Wednesday, 31 December 2008
The sun exploded.
I watched from my bedroom window and waited, full of dread, knowing my imminent death, for the wave of destruction to hit.
That feeling was too real, it felt terrible.
I've also had a dream where I was washed off a cliff by a giant tidal wave and drowned, but it also felt completely real.
I think I need a psychiatrist.
Do dreams really mean anything? I don't actually want to die in a natural disaster, y'know. Maybe I'm trying to give myself a revelation so I finally get the motivation to make something of my life, because it can end in an instant.
I also watched 'The Happening' recently. Now that's disturbing. The plot sounds completely mental but somehow M. Night Shyamalan makes it a believable living nightmare. Even if you don't like the film, it's still an interesting "happening".
Monday, 15 December 2008
Gameplay, beyond the general explanation, is more than that though. From what I've found, the term can often be used to describe the levels of playing within the game and how they affect one another.
Normally these levels will be a local scale and a global scale as used in strategy games. Recently, Lionhead Studios tried to incorporate these effects more dominantly in 'Fable 2'. While it seems like a good concept that doing evil deeds will make you look more evil and affect how the people around feel about you and vice versa, this must also lead to consideration of other aspects of game design. I found that because of this freedom to change your in-game personality at will, that I could not form a connection with the character. One minute I'm being called a hero, the next, a complete !*£$%", and how am I supposed to get attached to my family when they're completely materialistic and use me for my gifts? The dog's the best part. Anyway, that's more relevant to my previous blog but I just had to air my thoughts.
Back to the issue of gameplay. As I said earlier it can also be used loosely as a way to describe how to get from A to B. Games such as 'Portal' and 'Braid' could be said to have a more unique gameplay than others by using theories of time travel and other dimensions so to speak, which also means using your brain! Shock, horror, I know. I've never concentrated on a game so much as Portal in quite a while.
Then there's also the physical movement of your character and what he/she or it can do. Games can thrive on a new way to play just because it's different to what we're accustomed to and people catch on. 'Crackdown' and 'Mirrors Edge' for example have taken gameplay to new heights (excuse the pun, couldn't resist) by allowing the player a greater freedom of movement over large areas & heights. By doing this, they had to develop a new way to move around and interact with the environment, and this encourages the player to take a more mentally active involvement in the game in my opinion.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
It's taken me a while to gather my thoughts for this blog. However, gamasutra.com really has been an invaluable source that raises points I might never have considered.
To start off, the importance of good story and character design is a point that will never cease to exist. It is true that there will be so many people who will buy so many copies of a sub-standard game just because they can, but why whould you want to?
You would have thought the companies might have liked to bring next-gen to the storylines aswell as the graphics.
Take Mercenaries 2 for example, it does what it says on the tin, but what a hell of a boring tin that must be. Someone wants revenge, you blow some stuff up, get shot, yadayada. I suppose we've grown not to expect too much from a sequel but can't someone break that chain?
Character design can be typical and as I've learnt, also skin deep - http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20000720/gard_01.htm - reading this was a big help.
People judge others by looks first; how you compose yourself, characteristics etc. and we stereotype. This obviously applies to characters on tv, in films and in games as well. As Bonnie Tyler appropriately sings, we do indeed "need a herooo".
As well as being aesthetically pleasing to look at, our hero characters need to be someone we can relate to or look up to, someone we root for and not despise. A balance of background, characteristics, looks and personality will lead to a strong character.
Using Mass Effect as an example again, 'Shepherd' is a hero to be watched more than played. The story can be changed to a certain extent, and you can make her/him really mean but it's much more satisfying to see her emerge from the devastaion at the end, intact and the saviour of millions. Although you have control over how she responds to people, this doesn't take away the believablity.
The film 'Hancock' uses an actor's (Will Smith) real-life personality to conflict with what the audience should be feeling about him based on actions in the film, causing us to hope he becomes the hero rather than stay the 'bad guy'.
Personally, I have quite a typical attatchment to certain characters and stories, whether it be in films, books or games. I tend to like a touch of fantasy mixed with reality, so maybe odd creatures, or magic involved. The main character, reasonably good looking, maybe lacking confidence but still independant gets dragged into something unexpected, adventures entail and so on. Maybe a bit of a love interest thrown in, with a dark, mysterious, talented character. I'm also a sucker for some witty sarcasm.
I've put links to info on my fave fiction books on my other blog:
Friday, 28 November 2008
Now, obviously the console designers have to take into consideration all the technical..erm...stuff that has to go into the actual console, which limits their ideas somewhat. Personally, I think the Xbox 360 has the upper hand in design. Whilst the old design was branded for 'hardcore' gamers, the xbox360 has a more universal appeal and customisation options such as faceplates and skins, as well as being available in black or white. You can get ps3 skins as well but that's it.
To me, the ps3 lacks any personality what-so-ever and has anyone else noticed that it's just the ps2 with a convex slab on top? They have polished a turd.
It just seems like Microsoft have beaten Sony to the punch every time. Their online experience is better, they incorporated a guide button onto their controller, which is miles better than Sonys and now they have avatars! What more could you want? Yeah, I know, free Xbox live, never mind.
Sony also seems to have strayed off the gaming path; their console is more like a multi-media Frankenstein with web browsing, blue-ray compatibility, blah blah blah, where's the soul? The entire 360 dashboard menus are dedicated to game-related stuff and sure you can upload pictures, download movies and play music as well, but the focus is still on gaming and the fun of it. It's just full of life. Zomg, I'm a fan-girl, oh noes.
As far as Nintendo goes, I think their consoles have at least tried to look a bit different and they'll always be retro classics like the Snes with those rectangle controllers. Their latest console, the Wii, while not so graphically capable as others, is light and slim and also supports it's 'wiimotes' using motion sensor technology and more recently, the wiiboard using pressure sensitivity. All clean cut white with blue lights and a user friendly interface.
Nintendos' DS is also a forerunner in the handheld market with the lite versions improved sleek design and of course the touch screen capability is far more interesting than anything Sony could produce with it’s PSP.
Well I've rambled on for quite a bit now, so I'll wrap it up. Call me biased but I think it would be hard to surpass the Xbox controller at this moment in time; It's just so comfortable and easy to use. Sony have, of course, tried and failed to produce a better one after the whole boomerang incident, bless 'em.
Console design has to go to the Xbox as well; the first one stood out and the 360 has successfully moved with the times. I actually couldn't find the ps3s’ 'on' switch for quite a while, I am ashamed to say but you can't really miss it on the 360 now, can you? Especially when it's sporting those red lights we've all grown to fear.
Monday, 24 November 2008
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Everyone appreciates a good story, and you can tell the difference between a good and a bad one quite easily in games just as you can with films. Obviously not every game needs a strong storyline, like kids games for example and physically interactive games like guitar hero and singstar.
Otherwise, the story is really the driving force of games.
The game starts. Where are you? why? Who are you? What's your characters background? What happened to them? Where are you going? why? And so on. Everything that happens to the character is relevant to the story. This is true in a linear plot (e.g.Gears of war) but not always in more open games like RPGs as you get mini stories/quests where you can deviate from the main story line (e.g. oblivionIV).
Games can still flourish through attributes other than story, like how you control the character and their movements (e.g. Assassins creed), stylisation like Team Fortress and online multiplayer capabilities like Left4dead.
Companies tend to skimp on the writing because of the budget they have, without realising how important a gripping story could be to their game.
Personally, the story is an important aspect to me. I love to read a good fiction book and be totally immersed in the world. The same goes for games. You know when you get completely attatched to your character and you're focused and there's nothing around to distract. I want to react to the storyline, to have moments of shock, disbelief, revenge, sympathy etc. You can't get these emotions from a completely predictable storyline.
As for whether a strong storyline makes for a better game. Well, it makes for a better story and might keep you playing for a bit longer but it won't make boring environments, repetitive gameplay or lackluster characters any better, no. As I've said in my previous blogs, everything needs to come together and work in harmony. The storyline is just a larger piece of the jigsaw.
Saturday, 22 November 2008
Answer: Here, use this help website
...Why, I do believe that's the most idiotic answer in the history of crap troubleshooters.
I've been without the internet for about a week at home and it's surprising how hollow I felt without it. I have fixed the problem though after many hours spent on the phone. It was a simple login error, how can they not know this? However, I have been getting out and about a bit more from my lack of internet-ness.
I did some drawing in town today, and quite a few people get curious about what you're doing, as if it's the weirdest thing they've ever seen which is highly unlikely in the middle in Leicester.
I take it back about Braggy, this was the coldest day ever. But I got a few nice comments, and the music playing from BHS kept me going ^_^
Anyway, I did my 2-point perspective drawing which was kinda hard because of the detail in the buildings which I just scribbled in. I hope this drawing doesn't have to be completely technically accurate and incredibly detailed because I'm just not that capable yet and it would require many more hours and patience and frost-bite. Also, am really not adept at digital painting so don't think that's gonna go down too well.
I'm going to post my initial drawings on my other blog http://flumpinator2.blogspot.com/
and hopefully I can get some feed back. I've looked at no end of stuff for inspiration for my organic project but I'm still thinking. All I've come up with so far is an angry tree man, and some pokemon rejects.
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
In 3dsmax, making boxes is about all that I’m proficient at, at the moment. How depressing.
Anyway, Art directors have a lot more on their hands; it’s a surprise they get any sleep at all. They get a lot more control over art direction though, which is very desirable as long as you know where you’re going with it. They also have to lead the people; it’s a job that relies heavily on communication and efficiency in all areas.
Qualities would include being good at solving problems, making decisions and obviously communicating well. All of this is on top of the experience they expect you to have, your in-depth knowledge of current 2d and 3d software and, of course, your skill as an artist.
I think the job would be quite similar when working with films also. Many films have their own distinct style whether it be through colours, lighting, settings, characters etc. and the same can apply to games.
Team Fortress for example has a distinct cartoon-style, which personally I don’t like, or maybe it’s lack of female characters. Ok, so it’s a macho cartoon style game with a well thought out colour palette and original, easily identifiable characters.
Using the film we recently watched as an example, City of Lost Children had low key lighting in sickly, saturated colours throughout, as well as the cast of odd characters including Ron Perlman leading with his imposing presence.
To sum up, being an Art Director requires a person with the abilities to lead and direct and also have the desire and passion to do so. People who wouldn’t be comfortable with this responsibility would have less to strive for in a career except to improve in the job in which they are currently employed.
I did however, read about Radical Entertainment and how they made a position of ‘guru’, so this person would not have to manage people but still have more acknowledgement of their skills and ability to impart their knowledge to others through mentoring which I think is a very good idea and more accessible to those of us without natural leadership skills.
Sunday, 9 November 2008
OK, let's get this straight. I've not been gaming since I was born, like everyone else. I've only really got into gaming since the xbox360. As much as I hate to admit it, it was my male friends that introduced me to the world of gaming, making me as lazy and blissfully ignorant as themselves.
To be honest, it's been quite hard trying to remember the games I've been into. I think it started with the gameboy, no colour, and super marioland. Then pokemon yellow. I think they were the only two games I bought for it and I didn't finish either. Hmm. That's the thing with me, if I get stuck or die so many times, I just give up. You might call it a defeatist attitude, I call it common sense. I'm not gonna waste any more of my time listening to pikachu chat gibberish if I'm just not quite good enough yet.
Anyway, after my failure on a handheld, I had a go with the first Playstation. Lol, what the hell? I was just looking up playstation 1 games and found one called Bastard!! Only in Japan. Crazy mofos'. Anyway I cannot, for the life of me remember which were ps1 games and which were ps2 so I'll just mix it up. The only reason I gamed back then was because it was my brother that bought the console and games so I didn't have to, haha, I was a leech, basically.
So, I wasn't really big on shooters. I got scared and hid, which wasn't really helpful. I was more into racing games like Need for Speed and Burnout, and puzzly adventure games like Crash bandicoot and Kuri Kuri Mix (wicked fun / immensely frustrating game).
Then my brother got me playing Medal of Honour with him and I actually liked it despite it being war-related. (Not a fan of war themed games, they're just so...man-ish? and all too similar).
During high school, a friend lent me his xbox and Halo 2, I asked "what's this?" to which a resonating world-wide reply from most of the male population said incredulously, "WTF, you don't know what halo is?!". "STFU!", I countered, "I live in a cave".
Still not having completed an entire game, I was introduced to Fable, Soul Calibur, Alien Hominid and a few others but by this time, Microsoft had announced the Xbox360 and I was looking forward to buying a console of my very own, even though none of the new games interested me too much to be honest.
Nowadays, I only stick to a couple of genres, though I suppose I should be broadening my interests. My absolute favourite game ever is Oblivion IV on the easiest setting but, y'know, it isn't about being able to say "look, I'm so uber l337, I played it on the highest difficulty", for me, it's just having an enjoyable, immersive experience, hell, even the over-sized rats leaping around like bambi made me jump sometimes.
Suprising to myself, the majority of my games collection are shooters. Ok, the main cause of that is probably peer pressure but still. You know what, I'm just gonna list them, then talk after. Halo 3, GTA IV, The orange box, Viva Pinata, Rayman raving rabbids (don't ask), Mass effect, Beautiful katamari, Lost Odyssey, Oblivion IV, Gears of war, Gears of war 2, The Darkness, Assassins Creed.
Not an enourmous list, I know, but I'm quite picky. Well, Gears 2 was the most recent, It's just a shooter on steroids, really, and I bought it mainly for the online multiplayer, because, quite frankly I was crap at the campaign on the last one, but am quite enjoying it this time round.
A couple of weeks ago I bought The Orange Box and am annoyed at myself for not picking it up earlier. Portal is fantastic, and after my first extremely confusing and disorientating attempt, I got the the hang of being able to try and play tag with myself and thoroughly enjoyed it. The sarcastic humour and story element is what made it great, not just another puzzle game.
Half-life 2 is also amazing (I havn't played the first one though). You just get dropped straight into the action with barely time to rest, you're always on the run, I think they balanced it just right, it's like a book you don't want to stop reading even though it's 3am.
Mass effect. I was skeptical about this one, It just looked really tacky but I must've played it through four times now. When I'm feeling quite emotional, which is most of the time, the ending really gets me. I got really attatched to my character and I, admittedly, may have almost shed a tear when I thought she had died. Yeah yeah, call me sad, but I'd rather be overly attatched than have no emotional involvement what-so-ever.
GTAIV was pure peer pressure for the free roam. The Darkness and Assassins creed just looked different and interesting in their own ways.
The Darkness scared the crap out of me whereas Assassins Creed was really fun to play (and Altair was phit, always a bonus).
Beautiful Katamari was just a quirky time killer and Lost odyssey was good but I still hate those bloody random battles, the sound makes me jump eeevery time. Some of the story was heart-wrenchingly sad but I still only felt like an on-looker, not really involved, just a tool being used to get to the next story part.
So that's it for the xbox360.
My family also shares a wii but I have no incentive to play it because no one wants to spend money on games for it. I want to buy LittleBigPlanet for my brothers ps3 but again there's no incentive, just that it looks cute. I think it'd feel weird not working for achievements aswell, they're like an addiction.
I've mentioned before that I have a DS and that I'd rather buy an xbox game than a DS one but nevermind, it's good when you find a good game to play on it like Legend of Zelda. It's kind of an expensive novelty but a step forward for handheld gaming and touchscreen technology at the same time. Why do I game then. Well, I would say it's 30% to socialize and 70% escapism. I don't really need to explain, it's as simple as that.
Games have gone from having no importance to me at all, to being my whole life.
In the future? I would like to have more or all senses involved in gaming - I don't know how, you didn't ask me that so *sticks out tongue*, maybe something like a smell ommitter, ha. I think they're developing those things which you wear over your eyes, I think they're a good idea because you're blocking out more of reality so you don't get distracted by things around you, you're completely involved - until your mum shouts you for dinner. But what about people who wear glasses & not contacts, hmmmm? Erm what else, maybe something more active like Nintendo's trying to do but incorporate it into FPS games maybe. I don't know, I just keep thinking of things that have already been done, so I might get back to you on that. Wouldn't it be cool though, if they replicated the most popular game maps for paintballing? Obviously they'd have to be realistic, like the ones in Gears and such games. Have they done that yet? Probably. Meh.
I guess, if you think about it, all types of games are similar in some way. You're always trying to win, finish or survive a game no matter what shape or form, it's just the design that varies.
There are so many aspects involved with game design, it's hard not to just make a big list.
So, to start from somewhere logical, you need an idea (a realistic one). Game design is the process of creating and refining this idea through communication with everyone involved. This will normally begin with a design document - a guide to work from - which will be constantly changing throughout the process.
All limitations will need to be taken into account, as well as genre, narrative, gamepl-- see, I'm starting to list now, gawd.
Ok. You catch my drift anyway, It's all about teamwork and constant reviewing, play-testing, changing, refining etc. To make a game successful, all of these aspects need to come together seamlessly and effectively, and most of all it needs to be fun. That's the whole point to games, isn't it? A form of entertainment, fun beyond all else.
Gameplay/game mechanics are an important factor in making a game fun - how you interact with the environment, how your character moves around, how the UI works and so on. It's all just about trying to outdo one another really, and pushing boundaries opens up new avenues to explore.
Every game company knows that innovation & originality could produce great things but a lot of them aren't willing to invest the time and effort, or just simply can't. Again, money is a factor that can't be ignored. Maybe if we lived forever and money grew on trees, things would be a little different, maybe not economically sound, but different.
http://www.girlsgogames.co.uk/ - I'm quite speechless, I mean honestly.
Sunday, 2 November 2008
It wasn't a pretty sight, let me tell you. Zombie isn't a good look for me so I just turned into a pirate later on. Anyhoo, Game City was pretty good, I am now part of the world record of largest zombie gathering ever :) probably the coldest day ever aswell, I almost joined in the cheesy thriller dance just to keep warm!
Earlier in the day I went to the curry session and heard a talk about film/game classification by the BBFC and what affects their decisions. We had the greatly welcomed curry and then he showed us the naughty scene from 'mass effect' and suffice to say we all just laughed because it was so cheesy.
We briefly checked out the Indie arcade, got stuck on all the games and left. It took us long enough to find though, I don't know if it was just me or the map was a bit awful.
Anyway after the whole freezing zombie world record thing, I changed into my pirate outfit and headed down to the halloween party which was, I have to say, a really good night ^_^
Starting with a free-for-all rock band battle in which the guys from Harmonix did indeed epic fail, this led on to performances by Paul & Storm and then Jonathan Coulton.All three of these guys are "bad-shit awesome" as Paul so elegantly put it. They're definately worth checking out. Then we all sang along to 'Still alive' after some hilarious songs and banter. Worth every penny, I'd say.
Well I have to say, I'm quite taken by this 'New Games Journalism' style of writing. It's so much more interesting than reading any games magazine jam-packed with shallow reviews and glossy page-filling images.
When I started reading Kieron Gillen's Workblog on the subject, I must admit his writing appeared a little arrogant and I would've dismissed him on that first impression alone, but five scrolling minutes later and I'm hooked. He's brilliant.
I read some examples of NGJ - I particularly like 'always_black' - and although it's thoroughly enjoyable to read, I wondered how it would work if everyone started writing like this? I don't think it would. We'd find ourselves over-saturated with poorly executed, soulless attempts.
Also, the subject matter seems to carry heavier issues of social and political matter intertwined with the gamers real life and their virtual gaming world.
It's refreshing, but it doesn't tell the reader about the game, more the gamer. I think it satisfies human curiosity with insights into other peoples lives but ultimately, has it really helped decipher the game? Is this what everyone wants to read? No, but I do. I'm just trying to look at it from an outsiders point of view.
As I don't think I could put it better myself, I'm going to insert an excerpt from Mr.Gillen here:
"What a gamer feels and thinks as this alien construct takes over all their sensory inputs is what’s interesting here, not just the mechanics of how it got there. Games have always been digital hallucinogens – but games journalism has been like chemistry, discussing the binding reactions to brain sites. What I’m suggesting says what it feels like as the chemical kicks in and reality is remixed around you."
"you’ll be interested in it even if you didn’t give a fuck about videogames. While it’s using videogames as its subject, what it’s really talking about is the human condition."
1) The worth of gaming lies in the gamer not the game.
2) Write travel journalism to Imaginary Places.
Personally, I can get really involved in a game, especially one that can invoke emotion. I think that's a target which is worth striving for. That is, perhaps, why I feel I can relate to this style of journalism. It goes beyond the surface comments of 'awesome graphics', 'awesome gameplay' and just 'general awesomeness'. It has depth, soul and the capacity to reach out to more than just gamers.
On the other hand, I understand that magazines have deadlines and they are only really marketing to the gaming community. Their job is to review, say what's good, what's bad, does it live up to any hype. It isn't their job to tell us stories, they have to sell us facts and scores and reasons to spend our cash. I've bought oxm a few times recently and noticed there is a considerable amount of competition in the gaming magazine market. I mean if you're gonna charge £7-£8 for a magazine when you could buy a perfectly good fiction book for that price, then what the hell am I buying it for?
My answer: the demo disk. and a few free gamerpics. That's what swayed it.
And did I buy any of the games they said were a 'must buy'? No. Why? Because I spent all my money on your magazine, that's why.
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Whilst the cost of making games has continued to rise dramatically (up to $40 million), I still find it hard to realise that purchasing a £40-£50 game is actually good value for money. A short exerpt of an article about the current state of economy claimed computer games to be recession-proof and I found myself agreeing.
What have I been doing for the past couple of weeks?
Sitting at home playing videogames and drinking beer (also recession proof)
Erm, I mean working on all of my course projects, obviously....
I found myself asking, why go to the cinema when I've got my immersive games? Why pay so much to get into a club that'll make me deaf, deform my feet from wearing heels and probably end up falling down some stairs when I'd rather do that at home when no ones watching...
It's all about money, it always has been.
It's old news that game companies have finally realised the potential to make more money by appealing to other areas of the market. The next generation of family gaming has welcomed Nintendos Wii console with open arms. Whilst the graphics certainly can't rival microsofts Xbox360 or Sonys Playstation3, Nintendo has realised this and skipped off in a whole different, more innovative direction of its own, making good use out of more interactive technologies of accelorators and motion sensors in the wii remote and touch screen in the Nintendo DS, with both still incorporating the familiar D-Pad.
I'm more of a casual gamer than anything but both of these left me wanting. Quite obviously the Wii is a slightly cheaper but more "fun" investment for parents to buy for their kids. Although I love my DS, I only have one game that I consistently play (Animal crossing). This is because when I go into a game store wondering whether to buy an Xbox game or a Wii/DS game, it's like choosing between going to Butlins or Center Parcs. I know where I'd rather go.
Back to the point though. Games cost increasing amounts of money and the only people losing out are the companies. Which is why we have seen an increase of film based games and sequels. It's a lot harder to start making a game from scratch; there's more of everything involved - more time, money, research etc needed. Using a film franchise or a popular game for a sequel ensures a consumer market already exists therefore is less of a risk to produce.
The more dedicated gamer, however, is always wanting more - new gameplay, even more realistic graphics, the best story ever known to man, the depth of the ocean, smellivision! No matter how brilliant and awesome we think a game is, there's always something newer and ever so slightly better around the corner as the companies continue to strive towards perfection in a critical, competitive & expensive industry.
Sunday, 19 October 2008
I feel like a bit of a fraud trying to write about something I have no knowledge of apart from the writings of other people if that makes sense. Maybe thats why I don't like learning about history, it would be better if I had been there and not just have to look through piles of text books, not that I don't find it interesting though.
Moving swiftly on.
The early eighties saw the introduction of 'pac-man' designed as a break from the many shoot-em-ups, it took on a cartoon style that game designer Moru Iwatani hoped would appeal as much to women as to men. Extremely popular in Japan, it was the first video game to produce merchandise en masse. Back on the computer, the adventure genre renamed "interactive fiction" was proving popular. Based on novels, actions were made using text commands and no graphics! just the power of your imagination, dun dun duuun....
These died out and made way for point-and-clicks with graphic interfaces as seen in the 90's puzzle adventure 'Myst'. I think I got stuck on that, now I feel stupid.
Anyway, these years saw other genres begin to emerge such as the scrolling shooter and racing games, not forgetting the progression of audio in games which plays a large part in creating atmosphere nowadays.
The most popular formats in the early eighties were the 'Commodore 64' in America and 'Sinclair ZX Spectrum' in the UK which would eventually give way for capabilities of higher resolutions and better sound, which are still continual improvements being made today and in the future. A cheaper alternative to these formats was the emergance of handheld games, starting with Nintendo's 'Game & Watch' in 1980 and then their popular 'Gameboy' in 1989.
ZOMGXPLOSION! ......yup, that was the videogame crash of 1983, all because of the rubbish game that was 'E.T. the extra-Terrestrial', well maybe just a part of it. A couple of years later the NES arrives, along with it the blueprint for all controllers produced thereafter; it consisted of a D-pad and two action buttons. More genres emerged as a result, and some of the most popular games series such as 'Final Fantasy' (RPG), 'Legend of Zelda', 'Metal Gear' (stealth) and 'Sweet Home' (survival horror) which admittedly, I've never heard of.
The 90's introduced internet gaming with multiplayer capable games and simple browser-based games whereas coin-operated arcades were on the downfall as people just waited for them to be available on consoles instead. Later on in the decade, Sonys playstation arrived as the main competitor for all consoles at that time. CD format was now the norm, apart from the 'Nintendo 64' which was still a success but none quite so as the Playstation.
Ps. I forgot to put 'Sims' in somewhere....Sims ftw.
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
In comparison, the next notable computer game was created by William Higginbotham in 1958. This game was called 'Tennis for two' and he has been described as a "fun-loving character and self-confessed pinball player", much more the characteristics of a gamer creating something for his passion.
A few years later was the invention of 'Spacewar', made by three students in 1961. Apparently moving clumps of pixels redefined the word "fun". However, from these simple yet addictive games, a whole new form of entertainment was born into arcades and then households worldwide.
The rest of the 60s introduced gaming into the home with Ralph Baers creating the first 'video' game that could be used on a basic television set which led eventually to the founding of Atari and the release of 'Pong' in 1972, the most commonly known of the earliest games. In the late 70's, we saw the introduction of the eternally infamous classics such as 'Space invaders' by taito, 'Asteroids' and 'Pac-man' with these retro icons bringing a sense a nostalgia to the more "mature" gamer.
http://jennskistudio.blogspot.com/ by a graphic designer/ artist
It seems like she's promoting websites, products and designers she likes whilst mixing in a bit of her own life and what she's all about. I think there's almost always a personal opinion included in what people post, after all, you only blog on something that interests you, whether it's like or dislike.
There seems to be quite a heavy use of images which are always good as a visual stimulator to help keep things interesting and get your point across.
She writes every few days, so enough for dedication but not on the obsessive side.
Personally I find it quite easy to write a blog. There's not too much pressure, you can take your time and sure, I know other people are going to read this but it doesn't bother me too much because I can't see them reading it, I can't hear them saying "what the hell is she on about?" so I pretty much feel at ease.