JONESY VISION- Jonesy's ideals on Game Design

What ways can game systems encourage or create gaming communities?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:02:00 +0000

Recently at work, there’s been a big debate/discussion regarding the most recent InfinityWard’s announcement of the lack dedicated server functionality within the pc version of“Modern Warfare 2”. Here’s a link of the news filled with hated ridden commentshttp://www.vg247.com/2009/10/20/bowling-seeks-to-ease-mw2-pc-tension-with-iwnet-explanation/

I can certainly understand the cause of concern for the lack of dedicated servers being the main foundation what creates online pc gaming communities in the first place but it got me thinking further, thinking and questioning about forms of gaming communities in games today. What alternative forms are there? How are they created? What game systems are in place to create or encourage gaming communities and to allow easy accessibility to interaction with other players feeling like you apart of something? Looking and exploring this topic further you may start think that maybe the lack dedicated servers isn’t such a big deal for the COD experience after all.

With me being a console gamer, (primarily – as I like pc gaming too) “Xbox live” is the ideal service for me personal as it brings every gamer I know under one umbrella and in a way it’s a service who gives gamers a sense of community who don’t necessarily want to apart of typical gaming community having to dedicate too much effect or time to feel like they are apart of something. One of most appealing features of Xbox live is the achievement system which has created the current design ethos within contemporary games of instant gratification which cleverly hides the competitive nature of completion via encouraging silly bragging rights with your friends and indiscreetly gives gamers an incentive to connect with other players comparing achievements and sharing a interest in the same games. You could argue that this is a superficial approach for creating sense of community (like a vain fashion show with women end up fighting or chatting away cause they wearing the same shoes) compared to pc communities as they created within for the love and passion of a chosen played game, but then yet Xbox live’s focus is far more ambiguous appealing broader spectrum of audiences from casual gamers to hardcore, etc. That’s what I found interesting about Xbox live is its form and purpose as a service and its functions creating that service as a service is strong as functions and tools, right? I don’t think Xbox Live service directly creates gaming communities within itself but certainly provides functions and tools as service for game devs to create gaming communities or sense of completion and reward for players in many imaginative ways.

These days retroperspective games are really popular and they have certainly have re-built a place within modern gaming within the few past years with digital distribution becoming more accepted and of course their evolutional push towards design of conventional game mechanics and patterns from their skilled developers but there’s one simple element/feature which I think make these games as vital and liberating as they were back in the day. In fact so important it could make or break a game for the lack of… Here I announce it the “online scoreboard” yes I give you a few moments to take that in, yes an online scoreboard.I remember how back in the day, the scoreboard was the secondary feature just left in from being lazy port of the arcade version and these days, it’s the main hook for the overall playability wasting hours trying to beat my friends scores on titles like “Trails HD” and “Geometry Wars 2”. I find it amazing how such a small simple bit of functionality can create such intense completion and desire to learn the mechanics coming up with new ways to gain more points. Lately I’ve been playing “Trails HD” and it has this level editor feature which can be only shared among your friends list (no way to officially publish your levels publicly, not sure why they didn’t such functionality) and recently I saw this video made by the dev team “Red Lynx” showing their favourite made levels from users, have a watch: http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/exclusive-trials-hd-user-made-levels

It’s quite cool to see “Red Lynx” are acknowledging the hard work that users have put into building some great tracks and coming up with alternative solutions for sharing content developing a small community and there are lots of videos on youtube with many users trying express and share their work. You could say that isn’t a gaming community as “Red Lynx” isn’t supporting it with forums and modding tools, etc and obviously it’s isn’t a type of game which you would associate with gaming communities as it’s no World of Warcraft but then again it’s a game for very different type of player wanting a different type of experience therefore it’s has to be different community to reflect that. Trails HD seems to have very insular but keen community although it isn’t very self-contained or organised but certainly reflects their indie roots as developers and of course the subject matter of the game being about extreme stunts and rock ‘n’ roll. It gives the game unique vibe or sense of character which makes it seem quite cute and friendly.

What I’m ultimately trying to say is that I believe that it’s down to developer’s creativity to use the tools at hand to create experience and form of community which correlates with that core experience as sense of community is a great gaming intervention as no one wants feel alone. I certainly would like to look further into gaming communities and their form as an industry we need to invent new type and styles of communities.

Jonesy

Gaming Patterns – the price of entrance to enjoy a game? - Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:47:00 +0000

Going back to my experience with “PixelJunk Monsters”, I’ve never previously played a tower defence game before but yet I learned the core mechanics and understood the goal of the game (rules) pretty quickly of building towers (turrets) with strategic placement to protect the village from wave after wave of enemies with own attack patterns. Although the game’s purpose/focus is simple in nature but progressively becomes quite deep and involving (in the hidden behind the curtains type of way) as you learn more about the specific turrets pros and cons against certain enemy types, the currency (money) to either use for upgrading current placed turrets or buy completely new turrets altogether and so forth. What I find interesting about this game is the way these rules are very obviously communicated to you as a player via interacting and engaging with enemy waves/patterns and there’s no misconception of what you have to do to overcome/defeat these enemies with their paper/scissors/stone damage aspect but that’s where the fun lies is preparing for these enemy waves trying to master and predict the pattern of the level.

I find this game to be very addictive and engrossing as the game has clear defined rules making the experience feel very coherent and you feel never cheated by the game system itself, when you fail its always your own fault and you can clearly see where you went wrong, learning from it making you willing to try again with a fresh different approach. The game is actually pretty difficult but when you successful complete a level, it feels rewarding mastering and forecasting the enemy patterns which continuously force you adapt to new situations coming up with new tactics/approaches to counteract these enemy waves, you feel pretty smart and good for it. The game also feels rewarding for its sense of rhythm and flow as you progress through the game you can start seeing a pattern in the enemy waves like the 1st wave of enemies are usually “pines” who are easily counteracted with cannon turrets then 2nd wave are usually “spiders” who are counteracted with cannons and arrows turrets and so forth but over wave 3, the enemy types/attack pattern become far less predictable becoming a game about unpredictability within a predictable box. Due to this you feel yourself growing as a player of the game being “in the zone” with carefully constructed enemy patterns which never betrays the flow and rules and logic of the game system and world itself. In other words, each level feels familiar but yet different which never alienates you but always feels fresh and challenging. For an example, here’s a song from one of favourite bands at the moment that has unique sound but yet very familiar song structure and rhythm (I realise that this type/style of music isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but please have a listen anyway to see what I mean):

What makes me wonder about a song like this, does the artist write the rhythm and beat first or do they write the lyrics first (context) and base the rhythm/sound around that? It doesn’t matter either way, but what I find interesting is how these two aspects fit together so seamlessly and looking at pixeljunk monsters, it’s done the same thing with it’s combined aspects of its game play of tower defence and the structure and flow of enemy waves introducing the player to a rhythm of patterns.

Its one of the few games which I play to directly engage with patterns for the achievement of mastering them like a shoot em’up I guess. As an industry I believe we are too hooked up on the contexts and themes which are our games explore rather exploring what patterns/lessons we can teach through our games. Sure the context/theme is what makes games initially appealing for audiences as we all judge things at first glance although we all know that we shouldn’t but we do. With the underlying design towards the flow of patterns, games can be enjoyed despite the context by broader audiences, for an example with old retro games like “Pacman” or “Tetris”; does anyone question where the blocks come from? Or feel alienated by it’s concept? Did people have to have prior gaming knowledge to enjoy these games? People would argue that I have a groundless argument due to the fact that we are in a different era of gaming which has never been so successful with mainstream before but I think that these principles are as important as today as back in the day as I firmly believe games can be used to teach us as well as entertain us.

Playing a game which puts me in the zone, feeling the flow and learning more and more as you keep exploring and experiencing the game is a wonderful feeling which in my eyes makes a rather beautiful game. Answering my question from previously what is my “price of entrance” to enjoy a game? A game which I can connect to that truly challenges and engages me for mastering and learning something, isn’t that what everyone wants from video games?

Jonesy

Gaming Patterns – the price of entrance to enjoy a game? - Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:57:00 +0000

I’m been playing a Tower defence game recently called “PixelJunk Monsters” (yeah I know its old news for you Playstation owners out there but it’s just too good). What I really enjoy about this game flow/structure with enemy patterns that continuously engage you placing me “in the zone” (or what I prefer to say is, plugged in) and that’s a rare experience for me these days.

Why is that? Am I getting old? Played too many games and I can see through the patterns presented to me making the experience unchallenging and boring? Well I certainly experienced this with certain titles I’ve played recently like “Resident Evil 5” which I thought was stuffed with predictable enemy patterns embracing typical counter tactics for your survival. You could argue that this game isn’t flawed in this area but just the simple fact that my knowledge/ pattern recognition for shooters is more developed than the game is actually designed for (casual gamers) and I require more advanced mechanics/patterns, etc to fulfil my needs as a gamer. Thinking about this got me thinking about the “price of entrance” for games. Is my knowledge/skills of gaming too high to enjoy “Wii Sports” (linear patterns and information) or too low to enjoy “Total War” on pc (complex patterns) due to my lack of experience playing historical Strategy games. As a gamer/observer I find myself within an odd position where I’m questioning myself what is my “price of entrance” to enjoy a game?

With modern games design approaches, there is a very obvious transparent line between Casual and Hardcore games where developers either add further complexity to established core mechanics towards genres like MMO’s or FPS’s appealing to the core fanbase/elite or developing relatable non-offensive subject matters with simple functionality emulating real like actions. I personally don’t think players should have to have previous knowledge or the desire to enjoy a game for its purpose and end goal result, (getting fit, learning French, building army whatever the subject matter/context is) I feel that a game should provide the knowledge and inspire the desire or an interest within the subject matter/themes that the game explores. The obvious target of such an example would be non-gamer/casual games market which (although debatable) do intend to undermine the primary purpose of why video games co-exist in the first place; to simply challenge and provide our brains with new info and patterns despite the fiction (theme/presentation). It’s easy to forget that us gamers have had years of training (playing games) to see through the fiction to master underlying mathematical patterns and objectives of the game system itself, It’s easy for us to criticize such an change of primary purpose for these games but then obviously the target demographic hasn’t had the gaming education/knowledge/background that we have obtained over the years.

Looking into this perspective further; games are effectively teaching tools although I wonder how much prior knowledge would be required to fully interact/learn and master a game or more specifically mastering the game’s patterns, rewarding the player’s effect? For an example, if I asked you to do me a painting, this may be too demanding for you but if I ask you to draw me a stickman, what would you possibly learn and experience from that or isn’t that sort of boring? This could be one of the simple reasons why typically non-gamers feel that video games are time wasters compared to other alternative mediums such as TV/film which passively informs, engage and possibly challenging them on broad levels.

Jonesy

(P.S read part two as well - I have a lot more to say!)

More about Horror! I love my horror!

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:01:00 +0000

Before I begin my next topic, I would like to say thanks for people for their comments on my previous post, made some good points and to carry on further extension of my previous topic/discussion I would to show you a quote which I always to use in my blog regarding our modern fears reflected within horror films such as “Saw” “Hostel” “The Hill have eyes 2”, etc. The quote is from: “Jennifer Ashlock”, a professor of sociology at the College of Notre Dame, here’s the link if you want to have a read: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/804/804194p1.html

"You have a potential to make more money with torture (horror films) now because that's what actually scares a mainstream audience today," she says. "I don't think that they were very popular before because it just seemed so far off base. Like, 'That could never happen,' and it seemed very fringe back in the '70s and '80s. Not that you didn't have gore back then, but now that is something that we know is going on in the world. We know about certain atrocities in Guantanamo, for example. Even in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein supposedly, and even in our own American prison system, we know that torture goes on. Because of the Internet and the global media, we know that torture is a way of life really. That information is just more accessible to us. I also think it's more fundamentally frightening to us, because it's sort of a given now that torture is happening around the world."

I thought the quote has an interesting insight because I’ve never thought about how this current fear of “torture” has originated from being expressed within pop culture as I thought it’s something that we are all afraid of despite our current social awareness from the media. These films are produced very well as you can tell they really think about how they can subconsciously place the theme/fear of “torture” within an context/cover. The producers and writers of these films must have huge crazy brain storming sessions especially when they may be planning to release up Saw VIII (8). What’s the most creative and smart element of these films is that they are never directly about “torture” as a theme but as anticipation/fear mechanic but creators have thought up world/characters/set pieces for such things to happen in entertaining and coherence way.

I think perhaps game developers should have this same approach and think about as this is area where games as medium excels at exploring themes without player’s awareness, making players learn/train things about such themes. I think this is one way where developers can examine our fears without it being a direct part of gameplay as such thing as “torture” as I think would be perhaps too much as interactive part of gameplay. This is one area where horror games could excel at, what you people think?

Jonesy

Alan wake – The future of horror games?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:29:00 +0000

E3 2009 is over, I hope you enjoyed it? I thought it was certainly the best E3 in a long time, they got their action together. What did you think of E3 this year? The other big surprise from watching the Microsoft conference (other than “Splinter Cell: Conviction” which I spoke about in my last post) was “Alan Wake” which I thought was going to end up being another “Duke Nukem Forever” with it either being cancelled or finally released with out of date ideas and mechanics. If you haven’t seen any gameplay footage of “Alan Wake” check it out below, I have to say its looks great and the timing for its revelation or release date for Spring 2010 couldn’t be better with the recently disappointing yet promising horror game “Resident Evil 5” and the lack of horror games in development these days.

“Horror Survival” is one of my favourite sub genres within video games, being quite fond of the genre since the PlayStation days of the original “Resident Evil” and “Silent Hill” which were based around unforgiving and unique mechanics and design approaches. The whole item management element for an example, where you had to plan out what items you think you would need for journey to the next location trying to predict what enemies/scenarios you would encounter. This was interesting element/mechanic which allows the designers to control the player’s psychology to embrace a sense of uncertainly and fear making the player feel weak and vulnerable.

Most of the horror games these days lack this sense of horror or suspense with titles like “Dead Space” or “Resident Evil 5” focused towards more visceral approach towards gameplay and expressing of “horror” via gory shock value and panic whereas old horror games were far more psychological experiences. I don’t find these recent horror games that frightening, (more unnerving perhaps?) but why is that? I think it’s not just the obvious game direction of “never outgunned, but always outnumbered” but for the player’s purpose/reward for interacting with such experience is empowerment and that’s one of the issues with the approaches towards horror within video games medium is that horror isn’t meant to make you feel good. It’s meant to make you feel bleak, desperate, weak, etc for your character and hopefully at the end, the character survives the incident and you are relieved for this result but I wouldn’t say this is empowerment. This is debatable; I would like to know what you guys think of this? Is this still empowerment if the player goes through emotional hell for just the character’s safety/ survival?

Lately, I’ve been playing a PlayStation 3 game called “Siren: Blood Curse”, not sure if you have hear of it? If you like horror games, I recommend it, it’s very unique and most frightening and intense game I’ve played in a long time. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/siren-blood-curse-review .It’s another great PlayStation 3 exclusive that Sony fails to market which is great shame as it deserves more credit. Anyway “Siren” takes place on remote Japanese cursed island where you play as 8 different character's perspectives over the course of the story, cutting back and forth on the timeline and revealing alternatives viewpoints and plot twists, basically imagine “Lost” meets “Ring” or “The grudge” (any J-horror movie). What I find interesting and smart is how the creators play about with the player’s feelings/motives via playing with different characters as every character has own set of ablitlies/actions within the context of their situation and characteristics. For an example, you play as “Bella Monroe” who is a young girl stuck inside of hospital who is too young to defend herself from the shibito (which is what the enemies are called in this game which are basically zombies) so she can’t pick objects to use as weapons but she is small giving her a great ablility to hide in many places forcing the player to sneak past the shibito making the player feel weak, small and tense . You also play as her father “Sam Monroe” who is grouped with another character equiped with weapons found within the mines, shooting any shibito encountered which makes you so grateful and powerful for such simple primary function in most games which makes this very empowering. The game explores a diverse array of moods/situations which solves the issue with horror I spoke about earlier and also pacing of player emotion. If look at “Resident Evil 4” (I think RE4 is best 3rd person shooter ever) I thought forwards the end of the game, it wasn’t frightening as I was too empowered, I felt like god and I could take out Godzilla with a knife whereas “Silent hill 2” was too tense for me and wasn’t empowering enough to carry on playing.

This is where I wonder what path is “Alan Wake” is going to take; more psychological or more action style of gameplay with such personal characteristic narrative as being “Alan Wake”? Will the game be embracing empowerment as “Alan Wake” like “Resident Evil 4” batting the horror incident becoming more powerful as the game progresses or will be more personal journey of surviving such incident? One of my concerns for this game that it may end up being an action game with horror elements like “Dead Space”, I guess its too early to tell but I think this would be obvious option for “Remedy Entertainment” as empowerment is easier to place within action games rather horror games. I hope they have the ambition to try otherwise, like with “Siren: Blood Curse”, balance player empowerment with emotions of fear and suspense, maybe even empathy.

Jonesy

Things I didn’t like about Splinter Cell series and how they address them in the new one: “Conviction” biggest surprise of E3 09.

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:03:00 +0000

Hello people, sorry it’s been a while since my last post. I promise I won’t let it happen again, you know how it is within games industry when you go through crunch time. But at last, I’ve had some holiday, time to reflect on things and lately I’ve spend my time watching lots of E3 stuff which I’m sure lot of you reading this have too. I think best surprise game of the show so far for me has to be “Splinter Cell: Conviction”, (a video below if you haven’t seen the gameplay demo, check it out) for being so confident towards a new creative direction improving and addressing criticisms that this established franchise has had previously with one being most obviously: narrative and story.

For me, personally I always found “Sam Fisher” to be very boring one dimensional character compaired to most main characters from action games, with the most obvious comparion, “Solid Snake” from the “Metal Gear” games. What I thought lacked with “Sam Fisher” wasn’t character personality as such (Sam Fisher is voiced by “Michael Ironside”, a great actor and has some decent character dialogue to boot) but it’s just the fact there isn’t never any game context/scenarios for you as the player to relate with him or learn more about him as an character.

You could argue that such elements wouldn’t translate well within the realistic cold espionage theme of the game, and player emotional involvement and character development would push away from such theme/feel. Although if compared with the yet again obvious comparion of “Metal Gear” being so over the top and melodramatic making character development and motives easier to express with the setting of such great contrasts of good vs evil. Where “Splinter cell” lacks in meaning and narrative it gains in gameplay and player functionality and interactivity with “Sam Fisher” being able to so many actions making the levels/environments multilayered and multi dimensional (game and level design is excellent in Splinter Cell games). This new “Splinter Cell” is like their “Resident Evil 4” for the series reinventing what it is but also remains to stay true to the core of what “Splinter Cell” is which is a rare compromise among games.

Another common criticism I agree with, is that Splinter Cell’s gameplay seems to rely on motion of trial and error due to the multilayered level design and the player’s access to so many game interactions/game paths (linear level progression point A to point B but non-linear approaches to these points). This was especially noticeable in “Double Agent” (4th title in the series released back in 2006 on Xbox 360) within the terrorist cell undercover missions which were very frustrating due having too many options which was shame as it was a great concept with the theme of infiltrating a terrorist organization from within. This problem would also occur for me within certain sections of levels where I wouldn’t know where to go, let alone know what to do once you reach your destination, walking to every corner hopeing it’s the correct location to progress the level. This is due to bad level signposting and Game “Mise-en-scene” which I spoke about in some detail in this blog (link of the post at the bottom/end of this post) You should check it out if you haven’t read it yet. Basically in a nutshell, some games lack the logic for giving the player direction throughout the game world making the player feel lost or disconnected with the game’s universe. This is also referred as the technique/computer tool “Director agent” which controls the perimeters of the camera movement for every action, the player does or every section of the game like with resident evil as a good example.

Here is another area, which I think the new “Splinter Cell” has addressed so well within it’s new cinematic direction with the mission objectives projected across the background as creative director says in the demo “One of our missions is to keep you immersed in our world and make the narrative move at a fast pace”. I think they have already achieved that not just because how cinematic and atmospheric (creative and artistic aspect of the game) but their use of the placement of the camera angles and the mission objectives in the background (design aspects using “director agents”) for signposting, giving the player direction keeping the fast pace up.

I think they been very clever with narrative and scenario for this game as I’m actually interested in the main character of “Sam fisher”. They have given him a sense of life and purpose, driven towards motive. I want to invest in this story; I want to know who the guy is in the toilet was, why Sam Fisher's daughter has been killed? Why is he so pissed off? I’ve connected it straight away, I guess it was like what I was saying earlier as it's over-exaggerated and melodramatic enough translate Sam Fisher’s story and state of mind. Lots of games are using similar methods, from the use of “director agents” like “Uncharted 2”, watch the video below if you haven’t seen it yet.

“Uncharted 2” gives a great sense of life and personality through the main character and how each event has it’s own unique character animation making it exciting and fun plotting along a simple narrative/signposting for level progression giving the illusion of being real character within realistic eniviroment like action movie. The game mostly (judging by the 1st title I’ve played) uses audio as sense of signposting and character development as he would say one liners related to the current situcation like “Be careful, big drop” as you jump off edge of a cliff just like action movie which works really well. This is most common/typical use of “director agent” within action games but within the context of “Uncharted” it works as “Nathan Drake” is such interesting cool character although it’s one of cheapest tricks in the book.

Back to “Splinter Cell”, I think it’s really interesting how they come up their own way of introducing narrative and the use of “director agent”. Most impressive element of this game isn’t just the new content/context of the game but how they all fits and co-exists within the “Splinter Cell” universe without feeling awkward or forced and how it has it’s own style and own voice using narrative in a new creative way.

Jonesy

Related Links:
My previous blog post about “Mise en scene” within games –
http://jonesyvison.blogspot.com/2008/07/good-bad-and-ugly-final-scene.html

Article by “Sande Chen” who worked wrote and designed “The Witcher” which is about what “Director agents” are - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3736/towards_more_meaningful_games_a_.php

Learning patterns: What’s difference between games and sports?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:37:00 +0000

I was looking around the web for some videos/info regarding that playful event i went to a few weeks ago (my last post was about this) and found a link for Kars Alfrink's whole transcript/speech, one of the speakers from the event: Here is the link if anyone is interested:
http://leapfrog.nl/blog/archives/2008/11/17/a-playful-stance-my-game-design-london-2008-talk/
Here is good point he made in his speech if you don't fancy reading the whole thing:

“ The Z-Boys were trying to figure out what the limits were of the combination of their equipment, their bodies, and their environment. Why were they doing this? For the sheer enjoyment of it. They weren’t doing it because it had some outside purpose. In fact, in my opinion, they were doing it exactly for the sake of its uselessness. Play is an end in itself. Later on in the film you see how, for some of the Z-Boys, skateboarding looses its charm when competition and money get involved. (For those of you who are familiar with Roger Caillois’ classification of games — I think skateboarding started out firmly in ilinx territory, which is all about physical thrills, and only later moved towards agôn, which is about competition.)”

I think its interesting how something playful can become competitive leading it to become a type of sport. This is caused when a player has mastered and learned the rules of the game competing for mastery of skills not necessarily fun, although gaining pleasure via alternative means such as battling for status enhancement. In other words, these players have learned all lessons and patterns that game has to offer and play for game for test of their skill with pure concentration on the task at hand. Whereas when you look at the beginning of skateboarding, it was new unexplored activity where people were discovering and learning new patterns behind the use of the skateboard (tool of fun) and the fun of breaking the boundaries of velocity within our surroundings. You could argue that any game could be considered as a form of sport as its down to how individual players grasp the patterns of the game and their reasons for playing it, but certain games have certain factors that are more deemed as competitive or worthy of sportsmanship. For an example, American football could be considered just tactical as Chess but Chess wouldn't be deemed as a sport, why is this? Despite the obvious things such as the lack of physical activity, in terms of player psychology, does American Football provide fewer patterns so players can grasp the game easier, to truly master it as a sport than Chess? Or do the variables behind the patterns encourage a certain player's mentality and attitude towards the game deeming it competitive?

I think our perspectives and attitudes as players change to particular game variables as time goes on when we are exposed to new alternative aspects which itself creates new patterns and playing styles from old games. For an example, “Mario kart” on Nintendo DS, would anyone be using snaking if it wasn't for the online play? Or without other players exposing such exploits within previous popular online games, would this exploit be discovered? The video below is example or this:

Nintendo has underestimated players’ current knowledge and ability of breaking game systems and willingness to grasp the game fully, knowing every nook and cranny as players are learning patterns quicker than new patterns being developed. You could argue that “Mario Kart” hasn't changed with the times and wasn't designed with online competitive nature in mind as multiplayer gaming has enabled us gamers to learn gaming patterns at incredible rate, as we learn and share game tactics and exploits together, learning with other people is more fun and easier than doing it solo. Looking at Mario Kart's previous history 11 years ago with “Mario kart 64”, famed for it's split-screen, multiplayer never had such aspects of intervention, have people evolved the gaming infrastructure? In other words, are players changing the way how we interact with games and how we perceive or learn from them?

With this perspective in the future, as football is a sport with huge following, we may see it evolve as fans demand expansion becoming bored of the traditional rule set. Who knows maybe we will see football players with chainsaws within next 20 years becoming a “gladiator” sport. Maybe this is why Chess is considered trivial among competitive game players as Chess hasn't evolved to teach us new unexplored patterns that we currently seek. A good way to conclude this topic would be to quote from my favorite games design book “A Theory of Fun” written by “Raph Koster” which sums up this topic perfectly.

“The lesson for designers is simple: A game is destined to become boring, automated, cheated, and exploited. Your sole responsibility is to know what the game is about and to ensure that the game teaches that thing. That one thing, the theme, the core, the heart of the game, might require many systems or it might require few. But no system should be in the game that does not contribute toward that lesson. It is the cynosure of all the systems; it is the moral of the story; it is the point.”

My experience @ event “Playful” during London Games week

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:04:00 +0000

This past week, I've been attending to lots of events during the “London Games Week” and It's a really exciting time to be part of the games industry seeing so much support and hard work invested into this upcoming growing games festival. I've attended this festival every year since 2006 and I have to say that it has come a long way with better organization and understanding of what people want from a games festival, bringing in gamers (consumers), industry people, students, etc. One event I went to which I thought was a perfect candidate for such festival was called “Playful” which is a whole day (of course my favorite subject) about games design where designers spoke about their design ideals and approaches from all different backgrounds ranging from web/graphic design to architecture. It was very inspiring and insightful and it's both challenging and interesting to hear different points of view and to clarity your beliefs on the subject, it certainly expands your horizons. Here is the link for the event; you should check it out next year: http://www.thisisplayful.com/welcome/
With this post I would like to go through my favorite speakers and briefly the points they made which I thought were most avid and important towards games design. I will go into further detail about these processes and approaches/theories in future posts.

Matthew Irvine Brown http://www.irvinebrown.com/

Matthew Irvine Brown isn't a games designer but is interaction designer for a music website called Last.fm (Great site), his point of view towards design is a simple ideology of “Draw more dots. People like to connect them” in other words as designers we create tools for personal customizable interaction and people create their own reason/purpose for the interaction. He says this referring to his site which connects inspiration between music bands, a point of reference/ form of connection between the dots is a part of the experience and fun as people like to see conception and where things are from to form the final outcome. Say a trumpet, people automatically connect that instrument to Jazz music for an example, or someone makes assumption with black and white silent films like “Charlie Chaplin” (the ones made in the 30's with sound) with the cheeky trumpet sound. That's the beauty with music as the medium allows anyone to make their own connection with it, which is why some people believe that music is the most social interactive entertainment medium. Matthew demonstrates this approach with his puppet sock toy; here are some videos he showed on his talk:

Singing Sock Puppet & The Meters - Blues in F from Matt Brown on Vimeo.

http://vimeo.com/1953335 from Matt Brown on Vimeo.

Chris Delay http://www.introversion.co.uk/
Chris Delay is a lead games designer/artist for the company “Introversion” who made titles “Darwinia”, “Uplink” and “Defcon” which are unique stylized art house games within a small development team and budget. He talks about his design and technological method towards game technology called “Procedural Generation” to save money and time when you can’t afford an art team. In a nutshell, basically he defined simple rules and perimeters within his own game system/software which enables the software to automatically create game environments (an urban city landscape) via an organic process by following these rules for his new game “Subversion”. It's an innovative approach as many development studios build their game/design approach around their new technology rather use the technology to build the game. Also interesting he claims that he used these rules to game systems to quickly create prototypes for experimenting and I wonder if the final game will use these rules in regards of gameplay. This demonstrates how pre-planning basic core rules on paper goes a long way but seeing it in action within a game system where you see if ideals work.

Tom Armitage http://infovore.org/

Tom Armitage I actually don't know what he does, but by going by his talk, he knows his stuff. He has an interesting theory where he believes that all multimedia devices (computer games included of course) are multiplayer interlinked with other devices into a bonding social network via software. It is true to a certain extent which is also referred as “Supercontext” theory http://www.futurehi.net/archives/000172.html. He goes on saying how we are a part of social network and these exist to connect a person to shared objects that connects us together, for example, people connect to the site “Flickr” through photos, “Youtube” through videos, etc. He goes on to relate this topic to how Xbox Live only works as tool/service when millions of people connected to allow online gaming to coexist and function as social network. “Even single player games are played in a multiplayer context of persistent profiles” he quotes from Raph Koster ( Raph Koster wrote “Theory of fun” which is a great game design book) referring to games like “Fable 2” or “Geometry Wars 2”, (primary functional and designed as) single player games which use features of connectivity of other players without being online/multiplayer which he calls “Sync activity with shared context”. In other words, single player games aren't single player any more as they all share data/info with other players expanding the experience as part of a social network. He believes that all games will be like this which I think would make for interesting debate as I argue that certain games wouldn't benefit/work within such design ideal like say “survival horror games”.

Kars Alfrink http://leapfrog.nl/

Kars Alfrink is freelance interaction designer from Utrecht, the Netherlands who spoke about designing fun and what fun is? To explain his theory of fun he refers to the film “Dogtown and Z-Boys” which is about the beginning of skateboarding (before it become a sport) where they discover the use of empty swimming pools to create momentum to perform tricks. He used this example to demonstrate how people create fun by changing a tool's rigid useful normal form/function to invent their own useless function becoming playful. These tools allow users to create and communicate their own meaning/purpose, designers can't create meaning via tools, which I don't fully agree with to be honest. He backs up his point by quoting from Mitchel Resnick - Turtles, Termites and Traffic Jams (This is his book he wrote) “What’s needed are microworld construction kits, so that you can create your own microworlds, focusing on the domains you find most interesting” I agree with this statement which reflects the design approach of “Little Big Planet” but I believe tools have to be created with some form of connection/meaning towards the user to allow their interpretation to take place, this links to Matthew Irvine Brown's talk. In other words, the tools have to inspire the user to be playful with. For an example, “Little Big Planet” is nothing new in regards of its function of a level editor but it's the accessible in-game use of UI and charming cute visuals makes the game feel fresh and inspiring.

Eric Zimmerman http://www.gamelab.com/

The last and my favorite talk (most inspiring as he was so passionate) was by “Eric Zimmerman” who is designer at “Gamelab” who made “Diner Dash” (which is hugely popular flash game) and wrote the book “Rules of Play” He spoke about three components of ‘game literacy’: System Play and Design, which are needed for any game to exist. “System” is series of perimeters/commands that a game world must follow to exist just like Chris Delay with his approach with “Procedural Generation”. “Play” is tools of interactivity within the game just like Kars Alfrink and Matthew Irvine Brown theory to design. Then there’s “Design” which is deciding on the rules/purpose of the game. So in other words “Play” needs “Design” and “Design” needs a “system” and “system” needs “play” as Design = Rules/purpose, Play = Tools/mechanics, System = technology/perimeters.

To conclude, this event was very insightful and I really enjoyed it, learning a lot. I will definitely come again next year, you should too! Anyways thanks for reading!

Remakes I wish they would make one day

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:25:00 +0000

I've been playing "Bionic Commando Rearmed" recently, I'm loving it, if you haven't got it, get it now! Its a good example of blending old school gameplay inspired by the orignal's retro roots with modern conventions that we all have grown to be used making the whole experience feel modern and fresh. Anyway This is the reason,I started thinking about remakes I would to like to see in the future and how I would do them if I were to making them.

Final Fantasy VII

This is bound to happen but I can't wait for it even since seeing that tech demo of Final Fantasy 7 on PS3 and also with all these other Final Fantasy 7 spin-off games and the film referred as “Compilation of Final Fantasy VII” makes you wonder when are they going to finally produce the the remake of FF7 that everyone wants. During the development, I hear they had to cut out lot of story sections/villages they didn't have time to finalise/polish them cutting down the game from 4 discs to 3 discs. This would be interesting to see if they include these sections giving a player choice to play director's cut version or the orignal version to play it how you remember it. Let's face it, this remake would make “Square Enix” mountains of cash but the question remains “When will it happen?”.

Goldeneye/ Perfect Dark

“Goldeneye” was the first FPS on console that designed ground up with console in mind taking advantage of their aspect of the Nintendo 64 console especaily the console's abltly to split screen multiplayer featuring so many modes and ways of playing for hours of fun. Still to very day, both “Goldeneye” and “Perfect Dark” remain be very playable although obviously the graphics are so dated now. I hear rumours that Microsoft wanted to re-release/remake “Goldeneye” as Xbox Live Arcade game with online play but “Nintendo” and “Microsoft” couldn't agree on a deal as “Nintendo” wanted to release it too but “Microsoft” wanted to exclusive rights and obviously nintendo has the rights. I can't see why they can't come with up with some form of compromise where both can release “Goldeneye” on their consoles as these days, their markets they appeal to are very different it's not as if they would be confronting each other's interests and everyone wants to play “Goldeneye” is winner. Although who actually knows if this rumour is true, certainly like to think so gives us some hope that it will happen one day.

Alien Breed

“Alien Breed” is getting remake by the original development studio “Team 17” being released as Xbox Live Arcade game in 2009. The orignal classic was released in 1991 on the “Commodore Amiga” as its been a long wait for fans. Unfortunary there is no other details comfirmed yet but its good news that its actually making it.

Metal Gear – very 1st in the series

This is any Metal Gear fan's dream having the orignal “Metal Gear” remade. This would be great opportuntidy to link up the whole Metal Gear universe/story arch with modern filmic production values creating the link between “Metal Gear Solid: Portable” to “Metal Gear Solid” titles. “Metal Gear” is about how “Solid Snake” discovers who “Big Boss” is and of course defends him and from the most recent revelations of MGS plot within “MGS 4” (I'm going to reveal any spolters/details for anyone who haven't played it yet). I think it would proud to be very interesting to see this chapter of the story retold.

Half-life

There is actually a remake of “Half life” being made as mod called “Black Mesa” using the “Half life 2” engine and its been in production for 3 years now, check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mesa_(game_mod) It is very suprising that “Valve” don't make it themselves but I'm sure they have many other projects on their plate which will push the industry.

Shenmue 1 and 2

This is one of my favourite adventure and dreamcast games/series ever due to it's vast ambition of story telling, game design/mechanics, pushing the boundries of 3D environments. Shenmue was one of a kind series which was orignally planned as trilogy (at the time, this was unheard of) but sadly only able to produce two although they both did sell well for a dreamcast title (1.2 million sales) but it wasn't enough to make profit due to high production valuess of $70 million making the most expensive video game of all time. Shemue was too ahead for it's time and the market wasn't there, whereas today I believe there is such an market for such story driven/filmic game. I think as the whole foundations of the game are already there, it wouldn't cost too much to remake it with updated graphics and perforance. Also in today's market, there are many options how to approach a remake from such title, if I was Sega I would either:
Market it towards the casual/non gamer releasing on “Wii” being people's first adventure game experince as people would be relate to it being set within realisation world.
Release in episodes like “Siren” for PS3 or “Sam and Max” on pc.
Release it on all three main consoles as one big game including the yet unmade “Shenmue 3”
You never know they may do this with the success of the “Yakuza” games being more focused towards action than adventure/story.

Beyond Good and Evil
I feel qulity saying this but I've never played this game which received critical acclaim with a underground cult following but typically was a commercial failure. It was designed by “Michel Ancel”who created Rayman who has creativity colorful flair to his games and certainly see that in this title. I think it was overshadowed by a lot of completion with many adventure games released at the time like “Persia of Prince: sands of time”, “Siren”, “Manhunt”, “Zelda: Wind Waker”, “Silent hill 3”. I think this game deserves another chance and especailly as the sequal is being made making it good reason to recap on the story.

Final Fantasy 5 and 6

This is another no brainer for “Square Enix”. Without a doubt it's going to happen, just the the question of when? As Final Fantasy 3 and 4 have already been remaked for Nintendo DS, so I can't see why they won't do the same for final fantasy 5 and 6 unless “Nintendo” or “Sony” releases a new portable console which I can't see happening anytime soon.

Earthbound series
I've been very curtious about this niche nintendo RPG francshie even since I saw the character “Ness” in Smash Bros: Melee on gamecube and sadly none of the games in this series have been released in europe so I never played one. This series has a big cult following among nintendo fans and I hear it has very unique story and characters making something which you must experience and it has to have such a following for an reason and I would like to find out why. I think this warrents a remake for Nintendo DS which would be perfectly suitable console for this remake as it already filled with many old school RPGs.

Kid Icarus or Ice climber

These are “Nintendo Nes” classics have remained to be individual sole titles for years but I certainly would like to see some form of remake with an either 2D meets 3D approach like “Bionic Commando” or complete 3D makeover like mario with “Mario 64”. These are the only Nintendo classics games which haven't been remake yet for modern gaming even “Excitebike” been made again for Nintendo 64 although at the same time, I feel they shouldn't touch them, leave them as you remember them to keep that classic status.

Written by: Jonesy

Jeff Minter and the rest of the industry, what a interesting fellow!

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:21:00 +0000

I have to say that I’m neither the biggest “Jeff Minter” fan with his game creations such as “Gridrunner”, “Tempest 2000” for Atari Jaguar, “Attack of the Mutant Camels”, “Revenge of the Mutant Camels”, “Sheep in Space”, etc to name a few, I certainly see the hook to his games but just too hardcore for me. It’s amazing how he survives with such aggressive gaming market these days, when you hear about “EA” and “Activision” spending multi million/ sometimes billions dollars deals doing this or buying that development studio up, etc. It is such breath of fresh air and sign of hope to see such figurehead among retro gamers can remain producing games that he loves and presents him as person without compromising. This is video is talk/presentation from “Jeff Minter” talking about his history of video game production. To be honest, it isn’t the most informative or insightful presentation by any means but certainly very inspiring and interesting to see such personality able to do what he loves, he certainly touched my soul. I wouldn’t recommend watching it all but at least skip to 25 minutes in where he talks about his ideal/process of games development which I found to be uplifting and profound approach to where refers to games development as “moulding some clay which you don’t know what it’s going to be till you get there” which sounds so liberating. Anyway I you hope watching it and be inspired by it like I did.

The Old, the Modern and the Future of DLC

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:47:00 +0000

These days I'm loving indie gaming with titles like “Braid”, “Castle Crashers”, “Bionic Commando Rearmed”, “Geometry wars 2”, “The Last Guy” and “Pixel junk Eden”, etc this trend of gaming has finally taken off with a wide range of creative original titles taking advantage of their low budget and small team development process. It's refreshing to see that this notion/approach is finally being taken seriously within the industry as a profitable and desirable game development form, giving indie gaming it's own identity away from traditional £40 game model. As Digital Distribution is becoming a more acceptable form of gaming, capturing the attention of both hardcore and casual gamers and possessing the vibes of art house and simplicity, games developers are becoming more ambitious exploring many avenues of this model. These games certainly have very promising bright future reflecting the latest trends and needs for a wide array of gamers.

Another digital download trend which is mainly pushed by Microsoft is DLC (Download Content) which hasn't got such a clean cut bright future ahead as it still has many hurdles to overcome, especially appealing to mainstream audiences. Also there is the challenge of placing DLC appropriately as many people feel that DLC is a con/gimmick to generate more revenue for less extra content, and to a degree I believe their argument is valid, but the real question here is, how can the approach towards download content change to broaden it's potential and change people's attitude towards this concept?

With indie games, the demand and profits are there and growing, therefore development studios can afford to become more adventurous with price models, content and game structure like “Sam and Max”'s episodic paced game structure. However, DLC lacks such options due to the demand and profits being limited primarily towards the first person shooter genre for hardcore gamers, to fund experiments for such concepts. Obviously due to this fact, the content itself is priced highly to cover development costs and DLC is typically customized towards multiplayer which benefits from a high volume of players. This works very well for AAA titles like “Halo 3” and “Call Of Duty 4” but with smaller titles like “Stranglehold” or “Timeshift”, DLC proves a risky option for both developer and player as there is no guarantee that there will be the numbers willing to invest to make a profit for the development studio and to create a worthy solid experience for the players. That’s why this traditional method of DLC only works for established titles and as a big Halo fan myself; I love DLC as I just want more, although I can see the cracks appearing within this system that requires reconstruction for modern demands for a new generation of gamers. The current method can prove to be very uninviting and intimidating unless you are part of the FPS gamer generation who grew up with such games in late 90’s and early 2000’s. You could argue that these new gamers who wouldn’t normally invest in DLC are the type who never will, or the games (genres) they play aren’t designed with DLC in mind. So therefore the concept doesn’t appeal to them but I think the concept itself is appealing to everyone as “human beings” we always desire more of things we enjoy, but in the case of DLC I think it’s down to how it’s delivered to make it desirable for users fitting into the subject of the game for their overall experience.

My next question is: why do certain genres like adventure games do not typically contain DLC feature? The design mentality towards the adventure genre requires a coherent structure within a game world and the FPS DLC model doesn’t provide that as it just attaches/adds elements to the game system (like a dessert with a meal) rather than placing them inside the game world (ingredients of a meal). This is where new forms of DLC need to be introduced to work with other genres and game requirements which introduce many new game design challenges and choices where the most trivial feature can make such a difference towards the user’s experience. For example, Halo 3 has separate matchmaking playlists for the new content/maps whereas Call of Duty 4 incorporates the new maps within the same playlists everyone uses creating a bigger number of players (always guaranteed a match) but mixing the skill levels of pro/casual players. These games have been developed with DLC in mind from day one that’s why their model works for the target audience whereas with experimenting with other forms of DLC is hard to determine and structure towards the impact of final product/ game playing experience without long term pre-plan or focused objective the game is trying to achieve. For example, let's say in “Metal Gear Solid 4” (minor plot spoilers ahead about MGS 4, if you haven’t played it yet) you could download alternative story arches about “Meryl” seeing more development of her relationship with “Akiba/Johnny” or how she really feels about “Solid Snake”, and this gameplay being based in middle east, covertly backing up “Solid Snake” without his knowledge. This could be great idea adding depth to the plot, etc but there are many consequences and design elements to consider for such a concept like wouldn’t this rid the surprise for the story for people who aren’t yet aware of this story event to come, what would this DLC explore gameplay and story wise without it feeling like an add-on?

Many gamers are looking forward to Grand Theft Auto 4’s DLC with the so far announced two episodes within the story universe of Liberty Island. I think this could be the game to break this attitude towards DLC making it commercially acceptable for mainstream, although the question is: how are “Rockstar” going to execute their DLC?

The title “Crackdown” (Sandbox game made by: Real Time Worlds – ex Rockstar) is a good example GTA may be inspired by which has evolved the design mentality towards DLC. Crackdown’s DLC introduces new features/modes which as an player I didn't expect see from such a title, like the access to an debug mode (Like Halo's Forge mode), co-op and competitive multiplayer modes that expanded the playing style scope adding diversity that creates a different flavor/side to the crackdown experience which you wouldn’t think would co-exist/work within such a title. This DLC also includes typical game elements that we all want from “Crackdown” such as extra cars, weapons, characters, etc it was designed to have a balance of filling in with more of the same as well as expanding the experience which creates an broad spectrum of freedom allowing players to play with this content in any way they choose making it feel very coherent within the game world. In a way, it is like adding toys to the toy box (game system/world) and this is very smart approach towards DLC allowing anyone to enjoy the DLC allowing the player to have their own experience via flexibility without requirements rather than to rely on linear structure of FPS DLC where huge numbers of players are needed to enjoy, required for competitive FPS gameplay.

Burnout Paradise is another title that has been built in such a way, its evolution of MMO design ideals within racing genre where elements like weather, bikes, extra islands are added to Paradise City seamlessly without charge (free, shocking isn’t it?) and even the radio DJ gives the player hints regarding future DLC, making the experience feel fresh and exciting every time you play it, organically inserting the DLC expanding the experience further without DLC feeling like separate unity. Even though I don’t like racing games, this design approach has added a whole new perspective to my thinking and feelings about how racing games and DLC should be produced in the future.

Imagine the possibilities with GTA 4’s DLC: each episode is about different character in Liberty City with different timeframes, before or after Niko Bellic’s (GTA 4’s main character) story arch within Liberty City and all their stories all interlink with each others like a Quentin Tarantino movie, or each character has completely different gameplay styles and not just the alpha male gangsters/ex-solder like Niko Bellic, therefore players could buy only DLC with characters that interest them with their personality. The design approach of DLC needs to change to suit the gamer's needs and requirements, as the FPS DLC remains suitable for the hardcore gamers for competitive multiplayer games as there is need to reach out to other demographics by addressing their needs as gamers. As gaming technology is constantly developing and progressing changing the way we interact with games and how we experience them so does the way content is imported into the game worlds, making the world feel coherent and organic with the extra content. The beauty of DLC you can explore many venues of gameplay, idea and business models without risk of high development costs, like indie games and also if a development studio can’t complete features by their deadline, they have no excuse to not release it at a later date as DLC. DLC certainly has a bright future and I look forward to it.

Written by: Jonesy

Other contenders which didn’t quite make it into the Nintendo list:

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:47:00 +0000

Nintendogs (2005: Nintendo DS)

Wanted to include this game because typically it created an appeal for Nintendo DS with female audiences which it did at the time but now I feel that other games have achieved female appeal better within industry with broader audience scope like “Sims” or “World of Warcraft” as I think its a bit of cliché making cute animal game to appeal female audience as It's been done to death throughout the years although I have to say that this “animal sim” game is well executed with a lot of charm (very Nintendo) and it's the best of its kind. This game was almost on this list as he has made minor impact on the industry with lots of clones from Ubisoft with “Tigerz”, “horses”, etc but it’s not inspirational enough compared other Nintendo's creations.

E – card reader (2003 Gamecube/Game boy advance connectivity)

Wanted to include this peripheral as I loved using it during my “Animal crossing” addiction scanning in cards to gain more items and play NES games although it was good idea, it wasn't fully explored by Nintendo and soon died off as an gimmick with lack of support. I guess Nintendo didn't think it was profitable enough with their business model via cards sales and it didn’t help that the cards were produced in small numbers for American market so I guess Nintendo I didn’t have much faith in this creation.

Game and Watch machines (1981)
This is old school and retro gaming! I really wanted to include “Game and Watch” as this was the beginning for Nintendo which we all know now but with the game history of the early 80's makes it hard to define how inspirational and innovative the “Game and Watch” consoles was towards the industry when there was so much going at the time with millions of consoles coming out every week, people easily copying games, etc which lead to the “Game crash” (1983) which was triggered by the gaming market overflow. It was hard call but I decided that I couldn’t place it.

Super Nintendo/Snes controller (1992)

I thought about including this due to it being the only 16-bit console controller with shoulder buttons and four button layout, Y, Z, B and A which used by Sony for Playstation but I wouldn’t classify this as being innovative for controller design adding more buttons despite being such a iconic 16-bit controller.

Power Glove Controller (1989: Nes)

Nintendo shockingly wasn’t involved in the design or release of this accessory (I didn’t know that myself till I researched it) and wanted to include due to its historical tacky 80’s style of gaming fun and also the fact that it is a really silly and pointless accessory which is really embarrassing now but at the time, you thought you were so cool.

Nes Zapper/light gun (1985)

Wanted include this due to my memories of childhood being the first light gun I played with, but Nintendo weren’t the first lightgun nor created any innovative improvements over the inspired pre-successor “Shooting Gallery” light gun on the console “Magnavox Odyssey” in 1972 I was very surprised when I researched myself, have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_gun I remember wasting hours playing “Duck Hunt”, they were the days.

Tetris (1989: Gameboy)

Tetris has been released on almost every successful console ever just like “Bomberman” games. “Bomberman” and “Tetris” are the two games that every good console should and will have and for that fact alone I couldn't include “Tetris” within this Nintendo list despite it being such a huge success for the “Gameboy” making it the first major handheld console who survived battle against both “Game Gear” and “Atari Lynx” in the early 1990's.

Fire Emblem (2003: Game boy advance and 1990: Nes)

I wanted to include this due to “Fire Emblem” being one of the first tactical role playing games and also one of my favourite games but “fire emblem” is quite recent franchise within the west with the first English release in 2003 on “Game Boy Advance” whereas “Fire Emblem” has been going for years within Japan with the original release in 1990 on the “Famicom”. In today's standards, “Fire Emblem” isn't that innovative or inspirational but the original was but sadly never reaches these shores so It’s hard to say how innovative or inspirational it truly was.

N64 DD (1999)

I was thinking about this including “N64 DD” as I remember wanting one back in the day because I couldn’t get one as it was only released within Japan only. Looking back now, I’m so glad that I didn’t import one as I would have been very disappointed with its lack of software support with only 9 games released on it. This console was bigger commercial failure than “Virtual Boy” as it wasn’t even that innovative of a concept although it did introduce features such as internet browser and online play via modern but “Dreamcast” was released year before with the same features. I don’t know what “Nintendo” was thinking when they released/produced this console but I guess we all have our bad days.

Doshin the Giant (1999: N64 DD and 2002: Gamecube)

“Doshin the Giant” was originally released on the 64DD being the only original title on the console among all other titles which were apart of other Nintendo franchises. Most people have never hear of this one, sadly it never sold that well being an one off experiment. It was basically god sim game which is very similar to “Black and White” where you control a Giant called “Doshin” where the actions from the player reflect the behaviour of the villagers of the island. Due to the fact that it's similarity with “Black and White” I'm not sure if you could fairly say that this title is innovative or original and also wasn't too inspirational with low sales, so either way I couldn't include it although I'm quite fond of this charming little game which is very Nintendo.

Nintendo’s 20 most inspirational and innovative products that changed the game industry - Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:29:00 +0000

5 . Donkey Kong (1981: Arcade - Shigeru Miyamoto’s first game)

“Donkey Kong” was the game that placed both “Nintendo” and “Shigeru Miyamoto” on the gaming map, leading Nintendo to become one of most inspirational leading video game console manufacturer and publisher ever. Without the great success of “Donkey Kong” there would be no “Nintendo” that we know now, probably still producing toys and cards which was their main business before their gaming boom took place during the early 80’s. “Donkey Kong” is a great success story not due to the game itself, as I think it isn’t the most innovative or playable game that Miyamoto has made (still amazing achievement for your 1st game title) but the actual impact of the game had on the whole industry and remains the most iconic game character along with “Mario” (who was known then as “Jumpman”) a huge part of pop gaming culture.

4. Metroid and Zelda (1987: Nes)

You are probably wondering why I grouped “Metroid” and “Zelda” together under position 4, well I think they explore the “adventure game” genre with the same innovation of the first non-linear game experiences although they both take very different directions with the gameplay, they also share many similarities, they are head and tails of the same coin so to speak. “Metroid” was designed by “Gunpei Yokoi” who designed the “Game boy”, and “Zelda” was designed by “Shigeru Miyamoto” (Miyamoto’s 4th game he designed), both releasing in the same year and console, the NES (“Nintendo Entertainment System”). At the time, all side scrolling games would only require the player to go left to right (one direction) whereas “Metroid” required to explore all directions (up, down, left and right) backtracking to previous areas using new found items/weapons to unlock new areas. This is a huge innovation towards gaming. It’s interesting to see how these two games have created two popular franchises which have shot off very different influences towards other games through the years of their evolution, like “Fable” games are inspired by the 3D Zelda games, “Castlevania” games are inspired by the 2D Metroid games, “Bioshock” (Sci-fi adventure FPS game) is inspired by the “Metroid Prime” titles. These two games have created the design template of ideals for the “Adventure game” genre and how many games can say that?

3 . Nintendo 64 controller with the 3D analog stick (1996: Nintendo 64)

Analog stick for games console controllers was nothing new as many 1970’s game consoles used the analog sticks on their controllers which proved inoperative with the games at the time which was replaced with the more suitable d-pad on successor controllers. “Nintendo” redesigned and modernized analog stick for Nintendo 64 controller enabling varied levels of pressure and 360-degree control within 3D space, translating into more precise movements in games such as “Super Mario 64”. In other words, they designed a controller for (at the time) the new evolution of gaming using 3D space and this was revolution by itself not just making Analog stick gaming standard for 3D gaming but how the games were designed with the full use of the controller and many gamers would argue that the games themselves wouldn’t be as good without the controller. This was the first controller to be designed with mentality/way of thinking; you could say that “Wii” has applied the same approach as the controller interface confines the experience of the gaming software. Yet again, this controller feature (just like Rumble Pak) was copied by Sony for the “PlayStation” with the “Dual Shock” releasing it two years later in 1998 with two analog sticks (a massive innovation in itself). For me, personally this still remains to be one of my favorite controllers for user comfort, button layout and controller design along with Xbox 360 controller for comfort, although 360 controller is evolution and the N64 controller will always be considered revolution in my book.

2 . Lock on system within Zelda: Ocarina of Time (1998: Nintendo 64)

This is another one of Nintendo’s genius game design moments when they introduced to the world the “Lock on system” which first appeared within “Zelda: Ocarina of time” released for Nintendo 64 at 1998. Now every 3D game almost in existence uses the basic principles of the lock system enabling the player the ability to lock on/aim at moving target within 3D space. This is an amazing innovation which changed the way we play games and amazingly this system is still getting used with modern games development improving the concept/system with extra depth and mechanics like with Grand Theft Auto series with GTA 4. This is one of most reasons why this game is rated to be one of the best games ever made, as you always see “Zelda: Ocarina of time” within top 10 of any best games ever list and the other thing I can’t believe is how no one else has come up with alternative system as yet.

1. 3D camera control within Mario 64 (1996: Nintendo 64)

Mario 64 is certainly one of the most important 3D games ever made along with of course “Zelda: Ocarina of time” and titles like “Tomb raider”, “Quake”, “Virtua Fighter” which were the first create the core principles for 3D gaming. Mario 64's biggest achievement wasn't only the obvious transition of placing Mario from 2D to 3D world but the creation of the 3D camera system creating the simple principles which us gamers take for graded such as collision detection, level boundaries and the ability to change to a preferred camera angle following Mario around 3D environment so seamlessly. The user friendly controls via the N64 controller making the camera control seem so natural and non – mechanical running with such freedom and flexibility with great sense of energy unlike other previous attempts with 3D space movement, a lot of people believe that the N64 controller was built with Mario 64 in mind, which I deeply agree with. Even Mario 64 made the camera a character which I thought was charming touch/hint at Nintendo's own awareness of the importance for this 3D camera system, “Lakitu” is the camera man, if you remember that character? Mario 64 was so revolutionary for it's time not only changing the way 3D games are made but also the way we play them and even to this day, I don't think there even has been a game that has achieved so much but remains to be so playable to this day. A timeless classic that deserves the one number spot.

Nintendo’s 20 most inspirational and innovative products that changed the game industry - Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:32:00 +0000

10. Mario Party (1999: Nintendo 64)

The year of 1999 was the year for new Nintendo IP along with “Smash Bros” released on the same year. People think I’m nuts to include this within my top 20, the game on its own merits in regards of gameplay I agree, “Mario Party” games have never been the most solid executed games ever but “Mario Party” series were very original/experimental with unusual game formula for their time introducing the concept of mini games reflecting pure sillyness and fun which anyone can get into and enjoy. “Mario Party” created the basic principles of the “Party game” genre and created stark/demand for this type of genre hence Nintendo creating far better executed fun party title called “Wario Ware” in 2003 on “Game boy advance” (First game in the series) and both of these game series have inspired the industry in the recent years with titles such as “Rayman: Raving Rabbits” and “EA: playground” games especially on “Wii”. People would argue that I should place “Wario ware” within this position as “Wario Ware” titles have always been better conceived in regards of both gameplay and game sales but without “Mario Party” success; you wouldn’t have “Wario Ware” or probably the “Party game” genre.

9. Brain age/Brain Training (2006: Nintendo DS)

This is one of the first titles that embraced Nintendo recent conquest towards the casual gaming market back in 2006 and still sells by the bucket lot with 13 million sales so far worldwide and still remains placed within the top 40 chart after two years from release, impressive! Gamers intend dislike this new wave of “Quiz/puzzle” games but you can’t denide that Nintendo have been very clever and creative with the whole design approach towards these brain training games making them perfectly suitable for portable gaming. This is where the innovation taken its poll as it tries to emulate next evolutionarily step of crossword/sudoku puzzles due to it’s pick up and play nature and accessibility of varied play lengths varying from quick short bursts to full intense hours of gameplay popping a few new brain cells testing how logical brain is. This is why they proved so popular becoming the crossword puzzles of the 21st century.

8. Nintendo DS (2004)
I remember when Nintendo first unveiled the “Nintendo DS” back at E3 2004 and people thought “Nintendo” had lost the plot with its ugly blocky design (often compared to “Game and Watch” console) , gimmicky dual touch screens control scheme, lack of original titles which fully took advance of the DS’s hardware features. To be honest, I was so worried that Sony PSP would take over handheld market as it had promising propositions. Satoru Iwata had (Nintendo’s president) said "We have developed Nintendo DS based upon a completely different concept from existing game devices in order to provide players with a unique entertainment experience for the 21st century.” Nintendo have certainly have achieved that goal with diversity array of titles for appealing wide audiences of hardcore gamers, gamers, casual gamers, non- gamers, etc selling 77 million units worldwide so far with support of 586 DS titles smashing PSP out of the water. I think DS will eventually become most successful with more sales than “Game Boy” with a total of 118.69 million units worldwide (combined with “Game boy color” sales). Nintendo deserve their success as they took a big risk re-inventing what the handheld gaming is about as it could of easily went other way with Sony controlling a monopoly on the handheld gaming market.

7. Four player split screen games/console (1996/1997: Nintendo 64 with Mario kart and Goldeneye)

I remember playing Mario Kart 64 four player for the first time ever; it was magical moment for me which I hope never forget. Four player games was nothing new especially if you were pc gamer back then with games like “Doom” and “Duke Nukem” playing LAN or over the internet but it was niche market limited to hardcore gamers only. Myself and like many others, Nintendo 64 with games such as “Mario Kart 64” and “Goldeneye” were my first multiplayer experiences and Nintendo 64 made multiplayer gaming more accessible and mainstream with smaller requirements of only 4 controllers and TV than dedicated PC alternative. These days, Multiplayer gaming is huge part of social gaming culture with online services such as “Xbox live”, “PSN”, “Stream”, etc playing huge epic matches with millions of players all around the world but its not quite the same as killing your friend in the same room as you, seeing his/her reactions to your skills, screen watching to outdo your opponents. “Goldeneye” put multiplayer on the map for console games before then 99% of games were single player only affair whereas today it’s considered to be suicide to have a game without MP/online functionality especially on 360. “Goldeneye” was the first game where I wanted to create my own fun coming up with my own ways/modes of gameplay like the famous “One shot kills” with pistols which became legendary made-up way of playing “Goldeneye”. The way “Goldeneye” and “Mario Kart” were made with solid overall experience for both single player and multiplayer, I wish games were made like that today with that much thought, innovation and polish into the final products, they didn’t need patches nor download content, multiplayer games will never have the same impact but I’m maybe just old school!

6 . Super Mario Bros (1985: Nes)

You can’t miss to mention such important title for the industry such as “Super Mario Bros” in a list like this, like do I really need to say more? It’s “Super Mario Bros” the best selling video game of all time (selling over 40 million copies so far) putting Mario to be Nintendo’s most famous mascot and gaming icon. This is one of Shigeru Miyamoto's most influential early successes; as it has inspired countless imitators placing the platform genre as the main genre of the late 80’s and early 90’s with “Sonic” from Sega, “Zool” from Gremlin, “Dizzy” from Codemasters, “James Pond” from EA, etc. The success of “Super Mario Bros” has caused it to be ported to almost every one of Nintendo's major gaming consoles, in some form or another. “Super Mario Bros” was also largely responsible for the initial success of the “Nintendo Entertainment System” (Nes, Nintendo’s first games console), as well as ending the two year slump of video game sales in the US after the video game crash of 1983.

Nintendo’s 20 most inspirational and innovative products that changed the game industry - Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:02:00 +0000

14 . Wii Fit/Wii Sports (2006/2008: Nintendo Wii)
You are probably wondering why have I grouped “Wii Fit” and “Wii Sports” together for the 14 spot. Well, I think they are part of the same group of games or experience which I refer as a “Mainstream accessible interactive sport experiences”. Without “Wii Sports” would “Wii Fit” be accepted as a gaming experience? They go hand to hand as “Wii Sports” was free title included with “Wii” to wet people’s appetite for causal interactive experiences. What’s so clever with these titles isn’t actually everyone to play these games but the simple fact that they can actually understand/relate to what’s going on screen.
The real innovation isn’t just the concept as this idea has been attempted so many times throughout the years (failing each time) but Nintendo’s approach and subtleties that make these games work so well filled with simple interface design, accessible control schemes, diversity of gameplay modes, etc. This is the very beginning of this type of games and stereotypically gamers dislike these games labelling them “casual experiences” and not "games". But without these titles; do you think “Wii” would be so successful? I think not, I look forward to see what Nintendo does next with their subgenre of casual gaming with “Wii Music” and “Wii Sports 2” which will no doubt turn to gold with millions of sales.

13 . Miis and Wii channels (2006: Wii)
This is another factor why I believe “Wii” was so successful, Nintendo invested on having software/functions which can be used straight out of the box without extra cost making it both acceptable and affordable for everyone. Whereas Microsoft has spend their money on their dashboard interface for the overwhelming freedom of choice for a download content heaven for hardcore gamers, Nintendo chosen the opposite with a simple I-pod accessible interface where less is more, focusing on simple easy to understand functions of channels such as “Mii Channel”, “Photo Channel”, “Wii Shop Channel”, “Forecast Channel”, and “News Channel”, etc.
“Miis” creation via the “Mii channel” was Nintendo’s own take on avatars which have been previously successful with PC gaming experiences like “IMVU” and “Second Life” showing that this can be done within the console space proving very popular. Typically with almost every great Nintendo innovation, other players in the battlefield shamelessly copy it, with Sony’s “Home” which you could argue is more inspired by “Second life”, but Microsoft’s avatar approach is very much directly inspired by Nintendo’s “Miis”. Yet again like “Wii sports” and “Wii Fit” (position 14) it’s not the concept that’s the innovation but the Nintendo’s execution with simple understanding of “Less is more” and approachable simple designed interface for anyone to use and understand.

12. Nintendo Wii and the Wii Remote (2006)
You could argue that the “Wii” console belongs with interface design of the “Miis” and “Wii channels” with position 13 but I believe they are two different things as “Miis” are software within the console, here I’m stating another innovation with console and the controller design (Wii remote and Nunchuck) embracing their continuous conquest for less is more, towards accessibility over game depth. The controller setup is in a way the first step towards making VR mainstream with early gaming notions of motion detection, it be interesting to see how they take this to the next step with “Wii 2”. Yet again, the competition copied this approach with Sony’s SIXAXIS controller featuring motion detection as desperate afterthought for a checklist controller feature. Nintendo has shown that motion detection is the future being the first to be successful with this approach of controller interactivity and I bet that all competition will implement this feature as standard with the next generation of consoles.

11. Animal Crossing (2002: Nintendo Gamecube)
“Animal Crossing” is another unique title which is hard to define within a specific genre just like “Pikmin”, Nintendo describes as “Family communications game” whereas many gamers describe it as “alternative life/ life simulation” game like “Sims” or “Second Life” which sucks your life with it’s addictive nature. This game creates a great sense of achievement with everything you do within game as has consequences affecting the game world around you but also the simple fact that does this with such personality and charm reflected by the unique villagers/animals (NPCs) within the village. This game gives a sense of dependency for you (making you feel wanted) as the game encourages you to play daily to maintain the village and this is how you create artificial bond with the village and villagers as you spend so much time creating this village/world around you.
Innovation within this game is not just the design of the game world interactions but with the use of the “Gamecube” hardware and other Nintendo peripherals to emulate this, such as use of the Gamecube’s internal clock and calendar for real time events like “Halloween”, “Xmas” and even your birthday, use of the Gamecube’s “Card E-reader” (which I was going include this list but it had minimal impact on industry overall) where you could upload new items via physical cards to the game, use of connectivity to the “Game boy advance” to play AC on your GBA, etc, the list goes on. The innovation with this game also lies with the fact that everyone that plays this game plays it for a different reason creating their own experience finding their own unique elements of gameplay. This is why “Animal crossing” has proved to be both truly inspirational and innovative making it very popular, with the 3rd in the series coming to “Wii”.

End of part two - Written by: Jonesy

Nintendo’s 20 most inspirational and innovative products that changed the game industry - Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:53:00 +0000

Here I write about one of the favourite games development company "Nintendo" although I know this is slightly off the topic from games design but I thought it be a nice change from talking about deep theories of game design (although I really enjoy writting and thinking about game theory) and also I'm back to writting on this blog again so you be hearing from me often. Anyways I hope you enjoy this list as i'm going post this list in a few parts over the week.

Nintendo has been an innovator for generations, experimenting with new ideas, changing the way we play games and changing the way, the industry makes their games। I have to say I had trouble deciding and defining what Nintendo product should go where as there are many factors to consider. Did this product create a bigger impact on the industry in terms of sales or game innovation than another product? If the product is an evolution of another product does this make it less innovative and inspirational than other products? In the end, this list boiled down to my opinion and knowledge as gamer and Nintendo fan to what I value most from these products and how I think they impacted the industry.

20. Virtual boy (1995)

The Virtual boy was only released within America and Japan and never made it over here to the European shores due to it being a commercial failure with only 22 games being released on the console। This console was designed and developed by “Gunpei Yokoi” who created the “Game and Watch” games/toys, “Game Boy” and of course “Metroid” and sadly this was his last console he designed for Nintendo. He resigned August 15, 1996 due to his failure of the “Virtual boy” and also “Nintendo” blamed him for the console’s lack of success which didn’t help matters. This console didn’t create much of an impact towards the industry but you can’t help but admire the Gunpei Yokoi’s ambition trying something new and quite experimental for a console for the time.

19. Rumble pack (1997: Nintendo 64)

“Rumble pack” was released for Nintendo 64 in 1997 becoming the first vibration accessory for console gaming, famously packaged with “Starfox 64” (“Lylat Wars” as it was called in Europe – what a poor name) as the first game to use the “Rumble pack”. Copied a year later (1998) by Sony placing the rumble pack internally (don’t have to buy separately) within controller called “DUALSHOCK” being their 3rd official controller for the “PlayStation”. This is one of the most inspired console controller features as every controller within modern gaming has a rumble feature. Although N64 rumble pack was inspiring I wouldn’t say it was most innovative example of game functionality as it never changed the way you played the game, maybe how you experienced it but not the actual gameplay.

18. Smash bros (1999: Nintendo 64)

Are you probably wondering why did I pick “Smash Bros” for this list? Well “Smash Bros” was the first game of its type creating a new subgenre of fighting games which is quite rare within games industry. At the time, the popular fighting games like Tekken, Virtua Fighter and Street Fighter 3/Alpha series were designed for hardcore fighter fans with better graphics, more moves, more characters, etc making less accessible and harder to get into for newcomers whereas “Smash bros” was the complete opposite to this. “Smash Bros” was like “Mario Kart” of fighting games which was unheard back at 1999 which was very accessible and fun which didn’t require players to know/remember moves (knowledge) but rely on instinct and simple tactics. One of the greatest introductions to the fighter genre was the simple function of simultaneous 4 players on same screen. “Smash bros” is still known to this very day (latest version called “Smash Bros: Brawl” on Wii) to be quite unique and inventive as it reminds to one of few titles known within this niche genre of “Party fighting game”. The only other example I can think of is: Power stone 1 and 2 released back 1999 and 2000 on the “Dreamcast”.

17. Connectivity between the GameCube and the Game Boy Advance via Zelda: four swords (2004: Gamecube/game boy advance)

I believe this is one of Nintendo’s biggest sleeper hits and combined with both console/accessory interactivity (needing a “GameCube”, “Game Boy Advance” and connection cable for each player) and game design interaction, deserving of far more sales than it actually got. It’s this unique approach of using connectivity between the “GameCube” and “Game Boy Advance” that made this game so special, with gameplay surrounded by interaction of both consoles. This was also its downfall as the requirements to enjoy the full experience were too uncommon among most gamers, and only the hardcore would invest into such optional peripherals (limited games supported this setup, “Pacman vs” is one of the few other examples) most likely having 3 other friends with GBAs willing to play the same game in the same room. Nintendo is famous for inventive peripherals changing the experience of the gameplay and this was more than some gimmicky peripheral interaction, actually changing the way you played the game. In fact this is the first real co-op game built ground up as co-op multiplayer game which remains unbeaten by other temporary co-op games like “Army of two” and “Schizoid” in terms of co-op interaction game design and gameplay. Only if they would make a sequel using both “Wii” and “DS”, such no brainier, especially with high number of DSs and Wiis sold. Four player Zelda you can’t go wrong!

16. Pokemon Blue/Red (1998: Gameboy)

I can certainly see why people hate “Pokémon” but I personally find Pokémon to be quite cute and kid friendly. Everyone can play “Pokémon” I wouldn’t say that it does anything new in regards of gameplay within RPG genre but certainly executes some interesting ideas with connectivity between the two versions, collecting 150 different Pokémon, each Pokémon representing a different element, training the Pokémon, etc. It’s a very cleverly made and accessible RPG presenting typical aspects of RPG in fresh way making it understandable for all age groups. “Pokémon” is often described as the “Kid’s crack” especially the Pokémon cards. Nintendo stated that the Pokémon franchise has sold over 175 million units as of April 23, 2008. Only Nintendo can come up with something so bizarre (which you wouldn’t think would even take off) yet so successful. If you're talking about “Nintendo”, you can’t forget about “Pokémon” due to it's financial importance, although how innovative it actually is would make an interesting debate.

15. Pikmin (2001: Gamecube)
This game was released within the first year (first wave of Nintendo titles) of the GameCube's lifespan and it was one of the most original titles on the Gamecube designed by “Shigeru Miyamoto”. This is the first example of original RTS (real-time strategy) working on console, a genre which is so associated with the PC, showed the industry that a RTS can work on console, although “Pikmin” is also a unique blend of adventure/puzzle making it hard to define to a single game genre. “Pikmin” wasn’t the most deeply tactical game out there but made up for it with charm and character. This game wasn’t Nintendo’s biggest seller but certainly has a good cult following, releasing a sequel Pikmin 2 in 2004 (GameCube) and a 3rd title being made for “Wii” which I can’t wait for. “Pikmin” series doesn’t directly inspire the latest trend of RTS titles for consoles like “Halo Wars”, “End War”, “World in Conflict”, etc but it certainly opened the door/possibility for RTS to work on console with unique gameplay style too.

End of part one - Written by: Jonesy

Yes I’ve still alive – sorry for the delay!

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:27:00 +0000

Firstly I like to say that I’m still alive and I apologize for not posting much these days as I’ve just got a new job (which I’m very happy about) and I’m currently moving house, its apart of territory when you work within the games industry.

Here is a article on Gamasutra site (written by “Sande Chen” who worked as a game writer and designer on “The Witcher”) I read which I found really interesting as it covers same topic and aspects of game creation I spoke about within my “Do Video games use “Mise-en-scène” like films?” post.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3736/towards_more_meaningful_games_a_.php?page=1

It’s quite reassuring that I’m not the only one that thinks “Mise en scene” (my personal term for this overall aspect of game design) is important and thinks about how can be improved within the future of games. Reading this article has made me think about game language and terminology used to reference to game creation aspects. For an example, “Sande Chen” who wrote this article, she refers to the optimization of the game camera as a “director agent” which is game term I’ve never hear of before.

That’s the thing with such a young art form such as games design is that there’s no universal language/terminology for aspects of game creation although this does make “game design” very exciting and interesting as it’s so new and young developing game ideas and approaches that haven’t been done before but at the same time, its difficult to communicate game ideals and aspects of design as the knowledge and techniques aren’t finalized to any specific term or process. “Game design” isn’t exact science or art as every designer has their take/approach to what defines a good game therefore using different techniques/tools as there are no universally accepted truths, but only opinions using their own language and terminology for their game project.

This is the main challenge for me writing this blog, it isn’t expressing my theories/ideals of game design or what makes “fun” but the actual language/ terminology I use isn’t universally known for such a topic making it tricky to communicate my points of view. Sometimes I feel like mad scientist blobbing on about theories which everyone thinks you are crazy but that’s beauty of a young industry is as we “ the game creators” will discover and define these theories/approaches to game design along with universal language/terminology to go to boot.

This post is my general feelings on the overall aspects of the “game design” topic but for my next post I will write something more specific like I normally do on “game design”. Thanks for reading and your support!

Jonesy

“Melodrama” within video games

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:58:00 +0000

Today I was reading these articles about “Melodrama” storytelling type within video games and how most all games use this style tell it’s story; I found this really interesting topic as I’ve never really thought about games storytelling style because he comes to a topic like this I always think about how to tell certain stories/themes through a gameplay style (mechanics/game design ideals). Here are the two links and I truly recommend reading these two articles they opened up my mind to some new knowledge about storytelling and how “Melodrama” is used in games.

http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2008/06/we-do-melodrama.html

http://www.educationarcade.org/SiDA/melodrama

Here I quote from Brainygamer article describing what “Melodrama” is:

“Melodrama: the triumph of moral virtue over villainy, and the consequent idealizing of the moral views assumed to be held by the audience." --Northrup Frye

Melodrama teaches, consoles, punishes and rewards; it submits the phenomena of life and human conduct to the immutable laws of justice and offers reflections upon men's actions and feelings." --Henry Jenkins

“Melodrama” is the ideal story type for games reflecting human emotions/conditions in exaggerated idealize form where the player is empowered or rewarded for their actions of moral justification/honor of fighting evil within a typical game story archetype of good vs evil. This story style gives the player motive and purpose to work/build towards something; this player’s mindset/focus is most commonly required and encouraged within RPGs with predictable and empowering progressive experience becoming from “Zero” to “Hero” story formula. This story formula is also often used towards gameplay structure/pace and scenario planning for diversity within side scrolling platform/adventure games like “Castlevania” series and “Metroid” series. These titles have a “Melodrama” inspired structure where the beginning of the game, the player is a “hero” that has all superpowers/weapons then the player loses these weapons becoming a “zero” and the rest of the game, the player has to gain back all these weapons to become “hero” again to reach the end of the game. This is clever way to create emotional connection with player via progression of empowerment and motive to gain these items back. What this structure also achieves (which I think is most clever part of this design structure) is player’s previous experience of all weapons provides the player with clues/suggests to overcome puzzles/obstacles as the player is aware what weapon/power may be needed for solution or what can be used instead for similar result adding extra depth to the navigation of the levels as well as the gameplay.

This aspect of “Melodrama” influencing or apart of game’s structure is linked to my previous post about “Mise en scene” (which is amazingly odd timing considering I wrote “Mise en scene” a few days ago) in games or as I may call it “Pattern en scene” in this case, where “Melodrama” is story style within games that requires the elements of push and pull, positive and negative, “hero” and “zero” you get the idea. To achieve this “Mise en scene” is required to allow the build up to manipulate the player’s emotions between sections of the game for the element of push and pull to work. “Melodrama” needs “Mise en scene” and “Mise en scene” needs “Melodrama”.

This certainly explains why this is such popular story type within games and it’s going to be interesting to see how designers use this thinking in the future to expand storytelling using different styles, themes and moods.

Written by: Jonesy

Do Video games use “Mise-en-scène” like films? What is “Mise-en-scène” for video games?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:03:00 +0000

I will begin this topic by analysing “Mise en scene” within films. For films good “mise en scene” suggests hidden depth within the story and metaphor from all aspects placed within the camera shots. The best example of “Mise-en-scene” is the final scene of the “The good, the bad and the ugly” which in my opinion is one of the best films ever made. Here is the clip of the final scene of “The good, the bad and the ugly” if you have the time to watch, as it is quite long but it’s so beautifully shot and paced:

Even if you haven’t seen the film and you don’t know the overall story. From this scene alone you can figure out small fractions of story/narrative from the suggestive filmic language with the close ups of their faces creating tension and the way they walk slowly and cautiously far apart within the circle from these shots telling the viewer a lot about the story and the characters. The viewer can see obviously these three cowboys are enemies with nothing to lose who are about kill each other within a quiet graveyard in no man’s land and they are all after something with great greed, the viewer can discover all that and that’s all you need to know to follow the story anyway. That’s creativity defined film making with a good use of “mise en scene” using engaging and suggestive filmic language and editing adding so much depth to otherwise uneventful gunfight with only one “Bang”. You are probably wondering how this has anything to do with games, as games don’t include such aspects of editing or filmic language in them although I believe games actually do to a certain extent with a different approach on this subject.

More or less every 3D game has a form of “mise en scene” especially within adventure/action games with fixed camera positions (player has no control over the camera) with games like the old “Resident evil” games, “God of war” games and “Alone in the dark” games, etc. Each section of theses games are choreographed with a precise camera angles with carefully placed objects/scenery to create a certain mood/situation to try to psychically manipulate the player’s actions (what the player does)/feelings. A good example of this would be near the beginning of the first “Resident Evil” game, walking down the corridor with big windows which teases the player that something will jump out through those windows at any second, as the player knows it will happen but when will it? It isn’t just the fact that the windows are placed as a main focus within camera shot but how the camera shot is angled in a way which makes the corridor feel empty and claustrophobic making the location feel lifeless and spooky adding to build up of predictable set piece piece . That is how the emotion of tension/fear is built within the player; designers have manipulated the player’s feelings. You could argue that the “Resident Evil” games has to have controlled precise fixed camera angles to have strong “mise en scene” or for it to be frightening like a film, (filmic language and editing as the player walks around the level cutting to different camera angles) yeah sure I agree it’s a certain factor that adds to the game but other games have strong “mise en scene” without the use of fixed camera angles like 3D Zelda games.

“Mise en scene” within games is more like psychology/maths than artistic aspiration as the designers have to enter the psyche of the player to figure out if the player is able to logically understand where to go/what to do within a given section of the game without causing the player to be confused or bored due to the lack of logical reasoning to the player’s mindset. Ok, sure this is real pea and carrot design stuff for a designer which can be defined via play testing/QA testing sections, but the designer needs to decide what “mindset” the player needs to be in, in order to complete this particular section designed by having previous sections to prepare the player psychotically for this particular section. For example, In Zelda, the player is always aware that he/she heading towards a boss fight via the “Mise en scene” mentally preparing the player for big battle via using the big key on the big door, etc but without this boss build up section of the game, the player may feel alienated/confused if boss just popped out of nowhere due to the actual “mindset” required to do a such task may be too extreme/diverse from previous section. In a way, this is pacing gameplay with psychology which you could see as “editing” and “storyboarding” in regards of “mise en scene” from films which is why I think they are similar in both mediums but yet very different.

Puzzles are sections of games that really benefit from “mise en scene” as there are many factors designers have to consider such as placement of objects/ clues for suggesting solutions, ways of the player to do the puzzle, etc. This is where the designer has to decide on the difficultly of the puzzle and how players sees the puzzle as I think the best puzzles in games are simple and obvious but yet easily overlooked as you are busy looking elsewhere when the solution is staring right at you. The challenge is the balancing with making the puzzle logical but at the same time not illogically leading to frustration or feel cheated by the puzzle that doesn't make sense, understanding “mise en scene” is a strong factor to creating puzzles as they are about making the player see/look at something differently or out of box thinking, a challenge with reward of discovery.

Well designed games always keep things varied and continuously make the player guess what’s going to happen next although this is ideal aim for any designer but it’s very tricky to achieve such a goal. Recently I’ve started reading a book called “Theory of fun for game design” written by Raph Koster and I recommend reading it for any games designer trainees like myself as it gives a solid insight about psychology about why we play games. In a nutshell, he says we (our brains) constantly demand to take in new patterns of information (learning) and games give us continuous amount of patterns (which is why we as humans all play games in some form) and once you learn a pattern, our brain becomes bored of that, and demand a new pattern, although if that appears as noise/messy, our brain refuses to understand it and becomes bored again. Solid games have to remain varied but not too adventurous/ experimental that players become confused and bored.

I’m explained enough about what “Mise en scene” is within video games but what defines good “mise en scene” within games? well I remember reading this interview from Shigeru Miyamoto a few years back where he said something along the lines of that when he designs his games, he imagines the player’s face as he/she plays each section of the game to define good and bad parts of the game with sad and happy emotions. That’s what I think is good “Mise en scene” is basically controlling and understanding the player’s feelings throughout the game.

In time, there will be different term for this type of “Mise en scene” as its pretty different from film “Mise en scene”. It will become a more apparent thinking attitude/process within the industry as more game designers develop this ideology as I feel its something that is often overlooked and sadly is lacking from the titles that need it the most for a success. If you look at all best games ever made they all contain solid understanding of this term. Who knows? Maybe I should invent a term for it and call it “pattern en scene” and write a book on it.

Written by: Jonesy

Designing my own board game

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:12:00 +0000

These days, I’ve been thinking about ideas for designing my own board game which I will put towards my games design portfolio. I have admit it’s been quite a challenge for me as it requires different way of thinking/approach from what I’m used to with writing up design documents, figuring out core mechanics and how these mechanics will fill into theme of the game, game’s controls, art style, interface and hud design, etc. I’ve wrote many design documents and enjoy the whole process of it thinking about every piece of the puzzle in detail putting the jigsaw puzzle together to create a description of your game product.

You are probably thinking “If you can write up/design games via game documents surely you have no problem to come up with simple linear board game design?” I can think of many ideas for board games but are any of them “fun” or “compelling”? Sadly not, well a one or two could be “fun” out of the dozen. I believe the problem is the way I come up with ideals/designs for games as I’m creative person who naturally just comes up with ideas out of nowhere from things that I’ve experienced personally thinking of themes, mood, scenarios, etc for a game then develop the gameplay mechanics around that theme/ideal (artistic organic process). Whereas with a board game, you have placed down the rules before you think beyond with themes and moods, etc. the thinking process required has to be clean and exact whereas my usual thinking is free reign creating elements around the core of that creative theme. Doing this exercise has expanded my thinking and the way I personally think/develop my games ideas.

To be honest I wouldn’t even consider this exercise without reading an article by “Brenda Brathwaite” who is game designer who has worked in the industry since 1981 and has shipped 22 commercial titles (certainly makes my track record within the industry seem lame). This article is about game design portfolios and what they should contain which I find really useful and interesting as it’s something that is rarely revealed or spoke about. She made a point that games are games despite their source/background and a portfolio should demonstrate your passion and understanding of gameplay creating “fun” and doing this exercise I can see what she is getting at. You should read, it is very inspirational:

http://bbrathwaite.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/hello-world/

The lesson I learnt from this exercise is a designer requires an understanding for what elements of the game is fun or engages the player? An example, with “Halo” and “Gears of war” the fun obviously lies with killing someone but what really engages the player (keeps them playing and learning) is the constant need to outsmart your enemy for survival due to tough difficult conditions to kill the enemy. That is another factor which makes it fun that requires a lot of skill to be able outsmart player (especially really good one) who expects the typical tactic of sneaking behind with a shotgun. To me, (I know this may sound like far-fetched comment for some) “Gears of war” and “Halo” are like shooter interpretations of “Chess” as the “fun” is created from the same bases of outsmarting their opponent via using heavy use of tactics although you could debate that your ability of aiming/shooting outweighs the use of tactics but that’s another matter.

That’s the job as a games designer, basically understanding where the “fun” lays and how to keep it remaining so. This is where designing a board game can help develop an understanding of this element which is so simple but yet so important to core of any game. As a board game has fewer elements to think about and consider, you can purely focus developing the skill of creating “Fun”. For any wannabe game designer (like myself) who are reading this, I truly recommend designing a board game, its great exercise to do as I’ve certainly learned a lot of it and after many long brainstorming sessions, I’ve finally come up with something pretty cool and hopefully be able to show you something really soon.

Thanks for reading!

Jonesy

My thoughts on Tetsuya Mizuguchi

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:50:00 +0000

I read this interview recently from “Tetsuya Mizuguchi” on eurogamer site and I find really interesting and inspiring as he has an out of the box view on video games. Give it a read: http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=149982
If you haven’t heard of him, he’s guy that had made titles like “Rez” “Lummies” “Space channel 5” and owns “Q entertainment”. He is a real innovator when it comes to music themed games or as he calls them “"music interactives" giving himself such an unique identify within the games industry. Here I’ve taken a quote from my favorite part of this interview:

“Eurogamer: So you feel like technology is keeping pace with what people actually want from media? Some people certainly seem to feel like technology is ahead of our desires.

Tetsuya Mizuguchi: I'd like to think that human desire is always walking ahead of technology. I hope so, anyway. I think that every product - including games, entertainment, every piece of content or media - is always designed by human desire. Whether it's invisible or visible, with shape or with no shape... Artificial products, created by human beings, are always designed by our desire and our basic instincts. If we don't feel like, "I want to do this" or "I need this" - if there's no trigger like that, then people won't bother. They'll pass it by and say, I don't care about that - this isn't what I'm interested in. It's a really simple point, but all things, all products, are like that.”

He has a really interesting perspective on gaming with how technology and interactivity through technology is developed and created via our own human desire which is something I’ve never thought of this in this way before. I’ve always thought that the latest current technology inspires new ideals for gaming like “Half life 2” for an example using Havoc physics or “Quake” using internet making it one of the first FPS online multiplayer experiences. Modern technology reflects what can be created within computer games medium, but it is of course its human desire/determination for discovery that creates technology and uses this technology in different ways catering for different needs.

My previous mentality regarding games technology was brought across from game developer’s attitudes to their game development process and the type of games they produce, for example say “Epic games” are known for their hard focus towards producing advanced technology/engines such as “Unreal 3 engine” for their games whereas if you look at company like “Square Enix” they focused towards making more artistically creativity titles with the art and story being their main focus. Both of these companies produce high level of visual quality to their games via though different approaches; they are two opposite ends of the same Spectrum, art on one end and tech on the other end. I always used to dislike PC gaming for their heavy use of technology and lacking methods of creativity like Japanese console developers who seem more advanced in their art skills
(Now I think I was quite naïve to think that).

This has got me thinking about how it's all just a balancing act between the art and technology for the creation of a game but what really makes a game beautiful is fulfillment of your desire as gamer, remember the first time you got the sword in “Zelda: Ocarina of Time” or your first online deathmatch on “Quake 3” or when you figured out how to kill Psycho Mantis in Metal Gear Solid, these are moments of fulfillment, joy and pure escapism that I will treasure in my heart. This is what I call good game designer thinking of the next thing we desire as gamers and people as it doesn’t matter what approach is used for creation of the game but belong the designer allows his/her creative ideals push through into the product fulfilling people’s desires. Like he says “It's a really simple point, but all things, all products, are like that”.

The key to design is thinking out of the box, out of your field of expertise I believe and seems like he knows what he’s talking about. Thinking about this topic has changed my thinking process towards games design as you have to think what people want next through the evolution of technology and surrounding pop culture but also have an understanding why they desire that, then you can truly capture people’s hearts.

Written by: Jonesy

My analyse/review on "Everyday Shooter"

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:59:00 +0000

I just got PS3 recently (well, a few months ago). I’m not going to lie I’m mainly bought my PS3 for Metal Gear Solid 4 as I’m a big MGS fan. As the PS3 is still new to me, I’ve just been checking out a PSN game called “Everyday Shooter” (its been out for a while now) and I would recommend you to check it out as it is such an interesting unique well executed title both in gameplay and visuals (art style which is similar to Rez) departments which is very rare these days. For those who haven’t played it yet (which I would say to stop reading this and start playing it and read this later!) the closest I would describe this game is blend of “Rez” meets “Geometry Wars” although this isn’t fair description as it’s pretty unique but the closest one I could up with. This game is made by one man crew by the name of Jonathan Mak, I truly respect this dude as he hasn’t just made a game with good programming and art but also with good game design understanding what makes shoot em’up fun following the foundation rule sets. Here are I shall go through these rules:

1.) Simple mechanics - Pick up and play mechanics with hard to master learning curve, players need to be able to continuously learn and develop their own play style through progressive playing. Games like “Tony Hawk” series are good with this method allowing diverse playing styles adding depth to otherwise simple core game.

2.) Score system - the sense of challenge and achievement via the element of risk and reward, more daring you play the better the score.

3.) Kill reaction/ feedback – Player needs to receive a good feeling when he/she kills an enemy via cool sound effect or big over the top explosions, etc give the player a feeling that everything in the game has a impact and consequence on the game logic (of the game’s world) as well as gameplay.

4.) Enemies and their bullet patterns - the challenge of surviving danger/ outwitting enemies, learning the lesson of always keeping your eye on your ship. This is also referred as “meta-game” which are elements of complex pattern memorization and the use of power-ups and other benefits provided by the developer to survive the game. This term is normally referred more within manic Japanese shmups like 1942.

5.) Game balance/logic of the game world – Players need to be able to trust/understand the game system/world that game is presenting to the player without player feeling mistreated or cheated by the game’s logic. For an example, Geometry Wars is set within retro techno neon style box where enemies shaped as basic shapes such as squares, circles, triangles, etc who spawn in huge numbers anywhere within the perimeter of the square sized level. The player never questions this logic of why the enemies can spawn anywhere and accepts it apart of the game’s universe/mechanics due to creativity of the art style and also the fact the player can easily and quickly understand the principles of this game world in terms of gameplay and visuals. This also includes minor game mechanics (which are pretty important peas and carrots elements of a shoot’em up to create the feel and mood of the player’s experience) such as spawn positions, spawn time and rate, enemy’s movement speed, enemy’s function/purpose etc. Most people would argue that this is the same thing as game mechanics but I believe this element is a combination and understanding of both game mechanics/design and creativity/art. This is the hardest element to achieve within a game well, and only small percentage of games actually achieve this especially within shoot’em up genre.

What I think is so interesting with Jonathan Mak’s approach to this game isn’t the fact that he follows these foundation rules for a shoot’em up creation but the fact, he plays around with these rules. For an example, the player doesn’t receive points for killing enemies but only for collecting dots from the deaths of these enemies (sounds like platform game doesn’t it?) which only appear if killed by combo explosion/radius from other certain enemies which blow up. Jonathan Mak has full strong understanding of what works for shoot’em up for these unusual ideas to work like they say “You need to understand rules, before you can break them”.

What I personally also treasure about this game isn’t just playability (mechanics) but the game’s feel and logic. He has really thought about what “feel” and “Mood” he was trying to achieve throughout the game. For an example, enemies are never menacing or daring like “Geometry Wars” but feel enchanting and spiritual but always remains to be challenging like most shoot’em ups especially old skool Japanese shmups like “1942”. Although you could argue that “Geometry Wars” and “Everyday Shooter” have similar design ideals via their enemies that share same geometry of basic shapes but they express different moods giving the player completely different experience. Although the Mood is hugely created by the music and music/sound effects created via killing enemies and also of course unique visual style fitting within the game’s universe/logic. As a player you can tell that “Rez” was a big inspiration towards the game/art style but the game remains unique through own identity of its own ideals.

One of these ideals would be the level structure of this game (which I was going include within the list of rules but I don’t think it is required to be all good shoot’em ups) where each level is length of the song which is stated via the song length bar at the bottom of the screen (like media player software) which adds to the concept of blending music with game interactivity similar to “Rez”.

Jonathan Mak also has a good understanding of the shoot’em up genre’s typical weaknesses or areas which are lacking compared to other genres. For example, he has included lots of unlockables where you use the points you gain from gameplay giving extra incentive for high score for otherwise typical extra life bonuses adding extra lifespan and sense of achievement where typically shoot’em ups lack.

To conclude my analyse/review I would say that this game is an amazing achievement giving some well deserved fresh air towards an old tired genre lacking modernization of today’s gaming ideals and new ideas boost this game with it’s own identity/take on shoot’em up genre. With this game it shows that “Art conquers all” how a simple idea can so beautiful.

http://www.queasygames.com/

(P.S this is his website, where you play the PC version for free and all his other games check it out now!)

Written by: Jonesy

Have video games become too temporary to be valued by consumers and to be apart of western pop culture?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonesy) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:52:00 +0000

2007 was amazing year for game titles with an extremely competitive games market with huge array of choice for consumers. Halo 3, Bioshock, Mario Galaxy, Methoid Prime, Uncharted, Lair, Assassin’s Creed, Orange Box (Portal, Half life 2, Team Fortress 2), Call of Duty 4, Stranglehold, etc the list goes on. All these big blockbuster titles with huge budgets promising next generation graphics and gameplay, but honestly how many of these titles are still being played by players/consumers now through to 2008? This is a sign of the computer games medium entering pop culture becoming mainstream?

I’m going to discuss three main aspects related to my questions and this topic: The game design approach/ how the games are being made (“The Good”), The Business side of games/publishers (“The Bad”), and the players/target audience (“The Ugly” sorry I’m sure you’re beautiful really). Here I explain in more detail regarding these topics:

The Good (Game design approaches)

Looking at games these days, very few titles are future proof. The definition of “future proof” is a title/engine that is valued for years to come through via open game design, allowances for creativity, diversity of gameplay styles, etc. Halo 3 and Orange box (Half Life 2/Source engine with “Team fortress 2” and “portal” side projects) are good examples of “Future proof” titles but you look at titles in the same genre like “Call of duty 4” or “Stranglehold” which are fun but very current affairs which could be easily expanded or improved with a sequel but surely these titles would want to compete with the two Big H (Halo and Half-life) Brothers? Game designer wannabes (myself included) always debate whatever games outdate due to the continuous constant evolution of technology or the evolution of gameplay mechanics/ideals as we as games players demand?

I believe it is both, the evolution of gaming is pushed by these two factors which is why we are seeing a very transparent divide towards the approach of game design from game developers for what they're trying to achieve with their games. For an example, a good companion (which may not be fair to compare as they are very different in nature) would be Halo 3 and Call of duty 4, Halo 3 expands functionality and interactivity with it’s community based modes such as “forge” (level editor) and “theatre” (make your own video/you tube) modes appealing mostly to the dedicated gamer (hardcore) using advanced technology techniques in creative ways to bring new ideas (future proof design) to the table. Halo 3’s innovation design ideas don’t directly change the traditional gameplay/mechanics for shooters (or halo in fact) but certainly changes the player’s experience overall for a shooter and how the player interacts with/ approaches a shooter which encourages community creativity within seamless accessible environment.

Call of duty 4 has the overall approach of if it ain’t broke, why fix it (Although the game has introduced the XP system which is fresh clever addition for shooters but the game’s overall mechanics/ideals/gameplay are inspired by it’s peers such as Ghost recon and other games in the same sub-genre) appealing mostly to casual gamers being their first competitive online gaming experience/ army shooter using solid but old school FPS mechanics (current/yesterday game design). Due to the nature of Call of duty it makes the game instantly playable with the principles of easy to pick up and difficult to master making far more accessible in regards of gameplay over Halo (especially if you aren’t familiar with shooters in the first place) with it’s slower pace and in-depth weapon mechanics . The developers have very different intentions from a gameplay/ game design viewpoint. Like I previously stated before shouldn’t both of these titles be disposed of by now as there’s so many titles out there worth playing?

The Bad (The business)

These days, the whole industry seems to be cut into three parts aiming for three different audiences: Hardcore gamers, Casual gamers or non-gamers. Publishers are vey focused towards investing money for games that cater for these demographics due to this; the games market is very competitive and compressed with many games in same genres fighting for the same customer’s attention.

The usual story from the industry is a indie developer comes along creates a unique well crafted game (highly received by the games media) which usually gets lack of financial support leading to a loss and ends up being in debt to the publisher who expects the developer to whip two to four games per year hoping one of these titles will be successful gaining the money lose as well as a big profit margin. Obviously the titles created end up rushed and non-polished leading to a huge number of disposable titles on game store shelves but does this do the industry any harm in the long term?

This is worrying trend within the industry have to say but I believe its necessary evil for a creativity industry; this does happen often within the film industry where the studio forces a director to make certain films cause of their previously films have tanked. You know that “Micheal Bay” didn’t want to make “Transformers” but was forced to as his last film “The Island” tanked (which I quite enjoyed for a sci-fi action flick) and the film industry isn’t suffering from this, its still very financial stable industry (sources say that film industry is losing money but it still overall very profitable and successful, look at Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy sales for an example). You could say the film industry is old and big enough to have such notion going on within its business as it’s so broad with diversity appearing to many different types of audiences that this method of business works but with computer games being a young industry (10 years mainstream with Playstation I say) compared to other entertainment mediums, does this give people the wrong message/mentality towards games as a entertainment medium?

Currently the games industry is going through a transition “boom” period where non-gamer market has taken off big time within last few years with the “Wii” and “DS” and a lot of developers/publishers are trying to cash in on this “market revolution”. I haven’t seen such turn of events in the market since Playstation 1 which was the first console marketed towards adults making gaming cool. There are many casual games like “Ponies”, “My Word coach” “Imagine: Babies”, etc where you do feel that (being a gamer) they are taking advantage of the situation with people don’t know much about games. Don’t get me wrong I think “Wii” and “DS” are both great for gaming, its breath of fresh air this revolution but the lack of creativity on these titles worries me which may make this trend like a gimmick not something that people should take seriously. . At end of the day, it is business and industry like any other which is out to make money to put food on the table like Music and Film industry there is lot of disposable trash but do get your gems too, that’s how the entertainment business works.

The Ugly (The people who buy games and the social acceptance to games)

Though what worries me more is the actual design mentality behind by these casual games, I believe these games are being made too functional; by functional I’m referring (not to the mechanics of the games) to the nature of why people are playing/buying these games to get something directional from the game.
Like for an example “Guitar Hero” to learn/play a guitar or “Brain age” to gain intelligence (that’s what I like to think when I’m playing it) but isn’t that like trying to win over or persuade people that it’s ok to play games as you getting something in return? As a gamer I don’t want games be functional like food, like an Italian chef would say “We live to eat” not “we eat to live” I want them to have feeling/expressing something, may sound pretentious but be an art form. Any entertainment medium considered an art form; people enjoy and learn from in sub-conscious form and people don’t go in expecting to gain something directional from it. For an example, “Lord of the rings” (books or films) is set within fantasy theme/setting where viewers may gain knowledge about the themes explored such as politics, honour, love, etc making it both complex and fulfilling with depth and emotion.

Looking at this topic through a viewing glass not from my perspective as a gamer, I think it’s very positive in the long term of things these type of games are being made. These titles may not be “art” and be considered by myself as temporary, but isn’t that what consumer wants from titles anyhow?

Some escapism for a short period chill out from a hard day’s work, ok its not hardcore deep escapism like “Lord of the rings” filled with deep meaning but who’s to say that its any less form of entertainment or in this case escapism? This approach of design is bringing new people to play games that wouldn’t touch a game in the first place without these casual games. This is a good start to expanding the games market to other audiences and I can see these design ideals/approaches behind these games evolving to other exciting things appearing other groups of people. Though I believe its good start in expanding the market though I remain to believe that these games need to have more substance with broader themes where people can relate to which is why the games haven’t become accepted as art form/ apart of western pop culture yet. A lot of people can not understand or relate to themes/contexts explored that are typically in games as games don’t normally explore current affairs and worries/fears of society like film and music do. These casual titles are very non-offensive and family focused which everyone can play, but they aren’t expressing anything to the audience which is where the issue lack of mainstream acceptance of video games truly lies.

Good example of pop culture which uses society’s current affairs and fears is torture horror films such as “Saw” “Hostel” “The Hill have eyes 2”, etc that taps into people current fears of being kidnapped and well possibly …. well you know. This may be an extreme example as I don’t certainly think that I’m going to get kidnapped (I’m not that rich nor that good looking, honest) but a lot of people can relate to this and that’s why these films have proved so popular and profitable. Here is a link of an article about these films and how they become cultural/societal accepted, you should read it: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/804/804194p1.html
It’s interesting but its ok if don’t want to but anyhow I’ve taken a quote from it.
Quote from: “Jennifer Ashlock”, a professor of sociology at the College of Notre Dame

"You have a potential to make more money with torture (horror films) now because that's what actually scares a mainstream audience today," she says. "I don't think that they were very popular before because it just seemed so far off base. Like, 'That could never happen,' and it seemed very fringe back in the '70s and '80s. Not that you didn't have gore back then, but now that is something that we know is going on in the world. We know about certain atrocities in Guantanamo, for example. Even in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein supposedly, and even in our own American prison system, we know that torture goes on. Because of the Internet and the global media, we know that torture is a way of life really. That information is just more accessible to us. I also think it's more fundamentally frightening to us, because it's sort of a given now that torture is happening around the world."

This is why film/music industry has been (or probably will always be) successful art forms/apart of pop culture for years as they making changing the themes of their products to fill the new trends/current affairs. Is this type of horror films temporary trend? Yeah sure and so they are these casual games which is where I would say this is the beginning of games entering the pop culture to due it’s nature of filling a current trend. With time, these types of games will evolve into something else that will fill the latest trend of current affairs like these horror films. Until games do this more often, the medium won’t never be accepted as an art form and games will need to able fit into people’s psyche/mindset for all types of audiences/tastes for commercial acceptance. All this takes time as people need to be willing to allow games to enter pop culture and along with their mindsets but at the same time, games need the themes and subject matters to get their juices going to accept it in the first place, as you can’t expect everyone to love Halo and Call of Duty with it’s confident balls in mouth attitude of “Let’s kick some ass”.

Conclusion (The Beautiful)

For the industry to achieve such a thing, games need to evolve their game design approaches to the subject matter of the game and understanding what their target audience is, customizing the style and content to their tastes. I believe the industry as a whole has problems achieving such a goal due to the lack of risk and the understanding how to go about breaking into pop culture. I believe games also lack the confident behind their ideals and creativity embrace their concepts through unique visual design and clever research and development approaches from both developers and publishers giving the devs the funding they need to fully realise such games. My best example is “Grand Theft Auto 4” which is one of the very few games that is breaking this boundary of pop culture. “Rockstar” are known for taking risks and having confident in their ideals and one of the few companies that has good understanding of the surrounding current pop culture using it as it’s inspiration as well as it’s identity. This is one of the reasons for its success using current pop culture so people can relate to and understand it and making easily marketable for a target audience.

The games industry currently reminds me of 50’s rock and roll where it is the beginning of rock music being limited but cheered on by Elvis with lots of wannabe bands just like competing with the current trend, it wasn’t till the 60’s and 70’s where rock music really become diverse and defined with different styles and genres which was fully accepted by all types of people where the freedom of creativity came in with bands like “Led Zeppelin” and “Pink Floyd”. Experimenting became the natural progress of making organic artistic music. I look forward to the future of the games industry as I can imagine it in 10 or 20 years time and I look forward into being part of that and fully I will introduce something new to games like 60’s and 70’s rock bands did to the music industry.

Written by: Jonesy

(P.S please leave comments as I would enjoy discussing and debating this topic, this is my first of many to come! Thanks for reading I hope enjoyed reading it )