Rants about digital arts, photography and university.

It’s interesting to note how Oblivion mirrors The Lord of the Rings. I had never really thought about that connection, even though it’s quite obvious.  The towers in Oblivion quite clearly mirror the landscape of Mordor and the environment of the entire game pretty much goes hand-in-hand with the imagined aesthetics of Middle-Earth.  It does, however, more explicitly depict the 19th century-like world that it represents.

The article suggests that it’s odd that one would spend the time and effort to create a character personalized to the extent that is possible and never see the character’s face in game.  It does go into the experience this offers players that are fans of the genre, but personally, I didn’t even really know what the genre was about when I first played Oblivion and I still enjoyed the level of control in the character creation.  I think it helps to create a relationship with the digital model, knowing that it’s personalized to such an extent that it’s unlikely that anybody else playing the game has a character that is exactly the same.  Also, I think the fact that the main character isn’t fleshed out is a good thing.  It allows the player to feel like they are the character, instead of controlling a character.

The discussion of the landscape makes a lot of sense.  Part of the appeal of games like Oblivion is that the environment is so vast that the player really develops a relationship with it through exploration.  The fact that it is so immersive and that it is split up into two distinct worlds creates an interesting dynamic where the player feels excited about seeing new parts of the world.  The fact that the player almost seems to play against the landscape of Oblivion is also quite satisfying.  There are, in a sense, boss battles within the world of Oblivion, but once an Oblivion gate is closed it truly does feel more like the gate and the world on the other side were the opponents, rather than the characters within them.  The commentary against the industrial landscape is pretty obvious too.

I don’t know why we look at any sort of change in technology, or in my case art, as aberrant.  I think changes in videogames, as in any other medium, are just a form of evolution and aren’t necessarily good or bad.

To say that one form or aesthetic is better than another doesn’t really make sense to me, especially in the realm of arts and entertainment. In reality, these things are incredibly subjective and can’t be evaluated in such strict terms.  As video games progress, we probably will see mainstream games increasing their use of high resolution models and textures, reaching for the apex of realism, whilst others will push the technology in other directions, focusing on the mechanics and dynamics of the game, using the hardware to process interaction rather than aesthetics.

We will probably also see changes in the interfaces we use.  That isn’t to say that the NES’s old, gigantic joystick is a bad thing, or even its regular game pads, it just means that we’re capable of doing other things as well, and that these new technologies may or may not be fun and interesting to use.  I personally don’t mind playing Mario on a d-pad and two buttons, but who knows, I might find it fun to do the jumping for real every once in a while.

Conservative and progressive viewpoints are pretty much irrelevant, in my opinion, when it comes to art, games and entertainment, if for no other reason than people wanting new, interesting things and companies wanting to turn a profit. Just because the kinect is out and the wii fit is replacing your gym doesn’t mean you have to throw out your N64.  I still love playing Super Smash Bros. for N64, regardless of how much “better” the new consoles are.

I’ve found myself emotionally impacted by games a few times.  Most recently, I’ve been quite distressed by Skyrim on a couple occasions.  The first was when my housecarl Lydia got killed in battle. When I noticed, I restarted from my previous save and made sure to tell her to stay back so that I could attempt to take our opponents out on my own.  This has also happened when either my dog, Vigilance, or my horse have been killed.  Every time, I feel guilty for not protecting them.

So I’m upgrading my computer.  I currently use an intel Core 2 Quad Q9300, an NVidia Quadro FX 3700, 10gb ram and a Gigabyte EP45-UD3L motherboard.  My upgrade is going to replace everything except my beloved GPU and instead add a second.

You see, I spend a lot of time using software like ZBrush, Maya and SketchBook Designer, so my parents bought me a Cintiq 12wx for christmas.  When it came time to hook it up, I realized I didn’t have any DVI ports left to plug it into, since I already use two monitors (which is one of the best things I have ever done to improve my workflow speed in almost anything).   So I tried to figure out a way to make it work.  Turns out that the only way to work comfortably (without having to disconnect and reconnect things) is to have a second GPU. This turned out to be a problem, because my current motherboard only has a single PCI-E x16 slot, which is already in use by my current GPU.

So I figured I’d have to find myself a new mobo.  Turns out it’s impossible to find a new ATX motherboard with the LGA775 socket anymore. All that I could find were a few m-ATX boards, none of which had more than one PCI-E x16 slot.  I considered a PCI-E x1, or PCI compatible card, but nothing I could find was up to the task of running heavy digital content creation (DCC) applications.  I also didn’t feel comfortable buying a used mobo.  I know that I probably could have found one, and it could have been great, but for what some might call “mission critical” applications (a lot of what I do relies on me having a functioning, high-powered desktop), I don’t feel comfortable using hardware with an unknown past.  I am a strong believer in recycling and reusing stuff, and I’ve been dumpster-diving for computer bits before, but not for my main machine.  I also believe that, in the long run, buying high-quality parts is an investment, rather than an expense.

So it was starting to look like I would have to replace my motherboard with one that had a newer socket, which would mean a new processor, which both meant new RAM. Essentially, everything would need to be replaced but my GPU. In the end, it all works out, though. I’ve always planned on building a small render farm, and I already have a couple computers networked to get it up and running, so I plan on buying a cheap case, hard drive and gpu to add to the old parts and adding that to my little farm.

In the end, I got myself a Core i5 2500 (decided against the k, because I don’t want to overclock anyway), an MSI P67a-G43 mobo (which has two PCI-E x16 slots, which will work at x16 and x8 with the two cards in) and 12GB of G.Skill DDR3 1333mhz Ram.

And then? I had to find a GPU.

For the longest time, I’ve been using workstation GPUs, because even though I love games, what’s more important to me is to be able to run the software necessary to build them and create 3d artworks.  In the past I’d chosen pro cards because I’d seen benchmarks showing that their performance in the software I use was better.  This time I wondered if I should try to do one of those hacks I’d heard about where one can turn a GeForce into a Quadro.  Well, after reading this: http://www.leadtek.com/eng/support/faq.asp?faqlineid=44 and www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_geforce.html I decided that I should stick to the Quadro line.

Basically, people tend to ask themselves why they should get the Quadro when the GeForce specs seem to be higher for a much lower price.  After reading both of those, I seem to understand that the quadros are heavily optimized to work well with wireframes, with multiple windows, with clipping planes with specific DCC apps and a few more things that games don’t require.

Essentially, when you play a game, the entire screen is covered in a single 3d scene.  Even when you bring up menus, they are still part of the same context.  One thing that seemed quite important in those two texts (in the links) is that the GeForce cards are optimized to work well when they only have that single context to take care of.  When it comes  to combining multiple 2d and 3d contexts, such as the multiple viewports and numerous menus that one finds oneself using in a program like maya, 3ds max, etc… (or multiple instances of these) the GeForce can’t handle the work nearly as well as a Quadro. Also important is that the ability to antialias lines and points seems to be built into the Quadro hardware.  This means that it doesn’t have to do full screen AA to keep a wireframe and vertices looking good, and this consequently results in better performance in DCC apps.

So, after all that, I decided I’d add another Quadro to my lineup and got myself the Quadro 600.  I didn’t think I’d need anything as hefty as the Quadro FX 3700 I already had, since it was going to be for a single monitor, and a small one at that, but still seemed like an excellent card if for some reason I did someday add a fourth, small display.

Can’t wait to get working with the Cintiq on a regular basis!

So the idea seems to be that theory allows for practice which in turn refines theory.  And experimental practices inspire re-theorizing and turning new practices into common ones, where the new theory succeeds.  It’s all mildly confusing, but very logical.

I like the idea that MIT students are talking about using games in the classroom to master the content of their curriculum.  I also appreciate the fact that the article discusses the idea that a person is not turned into a psycho killer through games, and associates it with the fact that nobody has been turned into a scientist or anything else through the medium of gaming.  In that context, however, it’s also interesting to see what aspects of gaming can be applied to altering a person’s mind within the frame of a classroom.  The fact that gaming is a sort of simulation would allow for concepts taught in class to be experienced in a real-world-like environment.

It’s interesting to consider the implications of a game as a social environment and the idea of illuminative tensions.  I personally find the idea of collaboration versus competition to be a very interesting topic, but the analysis of offline vs online gameplay is also fascinating.  In the end, they’re somewhat interrelated, though, in that web-based gameplay fosters collaboration, whereas offline play is more conducive to competition, in that the person is always playing against the game/programmer.

I love that the article mentions Battlezone. That used to be one of my favorite games. At the time, I had no idea that it was probably the first first-person game, probably because at that point, there were so many other first person games that existed.  Lunar lander was another of my favorites. Interestingly, though, I had found a version with updated graphics that a friend and I used to play online.

I like the idea of presence derived from social interactions within a game. I think that in this era of gaming, the internet and the communications between people within the game environment play a huge role in creating each individual’s presence in the game.  When events take place within that game environment, the fact that people can interact with those causing/taking part in those events allows the game to really bring every user into the game. It’s not just a simulation anymore, in the way that most games are, it’s partly simulation and largely interaction. The interaction, I believe, plays a huge role when considering the concept of “Presence” within games.

The discussion on realism is another that I find really interesting.  Largely because it’s one of the main factors I consider when buying a game. I’ll often look up a game online to make sure that graphically, there aren’t any problems with it. One of my favorite things to do in any game is to just walk around the environment, exploring the artists’ world and enjoying the adventure. I absolutely hate it when things pop up that don’t make sense, such as the end of the world, or models that are placed in such a way that I can tell that they are a model, and not a “real” environment (like when poor camera scripting reveals an empty rock, or things collide and pass through each other etc).  I’d say that one game (though I wasn’t exactly a huge fan of it) that did this well is Crysis. The leaves moved when you walked through them, the environments deformed flawlessly, the lighting was magnificent and the world was pretty vast.

Our team is:

• Marcos
• Michele
• Raphael

Our idea:

A puzzle game with a twist.  The story is still a bit vague, but the idea is that you find yourself in a steampunk-like warehouse with some crazy machine attached to your arm.  As you play with this machine, you find that it can copy and paste material properties. You use this to try and navigate through the maze-like environment.

Some features we plan on implementing:

• Incentive to explore by adding objects around the levels to collect
• Potentially a time limit of some sort to create a sense of urgency and excitement
• A story.

Our planning document can be found here.

So, the last couple responses I wrote by picking and choosing passages that I found interesting and writing about them as I went through the texts. I’ll try to do this one differently, just… commenting in one block in no particular order.

So, I thought the question at hand in the article to be quite interesting. I definitely think I agree with Dr. Kee. I find it almost strange how Dr. Rockwell refuses to think of serious games as games.  I think the thing that struck me the most is when they brought up Flight Simulator.  Sure, it can (and has been) used to help train pilots, but it can be more than just a training mechanism. I used to play that game for hours on end! Not because I wanted to be a pilot, but because I enjoyed the thought and experience of flying.

I think the best way for me to go about reasoning this question is to say that I believe that if there is some element of entertainment, regardless of how small it may be, even the most serious of games can still be considered a game.  September 12th is a good example. It’s not exactly a super-exciting-mega-fun-awesome-game. But there is a form of entertainment behind it. Even if you quickly discard it and start thinking about the message, it still has an element of entertainment.

I also think that the initial question of whether or not a game can be educational isn’t properly phrased. I think any game can be educational in that you’re learning -something- from it. Whether that something applies to what our society, through time, has determined to be worthwhile academic subjects is questionable, but doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile.  I think what Dr. Rockwell had in mind when presenting the question is something more along the lines of “Can games be applied to academic subjects?” Or something like that.

On an ending note… I used to love reader rabbit.

As I read through the section comparing traditional media and games, I’m not entirely sure how to react. I believe that traditional media to a certain extent can be simulational. I think they can make you feel like you are living out an event that isn’t part of your reality. Take an IMAX film, for example… It’s not a game, there isn’t any sort of back and forth between the media and the audience, but you can leave the theatre feeling like you flew a fighter jet. Sure, watching a soccer match might not be simulational in teh way that a video game is, but in some other ways, it is.  There are people out there who get so engrossed in the soccer match they’re watching that they feel the emotions that the players on the field do when they are, for example, the victim of a poor call by the ref, or a violent foul. I would say that it’s a different sort of simulation, because with games, the users are engaged in creating the simulation, whereas films and television can only “simulate” a defined series of events. To me, the comparison with watching a soccer match and claiming that this activity doesn’t simulate playing soccer and cannot convey the feeling of a match begs the question: does a video game get any closer? I used to play a lot of soccer and it was an important part of my life, and I can tell you that when playing any one of the FIFA games, I don’t get anything like the sensation of playing real soccer. That’s not to say that I don’t experience anything at all, but I would suggest that they aren’t comparable.

I guess I’m arguing against something somewhat irrelevant, but I just wanted to point out that I believe it was a poorly chosen example. Maybe the idea was to relate this to the actual game of soccer and not the simulation in a video game? Not sure… Anyway…

I like the bit about advergames, because I just saw something today that I would never have expected: a video game by BMW. And… it’s not a videogame that happens to have the BMW logo stamped on it somewhere. It’s actually a 3d, flash-based game that you can play on the BMW website.  It’s pretty pixelated, but really nicely presented, and even with the pixelation, I’d say the art is quite nice.  I’d say that creating that sort of experience, with the attachment that people get to games and trying to get better scores and such, is probably much more effective than sticking an ad in a magazine, as described, with pictures of the newest gizmos and gadgets.

I like the quote that “you never step in the same video game twice.” The beauty behind the simulation in a game is that you can play it over and over and work through it differently.  I also liked the following discussion on simauthors.  The thing is, the text refers to this “simauthor” who creates a world where there are a number of different potential outcomes, but makes it clear that these have their biases.  I like the reference to cutscenes and hard-coding and how the “fate” of the story can be variable. In some games, the outcome is more clearly defined than others.

It’s interesting that the author presents one of the differences between a “narrauthor” and a “simauthor” as a risk in giving away part of the control over the work.  The simauthor, who is essentially the team that creates the game, and potentially more specifically the programmers that write the rules, loses control over the story by creating the game.  Even if the storyline is strictly controlled, by the very nature of it being a game, it can be experienced in different ways and the narrative is changed.

In the section that goes over ludus rules and paidia rules, I feel like I personally associate better with paidia. The author tells us that ludus is the form that more strictly adheres to a single narrative, a win-lose scenario.  Paidia defines rules that are more open ended. They affect the way someone navigates through the game but don’t actually affect the outcome as far as narrative is concerned.  From what I’ve understood, I would say that the idea of Paidia rules are more closely related to game mechanics, whereas the addition of each/any ludus rule more strictly defines the narrative, its outcome and how it is meant to be interpreted.

Once I got to the end, I was glad he said that simulation is merely an alternative to narration and not its replacement, because I think narration is important too, if for no other reason than presenting clear messages with specific origins.  I personally find that the idea of simulation, especially in its ability to open up a story to multiple outcomes is more interesting as a whole, but definitely not enough to entirely steal the stage.

I had forgotten we were supposed to write responses on all these articles! Well. Catching up now.

So. I love the way this article starts. With the little girl yelling at the guy in the arcade. Because when I first read the article, I’d been playing Robot Unicorn Attack right before and I’d had some system notification from windows and gotten surprisingly angry. The little notification noise distracted me briefly and I ended up losing a wish (life). Not like it really matters, but it bugged me. And then made me laugh.

Anyway. I love this kid, Jarish. The fact that he’s not just playing the games but actually looking into how they work is awesome.  It reminds me a bit of the times when I’d mess around with the old Need for Speed files. You could go into the program files and find a file that listed all the properties used by the physics engine. By modifying the file you could change things like the cars’ weights and other stuff. I used to play around with those files and see what would happen if I pushed the settings to the extremes.

I also found it interesting to read about the origins of games. I’d read about space wars before, but never thought much about it as far as the development of games.  It’s interesting to me to think that the first computer game was a two player game, since I keep thinking that creating a two player game for this class would be more difficult than creating a single-player game. To play online we’d have to figure out how to set up some sort of server for it and I remember being a little uncomfortable playing two player games in front of one computer (two people on the keyboard or something) back when I was younger.

I like the line, “Not everyone wants to be around the perfect mirror. Some people dislike what they experience as the precision, the unforgivingness of mathematics.” After the section about Jimmy, who finds his own perfection in the game, by finding that 10 minutes slot where he can play the game perfectly, it’s interesting to consider that some people see only their flaws when they play a video game. And it’s in part because the computer does not make mistakes. The programs run purely on mathematical logic, so 8×8 will always ==64. They know that if something is going wrong for them in the game, it’s due to their own failings, because the game is always doing “the game” right. That particular bit is probably what keeps me thinking the most after reading the article.