I finally got my fifth game in the Ratchet and Clank series. Coming off the back of Ratchet: Gladiator, I was expecting to be impressed. I'd loved the arena combat game and the storyline laid lightly atop it. What I found was only very slightly disappointing. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's start at the beginning.
Why THIS game?
Those who know Insomniac's reputation of cranking out awesome platforms won't ask this question, but for the uninitiated, I'll expound. The makers of this awesome series, Insomniac Games, are world-renowned for their sharp wit and funny dialogue that punctuates a challenging but enjoyable game that even older players still enjoy. With that in mind, it's also worth remembering that the recent PS3 release Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction was rated as one of the best PS3 releases to date. When taking this into consideration, it's hard to pass by such an acclaimed series. Especially when your protagonists are a small furry creature with a big gun and an undersized robot.
How does it handle?
In my honest opinion, this could handle better. It's obvious that it was shipped straight from the PSP, as the controls were sticky and Ratchet's movements were blocky. Also, a lot of the mini-games ("Clank Challenges") were buggy and I had to restart numerous times. Something for the QA testers, I shouldn't wonder.
That said, the lock-strafe is still included -particularly useful in a firefight with the boss-man- as well as third person mode. The rotating camera also returns and is an excellent addition when you don't want to jump off a clif just before a continue point.
How does it look and sound?
Insomniac's reputation as a leader in imaging and audio is put to the test here. Apart from returning voice actors (including my very favourite, James Arnold Taylor), the music is more of the same. That doesn't mean that it's annoying, quite the opposite. The veteran fan will appreciate it, but those who haven't played a Ratchet and Clank game before might want to check out the earlier offerings as well.
But what about the weaponry?
Ah yes, the reason to play. Big guns. Very. Big. Guns. It's amazing that such a small Lombax can lift something like the R.Y.N.O (which stands for Rip Ya a New One), but he does and we are pleased. The choices this time are confined to a handful of spectacular weaponry. My favourites include the returning Agents of Doom and the new Bee Mine (I had endless fun shouting 'Killer beeee myne!' every time I dropped a hive for my enemy's destructive pleasure). Also returning is the perennial favourite, the R.Y.N.O... although the best version I've seen of this mortar launcher is the RY3NO (which later becomes my second favourite weapon, the Rynocerator... carnage incarnate!).
That said, the weapon levelling systems have changed again, so the veteran fan will be shaking their head sadly at having to reacclimate again to new ways of getting a stronger weapon. So far, the only weapons I haven't maxed out are the Laser Tracer and the Sniper Mine (a cross-bow type weapon good for picking off low-level enemies).
And the story?
... will have you scratching your head a bit. From kidnapped little girls to a Technomite plot to clone Ratchet, most players will wonder why on earth did Insomniac try to be so complicated? We love this series for it's simple premise of blow stuff up, save the day, enjoy the fight along the way. Still, it has promise and the laughability of Captain Qwark never goes astray.
So, is it worth playing?
Oh, totally. Prime example of why companies should stick to what they know and do best but if they want to bring a game back, to rework it to make it acceptable for the fans. Myself, I'd give it an overall rating of 7.5/10. The return of this awesome series was good, if nothing else.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Game Review: Pokemon Mystery Dungeon (Blue)
Truth be told, I haven't played a pokemon game since Crystal came out on Gameboy Colour. That said, all the pokemon games in the series have the same standard gameplay and premise: you catch 'em, keep 'em, train 'em and fight with 'em. This game and it's partner (red) are a refreshing change from all of that. Most importantly, YOU are the pokemon now. So get ready for a brand-new look at the world of Pokemon.
Graphics: Reminiscent of the traditional Gameboy Colour graphics, original pokemon depictions haven't changed much, save a few tweaks here and there. The backgrounds, however, are bright and colourful and really quite beautiful in some cases. A little improvement in the actual characters would have enhanced gameplay even further.
Sound: Again, standard pokemon series themes. Happy, cheerful and peppy, the music will not be lost on Nintendo buffs who loved games like Yoshi's Story and adore their Wii. That said, everyone will probably mute it to avoid listening to the repetitive loops.
Characterisation: Well executed. Each pokemon is individual and has a specialised personality. In addition to that, the partner pokemon that you receive at the beginning of the game proves to be an invaluable companion throughout the game. The cryptic messages passed on by the seemingly-aloof legendary pokemon can be rather annoying but that's just who they are and the role they play. While waiting for the real answers takes time, you can pretty much work it out for yourself what they are.
Gameplay: Addictive. Playing as a Pokemon for the first time, you actually get a feel for what it's like to have another pokemon bashing you to hell and back, especially those nasty legendary pokemon like Articuno, Zapdos and Moltres. You face pretty much every legendary pokemon from each of the pokemon games. You can also recruit these suckers to your rescue team, giving you a nice advantage in-game. But they aren't easy to get and your best bet is the pokemon that first joins your party out in the field (not going to spoil the ending now...)
Plot: Intriguing and even after the main storyline is over, you still have plenty of mysteries to solve, not to mention plently of pokemon to recruit as well as missions to complete! The side missions are tedious and a lot of them don't reward you particularly amply, but occasionally you run into missions that really ARE worth your time and effort and earn you some really nice goodies! Truly a great release from Satoshi Taijiri, the mastermind behind the original pokemon games.
Overall: A great addition to any DS collection and a great way to waste a weekend or a few hours mindlessly. Pick this up even if the pokemon craze passed you by, as it focusses more on the story and less on catching every little critter that passes your way. Highly recommended for lovers of the pokemon series.
Graphics: Reminiscent of the traditional Gameboy Colour graphics, original pokemon depictions haven't changed much, save a few tweaks here and there. The backgrounds, however, are bright and colourful and really quite beautiful in some cases. A little improvement in the actual characters would have enhanced gameplay even further.
Sound: Again, standard pokemon series themes. Happy, cheerful and peppy, the music will not be lost on Nintendo buffs who loved games like Yoshi's Story and adore their Wii. That said, everyone will probably mute it to avoid listening to the repetitive loops.
Characterisation: Well executed. Each pokemon is individual and has a specialised personality. In addition to that, the partner pokemon that you receive at the beginning of the game proves to be an invaluable companion throughout the game. The cryptic messages passed on by the seemingly-aloof legendary pokemon can be rather annoying but that's just who they are and the role they play. While waiting for the real answers takes time, you can pretty much work it out for yourself what they are.
Gameplay: Addictive. Playing as a Pokemon for the first time, you actually get a feel for what it's like to have another pokemon bashing you to hell and back, especially those nasty legendary pokemon like Articuno, Zapdos and Moltres. You face pretty much every legendary pokemon from each of the pokemon games. You can also recruit these suckers to your rescue team, giving you a nice advantage in-game. But they aren't easy to get and your best bet is the pokemon that first joins your party out in the field (not going to spoil the ending now...)
Plot: Intriguing and even after the main storyline is over, you still have plenty of mysteries to solve, not to mention plently of pokemon to recruit as well as missions to complete! The side missions are tedious and a lot of them don't reward you particularly amply, but occasionally you run into missions that really ARE worth your time and effort and earn you some really nice goodies! Truly a great release from Satoshi Taijiri, the mastermind behind the original pokemon games.
Overall: A great addition to any DS collection and a great way to waste a weekend or a few hours mindlessly. Pick this up even if the pokemon craze passed you by, as it focusses more on the story and less on catching every little critter that passes your way. Highly recommended for lovers of the pokemon series.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Interface: The two-sided sword
Yeah, yeah, I know. Interfaces have changed a lot. I'm guilty of having the motto 'I work at my computer, I'll play away from it'. But interfaces have changes since ALT=Jump and the space bar fired rockets.
The introduction of the dual screens on the Nintendo DS was a shock to, well, all the systems. How do you concentrate on two screens? (For those of you who play World of Warcraft, look the other way.)
It seemed that in all seriousness, this wasn't an issue. Why? Because Nintendo are intelligent people, of course! The Brain Training was the single most brilliant idea they had ever had (apart from Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time). Here was a portable, slim console that took little time to charge and could actually help your memory! Suddenly, Nintendo had a new niche market: elderly people. There were any number of uses for this neat little gadget which had been invented to boost flagging sales (since the abysmal launch of Gamecube).
Being an awesome company didn't stop there, either. Nintendo then began releasing awesome games that weren't brain-trainers onto this new system. But the best part was this: the dual screen didn't hamper the gameplay. It actually helped. The touch-screen was genius for games like Nintendogs and the movie tie-ins for Harry Potter (which are still an abysmal games all-round, save for the early Gameboy Colour ones). Even the later Final Fantasy releases were oohed and aahhhed over. Sprites representing formerly well-animated models? Okay, that's cool. At least we have better control over them now.
The chat option included on the DS (yes, it's on there. Finish the blog and then go rush off to check it out) was a stroke of brilliance, although from personal experience, having it in a lecture is guaranteed to lower levels of concentration. However, this made console-to-console communication more than just a game issue.
From there, Nintendo gave their adoring public the Wii. Oh joy! A motion-sensor! Finally, what Sony started with the Eyetoy now had mainstream appeal. Although there were still bugs to be worked out (i.e the jerky swordfighting in the movie-tie for Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess), the concept was there and it was a good one. Wii Sports made excellent use of it and recently (see the article below) Nintendo blessed us once again with the nifty Wii-Fit.
While all this has been going on, the Playstation 3 is still battling for it's share of the market. Why? Well, how exactly is a PS3 different to a PS2? Wireless controllers and better graphics. Big deal. I like my old console, thank you. It's served me well and IS backwards compatible, not like the rubbish Sony is churning out now. As for the XBOX360, well. Halo. Enough said.
Something to think about; if Sony changes elements of it's interface for the release of Kingdom Hearts 3 later this year, what could we expect? A keyblade of our very own? Perhaps a magic wand or a shield? For the games that I or anyone else have proposed... what new pieces of hardware could we create to change the user interface?
Let's make gaming as interesting as it can be.
The introduction of the dual screens on the Nintendo DS was a shock to, well, all the systems. How do you concentrate on two screens? (For those of you who play World of Warcraft, look the other way.)
It seemed that in all seriousness, this wasn't an issue. Why? Because Nintendo are intelligent people, of course! The Brain Training was the single most brilliant idea they had ever had (apart from Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time). Here was a portable, slim console that took little time to charge and could actually help your memory! Suddenly, Nintendo had a new niche market: elderly people. There were any number of uses for this neat little gadget which had been invented to boost flagging sales (since the abysmal launch of Gamecube).
Being an awesome company didn't stop there, either. Nintendo then began releasing awesome games that weren't brain-trainers onto this new system. But the best part was this: the dual screen didn't hamper the gameplay. It actually helped. The touch-screen was genius for games like Nintendogs and the movie tie-ins for Harry Potter (which are still an abysmal games all-round, save for the early Gameboy Colour ones). Even the later Final Fantasy releases were oohed and aahhhed over. Sprites representing formerly well-animated models? Okay, that's cool. At least we have better control over them now.
The chat option included on the DS (yes, it's on there. Finish the blog and then go rush off to check it out) was a stroke of brilliance, although from personal experience, having it in a lecture is guaranteed to lower levels of concentration. However, this made console-to-console communication more than just a game issue.
From there, Nintendo gave their adoring public the Wii. Oh joy! A motion-sensor! Finally, what Sony started with the Eyetoy now had mainstream appeal. Although there were still bugs to be worked out (i.e the jerky swordfighting in the movie-tie for Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess), the concept was there and it was a good one. Wii Sports made excellent use of it and recently (see the article below) Nintendo blessed us once again with the nifty Wii-Fit.
While all this has been going on, the Playstation 3 is still battling for it's share of the market. Why? Well, how exactly is a PS3 different to a PS2? Wireless controllers and better graphics. Big deal. I like my old console, thank you. It's served me well and IS backwards compatible, not like the rubbish Sony is churning out now. As for the XBOX360, well. Halo. Enough said.
Something to think about; if Sony changes elements of it's interface for the release of Kingdom Hearts 3 later this year, what could we expect? A keyblade of our very own? Perhaps a magic wand or a shield? For the games that I or anyone else have proposed... what new pieces of hardware could we create to change the user interface?
Let's make gaming as interesting as it can be.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Continued: This Semester's Lectures Weeks 6-12
On and on and on we go... yes I missed a few lectures, but I'm re-reading the powerpoints and adding in my own thoughts. I also have to write this in half an hour, since I've got to get to work and it's pelting with rain at the moment. Oh well.
Week Six:
So here we are at the half-way point. Six weeks down, six to go. By now, I'm absolutely fed up with the tutorials to the point where I've stopped going. Not that it made much difference. They were pretty damn useless anyway and I'd much rather catch up on my sleep.
So this week's lecture is all about game balance, game design and the game design document. Hooray! Something useful after many weeks of non-usefulness! I particularly liked the game balance theory. Often I've come across games that were poorly balanced (Pokemon Battle Revolution for a start), where the game seems to work on a catastrophe curve (things peeter on well for a bit, then suddenly get monstrously hard!). This theory work is particularly useful for our projects, particularly the multi-player games.
If there's one thing, however, that I disliked about the theory of game balance, it would have to be the work on dominant strategy. Right. So, for instance, in Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings, just because the dominant strategy is to use melee characters, that's what I'll use, right? Wrong! I'm going to use the character with the strongest stats, regardless whether I should or shouldn't use them. The fact that they are weaker to that type doesn't necessary mean that the player will not choose them. For example, if you have a Lv:70 Charizard (in Pokemon), you aren't going to swap it out for a grass-type against a Lv:10 Magikarp, just because fire is weak against water. No! You'd wipe the floor with it! Flamethrower would utter crisp it up! If the lecturers were to consider this, dominant strategies are less prevalent than they would think. As for unbeatable attacks... well, obviously they've never played Ratchet:Deadlocked, because the only way any normal person could beat Gleeman Vox on Exterminator difficultly (and this took me the better part of an afternoon) is with a Level 99 Supernova, the strongest weapon in the game. Oh, and other maxed-out weaponry once I had run out of ammo. Sheesh. Dominant strategy? Finding a strategy that works is the hard part!
The really annoying part of these lectures are that they take the Trinny and Suzannah approach (i.e what not to do). Yeah, you can fill innumerable books with that. What we want to know is what we need to do.
Week Seven:
Challenge. Oh yes, the perennial favourite. No way this could be boring. Right?
Maybe.
Actually, this lecture wasn't as boring and as snub-nosed as the previous ones. This one actually provided some useful information regarding rewards systems and challenge. I particularly liked the applications to Mario and the intrinsic skill and stress information.
Week Eight:
Now, this is stupid. FUN is not an emotion. You don't say 'I feel very fun today', at least you don't if you want people to think you have grammatical skill and dexterity. FUN is when you are in a state of enjoying something. It might not be fun for someone else, but it is for you. Fun, therefore, is a state of being, not an emotion. So after last week's good effort, we're back to being high 'n' mighty and slightly snub-nosed. Ugh. As for the emotional responses, well, quite obviously some of those headings could have been grouped together (violent/negative, positive, competitive, etc.). As for Hillary Clinton in Thompson's quote, he'd be surprised at her history (yeah, I've read American Rhapsody. There ain't much about the Clintons that I don't know. Before anyone makes any jibes about the Ice Queen, you have to know where she came from).
And the endless lists! What's the point? It's not like we're being quizzed on the recall of them. Perhaps incorporating some sort of weekly quiz on the lecture in the tutorial would help retain the information.
But the best thing about this lecture was... FINAL FANTASY VII! Hurrah! Finally, something I could identify with! Of course, Aerith's death was so upsetting for most people that it's one of the most iconic events from the series (apart from the entire storyline for Final Fantasy X and Tidus' painful parting from Yuna). Perfect example for evoking emotion. That and the finale of Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. Clank's separation from Ratchet at the end made a lot of the die-hard fans very upset.
Week Nine - blessed relief!
Week Ten:
Multi-player games! Woo! This week's lecture began with another tour of history, involving the royal game of Ur and senet. I did like the work on cheating or 'betrayal' as they worded it. But come on, how many times have we all used cheats in games? I've found a couple of good ones myself (for Kingdom Hearts II, mainly). Game designers deliberately put them in. American McGee's Alice is a prime example. There are any number of lists of cheats that designers have left in from when they used them to check levels. The ones I found were on www.gamefaqs.com. But there are so many others.
There were some good questions to ask when designing our assessment games. I think there's a a fair few of us doing board games. After the awesome lecture over in Interactive Writing from the SCOOT team (who do location-based games), I wonder if maybe a location-based game would have been a more imaginative choice. Hmm, something to think about.
Week Eleven:
Phew, just two weeks to go! And, unfortunately, I can't access the notes for this one.
Or the week after. So this wraps up my lecture recaps. Finally.
Week Six:
So here we are at the half-way point. Six weeks down, six to go. By now, I'm absolutely fed up with the tutorials to the point where I've stopped going. Not that it made much difference. They were pretty damn useless anyway and I'd much rather catch up on my sleep.
So this week's lecture is all about game balance, game design and the game design document. Hooray! Something useful after many weeks of non-usefulness! I particularly liked the game balance theory. Often I've come across games that were poorly balanced (Pokemon Battle Revolution for a start), where the game seems to work on a catastrophe curve (things peeter on well for a bit, then suddenly get monstrously hard!). This theory work is particularly useful for our projects, particularly the multi-player games.
If there's one thing, however, that I disliked about the theory of game balance, it would have to be the work on dominant strategy. Right. So, for instance, in Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings, just because the dominant strategy is to use melee characters, that's what I'll use, right? Wrong! I'm going to use the character with the strongest stats, regardless whether I should or shouldn't use them. The fact that they are weaker to that type doesn't necessary mean that the player will not choose them. For example, if you have a Lv:70 Charizard (in Pokemon), you aren't going to swap it out for a grass-type against a Lv:10 Magikarp, just because fire is weak against water. No! You'd wipe the floor with it! Flamethrower would utter crisp it up! If the lecturers were to consider this, dominant strategies are less prevalent than they would think. As for unbeatable attacks... well, obviously they've never played Ratchet:Deadlocked, because the only way any normal person could beat Gleeman Vox on Exterminator difficultly (and this took me the better part of an afternoon) is with a Level 99 Supernova, the strongest weapon in the game. Oh, and other maxed-out weaponry once I had run out of ammo. Sheesh. Dominant strategy? Finding a strategy that works is the hard part!
The really annoying part of these lectures are that they take the Trinny and Suzannah approach (i.e what not to do). Yeah, you can fill innumerable books with that. What we want to know is what we need to do.
Week Seven:
Challenge. Oh yes, the perennial favourite. No way this could be boring. Right?
Maybe.
Actually, this lecture wasn't as boring and as snub-nosed as the previous ones. This one actually provided some useful information regarding rewards systems and challenge. I particularly liked the applications to Mario and the intrinsic skill and stress information.
Week Eight:
Now, this is stupid. FUN is not an emotion. You don't say 'I feel very fun today', at least you don't if you want people to think you have grammatical skill and dexterity. FUN is when you are in a state of enjoying something. It might not be fun for someone else, but it is for you. Fun, therefore, is a state of being, not an emotion. So after last week's good effort, we're back to being high 'n' mighty and slightly snub-nosed. Ugh. As for the emotional responses, well, quite obviously some of those headings could have been grouped together (violent/negative, positive, competitive, etc.). As for Hillary Clinton in Thompson's quote, he'd be surprised at her history (yeah, I've read American Rhapsody. There ain't much about the Clintons that I don't know. Before anyone makes any jibes about the Ice Queen, you have to know where she came from).
And the endless lists! What's the point? It's not like we're being quizzed on the recall of them. Perhaps incorporating some sort of weekly quiz on the lecture in the tutorial would help retain the information.
But the best thing about this lecture was... FINAL FANTASY VII! Hurrah! Finally, something I could identify with! Of course, Aerith's death was so upsetting for most people that it's one of the most iconic events from the series (apart from the entire storyline for Final Fantasy X and Tidus' painful parting from Yuna). Perfect example for evoking emotion. That and the finale of Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. Clank's separation from Ratchet at the end made a lot of the die-hard fans very upset.
Week Nine - blessed relief!
Week Ten:
Multi-player games! Woo! This week's lecture began with another tour of history, involving the royal game of Ur and senet. I did like the work on cheating or 'betrayal' as they worded it. But come on, how many times have we all used cheats in games? I've found a couple of good ones myself (for Kingdom Hearts II, mainly). Game designers deliberately put them in. American McGee's Alice is a prime example. There are any number of lists of cheats that designers have left in from when they used them to check levels. The ones I found were on www.gamefaqs.com. But there are so many others.
There were some good questions to ask when designing our assessment games. I think there's a a fair few of us doing board games. After the awesome lecture over in Interactive Writing from the SCOOT team (who do location-based games), I wonder if maybe a location-based game would have been a more imaginative choice. Hmm, something to think about.
Week Eleven:
Phew, just two weeks to go! And, unfortunately, I can't access the notes for this one.
Or the week after. So this wraps up my lecture recaps. Finally.
A re-cap of the lectures this semester: Weeks 1-5
Honestly, I didn't go to all of them. I never DO go to all my lectures. But I did attend a good part, even if I didn't show up to many tutorials.
Here's my very basic recall of what they attempted to impart to us this year:
Week 1:
Mainly Admin stuff and a recap of ITB750. This was quite brilliant since most of it had gone in one ear and out the other. This week covered motivations for play, types of play, etc.
Week 2:
The high-level concept. I really enjoyed this particular lecture and found the structure good to apply to my own game ideas, particularly for The Crystalweb Chronicles. There was a lot of information in this lecture and could have been split up over two weeks for better information retention.
However, the structure was useful and informative. More examples for recent games would have been great. Including Halo was a masterful touch, but not many of the game-players present that day had played Magic: The Gathering and only had a base knowledge.
Week 3:
Components of games, fine. I'm on board with that. Referring to the game as a magic circle was a bit, well, silly. After all, we're not five. We get the idea that a game is an independant system. It was good that the lecture went through the different types of system. I didn't particularly like dissecting soccer and chess. A simple game like minesweeper would have been better. Most of us don't play a lot of physical games so we just found it boring. The rules part of the lecture was far more interesting. This we can actually use.
The lecture started to get a bit off-subjects re: the more psychological background behind games. While useful, when designing a specific game concept it's not really relevant for a designer to stop what they're doing and say 'hang on, this doesn't actually apply to my audience'. Tough, you just remarket it for a different audience. I'm doing a marketing minor and even they know the qualities of repositioning. Sometimes I don't think that the lecturers actually get the idea of how to sell a game. Taking a marketing minor has really opened my eyes up to this.
Week 4:
Conflict in games and decision -making in games. Sounds great, doesn't it? I have to admit, the Pokemon Diamond/Pearl clip was most enjoyable (being an old fan of the ever-popular series). But the downfall of this part of the lecture was that Peta (I think it was Peta) didn't stick with this as the example, but went on to obscure examples from history (centipede and Gauntlet). Sure, great, we get the picture about different types of game conflict, but leave the old games to Game Design History for those of us interested. If the industry is all about new games, why aren't we learning about them?
I also didn't appreciate the idea that, as a woman, I didn't enjoy violence as much as my male counterparts did. What?!? My very first game for my playstation was Ratchet and Clank 2! Large guns and small furry protagonists! That kind of blatant sexism is annoying.
Decision making... what a nightmare! It reminds me of those 'Choose-your-own Adventure!' books I read as a child. Except every movement in a computer game require this decision making process. I have a new appreciation for the programmers who have to sit down and put everything in. God help them.
Week 5:
More decision-making... at least they split this topic over two weeks. Of course, it comes back to the age-old 'heads or tails' thing, doesn't it? A yes or no answer. Do I kill the bad guy, or does he kill me? The three types of decision-outcome relationships (Certain, Risk and Uncertainty) are especially applicable to the hazard and civic duty cards that my group is implementing in our game. There was more work on decision trees, including stuff on keeping uncertainty central in all games. Well, that's a bit silly! That blows the whole game-path theory right out of the window! First of all, they're saying that the player must follow a certain path, now they're saying that no, uncertainty is important for games! I mean, sure, a little bit of lee-way is all well and good, but no game doesn't have objectives. Otherwise it's just random, nonsensical actions.
As for all games having rules... unless you count gravity and other laws of physics as rules (and in space, even those wouldn't actually apply), sometimes play doesn't have rules. That's ITB750 stuff.
This wasn't one of my favourite lectures, as in my mind it seemed to undo all of the work done on games and thinking about 'fun' and 'play' in ITB750. Then again, that's just my opinion.
Here's my very basic recall of what they attempted to impart to us this year:
Week 1:
Mainly Admin stuff and a recap of ITB750. This was quite brilliant since most of it had gone in one ear and out the other. This week covered motivations for play, types of play, etc.
Week 2:
The high-level concept. I really enjoyed this particular lecture and found the structure good to apply to my own game ideas, particularly for The Crystalweb Chronicles. There was a lot of information in this lecture and could have been split up over two weeks for better information retention.
However, the structure was useful and informative. More examples for recent games would have been great. Including Halo was a masterful touch, but not many of the game-players present that day had played Magic: The Gathering and only had a base knowledge.
Week 3:
Components of games, fine. I'm on board with that. Referring to the game as a magic circle was a bit, well, silly. After all, we're not five. We get the idea that a game is an independant system. It was good that the lecture went through the different types of system. I didn't particularly like dissecting soccer and chess. A simple game like minesweeper would have been better. Most of us don't play a lot of physical games so we just found it boring. The rules part of the lecture was far more interesting. This we can actually use.
The lecture started to get a bit off-subjects re: the more psychological background behind games. While useful, when designing a specific game concept it's not really relevant for a designer to stop what they're doing and say 'hang on, this doesn't actually apply to my audience'. Tough, you just remarket it for a different audience. I'm doing a marketing minor and even they know the qualities of repositioning. Sometimes I don't think that the lecturers actually get the idea of how to sell a game. Taking a marketing minor has really opened my eyes up to this.
Week 4:
Conflict in games and decision -making in games. Sounds great, doesn't it? I have to admit, the Pokemon Diamond/Pearl clip was most enjoyable (being an old fan of the ever-popular series). But the downfall of this part of the lecture was that Peta (I think it was Peta) didn't stick with this as the example, but went on to obscure examples from history (centipede and Gauntlet). Sure, great, we get the picture about different types of game conflict, but leave the old games to Game Design History for those of us interested. If the industry is all about new games, why aren't we learning about them?
I also didn't appreciate the idea that, as a woman, I didn't enjoy violence as much as my male counterparts did. What?!? My very first game for my playstation was Ratchet and Clank 2! Large guns and small furry protagonists! That kind of blatant sexism is annoying.
Decision making... what a nightmare! It reminds me of those 'Choose-your-own Adventure!' books I read as a child. Except every movement in a computer game require this decision making process. I have a new appreciation for the programmers who have to sit down and put everything in. God help them.
Week 5:
More decision-making... at least they split this topic over two weeks. Of course, it comes back to the age-old 'heads or tails' thing, doesn't it? A yes or no answer. Do I kill the bad guy, or does he kill me? The three types of decision-outcome relationships (Certain, Risk and Uncertainty) are especially applicable to the hazard and civic duty cards that my group is implementing in our game. There was more work on decision trees, including stuff on keeping uncertainty central in all games. Well, that's a bit silly! That blows the whole game-path theory right out of the window! First of all, they're saying that the player must follow a certain path, now they're saying that no, uncertainty is important for games! I mean, sure, a little bit of lee-way is all well and good, but no game doesn't have objectives. Otherwise it's just random, nonsensical actions.
As for all games having rules... unless you count gravity and other laws of physics as rules (and in space, even those wouldn't actually apply), sometimes play doesn't have rules. That's ITB750 stuff.
This wasn't one of my favourite lectures, as in my mind it seemed to undo all of the work done on games and thinking about 'fun' and 'play' in ITB750. Then again, that's just my opinion.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The Oncoming Storm: How NOT to look like an idiot on presentation day...
Not strictly relevant to what I've written in the past, but with the looming presentation, I have to admit, I'm nervous. With that in mind, I'm cast back to my heady days of public speaking competitions. After one particularly gruelling round, I sat outside with one of the older competitors and mused about presenting a speech. We considered the fact that what NOT to do could in fact make a great speech itself. Applying it to presenting a game idea wouldn't be such a bad thing, either.
Now, I've always been good at speaking in public. I was never nervous about talking to a crowded room, so much the pity since I usually get dumped on for it frequently. But there are some advantages to being a good public speaker (and no, it's not that my drama marks were great).
A few tips from an old hand:
1. NEVER insult your audience's intelligence. They won't thank you for treating them like idiots. Put it in layman's terms, sure. We're all human. But treat them like two-year-olds watching Play School and you'll get a baaaad reception. Assume a basic intelligence and talk to them on that level, remembering appropriate explanations.
2. Keep it interesting. Many's the time I've "fallen asleep" in class because the lecturer was talking in a monotone. Genius they may be, great public speaker they are not. Keep people listening by speeding up, slowing down, changing pitch for emphasis, the works.
3. Know your subject. There's no point presenting rocket science when you know more about interpretative dance. It's not brain surgery, its games! Talk about what you know, what you have played, what you have read. This way you don't have to jitterbug through a jive when you have not a darn clue what you're really talking about.
4. Present relevant material. Seems like an obvious one, but you wouldn't believe the times I've sat through presentations and thought 'And this has to do with the topic.... how?' You'd think that the people would understand how certain things correlate. So if you start talking about meteorological phenomena during the presentation of a game design, I'd say you were a mite off-course.
5. No-one likes a mumbler. It might have been cute for the penguin, but the penguin's marks weren't riding on this. Speak up, please. We can't hear you at the back.
6. Anecdotes R Fun. Fun stories about your own gaming blunders are always amusing. Share some, but keep enough up your sleeve for the afterparty.
That's about it for now. I should think of some more, but I'm tired. Oh well.
Now, I've always been good at speaking in public. I was never nervous about talking to a crowded room, so much the pity since I usually get dumped on for it frequently. But there are some advantages to being a good public speaker (and no, it's not that my drama marks were great).
A few tips from an old hand:
1. NEVER insult your audience's intelligence. They won't thank you for treating them like idiots. Put it in layman's terms, sure. We're all human. But treat them like two-year-olds watching Play School and you'll get a baaaad reception. Assume a basic intelligence and talk to them on that level, remembering appropriate explanations.
2. Keep it interesting. Many's the time I've "fallen asleep" in class because the lecturer was talking in a monotone. Genius they may be, great public speaker they are not. Keep people listening by speeding up, slowing down, changing pitch for emphasis, the works.
3. Know your subject. There's no point presenting rocket science when you know more about interpretative dance. It's not brain surgery, its games! Talk about what you know, what you have played, what you have read. This way you don't have to jitterbug through a jive when you have not a darn clue what you're really talking about.
4. Present relevant material. Seems like an obvious one, but you wouldn't believe the times I've sat through presentations and thought 'And this has to do with the topic.... how?' You'd think that the people would understand how certain things correlate. So if you start talking about meteorological phenomena during the presentation of a game design, I'd say you were a mite off-course.
5. No-one likes a mumbler. It might have been cute for the penguin, but the penguin's marks weren't riding on this. Speak up, please. We can't hear you at the back.
6. Anecdotes R Fun. Fun stories about your own gaming blunders are always amusing. Share some, but keep enough up your sleeve for the afterparty.
That's about it for now. I should think of some more, but I'm tired. Oh well.
Stepping Stones: Cross-Platform Games (Just like Johnny)
Admit it. How many of us actually have the same game on two or more platforms? Unfortunately, I have to stick my hand up here.
It's many because of Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End. Being the incredible Johnny Depp fan that I am (no less than twenty-two movies in my possession, thank you very much), I dove straight in, choosing to ignore the intolerable stunt Bethesda pulled with that, er, very bad offering from the first film. So I got the PS2 version of At World's End first, because that is my favourite platform.
Much, much better.
Gone is the incredibly stupid physics engine (one would have thought that clothes move differently when you walk rather than running), the terrible environment generator and stupid AI that ran your companion. Now, it's all up to you and yes, you DO have to fight as Will and Elizabeth. There is NO choice now.
With the care and love that obviously went into this from Eurocom Entertainment Software, the game stomped all over it's shoddy predecessor (which pains me to say that. Not even Johnny Depp's voice acting could save that hideous abomination).
But lo, what's this? A different game for the Wii and DS? By jove, what a tremendous idea! By utilising the active component of the Wii and the DS, Nintendo breathed new life into the tired genre, allowing for some excellent swordplay by the game-player, hacking and slashing at the television... just like Johnny would have! There were some pretty harsh criticisms about the sword (particularly this one at http://au.gamespot.com/ps2/action/piratesofthecaribbean3/tech_info.html?tag=stats;techinfo), but on the whole, it was a good premise and definitely warranted further exploration.
What interests me is that the standard fighting game cops little attack for abominable environments or characters, yet just because it's a tie-in game, At World's End was hit out as being a bad game. Is it because we all had expectations of fencing like Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom? If that's the case, may I suggest a stint in the local fencing class, not an afternoon on your game console.
But this is about cross-platforming. The difference between the Playstation and the Wii games were obvious, but appealed to different users. Me? I'll be sticking to my Playstation. Give me button-mashing over swinging my arms around like a madwoman anyday.
It's many because of Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End. Being the incredible Johnny Depp fan that I am (no less than twenty-two movies in my possession, thank you very much), I dove straight in, choosing to ignore the intolerable stunt Bethesda pulled with that, er, very bad offering from the first film. So I got the PS2 version of At World's End first, because that is my favourite platform.
Much, much better.
Gone is the incredibly stupid physics engine (one would have thought that clothes move differently when you walk rather than running), the terrible environment generator and stupid AI that ran your companion. Now, it's all up to you and yes, you DO have to fight as Will and Elizabeth. There is NO choice now.
With the care and love that obviously went into this from Eurocom Entertainment Software, the game stomped all over it's shoddy predecessor (which pains me to say that. Not even Johnny Depp's voice acting could save that hideous abomination).
But lo, what's this? A different game for the Wii and DS? By jove, what a tremendous idea! By utilising the active component of the Wii and the DS, Nintendo breathed new life into the tired genre, allowing for some excellent swordplay by the game-player, hacking and slashing at the television... just like Johnny would have! There were some pretty harsh criticisms about the sword (particularly this one at http://au.gamespot.com/ps2/action/piratesofthecaribbean3/tech_info.html?tag=stats;techinfo), but on the whole, it was a good premise and definitely warranted further exploration.
What interests me is that the standard fighting game cops little attack for abominable environments or characters, yet just because it's a tie-in game, At World's End was hit out as being a bad game. Is it because we all had expectations of fencing like Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom? If that's the case, may I suggest a stint in the local fencing class, not an afternoon on your game console.
But this is about cross-platforming. The difference between the Playstation and the Wii games were obvious, but appealed to different users. Me? I'll be sticking to my Playstation. Give me button-mashing over swinging my arms around like a madwoman anyday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)