Game Production Year 2

In Game Production this year I've made more time to set my own briefs and complete work. I'm happy with the outcome of the projects I did. I wanted to do more but it's been a difficult year for me.

I was able to plan out what I set out to achieve. Not long ago I talked about solving problems that occur during production of a 3D asset or texturing and how solve them along the way. In Game Production it's important to have a good knowledge of the software you are using so when problems occur in building a game/level you can solve them immediately. the technical artist role is very significant if you ask me, because they are the ones you go to when you've got a problem because they should know the programs better than anyone.

Understanding the user interface is important as anything. I've basically had to follow tutorials on how to use UDK and persevere in trying to use and understand it. Just like in the making of Crash Bandicoot  when they were trying to create and animate water waves etc that was never seen before in the PS1, and I'll quote 'it took a lot of time and effort and a lot of preserving to achieve what we intended to create' (or something along those lines). Sometimes this is just the case, not just in creating game art assets but animation and programming too, Re-writing codes to gain what you want to achieve etc, even sometimes you may have to just restart from scratch as your ideas seem to not come to anything. A lot of testing and trial and error is involved, it's basically man vs machine when it comes to creating a game. You must crack the code that makes your ideas come to life.

Basically planning and concepting, I was able to first create my own concept images and follow them accurately.

We view the world in perspective, not orthographic.

Almost... but not quite.

As said before having a good plan is the key to developing and realising your ideas. I remember a story about a guy back in my old college who spent most of his exam planning what he was going to write, with about 10 minutes to go he writ up all his plans and passed with an A grade.

The Final Outcome.

If you can't quite wrap your head around how something works, write it down, in our case we draw it down so we can show how things work visually (I personally learn better visually), once drawn them ideas now exist. If you were to write a book you'd write the thing out but only the reader can visualise what you've wrote in their own unique way, whereas when you draw it, you immediately get the idea and thus words are not required because the image tells the story without explaining it to you. I think conveying your ideas visually is the key to creating a good game, if there's a story line and script the artist can produce and render what is written (illustrating it) and then eventually bring it to life in 3D.

Video games are one big process from point A (having the idea) to point B selling it (and making tons of cash 'haha'). I've learn that in this process the deadlines are very important and that you should not take them lightly, do the work as fast as possible and then spend your spare time tweaking it and improving it.

Looking good?

Technical Art

If someone mentions technical art, the first thing that comes to mind is something like this:

Though that maybe just one part of it, basically technical artist job within the games industry requires a good understanding of tools like 3D programs and packages, 2D like Photoshop programs for painting and manipulating images and others like UDK for putting together 3D assets in a game engine.

http://www.creativeskillset.org/games/careers/profiles/article_5287_1.asp

I've talked before how it is important to keep updated with the latest hardware and software, not only to keep up with improving technology but to keep up with making games better with them and being able to produce them on the current generation consoles that play them.

At the same time this type of job develops your own understanding of game technology as you work strongly with the artists and programmers. It can help when it will eventually be time to move on for the next generation of gaming. One thing in industry is that every time a new console is being planned and going into production is that whatever console it is will have games available on for it for users to play. Not just game consoles specifically but even add-ons such as the Xbox Kinect for an already existing console, even things like mobile phones, iPads, that have touch screen capabilities and much more. Gaming gets around a lot in today's world and just about every piece of hardware has some way of playing a game.

The point being when these things are in production everyone wants to be there first to produce a game because the hardware makes the most money within the first few weeks of its release and also the games designed for it to. So knowing the new technology and the way it's programmed can be very challenging thing, but as we all know games are made to make money.

Technical artists decide upon the way characters and assets should be made, how they should be rigged, know about things like scripts, how to render in software package and but have a detailed knowledge of how things work and can be put together to help support other artists and programmers.

Having a lot of detailed knowledge for this job and working long hours, I would say that it's only fair you get a higher pay. I wouldn't say it's something for me though but it's interesting to see how this job is becoming increasingly important within the industry.

Visual Design Work

I've reworked my visual design stuff and done a lot more studies of still life and fruit.

I've really gotten a lot faster at digital art over the past year, not just that but in my pencil studies I think my rendering has improved and my ability to draw elliptical shapes to.

Drawing more and more things helps you improve, for example the more times you do something you get better (or at least you should get better) while you progress.  I think drawing fruits has improved my colour theory to for example there was a time when I would use black for shadows and highlights now I've learned that using darker tones of colour something is better because it slightly shows up in the shadow/highlight.

I tried putting my new 9th floor ideas into action. based on an edited floor plan I did.

Basically it's just the life drawing area, I like simplicity, so I wanted to do something that got the job with a lot of open space to draw in that area, I want a nice clean design which I think I achieved.

Thing is, it's hard to render and applying lighting  when you try to draw something from your mind cause it I think most times out of ten it doesn't always turn out the way you 'imagineered' it.

On the other hand I added a little more to my writing project, I just added a couple of more things in there that I originally planned , I found this project hard to say the least.

Some more fruit:

Went with portrait this time as my original pieces are just the fruit itself and empty space around it which I think was a problem with a lot of them.

Cultural project... well I blame 'imagineering' again for the turn out of my Photoshop version of this, I work better with a pencil and paper in greyscale, that's all I'll say.

Better Graphics Do Not Equal A Better Game

I found an interesting article on '7 things video game must obey' which I think it quite interesting.

They were all intriguing but the most interesting I found is the final rule (number 1) that better graphics make a better game, this is very true.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16196_the-7-commandments-all-video-games-should-obey_p7.html

Why is it that Nintendo are doing better than Sony and Microsoft? Nintendo's Wii console doesn't do what Sony's PS3 or Microsoft's Xbox 360 does and can't handle as much yet it sold more than the others. It's all down to the games, the Wii offers a whole new way to play games and as I've said before  Nintendo always coming up with new ways to interact and play games. Which is one of the companies major selling points. I think another thing is that NIntendo games are typical bright colourful games aimed at kids and kids are a bigger target audience than any other when it comes to video games. Kids have a need to have the latest things and their eyes are immediately attracted to the bright bold colours and fonts they see, it presents a desirable advertisement and they need to 'have'. So they obviously nag and nag their parents to splash out hundreds of thousands on the latest console or game, toys and trading cards are just the same, it is a way of selling more and wanting to collect them all.

When you look at gaming in typical Nintendo games, it's all about the game play, nobody is bothered really about the graphics really, yes Nintendo do get the odd person complaining about their graphics and the limitations of the hardware they produce but overall they go for function over aesthetics. Function is more important, I mean everyone would love to have something that does a good job at what it is suppose to do and also look stylish but that's not really the case.

Mario Kart DS
Graphics don't look absolutely amazing but damn does it sell...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Nintendo_DS_video_games

22.57 million copies to be precise.

Just compare that to the PS3 or Xbox 360's best selling games, Nintendo's little handheld beat them by a long shot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

As I've said before it's the game play, the characters the colourful art style, the user interaction, I've even said before when you walk into any game store it's the Nintendo section that stands out the most, even the much older audience plays these games, it's the dynamics that make it up that sell it.

PS3's best selling game - Gran Turismo 5

The whole point of a video game is to make money, maybe too much money is going on graphics.

http://digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-game-budgets-ever/

Grand Theft Auto 4 took $100m to make, that in my eyes is ridiculous, great game mind, but I think it could be done a lot cheaper. When you spend that much you better hope it damn well sells and is AMAZING, however with a majorly successful background such as GTA its guaranteed to make that money back and then some, so in this case I wouldn't say its as much of a risk of investing in, with previous success and positive reviews from earlier titles including, GTA 3, Vice City and San Andreas.

Even the expense of the games and consoles can factor in on its selling, the Wii for example is small and cheaper than the PS3 and 360 most likely because of what its capable of, the PS3 and 360 on the other hand can handle HD graphics, PS3 has a Blu-Ray player built in but that doesn't make it any better, why? I think because it's a gaming machine for a start, it comes with a controller, not a DVD remote, that's optional and it adds to the pricing. The games are mostly dark and gloomy types and are aimed at 18+, I'm not criticizing the PS3 or Xbox cause Nintendo have dark games too, I'm just saying some games are better on different platforms. I don't want to sound like a Nintendo 'fan boy' cause I'm not, I just prefer their games better and they tend to be a lot cheaper.

I won't ramble on anymore about this though I will say this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_game_consoles

Including and not including handhelds Sony top the list for best selling console, though not everything on Wikipedia is accurate...

Crash Bandicoot - Concept to Game

I stumbled across a website recently for one of my favourite game series of all time.

Of course I'm talking about Crash Bandicoot, it was the first 3D game I ever played, on the original PS1, and it's always stuck with me till this very day.

I found a lot of the original concept work for the original PlayStation games.

http://crashland.elynx.fr/ressourcebonus/siteofficiel/c3-background.htm

The games are bright and colourful, which is the typical sort of games everyone played as a kid especially in the 90's. It has great environments as well as character designs. Back in those days (mid 90's) graphics were very limited, there's no bump and specular maps (and all that fancy stuff as far as I'm aware) to be found in any of these games (though I think they should go back and add them now just to see what they'd look like) it was pretty basic modelling and texturing. The PS1 alongside the N64 back then where the main two 3D games consoles.

What I like is the concept works of these games though, they are just neat, simple and straight to the point of what they wanted to try and create within the games themselves.

Videos I've also found include interviews and the making of the games themselves. The creators sort of explain how they changed the game engine, instead of making Crash 1.5 (after the first game) and using the same engine for new levels, they scraped the entire thing and made Crash 2 giving it different game play, more level of detail using polygons on their models and basically just expanding the game to fit more in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP2kAtRjDr4

They talk about how they were able to animate more things such as the characters, using the polygons to gain better animations through their being more space available, having someone texture and people voice acting etc which they were unable to achieve in the last installment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF-xSPEqZ3Y

Even the racing is something totally different,  they talk about how the level design is made to suit the type of cart racing genre that it is, people are addicted to finding secrets, shortcuts and how to gain the most height/hang time to make you go faster.

http://crashland.elynx.fr/ressourcebonus/siteofficiel/ctr-background.htm

The art work is great too because shows their intentions of how they want to build these levels, what they want them to look like and some of the obstacles/hazards that are in them. One thing that you have to remember is that all games need difficultly factor and building just a plain boring track with no hazards wouldn't make it that entertaining to play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSYlbS5vGNA

(posted this video before but there's more to talk about)

In Crash Bandicoot 3 they talked about how in previous Crash games you could see polygons about 70 meters away from where the camera is and the player is standing, in the new game you can see up to 700 meters which is a huge improvement and shows how they've developed their game engines as each game has progressed. When you game a game you are basically making a specific type of engine that will play the game that you're attempting to create on the chosen platform/platforms that's intended to be played for, in other words it's a piece of software made for a machine to run in its own unique way. Talking about things like perspective etc you can see things in the background of the game that get bigger and bigger the more you move forward. For example the castle they talk about, you can see this in the concept art itself.

When they are concepting the levels they start out with prep sketches, much like we do in out Visual Design studies, they turn this into line art by picking the best elements of their prep work.

By doing this you can start rendering the work, just the same as we do with our digital work, you can apply textures, lighting, and use a colour palette that works well within the environment itself and then turn that into a day or night setting if you want.

Once you have all this you can create an overhead view/orthographic  view of the level design itself, and use the arrangement of objects/assets and making the use of space and how much is around you when playing to fill and populate the game levels. From this you can white box model and test and interact with the levels making changes etc if need be before applying the final textures to it.

Another interesting thing about the website I found is that it tells you the medium of how the art/concept work was made, which I think is kind of unique, almost all art works you look at don't come with a medium list. 

Medium list:

(P&P) Pencil, pen and paper

(Maya) Alias | Wavefront Maya on SGI or NT

(PA) Alias | Wavefront PowerAnimator on SGI

(Acr) Acrylics Paints

(G) Gouache

(P) Painter on NT

(PS) Photoshop on NT, Mac or SGI

(NPS) Naughty Dog's Porprietary Renderer

(SGI) Game Backgrounds grabber from SGI version of Crash Bandicoot

(Oil) Oil Pa

Basically the keys to the symbols that appear next to the images.

Example:

(ND & P&P)

What I like is that it's just simple line work that they start off with to create these environments and characters etc, they can use the same drawing/silhouette to make many variations of the characters and enemies. I did the same thing for my reef character in the first year.

http://crashland.elynx.fr/ressourcebonus/siteofficiel/c3-character.htm

They can then (when they are happy with it) take that to a texture artist to render and get a final result which obviously again once happy with it can be made in 3D and again textured and from there obviously animation happens and coding etc.

One last thing they talk about it how animation and coding is quite a complex thing to put together and only through persevering they were able to put together some of the environments and effects that they thought weren't possible to create on the PS1. Animation and programming isn't my area but I do remember reading (can't find where) that the creators of the Crash games did hack the PlayStation to make the graphics better, which is what makes the game stand out more than any other at the time in my opinion. Which possibly argues a point that better graphics make a better game, but I don't believe that for one second. I think that it's the game play, the lovable characters and the level design that makes it, the graphics (if they are good) are just an added bonus, which kind of makes it the 'perfect game' almost. I've talked enough and that is something I want to talk about in another entry.

Angel-A Revisted

Watching Angel-A again, I have to admit I didn’t enjoy it as much as the first time I watched it. This time upon second viewing however I got to look more at the Art and Design side of it. Basically the whole thing from start to finish is greyscale, which is unique for a more modern day film to have such a colour palette to it. It makes me want to see a full colour version of the film to make comparisons. Anyway I knew the story this time, and basically its set in France, when you think of France you think about food, fashion, love etc. and the two characters have a connection between them which is really fitting for the scenery because it is (simply put) Paris, city of love and everything is romantic etc. and the settings such as the bridge at the beginning of the movie, the cityscapes, cafes and clubs all look beautiful, they look really unique, perfectly designed and it’s all about the aesthetics!

This is one where the characters clothes really represent who they are I think, for example Andre is wearing a coat that sort of says what he is, he has been a criminal, but wants to start over again, his facial hair sort of suggests that to, he looks kind of rough, he owes some guy 20,000 euros and he’s going crazy even to the point where he tries to turn himself in, that’s just my opinion anyway.

It also describes French culture (I think) because it shows much more in the scenery for example, there is a scene were Angela supposedly ‘sells herself’ to make money for Andre at a club and the amount of money that these rich looking people are willing to pay her is over the top, it tells you about how expensive it is to live in Paris and sort of about what the people are like i.e. their life styles etc.

All in all I’m saying it does a great job at capturing the City of Paris as it is. The film is unique because it feels like you are watching an old black and white film but in the modern era like it’s brought back the classics into the modern age. It feels whimsical to, as it is like a love fantasy thing and everything is beautiful in this ‘perfect’ world that it appears to create and as it seems to me as a viewer.

Game Evolution

Basically all games are made up of repeatable objects or textures etc that make up the levels and virtual worlds they live in. Older games are great examples of where you can see this kind of stuff, but even newer games have repeatable elements, but maybe they aren’t as noticeable as hardware and software has evolved?

You only have to look at Minecraft to see what I’m talking about.

However that is a very simple game, though it is a new game, as soon as you step foot into the world you can see repeatable objects and textures. Older games you see them as well such as your classic Mario or Sonic games etc.

The reason I always come back to these kinds of games is that they are the ones I grew up with, but they show expert level design (if I do say so) and make great games that you want to play over and over again, I do say that I personally can’t stand dark games like CoD, World of Warcraft, Dead Space, Final Fantasy, Halo, Skyrim and the rest of them and I say how they are kind of a cliché, and people will say the games I play are a cliché to, which I have no problem with, the reason I continue to play these games is because I think they are classics, and no matter how many times you play them they never get boring (or at least not for me).Maybe one of the reasons I like older games also is because they are simple and easy to play, simple concept, you know what to do to beat it and the replay value is very high, I mean the whole purpose of making a game is to play it (and earn tons of cash) but once your done I think older games even today have aged well and you see tons of people still replaying them today, which is a sign of a great game and also a sign that it is well made.

Games when you are younger sort of embed themselves into you, because you play the same ones over and over again and when you’re younger you sort of soak up all knowledge told to you and what you learn, what I’m saying is it’s one of them things that sticks with you until you maybe reach an age where you let go. Growing up in the 90’s like I did games at the time were very simple, you’d have you Nintendo or your PlayStation, because they were the main two things at the time, the games for these consoles were very easy to pick up and understand possibly partly because they are very limited in terms of technology, for example the PlayStation or Nintendo 64 could only handle so much and thus it possibly had a reflection on the games, making them somewhat easier.

Now a days with the new PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii etc, feel somewhat harder, not just in terms of difficulty but by the way they are played. The technology has advanced meaning we now can create and design new ways of playing games and coding them so the difficulty and challenges within them that test the player become harder. Just look at PS3 or Xbox achievements so people are very addicted to gaming and have to have to have everything within a game and achieve everything possibly and some achievement in games can be just cruel as you attempt to gain them, the achievements are possible, but at a very low percentage that you’ll achieve it at any attempt you make.

They are even sites online that are dedicated to achievements and people suggest what their hardest ones.

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/forum/showthread.php?t=165729

I’m not trying to say that all classic games are easy, but I think I would say they are easier than most new games.

What I’m trying to say is that gaming started out as something that was your basic design such as Pac Man or Space Invaders where you would play them over and over trying to get the highest score which is a simple goal trying to beat your friends etc, now they are much more where you can play against not just your friends but take on the whole world online, try to gain all the achievements and beat ‘legendary’ difficulty settings.

It feels as if what started out as ‘challenge your friends’ as now turned into a bigger competition, ‘You VS the World!’ and every man is for himself... or herself.

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/fifa-12/leaderboards/

What I think I was trying to get across at first is that games have evolved over time yet you can still see the similarities within them one thing I think EVERY game shares is that even after all this time you still see repeatable elements within them that make up the game itself. Even games that are 2D still need assets and have repeatable elements just the same as 3D games.