vimes

I'm going to write about things, I'm not sure about, so take this with a grain of salt. If I'm not wrong most of people who pours money into video games companies are groups of people who do are not familiar with it. Then my main preoccupation is : is it more useful to be a producer that is (a) a sharp money maker/excellent project manager ( someone who understand the industry and the medium very well. I think, that unfortunately (a) is the more useful to keep a company afloat. Plus, I'm worried that this situation of having a seemingly game-enlightened people handling the money of a Video game production would turn this industry into the movie industry of the 50's. During this period , producers would interfere at every step of a movie creation choosing actors, director, screenwriters because they though they were competent enough to do so. Of course, they weren't. Don't read this the wrong way, this would be best to have people like Seamus Blackley producing games ... but let's face it, guys like him who understand business, the Video game world as an industry AND a medium very well are a rarity. So we need really good businessmen that knows to rely on creative people to take decisions from a certain level.

Did you enjoy watching Hogfather ? On a related note, I'm amazed they chose those two particular books for screen adaptation : in my opinion, these are the most difficult stories to adapt for the screen; their story is a big mess. Any of the guards book would have been great and if they really wanted to have Rincewind in, they could have chosen Faust/Eric.

The part was already cast for Hogfather :

Well, I might have chosen my words badly : I simply wanted to offer a possible explanation for why music was only used this way... and move the discussion along. Sorry if it appeared otherwise.

I thought this was done to remind the player that there used to be people around.

As always Ben, it's hard not to agree with your article Speaking about Kubrick, someone made an analysis of Shining that deals a lot with the sound design and how it fills some purpose on many level. There are two things I really found interesting : - the design of the prop sounds echoes some pieces of music : in the opinion of this analysts, Danny rolling with his tricycle matches the percussion and chords section of the music piece from the chase in the maze. - the opening music contains clues to the underlying theme of the native-american genocide. - fake environment sounds are inserted to create atmosphere. Even if you consider that this analysis is far fetched, these ideas of uses for musics and sounds shows how sound design is underestimated. Yet, I really enjoy soundtrack based on orchestral and structured pieces and there are two interesting examples of omnipresent soundtrack that I re-discovered recently : - I've been playing Toonstruck recently and the first part of this game really immersed me in its universe, in the same way that a very good book usually does : I forgot about the medium, the interfaces and really thougt I was in there. Well, apparently, Toonstruck's soundtrack borrows heavily from popular music to strengthen the credibility of its universe. It's not really a surprise when you notice that Keith Arem - the director of the game - is also an accomplished sound designer. The more noticeable cues come from classical pieces such as William Tell, the Nutcracker and the The Magpie, yet what's more impressive is that they seem to have dug melodies from cartoons of the 30's and the 50's. This is important because most of us would have hear those while maybe not remembering them (like stuff from Raymond Scott or Laurie Johnson's Happy Go Lively). ... but still it un-conscientiously bolster the reality/credibility of the toon world described. - the other is Arcanum, which has a very vibrant, organic and expressive soundtrack thanks to the violin quartet hired by Ben Houge.

Bah, I'm disappointed that the first live-action incarnation of Rincewind isn't Adrien Brody. Hogfather was nice - they totally nailed the visual (praise real sets) and the acting , which was a great surprise - but in my opinion, it could have put up with a better structure, and a bit more focus.

Isn't Rincewind supposed to be younger ?... like in his thirties ? (on the right in the attached picture)

You know you can stop watching whenever you want to.

And another, live!

I watched No Country for Old Men yesterday: I'm not sure I really got the point of the movie, but I really enjoyed it thoroughly

There was this awesome quote when he talks about DoubleFine : "the thought of someone hurting Timmy make me so fucking man" and then " I tell you, Doublefine is going to close over my fucking dead body". It is really awesome to have someone like that in the industry, who really cares for the future of personalities in the industry.

I just finished the one with Seamus Blackley, the guy's career is unbelievable : he was the composer of System Shock, physics programmer on Fly and now he's the agent of Tim Schafer, and plenty of other talented people ... the lecture is brilliant.

thanks toblix!

Yeah, it is very awesome; with all the Oscars the French movies got this year and the Colbert Push the movie benefited from a few days before the ceremony, I was hoping it would get the Best Animated Feature ... meh, Ratatouille is a very good movie too.

I don't know... I totally get your point because I noticed it too in lots of games. But, you see, I'm not completely OK with it because it sounds likes: 'Killing people from a first person perspective. Nice idea, but a one time thing : you'd get bored'. Of course, there are two pathological cases (1) make 'use limitations' as your gameplay drive and bet on the small novelties (2) make one limitation a core gameplay feature and leave at that. In both case, you end up with a gimmick and it would work across several games. However, I believe that if you consider limitations as a mirror to new technologies, then they become another tool, whose use must be challenged by how it is needed by the game : you don't need to make the gameplay to revolve around it, you just have to use it when the situation calls for it. Like split screen in movies or Quick Time Event.

Wow, I don't think I can thank you enough for making me discover this game! This is spot on what I've been searching for a while; namely, 'gameplay' ideas which bear a symbolic (or as you, say, expressive) meaning that the player gets better as he plays ... it perfectly use the feedback loop, action-effect that only interactive medium display. And that's rare, right ? Plus there's no tutorial - which is awesome- no loading screen, the guy stripped it down to the most essential thing -throwing away any Video game convention - and yet, it is subtle, interesting, but not elitist...Again, wow!

The Uncanny Valley being so discussed in the industry right now, I wonder why no major studio came out with an idea that actually exploits this limitation ... to make a point and fill the void while the solution is being figured out. From the top of my head, it could be used to highlight the un-humanly aspect of certain people by representing them with photo realistic visual while giving compelling characters a 'puppet' look that would convey better emotion, etc... Thinking about it - and to my knowledge - no major limitation or malfunction of the visual part of the medium has ever been taken advantage of : wouldn't it be nice if designers could use streaming that takes too long and makes LOD very noticeable, the absence of depth of field/shadow or incoherent shadow or impossible visual composition... to actually build a underlying discourse or shape an atmosphere ?

I really enjoyed playing (and not finishing, cause I suck at gaming) Fancy Pants Adventure World 2 .. the flow of the game and the animation are really brilliant.

Alles gut zum geburstag, Niezche!

Nobody did it already, so I'm going to state the obvious : these features are cool but I'd really like to know how they are used and balanced in an actual gameplay experience.

I don't think that when people say they don't believe in science, they meant they don't believe in the microwave; I think they meant that they don't take science has the ultimate explanation of the world. And that's the main problem between the 'religious' and 'scientific' community : they will never agree because they don't envision 'explaining the world' as having the same sense. Religion explain why, and expects science to do the same. Science explains how, and expects religion to do the same. And none of them will ever be able to provide what the other expects, religion because it is based on faith (believe without/against proof) and science because it doesn't think their is an intention behind natural phenomenon. Anyway, I don't know why but the expression "believing in science" tingle my brain as weird and contradictory... anyone having the same feeling?

This raises a question : wouldn't it cost less to buy a 'small' multiplex and use one of its projection room as one of your own, or even better, turn it into a freakin' house?

Before spending some money, try ShaderShock patches for 2.0 card with the demo.You'll get the game running but you'll also get longer loading times and you'll need to see if the performances are alright for you... it's worth the try though.