Assignment 17 - Creativity (creative title huh?)

Creativity is important. Why? It's moving forward; progression; and humans have advanced (technologically) at an incredible rate in the past few centuries. Creativity is important for the betterment of mankind (if you like to believe in that) but it is also important in entertainment.

While we are here (born, raised, living) we might as well do something with our time and entertaining ourselves has been one of the major time-killers of all...well time. Video games have always been a showcase of what we're capable of and there always comes a point where everything feels mundane and too similar. Yes video games have grown from such a basic foundation but I'd say the truly revolutionising moment would be the evolution from 2D games to 3D roaming titles. It was an exiciting time for me when all my favourite video game characters and memories were altered into almost living-breathing entities however nothing has changed over the past decade or so other than a more polished and realistic look. Yes; we now have around 10 button functions on control pads rather than merely 1 or 2 and a combination of direction and pressing of a button can initiate different commands however it all still feels very limited.

Nintendo are the first to admit the stale state of the games industry by purposely distancing themselves from competitors with their new controller. While the technology isn't exactly 'new' or revolutionary (light guns, arcade titles that don't require pads/sticks but other means of control) the fact they're implementing it in such a strange way is creative and of course beneficial to themselves, competitors and the games industry as a whole - now everybody else may open their eyes and try to think outside the box rather than simply repeating the same methods to their success.

I'm pigeon-holing creativity here and more or less simply generalizing it. It's possible for one to be a creative programmer - to discover a way to write code efficiently so that fewer lines are used or even coding more complex 'what if's (for example; different storyline outcomes, NPC interaction or even social/economic factors in a game that can alter depending on the players decisions). Artistic creativity - personally I consider any art creative if it's something that hasn't been done a thousand times before, nothing irritates me more than a character that I feel a sense of de-ja vu for. Capcom's games like Okami or Killer7 are creative in the sense they move away from the traditional methods of trying to make games look uber-realistic and life-like and instead set a tone for the game (killer7's comic-book esque cel-shading is perfectly fitting for the game; especially when coupled with anime-drawn cutscenes, and Okami's calligraphy waterpaints style is very fetching and unique).

Creativity is rather abstract but it's easy to say to be creative means to try to think differently or imagine something how others wouldn't. That's not to say other's ideas are wrong or that you shouldn't acknowledge them but rather to 'add' something yourself. Obviously it's possible for creativity to be hindered by technical constraints but then it's a case of improving the technology and thinking how to change it to accomodate other ideas.

Obviously creativity can be "branded". Much like all Tarantino films feel like his films and have signiture moments video games can have the same effect. I'm beginning to hate myself for this but ...*sigh* Metal Gear's Hideo Kojima likes to implement certain little quirks into his games that give him his signiture ; crotch-grabbing, player-referenced moments where the character looks towards the camera or speaks acknowledging the player, and odd humour (glamour magazines that distract guards, a guard who suffers a foul case of diarrhea and characters in such a state of shock they wet themselves...mmm, nice). Capcom's games seem to have a distinct visual style; almost like their characters look ill - very pale however it illicits something humane within them making them more 'believable' I suppose.

Sometimes I find myself lacking creativity - mostly when i'm put on the spot - however one of my main criterea is to create an online version video game of the cult film Battle Royale. I would like to obviously differentiate myself from others creatively - as I like to literally - I want to do more than just program; personally I just want to create my own sense of self through my work. How? You'll just have to wait and see.

Assignment 16 - Liberal Arts versus Specialists

Different companies have different ideals and objectives. For one company to want someone with a more creative and liberal arts background and another to want a more specialized designer/programmer graduate is not really contradictive but rather just trying to get the best out of their company. These companies may already be aware of the kind of education they have and what kind of skills they can provide and if their objectives don't match that of the company's then it's no real suprise their services aren't required. I think that a company would want someone who can adapt and would fit well with their business - I mean, why employ somebody who wont be happy doing what they're paid to do?

Specialists are just that; specialize at what they know and of course their skills will be required if a company needs someone in that area. However a candidate with a more general and creative background could be used for other purposes; but that's not to say a specialist would not be capable of change...I feel it's moreso on what the company wants and at the end of the day their overal objectives are what counts - after all, it's all about money....this is starting to make me more cynical than usual.

Assignment 15 - Play That Funky Music

There's a reason why the Super Smash Bros Brawl official website contains information regarding the musicians whom will be providing music in this next instalment of Nintendo's wacky fighter...and that reason is because all of the names mentioned are highly renowned composers; Kenji Kondo, Kenji Yamamoto, Akihiro Honda and Yuzo Koshiro just to name a few.(click ME). Quothe the site "Seriously?! To have so many of these individuals providing music for a single work may very well be an historic event in the history of video-game music!It's almost unthinkable!" and I'd have to agree.

Music is a powerful device in video games much like in films. It can set the tone, evoke certain emotions or be used to simply subtly paint a landscape for the world in which you're presented (silence can be powerful...but just imagine watching a film with the mute button on).

For me Street Fighter, Sonic the Hedgehog, Streets of Rage, The Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Bros. were all given that extra credit where due because of such catchy theme music - though all of it at the time was basic synths due to the constraints of cartridge technology and 16-bit chips. Nowadays video game music can be a fully composed orchestra because of the invention of CD, DVD and now Blu-ray and HD meaning digital music can be encoded and compressed to a small portion of that disc. Even Hollywood producers are jumping on the video-game bandwagon with Hideo Kojima asking for The Rock/Shrek/Armageddon's composer Harry Gregson-Williams to compose for MGS2; given that their budget was fairly substantial they could afford his services and he helped set the tone perfectly for the stealth/action smash hit - infact I can't help but feel how similar MGS2 and The Rock's soundtracks at are key points; the heavy use of brass instruments and catchy loops.

It's not enough to just have catchy music; it has to be ambiet and fitting to the situation; Starsailors 'Way To Fall' I feel was a perfect choice of track for the ending theme of MGS3 where the game is more reflective and mellow and the protagonist is emotionally fragile. The slow guitar pluckings and very powerful vocals can be reflective of how the protagonist must be feeling - to sing one's heart out.

It was said that the PS3 would utilise sound 'on the fly' and the engine would generate appropriate sounds to given situations and that individual objects would sound more realistic. What I mean by this is for example if you were to shoot a glass bottle you would hear the sound of a bottle smash...but if you were to knock a bottle over you would have a completely different sound - and a sound for a bottle rolling along concreate...or a different sound if the bottle was rolling along a wooden surface - I look forward to this but I don't feel that games will have this much complexity yet.

Assignment 14 - ...lol...Thomas The Tank Engine (that was lame)

Game Engines...Ahh, a beautiful way to cut corners. Well, an engine has to be developed first of course. EA are a popular user of game engines; with so many sports franchise titles being released almost daily (well, not quite) game engines allow the company to cut costs and development time by using this 'template'.

Other engines are Half-Life, Unreal or Square-Enix's new 'blue' engine (I think that's what its called...I could be wrong, anywho it's to do with their new FFXIII title). Half-Life's engine was distributed publically as so many try to extract source code from games to create their own, kudos on them releasing the engine to tamper with as without permission is no more legal than copying and distributing music and films - it's ILLEGAL!

An engine would be a collection of programmed code and data files (depending on the kind of engine; sound,) that can be used as a template to create other games from without having to go through the arduous and tedious task of 'coming up with the product' - but of course the engine has to be made first. It's easy to identify when a games company uses an engine; for instance look at Namco's Tekken or Soul Calibur series - the games are pretty similar in their structure and control - the only differences are usually cosmetic with a few technical tweaks here and there. It's advantageous to invest in an engine for the benefit of lesser production costs (well, if you plan to make more than one game out of it) and time however royalties must be paid to the original source and the disadvantages are that the games may become dull and too similar. With the continually developing idea of 'next-gen' games engines are going to be more complex and time consuming - however once an engine is made it makes it a helluva lot easier for people with little experience at creating a game from scratch to make their visions of video game mastery a reality.

Assignment 13 - Culture Club (Not In Affiliation with Boy George)

Online gaming. A gift and a curse at the same time. Just like real life you're bound to find friendly people, anti-social cretins and confusing and weird 'freaks' (excuse the term, but some people bring it on themselves).
Once again mentioning my Metal Gear fandom, I was a part of the Metal Gear Online community until I accidently snapped my disc (remember people, cases are there for a reason) and I regularly played with strangers. Some of these people I befriended and chat to on MSN (arrange matches, talk about things outside of the game etc.) and others I would avoid because of their irritating habit of spamming babble on screen with their keyboards.

Trash talking is a big part of online gaming - though it really shouldn't be - and some people take things very literal. It adds dimension to the game (hold on, let me explain) because if you were to play offline/solo then the only competing factor is the game itself and very few emotions are experienced beyond what the game presents (suprise, suspense, etc.) but online can create a whole new atmosphere. You can have a laugh with people, do silly things like intentionally jump off ledges or blow eachother up with grenades and chase eachother round in boxes (I find a few brews always makes it that little more amusing) and you can set up fun little tournaments and inevitably all this can add replay value. Of course, if you let it get the best of you you can find yourself on the receiving end of some 'ownage' treatment and receive verbal abuse for being an inadequate player or a useless comrade. Unfortunately this behaviour can ruin the experience for people and soon enough some body cries. Moderators must control the content of the online play as personal information should not be distributed and the company is not directly responsible for any emotional damage caused - this is where a mature mind or a responsible set of parents come into play.

Magazine publications sponser and set up tournaments around the globe for beat 'em up titles so players can 'test their skills' outside the confines of a few local friends and with the help of LAN gaming and the internet gaming cultures have grown. It allows people from all around the world to engage in discussion and distribution of a growing popular media; furthering the global conquest to open the hearts and minds of the masses.

No longer are the days of multiplayer being defined by 2 controller ports and a beaten in sofa; MMO's are extremely popular with many series converting single player titles to online 'worlds' - and I feel the online element gives a game a greater sense of immersion - such as Metal Gear and Final Fantasy.

I wonder how long it will be before our homes and ourselves are digitally rendered into a virtual world where we can live our lives as vegetables roaming the virtual Earth...let's hope Microsoft isn't reading this right now.

Assignment 12 - Gettin' Down To Business

Most people are aware of the evolution of video games; way back when they were developed in spare time by a single body to now million dollar budgets with a team rivaling an army (just to summarize).

Not only have the production teams increased but complexity of the games themselves; thus causing costs and production time to rise; your average game's production time ranges from one to four years (maybe longer if you're planning on scrapping ideas 80% through - i'm looking at you Capcom). With a high budget comes higher risks. It's not so much to make a 'good' game as it is to make a 'successful' game and what I mean by this is putting into consideration a target audience and evaluating whether or not the game will actually sell to a mass market. As you know, with this problem at hand creativity is compromised; take Killer7 for example. A stylish, rather 'arty' left-field game that did not sell as well as one would hope. Much money was spent promoting this title around the same time as Resident Evil 4 (an already popular and successful series of powerhouse Capcom) and Killer7 did not live up to their expectations financially. When games aren't as successful as a company hopes for it reduces the likelihood of sequels or future 'new' titles that developers may want to make.

Read forum admin Chompman's response here to a consumer's query on Capcom's decision not to release Harvey Birdman in PAL territories. Fans may be disappointed but it's a sensible decision for a company to make and this happens ALOT with many titles making no noise outside of Japan. Money makes the world go round and the video games industry is no different.

You have to remember it's not just the game that money is pumped into; but also everybody working on that title and we're talking producers/directors; to character artists; level designers; programmers; sound designers; localization teams; testers (alot of mouths to feed). With the evolution of technology coinciding with what is possible in video games production time and costs are no doubt going to rise too - but how 'realistic' do we have to go before games become stale. Nintendo feel it's not enough to simply continue in this direction, which is why the Wii is technically weak, and have developed their controller to breathe life into a stagnant market. I find developers will be challenged with making something 'different' but this creates problems because if it's not popular then money has been wasted and no company wants to risk what happened to Sega (R.I.P.....though it serves you right, the dreamcast controller was atrocious)

Games development in the UK isn't as high as Japan or the US and this is also due to financial constraints and the lack of government support - I suppose it's still a question of whether or not video games are taken seriously and whether we classify them as 'art' and entertainment or something irrelevent to society (shame on you!).

Assignment 11 - Don't Hate The Player (Hate The Game!)

I'm afraid this blog may be one of the few times i'll write very little because I find it a concept too abstract to write anything beyond a cold-cut definition and a few of my personal thoughts on it. So let's begin shall we, mwahahahahaha...

"Gameplay" is an incredibly loose term. The easiest way to define what gameplay is is to say "what the player does". Basically when you press something - something happens - that's gameplay. The level of 'good' gameplay can only be gauged appropriately in context of it's genre. For instance a racing sim can have terrible gameplay if it feels like no matter how hard to push the analog stick in a direction it still barely moves the vehicle, or in an action/adventure game you're limited in your involvement with the surroundings. Personally a game is only discredited for it's poor gameplay if I feel they could have added more variety in it's actions - such as pre-rendered backgrounds with no interactivity - or a beat 'em up with less than twenty moves.

Nowadays, with such great technology at our disposal I find a wide variety of 'gameplay' to be important. "Back in the day" RPGs were mostly go from A to B, random battles, press a few buttons and voila there is the end credits. Having to input random button combinations to successfully attack a beastie, or a barrage of mini games, basically anything other than "use the directional pad to move, press A to attack" to me spells out great gameplay. It's all about managing the different actions and immersing the player into the world through their interaction (after all, video games seperate themselves from other media because of this interaction and competition).

Gameplay, being the level of control you have in a game, is very much dependent on how much control the player feels s/he has. Many discredit Grasshopper/Capcom's Killer7 title because of the lack of 'control' a player has. Simply pressing the A button moves your character on-rails through the level and many found this it's downfall (though I blame this down to player expectations). Most games allow you to run, jump, attack, fly, etc. and inevitably have ultimate control over your person (Grand Theft Auto sells incredibly well due to it's 'gameplay') but sometimes I feel the gameplay has to be in context of the game. I thoroughly enjoyed Killer7 as it's a visual treat and there's little need to explore when the plot is so intricate your prime objective should be to further the plot and learn more. I think 'gameplay' is important to genres such as action/adventure, RPG etc. where the player's intention is to interact and explore (and a variety of different actions will spell out great gameplay). However simplicity can be key to some games, Shadow of the Colossus being another great example; basic premise and no enemies beyond the sixteen giants you must take down. Armed with only a sword, a bow and a horse you can run, jump, climb and roll and that's IT. The visuals are beautiful and the motion acting is superb; I would say gameplay isn't the defining factor in a game. It is highly dependent on the creators intent and while it may be a little ambiguous to just throw the word "Gameplay" around - one must define their own idea of 'good gameplay' in context of the game before throwing it around.

Assignment 10 - I Know You Got Soul

Before I begin I must first discredit this article for stating that the level of immersion is higher in a first-person-view controlled game than in a third-person-view. Rightly so when you look through the eyes of the protagonist (or possibly antagonist) you are technically more 'immersed' in the world however very few games allow you (the player) to make substantial decisions that can affect the world around you (to me, this would seperate the two vastly).



Despite many defining the RPG genre in such black and white terms the phrase "RPG" can be applied to pretty much EVERY game as you play the role of a character and live through their story (whether it be first person perspective or not). Most first person perspective controlled characters have a personality and it is only the view on the environment which is directly affected by the view. That character is given direct orders and you follow through the game just like a third person game - in fact I would vouch to say that the character in question lacks the depth of a third person avatar because in current generation games developers tend to show facial movements to express emotions in a given situation much like a film.



In the past (8/16-bit where avatars were merely a collection of a few hundred pixels) a characters development was usually presented through his or her interaction with the world around them. RPG powerhouses such as Final Fantasy have always excelled in creating a vivid and pseudo-realistic world to play around in through a mass of NPC's (non-playable characters) with a variety of personalities whether it be a drunken fool blabbering his life story before finally being thrown out of the bar, or a mysterious informant who wants revenge on the company that emotionally crippled them. Through script alone these games create such an incredible atmosphere (similar to books, whereas current gen games expand more on our Hollywood compatriot's use of mise-en-scen).



Video games tend to stray from the 'realistic' in the sense that most video games contain an awful lot of unrealistic situations and events that would be nigh-on impossible outside the confines of literary genius however it's the realistic emotions or actions of these characters that make them accessible because players can relate to them in one way or another (many scientists say humans are fascinated by animals who show traits of human behaviour...rightly so, empathy is a powerful emotion).



With the invention of HD and vastly detailed games it will be alot easier (how ironic) to show a variety of emotions and symbolism through visuals than ever before - so much so that it could rival the film industry - and games cutscenes and long-winded scripts also push character development further along. Though not all games depend on a deep and meaningful script. Nintendo is a perfect example of this considering it's icons Mario and Link do not utter a word in their adventures yet they seem to get pretty far in gamefaqs.com Character Battle awards every year. Music can help propel a certain emotion in a given situation as can body language (even though it may be very little such as a mouth or eye movement).

I don't have a preference when it comes to a memorable character. In fact it's usually the world and the characters around them that mould my fondness towards a particular character; the way in which the protagonist acts and reacts to a given situation. Solid Snake's many backlashes after being dubbed 'hero' in the original Metal Gear Solid give him a gritty and believable character, he is in no way pompous nor self-righteous, he's simply a mercenary doing what he does best - wet works. This kind of 'anti-hero' always warms my heart since i've never been a fan of the conforming Hollywood based cliches that nobody can relate to - sure they're fun "idols" but idols are for those in need of religion and homicidal gun-totting fanatics (of which i'm neither). Though more recently I find myself enjoying characters portrayed by particular voice-actors, since video games have accomodated voices rather than masses of text, company's tend to recruit excellent voice talent (most of which can be found on Cartoon Network). My personal favourites are Greg Eagles, Cam Clarke, Jennifer Hale and Steven Jay Blum. Much like motion pictures, casting the right person for the role is important; especially when their voice has to project moreso than in a film (because gaming is alot like animation where emotions and ideas have to be accentuated to have the same impact) and I find myself drawn to the words of the character if their voice-actor is 'doing it right'.

As long as characters aren't cardboard cliches whom have been represented in a thousand previous titles; next-generation graphics, a tight-script, a talented voice-actor and a believable atmosphere are enough to create a great character (and as long as it fits the genre too). These factors are all important, not just one!

Assignment 9 - Master of Puppets Pulling Your Strings (Now with Nunchuk Attachment)

Erganomics...The concept of a controller being "erganomic" always amuses me because I feel that you cannot define something as erganomic but rather a level of comfort.

Although it is expected for a company to market their product in a 'roundabout' way that confuses the consumer just enough that they don't bother trying to understand what the company is talking about (revolusionising technology in beauty products...pentapeptides...etc. etc. etc.) so when reading through THIS article I can't help but smile at a controller being "erganomic".

Personally I find this comment laughable because it's like describing a chocolate bar as edible. While I will agree to the Xbox360's controller being relatively comfortable to hold, unlike it's bulky and Frankenstein-like predecessor, when using a word like erganomic my personal perceptions tell me that this product is THE ULTIMATE in comfortable gaming when it simply is not true.

Unfortunately, as shallow as some may see it, a controller can make or break a console even if said console has a catalogue of games that rival Mozart's 'classics'. However I wouldn't go as far as to discriminate a controller just for the way it looks - otherwise I would be poking three pages of fun at Nintendo's N64 controller - because while N64's 3-pronged plaything may look like it fell from the proverbial 'ugly-tree' and hit most of the big branches on it's dimwitted descent the controller was a God-send for games such as Goldeneye 007 which made beautiful use of the revamped arcarde style stick and the 'trigger' Z button located snuggly beneath your left index finger (providing you follow controller-holding etiquette accordingly).

Despite my praise for Nintendo's pre-proposed 'revolution' in controllers I do not agree with the notion that the D-Pad was kept incase users could not become accustomed to this new method of directional input (reference here) as most games FORCED the player to use the analog stick rather than be given the choice to use the D-Pad (for example, Super Mario 64, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and even Mario Kart 64). In my personal (and evidence lacking) opinion I believe that the controller was intentionally misshapen and kept the D-Pad because it seperated itself from competitors - as any good businessman knows it's differentiation that sells - a controller that is eyecatching (be it a 'weird' looking one) will no doubt intrigue consumers.

The evolution of consoles has no doubt spawned some eyesores but the gaming market is simply adapting to changing popular trends (look at mobile phones 10-15 years ago compared to now) and it is obvious to see to attract your average media consumer your product has to be aesthetically pleasing as well as 'erganomic'. For instance, Sony's PlayStation2 is often referred to as a brick and Sony's PlayStationTwo (while offering no updates or advancements from it's bulky counterpart) has continued to build up a nice hefty money-pool for Sony execs to roll around and play in. Why would someone buy a PSTwo for £115-£150 when they could simply buy the bulkier older model for less money? While that question may be rhetorical I'll still give you the answer; that's eyecandy...I can't count the number of times i've had both male and females compliment my sexy sleek Station of Play.

We are very appearance-conscious and that is reflected in most of the world around us - and moreso now in videogaming than before since companies tend to market their product on how 'good' it looks graphically or how 'powerful' it's processors are (Geez, have these people never heard the term it's not the size it's what you do with it that counts). While we're on that subject Nintendo have taken this literally with their Wii (OK..that time, no pun intended) as it's openly the 'weakest' of the three Next Gen consoles.

What seperates it from competitors once again is it's "innovative" controller (which resembles a TV remote with an attachable 'nunchuk' which houses the analog stick) which has impressed both industry-types and consumers since it's day of release. Using a PC-style point n click type of gameplay it's both 'fun' and accessible which in this day and age is important for the games industry - it's simply not enough to appeal to hardcore gamers (otherwise videogaming will continue to be a 'niche' culture outside of Japan like Anime and Cosplay).

Also featuring motion technology similar to the GameBoy's Yoshi Touch & Go and Warioware games the controller can be shaken and even stirred to cause visual disruption. One could say it's added a new dimension to playing games and even Sony are attentive (slyly adding a 'sixaxis' system to it's own controller to compete with Nintendo's innovation) however I do not see it as the be-all-and-end-all of controllers as Nintendo's competitors have stuck with traditional controller methods and it has not stunted their success significantly.

Personally I found the SNES and PlayStation Dual Shock controllers to be the most fun to use - appropriate button placements and minimal cramps (unlike the NES rectangular controller which probably forebode a long and painful arthritic old-age for at me). I don't see a future of "virtual reality" just yet but with the high success of Nintendo's DS and Wii I see controllers possibly being replaced by the oldest controller type known to man - your hands.