Good characters, are those which we can identify with, those which we understand. For the few moments which the character is the focus of whichever medium is telling the story (be it a book, film or game) we should feel what they feel.
The best films and books, with the most iconic characters, make the viewer understand the character, what the character does and says corroborate our understanding of the human psyche from our own experience.
Of course the question then becomes, 'What are the means to this end?'
Fundamentally, the script/story needs to be solid, with the words spoken by each character being contextually sound in relation to what we know about that character so far.
In films and games, an extension of this, is that the acting must be good. With a good script, a good actor will understand the feelings behind his or her character and that will bring out the best acting in them.
Visually a character should look as we perhaps somewhat stereotypically expect them to based on their personality. Although we shouldn't stereotype, to ignore this phenomenon when fleshing out a character would be naive.
A solid back story doesn't go a miss either. Knowing what a character has been through, and what has brought them to this point is crucial to understanding them. When connecting with a new friend, much of the conversation is based on your life and anecdotal points about ones self. This is vital in films and games too.
Different types of films and games require different levels of believability however. A comedy for instance will require less suspension of belief than a dramatisation, due to the desired response from the audience.
A character which has not been well thought and planned sticks out like a sore thumb. The viewer/user has no empathy for them or understanding of them as if they were a real person.
Hopefully as graphics and cgi in films levels out, the focus can shift on to better character development!
Thursday 31 December 2009
Hands On
Taking a brief look at the past gaming consoles one thing is clear. Only recently has anyone put much thought into the aesthetics of the console itself, and the ergonomics of the controller.
I personally think the PS1 dual shock controller was the first step into the modern user interface of today. Even if it was inspired by Nintendo's controllers. Users loved it so much that when the early designs for the PS3 controller came out, there was such backlash that they just changed the design back to the PS2 design. Even the xbox 360 controller, clearly takes it's inspiration from Sony's controller. It however does make some differences of it's own.
Gone are the days of the joystick and basic game pad. One of the main reasons for this largely has to be to do with the more complex game play with modern games, and thus the requirement for a larger number of buttons.
Of course most recently we have the Nintendo wii. The whole premise of this console is to challenge and innovate the way in which we play games. On the whole Nintendo has been relatively successful with this. Certainly if we are judging this on market sales they have done amazingly well. But if we are to take a critical gamers point of view, then we have to ascertain that although the control system works, the console is severely lacking in the calibre of games that can be found on other consoles. To this end Nintendo has latched onto the more casual gamer market. Whilst this is profitable in itself some fear that they are isolating the real gamers out there.
Even though the Wii is riding high, and the PS3 has the six axis, and Xbox is coming up with Natal and games such as rockband/guitar hero exist, i don't think the game pad is going anywhere soon. The aforementioned all provide new and fun ways to play, but the game pad will always be essential for just sitting back and relaxing and playing games. Whilst playing the wii of maybe guitar hero, you naturally become that much more animated whilst playing a game, I've tired playing both while just sat back relaxing and it's just not the same.
The future is going to be fascinating. It will be interesting to see, if the Wii and endeavours such as natal ever provide the complexity of control offered by the xbox and playstation controllers.
I personally think the PS1 dual shock controller was the first step into the modern user interface of today. Even if it was inspired by Nintendo's controllers. Users loved it so much that when the early designs for the PS3 controller came out, there was such backlash that they just changed the design back to the PS2 design. Even the xbox 360 controller, clearly takes it's inspiration from Sony's controller. It however does make some differences of it's own.
Gone are the days of the joystick and basic game pad. One of the main reasons for this largely has to be to do with the more complex game play with modern games, and thus the requirement for a larger number of buttons.
Of course most recently we have the Nintendo wii. The whole premise of this console is to challenge and innovate the way in which we play games. On the whole Nintendo has been relatively successful with this. Certainly if we are judging this on market sales they have done amazingly well. But if we are to take a critical gamers point of view, then we have to ascertain that although the control system works, the console is severely lacking in the calibre of games that can be found on other consoles. To this end Nintendo has latched onto the more casual gamer market. Whilst this is profitable in itself some fear that they are isolating the real gamers out there.
Even though the Wii is riding high, and the PS3 has the six axis, and Xbox is coming up with Natal and games such as rockband/guitar hero exist, i don't think the game pad is going anywhere soon. The aforementioned all provide new and fun ways to play, but the game pad will always be essential for just sitting back and relaxing and playing games. Whilst playing the wii of maybe guitar hero, you naturally become that much more animated whilst playing a game, I've tired playing both while just sat back relaxing and it's just not the same.
The future is going to be fascinating. It will be interesting to see, if the Wii and endeavours such as natal ever provide the complexity of control offered by the xbox and playstation controllers.
Sunday 6 December 2009
Electronic Tales
Fundamentally games are meant to be fun. The idea is inherent in the name, 'Games.'
Are books, meant to be fun?
Are films meant to be fun?
Without debating semantics i would say that they aren't. Books and films are entertaining. They are immersing and they are to be experienced. If they fail to entertain or immerse you then they fail to do their job. In which case said film or book would probably get bad reviews.
I think that it's somewhat easier to watch a bad film, than it is to read a bad book. A film has eye candy to sugar coat bad storytelling. This can be seen in films such as Transformers 2. The visual mind barrage going on in the film was the only thing keeping me watching because the story wasn't particularly special.
A book however has only one arm with which to grab you. It's story and with that the quality of the writing.
If either are off, chances are you are not going to read much further. It may be a factual book, without a story, but there still needs to be a certain flair and style to the writing to entertain the reader.
So what of games.
Take pong. No story, words, script. It was fun though. Games with similar goals still exist today. Take the Burnout series for example. No story, it doesn't need it, it's crazy fun to just whizz around the city in your car. The important thing here is that it presumably was never pitched as having a story.
So what my focus here then is, that whilst a game, can still be purely a game and have no other intentions, if it must include a story then it must be judged amongst it's peers - films and books.
It's like when a singer branches out and gets a part in a film. You don't say, oh we'll excuse their bad acting because they're not an actor at heart, they are a singer.
No
We say, their acting is shit, get back to singing.
Unfortunately many game designers fail to realise this. A game doesn't have to have a story, but if it does have one, and it's rubbish, it will kill that game more than any other element.
Thankfully some games exist with brilliant stories. Bioshock being a good example. It's a great concept from the start, but has been fleshed out well too. I've noticed that games with good stories tend to be quite cinematic and too right. Personally i like that.
I think the main problem, is the question of how to immerse the player in a game. This isn't really a question though. A game might have shit game play but a good story. For instance if a good writer has come up with a decent story, planned the characters and the setting well etc, then the player will be that much more immersed.
How do you make a player care about the main character and NPC's? A GOOD STORY AND WRITING. Game designers seem to think in being a game it has some magic pass as the player has that extra dimension of input to a game. They wonder why the player doesn't care about the main character, is it because he doesn't control well? Is it because the animation is bad? Is the pace of the game bad?
No
It's because he speaks like damn robot and is about as 3-dimensional in character as brick.
Ar, this rant could go on. But to sum up, films and books, don't have direct input from the consumer, you could go as far as to say that they are at a disadvantage in comparison to games.
However in general they do it a darn sight better.
Are books, meant to be fun?
Are films meant to be fun?
Without debating semantics i would say that they aren't. Books and films are entertaining. They are immersing and they are to be experienced. If they fail to entertain or immerse you then they fail to do their job. In which case said film or book would probably get bad reviews.
I think that it's somewhat easier to watch a bad film, than it is to read a bad book. A film has eye candy to sugar coat bad storytelling. This can be seen in films such as Transformers 2. The visual mind barrage going on in the film was the only thing keeping me watching because the story wasn't particularly special.
A book however has only one arm with which to grab you. It's story and with that the quality of the writing.
If either are off, chances are you are not going to read much further. It may be a factual book, without a story, but there still needs to be a certain flair and style to the writing to entertain the reader.
So what of games.
Take pong. No story, words, script. It was fun though. Games with similar goals still exist today. Take the Burnout series for example. No story, it doesn't need it, it's crazy fun to just whizz around the city in your car. The important thing here is that it presumably was never pitched as having a story.
So what my focus here then is, that whilst a game, can still be purely a game and have no other intentions, if it must include a story then it must be judged amongst it's peers - films and books.
It's like when a singer branches out and gets a part in a film. You don't say, oh we'll excuse their bad acting because they're not an actor at heart, they are a singer.
No
We say, their acting is shit, get back to singing.
Unfortunately many game designers fail to realise this. A game doesn't have to have a story, but if it does have one, and it's rubbish, it will kill that game more than any other element.
Thankfully some games exist with brilliant stories. Bioshock being a good example. It's a great concept from the start, but has been fleshed out well too. I've noticed that games with good stories tend to be quite cinematic and too right. Personally i like that.
I think the main problem, is the question of how to immerse the player in a game. This isn't really a question though. A game might have shit game play but a good story. For instance if a good writer has come up with a decent story, planned the characters and the setting well etc, then the player will be that much more immersed.
How do you make a player care about the main character and NPC's? A GOOD STORY AND WRITING. Game designers seem to think in being a game it has some magic pass as the player has that extra dimension of input to a game. They wonder why the player doesn't care about the main character, is it because he doesn't control well? Is it because the animation is bad? Is the pace of the game bad?
No
It's because he speaks like damn robot and is about as 3-dimensional in character as brick.
Ar, this rant could go on. But to sum up, films and books, don't have direct input from the consumer, you could go as far as to say that they are at a disadvantage in comparison to games.
However in general they do it a darn sight better.
Wednesday 2 December 2009
The course
So we've been here a while now. I feel things are going well, very well in fact, having said that i feel like i haven't made as much progress as i could have. Don't get me wrong the work I've produced has been fine, but it's just more of what I've been doing for years. It may look nice, but it's not progress. Recently I've adopted a quicker more relaxed style, and while it's alot sketchier and less refined it's so much better for me.
I usually produce photo real final pieces, purely because that's my style (or lack there of) and that's what I've always done, and it's what I'm good at.
But whilst the new looser style may not really have the wow factor of my highly rendered style it has the benefit of being less time consuming. I normally spend anywhere between 12 - 20 hours on a final piece. That's pretty much standard, but then again i come from a fine art background so there you go.
So for me, speed is the most important skill to develop, my general understanding of things such as form, light, value etc is pretty solid. My only problem is I'm slower than a snail. That and I'm probably the least creative person ever =(
So i shall endeavour to pursue quick sketching, its loose, fast, and more often than not looks rubbish, but every now and then I'm producing some good fast work. Such as the still life in the studio. That was FAST. Finished the whole thing in 40 mins and its wwaaaayyy sketchy but i really think it captures the mood of the piece.
Hopefully if i just keep knocking these out the consistency will start to ramp up. That's all for now.
I usually produce photo real final pieces, purely because that's my style (or lack there of) and that's what I've always done, and it's what I'm good at.
But whilst the new looser style may not really have the wow factor of my highly rendered style it has the benefit of being less time consuming. I normally spend anywhere between 12 - 20 hours on a final piece. That's pretty much standard, but then again i come from a fine art background so there you go.
So for me, speed is the most important skill to develop, my general understanding of things such as form, light, value etc is pretty solid. My only problem is I'm slower than a snail. That and I'm probably the least creative person ever =(
So i shall endeavour to pursue quick sketching, its loose, fast, and more often than not looks rubbish, but every now and then I'm producing some good fast work. Such as the still life in the studio. That was FAST. Finished the whole thing in 40 mins and its wwaaaayyy sketchy but i really think it captures the mood of the piece.
Hopefully if i just keep knocking these out the consistency will start to ramp up. That's all for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)