It seems still nobody sees this game quite the way I do, so I finally decided to post my Massive Theory of The Beginner's Guide for Game Developers.
First, SPOILER WARNING, I will discuss the entire plot line and for the sake of readability it will have unmarked spoilers.
Second, WAFFLE WARNING. Just look at this post, yikes.
My first thought when looking at this game has been to willfully ignore all the melodrama. This is mostly personal preference, though there are lines about Coda's state of mind that support the idea that his distress has been largely overstated by the narrator.
My second thought has been to try to answer the question that the trailer for the game is built around: "What is the connection between the games people make and the person they are?" and assume that TBG is Wreden's attempt at doing exactly that, seasoned with a dozen confirmations that it cannot work (the main storyline being one of them).
As a result of this stance and from a number of metaphors in the game I have looked at TGB as a Davey Wreden's autobiographical dev diary, which is not a new idea but one that I hope to support by looking more at level design and metaphors than lines of dialogue.
Because there are too many Davey's in this games I'll just explain my views on the characters right away:
First exhibit in favor of the dev diary theory is the ENTERING/EXITING sandwich of levels.
STAIRS: You are now entering the process of game development, by gathering game ideas.
Possibly harder than it looks! Note the orange-and-grey color scheme. This orange color is a telltale sign of peeking behind the curtains of game development. In the Source engine level editor (Hammer), debug textures are orange.
PUZZLE: You are exiting the process of game development. Effectively closing the puzzle door marks the end of game dev. This creates the puzzle space which game players get to access when you open the second door.
Note how the orange-on-grey concrete theme reaches up to, but not past, the Puzzle itself. Traveled in this direction, the puzzle refers to the act of releasing a game, thus creating the "game space". More on this later. The end-of-level reveal also conveys the ideas of roads-not-traveled, other colored-paths (other game ideas) that you might have considered as a dev but the player will never be aware of. This is one of many confirmation that the final game gives a very limited view of what goes on in the creator's mind.
Using this pair of levels as a decoding key, let's look at DOWN/NOTES as Wreden's actual experiences with development.
DOWN: Why would the narrator bring up the Source engine in the coffee shop?
The coffee shop stands for the Source engine, and uses the appearance of a realistic location. The abstract space below is anything but realistic! It uses the orange-and-grey palette, for game ideas. At this point they fit neither the engine nor reality. What's the missing element for actually producing something? Hard work. As in time spent on a task, for which the prison is the most literal metaphor. Also note how Wreden decided against having players actually spend an hour inside. This internal compromise being presented as the Narrator fixing Coda's unplayable idea (some people are down on the Narrator but personally I'm thankful). Exiting the prison gets you a finished game, seen as the door puzzle. Briefly the color scheme changes to red/black. It could be a sign that the creator has already moved on from his initial mindset? The window still has a view of the "bottom of the universe". Meeting the audience part 1: Players who want to win. If the game is about your dev life then winning means getting access to your mindset during development (orange). At this point it's obvious that the puzzle is one-way only, you can't un-release the game and invite people over. Even you cannot go back, and unsurprisingly nothing you say is helpful. There are various types of BS interpretations you can serve to your audience. You're effectively treating them the way the Narrator is treating you throughout the game! Meeting the audience part 2: Players who do not seek victory and do not demand answers from you. They make a big deal of the puzzle's dark space. They like space I guess ;) The lamppost is (among other things) the satisfaction of receiving validation from the community. In the case of Wreden, I'll just assume this is the experience of releasing The Stanley Parable as a mod.
More generally, the lamppost is the idea of a motivating goal/reward. Winning a game, winning at game development. From this point Wreden's motivation changes.
NOTES: Wreden now has two motivations for making games. Coda's enjoyment of the process, and the Narrator's the attention of an audience.
This is the game where Narrator and Coda meet! In practice it means that Wreden starts considering player opinions at every step of development. If DOWN is Stanley Parable (the mod) then NOTES is Stanley Parable (the remake). If Wreden's idea of player concerns are blue and his original intent is orange, what do you make of a dot painting that is mostly blue? Moving on, the metaphor changes. The walls turn back to orange, the obsession with player feedback turns to whispers. This time orange bleeds out from the puzzle door, all the way to the typewriters. There is not holding back of the dev persona. Note how the single after-puzzle note is a tech-support request. For the typewriter room, see Wreden's talk for the Aalto University from 23:15 or so.
ESCAPE: Well-trodden depression interpretation.
Note how the first prison has framed pictures of a city and yellow bubble on the stairs? Downtown, bubbles, downtown, bubbles, bottom of a pit Sounds to me like something really likes beer ;) Note how the orange-and-grey room seems to give straight answers, which turn out to be worthless. Compare with your own "helpful" tips in DOWN, and the Narrator's. On the topic of hindsight, which keeps popping up in the game: hindsight is unavoidable when recounting the past. So in order to express how one used to be depressed, one should make a game where one used to be in prison? "It works because the prison is not actually in it." Otherwise it looks like an melodramatic call for help even if the author only intended to be factual, detached or anything else.
HOUSE: Wreden taking care of himself. See Idle Thumbs podcast at 1:11:00 (Dec 2014)
The dialogue system was improved, which is BS because it obviously works the same. Furthermore, from that point onward they're all deeply flawed. It's as though gamey dialogue trees were an awkward way to share personal experiences, eh. In this level the dialogue system is sort of non-committally letting you choose responses but the conversation cannot be steered anywhere.
LECTURE: Maybe the Aalto University talk (April 2015). Not sure of fast Wreden works but it's at least plausible.
The dialogue system now highlights the correct answer. It steers you. You probably pick the silly choices anyway.
STAGE: Big changes here! This is less a game diary entry and more an expose on how game diaries suck.
This time you get told off just for trying to use the dialogue system. Basic premise is ridiculously stilted. Pinball bumpers for social anxiety? Really now. Herded away from the lamppost as the last nail on the coffin of concept of a diary in video game form.
I hold that this level marks a shift from TBG being a fair attempt at autobiography, to being about how games suck for autobiographies. But in order to build my killer argument for this idea I need to take a step back and consider the entire structure of the game from WHISPERS to the EPILOGUE, this time from the point of view of the players of someone's diary game. Ending spoiler warning, etc.
(1/2)