Communication is one of the hardest things that humanity accomplishes on a daily basis, and more often than not, there is a bit of loss when you translate thought to words and back to thought in someone else's brain.
In game design, quite often you have to start somewhere, such as, "This game will be like Zelda: OoT but with biblical mythology and a modern setting."
Such shortcuts allow for fast absorption of the key data, and can allow for discussion of the actual game development to begin earlier and at a faster pace.
But even using the above heuristic shortcut, some data can be misinterpreted, or flat out misunderstood. For example, does the Zelda aspect mean dungeons, a main weapon and different sub weapons? Does it mean heart containers are found? What is biblical mythology? Is it the parts in the bible? Or is it the parts that people make up as they interpret it? And by modern... do you mean now, within the last 20 years, or 20 minutes into the future?
Yes there will be questions and clarifications, but it sure is a lot faster than detailing it all at first, and pictures already begin forming in people's minds as the question and answer goes on. Collective brainstorming occurs, and a game gets designed.
This can often be seen as a "sales pitch" of the game, but this type of thinking and communication clearly shows what you want to do, and how it will be different from the current offering available.
"This is a MegaMan game where you're a an unemployed teenager and have to train and get jobs."
"Its like Bionic Commando, except sci-fi, 3-D and the mechanized arm is your wife."
So to everyone who has to work with other people on cross disciplinary projects, the greater your breadth of knowledge, the easier it will be to communicate. So read a book you don't like, play a game that sucks and has a low metacritic score, and finally, experience life. Good luck, have fun.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Thursday, August 29, 2013
White Privilege
It's strange talking to people about things they have, and emotions they experience, when they feel that they are just and fair, and don't have those reactions and emotions themselves.
White privilege is a topic that brings up anger in people, who feel that they don't have it, and that it is unfair to accuse them of such. They are not part of the "conspiracy" to keep other ethnicities down. They have no problems with minorities. They are not the white privilege.
Yet, they proceed to talk about, how they are not getting a job because under qualified women and minorities are being hired due to affirmative action. They can't see that their view point is exactly the result of their white privilege.
But white privilege is just the definition of something that happens to all ethnicities. All ethnicities listen to their own, protect their own, and have a sort of fear of the other. They can tell the differences among themselves, and often have great divides amongst themselves.
That is to say, not every hispanic, asian, white and black is the same. But of course, there are common factors which tie each person together, and there are new global cultures springing up around the internet and video games, that can tie disparate nations together.
Its easy for me to communicate with people who use the internet. Doesn't matter what the color of their skin, or what country they are from. Things like that, are to me, why the internet is so important. It is a shared culture.
So as a white male, I wish to say to other white men and women out there:
White privilege is a topic that brings up anger in people, who feel that they don't have it, and that it is unfair to accuse them of such. They are not part of the "conspiracy" to keep other ethnicities down. They have no problems with minorities. They are not the white privilege.
Yet, they proceed to talk about, how they are not getting a job because under qualified women and minorities are being hired due to affirmative action. They can't see that their view point is exactly the result of their white privilege.
But white privilege is just the definition of something that happens to all ethnicities. All ethnicities listen to their own, protect their own, and have a sort of fear of the other. They can tell the differences among themselves, and often have great divides amongst themselves.
That is to say, not every hispanic, asian, white and black is the same. But of course, there are common factors which tie each person together, and there are new global cultures springing up around the internet and video games, that can tie disparate nations together.
Its easy for me to communicate with people who use the internet. Doesn't matter what the color of their skin, or what country they are from. Things like that, are to me, why the internet is so important. It is a shared culture.
So as a white male, I wish to say to other white men and women out there:
You are privileged. You expect people to listen to you, and you expect to be treated a certain way. You don't think anything is wrong because nobody bothers you about it. You are not stopped and searched. You are not assumed to be a criminal. You are a special little snowflake. And when you notice this happening, you need to speak up. You need to correct the injustice that is occurring to your brothers and sisters. You need to stop the apathy towards others.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Kill your Darlings
Sometimes you can feel that something is wrong with a design, concept or story, without knowing what it is. On some gut level you feel that what you are doing is not beneficial. But how do you transition from gut feeling to productivity?
You see, when your gut is telling you that something is off, it can be difficult to work. Authors refer to it as writer's block. It is a conundrum that has to be resolved so that the work can be the best it can be. Sometimes it will require rework or scrapping a project, but the sooner you realize what is wrong, the sooner you can fix it.
Essentially, you do not want to tackle the problem, you are aware of it, and so you fill your time with other things that "have to be done", but are of lesser priority.
Writing or Talking about the fact that you are Procrastinating or Solving Easier Problems -
You are now addressing the issue that there is a problem. You are talking to other people in an effort to find a way to save that problem, or to finally come to the conclusion, that it has to be resolved some how.
When thinking of moving from controls to touch gameplay, I wondered if I should keep the character icon, or if I could remove it entirely instead of animating it for touch. Sometimes, its better to not waste time on additional animations, while other times, the investment allows the game to feel more "juicy". Think it through and make the decision.
You see, when your gut is telling you that something is off, it can be difficult to work. Authors refer to it as writer's block. It is a conundrum that has to be resolved so that the work can be the best it can be. Sometimes it will require rework or scrapping a project, but the sooner you realize what is wrong, the sooner you can fix it.
How this May Progress:
Procrastination -
Perhaps the one that can be the hardest to identify. If you procrastinate already, it can be difficult to identify your normal procrastination from that resulting from a problem. This procrastination occurs because you have no solution for the problem, yet you do not quite understand that the reason you're doing this is because of that lack of solution.Solving Easier Problems -
That is to say, that instead of tackling the big mess, you spend time clearing out your inbox, responding to twitter, etc etc.Essentially, you do not want to tackle the problem, you are aware of it, and so you fill your time with other things that "have to be done", but are of lesser priority.
Writing or Talking about the fact that you are Procrastinating or Solving Easier Problems -
You are now addressing the issue that there is a problem. You are talking to other people in an effort to find a way to save that problem, or to finally come to the conclusion, that it has to be resolved some how.
Solving the Problem, or Killing It -
And here it is, the whole point of this mess. If you can't solve the problem, then you have to come to terms with killing it off.How to Kill:
Combine it with something else -
Maybe the character is a bit redundant, maybe their role can be merged with another. Perhaps the mechanic is just not interesting enough by itself. It could be that you don't need jumping in the game, so you can just put any jumping with the other Quick Time events in the game. Have it be context sensitive like other interaction points in the game instead.Remove it entirely -
Is the scene causing more trouble than its worth? Sometimes, going back and rewriting, or recreating a room is better than trying to shove something where it doesn't belong. The best authors have every scene progressing multiple things at once (character, story, setting up a Chekov's gun). Similarly every area of a game, should be exploring the game world narrative, the character narrative, and the player narrative.When thinking of moving from controls to touch gameplay, I wondered if I should keep the character icon, or if I could remove it entirely instead of animating it for touch. Sometimes, its better to not waste time on additional animations, while other times, the investment allows the game to feel more "juicy". Think it through and make the decision.
Change its location -
Sometimes a scene doesn't work because it hasn't been set up. Maybe make the scene take place later on, and have the current moment set up that payoff. In a game, you may need to have a room or two where the player can safely play with a new mechanic. You may feel that you have to rush it, because the level is already built, but you should evaluate the space, and attempt to script around this, or simply move the challenge to a later spot.In the end:
Solutions vary based on why you have to kill your darling. Hopefully, this will at least get you back on track to solving your problem. Good luck!Monday, July 22, 2013
What defines a role-playing game?
Role-playing: To assume or act out a particular role. To assume or represent in a drama; act out.
Assume: Suppose to be the case, without proof.
Game: For me, a game is about organization of play, with a definitive end. Where play is an abstraction of life.
When looking up the definition of role-playing, I saw that they used the word assume quite a bit, and decided to include that definition as well. This makes the definition of role-playing much clearer, as it means that you are taking a role and making assumptions about it: The role of a boss, of a teacher, or of a level 12 paladin.
"As a boss, I suppose I would sit like this, and I would talk like this. I suppose I would go and check on the employees about X, Y and Z."
"As a teacher, I would get the students attention. I'll wait until they are quiet then I'll start the lecture on multiplication."
"Okay, my 12th level Paladin is going to Turn Undead this turn."
So a role-playing game is the organization of playing a role, where there is an end goal to be reached (storyline, dungeon, etc). That role is formalized in the rules of the game.
Perhaps this view is too broad, because now, many adventure games, and action adventure games can fall into this category.
Tony Hawk Pro Skater is a role-playing game. You role-play a skater at a competition with a time limit. What lines will the skater choose? What tricks will they do? You suppose that a kick-flip would be what they would choose to do here? Then that's what they do.
There is no assumption of turn based, fantasy, equipment, stats or experience. But Tony Hawk Pro Skater doesn't "feel" like a role-playing game.
The Last of Us is also a role-playing game. Most games with a story are role-playing games. You take on the role of the hero (whether specifically, such as Mario from Mario Bros, or generically, as in World of Warcraft, where your created character is now the hero).
Now this definition is pretty broad, which is why we add modifiers to it, Action RPG, MMORPG, Turn-Based RPG, Tabletop RPG.
But, if all these games are RPGs and so many games we have played fall into the category of this definition of RPG, then what does RPG elements mean in a video game? Why do we refer to Experience gain and levels and stats as RPG elements?
This has to do with the origin of the Role-playing genre. Dungeons and Dragons was the first game to be known as a role-playing game. It sprouted from the war game Chainmail, and it changed the focus from controlling armies to controlling individual characters. The rules involved in Dungeons and Dragons, the very mechanics of the game, is what lead to the concept of RPGs having stats and character growth.
So does this mean that we need to change our definition of Role-playing games to specifically include these game mechanics? If we do, then some tabletop RPGs may very well cease being RPGs and will revert to just being games in which you role-play.
Instead I think we need to better define what it means to role-play as far as games and video games go. I don't have an answer for this, since really, this should be a public conscience kind of thing.
For example, if we say that video games with role-playing are games where a player makes in character non-mechanics decisions, then many story focused adventure games should be considered RPGs (Telltale's The Walking Dead for example), where games where the only decisions are game mechanics based (Naughty Dog's Last of Us). Yet, Walking Dead is an adventure game with some action in it, and Last of Us is an action adventure game with some RPG elements in it (pills allow you to power up, essentially counting as a form of experience gain), or elements that modify game play by increased character ability and not necessarily player ability (health gain, less weapon sway).
So, with RPG elements being mechanics that originate from RPG games (leveling system for example), but having those mechanics not be the definition of an RPG, means that aside from the confusion, we can simply agree to this, continue to use it as we currently do, and not worry too much more about it.
It's good to talk about these things, as heuristics are important to simplifying conversations and allowing us to reach a goal of understanding each other faster.
If you agree or disagree, please respond below.
Assume: Suppose to be the case, without proof.
Game: For me, a game is about organization of play, with a definitive end. Where play is an abstraction of life.
When looking up the definition of role-playing, I saw that they used the word assume quite a bit, and decided to include that definition as well. This makes the definition of role-playing much clearer, as it means that you are taking a role and making assumptions about it: The role of a boss, of a teacher, or of a level 12 paladin.
"As a boss, I suppose I would sit like this, and I would talk like this. I suppose I would go and check on the employees about X, Y and Z."
"As a teacher, I would get the students attention. I'll wait until they are quiet then I'll start the lecture on multiplication."
"Okay, my 12th level Paladin is going to Turn Undead this turn."
So a role-playing game is the organization of playing a role, where there is an end goal to be reached (storyline, dungeon, etc). That role is formalized in the rules of the game.
Perhaps this view is too broad, because now, many adventure games, and action adventure games can fall into this category.
Tony Hawk Pro Skater is a role-playing game. You role-play a skater at a competition with a time limit. What lines will the skater choose? What tricks will they do? You suppose that a kick-flip would be what they would choose to do here? Then that's what they do.
There is no assumption of turn based, fantasy, equipment, stats or experience. But Tony Hawk Pro Skater doesn't "feel" like a role-playing game.
The Last of Us is also a role-playing game. Most games with a story are role-playing games. You take on the role of the hero (whether specifically, such as Mario from Mario Bros, or generically, as in World of Warcraft, where your created character is now the hero).
Now this definition is pretty broad, which is why we add modifiers to it, Action RPG, MMORPG, Turn-Based RPG, Tabletop RPG.
But, if all these games are RPGs and so many games we have played fall into the category of this definition of RPG, then what does RPG elements mean in a video game? Why do we refer to Experience gain and levels and stats as RPG elements?
This has to do with the origin of the Role-playing genre. Dungeons and Dragons was the first game to be known as a role-playing game. It sprouted from the war game Chainmail, and it changed the focus from controlling armies to controlling individual characters. The rules involved in Dungeons and Dragons, the very mechanics of the game, is what lead to the concept of RPGs having stats and character growth.
So does this mean that we need to change our definition of Role-playing games to specifically include these game mechanics? If we do, then some tabletop RPGs may very well cease being RPGs and will revert to just being games in which you role-play.
Instead I think we need to better define what it means to role-play as far as games and video games go. I don't have an answer for this, since really, this should be a public conscience kind of thing.
For example, if we say that video games with role-playing are games where a player makes in character non-mechanics decisions, then many story focused adventure games should be considered RPGs (Telltale's The Walking Dead for example), where games where the only decisions are game mechanics based (Naughty Dog's Last of Us). Yet, Walking Dead is an adventure game with some action in it, and Last of Us is an action adventure game with some RPG elements in it (pills allow you to power up, essentially counting as a form of experience gain), or elements that modify game play by increased character ability and not necessarily player ability (health gain, less weapon sway).
So, with RPG elements being mechanics that originate from RPG games (leveling system for example), but having those mechanics not be the definition of an RPG, means that aside from the confusion, we can simply agree to this, continue to use it as we currently do, and not worry too much more about it.
It's good to talk about these things, as heuristics are important to simplifying conversations and allowing us to reach a goal of understanding each other faster.
If you agree or disagree, please respond below.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Are games ART?
"Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities" ~ Wikipedia
"In psychology and ethology, play is a range of voluntary, intrinsically motivated activities normally associated with recreational pleasure and enjoyment." ~ Wikipedia
The current definition shown above, means that everything we do is art.
...
Oh... end of story then. Everything is art.
The definition of art is one that is very vague here, we can see how perhaps we must limit its scope before continuing. The reason for this is that the most horrible thing imagined, all the way to puns (the most wonderful thing imagined), is an art.
The limit is already there, as there is a SET range of human activities that result in art, and despite their diversity, they are not all inclusive with every human activity. Instead art is relegated to that which has human agency (non-accidental, done on purpose), and creation through imaginative and technical skill.
So, if someone says that "there is an art to getting something done", then they are saying that there is a technical skill or imagination required. There is an art to surgery, and an art to torture. So in this aspect alone, video games and any game really is also an art.
But not only is a video game itself art, but the act of playing a video game is art.
I came upon this realization, when I tried to understand why a colleague of mine, did not enjoy sport or esports. Now I could understand that as a gamer, he did not intrinsically enjoy physical games, but he also had issues with people who would dedicate time, or be proud of doing well in a video game.
The discussion led to other topics and finally it came down to why would someone enjoy watching someone else play a game, instead of playing the game themselves. This is where I finally realized HOW I viewed games as an art, instead of the wikipedia laced definition that virtually everything we do that is imaginative or of technical skill is an art.
The reason for that is that beyond JUST technical skill or JUST imagination, Art is usually praised because of a combination of both. Art is also usually something that can be experienced, either through external or internal players.
For example: A painting is the product of the imagination and skill of the painter. To enjoy a painting, the product is gazed upon, and the person uses internal actors to understand or interpret the art. The observer uses their own ability to understand the art. In a sense, they are part of the art during this time.
Similarly, with music and video, and any product that comes complete, the act observing and using mental models to understand and become part of the art is what people do. When you read a book you imagine the story, and listening to music may create a narrative or take you through a narrative of memories. Video games fall into this category when you play them. Except you are also externally interacting with the art.
What about watching someone play a game? Well, in the case of eSports for example, the high level play is akin to regular sports, which is akin to watching a play. Actors, players, and gamers are all the same. They are performers of art. Their interpretation of the art creates an unique version of the art for others to experience. Each time they perform a play or game, you are seeing their performance of art. And their display of technical skill is an art.
So, are video games art? Yes.
So are regular games, if they involve technical skill or imagination to accomplish.
Performing these games, whether multiplayer or not is considered a performing art. This is also true of sports and Olympic events and the like.
The training and technical execution of these physical activities is an art. It is amazing to watch and can inspire all sorts of emotions. So don't think of it as not liking sports, but instead, as being unable to appreciate the art.
"In psychology and ethology, play is a range of voluntary, intrinsically motivated activities normally associated with recreational pleasure and enjoyment." ~ Wikipedia
The current definition shown above, means that everything we do is art.
...
Oh... end of story then. Everything is art.
The definition of art is one that is very vague here, we can see how perhaps we must limit its scope before continuing. The reason for this is that the most horrible thing imagined, all the way to puns (the most wonderful thing imagined), is an art.
The limit is already there, as there is a SET range of human activities that result in art, and despite their diversity, they are not all inclusive with every human activity. Instead art is relegated to that which has human agency (non-accidental, done on purpose), and creation through imaginative and technical skill.
So, if someone says that "there is an art to getting something done", then they are saying that there is a technical skill or imagination required. There is an art to surgery, and an art to torture. So in this aspect alone, video games and any game really is also an art.
But not only is a video game itself art, but the act of playing a video game is art.
I came upon this realization, when I tried to understand why a colleague of mine, did not enjoy sport or esports. Now I could understand that as a gamer, he did not intrinsically enjoy physical games, but he also had issues with people who would dedicate time, or be proud of doing well in a video game.
The discussion led to other topics and finally it came down to why would someone enjoy watching someone else play a game, instead of playing the game themselves. This is where I finally realized HOW I viewed games as an art, instead of the wikipedia laced definition that virtually everything we do that is imaginative or of technical skill is an art.
The reason for that is that beyond JUST technical skill or JUST imagination, Art is usually praised because of a combination of both. Art is also usually something that can be experienced, either through external or internal players.
For example: A painting is the product of the imagination and skill of the painter. To enjoy a painting, the product is gazed upon, and the person uses internal actors to understand or interpret the art. The observer uses their own ability to understand the art. In a sense, they are part of the art during this time.
Similarly, with music and video, and any product that comes complete, the act observing and using mental models to understand and become part of the art is what people do. When you read a book you imagine the story, and listening to music may create a narrative or take you through a narrative of memories. Video games fall into this category when you play them. Except you are also externally interacting with the art.
What about watching someone play a game? Well, in the case of eSports for example, the high level play is akin to regular sports, which is akin to watching a play. Actors, players, and gamers are all the same. They are performers of art. Their interpretation of the art creates an unique version of the art for others to experience. Each time they perform a play or game, you are seeing their performance of art. And their display of technical skill is an art.
So, are video games art? Yes.
So are regular games, if they involve technical skill or imagination to accomplish.
Performing these games, whether multiplayer or not is considered a performing art. This is also true of sports and Olympic events and the like.
The training and technical execution of these physical activities is an art. It is amazing to watch and can inspire all sorts of emotions. So don't think of it as not liking sports, but instead, as being unable to appreciate the art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)