Quick note: If anyone is curious about the meaning of the words ‘formalism,’ ‘structuralism,’ and ‘poststructuralism’ that appear in the conclusion, they should check out the original article version of this analysis, linked in the description. The section of that article entitled “What is Deconstruction?” contains a mini history of 20th-century literary theory (which was cut from the script of the video for pacing reasons).
I would note here that this was a first explanation of structuralism I was able to understand. I have technical background, and I have made several attempts to understand literary theory, including lecture series on the philosophy of art, lecture series on literary theory etc. But only now it kinda clicked.
For me, The Witness is a love letter to *discovery*. Every joyful moment while playing came from a moment of discovering something new - from unlocking a new area, to the intense feeling of satisfaction any time you figure out and master a new gameplay mechanic. The entire game is carefully paced to make you enjoy exploring it - to make you fully realize how intrinsically pleasurable that process is, the process of gaining understanding, and memories and forming connections between things. The 'reset' sequence at the end is, to me, a clear nod to this - the resetting of the island is contrasts the fact that, conversely, you cannot 'reset' your gained intuition. You will still see the environmental puzzles, you will still know how the mechanics work. This idea of "intuition = progress" is further reinforced by the many instances in which the game prevents you from going too out-of-order solely through the use of initially obscure mechanics that you first have to find 'tutorials' for in the world, before you may unlock certain other panels and areas.
In addition to the gameplay itself, the collection of video/audio logs - ranging from scientific discovery to personal and spiritual self-discovery, all cluster around the idea of people exploring the world or themselves - discovering and, dare I say, *witnessing* reality.
Incredible video, I’m glad there’s at least a few channels that are willing to take video games as art seriously and not just dismiss it because it’s unfamiliar
When it comes to stuff like this vid, and the ones he made for Dark Souls and Papers Please, there’s no one on the same level as this guy. Criminally underrated channel.
This is, the, absolute, best video about this game, or almost any other game for that matter that I've ever seen. This is my favourite game, and I'm thankful for you making this video, and sharing with the world.
Amazing. This is like a response video to the Electron Dance video, and then also a response video to its own response video at the same time. This man is playing 4D TH-cam Analysis Chess over here.
5th time rewatching this video and each time I understand more and more, you’ve really made an incredible video. I wish this video was the most popular one and not Joseph Anderson’s.
i know this is coming from a totally different perspective, but to me the witness has always been a video game about "learning". that's the main thing you do in the game, learn without being taught. the main design challenge of the game was how to hide it's lessons (or rules) in a way that encouraged exploration and critical thinking. i find the witness fascinating as a "discussion" on learning, or put more simply, how to make complicated game without any tutorial (and what the implications of the can be).
Sounds good to me! In fact, I don't think that's a totally different perspective. That matches up quite well with the second interpretation offered in the video.
Probably the most in depth reading of The Witness that I've seen. I like to think of the game as a labyrinth, you circle around the island contemplating until you reach its center. Of course, the game also provides you with things to contemplate or else there wouldn't be much point.
Recently I came back to this game and finished it, but I couldnt find a good criticism of the game, until this video. I think people dismiss it as a simple puzzle game too quickly, and dont bother to connect what is being said in the audios and the gameplay, and i think you did an excellent job showing this connection. As a side note, I didnt think of deconstruction while playing the game, but i came to a similar interpretation as yours, so i probably should think of deconstruction more consciously. Again, great video!
When I first watched this video because of my personal biases I assumed that there could be only one truth either the analytical, science based view of reality or the zen/ self actualization view. I sneered at other perspectives in this game because of my bias towards the zen perspective. But after listening to the quote at 31:05 and this video as a whole. It really helped me open my mind and see different perspectives. And a value I hold is if you are ever sneering at something and you want to look the other way. You should always investigate that perspective. Thanks a lot for this video genuinely man you’re the best!
I love this game and despite my STEM background and being quite bad at literary anything, this video kept my attention all the way through (despite my ADHD!). I don’t understand everything, but I keep rewatching it in an effort to understand better.
That was incredible i im not even sure i understood 1/2 of what was said. Im definitely going to rewatch this in like a month. I cant believe that your not more popular!
Thanks for saying so! This year, TH-cam's almighty algorithm finally broke its trend of completely ignoring my channel, so there is some hope for more views and subs in the future. But either way, I'm just going to keep making videos.
Talk about a game that lends itself well to analysis. Blow has serious STEMbrain but the game is great. I've said this before but nobody on this platform is doing what you're doing, this is the only place for gaming analysis through the lenses of literary theory even remotely of this caliber.
The Talos Principle, and to a greater degree the sequel have a lot in common, also The Witness from twelve monkeys the tv series, is also another interesting use of this concept, with perception literally forming their version of reality, around a scientific endeavour built around a religion, based on a figure whose existence isn't proven until the very end of the series.
Hell of a video. I don't know, though. I mean, not to get all "it's not that deep" on it, because The Witness is nothing if not layered, but I don't think these readings are particularly contradictory? And I think The Witness is all but openly _about_ how these readings and the lessons of them are not only all valid despite their apparent opposition but all necessary for The Witness to be coherent. In fact I think the observed shortcoming of the meditative reading, that it is incomplete, is implicit in the true ending, which shows that the grand intent of figuratively and literally codifying enlightenment and selling it as a video game failed, and my own interpretation is that it failed exactly _because_ the aim of a genuine meditative experience in which you fully embrace the entirety of a moment is fundamentally incompatible with the chosen medium of a video game (in or out of universe, take your pick) in which respect for the player's time is the cardinal rule. Maybe you can even take another step back and say it failed because even beyond incompatibility with a video game, it's incompatible with a consumer product (again, in or out of universe) that needs to be sold, bought, and consumed. The Witness is about the bridge between entertainment and meaning, and about how you _can't_ bridge them, not absolutely, even though you can make entertainment meaningful and meaning entertaining, about how you can put Truth in a video game, even a Truth that transcends video games, but nobody will care enough to look for it there unless you also make the game enjoyable to play in ways that are philosophically frivolous. The in-game game, The Island, is about the grand synthesis and applying the analytic method and the texture of video games to lead the player into discovering and accepting Enlightenment, while The Witness (Thekla Inc, 2016) is about how that's a stupid idea that doesn't work, you fool, you absolute buffoon, even though there _is_ some part of Truth in the act of the search, and of the mastery of the available material, and of immersing yourself in logic puzzles so thoroughly that you can learn to feel your way through twenty of them instinctively under time pressure, and that that's ultimately meaningless, but the fact that you cared enough to do it is meaningful, but you _wouldn't_ care if the surrounding world of puzzle design wasn't so _basically_ compelling, if the game it was all put in wasn't so openly awe-inspiring as to convince people there must be meaning in it. I think each of the videos in the windmill outlines a lesson that the designers of The Island failed to properly understand which is why their grand experiment seemed to fry the beta tester's brain, and I'd list them, but this damn comment is already too long and there's still a long parenthetical coming. Even though they _did_ acknowledge that they were fallible and could only aspire to Capital T Truth, they still made their simulation indefinite until the player could see the matrix, so to speak, which is a conceit that could only have worked if they really did grasp that Capital T Truth and understand it so well that they could codify it. (Also I do not agree with the Dirac quote being intended to openly contradict any of the others, because the whole context of that quote in the game is that the developers don't want to put that quote in the game because it doesn't really advocate for anything, only against religion, and other quotes from the Underground also complain that they couldn't find good quotes from materialist atheists that had the clarity and compelling self-assurance of the more openly religious or mystical pieces, save for a quote from Carl Sagan, which they couldn't afford to license, even though they apparently _did_ get some good quotes from Eddington, Einstein, Feynman, etc about the religiosity that underlies science.) Is this even a refutation of anything in the video? Hell if I know, man. Hell if I know. The only thing we've managed to deconstruct is my brain.
Thanks for a great comment! A few thoughts in response . . . Yes, you are right to conclude your comment as you do, because there's ultimately a huge amount of overlap between what you've written and what is argued in this video. I can't help but smile at your initial instinct to say the game may not be especially deep or ambiguous, given the final form of the rest of your response. Especially when you say it may not be possible to capture capital-T Truth in a video game (the exact perspective of the third interpretation presented here). But as to a few points of apparent disagreement: You are correct that the developer characters swiftly disavow the Dirac quote after reading it. But it is still a voice that is present in the game, and I am quick to point out later in that same section that the developer characters are a further set of such voices. At that point in the video, I could just as easily have played the clip of the developer characters deriding belief in "goofy bible stories," which is a clip that arguably contradicts the work of Augustine to the same degree that Dirac does. There is also a definite _methodological_ contradiction between the quotes by figures like Clifford and Feynman on the one hand, and those by the Taoists, Buddhists, and Sufis on the other. Moreover, I highlight that the reason the dev characters fail to find mature representation for atheism and materialism is not because such work is impossible to find, but rather precisely because they are themselves biased human operatives---who exclude the work of nearly all serious philosophers of the past few centuries. Your point about the video clips aligning with ways in which 'the island game' fails at its potential in-universe aims is an interesting one. But to say that each of them is indicative of "a lesson that the designers of The Island failed to properly understand" seems like a very odd way of putting it, given that the clips in question . . . are on the island. I see no reason to surmise their presence is distinct from the audio clips, in the sense of being selected and included with intention by the developer characters. At any rate, I don't think any of the readings are incomplete (or in other words: I don't think any reading can be complete in an exclusive way). You're exactly right that you can read the game in the way that you read the game, with total consistency and clarity and completeness. In fact, the point of deconstruction is precisely that you are right about that . . . and yet that you are no more right than someone who builds a different reading, which could with similar effort become no less consistent, no less clear, no less complete. For example, it is open---and, indeed, easy---to read the ambiguous actions of the individual in the 'true' ending in a variety of ways. Strictly speaking, it's not even _necessary_ to say that the island was a failure based on what we see in that cutscene (although both of the formalist readings presented in this video do say that, in their own ways).
@@TheGemsbok See, that's just it! I feel _certain_ that I disagree, quite vehemently, with you, about _something_. Now, if only I could figure out what it is... I certainly do not mean to _actually_ suggest The Witness isn't deep. It's just... Okay. If The Witness is a deconstruction of itself (being as how the Island is largely (but not totally!) identical with The Witness), is a deconstructionist reading of it particularly deconstructionist, or is it just... literal? This is _kind_ of what I'm getting at calling the Island a failure, I think the developers thought they were making something that would teach, if not a single Truth, a single method of perception that could bridge together all the philosophies and intellectual traditions they cite in it, the whole way from Burke to Gangaji, a single conception of Truth-_Seeking_ if you will, with the method for unlocking the exit being intended to be a test for if you've absorbed the lesson. I take from the hotel-like surroundings in the true ending and the recurring logo that the whole endeavour is capitalist; in a world where you can book a flight to space, why not sell Enlightenment? The developers are clearly well-resourced and driven and not cowboys. They curated an excellent archive of musings on the subject of truth-seeking and expertly wove them into the Island (see: how there's always a metaphorical link between where you find each recording and its content). I think they understand the significance of this material... but I also think they missed something in it and that the reasons their interactive experience seemed to take such a toll on the player instead of enlightening them is _because_ they missed that their collected materials invite a deconstructionist reading and not a single perfect one. Burke: You've made a work of art, and it's fundamentally just expressive of your own perspective, dummy! Feynman: You're guiding the reader to a conclusion instead of teaching them how to conclude, dummy! Tarkovski: You've overinvested in a big grand meaningful quest and it's consumed you, dummy! Moriarty: The point of the game has to first and foremost be the game itself, dummy! Spira: You're obsessed with perceiving the world instead of your own luminous consciousness, dummy! Gangaji: You're trying to _further_ all these truths, but you forgot to stop and contemplate them, dummy! It's like... they've made a sublime puzzle game, and they don't understand the meaning inherent in just that aspect of their creation, but in their attempt to _contain_ and _package_ all that wisdom they've undermined it. I think. I think that's what's happening here. My head hurts. This was a _really_ good video.
@@TheGemsbok >Moreover, I highlight that the reason the dev characters fail to find mature representation for atheism and materialism is not because such work is impossible to find, but rather precisely because they are themselves biased human operatives---who exclude the work of nearly all serious philosophers of the past few centuries. I don't know any serious materialist atheist ever, much less "serious philosophers of the past few centuries", who have claimed that there is a Truth to be found. This is in stark contrast to Augustine, who absolutely did believe that, and a rich intellectual tradition around it which has yet to be seriously challenged in a meaningful way besides sheer force of mockery, which isn't an argument.
@@VACatholic I'm not speaking of pop-phil or pop-sci figures who mock and otherwise offer nothing of substance. I'm speaking of professionals working in the field of philosophy of religion---people intimately familiar with the intellectual tradition toward which you're gesturing. I suppose 'serious' is a word with enough ambiguity to cast aspersions on any reference, but I have in mind atheists and agnostics like Thomas Nagel, Bertrand Russell, Anthony Kenny, J.L. Mackie, John Dewey, Jeremy Bentham, A.J. Ayer, David Hume, J.M.E. McTaggart, Hilary Putnam, Peter Singer, James Rachels, Shelly Kagan, John Searle, John Rawls, W.V.O. Quine, Rudolf Carnap, Graham Oppy, and on and on. Religious philosophers have made, and continue to make, tremendous contributions to the subject. But they are not alone in doing so. In fact, the best survey of the field we have available to us points toward atheism being the majority position among professional philosophers holding faculty positions at universities today: survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all
@@TheGemsbok these are some interesting thoughts. First, I agree that pop-phil and pop-sci is, even as Chesterton noted a century ago, at best useless, and at worse misleading. So we agree on that. As for the professionals, those were who i was aiming my critique at (incidentally it's funny that you mentioned Bertrand Russel, as my opinion of his philosophical critiques is quite close to what is portrayed in the game itself, i.e., it's sophomoric at best). In all of these so-called philosophers, I don't know a single one who claims that there is an ultimate Truth to be found. If you would like to prove me wrong, a simple example of something you find as a compelling source for Truth in the tradition would suffice. But my reading always boils down to a nihilism that is, to be quite frank, uninteresting. I'm very much with Chesterton on his critique of Nietzsche. As for the dominant view in university? This is unsurprising. University has not been a place seeking after excellence in a long time (nor is this the first time this has happened, see e.g., the Cultural Revolution in China). Instead it has been a place dominated by moneyed interest who claim that the concept of competency itself is bigoted and discriminatory. Thus I find the appeal to this authority to be hollow, and am more interested in the arguments and ideas you find compelling from the tradition, rather than pointing at the people in the community who agree with you.
@@TheGemsbok I dont think "The Looker" is a great parody... It is indeed an excellent game which is inspired by Witness, but all its parody elements are kinda stupid.
@@mikl3 There can be a lot of overlap between parody and farce. I would hope it's obvious from this video that I don't agree with almost any of the arguable implicit criticism of The Witness that is present in The Looker---yet I also don't think stupidity precludes The Looker from excellence as ironic mimicry. Considerable cleverness lies behind a lot of apparently stupid parody, from Airplane! to Clue to Sir Thopas.
In contemporary internet parlance, I'd call "The Looker" a high-effort shitpost. And high-effort shitpost are almost always a product of unabashed love for a work. I don't know that it presents any serious critique of "The Witness" outside of affectionate parody and in-jokes for the fandom.
I think the reason why "art games" get derided so much is because very often they don't really... do anything with the fact they're a game There's a story or a philosophical concept you're supposed to think about, which could've been delivered more effectively and concisely as any other medium, but instead you're holding forward for 4 hours straight. A game presenting itself as an "experience" and then being a Philosophy 101 powerpoint presentation, essentially That isn't the case with Blow's games, but a lot of "art games" fall into that trap
Well, most of the art-games are low budged (as high budgets are reserved for entertainment, not art) and thus belong to low-interaction genres (walking simulators, visual novels).
Would be cool if the game gave more scientific/analytic recordings when you beat the normal/logical puzzles and more mystic/meditative recordings when you solve the in-world/lateral thinking puzzles.
Not to be a Jon Blow fanboy (though I grant I can be) but the criticisms of his social media usage and “characteristically obtuse” remark seem unnecessarily petty and not supported by any obvious evidence in the video. Regarding the latter the quote given in the video is taken from a podcast where he was interviewed. Every other quote given is from a written work or scripted video, so they were all stated by their authors after careful consideration, not on the spot. Jon Blow has streamed himself and participated in interviews extensively, but has more rarely given prepared lectures and as far as I know doesn’t do any longform writing. So this style of presentation leaves him open to endless cherrypicked quotes and clips (not necessarily claiming that’s what you’re doing here). It’s worth noting too that he’s explicitly stated that if he thought he could convey the meaning(s) of his games in a medium other than them, he simply wouldn’t make the games. Perhaps a kind of admission that he can’t speak eloquently about the Witness.
There was a time early in the production of this video when specific Tweets and other forms of online engagement by Blow were displayed during the comment about social media in the introduction, in order to validate the sentiment. But I removed them for two reasons: First, I was almost certain that many comments and replies here would be directed exclusively at the included remarks by Blow, rather than the actual content of the interpretations in this video. And second, after investigation I found that one of the Tweets which was to be included was later deleted by Blow. I read that action charitably, as an indication that Blow's stance on the relevant subject has changed; if similar deletion were to later be the fate of some of the other posts still to be included, I would not want to be perceived from then on as criticizing Blow for opinions he no longer holds. Nevertheless, I felt it was important to leave that line in the video---because I did not want to give the impression that my defense of Blow in the introduction was meant as an invalidation of all criticism which he has received (only an invalidation of dismissive criticism of his creative output). Moreover, you are incorrect to assume that all of the quotes other than Blow's are carefully written or scripted. The Roderick quote is part of an unscripted public lecture he ad-libbed from notes---a casual presentation of a topic Roderick knows well, very akin to Blow being formally interviewed about the content of a game he was then actively developing. Speaking for myself, I found that particular Blow quote through someone online linking to it and saying it was one of the rare occasions when he personally addressed the meaning of the game.
@@TheGemsbok Thank you for responding. The point about the Tweets definitely makes sense. And thanks for the correction on the Roderick quote, I did try to look up the sources on each quote enough to verify my point, but was not already familiar with each one, so that's my bad. As is typical for internet commenters I only felt a need to point out what I was critical of but really I liked the video overall and will catch up on others you've uploaded. Since you say you were linked to the one Jon Blow quote you did use, you may or may not be interested (or already know about) a channel on here called "Blow Fan" that shows short clips from his streams. Most of what's on there is no more eloquent than what you have by him already but if you just look up ones about The Witness specifically they may be of interest. He also has ones about Meaning in Art generally and The Death of the Author (spoiler: He is not a fan) that probably have some relevance but admittedly are also not super informative or detailed.
Fun fact: when I recorded that quote, I involuntarily laughed when I got to the end. You can just barely hear me about to break in the last word of it. I almost included some of the laughter in the final track for the video, but I ultimately decided that may arguably undermine some of the things I say in the introduction.
My biggest issue with Johnathan Blow comes from his apparent obsession with muddying up what could be a great gaming experience by having an obviously obtuse and annoying waste of time just to piss off completionists (those who, in theory, would be the ones willing to invest the most time and effort into his game) it's like a realism artist who makes the most realistic painting of a lake only to then intentionally have a single tree without a reflection and adding a single red line randomly just to piss off any fans of realism. (I honestly didn't know about his pretentious and annoying personality until far after I hated him as a game designer)
"artist who makes the most realistic painting of a lake only to then intentionally have a single tree without a reflection and adding a single red line randomly just to piss off any fans of realism" Presumably no serious artist would do that . . . and yet, for some reason, I am reminded of weird phrases like 'The Ambassadors' and 'Holbein.' All joking aside, I can probably be identified from my video on Spelunky 2 as being a completionist. Yet I have no particular objection to anything in either of Blow's games. If I'm thinking of the same elements as you, the several strange timesinks that are tucked away in his games are ones that don't require much active monitoring by the player.
I'm borderline completionist. I read John's time sink puzzles as a message directed at me: "stop playing this game, dont try to finish it, move on with your life". And I respect him for this message. All the time sink challenges are completely optional (even compared to the fact that playing videogames is, like, always optional), time required to beat them is communication in advance. The real challenge here is a courage to say "No, Ill pass". For me, this is far better that some optional challenges in other games (i.e. The Path of Pain) where cost is not known in advance.
Maybe, just, don't do it then? Players love to assume developers are aiming to piss people off with moves like this, yet I found the joke incredibly charming once I realized what the Moriarty puzzle was asking of me.
@@mikl3 thats like giving a piece of poop to someone who asked for seconds when having a dessert. why do you actively do something to annoy your most passionate players? it's very pedantic and annoying.
@@CheesecakeMilitia again. these are parts of the game intentionally designed to make a player waste time if they are going for 100% i assume it is the developer doing that because if it isn't? then what is it? the only people who even know about these parts are the ones going for everything and would have to either waste the time or have an incomplete game in their collection.
Breh i have no idea what you’re saying. I genuinely tried. Part of it might be that english isn’t my first language. Still, I feel like you could’ve talked in much simpler terms, and use straightforward sentence structures.
This video and the comments strike me as incredibly dumb people imagining themselves very smart, and thinking everyone else is dumb for "not getting it." Uh, trust me, we all got it. The tell is always something like, "Clearly you missed X,Y,Z" in the original work, where X,Y,Z are some insanely obvious stuff that literally no one would ever fail to notice. Which leads to... Wait, did YOU think those things were hard to notice? Oh no.
The reason so many people really don’t like the witness is that Blow basically had too much faith in his audience, and most people interpreted the contradiction in the text as being done for its own sake instead of it trying to criticize itself. Also 40 bucks for line puzzles is way too much.
The most profound thing I got from the philosophy of the witness was just this: some people really enjoy naval gazing for the purpose of felling more intelligent or more “enlightened” than others. The digital equivalent of sniffing one’s own farts. Aimless, purposeless, pointless. A game for those who will pull meaning from nothing. Who will find the simple act of pattern recognition to be deeply philosophical despite the fact that there is no actual philosophy here. Meaning is assigned by the player, and can be anything. Anything they prefer or desire. Also known as “pretentiousness”.
@@handtomouth4690 something pretending to be deep is never deep. I don’t need to be an arbiter of anything to tell you that immutable truth. If you found any meaning or philosophy in The Witness or any game like it, then it is only because you made it up in your own head. You pulled it from the ether. That’s not up for debate and only a complete fool or someone gullible will try to argue otherwise.
My own personal interpretation of the whole game was that it was basically a simulator designed to make you experience OCD. The mannerisms of the man behind the camera in the ending cutscene certainly give off that vibe, but having gone through the entire game and solved so many puzzles you feel yourself doing the exact same things like drawing lines or organizing objects in your mind because that's what the game has been training you to do for so many hours.
Quick note: If anyone is curious about the meaning of the words ‘formalism,’ ‘structuralism,’ and ‘poststructuralism’ that appear in the conclusion, they should check out the original article version of this analysis, linked in the description. The section of that article entitled “What is Deconstruction?” contains a mini history of 20th-century literary theory (which was cut from the script of the video for pacing reasons).
I would note here that this was a first explanation of structuralism I was able to understand. I have technical background, and I have made several attempts to understand literary theory, including lecture series on the philosophy of art, lecture series on literary theory etc. But only now it kinda clicked.
This one of the only spots on TH-cam where “literary analysis” really MEANS “literary analysis”
For me, The Witness is a love letter to *discovery*. Every joyful moment while playing came from a moment of discovering something new - from unlocking a new area, to the intense feeling of satisfaction any time you figure out and master a new gameplay mechanic. The entire game is carefully paced to make you enjoy exploring it - to make you fully realize how intrinsically pleasurable that process is, the process of gaining understanding, and memories and forming connections between things.
The 'reset' sequence at the end is, to me, a clear nod to this - the resetting of the island is contrasts the fact that, conversely, you cannot 'reset' your gained intuition. You will still see the environmental puzzles, you will still know how the mechanics work. This idea of "intuition = progress" is further reinforced by the many instances in which the game prevents you from going too out-of-order solely through the use of initially obscure mechanics that you first have to find 'tutorials' for in the world, before you may unlock certain other panels and areas.
In addition to the gameplay itself, the collection of video/audio logs - ranging from scientific discovery to personal and spiritual self-discovery, all cluster around the idea of people exploring the world or themselves - discovering and, dare I say, *witnessing* reality.
Very well said! That way of describing the game meshes nicely with the second interpretation presented here.
Incredible video, I’m glad there’s at least a few channels that are willing to take video games as art seriously and not just dismiss it because it’s unfamiliar
When it comes to stuff like this vid, and the ones he made for Dark Souls and Papers Please, there’s no one on the same level as this guy. Criminally underrated channel.
This is, the, absolute, best video about this game, or almost any other game for that matter that I've ever seen. This is my favourite game, and I'm thankful for you making this video, and sharing with the world.
This video should be the most popular, not Joseph Anderson’s.
Jesus christ dude thats a brutally incredible analysis
Amazing. This is like a response video to the Electron Dance video, and then also a response video to its own response video at the same time. This man is playing 4D TH-cam Analysis Chess over here.
My favourite new creator just dropped a 46 minutes video about my favourite game outta nowhere. Today was a good day 🙂
5th time rewatching this video and each time I understand more and more, you’ve really made an incredible video. I wish this video was the most popular one and not Joseph Anderson’s.
Btw, at 3:38, is that a reference to The Looker? Haha
i know this is coming from a totally different perspective, but to me the witness has always been a video game about "learning". that's the main thing you do in the game, learn without being taught. the main design challenge of the game was how to hide it's lessons (or rules) in a way that encouraged exploration and critical thinking. i find the witness fascinating as a "discussion" on learning, or put more simply, how to make complicated game without any tutorial (and what the implications of the can be).
Sounds good to me! In fact, I don't think that's a totally different perspective. That matches up quite well with the second interpretation offered in the video.
Probably the most in depth reading of The Witness that I've seen. I like to think of the game as a labyrinth, you circle around the island contemplating until you reach its center. Of course, the game also provides you with things to contemplate or else there wouldn't be much point.
Recently I came back to this game and finished it, but I couldnt find a good criticism of the game, until this video. I think people dismiss it as a simple puzzle game too quickly, and dont bother to connect what is being said in the audios and the gameplay, and i think you did an excellent job showing this connection. As a side note, I didnt think of deconstruction while playing the game, but i came to a similar interpretation as yours, so i probably should think of deconstruction more consciously. Again, great video!
Thank you. I got some new perspectives to think about.
Playing the Witness was a profound experience for me. This video really helped me understand why. Amazing work!
When I first watched this video because of my personal biases I assumed that there could be only one truth either the analytical, science based view of reality or the zen/ self actualization view. I sneered at other perspectives in this game because of my bias towards the zen perspective. But after listening to the quote at 31:05 and this video as a whole. It really helped me open my mind and see different perspectives. And a value I hold is if you are ever sneering at something and you want to look the other way. You should always investigate that perspective. Thanks a lot for this video genuinely man you’re the best!
Fantastic video
This is a big one Gems, worth the wait - although I might have to rewatch it to get it all lol
I love this game and despite my STEM background and being quite bad at literary anything, this video kept my attention all the way through (despite my ADHD!). I don’t understand everything, but I keep rewatching it in an effort to understand better.
That was incredible i im not even sure i understood 1/2 of what was said. Im definitely going to rewatch this in like a month. I cant believe that your not more popular!
Thank you for that very kind comment!
you deserve a lot more views and subs
Thanks for saying so!
This year, TH-cam's almighty algorithm finally broke its trend of completely ignoring my channel, so there is some hope for more views and subs in the future. But either way, I'm just going to keep making videos.
Talk about a game that lends itself well to analysis. Blow has serious STEMbrain but the game is great. I've said this before but nobody on this platform is doing what you're doing, this is the only place for gaming analysis through the lenses of literary theory even remotely of this caliber.
so true!
Top tier
wow. that's a competent commentary
Amazing video!
I think I would enjoy seeing you make an analysis of Outer Wilds. There is a lot of interesting topics you might be able to to tease out from the game
Electron Dance
this is brilliant.
I'm really bad at puzzle games but I love watching videos about them - wat do
Give the game a shot, even though you have seen a lot already
The witness was my favourite game ever. Just wanted to say that
The Talos Principle, and to a greater degree the sequel have a lot in common, also The Witness from twelve monkeys the tv series, is also another interesting use of this concept, with perception literally forming their version of reality, around a scientific endeavour built around a religion, based on a figure whose existence isn't proven until the very end of the series.
Thank you!!
You are very welcome. Thanks for watching!
Good video
Hell of a video.
I don't know, though. I mean, not to get all "it's not that deep" on it, because The Witness is nothing if not layered, but I don't think these readings are particularly contradictory? And I think The Witness is all but openly _about_ how these readings and the lessons of them are not only all valid despite their apparent opposition but all necessary for The Witness to be coherent. In fact I think the observed shortcoming of the meditative reading, that it is incomplete, is implicit in the true ending, which shows that the grand intent of figuratively and literally codifying enlightenment and selling it as a video game failed, and my own interpretation is that it failed exactly _because_ the aim of a genuine meditative experience in which you fully embrace the entirety of a moment is fundamentally incompatible with the chosen medium of a video game (in or out of universe, take your pick) in which respect for the player's time is the cardinal rule. Maybe you can even take another step back and say it failed because even beyond incompatibility with a video game, it's incompatible with a consumer product (again, in or out of universe) that needs to be sold, bought, and consumed.
The Witness is about the bridge between entertainment and meaning, and about how you _can't_ bridge them, not absolutely, even though you can make entertainment meaningful and meaning entertaining, about how you can put Truth in a video game, even a Truth that transcends video games, but nobody will care enough to look for it there unless you also make the game enjoyable to play in ways that are philosophically frivolous. The in-game game, The Island, is about the grand synthesis and applying the analytic method and the texture of video games to lead the player into discovering and accepting Enlightenment, while The Witness (Thekla Inc, 2016) is about how that's a stupid idea that doesn't work, you fool, you absolute buffoon, even though there _is_ some part of Truth in the act of the search, and of the mastery of the available material, and of immersing yourself in logic puzzles so thoroughly that you can learn to feel your way through twenty of them instinctively under time pressure, and that that's ultimately meaningless, but the fact that you cared enough to do it is meaningful, but you _wouldn't_ care if the surrounding world of puzzle design wasn't so _basically_ compelling, if the game it was all put in wasn't so openly awe-inspiring as to convince people there must be meaning in it. I think each of the videos in the windmill outlines a lesson that the designers of The Island failed to properly understand which is why their grand experiment seemed to fry the beta tester's brain, and I'd list them, but this damn comment is already too long and there's still a long parenthetical coming. Even though they _did_ acknowledge that they were fallible and could only aspire to Capital T Truth, they still made their simulation indefinite until the player could see the matrix, so to speak, which is a conceit that could only have worked if they really did grasp that Capital T Truth and understand it so well that they could codify it.
(Also I do not agree with the Dirac quote being intended to openly contradict any of the others, because the whole context of that quote in the game is that the developers don't want to put that quote in the game because it doesn't really advocate for anything, only against religion, and other quotes from the Underground also complain that they couldn't find good quotes from materialist atheists that had the clarity and compelling self-assurance of the more openly religious or mystical pieces, save for a quote from Carl Sagan, which they couldn't afford to license, even though they apparently _did_ get some good quotes from Eddington, Einstein, Feynman, etc about the religiosity that underlies science.)
Is this even a refutation of anything in the video? Hell if I know, man. Hell if I know. The only thing we've managed to deconstruct is my brain.
Thanks for a great comment! A few thoughts in response . . .
Yes, you are right to conclude your comment as you do, because there's ultimately a huge amount of overlap between what you've written and what is argued in this video. I can't help but smile at your initial instinct to say the game may not be especially deep or ambiguous, given the final form of the rest of your response. Especially when you say it may not be possible to capture capital-T Truth in a video game (the exact perspective of the third interpretation presented here).
But as to a few points of apparent disagreement:
You are correct that the developer characters swiftly disavow the Dirac quote after reading it. But it is still a voice that is present in the game, and I am quick to point out later in that same section that the developer characters are a further set of such voices. At that point in the video, I could just as easily have played the clip of the developer characters deriding belief in "goofy bible stories," which is a clip that arguably contradicts the work of Augustine to the same degree that Dirac does. There is also a definite _methodological_ contradiction between the quotes by figures like Clifford and Feynman on the one hand, and those by the Taoists, Buddhists, and Sufis on the other. Moreover, I highlight that the reason the dev characters fail to find mature representation for atheism and materialism is not because such work is impossible to find, but rather precisely because they are themselves biased human operatives---who exclude the work of nearly all serious philosophers of the past few centuries.
Your point about the video clips aligning with ways in which 'the island game' fails at its potential in-universe aims is an interesting one. But to say that each of them is indicative of "a lesson that the designers of The Island failed to properly understand" seems like a very odd way of putting it, given that the clips in question . . . are on the island. I see no reason to surmise their presence is distinct from the audio clips, in the sense of being selected and included with intention by the developer characters.
At any rate, I don't think any of the readings are incomplete (or in other words: I don't think any reading can be complete in an exclusive way). You're exactly right that you can read the game in the way that you read the game, with total consistency and clarity and completeness. In fact, the point of deconstruction is precisely that you are right about that . . . and yet that you are no more right than someone who builds a different reading, which could with similar effort become no less consistent, no less clear, no less complete. For example, it is open---and, indeed, easy---to read the ambiguous actions of the individual in the 'true' ending in a variety of ways. Strictly speaking, it's not even _necessary_ to say that the island was a failure based on what we see in that cutscene (although both of the formalist readings presented in this video do say that, in their own ways).
@@TheGemsbok See, that's just it! I feel _certain_ that I disagree, quite vehemently, with you, about _something_. Now, if only I could figure out what it is...
I certainly do not mean to _actually_ suggest The Witness isn't deep. It's just... Okay. If The Witness is a deconstruction of itself (being as how the Island is largely (but not totally!) identical with The Witness), is a deconstructionist reading of it particularly deconstructionist, or is it just... literal? This is _kind_ of what I'm getting at calling the Island a failure, I think the developers thought they were making something that would teach, if not a single Truth, a single method of perception that could bridge together all the philosophies and intellectual traditions they cite in it, the whole way from Burke to Gangaji, a single conception of Truth-_Seeking_ if you will, with the method for unlocking the exit being intended to be a test for if you've absorbed the lesson. I take from the hotel-like surroundings in the true ending and the recurring logo that the whole endeavour is capitalist; in a world where you can book a flight to space, why not sell Enlightenment? The developers are clearly well-resourced and driven and not cowboys. They curated an excellent archive of musings on the subject of truth-seeking and expertly wove them into the Island (see: how there's always a metaphorical link between where you find each recording and its content). I think they understand the significance of this material... but I also think they missed something in it and that the reasons their interactive experience seemed to take such a toll on the player instead of enlightening them is _because_ they missed that their collected materials invite a deconstructionist reading and not a single perfect one.
Burke: You've made a work of art, and it's fundamentally just expressive of your own perspective, dummy!
Feynman: You're guiding the reader to a conclusion instead of teaching them how to conclude, dummy!
Tarkovski: You've overinvested in a big grand meaningful quest and it's consumed you, dummy!
Moriarty: The point of the game has to first and foremost be the game itself, dummy!
Spira: You're obsessed with perceiving the world instead of your own luminous consciousness, dummy!
Gangaji: You're trying to _further_ all these truths, but you forgot to stop and contemplate them, dummy!
It's like... they've made a sublime puzzle game, and they don't understand the meaning inherent in just that aspect of their creation, but in their attempt to _contain_ and _package_ all that wisdom they've undermined it. I think. I think that's what's happening here.
My head hurts. This was a _really_ good video.
@@TheGemsbok >Moreover, I highlight that the reason the dev characters fail to find mature representation for atheism and materialism is not because such work is impossible to find, but rather precisely because they are themselves biased human operatives---who exclude the work of nearly all serious philosophers of the past few centuries.
I don't know any serious materialist atheist ever, much less "serious philosophers of the past few centuries", who have claimed that there is a Truth to be found. This is in stark contrast to Augustine, who absolutely did believe that, and a rich intellectual tradition around it which has yet to be seriously challenged in a meaningful way besides sheer force of mockery, which isn't an argument.
@@VACatholic I'm not speaking of pop-phil or pop-sci figures who mock and otherwise offer nothing of substance.
I'm speaking of professionals working in the field of philosophy of religion---people intimately familiar with the intellectual tradition toward which you're gesturing. I suppose 'serious' is a word with enough ambiguity to cast aspersions on any reference, but I have in mind atheists and agnostics like Thomas Nagel, Bertrand Russell, Anthony Kenny, J.L. Mackie, John Dewey, Jeremy Bentham, A.J. Ayer, David Hume, J.M.E. McTaggart, Hilary Putnam, Peter Singer, James Rachels, Shelly Kagan, John Searle, John Rawls, W.V.O. Quine, Rudolf Carnap, Graham Oppy, and on and on.
Religious philosophers have made, and continue to make, tremendous contributions to the subject. But they are not alone in doing so.
In fact, the best survey of the field we have available to us points toward atheism being the majority position among professional philosophers holding faculty positions at universities today: survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all
@@TheGemsbok these are some interesting thoughts.
First, I agree that pop-phil and pop-sci is, even as Chesterton noted a century ago, at best useless, and at worse misleading. So we agree on that.
As for the professionals, those were who i was aiming my critique at (incidentally it's funny that you mentioned Bertrand Russel, as my opinion of his philosophical critiques is quite close to what is portrayed in the game itself, i.e., it's sophomoric at best). In all of these so-called philosophers, I don't know a single one who claims that there is an ultimate Truth to be found. If you would like to prove me wrong, a simple example of something you find as a compelling source for Truth in the tradition would suffice. But my reading always boils down to a nihilism that is, to be quite frank, uninteresting. I'm very much with Chesterton on his critique of Nietzsche.
As for the dominant view in university? This is unsurprising. University has not been a place seeking after excellence in a long time (nor is this the first time this has happened, see e.g., the Cultural Revolution in China). Instead it has been a place dominated by moneyed interest who claim that the concept of competency itself is bigoted and discriminatory. Thus I find the appeal to this authority to be hollow, and am more interested in the arguments and ideas you find compelling from the tradition, rather than pointing at the people in the community who agree with you.
So "The Looker" is the deconstruction of the deconstruction then?
The Looker is a really excellent parody! . . . but I don't think I'd call it a deconstruction.
@@TheGemsbok I dont think "The Looker" is a great parody... It is indeed an excellent game which is inspired by Witness, but all its parody elements are kinda stupid.
@@mikl3 There can be a lot of overlap between parody and farce.
I would hope it's obvious from this video that I don't agree with almost any of the arguable implicit criticism of The Witness that is present in The Looker---yet I also don't think stupidity precludes The Looker from excellence as ironic mimicry.
Considerable cleverness lies behind a lot of apparently stupid parody, from Airplane! to Clue to Sir Thopas.
@@TheGemsbok Well, if you are putting "The Looker" in such a context... I should re-evaluate it
In contemporary internet parlance, I'd call "The Looker" a high-effort shitpost. And high-effort shitpost are almost always a product of unabashed love for a work. I don't know that it presents any serious critique of "The Witness" outside of affectionate parody and in-jokes for the fandom.
Surprised when discussing the slow pace that you didn't bring up the moon environmental puzzle. That one really felt like it was trolling the players.
Okay, but why does all of this sounds like the narrator during that part of when you are following the line in The Stanley Parable?
I think the reason why "art games" get derided so much is because very often they don't really... do anything with the fact they're a game
There's a story or a philosophical concept you're supposed to think about, which could've been delivered more effectively and concisely as any other medium, but instead you're holding forward for 4 hours straight. A game presenting itself as an "experience" and then being a Philosophy 101 powerpoint presentation, essentially
That isn't the case with Blow's games, but a lot of "art games" fall into that trap
Well, most of the art-games are low budged (as high budgets are reserved for entertainment, not art) and thus belong to low-interaction genres (walking simulators, visual novels).
Would be cool if the game gave more scientific/analytic recordings when you beat the normal/logical puzzles and more mystic/meditative recordings when you solve the in-world/lateral thinking puzzles.
Not to be a Jon Blow fanboy (though I grant I can be) but the criticisms of his social media usage and “characteristically obtuse” remark seem unnecessarily petty and not supported by any obvious evidence in the video. Regarding the latter the quote given in the video is taken from a podcast where he was interviewed. Every other quote given is from a written work or scripted video, so they were all stated by their authors after careful consideration, not on the spot. Jon Blow has streamed himself and participated in interviews extensively, but has more rarely given prepared lectures and as far as I know doesn’t do any longform writing. So this style of presentation leaves him open to endless cherrypicked quotes and clips (not necessarily claiming that’s what you’re doing here). It’s worth noting too that he’s explicitly stated that if he thought he could convey the meaning(s) of his games in a medium other than them, he simply wouldn’t make the games. Perhaps a kind of admission that he can’t speak eloquently about the Witness.
There was a time early in the production of this video when specific Tweets and other forms of online engagement by Blow were displayed during the comment about social media in the introduction, in order to validate the sentiment. But I removed them for two reasons:
First, I was almost certain that many comments and replies here would be directed exclusively at the included remarks by Blow, rather than the actual content of the interpretations in this video. And second, after investigation I found that one of the Tweets which was to be included was later deleted by Blow. I read that action charitably, as an indication that Blow's stance on the relevant subject has changed; if similar deletion were to later be the fate of some of the other posts still to be included, I would not want to be perceived from then on as criticizing Blow for opinions he no longer holds.
Nevertheless, I felt it was important to leave that line in the video---because I did not want to give the impression that my defense of Blow in the introduction was meant as an invalidation of all criticism which he has received (only an invalidation of dismissive criticism of his creative output).
Moreover, you are incorrect to assume that all of the quotes other than Blow's are carefully written or scripted. The Roderick quote is part of an unscripted public lecture he ad-libbed from notes---a casual presentation of a topic Roderick knows well, very akin to Blow being formally interviewed about the content of a game he was then actively developing. Speaking for myself, I found that particular Blow quote through someone online linking to it and saying it was one of the rare occasions when he personally addressed the meaning of the game.
@@TheGemsbok Thank you for responding. The point about the Tweets definitely makes sense. And thanks for the correction on the Roderick quote, I did try to look up the sources on each quote enough to verify my point, but was not already familiar with each one, so that's my bad.
As is typical for internet commenters I only felt a need to point out what I was critical of but really I liked the video overall and will catch up on others you've uploaded. Since you say you were linked to the one Jon Blow quote you did use, you may or may not be interested (or already know about) a channel on here called "Blow Fan" that shows short clips from his streams. Most of what's on there is no more eloquent than what you have by him already but if you just look up ones about The Witness specifically they may be of interest. He also has ones about Meaning in Art generally and The Death of the Author (spoiler: He is not a fan) that probably have some relevance but admittedly are also not super informative or detailed.
Objectivity and subjectivity are a unified, closed loop called God. The gamut of quotes are not contradictory, they are a synthesis.
WHAT IS IT LIKE TO BE SEEING THINGS
WHAT IS IT LIKE YO BE HEARING THINGS
NOBODY KNOWS. STUB YOUR TOES.
Fun fact: when I recorded that quote, I involuntarily laughed when I got to the end. You can just barely hear me about to break in the last word of it.
I almost included some of the laughter in the final track for the video, but I ultimately decided that may arguably undermine some of the things I say in the introduction.
I wonder if anyone even knows what proteus is
I LOVE THE WITNESS. RELIGION.
The idea of "Games as art" is undervaluing both games and art.
My biggest issue with Johnathan Blow comes from his apparent obsession with muddying up what could be a great gaming experience by having an obviously obtuse and annoying waste of time just to piss off completionists (those who, in theory, would be the ones willing to invest the most time and effort into his game) it's like a realism artist who makes the most realistic painting of a lake only to then intentionally have a single tree without a reflection and adding a single red line randomly just to piss off any fans of realism. (I honestly didn't know about his pretentious and annoying personality until far after I hated him as a game designer)
"artist who makes the most realistic painting of a lake only to then intentionally have a single tree without a reflection and adding a single red line randomly just to piss off any fans of realism"
Presumably no serious artist would do that . . . and yet, for some reason, I am reminded of weird phrases like 'The Ambassadors' and 'Holbein.'
All joking aside, I can probably be identified from my video on Spelunky 2 as being a completionist. Yet I have no particular objection to anything in either of Blow's games. If I'm thinking of the same elements as you, the several strange timesinks that are tucked away in his games are ones that don't require much active monitoring by the player.
I'm borderline completionist. I read John's time sink puzzles as a message directed at me: "stop playing this game, dont try to finish it, move on with your life". And I respect him for this message. All the time sink challenges are completely optional (even compared to the fact that playing videogames is, like, always optional), time required to beat them is communication in advance. The real challenge here is a courage to say "No, Ill pass". For me, this is far better that some optional challenges in other games (i.e. The Path of Pain) where cost is not known in advance.
Maybe, just, don't do it then? Players love to assume developers are aiming to piss people off with moves like this, yet I found the joke incredibly charming once I realized what the Moriarty puzzle was asking of me.
@@mikl3 thats like giving a piece of poop to someone who asked for seconds when having a dessert. why do you actively do something to annoy your most passionate players?
it's very pedantic and annoying.
@@CheesecakeMilitia again. these are parts of the game intentionally designed to make a player waste time if they are going for 100%
i assume it is the developer doing that because if it isn't? then what is it?
the only people who even know about these parts are the ones going for everything and would have to either waste the time or have an incomplete game in their collection.
Breh i have no idea what you’re saying.
I genuinely tried. Part of it might be that english isn’t my first language. Still, I feel like you could’ve talked in much simpler terms, and use straightforward sentence structures.
This video and the comments strike me as incredibly dumb people imagining themselves very smart, and thinking everyone else is dumb for "not getting it." Uh, trust me, we all got it. The tell is always something like, "Clearly you missed X,Y,Z" in the original work, where X,Y,Z are some insanely obvious stuff that literally no one would ever fail to notice. Which leads to... Wait, did YOU think those things were hard to notice? Oh no.
The reason so many people really don’t like the witness is that Blow basically had too much faith in his audience, and most people interpreted the contradiction in the text as being done for its own sake instead of it trying to criticize itself.
Also 40 bucks for line puzzles is way too much.
It's a game.
The most profound thing I got from the philosophy of the witness was just this: some people really enjoy naval gazing for the purpose of felling more intelligent or more “enlightened” than others. The digital equivalent of sniffing one’s own farts. Aimless, purposeless, pointless. A game for those who will pull meaning from nothing. Who will find the simple act of pattern recognition to be deeply philosophical despite the fact that there is no actual philosophy here. Meaning is assigned by the player, and can be anything. Anything they prefer or desire.
Also known as “pretentiousness”.
Right, you are the arbiter of what is or isn't meaning, or what is or isn't philosophy.
@@handtomouth4690 something pretending to be deep is never deep. I don’t need to be an arbiter of anything to tell you that immutable truth. If you found any meaning or philosophy in The Witness or any game like it, then it is only because you made it up in your own head. You pulled it from the ether. That’s not up for debate and only a complete fool or someone gullible will try to argue otherwise.
Yeah I still hate it.
My own personal interpretation of the whole game was that it was basically a simulator designed to make you experience OCD. The mannerisms of the man behind the camera in the ending cutscene certainly give off that vibe, but having gone through the entire game and solved so many puzzles you feel yourself doing the exact same things like drawing lines or organizing objects in your mind because that's what the game has been training you to do for so many hours.
If there weren't any of the audio and video clips, I would think that is a pretty good theory.
That's more like the "Tetris Effect". And the pause screen, where it looks like closing your eyes, hints to that too i think