The following will contain spoilers for Playdead's Inside and it's secret ending.

While much can be said for the surface level narrative of Inside, I have become more engrossed in a theory that Inside is in fact reflective of game development as a whole. This notion was ignited after viewing the secret ending, where it is that the boy is being controlled from the very beginning. The secret ending is pretty clear that without the machine hooked up to those monitors, the boy goes limp and inert. To me, this breaks the theory that the blob is controlling the boy.

The One Who is in Control

So in that case, what is the machine?

I believe it's us, the players. It's small machine hooked up to a few monitors, in a small room. It's not a hulking monstrosity, and it's got multiple cables, as if it is controlling multiple characters. The fact that it's necessary to collect everything in the game and then solve a very niche puzzle in order to even see the ending rationalizes it too. Once we are done with a game, 100%, all that's left is for us to unplug and move on. The cleanest evidence however is the most simple one:

We know the machine controls the boy, and we are the ones controlling the boy. The machine controls the boy, therefore we are the machine.

Beginning with this discovery, we can then go back to the beginning and see how elements of game development surface in various moments throughout Inside.

The Forest of Pre-Production

When making a sequel, or pseudo-sequel we see games fall back on existing mechanics, and then iterate and build upon these mechanics, rather than starting from scratch. It is not by accident that both Limbo and Inside start in a forest, and share similar mechanics. The first puzzle one solves within in inside, is the same as the one in Limbo. Walk right, drag an object, climb up and over an obstacle. This is the beginning of formalizing the new experience that Inside will create that will set itself apart from Limbo. Note that in these early portions, the prevailing theme is one of a hunt, or a search, where the masked men use flashlights and dogs to hunt down the boy. This I believe is meant to evoke the search of ideas and concepts that make up the Pre-Production cycle of development.

Farming Ideas

By the time the boy reaches the barn, we have already seen a few sequences that have set Inside apart from Limbo. We make a long descent into a lake, but there is no boat for us, but an introduction to an important mechanic in Inside, swimming. Similarly, the encounter with the possessed pig recalls the parasites in Limbo which forced movement, and the evasion and baiting strategies record for negotiating the encounters with the large spider. The pig is even defeated with a similar technique: grabbing onto it's weak point, and pulling, until it is ripped out. Yet, Inside immediately uses this as a literal stepping stone (the pig being the stone) to unveil another new mechanic: the mind control helmet.

The chicks that begin swarming around the boy once he passes the cornfield before this sequence could represent the birth of these new ideas and concepts. This is most telling when they are actually used in puzzle, sucked up into a machine and used topple another stepping stone for the boy. Conceptually, this embodies the gathering of ideas, organizing them, and utilizing them to fulfill a set goal.

Performance Anxiety

Moving past the wide outdoor environments, further into the constrained factories and research centre, elements of core development and showcasing surface. Another early sequence where the boy falls into the line up of drones and has to jump and spin to keep up the guise could refer to per-release game previews. The several people watching this performance this are the many people who are watching the game and evaluating the performance. It's important to note, that these people are also masked and anonymous, similar to how internet and twitch viewers are. The fact that you are so harshly punished for not performing to spec represents the severe performance anxiety that can come of showing off the game to such an audience. Another key point is that the boy is not welcome here, he has not been assimilated into the game yet, and is considered again to an outlier and promptly removed from the stage if he does not perform correctly.

Watery Developments

What part then do aquatic monsters and submarines play, for example? Are they representative of the period where games go quiet, while everyone is hard at work and play testers are picking apart the work? This would be a likely interpretation, as the puzzle solving elements of dealing with the creature does invoke methods of playtesting, namely repetition, trial and error, and AI manipulation. Additionally, while in the submarine, the mechanic of breaking through barriers is frequently used an repeated. This is not unlike the sensation during development when milestones are reached, mechanics are implemented, and other 'breakthroughs' are reached. Sometimes, during this work, developers will surface briefly, unveiling a portion of the game before promptly submerging into their work. And what of the new life the aquatic creature gives the boy? A spur of inspiration? The drive developers feel to inject new life into the game during troubled development? Perhaps. These are the elements I am most unclear on.

Of Blobs and Devs

At last, finally, we reach the "dark project" itself (the blob). I believe that this is in fact, the game itself. All the researchers are the people that invested in and developed the game, shaping it and forming it. The game is portrayed as a human blobby mess because, well, that's what making a game feels like sometimes. So many people collaborating together, all these different pieces coming together that it is a miracle that it all sticks together, and actually works surprisingly well together. Everyone has role and needs to be flexible to adapt to shifting conditions.

Eventually, the game is released, and the developers lose control, and it's free to go into the hands of people. Sometimes the devs step in and help it get where needs to go, opening a door, or a hatch, but for the most part, it's on it's own, now in the hands of the player. After a rocky launch, it's out in the world, ready to be absorbed and contemplated. This is why there are so many people simply watching; so many people had their eye on this game, and now more than ever, more people are watching games as well as (or rather than) playing them.

The Sacrificial Lamb

I thought it very interesting that the CEO of the corporation in the game stands in front of the blob and the window. He seems afraid of it, but he doesn't move, and also cushions the landing, sacrificing himself. This could represent either a cathartic moment with regards to publishers, or representative of how indie CEO's put a lot on the line supporting a game, and unlike the employees, can't run away from a project they have created.

A Look Inside

Contextualizing the game in this manner, the game comes together as a rather cohesive package as an allegory to the anxieties regarding game development. A game project is not an easy thing to wrap ones mind around, and I feel that Inside manages to capture the darker emotions that developers experience during a project. In this view, the title is instantly rationalized as well. There is a particular detail that sufficiently gives the game it's thesis as soon as it is launched. It's not simply Inside, but "Playdead's Inside".

And Playdead's Inside is exactly that.

Author's Note: Thank you for taking the time to read through my theories! I'm still in the process of piecing together the different elements of this fascinating game (what about the big pulse on the bridge? Marketing perhaps?), and will likely be updating this blog as I uncover more. I'd love to hear more from others on viewing the game under this lens.

This is a very thoughtful and interesting analysis. I particularly liked your thoughts on the "blob". Tying in the employees opening hatches and doors with post-release developer cleanup like patches/coverage (I assume these are at least part of what you meant) made me smile. I really like it when a game inspires people to observe and analyze to lengths like these. Usually makes for great material.

I daresay I enjoyed this post more than Inside itself, which seems fitting somehow. On a related note, I wonder which part of game development parallels the boring first half of the game?

I'm deliberately being a bit of an ass, but I mean it when I say this was an enjoyable read. My lack of enjoyment of the source material doesn't have to mean being blind to good game crit. Well done.

@poobumbuttThank you for your kind words :D

I'm actually considering going back and adding a section discussing that first half of the game. I'm still thinking about how it fits in, but my current theory is that, if we define the actual factories and research centers as "core development", I would say the first half of the game represents conceptualization and pre-production.

I don't think it's by accident that both Limbo and Inside start in a forest, and share similar mechanics. When making a sequel, or pseudo-sequel we see games fall back on existing mechanics, and then think about how these mechanics can be modified and built upon, rather than starting from scratch. Small sections in the early portions reflect different elements that go into formalizing early development; the cornfield representing the search for ideas and concepts (and in fact, the "truth" of the game is buried here), and the yanking of the parasite from the pig representing similar mechanics of fighting the spider in Limbo, and then literally using that as a stepping stone for a new mechanic: mind control.

And then the little chicks representing all the new original ideas that are developed, gathered, sucked up and spat back out to complete an objective, which is another stepping stone.

...turns out there's a lot you can say. This was a much shorter reply before I really started thinking about it, so thank you for bringing it up! Of course, as with all theories, it's all up to how one interprets it. Someone could come up with a better explanation for all the above too, and be just as valid.

Update: I've included the theories for the Forest and Farm sections in the game, and filled out more ideas on what the underwater portions of the game mean.

This is a very good analysis. Something like this popped into my head when I saw the blob lying there at the end with all the developer names popping up like it was saying "And starring as the blob..."

It's a pretty insightful analysis (ugh, pun) and looking back at it in such a way I have to agree this is very likely an allegory of their game development. I think the water portion of the game is probably something that could be explored more deeply. Silent running and dealing with what may amount to scope creep (it sure is creepy).

Unsure how after it drags you down you are injected with new life then suddenly everything is upside down. Maybe you could mull that part further?

Being meta about the relationship between players and devs is the videogame equivalent to "it was all a dream." Seems kind of lazy and obvious and INSIDE makes me think that Playdead's capable of much more.

Great analysis, regardless. Lots of interesting thoughts.

@wandrecanada:Yes, absolutely the part where the water was suddenly on the ceiling and housing the suspended body batteries is something that's still bothering me. I'm coming around to the idea that the drowning/injection scene in this kind of interpretation likely refers to internal struggle with mechanics and design philosophies that end up 'drowning' the game, before the birth of a new mechanic (breathing underwater, and the new puzzles that concept allows) revives it. May be a little on the nose, but consider that it is after that specific repetitive gameplay section of teasing the water creature into one side before moving to the other simply wasn't fun, and everything after the drowning sequence was far more interesting and unique than what came before. As shown with the Pig/Parasite segment (if we take my above interpretation as true), the game does seem to enjoy telling it's story via it's mechanics. Fun stuff.

@billcrystals: Mmmn, I dunno about that! I think you can definitely have a meta narrative that makes the entire journey impactful. I think Spec Ops: The Line is the best example of this, in still having a surface storyline that is easy to comprehend while being meaningful, and having the underlying meta narrative be the real slap on the cheek. Inside on the other hand doesn't quite reach those levels in my opinion. I've seen explanations that people have for the surface narrative, but it doesn't really do much for me. This game is really on working for me on this level, which is rather strange when I think about it. The majority of my enjoyment with this game came not from anything the game explicitly told me (which was the case with Spec Ops), but what I derived from understanding it. It's something that, if the Playdead came to me and said "Well Jazzy, that's all well n' good, but that's not what the game is about, it's about Socialism" or something, I wouldn't really know what to think...I guess I have a bit of a pseudo-Ouroboros relationship with this theory that I'm rather dependent on!