Week 9 assignment

In the past I've never really considered controllers as an important part of gameplay, as i would normally relate controller ergonomics as a topic more associated with users that play games consistently over a long duration. But now that i think about it i believe that some of the best designs for controllers originate back into the nineties when designs were a little less complicated in comparison to ones made today.

Thinking back to my first console the Sega mega drive i felt that the designs for this controller were very comfortable for various reasons. i felt that the mega drive controllers were lighter then those made in the present, also as one of the links provided noted that the controller was shaped more circular then others at the time, which provided a more comfortable experience.

In comparison to later models of controllers like the xbox and n64 i found these controllers to be rather bulky over the simplistic mega drive controller. especially when considering the n64 controller as there was the added feature of the rumble pack that could be attached making the controller heavier and more bulky.

However i do feel that only in the latest models of controllers has ergonomics even been considered, at least in the case of the xbox360. Compared to the earlier design of controller the xbox 360 controller i feel fits nicely into the hands, with the added wireless feature makes freedom of movement alot easier. I also think that the positioning of the triggers in the latest model to be more comfortable with no stretching of my digits. I also think that the design of the xbox 360 controller has had alot more thought put into it as i think it is one of the best visually pleasing controllers to date.

When considering the ps3 controller i think that not alot has changed from its predecessor. i think that the boomerang idea should have been released, but because of the concerns raised at its unveiling sony decided to play it safe with a model designed closely to its previous controller. I think this is a shame as sony could have gone for this more comfortable design, but unfortunately we shall never know.

As for the future of game controllers i think that nintendo revolutions idea of using movement to interface with games is steadily becoming more popular. I know that the Nintendo Wii already uses this type of interface and i think that the involvement of physical movement helps you to become more immersed in the game.

Week 8 assignment

Storylines have always been an integral part of gaming ever since i have played games. I feel that especially in adventure/action games this is particularly true, as it is rare to have a game where you recklessly slaughter people for no reason at all (apart from the exception of postal). Therefore i think that basic storyline are essential for games to set plots for our hero to at least be motivated to undertake the task at hand.

However i do think that a strong storyline isn't always necessary. Like for instance David Freeman who spoke about games like GTA as being 'sandbox' is genuinely true. Yet even with a basic storyline GTA is still very successful, the reason for this is because with these 'sandbox' games you are given the option of choice. It is often in these games that you get the oppertunity to explore the environment or choose which missions to participate in.

Whereas the problem with some storyline games is that they funnel you into a specific direction and you can't decide on which areas to explore, i find this particularly noticable with games that don't have a gripping story plot.

Then you get games like Half life and you don't even care that there is a single exit out the room, because it has a great story. I remember when i played half life and i would constantly see the mysterious man wearing a suit in a room through a window and i kept playing just because i wanted to know who he was and what his involvement in the story was.

Therefore i ultimately enjoy games that have branching storylines, as they not only have a storyline, but you also have the choice as well. Even though Marc Laidlaw disapproves of these types of games because once they have been played they aren't usually replayed (which is true). i think that games like Silent hill or Knights of the old republic are fantastic because you know that the ending of your game will be totally different from a friends, because at some point you made a choice that differed from their own.

Then there are games like postal which i mention before, where you literally do anything you like. You can run for president or run around the streets urinating over people until they vomit or maybe even decapitate someone set their head on fire and kick it around the streets. With this game there is a great amount of choice, however because it lacks any sort of plot i found that i quickly got bored of this game and is it major flaw, which proves that games truely do need a plot even if its a basic one to be successful.

wEEK 8 ASSIGNMENT

Week 7 Assignment

Art direction has always been an interesting profession to me, as really art directors are the core designers of the project. The impression that i've recieved about art directors is that they get the freedom to set their own design as a baseline for other artists, in which they work around and further develop the original idea. I think this is great as this shows that the art director isn't limited to just his designs, but gains the points of view of others that the director may not have thought of, that could be complementary to their original design.

However this position also proves that the art director has a great responsibility as they are afterall the leading creative designer. Even though the art director is the main artistic creator this doesn't mean they are at the highest level of the heirarchy. They would have to answer to artist managers who set budgets and deadlines, then we have the developers of the original idea for the project. A good example of this (at least in film) was a documentary i watch on the creation of General Grievous in the latest Star Wars film, in which George Lucas Would approve certain designs for the character and whittle them down to his favourite pieces.

Nonetheless I do think there are subtle difference between the game and film industries of art direction. With film i think that Art direction is simply just creating the foundation and directing ideas. Whereas with game there seems to be more involvement. Like for example the art director Phillip Bossant would have to do playtest and sort out coding issues, which would even occur in the film industry.

I think that a key aspect to becoming a good art director is communication. Communication is vital because an art director doesn't create designs solely on their own presonal creations, but is rather a gather of others ideas. Therefore good communication and relationships between co workers is very important, as essentially a better relationship will result in higher motivation leading to greater results from their peers. This is one of the main resaons why I think that any industry that employs art directors prefer experienced workers of the field, as an art director doesn't just have the resposibility of being a creative thinker but also needs to be confident, a good communicator and have the ability to take risks.

Week 6 assignment

Gameplay has always been an important aspect of games. I always thought that gameplay was to do with the layout of control within the game, so i can agree with Chris Crawford in that there is really no definitive meaning for gameplay. but what is certain is that gameplay is all about the involvement of the player interacting with the game.

Crawford also makes some other valid points in that programers can't become artists, as creativity is something that you are born with, therefore programmers can't diverse into an artistic direction unless they have that creativity. This then means that game artists at least have that opportunity to create their own game with no interferance by other indivduals (though this might not necessarily be a good idea).

However i think that game development differs alot now, in comparison to the early development of games. As games have continuously become more complex in design then the original atari games, i think that there is more specialisation in this industry. By this I mean that developers are more likely to stick to their specific field of expertise, like for instance a programmer just sticking to programming. So with developers sticking to their specialised areas makes the company assume that the final product should be a game of high quality.

When it comes down to designing other genres of games i think that the principles of the design doesn't really differ. Of course the designs are going to be different, but i don't think that this would affect the process of how the game is going to be made.

If i'm playing a game I always seem to enjoy the challenges involved. I think this is a main reason for why I participate in online gaming as usually the opponent isn't computer AI. But even if I am playing a console game especially ones I enjoy like Devil may cry, I will complete the game on medium level and then progress to a harder level. In this game I remember at reaching the first boss on this hard level and dying after being hit 3 times, then to make things even harder when I attacked this boss it's health meter barely moved. However I persisted in what seem like an impossible task and eventually managed to defeat this boss and eventually the game, then because i achieved completing this insane mode i was granted the benefit of unlimited devil trigger, which lead me to hours of enjoyable ass kicking for all the suffering the demon minions had caused me!

Week 5 assignment

It is true to state that a mojority of games journalism now exists on the internet, rather then through magazine publishing in current times. I even remember when i use to purchase game magazines for my N64 and then slowly transitioned over to the internet to read reviews (though i didn't really notice it). However i feel that game magazines have one strong advantage over internet reviews which wasn't mention is that they have demos. For instance i remember when i was young always buying game magazines just for the demos, especially if they aren't accessable elsewhere. I even have a friend that buys xbox360 magazines so they can recieve the demos which aren't downloadable through xbox live.

As there are now more innovative ways of reviewing games that are present over the internet and less consumers purchasing games magazines the question now is how do publishers make profits? I feel that even through the internet there are various ways in which publishers can achieve profits. The first is through memberships, there are various site available that have free membership. However there are always advanced memberships available where customers pay so much a month, and get exclusive downloads and other goodies that are for these specific members only.

However just like in game magazines the developers of games know that consumers will read reviews on games before buying them ( i am included in this category of people). Therefore wherever there are games journalists wheather it be through magazines or the internet, there will always be advertisements. Even when on an internet games journalist site attempting to read a review, you are always interrupted by pop ups advertising the latest release.

I think that giving scores to games is an impossible task, as these opinions are usually determined by a certain point of view. As I've noticed all publishers have different opinions that differ from others, sure they many be similar but just like with all individuals we all have different tastes. Also with graphics increasing with each generation of gaming you can't necesarilly grade a game with full marks for visual effects, as within the year there will always be a game with increased graphics.

However I do enjoy how these new games journalists have found new ways of reviewing games. like for instance the context in which the article 'A rape in cyberspace' was set really struck me, whereas if it had presented in another way it may have made me laugh. Which shows that this form is of writing is very powerful yet very opinionated.

For me i feel this is a reason as to why im more of an objective writer rather than a subjective one. As i think that subjective writers always try to influence the way you are thinking, to side with their points of view. whereas objective writers just give you the facts and lets you create your own decisions.

Week 4 assignment

Now that the gaming market has grown larger in comparison to 20 years ago, I can understand how companies have become increasingly competitive within this market. It seems to me that businesses like Sony and Microsoft are attempting to monopolise this market, by claiming their consoles the xbox360 and PS3 are the most technologically advanced. However I have seen various different games that can be played on these consoles, which show to me that they aren't as graphically magnificant as they make it out to be, though they are still better than its predecessors. I believe that it is these consoles high definition capabilities that makes them so formidable in this market.

Back home in sunny Wickford my family owns a HD television and I have been amazed by many programs that I've watched in HD, because of the amount of detail HD picks up especially in distant lanscape environments. It was through these means that I encouraged a friend to acquire and play their console the xbox360 through a HD TV. I found that the quality of the game was greatly increased making the gameplay more enjoyable. I would also like to add that whenever you have been looking around in say shopping centres have you noticed that when there are promotioning these consoles that the display units always have HD TV sets, which just goes to show that these consoles need HD to get the best gaming experience.

The idea that publishers pressurise developers to produce sequals and movie games is terrible but true. i hate it especially when developers have to rush games just so that they can release the game in time with the movie. Then with sequals you always find that the games are far too similar to its previous title with some extra items or abilities to still keep you interested. It is rare to find a game of a film or sequal that lives up to its title. This then means there are less original games that can be developed, which could potentially push gaming into a different direction.

However there really have been some great developments in the gaming industry. like for instance I'm really anticipating the euphoria game engine as this means that the gaming world is becoming more like reality as the program actually simulates the properties of the world. so that wood when breaks spliters like wood or if a NPC falls off a building they will cling onto an edge. I think that this engine is a great idea and shall be looking forward to the new GTA and Star wars game.

As i really enjoy my pc games i must say that i notice developments further in on this platform rather than on consoles. So for this platform i really have noticed the difference in game graphics. I really remember how great the new doom game look graphically in comparison to half life. Another game i think looks great is FEAR along with it's bullet time system, in which you could use justto see how great the models and environment looks.

Eventually though i believe that the limit of gaming shall be when you can enter a game and become so immersed in it, that you believe whats happening around you is real. I suppose that I think gaming will evetually head towards something like the matrix (but without machines attempting to exterminate the human race), where you could interact with others within this computerised world.