With Eddie, we got to look at old and new games journalism and the differences between them which I'm required to talk about now...
Old Games Journalism
This is the sort of "Games Review" Most people are familiar with, where the game is talked about in sort of sections, like gameplay, graphics, controls etc. This type of journalism anyone can read and probably understand well. It talks about the game in way so people know if the writer thinks the game is worth buying or not. Lots of people I know and many more go online and read these reviews to decide if they want to buy the game or not, which has pro's and con's. The pro's are that the review is quick and straight to the point so you know if the writer likes or dislikes the game. And that normally the game is rate out of 10 in different areas, so if you want game with purely good storyline and you can look at the score for that section. The con is that well, the review was written by one person, and only that person opinion of the game. So what he or she may think is a rubbish game with no replay value, you may think is the greatest game since DOOM. So lots of people decide if they want to buy the game or not from one persons opinion.
New Games Journalism
New Games Journalism is very different from old, it focuses on a players experience of a given moment in the game, rather than the mechanics of the game itself. For example we looked at a article called "Bow nigger" where a player talked about his experience in "Jedi Knights 2: Jedi Outcast" . He talked about his experience in an online game where he came across a player who basically in simple terms is a wanker. He talked about his feelings when he came across this player and journey he took to overcome him. At no point in this article did he talk about how good the graphics are, and how good the story is. This is because it wasn't review, it was just a player telling us about one game he had. If I was interested in buying this game and read his article to decide if I wanted it or not, it wouldn't help. But it did give me an insight in what the game may be like if I was to play it online and it affects me as a player.
Monday, 15 November 2010
Maths defence
Basic coding for the game has been done, as well some good artwork. The team finally cracked down and decided what was going to be in the game instead of having all these ideas running around our heads. We got our concept doc to hand in tomorrow, which is going good on my part, and I believe on my fellow team members.
Thursday, 7 October 2010
Crictical game studies Newman game analysis
The game I have chosen to use Newman's "game criteria" on is "Left for Dead 2".
Paidea vs Ludus
Newman refers to these terms by the following:
Paidea : effectively, "play" for pleasure
Ludus : more constrained by rules, with a clear outcome (e.g. "winning")
Left for Dead 2 has the elements of both of these, but does lean more to being ludus. It is a FPS with clear objectives and rules, in which a team of 4 players or less must fight through hordes of zombies in order to reach the "safe room" of each level (safe room being the end of the level). So in that context it is ludus, players can't complete the levels in any other way, ant there are rules to stop players leaving the level boundaries and having unlimited ammo and flying etc. However Left for Dead 2 is one of the few shooters that allows players to complete the level in a number of ways, which allows freedom and choice so players aren't constricted. Also the game was mainly designed to be co-operative, and for players just to have a good time rather than take it serious. The levels allow to groups of players to find different ways to complete the levels, so for this reason I would the game does have an element of being paidea.
Newman also considers aspects of gameplay in these 4 catergious:
Agon : competition
Alea : chance/randomness
Ilinx : movement
Mimicry : simulation, make-believe, role-play
Left for Dead 2 has the first 3 aspects, in that players do compete against each other to win the game, e.g. zombie team vs survivor team. The randomness of the game is the fact that each time you play the same level it will be different, the game AI engine randomly creates the hordes of zombies so no level will be played the same way again. Obviously the game has movement, it's a FPS, it has too allow the player to move. However I’m not sure if it has the last gameplay aspect, has the term "make-believe" in this context probably means elves and orks etc, but this is a zombie apocalypse game so is make-believe really I suppose. But the last gameplay is quite wide so lots of games will fall under its category, same with the movement aspect, there not too useful really I think.
Paidea vs Ludus
Newman refers to these terms by the following:
Paidea : effectively, "play" for pleasure
Ludus : more constrained by rules, with a clear outcome (e.g. "winning")
Left for Dead 2 has the elements of both of these, but does lean more to being ludus. It is a FPS with clear objectives and rules, in which a team of 4 players or less must fight through hordes of zombies in order to reach the "safe room" of each level (safe room being the end of the level). So in that context it is ludus, players can't complete the levels in any other way, ant there are rules to stop players leaving the level boundaries and having unlimited ammo and flying etc. However Left for Dead 2 is one of the few shooters that allows players to complete the level in a number of ways, which allows freedom and choice so players aren't constricted. Also the game was mainly designed to be co-operative, and for players just to have a good time rather than take it serious. The levels allow to groups of players to find different ways to complete the levels, so for this reason I would the game does have an element of being paidea.
Newman also considers aspects of gameplay in these 4 catergious:
Agon : competition
Alea : chance/randomness
Ilinx : movement
Mimicry : simulation, make-believe, role-play
Left for Dead 2 has the first 3 aspects, in that players do compete against each other to win the game, e.g. zombie team vs survivor team. The randomness of the game is the fact that each time you play the same level it will be different, the game AI engine randomly creates the hordes of zombies so no level will be played the same way again. Obviously the game has movement, it's a FPS, it has too allow the player to move. However I’m not sure if it has the last gameplay aspect, has the term "make-believe" in this context probably means elves and orks etc, but this is a zombie apocalypse game so is make-believe really I suppose. But the last gameplay is quite wide so lots of games will fall under its category, same with the movement aspect, there not too useful really I think.
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Critical games studies interview
- What was the last fiction book I read?
The last book fiction book I read was "Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire" when I was about 12 years old. As you can tell I don't read that much, and if you asked why I would say it's because I’m too cool for that s***. Although there are probably good books out there to read.
- What was the last non-fiction book I read?
Well if you class me reading about 12 lines of "Clarkson’s World" as the last non-fiction book I read then I would say that. If not then the answer would be none :).
-What was the last live performance you saw?
Don't really have a name for it but I saw a bunch of Turkish dancers and singers in guess guess,Turkey
-What was the last film you saw?
Iron man 2 I believe, which didn't have as much action in as I was hoping for but it was alright, better than the first one.
-Which news paper do you read?
I don't........I watch the news if I want the news :) because I’m lazy like that.
-What was the last art gallery you visited?
Not my choice, trust me, it was a carpet gallery..................nothing more to say really, walls and walls with carpets on them, this was in Turkey.
-How often do you play video games?
Never!!!! They make me sick! I'm only joking about 14 hours I would say a week.
-How often do you play non video games?
That’s annoying because I could go a week not playing any and then the next week playing poker for about 6 hours or so. So I’m going to say between 0 and 6 hours a week.
The last book fiction book I read was "Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire" when I was about 12 years old. As you can tell I don't read that much, and if you asked why I would say it's because I’m too cool for that s***. Although there are probably good books out there to read.
- What was the last non-fiction book I read?
Well if you class me reading about 12 lines of "Clarkson’s World" as the last non-fiction book I read then I would say that. If not then the answer would be none :).
-What was the last live performance you saw?
Don't really have a name for it but I saw a bunch of Turkish dancers and singers in guess guess,
-What was the last film you saw?
Iron man 2 I believe, which didn't have as much action in as I was hoping for but it was alright, better than the first one.
-Which news paper do you read?
I don't........I watch the news if I want the news :) because I’m lazy like that.
-What was the last art gallery you visited?
Not my choice, trust me, it was a carpet gallery..................nothing more to say really, walls and walls with carpets on them, this was in Turkey.
-How often do you play video games?
Never!!!! They make me sick! I'm only joking about 14 hours I would say a week.
-How often do you play non video games?
That’s annoying because I could go a week not playing any and then the next week playing poker for about 6 hours or so. So I’m going to say between 0 and 6 hours a week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)