Task 9: Elements of game design, part two: art direction for games

In the art department of any game, There will be one
driving force that pushes the all important vehicle of art forward, this force
is in the form of an Art Director. An Art Directors general role is to set the
visual tone, quality and style to the game making it aesthetically pleasing to
the player.
An Art Director
that is confident in what he or she is doing will consider how all assets will
look, what moods they'll create and so on. Everything from main characters to
fine detail will be careful designed to create a continuous flow of design that
supports the story and setting of the game. Sometimes it's the small detail that gives a
game the appropriate illusion of realism and a good Art Director has a keen eye
for that detail. As gamers we all rely on a game looking good to make us feel
involved and apart of the realism it is attempting to convey, therefore being responsible of how people relate, react and
enjoy visuals within game is extremely in depth.
When it comes to creativity, I think a successful film or
game will come from a highly creative individual, so creativity is pretty much
what defines an art director in my opinion. For example two highly creative and
talented artists worked on the storyboarding and concepts for black hawk down,
Ridley Scott and Arthur Max. Arthur Max was the art director but both
contributed which basically made the entire look of the film from start to
finish. They produced endless amounts of storyboards and concepts, Which Max
explains in an interview I watched that the majority were scrapped. They
quickly got down visual information using simple pencil drawings picked up from
Ridleys traditionally influenced art education.
Some of the Storyboards were near enough exactly how the final shot looked in
the film. To visualise situations accurately using convincing lighting and
perspective is extremely difficult, taking a great deal of knowledge and
creativity. I should know as this is the main aspect I'm trying to master
within my game art course which I am nowhere near reaching.
To reach a similar level as the Art Directors I would in
theory be competing with if I was to become one, I would need to quicken up on
getting the visual information down on paper to generate that mass of visuals
that is needed. I'm not expecting this to come overnight because its going to
take trial and error to find out how I can through practice, and what art
materials suit my style of working most efficiently. I am quite confident when it comes to
accurately showing light and tone within my work but I do struggle with my
perspective which with practice I hope to overcome and so far it's getting a
lot better than when I first started the course.
Game and Film art direction is pretty similar in most
areas like gathering source material, storyboarding and concepting. I would say
that a difference would be the extent that they both need to concept. Some
films use characters that already exist like a US marine for example which
would only need storyboarding because we can already visualise what that
character would look like, act like etc, whereas in a game aspects like
characters are designed from scratch because their perceived identities don't
already exist, everything is new idea even if it's an alien, robot or human.
This is what I think appeals to me most, being able to harness my creativity to
form entirely new identities, in almost a 'God' like fashion.

Task 8 Elements of game design, part one: from Pong to next-gen…

I've reached the stage now where I've looked at the fundamentals of game art but now I need to read into the elements of game design and what it takes to design a successful game. First of all, what is game play? we all play these games and kind of over look what were actually doing. Game play is the action the person controlling the character for example is carrying out to achieve something, like advancing to the next level or an objective.

Development of the games we play today are undertaken by a games developer that can range from a single person to a large business. Mainstream games like Call of Duty for instance are funded by publishers and can take a considerably longer time to develop.

Games are usually developed in phases, initially with pitches, concepts, prototypes and design documents that convey all main aspects of what a developer wants to make. If the idea is approved and the developer gets funding then development gets under way. Development requires a large quantity of people working on it with different responsibilities. These responsibilities range from designers, artists, programmers and testers. The next stage is the development alpha and beta stages until they are ready to market and showcase to the public.

Like most industries out there, a minority have the final say about whether a game gets the go ahead or not, but I don't think the final say or responsibility is given to a single person with a games company because a lot of other people have influence on the game development. The standard and how well an idea for a game is portrayed is by the development team making it a responsibility as a group.

When it comes to the principles of how games of different genres are made, I no longer think that there is much difference between them. A comparison between Pac man and the fairly modern F.E.A.R 2 was brought to my attention and I saw that something as simple as Pac man is still similar to modern day games. Obviously the visual experience is completely different but they both have a story, designed characters, levels, incentive to progress for example enemies chasing you and aims to succeed within the game. In my opinion it's just the aesthetic exterior of a game that makes it different from others.

Task 7: Personal Game Review

I don't think there are many gamers that dislike the idea of killing in the art of a ninja, so for my review I am going to look at what makes, or breaks, in my opinion, one of the best stealth games of its time, Tenchu 2: wrath of heaven. The sequel wrath of heaven was released by activision and developed by K2 Japan for playstation2, Xbox and playstation portable in Europe on march 7th 2003. The genre of the game is a third-person stealth action, entirely dedicated to the beauty of stealth kill using Japanese ninja methods. With shurikens, poisonous darts, exploding ninja stars, grappling hooks, caltrops, smoke bombs, magic spells, warring clans, magic portals and demon spells it seems like K2 have really hit the nail on the head when it comes to producing an authentic ninja experience. Even though its the developers third attempt at making a great ninja simulator, wrath of heaven focuses on the best combat mechanics in the franchise, with returning characters and stylishly improved, devastating stealth kills that no gamer would be disappointed with.

Story

The original Tenchu took place in the mid-1570s, amongst a chaotic and dangerous time in feudal Japan. Set one year after the first Tenchu game, wrath of heaven takes you through the story of Rikimarus return and his battle with the main 'boss' Tenrai, an evil sorcerer. Rikimaru returns from the supposed dead, having survived by living in a magical time portal through mastering the way of the 'shadow.' His return is much needed due to the violent rebellion and civil upset erupting throughout Japan and to make matters worse Tenrai plans to raise six lords of darkness and an army of unstoppable ninjas to consume the country and rule over Japan. In order to do so Tenrai needs to acquire a powerful sword that grants that power to the person wielding it. On a routine assassination, Rikimaru and fellow assassin Ayame learn of this plan which jolts them both into action to stop him. So basically the story is a typical good versus evil, where the good are trying to stop the damnation of civilisation that could be caused by a minorities greed for power.

Gameplay

In my opinion, one of the main selling points for wrath of heavens gameplay, is the three playable characters. Due to the layering of the stories, your also required to play as all three to really get the ins and outs of the story and from different perspectives. This feature creates extended gameplay time making it more captivating and fun to play and therefore better value for money.

Another great feature is the wide range of inventory you can choose from at the start of each mission, from caltrops to smoke bombs. Different items need to be unlocked though depending on how well you do in each mission determines what you unlock, and this is done by how stealthily you achieve each mission. Stealth is encouraged by the improved stealth kills that have been introduced in the sequel compared to the others. whether its jumping from roof tops, sneaking and slicing throats or jamming daggers into spinal cords, all stealth kills have been made majorly appealing. A particular detail I enjoyed was the x-ray shot shown after you force a dagger up into the skull of your victim, this to me was unique and quite cool. Compared to the games before it, wrath of heavens combat has been greatly improved. The lock on feature has now been introduced making it simpler to see who you are attacking. Unlike the previous games where the enemies combat wasn't very realistic, the enemies are now quicker, smarter, block more often and can predict your attacks better making it a bit more challenging. The ability to evade, somersault and dash has been added improving the fluidity of the combat, adding more dimension to the gameplay, making it more than just a stealth game. Also as the game progresses, you run into groups of enemies that are more specialised characters with better attacks than standard enemies, which is also a good improvement to the combat system.

Like most early 3D games, the manual camera angles on wrath of heaven were a bit hard to control, facing directions you didn't want it to in the most awkward of moments. Another drawback was the unrealistic line of sight that the enemies had. It was as if they were short sighted and couldn't notice you from a few meters away or sprint past just above them on a roof, and if they found you, they were easily given the slip via rooftop and then casually returned to their post as if nothing had happened, to then later lose their head.

Graphics

In general, the graphics aren't spectacular, but what they do achieve is good for games of its kind when it was released. The characters are well made, with an appropriate level of detail, and are higher poly models that retain consistency from the previous games. The animation of characters is good also, with all characters moving really fluidly. The backgrounds also are generally good looking. The Bamboo forest is lush and green, artfully done, and created with a style that blends a little bit of realism with a subtle art style that's consistent throughout the title. The Limestone Cavern sparkles with jewels and crystals, and the scene above the ocean cliffs is unexpectedly cool, even if its rather plain looking. The game is packed with seamless cut scenes. Each time you execute a stealth kill, cut scene. Every time you see a boss, sub-boss, or experience the final scene in the game, another cut scene awaits. They're all handled seamlessly. There are some moderately cool special effects. Characters clash in same-time attacks, and sparks fly just like it would when metal collides.

Overall comments

To be honest Tenchu doesn't even begin to touch the complexity of other games in its genre like metal gear solid, but I think that's what makes it a genuinely good game, because you're not constantly comparing it to the huge titles that have come before it like you would with a metal gear solid title. You play it without being as judgemental, in no way am i saying its the most amazing game but what it does accomplish it does it well, giving you a all round consistent experience rather than excelling in certain areas making bad areas more noticeable. In my opinion, it's the best ninja game I have played to date. If you like cool looking stealth kills, plenty of blood, ninjas and a decent amount of playing time for your money then I definitely recommend Tenchu 2: wrath of heaven.

Task 6: Writing about Games, Previews, reviews, commentary and lies

Like anything you do in life, career wise, you're inevitably going to come across obstructions that prevent you from doing exactly what you want. In reviewers cases, they are under huge pressure from publishers, the hands that feed them, when certain constraints are put into place. According to Kieron Gillens, a games reviewer, a video game magazine is put together in 19 days in which time all has to be covered from research to the finished piece. The strict deadline between each issue means there is less time to think about things. Then as soon as one is finished your onto another one equally as time and attention consuming. The pressure isn't eased anymore knowing, as a reviewer you could be brushed aside at any moment if you don't make the cut. After reading reviewers opinions, to put a long story short, they are rushed to do their job quicker than it takes to weigh up everything properly therefore they have to cut corners, not being able to spend time on every aspect equally.

Personally, I think that an objective take to reviewing is something that without a doubt  is necessary for games, but not completely necessary for sales. If someone likes the look of a game, regardless of what is stated about its shoddy game play a fan will still buy it. For example I am a big fan of the metal gear solid franchise and initially when I saw the new game entitled ' metal gear solid rising' being brought out where your ninja raiden as the main character, I was a bit sceptical on whether it would be as good as what had come before it. Especially when I saw game play trailers of hack and slash rather than the trade mark stealth I was rather disappointed. But regardless I will still buy it just to experience it, which I think is a mentality shared by most gamers.

Whether or not objective ranking is even doable is a good question to ask. I think that a well made, genuinely good game will sell itself when its reviewed. You may say well what shows a genuinely good game in a review and I suppose its when a games positives outweigh its negatives without being subjective.

For me, new games journalism isn't really my thing. I wouldn't read a review in that style and it have any influence on me liking or buying a game. I found it too narrative, half the time i was reading it i felt like a child being read a story. I'de much prefer reading about pros and cons of a game rather than someone's personal experience.  For example, i read a review called 'a rape in cyberspace' by Julian Dibbell, and it was like the reviewer was writing their own novel, it didn't seem like a review and I lost interest quickly. I would rather a review similar to the IGN website where it breaks down which particular aspects compliment or hinder the game, so I can make an informed decision quickly rather than decipher the sand script that some of the NGJ reviewers are publishing.

In my own writing I definitely favour objectivity, but I suppose as human beings we all have a tendency to be accidentally subjective because we want to sway others towards what we like as an individual. As far  as my writing goes, I think I am making improvements but I still find it difficult to express myself, I'm the type of person where it's all in my head but it's such a struggle to put it down on paper.    

A history of computer games, part two: 1980s - 1990s

Beginning of the 1980s was when game publishers really
started to grow, creating the likes of electronic arts that are still about
today. With these publishing houses came all sorts of interesting new types of
games, that were named genres. The genres developed were technically innovative
and were released fairly early within the 80's era of gaming. In most cases they combined different
elements of different genres to make, in a sense, a superior genre. For example
elements like puzzles, action and exploration would be combined to make it more
compelling and appealing. The legend of Zelda was a good early example of
this.
After the release of Microvision in 1979, Nintendo went
about developing the technology in handhelds in 1980. Nintendo improved LCD technology
so that battery life could be preserved for longer and increase their
reliability. Due to this improvement the handhelds would only need watch
batteries and could be made smaller.
As 1983 come to a close, the gaming industry experienced
losses more damaging than before. This
event was named the 'crash' of the gaming industry, causing bankruptcy and the
end of the second generation of console. A contributing factor to the 'crash'
was the development of poorly-designed games.
Between 1983 and 1985, the third generation of consoles
emerged, most popularly the Nintendo 8 bit Famicom. Multiple improvements were
made in the form of the controller. A joypad took over paddles and joysticks
with an 8 direction D-pad and with two
or more action buttons. This now became
the standard for consoles.
1990s, the decade of innovation, this is when the
development to 3D graphics occurred, creating the rise of the real-time
strategy and first-person shooter genres. Early 3D games contained flat shaded
graphics and simple texture maps. The gaming industry as a whole developed,
becoming more mainstream, teaming up with the music and film industry, bigger
budgets for games and larger development teams.
The top contenders were the sega saturn, nintendo 64 and playstation. It
was this point in console development when cartridges were beginning to become
a thing of the past after being taken over by CD's, however the Nintendo kept
the cartridge system, remaining one of the few in production at the time.
The sixth generation of consoles started with the
dreamcast in 1999and featured new aspects to consoles like internet gaming and
web browsing. The dreamcast was also the
first home console to display standard definition all the time.

Thoughts so far....

I've Just had a performance review before my formative one at Christmas and disappointingly it wasn't good. I think the course team are genuinely disappointed in the whole of the year for the amount of effort we've put it in.  The course team want to see more work from us. With myself I don't think its effort that I'm lacking, it's the fact I'm quite slow at whatever I do so it doesn't reflect on my work very well as in quantity. I focus too much on getting all my drawings looking good rather than doing quick sketches that are wrong and improving them. The course team have said it's about showing your working out and how you got to your successful final piece.

So to improve on this I have decided to do more still life in my free time, even if it's just my hand or something really simple, just continue to draw it over and over until I get it right. I may even start taking my journal to the pub for example, just to scribble while I'm socialising to build up a wider range of ideas for next assessment.  This course is a big step up from college so I just need to settle into the swing of things and I'm sure the speed of work will take  care of itself.  

I started my architectural project a few days ago now, I'm finding it really difficult to get the shape of the building I chose. I keep messing up the geometry so that when it renders there's harsh shadows on the material I assigned to it to check for problems. I'm trying my best to correct  them but there are so many vertex's  hanging about that don't do anything it's hard to find out what effects what. I'm debating starting again but times getting shorter so it seems a bit risky. When I open the UV editor it's such a mess that it seems like starting again would help but I'll see how  it goes.  The textures I got for this building aren't tiling great either, I've spent hours on them so its really frustrating to see your efforts going to waste.  

A history of computer gamesr: my personal gaming history

When it comes to my gaming history, I didn't really explore too much when I was younger. The first game I can really remember playing was when my dad passed down a small handheld game of space invaders, that was extremely simple with just a grey screen with black spaceships, a D pad and an A and a B button.  From this amazing device, I moved onto a similar handheld game based on the first Terminator movie, where you just shot robots that were advancing towards you.  After this, I moved onto a Nintendo Gameboy colour where you were able to explore the amazing world of Pokémon, not quite managing to catch them all. There was also the classic super Mario  that I always enjoyed playing and still do. I also remember cards you could get for the Gameboy that had roughly 50 games on one card, which was quite cool for a device as small as the Gameboy. Weirdly I think I picked one of them up from a holiday trip to Spain.

The next milestone in my gaming history was the Playstation for one of my birthdays. I have a lot of fond memories of the Playstation, playing games like Metal Gear Solid, Tenchu, time crisis with the huge grey gun controller and Fifa 98 with square shaped football players. The first game i got with the Playstation though was crash bandicoot which was always a family favourite, spending hours riding hogs, bouncing on papu papu's head and breaking boxes.  The next console I owned was the Playstation 2, I got it for Christmas and my parents couldn't pull me away from it all day. I think the first game I had on it was WWE smackdown, back in the days when I believed it to be real fighting. Playstation 2 was the first console I played that had an analogue stick, a big development for controlling assets, which gave your thumbs a bit of a break from the harsh edges of the D pad. My favourite games for the Playstation  2 was Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3. They really stick out from the ridiculous amount of games I had because there was a good degree of realism unlike other games, especially in snake eater where you had to eat to survive, and the stealth side of it was just so fun to engage with, you never got bored of it. 

From here I brought the PSP. This was a great console to play on the move and make long journeys a bit more bearable.  The graphics were a big step up from playing the Gameboy and are still quite good for a handheld console. Again my favourite game was Metal  Gear Solid, but on PSP it was a lot different, similar to a strategy game, where instead of free roaming  you had a certain amount of moves before the enemy had chance to move so you had to watch their behaviour and plan your moves wisely.

My most recent console is the Xbox 360. I also have the Kinect for the Xbox, which in my opinion has beaten the Wii hands down when it comes to fluidity of game play and graphics, plus reduced the risk of me putting a controller through my TV screen. My favourite series of games for the Xbox, is Assassins Creed. Surprisingly I'm not really a call of duty fan, I prefer to free roam, which I think Assassins Creed achieves tremendously.      

For future gaming, i would like to see myself putting on a headset and sensors to pick up my movement  truly making your actions the controller. I think for first person shooters that would be the ultimate experience. To dream a little bit further ,why not in the future create an idea like the film gamer, where you control an actual person through the scenarios of a game. Then when I'm probably no longer alive I think gaming will turn into a concept like Tron where life is just a continuous game that the majority of us get sucked into.