Admittedly I didn't spend my time during summer as productively as I could have, though I still feel that over the weeks I learned a lot about the games and film industries by keeping an eye on worldwide events such as Gamescom, E3, and keeping up to date with subject relevant media podcasts by G4TV and similar websites.
I have learned, or perhaps acknowledged now more than ever that games are developing and advancing at an alarming rate, and I am beginning to wonder where it will stop. I am familiar with where it began and throughout the course of my life-long interest in games and gaming (going all the way back to the Sega Megadrive and Sonic 2 + Streets of Rage, here), I find myself wondering what the epitome of a good game is. New features are added and developed all the time and new ways to play, and new things to do are almost expected. Many years ago on consoles such as the Playstation and Dreamcast, graphics were a thing to boast about, although in modern times this particular strength of a game might be met with immediate criticism, followed up with the iron belief that graphics are irrelevant; it is the gameplay that matters. This much I can agree to, the original games like Super Mario and Sonic don't have half the features modern games have.
Yet despite this we recognise them as some of the greatest titles; particularly Zelda: Majora's Mask, which although I have never played, still holds one of very few 100/100 ratings from recognised rating bodies such as gaming magazines. However, were we to play them now, we would no doubt find the blocky graphics, questionable sound quality, and other variables that make up the game on an inferior level to just about any modern title.
However, does more features necessarily mean better? An overwhelming amount of options and things to do can often confuse a new player to a game as they may feel they are missing out on an advantage or necessary part of progression in the game. I found myself in this situation when I played a free MMO called Forsaken World, where upon getting to the main city found an overabundance of things to do, but not knowing which or what would be best. I didn't know where I was going or what I should do first. It may not have been a problem had I decided to go out of my way to learn about it, but in my opinion the knowledge of the game should come to you naturally, rather than forcing you to seek it out in order to survive; although I do expect that players who do this are rewarded in some way.
Another MMO I have played is the Korean 'Rose Online'. I initially found out about it in a demo years ago when I played Runescape, but didn't continue because at the time I didn't want to play a game with a monthly payment (and I was probably too young). It is a very relaxed game with a stylized anime aesthetic, the musical score is something I still remember as being catchy and I think whilst it was only a demo, it did introduce me to another aspect of the MMO genre. It was different to Runescape as it was not browser based but the graphics were much better, softer and all the more it had a very fun and happy atmosphere to play, rather than a story / apocalypse-driven motivation or threat from an omnipresent antagonist. It might have just been my age but I still feel that games like this have a market; advances and new directions in indie gaming have proven that there is an interesting even for performing simple tasks such as virtual farming and collecting pets.
Assassin's Creed is one of few titles I have seen to have a real progression in it's development. Originally the game was very linear and straight-forward, and this made a lot of players feel limited. Since then, it has been made to become a much more open-world environment and optional missions are available, as well as other features likely requested for by players. Assassin's Creed one reminds me of one of my all time favourites; Tenchu 3; Wrath of Heaven, which scored 97% with most reviews at the time. It was -the- stealth game of the year, despite it being very linear; eight levels, guards wandering in simple, pre-set paths, straightforward attack / block combat system. Compared to the latest AC game, it's not half as good. But that's because features such as being open world, and more fun combat systems were not universally required in just about every game as they became more and more easier to implement. Because it wasn't available back then, it's almost like it wasn't required, or simply because the option wasn't there, there was no existing game to compare it to. Were you to compare them now, Tenchu's 8 single player levels, each with three different settings for different guard locations and paths is very little in comparison to a 50 hour play-time storyline and online multiplayer possibilities from Assassin's Creed's latest title - yet at the time it utilized the best of what was available.
This brings me to mention that the technology produced by one games development company may eventually become industry standard; the same also applies to ideas and concepts. Ways to spend time in-game besides taking part in story / actual game progression is something I first recall in Grand Theft Auto; Vice City, as I could spend hours just stealing cars if I wanted to. It wouldn't help me much, but the option was there, and I think having the option is something more and more players and developers are concerning themselves with. More and more games are being increasingly inclusive with mini-games or alternative content. When one game was linear or closed in a time where games started to become more open world and more environmentally explorable, it was considered a negative. The same applies to every feature of modern games, on top of the innovation race to find something new and get the edge over the competition. This brings me to the next games comparison between another two MMO games; one being the paragon and reigning king of MMOs, the other a new contender, with new technology, new ideas and just about new everything.
Reflecting on these old titles with nothing but praise may simply be the result of nostalgia; I certainly only remember the good things about the games of old, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were the best ever made.
I have been thinking about and keeping up to date with games as there are some very interesting titles that have been released, for example Guild Wars 2 and WoW: Mists of Pandaria, the 4th World of Warcraft expansion. I there have been many comparisons between these two games and I think it is a very interesting debate. One is a brand new game developed with the latest graphics engines and gameplay initiatives. WoW on the other hand has had nearly eight years to refine, tune, develop and adjust itself into the most popular MMO game ever made. I have several criticisms about Guild Wars 2 myself, having played it. Whilst a lot of the dynamic content is good, it seems mainly to just be a repeating series of events and they are hardly as dynamic as they are passed off to be. A better example of this is in Rift, where the titular threats to the players, the Rifts, open up and monsters and enemies pour forth. I would still be playing Rift now if I didn't also want to continue playing Warcraft, which I have already invested a few years into.
Also, Guild Wars 2 feels like it tries to change too much of the MMO genre, making it so that you can be competitive in PVP as gear becomes irrelevant and the item levels for gear are balanced out. My criticism of this is that acquiring gear and improving your character is a large part of the MMO genre gameplay, and by negating the full effect of this you are arguably taking away the reward of acquiring gear. If anyone can be competitive, why fight for gear, and if there's no point fighting for gear, there are plenty of other games where you needn't have gear to be competitive. I feel that although it is a potentially good decision, they have overlooked issues such as these amongst others.
Guild Wars 2 is also building on dynamic MMO fundamentals that World of Warcraft will no doubt have shaped over the eight years of it's existance. Blizzard have told would-be developers to try something new, as if they just copy Warcraft, they mightaswell be playing Warcraft. This is perhaps the approach Arena-net took with Guild Wars 2, but it's arguable they may have done it a little too literally. Frankly, too much is different and whilst it is still technically an MMORPG, so many of the usual boundries have been changed that it feels like something else entirely. Many people will like that, though others might prefer sticking to what they are familiar with.
Similarly, when the Call of Duty series (as much as I dislike it most of the time) came up with the bloody screen idea instead of having a set healthbar, many other titles and games followed their example soon after.
There has also been an increase in modding and addons; most recently, with Arma II and the DayZ mod - the success of which has sparked a sudden increase in 'Z-day survival MMO's' - and a dedicated, non-mod version of the game is currently in progress. Day-Z recently hit 1 million players, meaning that more people bought the game to play the mod, rather than to play the actual idea. The reason behind the success of the mod I believe is down to the realism of it. It isn't a shoot and kill - there are many many variables consider. The search for water, food, health, keeping warm, bandaging wounds so you don't bleed - and if you do bleed you'll find your vision fading and your overall capabilities in-game hindered entirely. There is limited ammunition and supplies around, and you are left to your own devices; team up with other players, you might find yourself betrayed and your supplies stolen shortly after. Furthermore, if you die, you re-spawn and lose all your gear and equipment.
You don't even start with a weapon, meaning you are left to crawl across the dirt to avoid the undead - without a weapon, you have no means of killing them or defending yourself other than running. Guns also create a lot of noise, which will draw zombies in if they hear it being fired. The playable level is absolutely huge, a virtual 27km across, and you have no map to navigate with. It combines horror, survival and action within one game. The only objective is to survive, there is no long-term goal to keep in mind.
Games, aside, I have also seen a few films over the summer. The Dark Knight Rises, Men in Black 3, Prometheus, Ted, Brave, The Avengers, The Expendables and The Expendables 2 (which was significantly better and everything the first should have been), to name several.
I have been thinking about my choices in film, games and animation, and despite my love for all three and a lack of experience in film, I'm rolling towards film right now. It might be something I change but I reflected on my experiences making our short films last year; going to the locations, setting up the shots, I just found it all more enjoyable.
I could swear I had more to write but what exactly that was has escaped my thoughts already. Like I said, I didn't get up to much.
