The first talk I went to was by Jay Grenier from Image Metrics (www.image-metrics.com) regarding Faceware 3.0. This really caught my attention and I found it incredibly interesting, as it deals with facial expressions in animated characters. I'm planning on discussing this more in-depth in another blog dedicated to the topic, (coupled with discussing facial - capture technology), because...there's just loads to say.
The second presentation was given by Adrian Hon (Six to Start), and this was more theoretical, discussing, basically, 'Why do stories in games suck?'. This is a really good point, especially as it's coupled with the fact that 'Games with bad stories still sell fine' . Gaming should be a brilliant platform for stories to be told - since they involve an interactivity which can't be achieved in other (passive) formats - but this is sometimes shied away from as it may involve risk and not necessarily be a financially sound investment. In general too, some games that attempt to tell a story, cause the game to become too linear and lose any freedom of choice the player may have - I'm reminded of Final Fantasy 13 here, as, to me, it seems the main aim is to reach the next cinematic (to be fair they are stunning).
It seems that Indie games have the potential to, with the right creative direction, deliver more narratively diverse games than the more mainstream producers do (as in a way, they have more freedom), as long as they have Distribution and Funding. Thanks to the internet, websites such as Steam and Kickstarter (a place where ideas can be funded by the public) are available to aid this.
Simon Oliver (Hand Circus) is a maker of the 'Rolando' series for the iPhone and Playstation 3. He further discussed the benefits of producing more 'Indie games' - for example there's a lot more creative freedom - and gave advice to any one considering working in that industry, as well as a vast list of all the available software and opportunities to create your own game, including Unity.
Coincidently Olly Nicholson discussed Unity (www.unity3d.com) in further detail after Simon Oliver, describing it as a 'Game Development Tool' which is 'easy to use'. Best of all it's free to install. He discussed the fragmentation of the bigger studios, as the gaming industry begins evolving and the many different aspects Unity has to offer, including the fact you can import models and set up physics and test/play.
Matthew Stephenson and Nick Rodgers (Frontier Development) then described their work in the industry, and their experience with motion capture and 'Kinect', as they worked on 'Kinectimals' and 'Kinect Disneyland Adventures'. It was good to hear genuine experience of working in this industry, and the trials of working to a brief, involving constantly scrapping designs and reworking ideas.
Our final talk of the day regarded the relationship (or lack of) between Education and Games, Carlton Reeve discussed his findings that mainstream games don't necessarily teach the player anything (other than how to play the game) and educational games are not funded or designed to a standard that would make them truly educational. There was quite a debate, as some people did not quite agree. I found this 'article' from Dorkly quite relevant to the discussion, as it actually highlights games that were fun and educational.
http://www.dorkly.com/article/24911/the-dorklyst-6-educational-games-that-actually-werent-that-bad
Learning through play can be a very powerful thing, however, it's common knowledge that consciously making something 'educational' usually takes the fun out of it (and if a games not fun, they probably won't sell) so mainstream quality educational games is a very hard concept to actualise.
No comments:
Post a Comment