The Thing

When I first saw the title of the film ‘The Thing’ I thought “this is going to be one of them cliché horror movies” and I was kind of dreading watching the rest of it. Set in the 1980’s however it was pretty good for its time. It’s all about an alien like creature that attacks a bunch of guys at a research institution in Antarctica. It starts actually attacking a dog that the team decides to keep at first, they manage to kill it and analyse it. They don’t know what it is however, which I think is where the title comes from because it is just a ‘thing’. They know however that it can imitate anything, in which adds a lot of suspense to the film because anyone of them at anytime could be the ‘thing’. So basically they are all against each other not knowing who to trust. They find out that the blood of the creature reacts with heat/fire in which it leads to them all carrying out a test with everyone’s blood samples. Apparently the creature was dug out of the ice after who knows how long, maybe suggesting they have been fused with the ice in some way because to me it only makes logical sense that heat would make the blood jump... right? Anyway they go on to literally tie everyone to a chair as they are carrying out this so they can kill them straight away if it is proven they are the ‘thing’. It’s done in such a funny way, they are all so nervous of each other and more tension and suspense is built up to each point they get the result. It’s one of them that makes you feel nervous with them and makes you think how you would react if you was in this situation. They know however that they must kill this thing before its gets out to outside world and takes over the globe and killing everyone and everything in the process.

It a funny film throughout which to me is good to have because I don’t really like films which are always serious about everything, I don’t think there is a film that doesn’t have a funny moment in it, but it’s better to see it more often than not because it gives you something to smile about and to me keeps the viewer (such as me, interested!). It’s basically about a bunch of guys running around an institute in the middle of nowhere trying to get rid of some ‘thing’ threatening to take over the world, it’s basically up to them to save the world. I like those movies and programs on TV where the concept of it the entire time is based in one place, it makes it more fun in my opinion and we get to see more of each character as no new ones are thrown in. This to me now makes me try to remember seeing any women in this film... I don’t recall seeing one and if there was then I certainly don’t remember it, think this is the only movie were there wasn’t one woman in it, this to me adds to the funniness of the film more because it’s a bunch of guys in the middle of nowhere trying to kill something that they don’t have any knowledge of but they must get rid of it before the situation becomes worse, but with no women in there, so there’s no one to make peace and to tell them what idiots they are acting like at certain points of the movie.

Some of the props and creature designs in the movie were good for the time of the 1980’s, there’s that one scene where the doctor shoves in hand into the creature to pull out its organs and see what’s inside so they can analyse the ‘thing’, it’s very gory and makes you want to throw up but it’s makes this ‘thing’ more creepy and scary making the funniness of the overall film better. There’s that one memorable scene where the alien head is trying to get away and it uses its tongue to escape after its body was just incinerated by a flamethrower, after it tries to get away it grows legs, transforming into a spider like creature, which says to me they took bugs as an inspiration to the design of this ‘thing’. We’re always being told that nicking other people’s ideas is a great way to producing our own thing and I think that was a clear yet great example. To me I thought it was a lot more funny than scary and I would actually regard it as one of the best movies I’ve seen.

Blade Runner

Never really understood what was going on in this film. From what I know it’s about some guy whose retired but comes out of retirement to catch these things known as ‘replicants’ which are illegal to create. Basically the ‘replicants’ are clones of humans but they don’t live forever, I guess this is because they could become dangerous and start destroying stuff so they have a fixed lifespan to counter that potential danger. I thought this was a more new film from the 21^st century, I didn’t think it was from the 1980’s at all, I guess its just the new digital age we live in able to re-master everything to look new.

It’s one of those movies I’d never go to see if I’m honest, but it’s the same with games, there’s certain ones I’d never touch. Everyone would probably say that how could I not like a film like this being a Game Art student. Its science fiction set in the future with robots etc. Well set in the future with all kinds of technological robots and stuff, sounds a lot like Halo is? You know all those wars going and fighting going on and blah blah blah... Its funny how when I look at the poster for the movie I think of that kid of thing and would automatically think “this isn’t for me” and “I won’t enjoy this”. And didn’t really, we can’t like every film we see and the same is for games.

I think that there’s too many game and movies that are similar, not saying they are bad but it’s like just repeating an idea that’s already been done over and over in different variations of it, I don’t want to see it over and over again one is enough for me, and that’s what I’m like with films and games now-a-days, I watch or play a game and don’t come back to watch or play it again or at least for a few years. Maybe getting a bit off topic here but that’s just the way it is, if I was around in the 1980’s when this movie was out ad I was offered to go see it, I would decline straight away, but it’s like living in the modern age of gaming, if someone offered to buy me Call of Duty or Halo or whatever, I’d decline straight away, if the ask me why I’d probably say that I’ve already played Grand Theft Auto and it’s basically the same thing and enough for me.

Everything I feel is just a repeat of Pac-Man which is funny because we discussed this not long ago how a game like Halo is basically a modified version of Pac-Man. Another important factor in this film is that it’s one of them dark gloomy looking films throughout, which I’m not a fan off at all. They are some certain instances when I don’t mind these kinds of setting but in film definitely not, in game a bit more likely because in game you control what’s going on, and interactivity is what makes gaming better for me rather than just having to sitting there for ages watching a film. I know I ramble on about this a lot but that’s just me really.

We did talk about the elements of environments within games not long ago, I sort of said that everything in a game or movie or whatever is created to try and make an impact on the person viewing or playing, for me though, as soon as I see the front cover a game, I’ll automatically think this is or isn’t something I’d play, I really shouldn’t judge books by covers as they say but for me that’s just the way it’s gone and is now, just like with this movie.

The ending to the movie is something of which I don’t forget but it's about as much as I can remember, I think it all comes down to the main character having to kill the last remaining replicate and it’s so close to killing the main character but doesn’t! The main character is hanging off a ledge and the robot thing doesn’t kill him! WHY?! They never take the chance, they always mess around and then they are the ones who are killed. The same thing is games though, can’t say I’ve seen this done a few times, but for me games have an excuse to end good, because you’ve actually got someone playing through the game and they aren’t going to be rewarded at the end if the character gets killed are they? But in films... well you can’t exactly be rewarded for sitting there and watching can you? Maybe that’s why they invented interactive DVD’s to compete with gaming more, you know if you beat a quiz and it shows you extra scenes? It’s just doesn’t work for me though. I find that maybe games and films take stuff from each other and that some games are inspired by movies and vice versa, they all can have different directions and everyone has different likes and dislikes, it’s just what you like really. We talked about clichés not long ago and I thought that maybe this movie and ending to it was a lot like seeing manga on Deviant Art really...

I am Cyborg, But That's OK

I am Cyborg, but that’s OK... the title itself it very weird, it’s something you would here being said in a sentence, obviously not in real life but in a fantasy movie maybe, but not a title of a movie. Seems we’ve been watching a lot of foreign films lately, this one being Korean made me wonder what we were in for. I’d never seen a Korean film before so this was a change. The title of it sort of suggests it’s going to be a comedy, being funny and quirky. If it was just called: ‘I am Cyborg’ I would think this to be something more like iRobot (a bit more seriousness to it). That is only talking about the title...

The actual plot is about a girl who believes she is a cyborg. At first she is working in a factory and attempts to recharge herself by cutting her wrist and connecting it to a power outlet. This is what would replace food as for a human. She then is taken to a metal institute because of what was seen as an attempted suicide and then wants revenge on the people that had taken her away.

While there, there is this other guy that is just as crazy as she is. He wears rabbit masks and starts to brush his teeth. Later he tries to help the girl (young-goon) because she won’t eat, which is obvious because she thinks she’s a robot. The doctors or men in white as they are described give her shock treatment; I think that must indicate they don’t know how she got in there in the first lace and the fact that she would take that as being recharged. She starts to hallucinate and have reoccurring dreams, which for some reason she doesn’t work out that a cyborg cannot have dreams?  (If I’m not mistaken).

The guy in all this however tries to help her by making what they call a ‘rice-megatron’ convincing her it’s a device that converts real food into electrical energy, very funny, this is just one of many jokes they have throughout the movie, it was quite like watching one of them Asian game shows where they have to complete physical challenges, some parts of the film the characters were going crazy in similar ways to these game shows. Some examples where they are running riot around the institution various times and other complete random acts that they did, reminds me so much of Takeshi's castle. One part of the film Young-Goon is shooting at everyone in the institute, it looked like something out of the Terminator, and in fact I think it could have been inspired by that, but the female version of it?

At the end of the film Young-Goon is told that she’s a bomb by her grandmother in which she tries to blow herself up I’m guessing by sitting out in a thunderstorm, but however the guy stops this from happening by putting a cork on the end of the lightning rod they are using, which means he doesn’t want her to die because he has become so attached to her. I never knew that this film was in fact a romantic comedy until after finding out more about it, it was though hard to understand, its foreign meaning you want to watch the acting but to understand more of what going on you have to watch the subtitles. I find this really distracting, because it’s a comedy meaning you want to enjoy the funniness of it but I missed so many parts of it and struggled to understand the main story a lot.

It was a good film but I’d have to watch it over and over again to fully understand it. Oh and she does actually manage to eat something in the end and is applauded for it...

Animation & Deadliest Artist Lectures

When we had the animation lecture I didn’t really think we’d benefit from it being Art students but the guy who came in, actually worked on things like Star Wars Clone Wars is a big thing. He said things about designing characters and what not. He said things like when you’re designing character the limbs of them must be good to animate and he took us all through the process of how to go about animating which at the time I thought was very beneficial until the Gladiator project came along just a few months ago and we had to rig it.

I really struggled with the gladiator project; the rigging I thought was hard to do. Basically it’s about making the skeleton limbs all touch the necessary vertexes of the asset you’ve created. I honesty and truly don’t see a point in this, isn’t this what animators are for? I mean I’ve been told that it makes the animators job easier etc and it checks to make sure that the vertexes are moving correctly as they should but I still think the animators should do this, it should be there job, I mean trying not to complain or anything but I had hard enough time trying to design the geometry and texture the damn thing without this as well... I really don’t enjoy designing characters as anyone could tell.

Hope mine doesn't go this bad next time.

In the deadliest Artist lecture, well it was the Artists from Blitz just showing some their work and everyone just voting for who thought whose was cooler. It was interesting though, it taught us a lot about the importance of fine Art and traditional work. They showed us a lot of sculptures and works of other that they liked, and were inspired by. I remember one girl shouting: “No one really cares about fine Art! Everyone just wants to create cool stuff!” or something like that, I wouldn’t have liked to have been her after the lecturers and one of our tutors hearing that...

But anyway I thought that it was good and some of the works they showed us were just bizarre. I feel that you must first become a professional Artist before you can start producing things that almost make no sense but are seen as great? What I mean is, is that I’ve seen all different kinds of Art work like sculptures, traditional paintings, digital etc but some of it makes no sense to me as in 1998 an Artist called Chris Ofili won the turner prize by painting an image but making it out of elephant dung... I mean really?

Dung Anyone?

There’s lots of Art out there, but so much of it I just don’t understand, I guess things like that do have meaning but you’ve really got to look into it to understand. I remember being in college and thinking about painting I was studying at the time and thinking what they mean, such as The Persistence of Memory by Salvador Dali which is an image I’m obsessed with, people say there’s meaning behind everything in that image but is there really? Some people say that Dali could have just done it because he wanted to, but no one really knows... I think that’s why I like it so much but there’s questions there of what I think still to be answered. It’s kind of like gaming really, all the questions about it haven’t been answered yet and that possibly why I love it so much?

The Persistence Of Memory - Salvador Dali - 1931

Y1 S2 T7 - Presentation – Personal Game Review

One series of games I like is none other than FIFA. What I like about these games is that there’s always a new one out every year and it keeps you interested with all the new stuff they add into it.

FIFA 11 (2010)

First of all it’s based around football, so it’s a pretty simple concept; they have to look into how about game the game better and better each year by adding new stuff into it. Basically they know that each year a new football season start so they would go about it my planning out what they have made the previous year and what they can add into it the next year for example in FIFA 2005 the game was pretty simple, there is a career mode which allows the player to play and manage a given team of their choice, this compared to FIFA 11 (the newest game in the series) is a lot different for the fact that they have now scraped the idea of only letting the user start off with a set number of different teams to chose and now they can start off with any tam the wish just to give you more option really. But it’s little things like that, that make up the game itself.

When people think of a football game I personally feel like they think “it’s just football how is the newest one any different to the rest?” well yes the idea of it is the same as any other FIFA game or football series but with that in mind it keeps the games simple and gives the creators and designers a big challenge every year simply because they need to build something better each passing year, but because the idea is just the same every time it allows them to take the all the elements of game and then think about how can we improve this. Some people could argue and say “well it’s going to get to the point where there’s going to be no way to further develop it” but it’s a good challenge.

If you compare FIFA 08 to FIFA 09 you’ll find that there are over 250 improvements in FIFA 09 as stated by the producer David Rutter. There’s so many people out there that have their own ideas for the games, so many that people make videos on YouTube about what to improve next and FIFA themselves even have their own forum that allows people to post idea themselves which the designers and creators listen to themselves.

http://www.fifplay.com/fifa12_ideas/

The game play of it I find very addictive and if you love football then you should love the games, I find that the Xbox 360/PS3 version of the game is the best because the game I would say isn’t as good on the Nintendo DS or PSP simply because of the lower graphics and support from the consoles themselves not making it as good on a handheld device though it’s quite nice to have if you’re out and about. With an Xbox 360 or PlayStation controller you can do so many different tricks whilst on the ball and while not on the ball you can do other things like switch the team between attack, defence or a balanced style of play which is making it a more realistic to how real football in played. Realism is the big key factor here because the creators and designers are trying to make it as to real life as possible. The game play is introduced into every type of mode the game has to offer, for example there is one mode where you can select to play on any team you want, but you only play as just one player of that team taking orders for the team manager as you would playing in reality. For this they use a player camera, meaning that you don’t see the most of the pitch both teams are playing instead to focus it on the one player you are controlling they put the camera into a first person perspective as if this is how you would play in real.

These game are released on the first Friday of October every year (in Europe) this means that after every release they must immediately get working on the next one because they only have a year before its release, but the thing is they have less time then they think... The idea of the game is to keep it updated and so what they do is waiting till the final date for the real world transfer deadline to end so they can update all the teams in the game for their users who play but it ends at the beginning of September meaning they’ve only got a month to finalise everything and ship it out! In which in recent years they have been clever enough to add in a feature which allows users to connect to Xbox Live or the online PlayStation network and update the teams within the game manually as they happen in the real world. This is almost of way of enticing more and more people to buy extra hardware and software for their home consoles in which to update teams within the game that a lot of people could be passionate about. You could say they are trying to make more money by doing this sort of thing but I think it’s just to keep up with other competing titles on the market, because if the game didn’t have online capabilities then it wouldn’t get very far in the new age we’re living in.

Be a Pro mode.

They games go down to the very finest detail now, with just about every different team and league in the world, new modes being added every year, you’re even able to build your own players and customise them. On the Art side of it there a lot architectural design which all these Stadiums and character building to fit into every kit design each team has, so there’s a lot or work when you consider building these things down to a fine detail and a data base of million upon thousands of player out there. It’s one game series I’ll always keep buying.

Until next time...

Y1 S2 T11 - Elements Of Game Design - Part 4 - Environment

Level design is something I have always been interested in. From an early age I was always making up own levels using a pen and paper, I could come up with my different ideas and variations following made up tasks you would have to complete in the levels.  One thing about this though is that I was playing games that like Mario, Crash Bandicoot and sonic and the objective in all of them is pretty much the same and what I found interesting is there basically is an unlimited amount of ideas and designs you can come up with to challenge the user, yes they are simple but I find them effective, but in the more modern game with a story you have to sort of make the level while sticking to a script. I think the way level designers now-a-days make up their levels is by looking at the script first because that tells them what is going on and gives them an idea for what they need to build in relation to the characters and how they will navigate around the level eventually reaching the goal they must accomplish. They would sketch out the plans to the level first, this would help them get idea and a sense of where everything is going to which then helps what they are going to build and texture within each separate part to the design. They can start off with the white box modelling technique, eventually slapping on the texture, but the textures they used can be influenced by what the story needs, if for example we were to play Legend of Zelda then there’s pretty much a castle in every game and tons of caves meaning they need to get these textures in relation to the different puzzles or scenes of the game, like the animation of what happens. Most castles would be dark so the texture would most probably look gloomy; if not then the lighting would be placed to make it look gloomy. The atmosphere is dependent on the scenery and all games they have a certain Art direction so I think it’s important to keep the game looking the same way through out, which all good professionally made games do, else it would be one wacky game if not, but perhaps maybe that a good idea that no one has thought of before? We’d just be pinching off other people’s ideas and throwing them altogether in one, that idea actually reminds me of Super Smash Brothers, they bring together all the Nintendo characters and their environments, which is interesting and it’s always been a successful franchise even though there’s only ever been 3 versions of the game.

No game is real, all games are unrealistic no matter how hard they try, they look like they are realistic but it’s still all virtual at the end of the game. I guess we are thinking about how we are going to turn gaming graphics a step higher and get them looking even more realistic, but it’s going to be many years before then, I think that one thing that makes most gamers addicted to a certain type of game is not how it plays but they way it looks also, they can be attracted to a certain style type and it makes them care for the game more becoming more and more interested to point where they must have the next game in the series on the actual day it’s released and they do nothing but play it whenever they can. I think within any game however you make it how you want and at the same time you make whatever it is in the game that is required like not just the environment but also the characters as well, and you keep them all the same style, so what I’m trying to say is that every game is designed whatever it may be and then stylized in a specific way throughout, it’s basically just variation after variation of Art styles that we see on the shelf’s of our favourite game stores, and they are all a variation of realism manipulated into a different way.

One gaming series environment I find interesting and may sound silly to some is actually Pokemon. Pokemon, from what people see think it’s all about made up creatures that don’t exist and battle them, what most people don’t know is that that Pokemon is actually based on the different regions of Japan. For example the first Pokemon game was based on the Kanto area of Japan, in which makes it quite unique because it’s based on what already exist in that area of Japan, but the thing is it’s not just one area of Japan they have taken. The latest games in the series are very interesting because it is based on the metropolitan area or New York City in America. This sort of says the team of Artists would have gone to New York and get references of how to make that and put it into the game itself. How many times do you see New York City on TV or films and TV series based in New York, there’s millions of them so it was only a matter of time before they thought we need to get out of Japan and go explore the world? This gives them a million and one places to visit and base their environments on. There’s a whole world out there and they have so many possibilities for ideas, until the whole world is full, but people would like it so much that, if it gets to the point where they need to make a whole new world then people will still buy it because of all its success in the past and let’s face it all games are made because of money, and that’s what Pokemon is all about, it’s about catching creatures and fighting them, simple but so effective coming back to my crappy but influenced level designs. Everything actually in the game makes perfect sense in relation to real life, not to get in detail about all that but in reality the bridges in the metropolitan area of New York are placed and based of the actual existing ones. Right down to the last details, the main things you would mention are the tall buildings of New York and the streets of they have replicated, it give the impression of ‘the big city’ or ‘the concrete jungle’ that is New York has been turned into the style of the’ Pokemon world’. These games are based on a grid format which the player runs around on to navigate and they have done that well evolving it along the way from basic 2D graphics to now 3D with many more possibilities using the environment within the games (and giving thanks to the technology that now allows them to do so).  The environments are all set out in a format that allows them to play the game which they first made back in the late 1990's and now have adapted the landscapes around them into that of the game should be played. There are so many parts of the game and features you could reference it to and these are all ideas from existing films and things in New York. I have no idea about the names of the designers and Artists for these games; I’d have to look them up but again what they have done is simple and effective, or could say that it’s simple and effective way of making millions off of children who feed off this Japanese phenomenon’s worldwide. The big bright bold colours of the game make them attracted to it and no matter what people may think of the word ‘Pokemon’ when they hear it,  the people who actually make it are having the last laugh because of all the money and that basically the whole idea of games and it’s genius to be honest.

   Pokemon Red 1996                                                     Pokemon Platinum 2008

Y1 S2 T10 - Elements Of Game Design - Part 3 - Character

I think the characters in films and TV I’ve seen, for almost all of them, it really depends in the type of environment they live in. When I say that I mean that environment has the biggest impact on the type of character that becomes them, for example like their life style, the people around them, the things they like, do and say are all the aspects of the character that makes one become connected to the actual person/character and even can make them relate to them in various people’s own life’s. I find that it is easy to like or dislike a character upon what they are like, but one thing about film, actors on TV and fantasy characters in books is that it’s all fake! That’s the only thing that puts me off getting overly connected to them, but then again the same goes for games, no matter how hard we try to be realistic about them, they never will be...

They definitely are good at trying to capture all kinds of feelings that we can feel towards them, you have to be creative to do so and I feel like it’s definitely all to do with the Art style and direction simply because it’s that which basically controls the mood of everything. It’s all used to create an emotional feel to the viewer, whether it is the settings or the script of the film, show, book or game and how the characters and actors react to it and make what’s written on paper into practise. It basically is just like making a film or game, you have to plan it all down on paper and make documents first. The point is how you plan it out is how it should be follow through, so writing a script and giving a film or game a setting (or an Art direction) will effect they way we perceive it.

I believe that a character can be defined by these types of things even the clothes they wear is such a strong way to give an idea of them, but I also think that it doesn’t define them completely, as in there are a lot of questions that could still be answered, what I mean is that there’s so many things you could say about them and the script is what they follow, but the script doesn’t give a description of absolutely everything about them, so I feel like there’s more that can be answered which not only the script but the settings and actions don’t always necessarily show with just about any character really. The only way you ask these questions is to gain such strong feelings towards them that you want to find out, but maybe never will.

I’ve personally never been interested in books, I think this is because it’s basically reading, which I think is (to blatantly put it) boring... My main problem with them is that I like images, I learn more by looking at imagery. The thing you get with it is a sense of the mood, colours, and settings and from that you can gain a better feeling of it in my opinion. I’ve seen quite a lot of films and played a lot of games however, the type of stories I personally like are ones that don’t have all this cliché crap in them. There’s far too many stories were everything is okay in the end and you know it’s going to happen before you’ve even got through half the game or movie, because whatever the problem is, you know it by about 1/4^th into the film and the problem is always resolved in the end. I more of a fan of the old games and films, where it all began, the story lines were simple and they were the biggest thing for their time and to me still are, now-a-days it’s all the same stuff being repeated over and over and it’s a case of “seen it all before”! Don’t get me wrong there are some good games out there that are different and maybe forgotten about now and there are probably a lot more out there released every week but I don’t have the money to buy everyone of them. Some of the games I do like are re-made like the original Super Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog, Crash Bandicoot and Spyro etc, and I always find myself coming back to them and buying the latest ones because I guess it’s just the roots of what I know and liked as a kid, and it’s just something that can’t be taken away... never, and I don’t think I’ll ever change that to be honest. These characters and the settings they are put in, in just something that I think will last forever, because it was there right from the start, I’m not a fan of change either and that’s where my feeling stand on them, my connection is so strong to them that I don’t want to ever forget them.