Task 8

In my most humble opinion, I think that storytelling in games is a pretty important factor. For many, a well told story is what’ll keep them hooked in the game world; it’s what gives you the incentive and purpose to keep playing. Shooting things is much more exciting if you’re stopping them from taking over the world than if you’re doing it just for the hell of it, but a storyline can run much deeper than a benefit to gameplay mechanics.

A story can emotionally tie you to the game and make you really care about what happens to the characters involved, and even a simplistic story can be enough to engage a player. I’m gonna drag Shadow of the Colossus back up here as an example of that. You’re thrown into this game with very little background story in a desolate world, but that age old fairy tale tradition of Saving the Girl is enough to spur you on. However, as the sword plunges again into the head of another awesome and kind of innocent Colossi, as it topples to the ground in all its black blood spurting, earth-shattering majesty, you start to question whether it’s really worth it, whether you’re actually doing the right thing. It’s these kind of conflicts that make a game’s story truly involving to me and it’s interesting to see games that can stir emotion with such scarce but tactful use of a plot line.

This is where I find games that have super-long-to-the-max cut scenes and over complex stories a little bit dull, for example, the Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy series. Now don’t get me wrong and tear me into little bite-sized pieces, these are fantastic franchises which I have enjoyed a lot, it’s just that sometimes I want to play a game where the story is a little less force fed, where I can relax and play out the story through my own actions and not be torn away by a cut scene or random battle every thirty seconds. I understand many would argue that the story is entirely the point of these games and it’s true, I‘m often utterly absorbed by very story driven games but I tend to get impatient with it all now and again… maybe I’m just simple and have a short attention span, I’m not sure. I think what I enjoy the most is a nice smooth balance of fantastic game play and an incredible and gripping story. Ooo and a good soundtrack. And killer grafix, man!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaRYMLr2YK4

Task 7

After reading through a few of these links, it’s clear that art direction is a very important aspect of the game industry. The art director’s guidance is vital to the overall vision of the game as it’s their responsibility to decide how it’s going to look. Their word can be absolutely imperative to gameplay factors as well when considering genres that rely heavily on atmospherics to involve the player.

I think it’s a very creative role as the director is one of the few people who can really express their vision of the game by setting the visual tone and style. They can then use their underling artist-slaves to express this style of theirs, forcing them to either take the graveyard shift or be shifted to the graveyard… at least, that is my understanding of the power of an evil art director. Na, in reality I think the art director has massive responsibilities as it is they who’ll have to get that overall feel of the game just right and make sure they’re able to express their views to the artists. It’s also up to them to keep up the morale of the artist team so I think it’s important that they’re considerate and understanding human beings who can really demonstrate leadership skills.

As games are interactive experiences, things such as colour and small environmental details can be very important to the overall feel of the game. This is where I feel game art direction differs from the film variety; a film director is able to choose what he wants you to see and from which angles should be best to see them to get the desired effect. In a game, this is often not the case as the player is able to explore and interact with the environment so this makes the art direction perhaps trickier to effectively utilise.

There are many qualities and skills I’d need to develop to become a game art director. I think the most important would be 3D modelling, drawing, teamwork and leadership skills. I definitely think the level or responsibility and pressure would be something difficult to cope with at first, but I imagine it’s a very enjoyable and rewarding job which would be a really effective way to get your vision of a game across.

Thanks for reading, and on a side note, it was really interesting to check out the views of real life game art director, Rick Nath. It was a great insight into how an art director works and what kind of responsibilities they’ve got to deal with. That game where you got to be the serial killer sounded sooo darn cool, why’d it have to be scrapped?! *sigh* …P.S. I am NOT a serial killer nor do I endorse serial killing!

Task 6

Okay… so one of the big issues this time, here comes Game Design! I suppose it’s a relatively vast subject that encompasses everything that makes a game great. I think I’ll begin to tackle it by referring to the Game Design Depository, initially with their article on gameplay. I found this site to be a very informative and interesting read and I was particularly pleased with all the separate links, made it very accessible and easy to find what I wanted. Anyways!

Gameplay is often considered to be of utmost importance when concerning the overall replayability and quality of a game. There are times when brilliant style flairs and a fantastic artistic vision can take the front seat (as in recent titles such as Killer7), but it’s a solid ground of engaging and rewarding gameplay which will keep the gamer coming back for more.

Duane Alan Hahn writes: “What is gameplay? Gameplay is simply the actions a player is allowed to perform in a game. If those actions are enjoyable and the controls are intuitive, you have the most important ingredients of a great game.” I’ve gotta say I agree with this statement, there are too many games today that focus on flashy graphics and effects. But flashy graphics are awesome… I want both! Why don’t I always get both?! Great graphics can help to bring such a level of immersion to a game and can add an overall air of quality; I suppose it’s that sublime balance of gameplay and graphics

When somebody says “Game Designer” to me, it’s Shigeru Miyamoto’s manic face that springs to mind. There's something about him and his games that seems to represent what games are all about, and that's having fun. He's even got candy!

His games contain such an enjoyable blend of fantastical environments and boundless exploration and adventure that I can’t help but find them to be masterpieces. And plus, Zelda is just full of “secks and win”, to use the proper internet vernacular. *Really wants to play Twilight Princess, is gonna eventually stop whining about it*. I think another leading and contrasting designer would be Hideo Kojima. His heavily story-based games are captivating pieces of work, if a little heavy on the cinematics and cut scenes. I particularly like the inclusion of clever little 'Easter Egg' moments and out-of-the-box thinking, such as switching controller ports to outsmart Psycho Mantis, perhaps a designer’s nudge to the player: ;) “It’s only a game”.

I think different genres definitely require different design principles because they’re trying to achieve different goals and are catered towards different markets. Aesthetically, character designs seen like those in Gears of War are not going to work in a dance mat game, and it’s a similar situation with the gameplay and what the designer is setting out to achieve, whether it be complex and tactical mechanics, or simple ‘pick up and play’ intuitive controls.

For me, gameplay is the essential element when I play. But a visually appealing game can make such a difference, if everything is presented in a flawless fashion it’s so much easier to become totally immersed, and I’m not just talking about photorealistic graphics with lots of shiny effects (though I do like the shinyshiny). Viewtiful Joe, for me, is a good example of this. The fantastic combination of fast paced gameplay and a brilliantly presented artistic style made it one of those games where I just kind of tuned out of reality and starting dodging bullets and smashing robots.

So yeah I think that just about covers it… feel like I’ve dragged this one on a bit and not got much said but never mind, I’ll try to improve for next time.

Task 5

I think that games journalism is an interesting area of specialism to consider. This is probably because it's about what makes or breaks a good game, gaming culture, game industry business plans, and not about firemen rescuing iguanas from trees. However, I find it a tricky thing to find a reliable source for game reviews and articles that aren't susceptible to bias which makes it difficult to find a definitive and thoroughly considered opinion on a game.

I have to admit to being one of those people who sways towards buying a game due to glowing reviews and a big shiny '9.6' on the box (it helps if the box is shiny too... can't get me enough o' that shiny). But what else is there to go on? I don't fancy parting with a fiver for a magazine to play a timed demo of a game that I'll maaaybe consider a purchase, so I think it's probably best to try to find a trusted source for reviews. And that leads me on to the issues that face these reviewers.

Reviewing a game is by no means simple due to all the elements that need to be taken into consideration, what with game mechanics, graphics, innovations and the rest of it, but after looking at Kieron Gillen's blog, it seems that the amount of pressure the reviewers are under to get the reviews out in the 19 days of magazine work time they have seems to be a real issue. Either that or they are just, to use Gillen's words, "corrupt, lazy and fundamentally stupid." But , as he goes on to mention, it seems that this rush to get opinions out in time is what leads to vague reviews, where the writer simply hasn't had the time for an in-depth consideration of a game. I have to say I don't totally agree with this blog, I think that there are many magazines and sites that are devoted to game journalism and really do put the effort it. And even if it's a rushed review, it's always fun to read the article on that game that scores 2/10, when even the rushed writer lets loose and tears into a bad game.

After exploring some of the other links, I really feel that New Games Journalism has been a successful movement which showcases a real passion for writing about games. It's the personal approach that makes the articles more engrossing and adds the subjective touch. This researched and carefully considered approach is very apparent in Tim Roger's review of Metal Gear Solid 2:
http://www.insertcredit.com/features/dreaming2/
His analysis was an involving read, I enjoyed his consideration of EGM's review and was assured that he was taking things seriously when he re-read Japanese literature to grasp that crazy plot. This contemplated and subjective approach made for an enjoyable review.

I think that ranking systems can be handy for an brief overview on certain aspects of the game and in some respects work as a simple summary, but I don't think that a number can show what you're going to get from the game as it depends almost entirely on what you actually want from the title. This is where I feel it's important to read the review to discover which aspects of the game contribute to its final score. For example, the game may receive a fantastic score, but it could be heavily story based with more cut scenes than play time and involves a David Bowie cameo, whom the reviewer could happen to idolize. If this is what you want from a game, then you could get it, but this couldn't be represented by a ranking system alone. So, in conclusion, I think ranking systems are not really essential to a well thought out review, but can help to convey an idea on the reviewer's general respect for the game.

I’m not so sure about my own writing. I’m thinking it’s more subjective and hopefully considered, but I don’t know. I think I’ll review something sometime soon to find out.

Lookin' forward to the next task, bye for now!

Task 4

I'd like to start this task on the current history of video games by focusing on the currently dying console war between the GameCube, PlayStation 2, and the Xbox. In my opinion, this has been an interesting console generation mainly due to the introduction of a new combatant; Microsoft's Xbox. Although large and kinda ugly, it was certainly a powerhouse when it was released back in 2001, able to run graphically stunning games such as Doom 3 (albeit with it still being visually inferior to the PC version). The Xbox did well to break into the market alongside the established names of Nintendo and Sony, launching with what many consider to be an excellent and influential first person shooter title, Halo.

The PlayStation 2 is the fastest selling console of all time, with over 105 million units shipped worldwide. Its success can be attributed to various aspects, such as its established fan base of PlayStation owners, its backward compatibility, its DVD player drive. In my opinion, it mostly comes down to it having a large selection of games spanning almost every genre and solid third party support from many developers. With popular franchises such as Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid, the PS2 is doing well.

Nintendo's GameCube was similar to the PlayStation 2 in terms of power, but was much more purple and lunch boxey. It was home to many fantastic first party games which fans have come to expect from Nintendo. These titles include games such as Retro Studio's Metroid Prime, a stunning 3D adaptation of the previously 2D franchise, the Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, which boasted an elegant and controversial cel-shaded engine, and the multiplayer hit, Super Smash Bros. Melee. However, a lack of strong third party support seemed to hinder the 'Cube's success in comparison to the other consoles. Popular 'cult' titles such as Ikaruga (a souped up port of the Dreamcast game) found their home on the GameCube.

Ikaruga... known to make grown men cry.

The age of PC gaming was becoming increasingly popular at this stage, and was the definitive source for online gaming until the launch of Xbox Live. The PC has always been a popular choice for FPS games due to its unparalleled input system of the keyboard and mouse. Perhaps things could begin to change with the Wii? Gonna be fun to find out!

With the Xbox 360 kicking off next gen (I guess it's current gen now since it's begun), it looks like things are shaping up to be interesting. With the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 boasting incredible graphics and the Wii an innovative and unique control system, I'm wondering how everything is going to turn out. It'll be easy to sit by and watch too, since there's a fair few good lookin' games on the horizon.

I think this post needs more Twilight Princess...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqUqxVKd5q0

New trailer! HYPE HYPE HYPE HYPE HYPE! =D