It’s very rarely that I watch a film with my hands held up to my face, transfixed on the screen through the tiny gaps between my fingers in some miserable attempt to shield myself from becoming too involved in the film.
However, today’s film ‘The Mist’ did just that.
I’ll admit that I did sit through the initial appalling acting and forced dialogue with a criticised look across my face but when the mist rolled over the store I felt as if I was there with the rest of the cast.
No doubt my cries and whimpers uttered feebly throughout the rest of the film confirmed to my surrounding colleagues just how involved I’d become. The last time that had happened to me with a film was with ‘Cloverfield’.
It would seem that thrillers where nothing really happens, hit me the most. You view the film through the eyes of the people there. I love it when all you can hear is the odd inhuman sound, yet you never really see what is happening beyond the confined crowd of people. I suppose what really interests me is the reaction of the people. How everyone is actually shit-scared and behave in abnormal ways, whether it be fixating on rescuing someone or turning to religion.
It’s also nice to watch a film that hasn’t been utterly Americanised. By that I mean the plot remains intellectual and unexplained, not blatantly spelt out with colourful magic-markers. I also particularly enjoyed how the film darkly ended, no rounded up summary or explanation, just an abrupt end. A sad end nonetheless but all the more realistic and horrifying.
But then ‘The Mist’ seems to be a contradiction to everything I thought to be important. A major part of my blogs is the discussion of gameplay and the importance of storyline. The film, however, didn’t seem to have that strong of a storyline, yet it is one of the most captivating films I have seen.
However the film was all about the ‘shock’ factor. Could the film ever be seen again with the same, thrilling, reaction?
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Can we all think outside the box?
What is creativity? Who can be creative? What does it mean to possess creativity? Is it an acquired skill or are we born with it?
Although creativity is a widely used term within many industries, it doesn’t seem to particularly define anything. As an artist, I associate creativity with art and most likely so do the general population, I believe that creativity or being creative is an expression of oneself, that usually results in something productive such as an artistic creation.
However, does being creative just limit to areas of art? A few of my close friends are currently studying Engineering and Electronics and they would strongly argue that the production of circuit boards is an art. So does that mean they are creative?
Or does it mean that the term ‘art’ can be as widely diverse as term ‘creativity’? But then, and this is even more thought provoking, is being creative limited to just art and that art is more widely applied?
Fans and supporters may argue that a game of football is an art.
Surgeons and doctors may argue that a medical procedure is an art.
Can bricklaying be considered an art? Or even the process of cooking and mixing ingredients?
But that still leaves ‘creativity’ feeling a bit vague. Some would argue that being creative is resulting in something new and original, which I believe to be true. Making the same t-shirt a couple of times isn’t as creative as designing a new one. Dancing the Macarena isn’t as creative as dancing your own dance. But this implies that anyone can be creative - dissolving the popular illusion that it is only limited to artists.
From a scientific point of view, creativity is considered to be the process of the right side of the brain, so this would argue that anyone can be creative. But then different social backgrounds and cognitive development can have an effect on how creative a person is.
A good example of this is children. At some point in our childhoods we have all had imaginary friends or played pretend games with imaginary worlds and characters. This would support that we are all born with creative traits and that it is not an acquired skill. A persons level of creativity from then on is determined by the paths we choose in life. Some children are encouraged to become better at maths, some at sports or in my case, art.
So although creativity is a natural ability it can be developed and encouraged by various social processes from an early age.
But are we constantly creative? Many artists are moved by inspiration and muses ( I know I am!), we need motivation, a starting point in which to be creative with and express ourselves. But then that would mean that life in general is being creative, every choice we make, every conversation we have is being creative as it is original and new to us and it is expressing ourselves as human beings.
Although creativity is a widely used term within many industries, it doesn’t seem to particularly define anything. As an artist, I associate creativity with art and most likely so do the general population, I believe that creativity or being creative is an expression of oneself, that usually results in something productive such as an artistic creation.
However, does being creative just limit to areas of art? A few of my close friends are currently studying Engineering and Electronics and they would strongly argue that the production of circuit boards is an art. So does that mean they are creative?
Or does it mean that the term ‘art’ can be as widely diverse as term ‘creativity’? But then, and this is even more thought provoking, is being creative limited to just art and that art is more widely applied?
Fans and supporters may argue that a game of football is an art.
Surgeons and doctors may argue that a medical procedure is an art.
Can bricklaying be considered an art? Or even the process of cooking and mixing ingredients?
But that still leaves ‘creativity’ feeling a bit vague. Some would argue that being creative is resulting in something new and original, which I believe to be true. Making the same t-shirt a couple of times isn’t as creative as designing a new one. Dancing the Macarena isn’t as creative as dancing your own dance. But this implies that anyone can be creative - dissolving the popular illusion that it is only limited to artists.
From a scientific point of view, creativity is considered to be the process of the right side of the brain, so this would argue that anyone can be creative. But then different social backgrounds and cognitive development can have an effect on how creative a person is.
A good example of this is children. At some point in our childhoods we have all had imaginary friends or played pretend games with imaginary worlds and characters. This would support that we are all born with creative traits and that it is not an acquired skill. A persons level of creativity from then on is determined by the paths we choose in life. Some children are encouraged to become better at maths, some at sports or in my case, art.
So although creativity is a natural ability it can be developed and encouraged by various social processes from an early age.
But are we constantly creative? Many artists are moved by inspiration and muses ( I know I am!), we need motivation, a starting point in which to be creative with and express ourselves. But then that would mean that life in general is being creative, every choice we make, every conversation we have is being creative as it is original and new to us and it is expressing ourselves as human beings.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
To play game or to game play, that is the question?
Where better to start but with a dictionary definition of gameplay?
Gameplay - not found
Game-play - not found
Game play - not found
Well that was a helpful start. In that case I will start with what I believe gameplay to be.
To me, gameplay is about the experience and enjoyment a player receives from a game. It may sound vague but everyone looks for different gameplay experiences. I personally hate getting my ass kicked and dying over and over again so the gameplay of online fps games doesn’t appeal to me at all.
However my friend may not like driving repeatedly in laps and so the gameplay of driving games wouldn’t appeal to him greatly.
The term gameplay may not be so easily defined as it’s too wide of a topic. There are many different styles and genres of games that appeal to the many personalities and lifestyles of the general public.
However gameplay is an important aspect, we may not know what it is but we know it’s important.
If gameplay can be defined as an overall gaming experience then surely that is an important aspect of all games, a good gaming experience means good sales, as more people will enjoy playing it.
But how do you compare the gaming experience of CoD4 to the gaming experience of Mario-kart or Final Fantasy?
One article I looked at even suggested that gameplay excludes graphics and sound but I think that’s absurd! Without graphics or sound you’re just staring at a blank screen and that isn’t very good gameplay at all!
I’ll admit that sometimes I play games muted or with my own music on but that’s because the in-game music is either repetitive, boring or just plain annoying, which would imply that it afects the overall gameplay as I am not enjoying an aspect of the game.
This blog is more ranty and more personal than my others but that is because I can’t really talk about other people’s gameplay experiences because the whole point of them is that they are personal experiences.
Which sadly brings us no closer to defining what exactly gameplay is. The wider definition could be that gameplay is the overall gaming experience that is achieved through all in-game aspects such as sound, style, handling, level design, characters etc. but the more personal definition of gameplay is how we experience and interpret the games as individuals.
Whether this is achieved through sheer coincidence or clever production planning, either way I can’t wait to find out for myself.
Gameplay - not found
Game-play - not found
Game play - not found
Well that was a helpful start. In that case I will start with what I believe gameplay to be.
To me, gameplay is about the experience and enjoyment a player receives from a game. It may sound vague but everyone looks for different gameplay experiences. I personally hate getting my ass kicked and dying over and over again so the gameplay of online fps games doesn’t appeal to me at all.
However my friend may not like driving repeatedly in laps and so the gameplay of driving games wouldn’t appeal to him greatly.
The term gameplay may not be so easily defined as it’s too wide of a topic. There are many different styles and genres of games that appeal to the many personalities and lifestyles of the general public.
However gameplay is an important aspect, we may not know what it is but we know it’s important.
If gameplay can be defined as an overall gaming experience then surely that is an important aspect of all games, a good gaming experience means good sales, as more people will enjoy playing it.
But how do you compare the gaming experience of CoD4 to the gaming experience of Mario-kart or Final Fantasy?
One article I looked at even suggested that gameplay excludes graphics and sound but I think that’s absurd! Without graphics or sound you’re just staring at a blank screen and that isn’t very good gameplay at all!
I’ll admit that sometimes I play games muted or with my own music on but that’s because the in-game music is either repetitive, boring or just plain annoying, which would imply that it afects the overall gameplay as I am not enjoying an aspect of the game.
This blog is more ranty and more personal than my others but that is because I can’t really talk about other people’s gameplay experiences because the whole point of them is that they are personal experiences.
Which sadly brings us no closer to defining what exactly gameplay is. The wider definition could be that gameplay is the overall gaming experience that is achieved through all in-game aspects such as sound, style, handling, level design, characters etc. but the more personal definition of gameplay is how we experience and interpret the games as individuals.
Whether this is achieved through sheer coincidence or clever production planning, either way I can’t wait to find out for myself.
The Beginning, The Middle and The End
A good book can keep me immersed for weeks, a good TV show can keep me watching for days, a good film can keep me entertained for hours and a good game can keep me occupied for months. Well at least they used too.
When it comes to books, films and TV shows there are very strict aspects that need to be addressed. They all need a beginning, a middle and an end ( well not in most TV shows today such as Heroes and Lost), they all need an exciting conclusion to an epic storyline and they all need characters.
However games also need an interactive environment and storyline, which separates it’s characteristics from other media such as book, films etc.
In my opinion, good games are those that draw influence from characters and storylines that would typically appear in books. I much prefer reading a book to watching TV as a book allows readers to immerse themselves into the storyline. Twisting plots and vivid descriptions allows the reader to create their own images of what the environment and characters would look like. This obviously isn’t replicated in games as they have their own visual representations but games that have climaxes and useful, energetic plots can keep players interested for days.
However for all games, the key playable character is the most important aspect to get right. The main character of a game is the interactive connection between the player and the game environment, without it we would merely be a spectator watching a film and as far as films go, they can only maintain our attention for a few hours.
Films strive to be visually exciting, to dazzle and impress the audience with stunning scenery and breathtaking visual effects. Although, should you ever find yourself in Disney World, they have a shed-load of 3D films in an attempt to ‘involve’ the audience but they just tend to scare the hell out of me. Anyhow, films tend to capture an audience visually rather than through the story, which can sometimes be rather disappointing. But then a book has hundreds of pages to let a story unfold and a film has a meagre two hours.
To me, I find that action or comedy films are the most appealing as comic scenes and visual gags rely on facial expressions, which struggle to get across in books, and watching a fast car chase is more interesting than reading about one. But then vice versa. I find books about mystery or sci-fi more appealing as you can let your mind run riot with the descriptive passages and you can pick up on the little details that aid the flow of the plot.
My all times favourite book, that I can read over and over is written by the fabulous Dan Brown. ‘Angels and Demons’ is an amazing book that consists of dramatic twists and short suspenseful chapters that make it practical to read. I also adore the charismatic lead character an the plausible historical depictions are intriguing. It is much like the ‘Da Vinci Code’, yet another brilliant book. It sadly received a mixed review but if morons read it and get offended because they think its is real then what on earth are they doing reading books in the first place. Dan Brown clearly states that his book is fiction!
However, that doesn’t mean a can’t go to Paris and run all over pretending I’m on a quest to find the Holy Grail as a little dream of mine.
Teehee.
When it comes to books, films and TV shows there are very strict aspects that need to be addressed. They all need a beginning, a middle and an end ( well not in most TV shows today such as Heroes and Lost), they all need an exciting conclusion to an epic storyline and they all need characters.
However games also need an interactive environment and storyline, which separates it’s characteristics from other media such as book, films etc.
In my opinion, good games are those that draw influence from characters and storylines that would typically appear in books. I much prefer reading a book to watching TV as a book allows readers to immerse themselves into the storyline. Twisting plots and vivid descriptions allows the reader to create their own images of what the environment and characters would look like. This obviously isn’t replicated in games as they have their own visual representations but games that have climaxes and useful, energetic plots can keep players interested for days.
However for all games, the key playable character is the most important aspect to get right. The main character of a game is the interactive connection between the player and the game environment, without it we would merely be a spectator watching a film and as far as films go, they can only maintain our attention for a few hours.
Films strive to be visually exciting, to dazzle and impress the audience with stunning scenery and breathtaking visual effects. Although, should you ever find yourself in Disney World, they have a shed-load of 3D films in an attempt to ‘involve’ the audience but they just tend to scare the hell out of me. Anyhow, films tend to capture an audience visually rather than through the story, which can sometimes be rather disappointing. But then a book has hundreds of pages to let a story unfold and a film has a meagre two hours.
To me, I find that action or comedy films are the most appealing as comic scenes and visual gags rely on facial expressions, which struggle to get across in books, and watching a fast car chase is more interesting than reading about one. But then vice versa. I find books about mystery or sci-fi more appealing as you can let your mind run riot with the descriptive passages and you can pick up on the little details that aid the flow of the plot.
My all times favourite book, that I can read over and over is written by the fabulous Dan Brown. ‘Angels and Demons’ is an amazing book that consists of dramatic twists and short suspenseful chapters that make it practical to read. I also adore the charismatic lead character an the plausible historical depictions are intriguing. It is much like the ‘Da Vinci Code’, yet another brilliant book. It sadly received a mixed review but if morons read it and get offended because they think its is real then what on earth are they doing reading books in the first place. Dan Brown clearly states that his book is fiction!
However, that doesn’t mean a can’t go to Paris and run all over pretending I’m on a quest to find the Holy Grail as a little dream of mine.
Teehee.
Friday, 26 December 2008
Nothing was stirring, not even a mouse…just my rumble-pack controller!
The earliest memory I have of a games console is the Sega Mega drive (which I still use to this day). I would spend many a days of my childhood sitting on my Dad’s lap playing Desert Strike (he would let me fire the missiles) but I also used to play with him on Golden Axe II. Bearing in mind I was about 5 years old at the time, it answers the question of how easy it was to use. A simple 4 way D-pad allowed me to manoeuvre my warrior along a 2D scrolling environment. It was a simple yet effective set-up that provided hours of fun.
However the Sega Megadrive isn’t the oldest console in my household. We still have a working ZX spectrum Sinclair. It’s great to have such a range of working consoles but my word, the Sinclair is fussy. It reads games off of tapes and the slightest nudge would obliterate hours of loading time. We mostly use a keyboard for the spectrum games but with no games manuals it soon became frustrating to use as I would continuously forget the controls. My parents tell me that they did use a joystick for the arcade-style games but that broke a while ago now.
Because my parents chose the path of Sega and Sonic the Hedgehog, I never got to play on any old Nintendo systems until quite recently. The N64 has some amazing games that I have enjoyed playing but I absolutely loath the controllers. The awkward 3 handle design made it impossible for me to know which way I was holding it and, in my mind, ruined the whole experience for me.
To me, the Playstation 2 Dual Shock controllers are the best game pads. The analog (analogue?…Americans tsk) sticks are excellent to use for most genres of games. The increased number of buttons meant games could include more controllable actions, which increased the overall game-play experience.
I was therefore pleased to know that the PS3 had kept much of the original design and thank the lord for the new wireless feature, no longer do I have to sit 2 metres from the console, I can now lounge to my heart’s content on the couch at a more reasonable distance. However, I’m not keen on how controllers are trying to incorporate trigger buttons. It may fell more realistic but those horrid marshmallow triggers on the PS3 controllers are just awful to use.
The future of game controllers is uncertain. Games and consoles are heading in the direction of including the user more. Interaction is now an important feature and the Wii remote is a good example of that. The Wii-mote allows the user to play with more precision and to get more involved (though at times the sensitivity really infuriates me). But what about futuristic capabilities such as virtual helmets, would we really need controllers as well?
Personally I feel that the Playstation 2 controllers, as well as the console, are quite a successful design. There is enough buttons for the user to feel in control and the design is quite comfortable to hold for hours on end.
But for efficient game-play give me a keyboard and mouse any day.
However the Sega Megadrive isn’t the oldest console in my household. We still have a working ZX spectrum Sinclair. It’s great to have such a range of working consoles but my word, the Sinclair is fussy. It reads games off of tapes and the slightest nudge would obliterate hours of loading time. We mostly use a keyboard for the spectrum games but with no games manuals it soon became frustrating to use as I would continuously forget the controls. My parents tell me that they did use a joystick for the arcade-style games but that broke a while ago now.
Because my parents chose the path of Sega and Sonic the Hedgehog, I never got to play on any old Nintendo systems until quite recently. The N64 has some amazing games that I have enjoyed playing but I absolutely loath the controllers. The awkward 3 handle design made it impossible for me to know which way I was holding it and, in my mind, ruined the whole experience for me.
To me, the Playstation 2 Dual Shock controllers are the best game pads. The analog (analogue?…Americans tsk) sticks are excellent to use for most genres of games. The increased number of buttons meant games could include more controllable actions, which increased the overall game-play experience.
I was therefore pleased to know that the PS3 had kept much of the original design and thank the lord for the new wireless feature, no longer do I have to sit 2 metres from the console, I can now lounge to my heart’s content on the couch at a more reasonable distance. However, I’m not keen on how controllers are trying to incorporate trigger buttons. It may fell more realistic but those horrid marshmallow triggers on the PS3 controllers are just awful to use.
The future of game controllers is uncertain. Games and consoles are heading in the direction of including the user more. Interaction is now an important feature and the Wii remote is a good example of that. The Wii-mote allows the user to play with more precision and to get more involved (though at times the sensitivity really infuriates me). But what about futuristic capabilities such as virtual helmets, would we really need controllers as well?
Personally I feel that the Playstation 2 controllers, as well as the console, are quite a successful design. There is enough buttons for the user to feel in control and the design is quite comfortable to hold for hours on end.
But for efficient game-play give me a keyboard and mouse any day.
Thursday, 11 December 2008
You say it best when you say nothing at all
Storylines…loveable, debateable, necessary? Oh, and lets chuck some mutes in there too.
In may opinion, a game needs a good storyline to keep me interested. I mean, my favourite games of all time, the fantastic Jak and Daxter trilogy, (yes I know I go on about them too much) have an amazing storyline that links all three games together. There are twists and turns in the plot, two-faced characters and villainous enemies, it kept me in suspense.
But then in all fairness some of my other favourite games such as Left 4 Dead, Guitar Hero 3 and Super Smash Bros have no storyline to speak of what-so-ever. However these games are only fun when played with friends. When I play Super Smash Bros by myself I lose interest very quickly (but then I tend to also with friends, but that’s only because I get beaten a lot and I really don’t like to lose), which brings me back to why storylines are good.
A good storyline adds another level to the gaming experience. Not only are you carrying out the physical game-play but you’re motivated to do so by the story.
A great narrative allows the player to identify with the playable character more. By understanding the history and motives of your character you become more emotionally involved and interact with the game on both a physical and mental level.
However, for me personally there is always one aspect that truly separates you from a character…the dialogue. No matter how much you know about the playable character, their dialogue always creates a barrier that prevents you from fully getting involved as it constantly reminds you that you are not them. However does this apply if you’re character is mute?
The most famous and successful example I can think of would be Gordon Freeman from Half-life but there are many others such as the playable character in GTA III. You never really find out much about that character, but I have the feeling that becoming emotionally attached to a homicidal maniac that enjoys running over prostitutes is not a good idea. There is also Jak from the first Jak and Daxter games but he magically regains his voice in the 2nd game after being horribly tortured but more about that later.
Right back to the Half-life games. A very popular series of games due to an exceptional storyline that successfully incorporates puzzles, combat and a narrative. However I don’t think it would have been as popular if Gordon wasn’t a mute. Not only does the first person perspective make you feel like you Gordon himself but you don’t have the dialogue barrier. Gordon doesn’t answer for you and therefore you don’t detach yourself from the character, resulting in a much more involved game-play.
However to pull off having a mute character, you have to have a pretty exceptional storyline, otherwise the player will feel uninvolved and bored.
In my opinion, I feel that muted characters are more successful at involving a player, as characters with dialogue is like watching a film. Yes you feel like your there in the moment sometimes but you’re always aware that you are watching a film and can never quite fully appreciate the game.
Hmmmm i seem to have gone off on a tangent...watch this space...
Oh! I forgot about Zelda, another hugely successful game series in which the main character, Link, never talks.
In may opinion, a game needs a good storyline to keep me interested. I mean, my favourite games of all time, the fantastic Jak and Daxter trilogy, (yes I know I go on about them too much) have an amazing storyline that links all three games together. There are twists and turns in the plot, two-faced characters and villainous enemies, it kept me in suspense.
But then in all fairness some of my other favourite games such as Left 4 Dead, Guitar Hero 3 and Super Smash Bros have no storyline to speak of what-so-ever. However these games are only fun when played with friends. When I play Super Smash Bros by myself I lose interest very quickly (but then I tend to also with friends, but that’s only because I get beaten a lot and I really don’t like to lose), which brings me back to why storylines are good.
A good storyline adds another level to the gaming experience. Not only are you carrying out the physical game-play but you’re motivated to do so by the story.
A great narrative allows the player to identify with the playable character more. By understanding the history and motives of your character you become more emotionally involved and interact with the game on both a physical and mental level.
However, for me personally there is always one aspect that truly separates you from a character…the dialogue. No matter how much you know about the playable character, their dialogue always creates a barrier that prevents you from fully getting involved as it constantly reminds you that you are not them. However does this apply if you’re character is mute?
The most famous and successful example I can think of would be Gordon Freeman from Half-life but there are many others such as the playable character in GTA III. You never really find out much about that character, but I have the feeling that becoming emotionally attached to a homicidal maniac that enjoys running over prostitutes is not a good idea. There is also Jak from the first Jak and Daxter games but he magically regains his voice in the 2nd game after being horribly tortured but more about that later.
Right back to the Half-life games. A very popular series of games due to an exceptional storyline that successfully incorporates puzzles, combat and a narrative. However I don’t think it would have been as popular if Gordon wasn’t a mute. Not only does the first person perspective make you feel like you Gordon himself but you don’t have the dialogue barrier. Gordon doesn’t answer for you and therefore you don’t detach yourself from the character, resulting in a much more involved game-play.
However to pull off having a mute character, you have to have a pretty exceptional storyline, otherwise the player will feel uninvolved and bored.
In my opinion, I feel that muted characters are more successful at involving a player, as characters with dialogue is like watching a film. Yes you feel like your there in the moment sometimes but you’re always aware that you are watching a film and can never quite fully appreciate the game.
Hmmmm i seem to have gone off on a tangent...watch this space...
Oh! I forgot about Zelda, another hugely successful game series in which the main character, Link, never talks.
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
All I want for christmas is ... a remote controlled rat !?!
Yes you heard me right. The other day I watched a lovely little documentary that explored the connection between the human brain and computers. I found the program very interesting and debatable but what disturbed me was the experiments they carried out on rats, monkeys and bulls.
I was horrified to see a poor little rat with electrodes wedged into it’s brain. As if that wasn’t upsetting enough, the electrodes allowed you to move the rat left and right. I’m against animal testing to begin with, so I was already disgusted that all of this was in the name of science!
But it made me think, at what point does this get out of control?
In 5 years time the best selling Christmas present could be a remote controlled rat. In 7 years it could be a horse! This may even affect the games industry. If the general public can gain control of real living creatures, why would they want to play simulated games?
It doesn’t have to stop there. Brain control could even extend to humans, creating soldiers that are controlled from behind the front lines. This could then be applied for leisure. Popular characters such as the Spartans from Halo could be created using remote controlled humans, allowing people to play live action games.
But enough of that…
I was horrified to see a poor little rat with electrodes wedged into it’s brain. As if that wasn’t upsetting enough, the electrodes allowed you to move the rat left and right. I’m against animal testing to begin with, so I was already disgusted that all of this was in the name of science!
But it made me think, at what point does this get out of control?
In 5 years time the best selling Christmas present could be a remote controlled rat. In 7 years it could be a horse! This may even affect the games industry. If the general public can gain control of real living creatures, why would they want to play simulated games?
It doesn’t have to stop there. Brain control could even extend to humans, creating soldiers that are controlled from behind the front lines. This could then be applied for leisure. Popular characters such as the Spartans from Halo could be created using remote controlled humans, allowing people to play live action games.
But enough of that…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
