Saturday, 22 January 2011

Activision comparison to Tale of Tales

Tale of Tales:

. Focuses more on imagination and psychology. Makes you/leaves you to make up own thoughts and feelings.

. No solid game play or difficulty, but has more mental/psychological understanding. Through sounds/music and artistic styles. Using traditional based artwork concepts, such as historical paintings.

. Stimulates imagination and personal interpretations of games as there is no solid plot, player is left to create own gaming world. 

. Interaction through simplistic sounds and movements. No dialogue or text. No need for extensive story, graphics etc.

. Plays on emotion, personal expression and encourages own thoughts to make a game on a personal basis. Make/believe/fictional/imagination/expressive/personality/individuality/unique.

Game Download Test: - The Endless Forest 
(Understanding new game developers by testing game)
Produced by: Auria Harvey, Michael Samyn

Environments:

Endless terrain. Nature based scene such as use of woodland, rivers and small woodland creatures. Gentle and ambient atmosphere with use of nature sounds such as water, birds and wind. Weather effects such as sun, snow and rain which adds a sense of realism to the landscape. Cultural references such as shrines and religious alters which emit different coloured auras. Adds sense of spirituality and culture to the atmosphere, as they seem to be stations in where online players meet. The combination of endless terrain and true nature aspects, there is a strong sense of primitive freedom.

Character Design: 

You play as a deer within the environment. You are subject to use no form of text or speech to interact within the game. You must rely on the characteristics of a deer, by using the body language and sounds realistically used by the creature in the wild. Deers however, have human faces which gives the game a peculiar appeal. However, with thought i can understand the relevance of using this feature. I think it is a way to keep us as humans related to the generic feel, using a human face makes the deer characters more relatable to us. There is also some bodily movements in which is not capable for a deer, such as nodding to responses. I think this was done to express certain emotions or control conversations that would be harder with the specific deer moves.

Plot:

No specific plot. Not informed of any missions or goals, it is simply a free based adventure game, where you can interact with other players and form relationships through communicating. No time limit, it seems to be an open world where exploration is endless and there is that freedom to express personalities and make your own interpretation of the game.





Activision:

. Triple A publisher, commercial, well known, lots of titles for all formats - more accessible 

. Graphical, very CGI, computer generated art. Not a lot of traditional methods or influences.

. Multi focused genres such as FPS, 3rd person shooter, sport and music etc

All titles have goals, achievements and extensive/relevant plot depth. Nothing is very self explanatory with gaming tutorials and training etc included with the majority of Activision titles. Text and dialogue explain story alongside instructions as to how to play the game etc. This method is simpler than that of Tale of Tales as it is easier to understand the concept, and seems more accessible or easier to pick up and grasp the idea.

. Has games for all genres, audiences and ages. Games for new gamers or hardcore ones, all titles are aimed at a wide variety of players. Whereas, Tale of tales genre of games seem quite mature and don't require any particular skill, which could lose interest in certain gamers. Imagination is already produced here, no room for audience's personal inclusion like Tale of tales. More action and suspense for enhanced emotional play. However, Tale of Tales has more psychological depth with room for imagination and ideas. Make the game out of what you to imagine = more personal = appealing.

Activision has done all the imaginative process. However, there is evidence in some titles of giving players more control over what and how they want to play a game, like Tale of Tales game 'The Endless Forest'. For example, Guitar Hero sound mixer enables the player to create own realistic music with a variety of instruments. Within this, there is plenty of room for ideas and thoughts, experimentation and making own personal tastes come to life. Similar to 'The Endless Forest' with the endless possibilities concept of having no limits to creativity or personality. Other examples, Tony Hawks skate park creator. Enables you to use a vast amount of items to customize and create your own skate parks. Also has endless personality potential and makes you feel included within the games initial production.



I have learned from this comparison that giving players the freedom to be able to incorporate own ideas is key.

Freedom to express personality within the game's structure without harsh restraints, leaves the player feeling more connected with the game. There is freedom for all sorts of gaming possibilities catered to the player's personal interests or tastes: Leaving the player included within the game, which not only expands play time but it adds appeal. Keeping this close in mind would successfully capture a great deal of audience attention, as games using this form of play can grasp the interest of any potential player, and they can make a game how they want to with their own ideas. Making gamers motivated and ambitious leaves room for pleasure within the game play, which i believe is the most crucial part to understand in game design.



Bibliography:

. Google Images
. Activision.com
. Tale-of-tales.com

Tuesday, 18 January 2011

Comparions between productions of 'Portal' and 'Gears of War'


Developer: Valve Corporation
Publisher: Valve Corporation, Microsoft Game Studios (XBLA-Xbox Live Arcade)
Formats: Windows (PC), Mac OS X, Playstation 3, Xbox 360

Unfortunately I found it difficult to actually find any statistics within the production of Valve's 'Portal'. However, I believe I found a relevant excuse when I researched into some information from the IGN website. Portal was actually designed to be trialling a new form of code within game play, that had a short and sweet story with simplistic visuals. It was intended to be a demo or 'beta' to showcase this new idea but it ended up being made full game with the a budget increase from the programmers. It first appeared in Valve's 'The Orange Box' in October 2007, which included other titles such as, 'Half life 2' and 'Team Fortress'. The Orange Box itself did significantly well than a lot of other titles at the time, because of the highly awaited sequel to come out on console. The inclusion of the other two games also added to the hype and the sales, as you were ideally getting three games for the price of one. With this success Valve sold 1.5 million copies world wide, which indeed is a good amount, but after the experience of 'Portal', it became evident where the money was made.


Portal from there became one of the best innovative games of all time, and grew vastly popular amongst a variety of gamers. The clever new game play gave players new ways to think within the mind frame of a puzzle/FPS shooter. There is no overly complicated plot and needs no heavy cut scenes or graphics to explain what and how you should play. It's left with the decisions you make as the player in order to progress through the game. The simplistic environments left a vast space to experiment with the new mechanics, with left players to explore different outcomes depending on actions they made. Aside from the visuals and mechanics, Portal brought forth multiple elements that had massive appeal to the majority of it's players, which is another main reason it gained so much attention. Dialogue within the game was evilly humorous that it was virtually impossible to not want to progress on with the story.


With this success, Portal was re-released on it's own in Spring 2010 for steam on PC and Mac. Within the first week steam had 1.5 million copies downloaded off the system. From this first week, it was evident Portal has done far better than anyone could've imagined. Even Microsoft's Xbox 360 made an extended addition called 'Portal: Still Alive' that had just as many hits through the Xbox live's Arcade online facility.


So Portal was initially made with little intention to have so much success, and from that short example of new game play mechanics and personality, it has managed to be one of the most popularly enjoyed games within the 21st century. With it's great success, it has managed to not only make so many sales, but also has a featured soundtrack from the game and a vast amount of merchandise. Such as T-shirts, key rings, posters, toys and plushies. It is also the father of a very popular memory of gaming quotes, 'The cake is a lie' and also the inclusion of the end credit's song, 'Still Alive' that was sung humorously buy the evil AI within the story. It is safe to say, that through Portal's incredible character, it holds it's place as one of the most successful hidden gems in gaming history.














Developer: Epic Games
Publisher: Microsoft Game Studios
Formats: Xbox 360, Windows (PC)

I chose the first Gears of war to compare to Portal because it is fairer on the basis of player response, as in being a new game/first of the series. So for example, if I used Gears of war 2 it would have a higher budget, more merchandise and a better following than Portal because it has been out longer and had chance to bloom within the gaming industry.

Gears of war has been a historical gaming landmark from it's release back in 2006. Within the first week it managed to sell an amazing 1 million units worldwide, which on it's own managed to claim the title as the fastest selling game at that time, and in doing so also managed to knock down their competitors 'Halo 2' as the most played game on Xbox Live. In relation to multi player hits, Gears of war managed to make an incredible 50% increase of subscriptions to Xbox live, which means 85% of Gears players played online within the multi player modes at the time. According to statistics from Microsoft they quoted (1) "more than 850,000 unique gamers have engaged in 10 million [Gears of War] game play sessions while unlocking an impressive 7 million achievements" From this I can highlight that through multi player focus, Gears of War managed to score popularity by paying special attention to that form of play. Which differs a lot from Portal, as it had no multi player experience at all, however, alters because Portal has appeals that are more unique, such as the overall gaming mechanics and visual style.

As terms of visual appeal and general production of Gears of War, there was a significant amount extra done for the game than Portal. It included a great deal of Mocap (motion capture) in order to make the gaming experience more relatable and realistic for the player. Mocap enables animations to have more life like features, such as facial expressions and lip syncing. There was also at much larger production team on Gears for factors such as it being an intended big hit, unlike Portal who started out with the idea of being a simple Beta/demo of new game play mechanics and had no intention of being as successful as it was. I watched a series of Youtube videos called 'The making of Gears of War', which gave me small pieces of information that highlighted production elements within making the video game. Here is part 1/5 to reference:


It was interesting to see how the production team went about making Gears of War. They seemed to be very level headed with how they approached making Gears an innovatively new shooter. The initial beginning was to get a playable demo ready for an E3 event, and shows how the team worked to perfect the game for it. There was heavy focus on the extent the team went through to make sure everything was perfect, such as Mocapping, a lot of play testing and construction of levels. It was emphasised how hard the team worked with the amount of hours/days they went through, with little sleep and a lot of effort. It helped me understand the length's companies go to really make their game stand out and successful. When i compare this to Portal, I think that there was some of this to an extent , but no where near as heavily focussed as what Gear's was.
Following on from the success of Gears, a whole range of merchandise became available. Products like, figures, apparel, jewelery, graphic novels, books, replica weapons (toys), XBLA Avatar costumes, soundtrack and so much more. Which with this form of product selling, Gears of War expanded into one of the most popular games of it's type. Now if Portal had that initial build up, it could've reached more popularity. But i have to take into account that there was no intentions of it becoming a  big game, so less budget for other productive elements like Gears of War. However, Portal demonstrates that it is not necessarily needed in order to make a compelling and glorious game. The two games both contrast and relate in completely different genres/styles. 




 (1) Thorsen, Tor (2006) Gears of War spins a million worldwide Available from:
<http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/gearsofwar/news.html?sid=6162230 >
[Accessed 18 Jan].
 

.

Bibliography: 


. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Box (although i hate to use wiki, it was the only site i could find with statistical information >_<)


. http://uk.pc.ign.com/objects/842/842671.html


http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/gearsofwar/news.html?sid=6162230


. Youtube.com