 |
| I drew this picture except for the koala sign. See: http://www.connect4designs.com.au/road-street-signs |
For any who may accidentally wander into this blog, this is my online journal specifically created for a Queensland University of Technology (QUT) subject called "Introducing Design".
Since this is part of a "Games and Interactive Entertainment" degree, what will be discussed will be skewed in that direction. Essentially, this blog/journal will comment on subject matter from the lectures, group projects, and set tasks. Yet this will still remain a reflection of me, displaying my own interests and style in so far as is possible. Since the first week was mainly just intro stuff, and there was not any group work, I'll take the opportunity with this first post to hopefully show myself more. This blog may continue after the subject ends, or it may not. However, this is at least the start of something, running a course not entirely under my control. (You know... there's a back seat driver - at least for now). So lets see where it goes...
Pre-Lecture 1
For myself - the most notable thing provided prior to the lecture was a link to Richard St. John's 3min talk about the "8 secrets of success".
I think most people like the "persisting through crap" part of the talk.
One of the other talks on the TED website that I liked that incorporated technology was the following:
After all, I feel that games, to some extent, are about the art of illusion.
Lecture 1
In the lecture, we were given two topics to ponder. I'll start with those before giving my thoughts on the rest of the lecture.
Topic A The 'Water' Cartoon
We were asked to look at this cartoon, and reflect upon how the impossible in real life can be depicted as possible in various media.
Since this is my blog I'll start by saying that I really don't like this cartoon, since I don't find it particularly clever or funny. In terms of drawings presenting such impossibilities, I would much prefer to use as an example some of the works of M.C. Escher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._C._Escher). Escher' work is a different kind of impossible, but more interesting because of it.
Of course, there are many movies that show the impossible brought to life. I'll just mention the movie 'Labyrinth' (1986), since the 'stairs' scene in this short You Tube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gLNDHw_DzE), is inspired by the 'stairs' drawing (Relativity, 1953) of M.C. Escher. But the movie Labyrinth had real life settings/props, so couldn't capture the full impossibility. Yet with computer generated graphics, todays movies, presentations and games can all embrace anything that can be imagined. Even the movie The Matrix (1999) doesn't go as far as it could, despite setting a new standard in visual effects at the time.
The above cartoon could digitally be made so as to look very believable, while experience tells us such things are impossible unless there is some unknown technology/force at work. The game Portal (http://www.valvesoftware.com/games/portal.html) demonstrates how impossible situations can be set up in a believable way. After all, you could have the situation of infinitely falling through portals for example. Yet this principle can extend beyond the graphical. These days you can have hundreds of people interacting in a game. And despite the limitations of real space and time, you could have all these people being represented as equal-distant from each other in the game world, for physics and the concerns of physical space need not be applied. Yet physics tend to be applied to game worlds, simply to make them more believable. In these virtual worlds, there are no limitations other than what we impose upon ourselves. The indie game Anti Chamber ( http://www.antichamber-game.com) is a puzzle game that does a good job of turning reality on its head, although that is also what detracts from the enjoyment a little, since you can not take anything for granted when expected environmental laws are broken. The challenge for a game designer becomes not only to free themselves from conventional thinking (since there are no limits), but also to chose/include limits that will give credibility and a sense of 'reason' to that which they create.
Game design is an art like any form of design. Knowing what to accentuate, and what to diminish; what to leave out, and what to put in; what will appeal, and what will detract. The list goes on.
Topic B "Is the game Dear Esther really a game?"
 |
| Dear Esther: http://dear-esther.com |
An example review and comments: http://au.gamespot.com/dear-esther/reviews/dear-esther-review-6349936/
My answer to the question has to be yes.
There would be those who would argue no, primarily since:
- It has very restricted player input, with only basic directional control along set paths, and little interaction beyond 'looking' at objects in the environment.
- It also lacks any real win condition, possessing only an obvious visual 'destination' that simply draws you along what could be seen as just a visual book, and leaving you with no answers.
However, I do not feel that either of these two points detract from Dear Esther being a game for the following reasons:
- The venerable video game "Pong" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong) was a basic tennis-like game. It had very limited controls, yet was, and still is, considered a game. I feel that if a player has control, even if limited, then this automatically takes it out of the movie/story category. While it would have been very nice if it did have more interaction/control, this is not a necessity. The interactive aspect means that what the player is in-gaged in may not play out exactly the same way, unlike books/movies. Also, Dear Esther can randomly give up different information when you look at the same objects, so it actively does go as far as to incorporate chance and differentiation beyond that which just the players themselves provide, even if in a limited way.
- As for the lack of a 'win condition' or some other definitive resolution, lets look to other media, and take as an example the Australian classic book/movie "Picnic at Hanging Rock" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picnic_at_Hanging_Rock). What was officially released had no conclusive 'ending', yet that is part of what made it a more powerful story, since it left you with a mystery. And just like for Dear Esther, it displeased some people because of that. Dear Esther simply uses the same technique, but in an interactive media. We are often told when playing games "It does not matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game". Dear Esther simply focuses on 'how you play', and the journey. Speaking of journey, the game Journey (http://thatgamecompany.com/games/journey/) is also not unlike Dear Esther in some respects, since it focuses on emotion and the 'experience'. Although Journey has many more gameplay elements, so is not doubted as being a game like Dear Esther. I simply don't consider a 'win condition' to be paramount for a game, otherwise we would have the case that any game that ends in a draw suddenly ceases to be a game.
From my own standpoint, I see little distinction between both 'Games' and 'Interactive Entertainment'. I consider them synonymous with each other, the distinction only being made for those who have a more polarised point of view. Dear Esther is interactive with in-built rules, an element of chance, and serves as entertainment, so I see it as a game. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's a good game. But that is a different topic.
Other Interests in the First Lecture
We were given a list of 8 objects:
Typewriter, Cake, Car, Chicken, Horse, Pencil, Snake, and Paint.
We were asked to group these items in pairs, which was easy. Then we were asked to group these items in groups of four, which was more difficult. At the time, my mind was a blank. But later at home I came up with what should have been an obvious grouping, and drew the cartoon below. Sometimes you just can't see what's right in front of you :D . I did think we were going to come back to these objects yet again at the end of the lecture, since they were presented as an exercise in the many ways of how we conceptualise things. I thought we would be asked to think again about these objects, but more outside the box; however that never occurred. Didn't stop me running amok with the idea though :P
 |
| Disclaimer: This cartoon I drew in no way reflects my own inclinations. If anyone has any concerns with the distribution of drinkers to non-drinkers, or if you think the non-drinkers look decidedly dull, then you should address your concerns to the subject lecturer who selected these objects :D |
Another thing discussed was that rather than taking notes in a purely textual way, we should create conceptual trees or diagrams. My first thought was "He's trying to turn me into a tree hugging hippie!', and a suitable cartoon popped into my head, although I decided there was no need to draw it. My second thought was "Hmmm.. sounds similar to a 'flow' diagram; you would think I'm studying IT... oh wait!" LOL. But seriously, joking about it is my own way of remembering. By turning things into cartoons and images in my mind, I'm forming multiple conceptual links. In essence, it was the linking of things through either real association, or imagined ones, that this first lecture focused on. Yet conceptual diagrams also serve to help see different alternatives, possibly to allow innovative expression. I do expect a lot of 'conceptual diagrams' in my near future, although I may make 'embellishments'.
Much of the rest of the lecture was dedicated to subject introduction, time management and assessment; none of which belongs in this blog/journal.
So this ends week one, but I'll be into the breach again next week :)
No comments:
Post a Comment