OK, its not my usual awesomely witty title, but I was inspired to put keys to virtual paper after attending the initial TIGA organised symposium at Pinewood studios. An interesting and talented panel discussed audio (which as we know is all too often ignored or marginalised) in respect of the differences between the media of film and games.
The panel gave a lot of interesting feedback and I was really struck by the diference in basic attitude towards audio, and its purpose. The less powerful, more 'real time creation' restricted game developers still generally saw audio as a task to achieve, and to try and represent reality as closely as possible, whereas the long established, linear and time un-restricted film guys saw audio as something which should add value to the project, in terms of emotion and 'total package' presentation. It shows just how far the power of consoles etc has to go before restrictions in implementation stop affecting the bottom line in terms of creativity. However on the flip side, the restrictions have created some awesome audio tooling, such as granular synthesis and modelling, as demonstrated in terms of "car audio" by Jerry Ibbotson of Media Mill, whose car synth was a tool which should be used by sound designers everywhere, rather than crying as they realise the picture recut has made mincemeat of their carefully recorded car audio.
Trying to do everything in as expensive a way as possible, i.e. by recording actual vehicles doing what they are actually doing on screen might be great, but such synth tools can either give cheaper options OR provide back up to cover potential recuts etc. Also such synth tools should start slowly replacing the sound FX libraries that so many sound designers rely on the world over in TV, film and so on.
The panel discussion reinforced my belief that the game audio world is so obsessed with re-creating reality (as game visuals have been doing for so long) that the idea of NOT recreating reality but creating audio thats adds value to the game, either via emotion, 'colour' (a funny word for audio but hey, maybe I should say tone?) or audio pointers that highlight particular things on screen (or off via surround etc) is often missed.
The combination of the 'core values' of the movie audio guys (or other pure audio guys such as myself) can be added to the tech skills and innovation of the game audio guys to create truly great audio, both in terms of quality but also in terms of cost savings, controllability and real time generation and immersion. By those core values I mean emotion and adding value to a project. Just representing what is seen, at a lowest common denominator level (the much mentioned 'footsteps' in the talk) really reduces audio to something which is seen by all too many people as just a layer of gloss which isn't that important. People in the know, know that audio can be so much more. In an ideal world, audio should be held to be as important or nearly as important as sight/video, but in the video game world, far too often that patently isn't the case.
Partly, as the talk helped show, that is due to technology and budgets, but also I feel many of the higher echelons of video game creation don't have an experience of great audio and what it can do. Having honed their careers in early video game creation, where systems power really limited audio (from the early days of bleeps, then general midi) they don't believe in audio as a valued asset, that can really make (or too often break) a game. And as such they deny it a place int he creation of a game, from its inception onwards. Again, game studios often only have an audio programmer or sound designer on staff, which means by default audio is left out of planning, until the project is well under way.
Perhaps that will slowly change, and of course, this isn't they case in all developers. A great many are beginning to deliver fabulous audio experiences, but for those that do all too often they are followed by too many that don't. I personally have seen far too many games which claim to want to deliver an emotional journey to the player (and "make them cry", as the line goes) being delivered by appalling voice actors knocking out a weak script, which make Eastenders look like Shakespeare.
In fact this latter point brings up another important difference, again highlighted by the Pinewood sessions. In film (and music) the audio treatment BEGINS with the voice, and the whole audio soundscape is built up around it. After all the actors are delivering the narrative that drives the film, and provide the information the viewer needs. In game too often it is only just another piece of the jigsaw, and yet with the player often the avatar controlling the game, understanding and emotional involvement is crucial. Not only that, but one has to assume the player is human, and as such will respond to the human voice in a very direct way
The Pinewood session ended quickly with loads left to discuss and I look forward to the sequel.
However it has definitely fortified my belief that games need to take audio more seriously and a way of doing this is to recruit and use audio staff who have developed outside of video games.
Showing posts with label Games Audio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Games Audio. Show all posts
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Monday, September 14, 2009
Pre-Production, Don't take the P, drop the re!
Moving on a little from playing actual games, I want to talk a little about making them, in an audio context.
Audio is a much overlooked element in many forms of media, noticed when exceptional, or in fact more often, underwhelming. Games are no different, and in many respects, especially the underwhelming ones, are often lagging a little behind the film and TV world.
Audio is often seen in games as aural 'paint' to be applied after the process of game making is complete. Do the basics, make the guns go bang, make the footsteps echo, and make the characters talk a bit. Well audio can do a lot more. Audio is inherent in our lives, providing feedback and verification of what our eyes can see. "I don't like it, it doesn't sound /feel right!"
Let's not forget that while our eyes can look forwards, its our ears that are the true 360 degree sensors. Also can you see in the dark? No, but you can hear even better. These 2 situations are common in games, and could be used even better if audio was part of the creative process.
Its easy to be thrown into the uncanny valley by poor audio, either by missing or misusing a layer of environmental sound, or by the fact a character sounds just plain ridiculous!
How many poor scripts and voice recordings have spoiled games you played?
Just the awful voice-overs stopped me playing a game I had actually been looking forwards too a long time, Jade Empire, for one example.
My exposure to some game industry work has left me a little surprised at the lack of involvement of audio in the pre-production process of game creation.
Often studios lack an audio lead, or audio director, who can link the audio team to the creative leads of the title, leaving the audio team in the dark, and leaving the creative team with no input early on from the audio team as to what the soundguys (and girls if there are any out there!) can offer.
Integrating audio at stage one is essential in my opinion, and can offer a wealth of creativity and originality to a title, as well as saving on production costs or possible dead ends later on.
Now games aren't the only media guilty of the "we'll do the audio afterwards..." methodology by any means, but it seems to be the dominant approach in the games industry, with some notable exceptions.
Modern consoles can now pack the processing power and storage capacity to enable top quality 5.1 sound, and a variety of teams have shown what great sound experiences can be delivered.
It's up to the industry at large to try and integrate audio more closely into the creative evolution of a title.
Not much humour here I'm afraid, but as my title so confusingly puts it, investing in audio as part of pre-production can save a lot of wastage and re-production at a later date. Not only that practical enhancement, but the overall quality fo a title can be much improved with an original and coherent sound scape, rather than the same old last minute bangs.
Audio is a much overlooked element in many forms of media, noticed when exceptional, or in fact more often, underwhelming. Games are no different, and in many respects, especially the underwhelming ones, are often lagging a little behind the film and TV world.
Audio is often seen in games as aural 'paint' to be applied after the process of game making is complete. Do the basics, make the guns go bang, make the footsteps echo, and make the characters talk a bit. Well audio can do a lot more. Audio is inherent in our lives, providing feedback and verification of what our eyes can see. "I don't like it, it doesn't sound /feel right!"
Let's not forget that while our eyes can look forwards, its our ears that are the true 360 degree sensors. Also can you see in the dark? No, but you can hear even better. These 2 situations are common in games, and could be used even better if audio was part of the creative process.
Its easy to be thrown into the uncanny valley by poor audio, either by missing or misusing a layer of environmental sound, or by the fact a character sounds just plain ridiculous!
How many poor scripts and voice recordings have spoiled games you played?
Just the awful voice-overs stopped me playing a game I had actually been looking forwards too a long time, Jade Empire, for one example.
My exposure to some game industry work has left me a little surprised at the lack of involvement of audio in the pre-production process of game creation.
Often studios lack an audio lead, or audio director, who can link the audio team to the creative leads of the title, leaving the audio team in the dark, and leaving the creative team with no input early on from the audio team as to what the soundguys (and girls if there are any out there!) can offer.
Integrating audio at stage one is essential in my opinion, and can offer a wealth of creativity and originality to a title, as well as saving on production costs or possible dead ends later on.
Now games aren't the only media guilty of the "we'll do the audio afterwards..." methodology by any means, but it seems to be the dominant approach in the games industry, with some notable exceptions.
Modern consoles can now pack the processing power and storage capacity to enable top quality 5.1 sound, and a variety of teams have shown what great sound experiences can be delivered.
It's up to the industry at large to try and integrate audio more closely into the creative evolution of a title.
Not much humour here I'm afraid, but as my title so confusingly puts it, investing in audio as part of pre-production can save a lot of wastage and re-production at a later date. Not only that practical enhancement, but the overall quality fo a title can be much improved with an original and coherent sound scape, rather than the same old last minute bangs.
Friday, October 24, 2008
In Praise of Able (with an F)
I thought I would take the time "Pre-Fable 2" to look at the reception of the original Fable and what made it, in my eyes, a big success.
For a game that I loved, I thought Fable received quite a harsh critical reception, partly because I think it dared to do a variety of things differently. And I hope that Fable 2 continues along this road…but more of that at a later date!
Let’s start with the feeling I got playing (and finishing..sometimes a rare thing) Fable. Well firstly, and this is important in a game, I enjoyed it. I felt I was a hero. I wasn’t particularly challenged; in fact I thought it was fairly easy. But I enjoyed it. And I’m sure Mr. Molyneux set out to achieve that, rather than laughingly sitting at his desk stroking a white cat as I tore my hair out in frustration, crying “Why is this game so hard!” That’s right; games don’t have to be hard. In fact, one of the things that occurred to me while playing Halo 3 was that a lot of the time I didn’t feel like an invincible super-soldier, but some poor grunt who got repeatedly gunned down after going over the top. OK, I selected the difficulty and wanted a challenge, but I basically lost the vision of being the protagonist that Bungie had created.
I think this is an inevitable part of “single protagonist” shooters, where you can die. They are nearly all one man armies in the Halo, Gears of War, etc mould. One of the good things about the COD 4 single player experience was the fact (SPOILER! LOOK AWAY!) that one of your protagonists dies in the course of his mission. It lends a little mortality back to the game, and the idea of war. I think some games in the future will have the nerve to address this, and create a different feeling game, perhaps in army /war styled shooters such as Gears or the Battlefield or COD series. Why not have the players character as the general, who gives feedback on story and progress and accomplishment in between missions, while you play as a series of grunts who have to carry out the missions. The amount of corpses the player accrues can act as a score as well as giving an emotional weight to your achievements in the game. If the unit runs out of men, then maybe that mission fails. All the while the player character “General Chief” can boast of his cunctation skills in preserving his boys, or coldly pronounce that the mission was accomplished regardless of casualties. Or break down weeping, “War is Hell!”
Which leads me back to Fable. I finished it easily, and I had a blast. So much so, that I made a new character and jumped right back in vowing to do things differently this time (in fact, evilly!) The game’s enjoyment came not from the progress alone, but through the environment and the atmosphere the game conjured. In fact I can sum up my love of Fable in two words: “Chicken Chaser!” The character of the game was embodied by brave use of audio, and it still resonates today as one of the few games whose audio signature stays with me and epitomises the game (alongside the fantastic chatter of the original Halo). In fact I remember being quite angry reading an Edge magazine discussion which dared to criticise the use of audio in Fable, seeming to prefer yet more bland “thou & thee” mid Atlantic RPG speak. I hope Fable 2 continues in the path it so ably beat before, and from the few clips I have seen, it seems to do so. Its humour shone throughout the game, and was a big part in making it a comfy gaming experience that will long stick with me as a uniquely identifiable game. Chicken Chasing was not just an amusing audio clip it was a fun experience in the game, one which had nothing to do with “storyline” and “progress”. Again, Fable acted as a gaming enabler; the ability to spend time in the world mucking about, boasting in front of crowds and scaring passers by took the pressure off the player to ‘accomplish’ and progress, and let them proceed as they saw fit. Progress might be buying another house, or getting a new haircut. Either way, it was an enjoyable gaming experience, and something other games could do well to learn from.
Perhaps more games, even those not starting with an F, should make the player Able.
For a game that I loved, I thought Fable received quite a harsh critical reception, partly because I think it dared to do a variety of things differently. And I hope that Fable 2 continues along this road…but more of that at a later date!
Let’s start with the feeling I got playing (and finishing..sometimes a rare thing) Fable. Well firstly, and this is important in a game, I enjoyed it. I felt I was a hero. I wasn’t particularly challenged; in fact I thought it was fairly easy. But I enjoyed it. And I’m sure Mr. Molyneux set out to achieve that, rather than laughingly sitting at his desk stroking a white cat as I tore my hair out in frustration, crying “Why is this game so hard!” That’s right; games don’t have to be hard. In fact, one of the things that occurred to me while playing Halo 3 was that a lot of the time I didn’t feel like an invincible super-soldier, but some poor grunt who got repeatedly gunned down after going over the top. OK, I selected the difficulty and wanted a challenge, but I basically lost the vision of being the protagonist that Bungie had created.
I think this is an inevitable part of “single protagonist” shooters, where you can die. They are nearly all one man armies in the Halo, Gears of War, etc mould. One of the good things about the COD 4 single player experience was the fact (SPOILER! LOOK AWAY!) that one of your protagonists dies in the course of his mission. It lends a little mortality back to the game, and the idea of war. I think some games in the future will have the nerve to address this, and create a different feeling game, perhaps in army /war styled shooters such as Gears or the Battlefield or COD series. Why not have the players character as the general, who gives feedback on story and progress and accomplishment in between missions, while you play as a series of grunts who have to carry out the missions. The amount of corpses the player accrues can act as a score as well as giving an emotional weight to your achievements in the game. If the unit runs out of men, then maybe that mission fails. All the while the player character “General Chief” can boast of his cunctation skills in preserving his boys, or coldly pronounce that the mission was accomplished regardless of casualties. Or break down weeping, “War is Hell!”
Which leads me back to Fable. I finished it easily, and I had a blast. So much so, that I made a new character and jumped right back in vowing to do things differently this time (in fact, evilly!) The game’s enjoyment came not from the progress alone, but through the environment and the atmosphere the game conjured. In fact I can sum up my love of Fable in two words: “Chicken Chaser!” The character of the game was embodied by brave use of audio, and it still resonates today as one of the few games whose audio signature stays with me and epitomises the game (alongside the fantastic chatter of the original Halo). In fact I remember being quite angry reading an Edge magazine discussion which dared to criticise the use of audio in Fable, seeming to prefer yet more bland “thou & thee” mid Atlantic RPG speak. I hope Fable 2 continues in the path it so ably beat before, and from the few clips I have seen, it seems to do so. Its humour shone throughout the game, and was a big part in making it a comfy gaming experience that will long stick with me as a uniquely identifiable game. Chicken Chasing was not just an amusing audio clip it was a fun experience in the game, one which had nothing to do with “storyline” and “progress”. Again, Fable acted as a gaming enabler; the ability to spend time in the world mucking about, boasting in front of crowds and scaring passers by took the pressure off the player to ‘accomplish’ and progress, and let them proceed as they saw fit. Progress might be buying another house, or getting a new haircut. Either way, it was an enjoyable gaming experience, and something other games could do well to learn from.
Perhaps more games, even those not starting with an F, should make the player Able.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)