I tried out to off Anna Anthropy's games: "Mighty Jill Off" and "Jill Off With One Hand." Both had similar mechanics, but implemented in different ways. "Mighty Jill Off" was used in a way that is more reminiscent of old-school platformers; it's doable but difficult, requiring precision in movement and timing. "Jill Off With One Hand," however, is more of an endurance test, simply testing one's timing in avoiding obstacles (namely flying heads and spikes). Both games get progressively harder over time, having a good sense of pacing. Both games also explore the sadism that goes behind what gamers will put themselves through in order to get to a goal (and in the case of JOWOH, even if there is no real goal in sight). In a sense, the masoschism that we are willing to go through isn't much different from that one gets from the BDSM community; it's suffering for the sake of pleasure and thrills (and in all fairness, I put myself through such masochism from a variety of games).
Anthropy's book, "Rise of the Videogame Zinesters," explores both the desire to create games, the origins, and the fundamental flaws that exist within them. In a review from Tom Auxier of Nightmare Mode, he talks the core argument that everyone should and can make video games. Anna Anthropy is a clear example of this, as she is probably the most "out there" developer you can find, standing as an epitome of anyone being able to do so. Nothing about her is "natural" by any stretch of the animation; she is a transgender woman with strong ties in the BDSM community, who uses homosexual heroines as the protagonists. These ties are strongly evident in her games, but uses them in an organic way that compliments it. The main issues the reviewer had though was that Anna tended to use examples to talk about the way games are devloving without having the greatest facts to back them up. In essence, she talks about functions without explains HOW it functions. Still, he praised her enthusiasm and how it is quite inspirational in making one want to be a developer.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Game Proposal: The Darkling
Games are continuously evolving, as is the idea of choice. It is supposed to express consequence not only for the character, but for the player as well. Truth be told, I always wanted to see an older platformer/ fighting game that incorporated this (such as Streets of Rage, although the only choice they give in the end is weather or not to be the final boss' right-hand man). I propose such a game, which I dub "The Darkling."
"Darkling" is heavily inspired by comic-book heroes/ anti-heroes, such as Batman and Rorschach from "Watchmen." The game would be a side-scroller in which you control "The Darkling," a vigilante with his own personal agenda in an investigation involving a girl he saves, fueled by his own delusional vendetta, rather than the justice in which he fights for. As time progresses, he inadvertently starts a gang war between a gang harboring a killer and himself, bringing about consequences not only for himself, but those around him.
The gameplay would be simple, but allow for growing diversity. It would be a linear side-scroller, having you go from point A to point B, rather than a Metroid-Vania style of gameplay (a side-scroller in which the player is given a non-linear map in which areas become more available over time, in the style of Metroid and Castlevania, hence the name). In the beginning, you are given basic moves: moving, jumping, ducking, punching, kicking, and blocking. Over time, the more people you fight and save, the more experience you get to unlock new moves and increase your stats, based on aspects such as speed and power. For example, your character can eventually unlock combos or the ability to counterattack.
Logically speaking, you earn more experience points and a higher score through fighting enemies rather than saving people. However, therein lies the kicker: the "better" you do, the worse things become in the story. Your actions affect transpiring events and the relationships of other characters. The idea of settling a score (both figuratively and literally) bringing repercussions is inherent in your actions and the score you accumulate over time, showing that "winning" isn't necessarily winning, and the age-old idea that those who follow through on acts of revenge can get what they want, but will end up with more than they bargained for. Are you willing to let go and stop when you've completed what you need to, attempting to end things on a happy note? Or will you go further to get what you want, at any cost? These are the choices inherent in being a hero or a vigilante.
"Darkling" is heavily inspired by comic-book heroes/ anti-heroes, such as Batman and Rorschach from "Watchmen." The game would be a side-scroller in which you control "The Darkling," a vigilante with his own personal agenda in an investigation involving a girl he saves, fueled by his own delusional vendetta, rather than the justice in which he fights for. As time progresses, he inadvertently starts a gang war between a gang harboring a killer and himself, bringing about consequences not only for himself, but those around him.
The gameplay would be simple, but allow for growing diversity. It would be a linear side-scroller, having you go from point A to point B, rather than a Metroid-Vania style of gameplay (a side-scroller in which the player is given a non-linear map in which areas become more available over time, in the style of Metroid and Castlevania, hence the name). In the beginning, you are given basic moves: moving, jumping, ducking, punching, kicking, and blocking. Over time, the more people you fight and save, the more experience you get to unlock new moves and increase your stats, based on aspects such as speed and power. For example, your character can eventually unlock combos or the ability to counterattack.
Logically speaking, you earn more experience points and a higher score through fighting enemies rather than saving people. However, therein lies the kicker: the "better" you do, the worse things become in the story. Your actions affect transpiring events and the relationships of other characters. The idea of settling a score (both figuratively and literally) bringing repercussions is inherent in your actions and the score you accumulate over time, showing that "winning" isn't necessarily winning, and the age-old idea that those who follow through on acts of revenge can get what they want, but will end up with more than they bargained for. Are you willing to let go and stop when you've completed what you need to, attempting to end things on a happy note? Or will you go further to get what you want, at any cost? These are the choices inherent in being a hero or a vigilante.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Jack's Rum Session Report
For the most part the game played out well, aside from some minor confusion. My game, Jack's Rum, played out in a similar fashion to Black Jack. The first round was used as a means to explain the rules, using all three of my partners to play. While it took some time understand them, the gist of the game was understood. However, in order to reexplain certain factors of the game, we restarted and everyone received new cards. This time the game went by more quickly, despite several draw games, although some parts of the game were forgotten in regards of how cards are played. The third time, however, the game went smoothly. No rules were forgotten and the game went by quickly and easily, lasting only a few minutes.
In terms of feedback, there were a couple things that were made evident, including simplifying the rules in terms of words. While things were clear, I could have been more concise. The other issue was that some functions of certain cards weren't fully explained, and I simply went by assumption that people would understand what the cards stood for in regards to aces (which should have been 1) and face cards (which should be 10).
In terms of feedback, there were a couple things that were made evident, including simplifying the rules in terms of words. While things were clear, I could have been more concise. The other issue was that some functions of certain cards weren't fully explained, and I simply went by assumption that people would understand what the cards stood for in regards to aces (which should have been 1) and face cards (which should be 10).
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Passage
Passage is a strange experience. It isn't really a game, but rather an interactive story. You play a young man who is moving through the passages of time. Along the way, you meet a woman and scenery changes. The game is given a very slim viewing window and blurry preceding landscapes in which you are able to move around. As I moved around, I initially found it difficult to move around, not really understanding what really hindered me (as well as the narrow viewing angle coming into play). As time went on and I traversed the ever changing landscape, the viewing angle became wider and the preceding locales became slightly clearer. However, my characters also began to age, their hair color changing (and for the man, he began balding as well). I also noticed that, as time went on, my characters slowly shifted from the left of the screen to the right (for the most part, the character "moving" is actually the landscape moving). Eventually, the woman died, and my character inched forward at a slow pace, before he himself died, before ending with the title appearing and viewing window closing on it.
The game is quite intriguing, as it represents not the passage that your characters take, but rather the passage of time, invoking many ideas that are inherent in life: ideas of spending your time wisely, time wasting you if you waste it, etc. The story is simple, but somehow creates a strong emotional resonance. The controls are easy to comprehend, although it is somewhat difficult to navigate around in the beginning, due to heavy amounts of obscurity (which is intentional). The graphics are reminiscent of of the 16-bit era; while not particularly fancy, they give it great appeal.
The game finds a way to use all these aspects in tandem to tell a heartfelt story that hits you in the core, while generating questions of how one spends time. It also makes it clear that no matter what, there is no winning or losing, but simply an end that comes for all of us. It's not really sunny in disposition, but it finds a way to bring it's message across simply and effectively.
The game is quite intriguing, as it represents not the passage that your characters take, but rather the passage of time, invoking many ideas that are inherent in life: ideas of spending your time wisely, time wasting you if you waste it, etc. The story is simple, but somehow creates a strong emotional resonance. The controls are easy to comprehend, although it is somewhat difficult to navigate around in the beginning, due to heavy amounts of obscurity (which is intentional). The graphics are reminiscent of of the 16-bit era; while not particularly fancy, they give it great appeal.
The game finds a way to use all these aspects in tandem to tell a heartfelt story that hits you in the core, while generating questions of how one spends time. It also makes it clear that no matter what, there is no winning or losing, but simply an end that comes for all of us. It's not really sunny in disposition, but it finds a way to bring it's message across simply and effectively.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
What Video Games Mean to Me
Video games represent various things to different people; for some it's escapism, while for others it's about finding another means of mental captivation. Others see it as a means to produce something they can't produce otherwise (it's easier to get a game out, independently or otherwise, compared to a movie in some instances). As for me, I find it to be a mix of reasons, hoping that there is a way to further the medium of interactivity combined with a strong narrative. Needless to say, this is a view that has evolved over time with technology and evolution.
I first started out with the Nintendo Entertainment System (or more commonly known as the NES). My games of choice were Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda, both byproducts of the most prolific man in Nintendo, Shigeru Miyamoto. SMB was a very straight forward game, a side-scrolling platformer. It was difficult and fun, and still is somewhat challenging to me. LoZ, however, was a somewhat revolutionary game, as it refined the idea of narrative and role-play gameplay (at least in my opinion) in a way that was engaging. Granted, when I was younger, I didn't really know any better, but I had fun. Looking back though, I do think these were the best games of the generation, with LoZ beating out Mario (although this is preference, as these are different games with different goals). Regardless, it was a big step, and this happened almost right from the get-go.
Of course, as time went on, new techniques were implemented, as well as a need to improve on other factors, and it absolutely fascinates me, while staying somewhat disheartening at the same time. We see how companies must find ways to implement graphics and sound design, with more advanced controls in a movie-like narrative. While it's impressive, it also seems like some of us are being patronized, in the fact that it's seems to be gradually more style over substance. Some of us can still appreciate an older title because of nostalgia. However, those who have never tried these older titles until now feel frustrated by how archaic it all feels. That isn't to say nostalgia and fanboy fanaticism doesn't work the other way around as well, as plenty of us are unwilling to accept something new because it changes what we've come to know and love (which I'm a perpetrator of at times as well).
In the end however, what I want is something that simply works and feels engaging. Truth be told, as much of a story snob as I am, I can forgive a poorly written story as long as gameplay is engaging. Why? Because I want something that sucks me into the world. I play games to live out what is given to me, to fill out that role that is in front of me and pretend I'm something greater than what reality limits to me. Such was the case with the game Deus Ex: Human Revolution. It is an open-world game that takes place in future Detroit, where augmentations (cybernetic attachments) are the newest debate in the world. It involves a conspiracy in which an unknown force is trying to destroy and subvert the creation of these, and no one knows who. Various people support the use of these, while others oppose, but both are doing this "for the greater good of humanity." What's interesting is how the implement the themes, by practically allowing you to do whatever you want. You can be a stealthy, smooth-talking pacifist, or a gung-ho, guns blazing sadist. The fact of the matter is, the game doesn't create the character... you do. What this created was a completely immersive game in which you can live out the character as you want to an almost unlimited capacity, which is what game makers are trying to reach, which is furthered by a great art and sound design.
I do believe that the goals of games have changed. In the beginning, they were simple, capturing the pure essence of "fun." Once things entered the 3D era, the game changed, as it went from being fun to be cinematically engaging. I personally don't think one is particularly better or worse, since in the end it all depends on whether or not it's done well. I still go back to classic titles now and again, because they do offer something different. That being said, some may have aged better than others, which is why I still sort through the newer content available. Honestly, I'm curious to see how things continue to evolve (such as whether or not true 3D will become a common household staple). All I know is I just want to be sucked in as time goes on.
I first started out with the Nintendo Entertainment System (or more commonly known as the NES). My games of choice were Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda, both byproducts of the most prolific man in Nintendo, Shigeru Miyamoto. SMB was a very straight forward game, a side-scrolling platformer. It was difficult and fun, and still is somewhat challenging to me. LoZ, however, was a somewhat revolutionary game, as it refined the idea of narrative and role-play gameplay (at least in my opinion) in a way that was engaging. Granted, when I was younger, I didn't really know any better, but I had fun. Looking back though, I do think these were the best games of the generation, with LoZ beating out Mario (although this is preference, as these are different games with different goals). Regardless, it was a big step, and this happened almost right from the get-go.
Of course, as time went on, new techniques were implemented, as well as a need to improve on other factors, and it absolutely fascinates me, while staying somewhat disheartening at the same time. We see how companies must find ways to implement graphics and sound design, with more advanced controls in a movie-like narrative. While it's impressive, it also seems like some of us are being patronized, in the fact that it's seems to be gradually more style over substance. Some of us can still appreciate an older title because of nostalgia. However, those who have never tried these older titles until now feel frustrated by how archaic it all feels. That isn't to say nostalgia and fanboy fanaticism doesn't work the other way around as well, as plenty of us are unwilling to accept something new because it changes what we've come to know and love (which I'm a perpetrator of at times as well).
In the end however, what I want is something that simply works and feels engaging. Truth be told, as much of a story snob as I am, I can forgive a poorly written story as long as gameplay is engaging. Why? Because I want something that sucks me into the world. I play games to live out what is given to me, to fill out that role that is in front of me and pretend I'm something greater than what reality limits to me. Such was the case with the game Deus Ex: Human Revolution. It is an open-world game that takes place in future Detroit, where augmentations (cybernetic attachments) are the newest debate in the world. It involves a conspiracy in which an unknown force is trying to destroy and subvert the creation of these, and no one knows who. Various people support the use of these, while others oppose, but both are doing this "for the greater good of humanity." What's interesting is how the implement the themes, by practically allowing you to do whatever you want. You can be a stealthy, smooth-talking pacifist, or a gung-ho, guns blazing sadist. The fact of the matter is, the game doesn't create the character... you do. What this created was a completely immersive game in which you can live out the character as you want to an almost unlimited capacity, which is what game makers are trying to reach, which is furthered by a great art and sound design.
I do believe that the goals of games have changed. In the beginning, they were simple, capturing the pure essence of "fun." Once things entered the 3D era, the game changed, as it went from being fun to be cinematically engaging. I personally don't think one is particularly better or worse, since in the end it all depends on whether or not it's done well. I still go back to classic titles now and again, because they do offer something different. That being said, some may have aged better than others, which is why I still sort through the newer content available. Honestly, I'm curious to see how things continue to evolve (such as whether or not true 3D will become a common household staple). All I know is I just want to be sucked in as time goes on.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Fail-station Network
About a month ago, Sony online services was struck a rather large blow. Someone had hacked into the network, completely shut it down, and stole a multitude of customer information. However, the "stolen information" part wasn't revealed until a week later. Needless to say, there was an outcry from the community. Things got worse, as Sony was faced with lawsuits and subpoenas afterwards. Then, a couple weeks later, Sony Online Entertainment was hacked, with more customer information stolen, as well as potential credit card theft (although this time, Sony was kind enough to worn people right away). Today, the Playstation Network was relaunched with limited capabilities, with services to be fully relaunched by the end of the month.
Who caused the damage has been somewhat mysterious. As far as Sony could figure, it was caused by the publicly unknown (and aptly named) group Anonymous. Why them? Two reasons supported their argument. First, someone had actually left a logo as a taunt on the wrecked servers. Although the group as a whole has denied their involvement, they did not deny that there were a couple people who didn't get a memo to lay off the attacks, which leads to the second piece of "evidence." After Sony had started a lawsuit with a system modder (someone who makes alterations to either the programming or physical state of a console) known as "Geohotz" for creating alterations to allow homebrewing (another terms for using downloaded titles on the system) on their systems, Anonymous had initiated an attack as retribution, feeling that they were unfairly targeting him. The basis of Sony's actions was due to the idea of promoting piracy, which Geohotz never did. He advocated such modding for personal use, not to cause damage to Sony's company. The only reason Anonymous decided to call a truce was because they did not want to affect the community and the users.
In the end, I can't help but feel Sony shot themselves in the foot over this. Sony staunchly opposes piracy and punishes anyone they can who tries it. However, in some strange sense of irony, they never really took any preventative measure against truly defending it, relying simply on the technology at hand. Blu-rays, because of their unique format and date encryption, are naturally difficult to pirate (which is probably one of the reasons Sony advocated this format and used it for there Playstation 3s). For their networks, they used internal means to "encode" their data based on the programs that were naturally used to run the servers. However, they never really go as far to make things more difficult for people to pirate objects. In the end, they are about reaction, rather than preventative action.
While it's certainly a problem that they are suffering this hack with drastic effects on everyone (digital distribution has been halted for various companies as well as denying users content that they pay for), one has to wonder if Sony didn't have this coming? What if they had done more to stop such things from happening? If they focused on the long run rather than just deal with the problems as they come, would there have been potential to stop the network hacks? While there is still the possibility of someone still getting in, there would still be less blame to put on Sony's shoulders had they followed this route.
Who caused the damage has been somewhat mysterious. As far as Sony could figure, it was caused by the publicly unknown (and aptly named) group Anonymous. Why them? Two reasons supported their argument. First, someone had actually left a logo as a taunt on the wrecked servers. Although the group as a whole has denied their involvement, they did not deny that there were a couple people who didn't get a memo to lay off the attacks, which leads to the second piece of "evidence." After Sony had started a lawsuit with a system modder (someone who makes alterations to either the programming or physical state of a console) known as "Geohotz" for creating alterations to allow homebrewing (another terms for using downloaded titles on the system) on their systems, Anonymous had initiated an attack as retribution, feeling that they were unfairly targeting him. The basis of Sony's actions was due to the idea of promoting piracy, which Geohotz never did. He advocated such modding for personal use, not to cause damage to Sony's company. The only reason Anonymous decided to call a truce was because they did not want to affect the community and the users.
In the end, I can't help but feel Sony shot themselves in the foot over this. Sony staunchly opposes piracy and punishes anyone they can who tries it. However, in some strange sense of irony, they never really took any preventative measure against truly defending it, relying simply on the technology at hand. Blu-rays, because of their unique format and date encryption, are naturally difficult to pirate (which is probably one of the reasons Sony advocated this format and used it for there Playstation 3s). For their networks, they used internal means to "encode" their data based on the programs that were naturally used to run the servers. However, they never really go as far to make things more difficult for people to pirate objects. In the end, they are about reaction, rather than preventative action.
While it's certainly a problem that they are suffering this hack with drastic effects on everyone (digital distribution has been halted for various companies as well as denying users content that they pay for), one has to wonder if Sony didn't have this coming? What if they had done more to stop such things from happening? If they focused on the long run rather than just deal with the problems as they come, would there have been potential to stop the network hacks? While there is still the possibility of someone still getting in, there would still be less blame to put on Sony's shoulders had they followed this route.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Real 3D vs. Conversion 3D
I saw Thor last night until early this morning (I'm just going to say it wasn't the smartest idea to see it right before midnight) in 3D. The movie itself wasn't bad. It was a great character study between Thor, his brother Loki, and their father Odin. A lot of the characters felt rather pointless and unnecessary, but the core story shined through quite strongly. The 3D wasn't bad either. It was nothing special, but it helped accentuate some of the vast locations. However, I felt that it could have looked better. There is a reason for this: the film was converted into 3D from a 2D film source. The process isn't complicated, but it is quite tedious and takes several months to get a strong image. This makes me wonder why the producers behind this didn't just use a 3D camera to begin with?
The fact of the matter is, real 3D has a stronger sense of depth to it, due to the fact that it captures images similar to the way we as people view something. It capture the image at two different angles with the ability to adjust the main plane or object of focus in the image. It is, in a sense, a complete image. With 3D conversion however, a duplicate of the image is made and warped to mimic the angular difference that would be perceived from the different eyes. There are several problems with this. First off, it doesn't look like true 3D. With real 3D recording, there isn't just depth of the plane, but there is obviously more depth with the object. With converted 3D, unless done properly, the objects are described as looking like cardboard layered on top of each other. While there is depth in plane, the objects appear rather flat. Another problem is that because of the image warping, it can result in what is basically a "squashed" image. In essence, it isn't as wide as compared to real 3D.
This makes one ask why would one prefer to use converted 3D versus the real 3D? One key reason is due to the size of the camera. The Fusion/ Pace camera system, co-developed by James Cameron and Vincent Pace, can capture a true 3D image, due to it's use of horizontal mirrors to capture an image, is considered to be a massive piece of equipment. Basically, one can only carry it at around 20 minutes at a time, due to it's size and weight. Another problem is that, because of his size, it's hard to get complex shots where one has to move around comfortably. This would be the main basis for conversion; it allows one to get more complex shots with ease. The other reason is that the cost of the equipment is rather high, costing tens of thousands. With conversion, despite it's long time, still cost less in comparison.
The idea of converted 3D vs real 3D is under hot debate. Although when used properly, converted 3D looks quite decent (specifically, Piranha 3D and Alice in Wonderland), but it still lacks the overall punch real 3D has. The quality of converted 3D is generally weaker and less pronounced, and sometimes non-existent given the situation (such as Clash of the Titans, which at some points had no 3D image whatsoever). Still, one can argue that, because the technique is relatively new, it'll evolve over time. Some looked quite decent, and upcoming movies also look promising(such as Captain America).One can assume that at some point we wouldn't need the 3D cameras at some point when it's perfected.
The fact of the matter is, real 3D has a stronger sense of depth to it, due to the fact that it captures images similar to the way we as people view something. It capture the image at two different angles with the ability to adjust the main plane or object of focus in the image. It is, in a sense, a complete image. With 3D conversion however, a duplicate of the image is made and warped to mimic the angular difference that would be perceived from the different eyes. There are several problems with this. First off, it doesn't look like true 3D. With real 3D recording, there isn't just depth of the plane, but there is obviously more depth with the object. With converted 3D, unless done properly, the objects are described as looking like cardboard layered on top of each other. While there is depth in plane, the objects appear rather flat. Another problem is that because of the image warping, it can result in what is basically a "squashed" image. In essence, it isn't as wide as compared to real 3D.
This makes one ask why would one prefer to use converted 3D versus the real 3D? One key reason is due to the size of the camera. The Fusion/ Pace camera system, co-developed by James Cameron and Vincent Pace, can capture a true 3D image, due to it's use of horizontal mirrors to capture an image, is considered to be a massive piece of equipment. Basically, one can only carry it at around 20 minutes at a time, due to it's size and weight. Another problem is that, because of his size, it's hard to get complex shots where one has to move around comfortably. This would be the main basis for conversion; it allows one to get more complex shots with ease. The other reason is that the cost of the equipment is rather high, costing tens of thousands. With conversion, despite it's long time, still cost less in comparison.
The idea of converted 3D vs real 3D is under hot debate. Although when used properly, converted 3D looks quite decent (specifically, Piranha 3D and Alice in Wonderland), but it still lacks the overall punch real 3D has. The quality of converted 3D is generally weaker and less pronounced, and sometimes non-existent given the situation (such as Clash of the Titans, which at some points had no 3D image whatsoever). Still, one can argue that, because the technique is relatively new, it'll evolve over time. Some looked quite decent, and upcoming movies also look promising(such as Captain America).One can assume that at some point we wouldn't need the 3D cameras at some point when it's perfected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)