How I rejoiced yesterday with the discovery on my return from holiday in sunny Beirut, that Xbox 360 would see the long awaited sequel for Steel Battalion, one of the all time great games.
Yes Steel Battalion, the game with THE all time great controller, a thing of awe and beauty, and extreme difficulty.
Not only that, but it will be a dedicated Xbox kinect title, which will be very interesting. Will it be the first super 'hardcore' game designed for kinect?
Many people think this will mean waving about shouting "missile!" but as a mech pilot myself, I am almost sure it will mean a game which fully integrates the standard controller with the possibilities offered by Kinect.
Think about it. The original SB controller had about 5 joysticks and 348 buttons. What better way to replicate the joys of controlling a mech than with an xbox controller PLUS all the input options that kinect will offer....
Shouting commands ("EJECT!!!") while moving your body to physically control the mech, and using the joypad to control aiming and subsystems will be awesome! It will however make my wife think I am a total nutter, but that's a price I'm willing to pay, plus she probably already thinks that anyway.
The preview video I watched (Here) shows trademark Steel Battalion dull graphics, for a real 'lofi battlefield visuals' feel that the original Steel Battalion so effectively used. I hope that From keep the lumbering mech feel, and not the speedy Jap style Armoured Core bots they may be used to.
I hope that the game can keep true to the Steel Battalion "real mech pilot sim" identity, and become a show case for kinect for hardcore gamers. The ability to feel part of the action, which is what Steel Battalion achieved so effectively originally can only be enhanced by an imaginatively utilised kinect and joy-pad combination.
My only hope is that From, the developer, have learned the lessons from the almost awesome Chromehounds, the only good mech game for Xbox 360 so far, and make the online play fair and FUN. The amount of lag, disconnects, and general tragic nature of the online code, meant that the Chromehounds experience was totally marred by frustration and time-wasting.
While Japanese games can be great for originality and character design (not to mention MECHS!) they have often let the side down in terms of UI and netcode / multiplayer options. Compare the hell of Chromehounds with Halo or COD multi player for a stark contrast.
I cannot wait to recreate the multi player fun we had in Chromehounds (well, sometimes, when it actually worked. I don't think we EVER achieved a full 6 v 6 game, in 2 years of trying) in an even more awesome Steel Battalions environment, with better controllability and a more heavyweight feel.
Lumbering tanks are kings of the battlefield...honest!
Go on the US Army, you know you want them....
Monday, September 27, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Hollywood? No Cricklewood! Games big & little brothers...
Having just read N’Gai Croals latest missive in Edge, ‘Hollywood Blues’ I was struck by the oft heard “Games are bigger than Hollywood” idea that he reflects on. Sure the big ticket items such as Call Of Duty, Modern Warfare 2, or GTA (or even now Red Dead Redemption) can be put up against the best of Hollywood, both in audience numbers, mainstream advertising, and pure sales figures, not to mention production costs, but is it an appropriate comparison otherwise?
I think not. The above titles point to filmic action, great visuals, immersive soundscapes and often long, convoluted (and often rubbish, just like the Hollywood blockbusters!) scripts.
However that is not the games industry, or games for that matter. If we are comparing games to other media and we take some games to reflect Hollywood, then we need to look at the other “Games what I wrote” that don’t have $100 million dollar budgets, or killer marketing backup. Most games are done on a tight budget, with few staff and tough deadlines. Portable titles, PC casual games, Xbox Live Arcade and indie titles, and Wii and PS3 downloads all churn out product. Facebook is an ever increasing market for small games (well big ones too, if you look at the numbers playing Farmville and Mafia wars) and the iphone and the Elysium that is the iPad look to provide new platforms for games too. These are all relevant parts of the ‘games industry’ and often the parts that provide consumers with day to day contact too.
The blockbusters might be a summer or Christmas treat, but more often it’s the nibbles and day to day play on a PC or on the bus or tube that people engage with. You can see (possibly) what I’m getting at. Cherry picking Hollywood as games rival (“oooh! We’ve beaten them! Yaya!”) is one thing, but I think we need to remember that the visual medium is dominated by television and not Hollywood.
Television has expanded massively over the last few years, with the creation of many new channels on satellite and cable, all desperate for content, working to tough deadlines and budgets, and facing the threat of a democratised technological production medium. Television studios are under threat, scrabbling for ad revenue, and attention amid the ever growing number of rivals for consumers eyes and pockets. Games are but one rival, as is on demand internet TV and internet browsing / facebook etc in general.
The games industry is in a state of growth and flux, and is the least “settled” of any of the visual media, even though the others are all threatened by the march of technology. Even while it boats of growth, many games studios are going bust, cutting staff numbers or struggling to survive. The ‘pipeline’ of production is still not really fixed or uniform. The tools used to create titles are still not really adequate. There is no well developed “3rd party outsourcing’ for video games as a support industry. These support facilities are developing, sure, but not common, and nor is the idea of using them a lot accepted as part and parcel, except maybe for some localisation or testing, or to get art assets. Many are small companies or individuals. The wheel is still being developed and reinvented a lot of the time. None of this is a criticism, as the games industry is dealing with tech that is still evolving at an incredibly rapid rate, and getting a feel for a market that no one fully understands yet. In fact the consumers too aren’t fully developed or understood.
It’s my generation that are the first generation of gamers, who are now developers, and we are being constantly amazed by what’s possible. The ‘youth of today’ (how I love that expression!) will grow up to be the first “wired” generation, used to being online and in touch all the time, so who knows what they will come up with (or what tech they will have available? 3D vision, non physical controllers, time-travel!!??)
Perhaps gamers and industry people need to think a little more broadly than just beating Hollywood at their own game, and start to try and think of how to compete with television, in everyone’s lives, every day. The variety of TV (big ticket dramas, sports, throw away serialisations, kids cartoons, gameshows, music TV etc) reflects games more accurately, and this is where comparisons should be drawn more regularly.
N’Gai finishes with the proverb “may you live in interesting times” and I think this certainly applies to games. The question is, will games recognise the world they are in, as well as the times?
I think not. The above titles point to filmic action, great visuals, immersive soundscapes and often long, convoluted (and often rubbish, just like the Hollywood blockbusters!) scripts.
However that is not the games industry, or games for that matter. If we are comparing games to other media and we take some games to reflect Hollywood, then we need to look at the other “Games what I wrote” that don’t have $100 million dollar budgets, or killer marketing backup. Most games are done on a tight budget, with few staff and tough deadlines. Portable titles, PC casual games, Xbox Live Arcade and indie titles, and Wii and PS3 downloads all churn out product. Facebook is an ever increasing market for small games (well big ones too, if you look at the numbers playing Farmville and Mafia wars) and the iphone and the Elysium that is the iPad look to provide new platforms for games too. These are all relevant parts of the ‘games industry’ and often the parts that provide consumers with day to day contact too.
The blockbusters might be a summer or Christmas treat, but more often it’s the nibbles and day to day play on a PC or on the bus or tube that people engage with. You can see (possibly) what I’m getting at. Cherry picking Hollywood as games rival (“oooh! We’ve beaten them! Yaya!”) is one thing, but I think we need to remember that the visual medium is dominated by television and not Hollywood.
Television has expanded massively over the last few years, with the creation of many new channels on satellite and cable, all desperate for content, working to tough deadlines and budgets, and facing the threat of a democratised technological production medium. Television studios are under threat, scrabbling for ad revenue, and attention amid the ever growing number of rivals for consumers eyes and pockets. Games are but one rival, as is on demand internet TV and internet browsing / facebook etc in general.
The games industry is in a state of growth and flux, and is the least “settled” of any of the visual media, even though the others are all threatened by the march of technology. Even while it boats of growth, many games studios are going bust, cutting staff numbers or struggling to survive. The ‘pipeline’ of production is still not really fixed or uniform. The tools used to create titles are still not really adequate. There is no well developed “3rd party outsourcing’ for video games as a support industry. These support facilities are developing, sure, but not common, and nor is the idea of using them a lot accepted as part and parcel, except maybe for some localisation or testing, or to get art assets. Many are small companies or individuals. The wheel is still being developed and reinvented a lot of the time. None of this is a criticism, as the games industry is dealing with tech that is still evolving at an incredibly rapid rate, and getting a feel for a market that no one fully understands yet. In fact the consumers too aren’t fully developed or understood.
It’s my generation that are the first generation of gamers, who are now developers, and we are being constantly amazed by what’s possible. The ‘youth of today’ (how I love that expression!) will grow up to be the first “wired” generation, used to being online and in touch all the time, so who knows what they will come up with (or what tech they will have available? 3D vision, non physical controllers, time-travel!!??)
Perhaps gamers and industry people need to think a little more broadly than just beating Hollywood at their own game, and start to try and think of how to compete with television, in everyone’s lives, every day. The variety of TV (big ticket dramas, sports, throw away serialisations, kids cartoons, gameshows, music TV etc) reflects games more accurately, and this is where comparisons should be drawn more regularly.
N’Gai finishes with the proverb “may you live in interesting times” and I think this certainly applies to games. The question is, will games recognise the world they are in, as well as the times?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
A Curriculum for Game Audio
A Curriculum for Game Audio
Chair:
Richard Stevens, Leeds Metropolitan University
Panelists:
Dan Bardino, Creative Services Manager, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited
Andy Farnell, Author of Designing Sound
David Mollerstedt, DICE - Sweden
Dave Raybould, Leeds Metropolitan University - UK
Nia Wearn, Staffordshire Univerity - Staffordshire, UK
Me!
Just attended the AES London convention on Monday and took part in the panel discussion on the IASIG (Interactive Audio Special Interest Group) Game Audio Curriculum.
As you can see we had a good panel, and me as well! It was good to see Dan again, as he always brings a great deal to these talks (well he did at the Pinewood TIGA talk) with humour, clarity and insight. David brought Swedish deadpan humour and well thought out comments, not least of which was when asked what theoretical research he would like carried out replied he wanted to do research into consumer feedback about Game Audio. Do people actually care and so on? A point delightfully answered moments later when the panel was asked to name their favourite ever game audio, and Nia said she generally plays without sound…hahaha! (admittedly she said it’s mainly DS type stuff on a bus)
Great comedy timing though.
Further to the research idea, Dan asked a very good question when we had retired to the pub for further discussion…. How many people are actually employed directly in “Game Audio” in the UK..? The answer we came up with…not very many at all! The studios have pretty small numbers (2-5 maybe) in permanent employ, and they have a core of outsourcing resources they use (e.g. Side, for example). Two to five may sound reasonable, but we are talking about Sony and EA studios here, among the bigger players out there…
Aside from that somewhat gloomy note, the discussion touched on many interesting things.
Chief among them maybe was the very fluid situation game audio and game audio creation is in. The curriculum would have a hard time being definitive, as actual working practices are in no way currently fixed. Nor are the tools used. Universally they were deemed to be not up to scratch yet, but steadily improving. On the plus side, the actual field of ‘Game Audio’ was held to be an exciting and innovative area of audio development. The tools and methods are ‘up for grabs’ and the flexibility of purpose and implementation is to be admired. For example Film and TV have many fixed rules and techniques, which can be ignored in game audio design. Now sometimes this is not for the better, but at other times it opens things up and puts a new and exciting spin on things. It’s as if new questions are being asked (often for the first time) and because of that there are no “set answers” yet.
The discussion highlighted how rapidly things were moving forward as many of the points raised (for example discussions about the roles of Audio implementers and the balance between creative and technical ability) hinged on past definitions or past technical limitations. Whereas old game audio delivery systems often had extremely limited technical delivery capacity, which called on a fairly deep technical understanding of the limitations and how to get around them, modern consoles and PCs often have enough oomph to let the audio team worry about the quality of content rather than the actual capacity to deliver it.
Dan, Dave and I were uniformly in the “creative” camp as the prime asset of a modern game audio employee. Technical skill, without the commensurate desire to make things sound great and above all to fit those sounds into the feel of the game in question, was of limited value.
With the modern team ethos of Video Game creation, a lone tech hero was infinitely less valuable than someone who can communicate effectively with the larger team around them, and not just the audio team. The creative lead, and programming, design and art teams must all be effectively communicated with both to help create and then to ensure smooth delivery. Mind you the lone hero will always have a role somewhere I am sure, possibly in smaller teams or teams designing for portable / limited delivery systems, such as the burgeoning mobile market.
It’s good to think that game audio is still very much on a steeply upward curve, with a lot more to come, and seeing guys like David and Dan, I’m sure that EA and Sony are in good hands! Both are looking for constant forward motion, and as tools improve, and people get their heads around what can be done, I am sure we will be seeing a lot of interesting things happening. For one thing, the panel noted that the new wave of gaming interfaces (Sony Move, Xbox Natal, etc) could inspire a whole new field of control systems and audio feedback and input, with voice activation and recognition something that could have a real impact on game immersion and involvement (and looking silly potentially).
Visions of sitting in darkened rooms shouting Dive! Dive! Dive! at the screen while depth charges pound your 5.1 “sub” woofer spring to mind (pardon the unmissable pun opportunity)….
The IASIG draft curriculum doc can be downloaded from the IASIG website:
http://www.iasig.org/wg/eduwg/index.shtml
Chair:
Richard Stevens, Leeds Metropolitan University
Panelists:
Dan Bardino, Creative Services Manager, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited
Andy Farnell, Author of Designing Sound
David Mollerstedt, DICE - Sweden
Dave Raybould, Leeds Metropolitan University - UK
Nia Wearn, Staffordshire Univerity - Staffordshire, UK
Me!
Just attended the AES London convention on Monday and took part in the panel discussion on the IASIG (Interactive Audio Special Interest Group) Game Audio Curriculum.
As you can see we had a good panel, and me as well! It was good to see Dan again, as he always brings a great deal to these talks (well he did at the Pinewood TIGA talk) with humour, clarity and insight. David brought Swedish deadpan humour and well thought out comments, not least of which was when asked what theoretical research he would like carried out replied he wanted to do research into consumer feedback about Game Audio. Do people actually care and so on? A point delightfully answered moments later when the panel was asked to name their favourite ever game audio, and Nia said she generally plays without sound…hahaha! (admittedly she said it’s mainly DS type stuff on a bus)
Great comedy timing though.
Further to the research idea, Dan asked a very good question when we had retired to the pub for further discussion…. How many people are actually employed directly in “Game Audio” in the UK..? The answer we came up with…not very many at all! The studios have pretty small numbers (2-5 maybe) in permanent employ, and they have a core of outsourcing resources they use (e.g. Side, for example). Two to five may sound reasonable, but we are talking about Sony and EA studios here, among the bigger players out there…
Aside from that somewhat gloomy note, the discussion touched on many interesting things.
Chief among them maybe was the very fluid situation game audio and game audio creation is in. The curriculum would have a hard time being definitive, as actual working practices are in no way currently fixed. Nor are the tools used. Universally they were deemed to be not up to scratch yet, but steadily improving. On the plus side, the actual field of ‘Game Audio’ was held to be an exciting and innovative area of audio development. The tools and methods are ‘up for grabs’ and the flexibility of purpose and implementation is to be admired. For example Film and TV have many fixed rules and techniques, which can be ignored in game audio design. Now sometimes this is not for the better, but at other times it opens things up and puts a new and exciting spin on things. It’s as if new questions are being asked (often for the first time) and because of that there are no “set answers” yet.
The discussion highlighted how rapidly things were moving forward as many of the points raised (for example discussions about the roles of Audio implementers and the balance between creative and technical ability) hinged on past definitions or past technical limitations. Whereas old game audio delivery systems often had extremely limited technical delivery capacity, which called on a fairly deep technical understanding of the limitations and how to get around them, modern consoles and PCs often have enough oomph to let the audio team worry about the quality of content rather than the actual capacity to deliver it.
Dan, Dave and I were uniformly in the “creative” camp as the prime asset of a modern game audio employee. Technical skill, without the commensurate desire to make things sound great and above all to fit those sounds into the feel of the game in question, was of limited value.
With the modern team ethos of Video Game creation, a lone tech hero was infinitely less valuable than someone who can communicate effectively with the larger team around them, and not just the audio team. The creative lead, and programming, design and art teams must all be effectively communicated with both to help create and then to ensure smooth delivery. Mind you the lone hero will always have a role somewhere I am sure, possibly in smaller teams or teams designing for portable / limited delivery systems, such as the burgeoning mobile market.
It’s good to think that game audio is still very much on a steeply upward curve, with a lot more to come, and seeing guys like David and Dan, I’m sure that EA and Sony are in good hands! Both are looking for constant forward motion, and as tools improve, and people get their heads around what can be done, I am sure we will be seeing a lot of interesting things happening. For one thing, the panel noted that the new wave of gaming interfaces (Sony Move, Xbox Natal, etc) could inspire a whole new field of control systems and audio feedback and input, with voice activation and recognition something that could have a real impact on game immersion and involvement (and looking silly potentially).
Visions of sitting in darkened rooms shouting Dive! Dive! Dive! at the screen while depth charges pound your 5.1 “sub” woofer spring to mind (pardon the unmissable pun opportunity)….
The IASIG draft curriculum doc can be downloaded from the IASIG website:
http://www.iasig.org/wg/eduwg/index.shtml
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Games Meet Film @ Pinewood Studios
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
“You’re not the boss of me!”
Difficulty in gaming. An oft discussed topic nowadays, and perhaps relating to the “ageing population” of gamers, who suddenly find what with adulthood (and in the case of many of my friends, childhood, just not theirs!) and work and so on, gaming time is a little restricted.
What might have been seen as a challenge a while back, has now become an irritating sticking point, blocking progress. Also in terms of actual skills, a hardcore gamer will dedicate time to a title and really “settle into the groove” of both its visuals and its control layout and responses. Picking up a game after time away really shows you how much you learn by experience while playing. It’s no coincidence FPS’s are ‘pwnage zones’ as well practised players put the smack down on ‘noobs’ and rookies. EVE online too, the space based MMORPG, and in my eyes, one of the best games ever made, was ruthlessly ‘elitist’, where veterans often made mincemeat out of new players, even if the newbies had better equipment or outnumbered the veteran players. Even good gamers usually suffer a little when they switch to a new title. Thus our new ‘old timer’, part time gamers (like me!) don’t have the time to really soak up the skills for a new title, when they just manage to play it in small time compressed chunks. We never really get over the rookie hump, and into “the zone” of the new title. Of course, this initial learning period can be half the fun of a new title, especially when you get the satisfaction of realising you have cleared the “rookie hump” and are now the one handing out the pain. The satisfaction of gaining new skills and “making the grade” may explain why people move onto new FPS titles so often….
While progress can still be made even by amateurs, it’s often when bashing into what has often ruined a game for me, the “BOSS” that everything grinds to a halt.
A notable case in point for this was in a title I actually really enjoyed (and aside from the BOSS HELL) would highly recommend, Conan on my Xbox 360. The slashing sword fighting was great fun, with a real visceral control and feeling of achievement. I slogged through to the end, defeating some huge bosses at the end of each level (often with great difficulty and multiple retries…. In fact I nearly gave up at about 3 of the bosses, but carried on doggedly, as I enjoyed the mainstay fighting so much).
I was playing on hard level, which I often do as I don’t like to ruin a title by revealing everything dashing through on easy. I enjoy a challenge, so I hope this entry doesn’t make me look like a whiner! I don’t mind dying as long as I’m enjoying it! Anyway, after I completed the game, I immediately started a replay…Not a chance on the hardest setting after ‘my boss hell’, but actually a level easier. What do you know, the sword play was still great fun, and the bosses were a cinch. I still got to enjoy their grandeur, but actually got past them quickly and without being reduced to tears!
Now why was the “hard” setting seemingly exactly the same, except for the bosses having 3x the health, and just making them into an immense pain. There was no difference in the victory technique required; you just had to do it over and over and over again. I was terrified at even the thought of the bosses on the most difficult setting. My question is what do some designers think they are achieving by adding ridiculously difficult bosses in, especially with the growing trend of having them being defeated by QTEs (as indeed Conan features in some places)? OK the great graphics and sense of scale or menace is introduced, but rather than crushing the player, they should help him feel heroic and special, after achieving victory and moving on. If you want to use QTE's, why not make a success be an awesome kill, and some failures an ever more mundane and struggling one. Let the player see a cool Beast / Mech / Demon / Wizard / Mafia Don death of some kind, and move on!
I was reading NGai Croal’s piece in this month’s Edge, and was inspired to write this entry. I totally agree with his idea of “on the fly” changeable difficulty. If one part of game is annoying me, the customer / player, why not give me the option of making it a little easier? I especially liked his “drop difficulty level down one, for one checkpoint” idea. Perhaps it could even be handed out as a ‘reward item’ which could be used only a few times, to keep a sense of challenge for the player…. After all if I can only use it a few times, I might just try and beat this bit a few times first……
Anyway, little blog entry over. I bought the game, so I should be the boss!
What might have been seen as a challenge a while back, has now become an irritating sticking point, blocking progress. Also in terms of actual skills, a hardcore gamer will dedicate time to a title and really “settle into the groove” of both its visuals and its control layout and responses. Picking up a game after time away really shows you how much you learn by experience while playing. It’s no coincidence FPS’s are ‘pwnage zones’ as well practised players put the smack down on ‘noobs’ and rookies. EVE online too, the space based MMORPG, and in my eyes, one of the best games ever made, was ruthlessly ‘elitist’, where veterans often made mincemeat out of new players, even if the newbies had better equipment or outnumbered the veteran players. Even good gamers usually suffer a little when they switch to a new title. Thus our new ‘old timer’, part time gamers (like me!) don’t have the time to really soak up the skills for a new title, when they just manage to play it in small time compressed chunks. We never really get over the rookie hump, and into “the zone” of the new title. Of course, this initial learning period can be half the fun of a new title, especially when you get the satisfaction of realising you have cleared the “rookie hump” and are now the one handing out the pain. The satisfaction of gaining new skills and “making the grade” may explain why people move onto new FPS titles so often….
While progress can still be made even by amateurs, it’s often when bashing into what has often ruined a game for me, the “BOSS” that everything grinds to a halt.
A notable case in point for this was in a title I actually really enjoyed (and aside from the BOSS HELL) would highly recommend, Conan on my Xbox 360. The slashing sword fighting was great fun, with a real visceral control and feeling of achievement. I slogged through to the end, defeating some huge bosses at the end of each level (often with great difficulty and multiple retries…. In fact I nearly gave up at about 3 of the bosses, but carried on doggedly, as I enjoyed the mainstay fighting so much).
I was playing on hard level, which I often do as I don’t like to ruin a title by revealing everything dashing through on easy. I enjoy a challenge, so I hope this entry doesn’t make me look like a whiner! I don’t mind dying as long as I’m enjoying it! Anyway, after I completed the game, I immediately started a replay…Not a chance on the hardest setting after ‘my boss hell’, but actually a level easier. What do you know, the sword play was still great fun, and the bosses were a cinch. I still got to enjoy their grandeur, but actually got past them quickly and without being reduced to tears!
Now why was the “hard” setting seemingly exactly the same, except for the bosses having 3x the health, and just making them into an immense pain. There was no difference in the victory technique required; you just had to do it over and over and over again. I was terrified at even the thought of the bosses on the most difficult setting. My question is what do some designers think they are achieving by adding ridiculously difficult bosses in, especially with the growing trend of having them being defeated by QTEs (as indeed Conan features in some places)? OK the great graphics and sense of scale or menace is introduced, but rather than crushing the player, they should help him feel heroic and special, after achieving victory and moving on. If you want to use QTE's, why not make a success be an awesome kill, and some failures an ever more mundane and struggling one. Let the player see a cool Beast / Mech / Demon / Wizard / Mafia Don death of some kind, and move on!
I was reading NGai Croal’s piece in this month’s Edge, and was inspired to write this entry. I totally agree with his idea of “on the fly” changeable difficulty. If one part of game is annoying me, the customer / player, why not give me the option of making it a little easier? I especially liked his “drop difficulty level down one, for one checkpoint” idea. Perhaps it could even be handed out as a ‘reward item’ which could be used only a few times, to keep a sense of challenge for the player…. After all if I can only use it a few times, I might just try and beat this bit a few times first……
Anyway, little blog entry over. I bought the game, so I should be the boss!
Monday, February 9, 2009
Close Combat – In Praise of Modding!
Well my state of the art Xbox 360 is back doing it’s original job, streaming video to my TV. For gaming I have returned to my all time favourite game (possibly juuuust ahead of Eve Online), the Close Combat series, in this case, Close Combat 5. The series, a top down tactical / strategic game set in World War II first came out in 1996 (yes over 12 years ago!) and is still unbeaten today. It was the computerised equivalent of much loved tactical board game, Avalon Hill’s Advanced Squad Leader. Now in one player mode, the game is quite fun, but stupidly easy. However, the game comes alive head to head, as a human rival makes the game a thrilling and tense duel, like chess but with heavy artillery support, and psychological damage.
The beauty of Close Combat is that it models real combat, taking into account troops experience, equipment, physical state and most importantly of all, their mental state. Rookie troops, surrounded, low on ammo, out of contact with allies and under heavy fire won’t do much other than cower and scream, and if you are unlucky, just surrender. No Tank rushes, no confusing weird sci-fi weapon sets (well not if you know your WWII history) no production or bases to take care of or build. Just a tactical struggle to the bitter end.
Currently my long term opponent, (my brother) and I are engaged with Close Combat 5 (released in 2000) which via the use of mods is enabling us to fight the WWII campaign from start to finish. We have completed Meuse 1940 mod, which shows the German Blitzkrieg into France, and Stalingrad, which moved us from the fields of France to the bitter house to house fighting on the Eastern Front. Both were harsh losses for me as the Allies, where we caused significant casualties but couldn’t turn the tide of battle against our Nazi foes. However for the first time, the Allies are on the front foot as we play the SDK (Stalingrad Der Kessel) mod, which replicates the Soviet ‘Operation Uranus’ offensive from the 19th of November 1942 through to the end of December. The campaign is well suited to a back-story both in history, and one created by my brother and myself, as propaganda flows back and forth, and the game allows heroes of legend to be born and tracked (and unfortunately, often to die horribly). Currently, our alter egos, German Field Marshall Hans “Choco” Liebnitz, and his Soviet counterpart, General Lebedev of the Marines, (a promoted survivor of Stalingrad, appointed to raise morale after the terrible politically inspired leadership of Commissar Ivan C U Znaipov) are engaged in a titanic struggle, now nearing the end of November.
In the future, we will move on to the Western front, with the Gold Juno Sword (GJS) mod, on D-Day, march up the coastline with the Scheldt mod, suffer a counter attack with the Battle of the Bulge mod, strike to end the war early with a “Bridge Too Far” Arnhem mod, and then finally fight at Kursk and in Berlin. All this is possible thanks to fans and committed coders and mapmakers who create these amazing mods, (often far better than the original game, pace the creators!) and keep creating them.
The audio alone in SDK is amazing, and often inspires terror or elation as one hears the beginning of a Stuka raid, or HQ radios in the availability of an artillery barrage, or just relief as a sergeant tells me that Pvt Sulebovskiy is rallied and ready for duty.
So I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the modders out there, of all games, who show such creativity, and who inspire humble gamers such as my brother and I to new heights. SDK’s realism has taken the propaganda war to new heights, and I hope I can publish some of our exchanges below (once I figure out where I can host the PDFs). These add significantly to our enjoyment, and I firmly believe that ‘story driven’ is not necessarily the aim, but ‘story supported’ can only be good.
Initial Day 19 and 20
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=1063813&da=y
Days 22-24
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=1063814&da=y
Well my state of the art Xbox 360 is back doing it’s original job, streaming video to my TV. For gaming I have returned to my all time favourite game (possibly juuuust ahead of Eve Online), the Close Combat series, in this case, Close Combat 5. The series, a top down tactical / strategic game set in World War II first came out in 1996 (yes over 12 years ago!) and is still unbeaten today. It was the computerised equivalent of much loved tactical board game, Avalon Hill’s Advanced Squad Leader. Now in one player mode, the game is quite fun, but stupidly easy. However, the game comes alive head to head, as a human rival makes the game a thrilling and tense duel, like chess but with heavy artillery support, and psychological damage.
The beauty of Close Combat is that it models real combat, taking into account troops experience, equipment, physical state and most importantly of all, their mental state. Rookie troops, surrounded, low on ammo, out of contact with allies and under heavy fire won’t do much other than cower and scream, and if you are unlucky, just surrender. No Tank rushes, no confusing weird sci-fi weapon sets (well not if you know your WWII history) no production or bases to take care of or build. Just a tactical struggle to the bitter end.
Currently my long term opponent, (my brother) and I are engaged with Close Combat 5 (released in 2000) which via the use of mods is enabling us to fight the WWII campaign from start to finish. We have completed Meuse 1940 mod, which shows the German Blitzkrieg into France, and Stalingrad, which moved us from the fields of France to the bitter house to house fighting on the Eastern Front. Both were harsh losses for me as the Allies, where we caused significant casualties but couldn’t turn the tide of battle against our Nazi foes. However for the first time, the Allies are on the front foot as we play the SDK (Stalingrad Der Kessel) mod, which replicates the Soviet ‘Operation Uranus’ offensive from the 19th of November 1942 through to the end of December. The campaign is well suited to a back-story both in history, and one created by my brother and myself, as propaganda flows back and forth, and the game allows heroes of legend to be born and tracked (and unfortunately, often to die horribly). Currently, our alter egos, German Field Marshall Hans “Choco” Liebnitz, and his Soviet counterpart, General Lebedev of the Marines, (a promoted survivor of Stalingrad, appointed to raise morale after the terrible politically inspired leadership of Commissar Ivan C U Znaipov) are engaged in a titanic struggle, now nearing the end of November.
In the future, we will move on to the Western front, with the Gold Juno Sword (GJS) mod, on D-Day, march up the coastline with the Scheldt mod, suffer a counter attack with the Battle of the Bulge mod, strike to end the war early with a “Bridge Too Far” Arnhem mod, and then finally fight at Kursk and in Berlin. All this is possible thanks to fans and committed coders and mapmakers who create these amazing mods, (often far better than the original game, pace the creators!) and keep creating them.
The audio alone in SDK is amazing, and often inspires terror or elation as one hears the beginning of a Stuka raid, or HQ radios in the availability of an artillery barrage, or just relief as a sergeant tells me that Pvt Sulebovskiy is rallied and ready for duty.
So I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the modders out there, of all games, who show such creativity, and who inspire humble gamers such as my brother and I to new heights. SDK’s realism has taken the propaganda war to new heights, and I hope I can publish some of our exchanges below (once I figure out where I can host the PDFs). These add significantly to our enjoyment, and I firmly believe that ‘story driven’ is not necessarily the aim, but ‘story supported’ can only be good.
Initial Day 19 and 20
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=1063813&da=y
Days 22-24
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=1063814&da=y
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)