'
Friday 15 April 2016
Funta Bottle Continuation
I moved the excess bottle up so that it's not as visible in the model. The double layering of plastic actually looks pretty nice. It's like how the plastic gets thick on those bottle in reality.
I'm now working on the scratches of the bottle.
'
'
Thursday 14 April 2016
Texturing the Funta Bottle
Lauren has also suggested being able to put some orange liquid in the bottle using a transparent solid seeing as the liquid does not move.
Monday 11 April 2016
Bottle UV
Lauren helped me over the shoulder with the UV layout where my knowledge of UVs was not strong.
I placed the texture on top but I'm not happy with how the texturing looks at the back of the label.
After checking this over with Lauren, she has said that it's actually a happy accident because most fanta bottles tend to have crooked labels like that. Now I need to work on making the grey a different material to the label so that I can adjust the shine and transparency.
Welp, I tried my idea but it didn't really work as I wanted it too.
Welp, I tried my idea but it didn't really work as I wanted it too.
Friday 8 April 2016
Wolf Among Us Part 2
I think interactivity is an incredible prominent part of the game The Wolf Among Us. One can interact with most anything in the game and one must in order to complete the game. However, there's the issue of not being able to interact with everything in the game which results in not knowing everything in the game. I feel that this is not a failing of the game but a success as it reflects the reality of not being able to know everything in life.
A game's ability to reflect on life is very powerful because it gives the game a certain substance that without it would make the game less impactful on the player. Arguably, Wolf Among Us allows the interaction with a lot of objects but not every single object in the scene. This shows us that whilst we can see a lot, we can only do so much that is relevant to move our story forward in a clear distinct way.
In other games you may well be able to interact with all that is shown on screen, such as The Sims. The problem with this is that there is far less direction and it becomes easy to be swallowed up in endless detail that only confuses the player. This stops the player, or at least hinders the player from continuing in the directed way of the story.
When one enters a room in The Wolf Among Us one first asks "what actions are available to me as a player?" The game design is done in a way that makes it quite clear. Markers are distinctly highlighted with a white circle, that open up if there are possible more options such as listening to the door or kicking down the door. This array of actions one can take when interacting with an object makes the player think clearly about what they can and can't do with their situation. Ultimately, the clarity of interactive objects lends well to a very linear story based game.
To prove the prominence of interactivity within the game, I propose looking at it without interactivity. There is nothing the player can click on, or affect in the video presented in front of them. If things do happen, then it nothing to do with the player. This is no longer a game. A game requires some level of interactivity otherwise it is a movie. In saying this, The Wolf Among Us has a strong story that lends to the likes of comic books and movies but has been made into a game because of the interactivity.
All in all, this game is cleverly designed with very purposeful interactivity that only adds to the story in a way that does not interfere with the smoothness of the game. I think that whilst this works well for this game, it may not work so well for games that don't have such a set series of plot points to hit. The style of interactivity dictates the pace of the story unfloding and so it can be used to make one feel more in the moment. The Wolf Among Us takes the player through specific moments in a way that feels our own.
A game's ability to reflect on life is very powerful because it gives the game a certain substance that without it would make the game less impactful on the player. Arguably, Wolf Among Us allows the interaction with a lot of objects but not every single object in the scene. This shows us that whilst we can see a lot, we can only do so much that is relevant to move our story forward in a clear distinct way.
In other games you may well be able to interact with all that is shown on screen, such as The Sims. The problem with this is that there is far less direction and it becomes easy to be swallowed up in endless detail that only confuses the player. This stops the player, or at least hinders the player from continuing in the directed way of the story.
When one enters a room in The Wolf Among Us one first asks "what actions are available to me as a player?" The game design is done in a way that makes it quite clear. Markers are distinctly highlighted with a white circle, that open up if there are possible more options such as listening to the door or kicking down the door. This array of actions one can take when interacting with an object makes the player think clearly about what they can and can't do with their situation. Ultimately, the clarity of interactive objects lends well to a very linear story based game.
To prove the prominence of interactivity within the game, I propose looking at it without interactivity. There is nothing the player can click on, or affect in the video presented in front of them. If things do happen, then it nothing to do with the player. This is no longer a game. A game requires some level of interactivity otherwise it is a movie. In saying this, The Wolf Among Us has a strong story that lends to the likes of comic books and movies but has been made into a game because of the interactivity.
All in all, this game is cleverly designed with very purposeful interactivity that only adds to the story in a way that does not interfere with the smoothness of the game. I think that whilst this works well for this game, it may not work so well for games that don't have such a set series of plot points to hit. The style of interactivity dictates the pace of the story unfloding and so it can be used to make one feel more in the moment. The Wolf Among Us takes the player through specific moments in a way that feels our own.
Fez
Fez is a game where you play an adorable little guy called Gomez who wears a fez. This guy does cute animations such as jumping, climbing, and running. But these actions do not make a character. I feel as though Gomez could be replaced by any other character and the game would still be the same because he's so bland. This blandness is represented by his purely white, plain design on which a fez is perched on. This is not to say that Gomez is a bad character, but one that the player can overlay themselves on.
It's clear that Gomez has a story of being part of a long line of people that have had the fez. In doing this, theoretically the game is telling you that he could be replaced by any of the former fez wearers within the family tree. Gomez is the vessel of a concept which is explored by means of gameplay and thus action rather than heavy characterisation through dialogue and dress etc.
I found myself "oscillating between identifying with the character as an extension of self, and relating to it as a separate, fictional entity". This made me feel that achievement I made in the game were very much my own, but very rarely I was reminded that I was playing as another being with his own story and life. I think playing around with how a player relates to a character is a good thing because there's pros and cons to both with no real right answer.
It's clear that Gomez has a story of being part of a long line of people that have had the fez. In doing this, theoretically the game is telling you that he could be replaced by any of the former fez wearers within the family tree. Gomez is the vessel of a concept which is explored by means of gameplay and thus action rather than heavy characterisation through dialogue and dress etc.
I found myself "oscillating between identifying with the character as an extension of self, and relating to it as a separate, fictional entity". This made me feel that achievement I made in the game were very much my own, but very rarely I was reminded that I was playing as another being with his own story and life. I think playing around with how a player relates to a character is a good thing because there's pros and cons to both with no real right answer.
Thursday 7 April 2016
Fallout 2
My personal compass of morality influenced my choices that I made when I was playing the game. I would frequently do tasks such as rescue a dog or clear demonic plants for free because I as a person felt that it would be the most gratifying experience. I found that I would choose my lines of dialogue depending on my personal interpretation of the character in front of me. I played very much as myself rather than the character despite naming the character something other than Sam.
I suppose asking about morality within a game comes down to ones own ideas of morality. I myself believe in all human experience being subjective and thus objectivity cannot exist as a human standpoint. If we're subjective, then how can we say what is good or bad? Doing something bad such as in the game, killing a whole group of people can be painted as a terrible thing. You personally assisted in the process of creating a broken family with a missing member is on your head. Simultaneously, the people you have killed work for the slave driving company and so you have assisted in undermining that company which may result in less slaves being taken. But then one could argue that those people were only following orders for benevolent reasons. The argument is an endless one. The point I'm making is that morality is not a concrete good and bad scale because what one person thinks is good, someone else may think it bad.
In saying all this, I'm not sure if I could say morality as a base concept influences my choices. But my ideas of what make me feel good did influence me. Perhaps that could be considered morality?
I suppose asking about morality within a game comes down to ones own ideas of morality. I myself believe in all human experience being subjective and thus objectivity cannot exist as a human standpoint. If we're subjective, then how can we say what is good or bad? Doing something bad such as in the game, killing a whole group of people can be painted as a terrible thing. You personally assisted in the process of creating a broken family with a missing member is on your head. Simultaneously, the people you have killed work for the slave driving company and so you have assisted in undermining that company which may result in less slaves being taken. But then one could argue that those people were only following orders for benevolent reasons. The argument is an endless one. The point I'm making is that morality is not a concrete good and bad scale because what one person thinks is good, someone else may think it bad.
In saying all this, I'm not sure if I could say morality as a base concept influences my choices. But my ideas of what make me feel good did influence me. Perhaps that could be considered morality?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)