Life Changing or Career Building?

The games industry is a very fast moving and evolving industry, especially in the graphical department. For people that want to get into this part of the industry, it means that they have to have a lot of knowledge of multiple programs and engines as minimum requirements, such as Photoshop, 3DS Max, CryEngine etc. Knowledge of extra programs is also a bonus, programs like Zbrush or Mudbox, maybe even some scripting knowledge. To top this off, these programs are often updating and changing, or new ones may come along, and its up to you to ensure you stay up to date with this moving technology, if you want to stay employable. Obviously fundamental art skills are also essential, and this is something you're only ever going to improve at with more and more time spent on it, so that's a skill that kind of works on it's own.



I've always had the mindset of figuring out what I love doing first, and then finding a way to make it pay the bills. One problem I find with starting an art based careers is that art isn't taken as seriously as it should be in the school curriculum. For pretty much my entire time at school we were told to look at an artist and research their life and why they painted what they did, which is fine for studying art, but were never taught the actual fundamentals of art, it was literally 'look at this artist, copy what he did'. Same for stuff like abstract and cubism, having an understanding of fundamental principles, such as perspective and basic composition skills is essential. Because of the lack of teaching in art at school and even A-Level to some degree, the whole first year of my uni course is basically trying to get all these students to a similar degree of understanding in the world of art, before applying it to our own work. This is a whole year of Uni that could have easily been applied by the school curriculum from Year 7 through to 11. Art encompasses everything in the world, everything you see is the result of some sort of combination of artistic elements, whether it be a work of nature or something man made, and yet it's treated as a trivial and unimportant aspect of life, deemed for people who aren't 'smart enough' to study a real career choice. Though my understanding of art and media is still limited because I'm only 20 years old, I still see things such as game or DVD covers, or alleyways or vistas in the real world that I can apply rules to in my head like 'this tree perfectly frames this lake, creating a natural harmony and framing' as a quick example.



As a student who wants to get into the games industry, or at least something that requires a visual design component of some sort now that I've got the BMW internship, I think my course does a good job of providing students with the course outline necessary for developing the basic skill set needed for Visual and 3D Design. Without the first year literally teaching me 90% of the things I now know about art, I would not be able to improve the work I can now, having significantly improved my understanding of things like anatomy and atmospheric perspective. The 3D and technical things we are taught are again the fundamentals; the things I learn to do in 3DS Max 2013 I can apply to 3DS Max 2014, or even Maya if I ever needed; I'm not learning how to use the program exactly, but more learning why what I'm doing is important, and why I shouldn't do it in another way etc. The same applies for Photoshop; It's basically just like painting but with more tools at my disposal.

Creativity, the talent myth and craft

People often compliment my work and say stuff such as 'you're so talented, I could never paint this/I could never understand all this 3D stuff'. It's nice to be complimented on my work, but it's the fact that they seem to think they are incapable of it that perplexes me. People can be born talented, yeah, they just have a natural understanding of something, but it's not like it's something only they can then do. Art is just like every other 'talent' in the world; anyone can pick up a pencil, focus, and become an artist with enough dedication, whether they were born with an instinct to paint or not. People who aren't hindered in any way that would otherwise complicate what they want to do (say, wanting to ride a bike when you're a paraplegic) that can't become good at something are people who simply don't try enough, and I myself am evidence of this. I wanted to learn guitar when I was Thirteen and had a pretty big passion for it. Seven years on and I still play frequently, and is probably more of a hobby than gaming to me. Along the road I wanted to learn drums and keyboard too, gave these a go, but eventually gave up because I wasn't motivated enough. Not because I physically or mentally couldn't do it, but because I couldn't get past those first hurdles of separating bass and rhythm in drumming, having my hands work independently of one another when playing keyboard. I nearly gave up guitar at one point, but I didn't and I stuck with it through sheer determination. If you do something long enough, and acknowledge your mistakes you will eventually get better at it, even without studying into it too much. I have never once tried to properly understand music theory, but I can still play a few improvised licks and riffs simply because I surround myself in music 90% of the time, I even fall asleep with my headphones on every other night.


                                              vs


These two sketches don't prove who's more 'talented', they prove which artist has spent more time on getting better.

My opinion is that talent isn't some magical gift that some people have and others don't. It's something that some people have, and others can work towards if they so wish. To wrap up talent, I would agree being born with some quirky bodily function is a 'talent' such as people that can roll their tongue or whatever it is, but for stuff like painting, music, sports, even being extremely good at something like accounting isn't really a 'talent', it's a passion, people don't tend to be really good at those things if they don't enjoy them.

Moving onto creativity, I think it was Picasso that wisely said 'Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal'. Creativity, much like talent, is highly subjective and open hugely to interpretation and opinion. Sometimes something extremely creative doesn't always equal something that everyone will enjoy. Take Marcel Duchamp for example. He Re-purposed a urinal and called it a work of art, it was highly controversial and rejected, yet it still had a admirers in the art world for it being highly creative.

The world of art has always been a place for conflict and controversy, and always will be, as artists and appreciators of art will continue to agree and disagree over what can be considered ‘art’. In the end it’s entirely a matter of opinion, and what a piece of art means to an individual is truly what defines it as a work of art. For hundreds of years fine art dominated the art scene with multiple movements, such as impressionism, surrealism, pop art and realism filling art galleries across the world. But in the last 30 years, a new art movement has been trying to make itself heard and secure its rightful place on a gallery wall – lowbrow art. Lowbrow is almost exactly what it sounds like, an art movement created to oppose current highbrow art, works from artists such as Mercedes Helnwein and Jenny Saville, as well as older pieces such as Renoir and Constable.

Creativity is always something that is evolving, and it's a wonder that new idea's are popping up in the world of art and beyond where people are saying 'I can't believe I didn't think of that' or 'that's not creative, they've just stolen old ideas'. Coming up with something completely new and original is hard, and often the result of pure chance, which is followed by a lot of research and development.



When I finished my War of the Worlds concept, I was pleased with it as I felt I had gone with an unconventionally styled design that fit the brief, but didn't look like everyone else's designs. I had used reference and inspiration such as insects, organs and skeletal bodies for it, but after I posted it up, someone noted the face resembled Micky Mouse. I love his design, but it hadn't even crossed my mind when making my creature. Even when you don't intend to steal someone else's idea, it still can subcontiously happen.That's not to say everything is stagnant and boring now though. Especially in the games industry. Every now and then you get that breath of fresh air from that one company that decided to take a bold leap with a new IP, and it paid off. This game would've been pitched as a very vague idea by one person in the company, and as a team, the creative directors would work together to finalize the concept, then work with their team to expand these ideas. The creativity isn't limited to one person; everyone's sharing the same creative vision, but that's not to say everyone will come out with identical ideas. The beauty of it is that you come out with hundreds of ideas formed by very different minds, all working under the same pitch, and this is what would make the game so unique. Take Halo for example. Bungie were its creators, they conceptualized everything about it, but now it's handled by 343i, and yet, it still mostly feels, looks and sounds like Halo. These people at 343i knew what made Halo iconic and they worked from it to create new, fresh ideas that didn't completely break the lore and settings already established. Mirror's Edge was another game that took everyone by surprise. It was made by Dice. The company that have done basically nothing but the Battlefield series, and yet here was this incredibly different and invigorating game that broke so many established conventions, a true example of creative vision leading creative and talented passionate individuals towards a unified goal.



Personally, I feel I'm loosening up and becoming more creative, just letting ideas creep up on me when I least suspect it. Back when I was around 5 or so, I would be drawing things from my head all the time, and never what was around me. Nowadays it seems to have reversed. I remember designing 40 or so monsters, then fusing them into 20, then 10 and so on until I had one ultimate monster drawn down that was an amalgamation of all these other monsters I had drawn. Now, I find it hard to think up 10 massively different creatures. Towards the end of the year though I just kind of let go, and ran with wherever my mind took me, especially with the war of the worlds project. In which I listened to the HG Wells broadcast about 5 times over, just constantly listening and out of nowhere drawing several new tripod concepts each time. Hopefully I'll be able to continue these loose sketches over summer to really develop my ability to churn out idea after idea.

An introduction to the Games Industry

The games industry has literally appeared out of nowhere in the past 50 years and skyrocketed to the top of the media industry, now being the leading form of entertainment, with no signs of letting any other form surpass it. Back when it was a small, very niche industry, a development team literally consisted of 4 or 5 people working together, with perhaps 1 or 2 of them managing it. Now, a company consists of hundreds of employees, even more if you include the outsourcing the company does to freelancers or partner companies.The roles each employee does has also become more and more specific; this is no longer an industry where knowing a little bit of everything would land you a job, now you have to be extremely specialized in at least one area, and be competent in relevant areas.

It's still an industry that isn't always taken seriously though or fully understood. My parents still don't fully understand exactly what I'm studying despite trying to countless times, and the amount of times I've told someone I'm studying 'Game Art Design' only for them to reply 'oh so you make games and stuff, you should totally make...' even after me explicitly stating that I would only be doing things to do with the visual side of games. The games industry is always seen as a kind of lax industry, which isn't helped by certain games journalists equally lax way of reporting things (and tending to believe whatever they hear about the industry). Truth is, even if the office environment is more casual than usual, (with good reason, working on games should be every employees dream), it's still an industry. And industries can be volatile and dangerous places. If a movie bombs at the box office, it's usually alright, Hollywood can afford a few flops. If a game doesn't do as well as hoped, the whole studio could be shut down as a result. Sometimes working conditions can be so tight and difficult to work with the company has to shut down because the employees could no longer work under such conditions.

For me, knowing what works for me and doesn't is essential to getting a job. I know that I'm not the best character artist, nor do I know all the secret tricks and tips to 3DS Max and Texturing to the best of my ability (yet). But I do know that I'm getting better at environment art and my 3D modelling is coming along nicely. I'm obviously hoping to improve what I'm less confident in, to adhere to the 'T-shaped employee' model and be skillful all round, but I know I'm a lot more confident at environmental stuff than character or vehicle (I would say character is my weakest). Because of this, I'm planning on honing my skills at rendering environments, and modelling environmental assets. After the group project, I've also come to realise the importance of sharing work (and if things fail, the blame) and just generally co-operating well as a team to ensure everything gets done to the best of our ability because at the end of the day, it's not your own work. Sure, you worked on it, but collectively it's a team effort and should be treated as such.

Elements of game technology, part three: interaction design

Interaction Design is a key element of Game Design. After all; if it's not interactive, it's not a game.
In the past, many game console companies have been experimenting with different types of controllers for their consoles. The Nintendo Wii, although outdated now, produced the most promising motion sensor controller. They took the primitive, clunky technology of their previous motion sensing controller; the Powerglove, and made it slightly less primitive and clunky... Slightly. I would say the latest contender for this kind of technology is with the company 'Razer', who have better utilized the idea with their Hydra. Although some say it's just as bad.

Wii Remote (left) Razor Hydra (Right)

The problems with the Wii remote, similar to the Hydra, were that the responsiveness was very hit and miss; which made games such as Wii Boxing extremely frustrating. As a matter of fact, I can remember several times when I would be playing Wii Boxing and throwing my fists out desperately whilst my Mii (avatar) would keep his fists pressed to his chest and simply lurch forward.
Shortly after the Wii was released Microsoft decided that it needed to compete with Nintendo's motion sensor technologies, and so the Kinect was developed for the XBox. The Kinect was a motion sensor device that allowed the player to interact with games without the aid of a controller. It also taught the games industry a valuable lesson: games need controllers!
                                      
The problem with XBox Kinect was pretty similar to the problem with the Wii remote: a severe lack of responsiveness. If a controller only responds half the time; the game is essentially unplayable. At least with the Wii remote and Nunchuck there were buttons and a thumb stick which the player could use to reliably perform certain tasks in the games they were playing. Whereas with the Kinect, the motion sensor was all the player had. This made even the simplest of tasks; such as navigating a menu, seem pointlessly difficult.

I can see why games companies tried to push the use of motion sensor technology; the idea of physically acting out a video game does sound a lot more engaging than simply sitting on a couch with a hunk of plastic covered in buttons in your lap. But the simple truth is that the technology is not nearly advanced enough yet for motion sensor technology to work reliably in games. Admittedly though, once you get past the motion sickness, the Occulus Rift has been a great success, in terms of allowing further immersion into a game environment. However, even that needs some kind of better developed motion sensor equipment to make your immersion more believable. Otherwise your head is immersed but your legs are stationary and your hands are glued to a controller or keyboard still.

As we can see above looking back through the history of game consoles, the two handed controller has been around for decades, and Console companies have spent a lot of money on refining their designs; trying to make them as ergonomic as possible. An ergonomic design is crucial for gaming controllers for several reasons: one; if a controller is so uncomfortable to hold that the player can only use it for so long before their hands ache, the controller and any other components that come with it (i.e. the console) are unlikely to sell all that well. Another issue with an uncomfortable controller is that it could cause repetitive strain in the hands which, if severe enough, could result in a lawsuit against the company.
 
An awkwardly designed controller can cause not only wrist/ hand pain, but can also make games more difficult to play.

A good example of this is the Atari 5200 controller (Above). It's design was so poor that it made games such as Pitfall Harry essentially unplayable. Not to mention the fact that the materials that were used in the controller were so cheap and brittle, that the controller would degrade extremely quickly; buttons crumbled, the casing cracked easily, and the joystick didn't center itself when released. After reading about controllers such as the 5200, it's easy to see why Atari went bankrupt. So in conclusion, nothing I've seen produced so far can match a standard ergonomic controller, as it's always been the key to easy, reliable interactivity. Granted their is equiptment starting to arise now such as the Occulus, that allows for further emersion of the senses, but nothing that has conquered them all.

Elements of Game Technology, part two: sound for games

Since the beginning of gaming, sound has been instrumental in conveying elements of story, tension and key areas of interest.  Everyone has a few songs that are utterly unforgettable and hold a lot of emotional connotations, whether from games or TV shows.  They're also a great way to indicate something about to happen, like an incoming danger, or a discovery, or even just dawn.



The above video shows how the Super Mario song 'Starman' has evolved over the last 30 years.

Sound, like graphics, are two elements in games that seem to have developed at a steady pace alongside one another. Much like 8 bit theme tunes are coupled with 8 bit graphics, operatic scores are common elements in video games nowadays. Sound is something that I feel is hugely under appreciated in games, as people don't always realise or fully grasp the effort that goes into it sometimes. For instance, I feel that Call of Duty has terrible sound effects in comparison to it's bigger, louder brother, Battlefield. Within Call of duty everything sounds horrifically toned down and lacking impact, especially the sound effects behind explosions and gunfire. In a game that prides itself on immersive fighting in the middle of battle fields, you'd expect the sound effects to have a bit more umph. Which is definitely something you see achieved better in the Battlefield series, and they are undoubtedly dubbed high quality games because of it. Fancy graphics and UI aren't everything.



Admittedly, audio doesn't always have to rely on sounding realistic though, and indeed companies don't always try and strive for rich sound to sell a game. Take Flappy Bird for example. An extremely minimal game in every sense, but nonetheless addictive than common AAA titles. The graphics in Flappy Bird are extremely minimal, it's literally block colours with parallax scrolling, similar to early Mario (but we wont go into that). Similarly and more importantly the sound in the game is also simple. In fact  the creator Dong Nguyen didn't even include music into the game, just the flapping of wings and the occasionally 'smack' when you hit something, and the game still manages to immerse you and is as well played as many reining titles. Just like Battlefield's realistic audio immerses you in the realistic warfare, Flappy Birds minimal audio does an equally, if not better job, at immersing you in its world, simply because it's easier to develop an immersive, stylised, well thought out world than try emulate real life, the most complex thing in existence.



I checked out Nile Rogers 'Good Times' and I had no idea Queen and Daft Punk had used it. It's one of those songs that I could recognise straight away, but I couldn't think of it's name or producer if put on the spot. However I don't think it's the most influential piece of music ever.  Being sampled a lot doesn't make it influential, it just makes it accessible and reusable. Sound effects also have to be memorable.  Everyone has certain sound indicators that resonate with them - the Zelda puzzle solving sound is very much ingrained in my memory to be associated with success.



It may be because of my love of music, but I feel music is just as important as every other aspect of a game when playing it. I remember feeling so shocked when my friends would say that they were listening to music while playing a game, multi player or single player. It's like playing the very sombre Dear Esther while blasting Cyprus Hill, incredibly jarring and immersion breaking. In an extreme case of sound over game play, I guess you could say simple games like Castle Crashers for Xbox arcade or even the fast pace Runner 2 are driven by the background music. In those types of games where music helps the pace of the game, it's hard to imagine what game play would be like without those fun and bouncy songs accompanying it. So to conclude, sound is a harnisable tool to help boost atmosphere or immersion in a game. However there is no black and white with it, some games manage just fine with little to no sounds, and some games are even games based on it, Beatmania, Guitar Hero, Audio Surf to name a few.