Design isn't just thinking up the rules and mechanics of gameplay. There are a lot of different aspects, and a game designer needs to wear a lot of different hats.
That being said, I've started working on the design and development of a new, somewhat experimental game. It's going to be pretty cool, and hopefully challenge our current notions of immersion. Eh, who knows. It could be awesome, it could be a flop.
I did, however, create an Indiegogo campaign for it, and I'm hoping to get the word out more, so if you or your friends thing that Emily Bloode and her experimental game design is worth a contribution, feel free to make one, or just spread the word. The more notice this project gets, the better.
Here's the link, so you can do whatever you feel is right, but please, I'm begging you, share this and help this get around the internet!
Friday, January 31, 2014
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Digital Art and the Future of Gaming (in my opinion)
Wow, there is so much artwork out there on the internet! I've been recently looking at John Hathway's artwork, and it's absolutely stunning, you should check out the link! Absolutely gorgeous, and did give me a little inspiration for some interesting artwork. Nothing to show you yet on that front. However, it did make me want to talk a but about digital artwork and how it's being used in games, and where I think the future of game art is going, based on some indie trends rather than the AAA trends.
Game artwork is an EXPANSIVE universe, where anything is possible, from the silly to the extraordinarily detailed. But, often we hear people talk about how amazing the graphics are. Stop that. Stop that right now.
Graphics is actually just a technical term for the rendering of triangles, boxes, and other misc shapes, and how much can be rendered at once. We don't actually need this to improve, really. It's about as good as necessary for ultra-realistic art, with the current screens at least. What do we need to improve? The answer might surprise you.
Nothing.
That's right. Game art actually just needs people to explore and try new things. And they are starting to! And it's AWESOME! Right now, we run the gamut fully between 2D art, 2.5D art, and 3D art. And really, we should be jumping for joy. Why? I can't believe that question needs to be asked. Because we can do almost anything!
What we need to see in game art, which is forgotten in some indie titles, is a sense of comfort. That's a strange term, but I don't really have a better one. I've seen people reach for aesthetic, but it goes beyond that. If you are in a dingy, dirty hallway, but the carpet is spotless, (seriously, vacuumed yesterday), then it stands out like a really badly set broken thumb. Ouch. And this can instantly pull a player from their immersion. But, if you can make every aspect a comfort to every other aspect, (lighting, music, textures, camera effects, movement, etc), then you find yourself believing that this place could totally exist, and the player will be sucked in.
SUCKING THE PLAYER IN IS THE GOAL! FORGET MAKING COOL FEATURES, COOL ART, COOL ANYTHING. IF YOU CANNOT IMMERSE THE PLAYER IN THE STORY AND GAMEPLAY, YOU HAVE FAILED. But, don't worry, failure is how we learn, and really, there is a lot to learn here. This post is just about artwork, but there is very likely going to come story, etc.
Back to art, and thanks for sticking around this long.
How can we suck the player in more? That's a great question, and I wish I could give you a magic formula, but there isn't one, and there never will be. Because it's all about your game. Think about what you want your player to see and feel as they walk, run, drive, fly, or ooze about your world. What comes to mind? Now, the hard part is deciding what aspects of that are the most important.
Lights, Camera, Action. Not just for movies anymore, and your camera is one of the most important pieces of video game equipment you'll forget about. (It's not just you, everyone does it from time to time). How can we possibly make this thing work for us? Give it the same treatment hollywood does. Make the camera angles work for you. Here is a website with a bunch of camera angles, and what they are used for. Read it, and think of how to make this work.
Wow, this was not meant to be this long...I think I'll have to make this a two-parter. Sorry about that, but come back in a few days, I should have more ready for you.
Bye! <3
Game artwork is an EXPANSIVE universe, where anything is possible, from the silly to the extraordinarily detailed. But, often we hear people talk about how amazing the graphics are. Stop that. Stop that right now.
Graphics is actually just a technical term for the rendering of triangles, boxes, and other misc shapes, and how much can be rendered at once. We don't actually need this to improve, really. It's about as good as necessary for ultra-realistic art, with the current screens at least. What do we need to improve? The answer might surprise you.
Nothing.
That's right. Game art actually just needs people to explore and try new things. And they are starting to! And it's AWESOME! Right now, we run the gamut fully between 2D art, 2.5D art, and 3D art. And really, we should be jumping for joy. Why? I can't believe that question needs to be asked. Because we can do almost anything!
What we need to see in game art, which is forgotten in some indie titles, is a sense of comfort. That's a strange term, but I don't really have a better one. I've seen people reach for aesthetic, but it goes beyond that. If you are in a dingy, dirty hallway, but the carpet is spotless, (seriously, vacuumed yesterday), then it stands out like a really badly set broken thumb. Ouch. And this can instantly pull a player from their immersion. But, if you can make every aspect a comfort to every other aspect, (lighting, music, textures, camera effects, movement, etc), then you find yourself believing that this place could totally exist, and the player will be sucked in.
SUCKING THE PLAYER IN IS THE GOAL! FORGET MAKING COOL FEATURES, COOL ART, COOL ANYTHING. IF YOU CANNOT IMMERSE THE PLAYER IN THE STORY AND GAMEPLAY, YOU HAVE FAILED. But, don't worry, failure is how we learn, and really, there is a lot to learn here. This post is just about artwork, but there is very likely going to come story, etc.
Back to art, and thanks for sticking around this long.
How can we suck the player in more? That's a great question, and I wish I could give you a magic formula, but there isn't one, and there never will be. Because it's all about your game. Think about what you want your player to see and feel as they walk, run, drive, fly, or ooze about your world. What comes to mind? Now, the hard part is deciding what aspects of that are the most important.
Lights, Camera, Action. Not just for movies anymore, and your camera is one of the most important pieces of video game equipment you'll forget about. (It's not just you, everyone does it from time to time). How can we possibly make this thing work for us? Give it the same treatment hollywood does. Make the camera angles work for you. Here is a website with a bunch of camera angles, and what they are used for. Read it, and think of how to make this work.
Wow, this was not meant to be this long...I think I'll have to make this a two-parter. Sorry about that, but come back in a few days, I should have more ready for you.
Bye! <3
Monday, January 27, 2014
Gaming Profit Models
It's starting to feel like our wallets won't be getting much of a break in the near future, right? Let's face it, everything is expensive, and the economy is very low. So, let's consider how gaming companies make their money, shall we?
Let's start with some of the older models. The Subscription Model.
The subscription model is one we are all accustomed to. Even if you aren't aware of it. You pay a small monthly fee, and get to play as much as you want. The company takes the money, and provides content, and works to bring new content such as new quests, character models, armor, weapons, explorable areas, etc. So many new things they could bring you!
So where does this break?
There are a few different ways. The first, some hardcore players quickly run out of available content. This can happen at very various speeds, due to players interactions within the game. There are also players who will create their own server, and play there for free.
Admittedly, this is an old model, but it worked for a long time. Let's go over some of the math, just so we can get a good idea of how much money comes in from this.
14.95 per person per month, so $179.40 per player per year. That's a pretty fair amount of money, though I'm sure many people can spend that on one outfit for a night out. The issue, therefore, is the cost to the company for the server and content. Let's pretend, for just a minute, that the game is already fully developed. Additions may or may not come, but the game is playable, and the company wants to have 100 servers ready for players to enjoy. Running a server can get very costly. One of the best looking I could find was Singlehop, which costs $1,908 a year to run.
Your game, however, is awesome, and 5000 people sign up with a yearly subscription, paying the full year up front. This gives the company about $89,700 for the year. The costs of running the game is about 1900, so 87,800 is profit for the company. Bonza!
But, making more money requires people to continue signing up, and they will want more content eventually. So it adds up, but you can see where lots of money can be made here.
Then, Facebook games started hitting the market, giving players the ability to play for free, and get upgrades that they can buy with just a small amount of money. This is called micro transactions, and they can get very irritating very quickly. This is a new model, and my personal opinion is that it hasn't been fully fleshed out yet.
Recently, there have been multiple incidents involving micro transactions, such as Apple refunding money from children's in-app purchases, Eve's recent micro transaction controversy, and even GTA online. All of these revolve around micro transactions and people being willing to buy these things.
The micro transaction model isn't something entirely new. It's newer, having been established more recently than others, but it continues to grow purely because we let it.
How can we get our games back? There are a few ways, and right now it's important to take a good hard look at them.
Don't pay for in app additions. It's that simple, but it's also that hard. App developers make sure to make you want to pay them. The games can take months to play without shelling out a few coins, or be really lame. Developers do this so you feel you don't have much choice. Stop buying into it. I don't care if you get 100 gems for 9.99. These gems have no real value.
Demand full games. Open your mouth and be vocal. Players have won multiple battles with companies recently. Look at the Xbox One controversy and how it played out. WE CAN DO IT AGAIN!
I'll be posting about net neutrality later this month, and that's going to have a serious impact on gamers, and how we respond to some of these models, so stay tuned for that!
This was a long post, and very thinky, and I thank you for sticking with it!
Let's start with some of the older models. The Subscription Model.
The subscription model is one we are all accustomed to. Even if you aren't aware of it. You pay a small monthly fee, and get to play as much as you want. The company takes the money, and provides content, and works to bring new content such as new quests, character models, armor, weapons, explorable areas, etc. So many new things they could bring you!
So where does this break?
There are a few different ways. The first, some hardcore players quickly run out of available content. This can happen at very various speeds, due to players interactions within the game. There are also players who will create their own server, and play there for free.
Admittedly, this is an old model, but it worked for a long time. Let's go over some of the math, just so we can get a good idea of how much money comes in from this.
14.95 per person per month, so $179.40 per player per year. That's a pretty fair amount of money, though I'm sure many people can spend that on one outfit for a night out. The issue, therefore, is the cost to the company for the server and content. Let's pretend, for just a minute, that the game is already fully developed. Additions may or may not come, but the game is playable, and the company wants to have 100 servers ready for players to enjoy. Running a server can get very costly. One of the best looking I could find was Singlehop, which costs $1,908 a year to run.
Your game, however, is awesome, and 5000 people sign up with a yearly subscription, paying the full year up front. This gives the company about $89,700 for the year. The costs of running the game is about 1900, so 87,800 is profit for the company. Bonza!
But, making more money requires people to continue signing up, and they will want more content eventually. So it adds up, but you can see where lots of money can be made here.
Then, Facebook games started hitting the market, giving players the ability to play for free, and get upgrades that they can buy with just a small amount of money. This is called micro transactions, and they can get very irritating very quickly. This is a new model, and my personal opinion is that it hasn't been fully fleshed out yet.
Recently, there have been multiple incidents involving micro transactions, such as Apple refunding money from children's in-app purchases, Eve's recent micro transaction controversy, and even GTA online. All of these revolve around micro transactions and people being willing to buy these things.
The micro transaction model isn't something entirely new. It's newer, having been established more recently than others, but it continues to grow purely because we let it.
How can we get our games back? There are a few ways, and right now it's important to take a good hard look at them.
Don't pay for in app additions. It's that simple, but it's also that hard. App developers make sure to make you want to pay them. The games can take months to play without shelling out a few coins, or be really lame. Developers do this so you feel you don't have much choice. Stop buying into it. I don't care if you get 100 gems for 9.99. These gems have no real value.
Demand full games. Open your mouth and be vocal. Players have won multiple battles with companies recently. Look at the Xbox One controversy and how it played out. WE CAN DO IT AGAIN!
I'll be posting about net neutrality later this month, and that's going to have a serious impact on gamers, and how we respond to some of these models, so stay tuned for that!
This was a long post, and very thinky, and I thank you for sticking with it!
Friday, January 24, 2014
A simple position on: Gaming
It seems to me like every day there is some new group either damning or sanctifying video games. It's an interesting debate, so I figure I'll throw my 2 cents in.
Video games are about an experience. Are there some violent video games? Absolutely there are. Are they the cause of moral dissolution in our country? More than likely not. Does that mean we can just say 'screw it' and make all games available for all players? Absolutely not.
Let's start with the ESRB and work from there.
The ESRB was founded in 1994, nearly 29 years after the first video game was created on an oscilloscope. So, what happened in that time? Lots off stuff, but we are moving forward here. The reason being that graphic abilities during the mid 90's took off, and suddenly people were getting worried about what their kids were seeing. So, the ESRB was made, not to dictate who could play what, but to give a reasonable understanding of what was included in a game. When you see that big, black M on a game sleeve, that's the ESRB saying that there is content unsuitable for the average player under the age of 17.
Video games are about an experience. Are there some violent video games? Absolutely there are. Are they the cause of moral dissolution in our country? More than likely not. Does that mean we can just say 'screw it' and make all games available for all players? Absolutely not.
Let's start with the ESRB and work from there.
The ESRB was founded in 1994, nearly 29 years after the first video game was created on an oscilloscope. So, what happened in that time? Lots off stuff, but we are moving forward here. The reason being that graphic abilities during the mid 90's took off, and suddenly people were getting worried about what their kids were seeing. So, the ESRB was made, not to dictate who could play what, but to give a reasonable understanding of what was included in a game. When you see that big, black M on a game sleeve, that's the ESRB saying that there is content unsuitable for the average player under the age of 17.
Ok, so all those kids out there who are dying to play the next Super Bloody Gorefest IV will have to wait 7 years. But, the ESRB does, for those of you who are interested, have this nice guide to the ESRB ratings, which parents can use to look up what got the game the rating it has.
All well and good.
However, this discussion was meant to be on why games are neither good, nor bad. Well, it comes down to lots of things.
Games are meant to be an experience we typically can't have on our own. I am very unlikely to find myself in medieval europe, fighting dragons and wizards and using magic, nor in middle earth, nor in a galaxy far far away. And I shouldn't find myself in a bloody 1940's war, or stealing cars to shoot down the neighborhood. However, games allow me to step out of the literal aspects of life and into the imaginative ones. They create rules and guidelines that my imagination follows, and allows me to go nuts. Games with story allow me to live a movie, games without one allow me to run the movie my own way.
So, that kid that just stole a car because GTA told him so? He's doing it because he wants the car, and sees an easy out. Games gives us the experiences we can't have in reality. Those people who go and try to could have a multitude of differing mental problems, or simply don't recognize the difference. Is that the majority of gamers? No, I don't think so. Every day, hundreds of new games storm the internet, but the problems seem to be fairly slight.
Time will tell, but I think the idea of violent video games making us violent, (while we are in the most peaceful time in human history), is a little silly, but we need to keep it in game.
Thank you for reading! <3
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)