter but I hear about such events in the gamedev scene for years.
sunrunner•1mo ago
It doesn’t seem untrue, though given the environment at the time justified, but that comment was extrapolated to “He’s a hard-right anti vaxxer”. No citations of my own though, so this is just memory.
Either way, this is why I try to stay off Twitter.
wahnfrieden•1mo ago
sunrunner•1mo ago
tom_•1mo ago
> The funding for underrepresented creators was a condition of my involvement in this project, so doesn't represent his values so much as mine. He was at least willing to do it though, which I'm not sure he would be today. (https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@draknek/115713018435458495)
> ...his company was the public face of that grant, my involvement in it isn't common knowledge. (https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@draknek/115713113473398888)
Seems like this was all sorted out by early 2019 - and nearly 7 years have passed since! Plenty of time for a person to change from somebody you'd be happy to associate with to somebody you might not.
> Some people have mentioned they couldn't tell from this thread whether these games are used with permission. For clarity, yes, we agreed to this in mid 2016 and signed a contract in late 2018/early 2019. (https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@draknek/115707937686651789)
sunrunner•1mo ago
Interesting, and thanks for the sources. I was under the impression that it was the same fund as that announced in 2010 [1] but the date in [2] plus the apparent timeline does align.
"I'm not sure he would be today" is a strawman and just Hazelden's own current views of Blow, but I doubt there's going to be a direct quote (or even better, a new grant from Thekla) to back it up. But yes, 7 years is a long time and the political landscape has changed "somewhat".
[1] http://the-witness.net/news/2010/03/announcing-indie-fund/
[2] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-witness-studio-offering-us...
tom_•1mo ago