Please click here to read what I'm about to complain about.
I am absolutely fucking exhausted with these inspirational .pdfs. Really. The entire piece is about how all of our potential faults and shortcomings are simply areas of potential and self-discovery and self-betterment. It reads like an after school special or something, and if you are the sort of person that reaches out to inspirational blog posts on the internet to find self-betterment, then I suppose you would find some kind of strength in what Rendall is saying. To me, however, it all seems fairly trite and obvious--but then again, it is finals week, and I am feeling inherently negative. Rendall would probably twist that to tell me that I'm a realist and how wonderful that is. I'm inhabiting this entry, how delightful. Anyway, I’m going to critique three of his however-many points and attempt to apply them to my creative process even though it pains me to do so.
Entry three is one that caught my eye, simply because it has a pretty chart. It lists a series of "weaknesses" and the strengths that are associated with said weakness, thus negating the idea that there is anything inherently wrong with any of us. Well, I don't think that's true, because everyone is flawed--especially those people who think that they aren't. I think, in general terms, however, there is some truth to the list. I find myself to be incredibly unorganized, an yet I manage to pull the scraps together and form a creative output. My friend, who is a programmer for a living, is quite the opposite. Inflexible and stubborn, he always gets the job done and in a timely manner, but it is simply a matter of inputting data and getting things done.
Point four takes the stance that one should not try and fix their weaknesses, but rather understand that they have limitations. I think that this is an important thing to understand, especially to college students and especially to media students, when we seem to think that we can take on the world. The truth is that we all have limitations and driving too hard to overcome these will lead to issues elsewhere in life. Media is a group-oriented career. It is important to find someone who can compliment you. One of my weaknesses is my procrastination, but when I'm working on a project with a friend who has seemingly boundless and unrestrained enthusiasm, I'm more likely to get work done. It isn't a matter of me "fixing" myself, it's a matter of finding my place and finding people who can compliment me and draw product out of me.
Point eight makes the stance that attempting to be "normal" is the incorrect way of doing things. It is better to be bizarre or unique or, above all, exceptional. Media kids are very often slightly outside the box, in terms of thinking and in terms of behaving. It would be strange if we weren't, spending 12 hours shooting on a Saturday instead of going out to a rager. As a kid growing up, I was one of those creepy Tim Burton/Stephen King types. Reclusive and angsty--a prototype emo, perhaps. I've since learned how to be a more sociable person and how to extend to work in environments that are not necessarily my own. Deep down I'm still that strange and unusual kid, but it is something that now helps me rather than distracts me in my creative process.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Video Gaaaaames
Our entire gaming presentation was a little last-minute (go figure), and so there were definitely things that could have been improved upon. My group's gaming idea, the "Escape the Room" puzzle game with a twist, could have been better communicated and explained to the class, no doubt.
One thing we really should have stressed more was the mental challenge the game presents. The entire reason behind choosing this format of game was to stray away from the typical FPS style video games that are on the market today. By placing an emphasis on logic puzzles and not giving the player an alternate means to find a way out of the room (by way of guns or anything like that), the game actually becomes far more difficult than if the player were under attack by a million enemies. There are no enemies in this game. It is simply the player against themselves as they are left to their own devices to solve the puzzle. I think that stressing that concept, and comparing it to things on the market today, would have led to a more effective presentation.
Another concept that should have been expounded upon was the actual mechanics of the game. Saying "point and click" is easy enough, but it doesn't really explain the immersive nature of the mechanics. This game, in many ways, is similar to the adventure games of the late 80s and early 90s, where every single item you find could potentially help you later on down the road. This knowledge that some arbitrary item could save your life makes finding things and hunting for objects that much more exciting. The escape the room games are never as easy as finding a key and opening a door. The player has to be far more resourceful than that.
I believe the most difficult thing to explain were the objectives. This is simply because we hadn't fleshed them out enough. The overall puzzle of escaping the room is the main objective, obviously, but it's the completion of a number of other, smaller objectives that will ultimately lead the player to be able to do that. Since our group did not come up with each of these individual objectives and were not able to properly express this intent, it became muddled within the presentation and no doubt could have come across much better.
One thing we really should have stressed more was the mental challenge the game presents. The entire reason behind choosing this format of game was to stray away from the typical FPS style video games that are on the market today. By placing an emphasis on logic puzzles and not giving the player an alternate means to find a way out of the room (by way of guns or anything like that), the game actually becomes far more difficult than if the player were under attack by a million enemies. There are no enemies in this game. It is simply the player against themselves as they are left to their own devices to solve the puzzle. I think that stressing that concept, and comparing it to things on the market today, would have led to a more effective presentation.
Another concept that should have been expounded upon was the actual mechanics of the game. Saying "point and click" is easy enough, but it doesn't really explain the immersive nature of the mechanics. This game, in many ways, is similar to the adventure games of the late 80s and early 90s, where every single item you find could potentially help you later on down the road. This knowledge that some arbitrary item could save your life makes finding things and hunting for objects that much more exciting. The escape the room games are never as easy as finding a key and opening a door. The player has to be far more resourceful than that.
I believe the most difficult thing to explain were the objectives. This is simply because we hadn't fleshed them out enough. The overall puzzle of escaping the room is the main objective, obviously, but it's the completion of a number of other, smaller objectives that will ultimately lead the player to be able to do that. Since our group did not come up with each of these individual objectives and were not able to properly express this intent, it became muddled within the presentation and no doubt could have come across much better.
Superhero Critiques
Glen vs. Igor
The hero, Glen, and the villain, Igor, are contrasted through a number of visual means. Igor is more outwardly aggressive with his stance and the flames in his hands that make up his sinister superpower, whereas Glen appears more passive and peaceful, in a more relaxed stance in his wheelchair. The affinity between them--both human, both fairly realistic in their portrayal--puts them both in the same universe. Glen makes use of symbolism by being restricted to a wheelchair. This creates the notion that willpower is stronger than brute force and that he is more likely a reasonable and intelligent character, whereas Igor appears less intelligent and more dependent on his superpowers. Igor is composed of complimentary colors, red and green, which are opposite one another on the color wheel. This opposition not only makes him "pop", but gives some insight as to the duality of his nature. Glen is primarily in warm, analogous colors, making him feel more safe to the audience and more virtuous. Both characters are heavily saturated and bright regardless of their color scheme, again placing them in the same universe, and denoting a more light-hearded 60s comic book atmosphere.
Escobar vs The Krooked Cop
A very obvious contrast can be seen in the shape of these two characters. Escobar, the hero, is very round and rotund and appears to be very friendly. The Krooked Cop is comprised of bulkier square shapes and sharp edges, denoting his dangerousness. Since this is going along with the Charlie Chaplin tramp archetype, there's some vary obvious symbolism at work. The Krooked Cop is a symbol of authority, and, beyond that, authority and power out of control and abused. Escobar is the underdog, and very obviously the hero as he represents the "common man" and manages to pull the rug out from under the Cop's feet, so to speak. The most striking thing about the color, for me, is the absence of it. What little color that is present in each character pops due to the white space around it. For Escobar, it's his red bowtie, which denotes that he attempts to look gentlemanly and presentable. For the Cop, it's the red in his eyes, which is the very image of evil.
Clown Guy vs. Alien Guy (sorry, I don't have the names listed for them)
There is no more obvious symbol of happiness and cheerfulness than a clown, and so its pretty obvious that the clown character stands as the hero in this equation. The alien is a symbol for an "outsider", something not natural to this earth coming to threaten the inhabitants and promote fear. The contrast between these characters is very obvious visually. The dopey grin on the face of the clown and the drawn, depressed look on the alien's face couldn't be more different. The colors also provide a very obvious contrast. The clown, predictably enough, is comprised of largely saturated colors in various bright hues, making him seem more bright and approachable and, ultimately, good. The alien, however, is muddled with very dark colors. Nothing is very bright, and in fact the only color that really stands out on him is the red that makes up his costume, which is a power of color but also of danger.
The hero, Glen, and the villain, Igor, are contrasted through a number of visual means. Igor is more outwardly aggressive with his stance and the flames in his hands that make up his sinister superpower, whereas Glen appears more passive and peaceful, in a more relaxed stance in his wheelchair. The affinity between them--both human, both fairly realistic in their portrayal--puts them both in the same universe. Glen makes use of symbolism by being restricted to a wheelchair. This creates the notion that willpower is stronger than brute force and that he is more likely a reasonable and intelligent character, whereas Igor appears less intelligent and more dependent on his superpowers. Igor is composed of complimentary colors, red and green, which are opposite one another on the color wheel. This opposition not only makes him "pop", but gives some insight as to the duality of his nature. Glen is primarily in warm, analogous colors, making him feel more safe to the audience and more virtuous. Both characters are heavily saturated and bright regardless of their color scheme, again placing them in the same universe, and denoting a more light-hearded 60s comic book atmosphere.
Escobar vs The Krooked Cop
A very obvious contrast can be seen in the shape of these two characters. Escobar, the hero, is very round and rotund and appears to be very friendly. The Krooked Cop is comprised of bulkier square shapes and sharp edges, denoting his dangerousness. Since this is going along with the Charlie Chaplin tramp archetype, there's some vary obvious symbolism at work. The Krooked Cop is a symbol of authority, and, beyond that, authority and power out of control and abused. Escobar is the underdog, and very obviously the hero as he represents the "common man" and manages to pull the rug out from under the Cop's feet, so to speak. The most striking thing about the color, for me, is the absence of it. What little color that is present in each character pops due to the white space around it. For Escobar, it's his red bowtie, which denotes that he attempts to look gentlemanly and presentable. For the Cop, it's the red in his eyes, which is the very image of evil.
Clown Guy vs. Alien Guy (sorry, I don't have the names listed for them)
There is no more obvious symbol of happiness and cheerfulness than a clown, and so its pretty obvious that the clown character stands as the hero in this equation. The alien is a symbol for an "outsider", something not natural to this earth coming to threaten the inhabitants and promote fear. The contrast between these characters is very obvious visually. The dopey grin on the face of the clown and the drawn, depressed look on the alien's face couldn't be more different. The colors also provide a very obvious contrast. The clown, predictably enough, is comprised of largely saturated colors in various bright hues, making him seem more bright and approachable and, ultimately, good. The alien, however, is muddled with very dark colors. Nothing is very bright, and in fact the only color that really stands out on him is the red that makes up his costume, which is a power of color but also of danger.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)