More E3 Thoughts (Plus An Industry Rant)
Here be my second rundown of the most interesting stuff to show up at E3 2011 (the first E3-related post can be found here). I'm struggling to recall every single trailer that caught my interest, but these are the most pertinent ones that have stayed in my head days after the convention wound up.
Overstrike
Another pre-rendered trailer. Which is OK, because it's full of awesome. I'm not really sure what to expect in terms of actual gameplay (something like Borderlands, maybe?) but this trailer is enough to pique my interest. Looking forward to seeing more of this.
Journey
I never played Flow or Flower (which, as a PS3 owner, classifies me as some kind of heretic) but the footage of Thatgamecompany's latest title is a pleasant reminder that there are other game genres besides shooters. The visuals, the music - it's all beautiful. Can't wait to here some reviews of the final game.
Mass Effect 3
I think Mass Effect may be the only true sci-fi franchise of any medium I still harbour any interest for anymore. Bioware just handles their writing so much better than anyone else in the industry, and in doing so have created a universe that I find infinitely more fascinating and immersive (and dignified) than even mainstream franchises like Star Wars. I couldn't give less of a damn about their Kinect voice-integration, but I'm definitely looking forward to booting up my Mass Effect 2 save data and charging in to rescue Earth with my female Shepherd, who incidentally looks identical to Olivia Wilde.
Rage
I haven't really enjoyed anything from id Software since Quake 2. God bless them for their pursuit of graphical development, but until seeing the footage for Rage, I could have sworn that they've just been making the same game over and over again since 1993. I don't care much for this Mad Max-esque world that they've created, but you can't question the fidelity of their technology. Also, that ninja boomerang thing makes this a must-play, if only for a few minutes.
Assassin's Creed: Revelations
I never got a chance to play Brotherhood, but this trailer is enough to get me interested in the series again. I'm actually a little disappointed that they're sticking with Ezio and Altaïr stories a bit longer - I was really hoping to take another leap forward in history to a more recent era, but I'm sure we'll hear more about the specifics before Revelations' release in November. My fingers are crossed that we get a bit more gameplay with Desmond - that character is one handgun short of being a high-functioning facsimile of Nathan Drake.
Tomb Raider
I couldn't possibly be more excited about this long overdue reboot. The brand has been subject to nothing short of molestation over the years, and excepting Anniversary (which was a reboot/re-release in itself), there hasn't been a decent instalment in this series since the PlayStation era of the late 1990's. Hat's off to the designers who were brave enough to put the property to good use. Assuming positive reviews, I'll be buying on release.
Hitman: Absolution
I want to like these games so much more than I actually do. It boggles my mind that despite the backstory of rigorous proficiency and genetic improvement they've created for their protagonist, Agent 47 still manages to come across like a total wuss, executing most of his targets through the use of poison and cross dressing. The whole series would be infinitely better if they just admitted defeat and redesigned 47 and his capabilities after Jason Statham, though it would appear that they're vaguely approaching that level of 'bad ass' based on what I'm seeing in this trailer. Tentative interest, but definitely not an immediate purchase (unless the game gets a lot of praise on release).
Other Stuff At E3 2011...
So there's also stuff going on with Sony's Move and the new PlayStation Vita, Nintendo's Wii U announcement, and Microsoft's ongoing emphasis on Kinect for the 360. In each instance, I am as uninterested in the product as the name of it is retarded. Video game devices don't need monikers that sound like they were rejected by an American car manufacturer.
Everyone's still going on about stereoscopic 3D, though only time will tell if this is a technology that the mainstream community is prepared to embrace, both practically and financially speaking. Again, it's not something I'm especially concerned about - it will either succeed or it won't. I'll care more when the development of 3D support starts impacting the quality of major games, but until then, it's just another feature I neither possess nor want.
Thoughts On New Interfaces
I couldn't be less interested in motion control, regardless of how popular it is or isn't right now - I don't care. It seems like the big three (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) are simply scrambling for new interfaces now, shelling out big bucks on interface R&D while third-party developers and designers are desperately trying to incorporate these interfaces either into projects already in development (that don't need them) or into projects that are sponsored by the platform-owner (which become marketing ammunition and nothing much else); all in an effort to somehow make the whole process profitable. Marketing towards family audiences must be working for them, because damn if people aren't buying the damn things anyway.
Believers throw games like Dance Central and Wii Sports in my face when they hear my whine of discontent, and sure, these games are great fun. But in my mind, these are video games devised for people who, until this latest generation of hardware, have probably deliberately avoided video games their entire lives. That's a large market that no doubt eclipses those of us in the 'hardcore' demographic, which is why I think we take umbrage at the direction the industry is taking. We don't perceive these to be video games as we know them. They are merely activities that you perform in front of your television - activities that, oddly enough, seem more ridiculous when you're alone than when you're surrounded by witnesses.
Image property of VentureBeat.com
I'm so tremendously excited that gaming is becoming mainstream in our culture, and at the same time I'm worried that my favourite pastime is dying in the name of profitability. What's more, it frustrates me inexorably that there are people out there who don't realise (or actively refuse to acknowledge) that there existed a medium here long before Nintendo started making home fitness products. And it's these people who are more important than ever, in an era where companies talk about gaming platforms in terms of how many years will elapse before their hardware will actually become profitable. Where does that leave the rest of us?
My biggest worry is that when I see these new technologies and interfaces, all I can think of is the deluge of shovelware that's sure to follow. I'm being dramatic of course, but the truth is that pissy third-party exercise games for the Wii already outsell major multi-platform titles like Bioshock and Mass Effect - games that are actually meaningful for the medium. At what point will profitability demand that games like these cease production in favour of Petz and Imagine: Fashion Party?
Flashback Friday
Grand Theft Auto 3: Vice City
Flashback Friday is my attempt at writing a regular column wherein I get nostalgic about old games from the previous two decades. Each week, I pick an outdated video game to (re)play and talk about, comparing my experience with the popular opinions already established from the game's original period of release. The purpose for doing this is just to see how much game design has changed with the times, and also just for the sake of my own nostalgia.
Grand Theft Auto 3: Vice City (Oct, 2002)
Developed by Rockstar North, Rockstar Vienna
Published by Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive
In a school where I was one of only about a half dozen kids who confessed to playing video games, everyone seemed to be aware of Grand Theft Auto. The second incarnation of their third engine iteration, Vice City, quickly made a name for itself on release as being absurdly violent and wickedly fun. Suddenly the kids who spent their lunch times playing tackle rugby were buying PlayStations and Xboxes, bringing the culture one step closer to the current day where most everyone has a Wii or a 360 nestled next to their flat screen. So significant is this franchise's existence.
Grand Theft Auto was already long established for delivering gamers a simulated world in which they may wreak havoc and chaos unto innocent bystanders, beginning with the very first iteration released in 1997. Vice City brought with it a thematic plot, Hollywood voice talent, relatively modern graphics, and every polished mechanic that had made Rockstar's previous instalment an international sensation. The game did not rush off of shelves without incident, however, as Rockstar would soon find itself in the spotlight cast by anti-video game activists and conservatives angered by Vice City's violent content.
The Plot
Having Just made it back onto the streets of Liberty City after a long stretch inside, Tommy Vercetti is sent to Vice City by his old boss, Sonny Forelli. But all does not go smoothly upon his arrival in the glamorous hedonistic metropolis of Vice City. Tommy is set up and looses everything. Sonny wants his money back, but the biker gangs, Cuban gangsters, and corrupt politicians stand in his way. Most of Vice City seems to want Tommy dead. His only answer is to fight back and take over the city himself.
From the loading screens to the soundtrack, Vice City is immersed in 19080's pop-culture and film tropes from cult classics such as Scarface and Reservoir Dogs. The result is a plot that is both satirical of the period and nostalgic for those of the genre, the player advancing the narrative by completing missions and acquiring real estate throughout the game world. Tensions rise as allegiances are tested; the recognisable voices of Ray Liotta, Tom Sizemore, Gary Busey and Burt Reynolds (among others) providing the writing with an edge of credibility the storyline doesn't necessarily warrant. That said, the plot boasts the coherency and enough variation in cast and circumstance to distinguish it from previous entries in the series, making Vice City a prime exemplar of the state of storytelling in the medium during the early 2000's.
The Gameplay
The Grand Theft Auto series is renowned for its no-holds-barred style of gameplay, allowing the player to simply exist in the game world in whatever capacity they desire; whether that means driving a cab and obeying the road rules, or attempting a one-man insurrection against government authorities depends entirely upon the player's disposition. The world is merely reactive to the player's actions, and as a result features some remarkably addictive gameplay independent of the actual story campaign.
Vice City brought several new mechanics to the series, the most lauded being the inclusion of helicopters and motorcycles. Having air travel as a new mode of egress provided for some fresh gameplay experiences, particularly when the player is under heavy pursuit and desperate for alternate methods of escape. Purchasing real estate also behaved as an elegant way to advance the plot while also providing tangible player rewards, such as a monetary return-on-investment and providing another safe house in which the player may save their game. The latter would prove to be particularly important, as police and FBI units now employed new tactics to subdue the player, going so far as to lay down traffic spikes and fire deliberately at vehicle tyres during pursuit.
Image borrowed (without any remorse whatsoever) from GameSpot
Although these features would be refined (or abandoned) in subsequent titles in the series (GTA IV particularly, striving to incorporate realism into every mechanic), Vice City still stands out as the most enjoyable and responsive instalment in the series. Vehicles handle tightly and reflect damage at an appropriate level of detail constrained by the technology of the era. Some haphazard third-person mechanics make driving preferable to shooting or exploring the world on-foot, though this would be less significant to those playing the PC incarnation with a keyboard and mouse. Improved third-person controls would feature in the franchise many years later, but their absence would never prevent both new and experienced gamers from enjoying Vice City at the time of release.
The Graphics
Designed primarily for console hardware, Vice City does a commendable job of representing the game world as a thriving (although sparsely populated) recreation of 1980's Miami. Water plays a much bigger role than in previous games, with boats and watercraft producing some nice fluid effects that seemed impressive at the time. Load times exist only on startup and during transit between the city's two main islands, though on the PC version they are so brief as to be negligible.
Image borrowed apologetically from MobyGames
Targeted initially for the PlayStation 2, Vice City did however look somewhat dated in comparison to other console releases in the early 2000's. Other contemporary console titles such as Metroid Prime, TimeSplitters 2, and Super Mario Sunshine (all released in 2002) would boast more impressive graphics and at higher frame rates on current-generation hardware, though none of these games provided the player with as expansive a game world or the sandbox gameplay that the GTA series is widely known for.
The Verdict
Vice City is truly a landmark release for the medium, and certainly a touchstone for the genre. The game spun in consoles and PCs around the globe, reaching mass appeal and gaining the attention of gamers, parents, and policy makers worldwide, including arousing the ire of infamous anti-game activist and discredited Florida lawyer (and all-round megalomaniac), Jack Thompson.
And still people make reference to Vice City today; the game responsible for both advancing the medium in design and execution, and creating some of the most raucous criticism the industry has ever faced. The game is now available digitally on Valve's Steam platform, where the prospect of exploring this renowned digital world continues to be an irresistible proposition for fans of the series and newcomers alike.
Mid-E3 Observations
This year's offerings at E3 have kept me happy so far. Here's a few thoughts about what we have to look forward to over the next 12-24 months...
GAMES
Lots of great stuff coming out in 2011 and 2012, by the looks of the trailers popping up after each publisher presentation. Loads of new franchises seem to be finding their roots this year. Pre-rendered trailers appear to be in style right now, which isn't a bad thing except that it does leave our expectations wide open.
Halo 4
The first thing I heard about this morning. I've given the trailer repeat viewings and I still can't manage to feel excited about this. I'm sure I'll still buy it, and I'll be damned if it doesn't become the staple multiplayer game among the friends I play with.
Star Wars: The Old Republic
I've never played an MMO before. I'm not even that big on RPGs in general (excepting one wicked affair with Dungeon Siege), but something about Bioware's new take on the Star Wars universe seems kind of awesome. Seeing as I deliberately avoided the grasp of World of Warcraft (which I'll always remember for deviously thinning out the graduating cohort in my university years), I'm tempted to finally take a bite of that apple. It's the right people with the right franchise. And they certainly can't hurt it at this point, considering Lucasarts other delivery for the Kinect.
Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception
Couldn't be more excited about this one. There's not much to say, seeing as the trailer pretty much sets expectations. Another incredible outing in a series so significant that it alone justifies PlayStation 3 ownership.
Bioshock Infinite
Another no brainer - there is no way this game isn't going to be incredible. Another neat release to keep us grounded in the deluge of military shooters.
Modern Warfare 3
I'm in. Everyone else seems to be passing judgement (including a bunch of people defaming the franchise in favour of Battlefield 3, like it might be impossible for the two to coexist), but I'll definitely be taking a look if only for the single-player set pieces alone. Maybe not a day one purchase, however.
Battlefield 3
Every piece of marketing material these guys release both invigorates and frustrates me. For one thing, it's another contemporary war game, and everything that goes along with the genre is evident in their footage. On the other hand, they've executed their ambitions at such a high standard that I'm definitely considering this for purchase on release. Everything that annoyed me about their previous excursions appears absent from their (no doubt meticulously choreographed) in-game footage.
Prey 2
I don't think I know anyone who played the first one - I certainly didn't. The developers seem intent on rebooting the franchise anyway, as they're explanation of this instalment makes it sound to be more GTA-meets-Mass-Effect than another Doom clone. Their trailer certainly creates some expectations, but I'll hold on to my reservations until I spot some in-game footage, thank you kindly.
Far Cry 3
A million times yes! Far Cry 2 seemed to receive a very polarised reception from the community, so here's hoping they paid attention to some of that feedback. If they avoid making some of those design choice again (and keep it open-world), this could be one of the coolest games announced at this year's E3.
There's a bunch more stuff that's been announced since I started writing this, so I think it's time to end this rambling tirade of uninformed opinions. After all, I'm not at E3 - I really don't have much clue what's going on beyond the constant flood of announcements hitting my Twitter stream. Let us reconvene in a day or two, when I'll take a look at a few more games I want to talk about in depth, and also have a whinge about how little I care about motion control and interactivity.
Won't that be fun? Are we not lucky to have this special time every year?
Incredible Art Stylin’s
There's some incredibly creative stuff going on at the moment, and not just within the realm of video games (but still mostly within the realm of video games). Here's a bunch of stuff that's stuck in my brain over the last few weeks.
In-game capture from thatgamecompany's Journey
Dragon Age 2 character Flemmeth, by Matt Rhodes
Doom cover art reimagining by "Agent Scarlet"
Promotional web-comic for Portal 2
Party folk from Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World, by Emily Carroll
Fan-art poster for Portal 2, by Tristan Reidford
Tali (a character from Mass Effect) by Emily Carroll
Concept from Team Fortress 2
Concept from Crysis 2
Concept art for Far Cry 2 (Nicolas Ferrand)
Another concept from Team Fortress 2
Taking in all this artwork has me wishing I'd pursued art beyond my university years. Whenever I next get the chance, I think I'll be picking up a new Moleskine and a few pens, because I would give anything to have a mere fragment of the skills evidenced above.
Flashback Friday – Soldier of Fortune
The 1990's and early 2000's were such a polarising time for gamers, primarily in terms of PC/console loyalty. I was a PC zealot back when the term 'LAN party' was still commonplace, and playing with your friends involved lugging your gear and fifty yards of ethernet cable directly to their house. Consequently, I missed out on a lot of great games from the era firstly because I refused to buy into console ownership until 2006, and also because I spent the majority of my teen years as that kid that does nothing but play Counter-Strike.
"Flashback Friday" is my attempt at forcing myself to write a regular column wherein I get nostalgic about old video games from the previous two decades. Each week, I'm going to pick an outdated game to (re)play and talk about, just to compare my experience with the popular opinions surrounding a lot of the landmark games from that period. The purpose for doing this is just to see how much game design has changed with the times, and also just for the sake of my own nostalgia.
Soldier of Fortune
Soldier of Fortune (March, 2000)
Developed by Raven Software
Published by Activision
Anyone gaming on a PC in the late 90's was at least peripherally aware of Soldier of Fortune. They released a trailer pretty early on that showed off Raven's new GHOUL technology, which promised to take video game realism to a whole new level. Now players could target specific regions on their enemy's physiology, and aside from the excessive (and at times, disturbing) fidelity of their graphical simulations, their characters would faithfully act out any of a dozen animated sequences in response to injuries sustained. Finally there would be a game that realistically portrayed combat violence to a unsettling degree (I would write a thesis paper nine years later that would explore such an idea, but that's beside the point).
The game was the topic of some controversy at release, many players and conservative groups taking issue with what really was an excessively violent first-person shooter. Raven went as far as implementing a violence-lock for the game's more disturbing content, which made it possible to censor the more gratuitous elements of gameplay, though this would do little to convince anyone that SoF wasn't a game that revolved around performing heinous acts of violence on digital people. Because that's what PC games seemed to be all about at the time.
The Plot
I thrive on stories in video games, which made replaying SoF kind of dull because there really doesn't seem to be much substance to SoF's anti-terrorist plot line. You assumed the role of a mercenary (the titular Soldier of Fortune) who's basically got the same job as the Arnold in True Lies, minus the fluff about the cheating wife and the double life, etc. And then there are some other guys who have a nuclear bomb, so that causes everyone a bit of distress. It all seems ultimately irrelevant anyway, because nobody bought this game for the storyline.
The Graphics
Ugh. In the 90's, it seemed like there was this unspoken opinion among PC gamers that awesomeness was directly proportional to in-game violence. SoF was the tipping point for me (and still is), as I regard it as one of the foremost games I feel uncomfortable playing in front of other people (right between the sequel, Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix, and Pokemon Black). The GHOUL system makes gore seem commonplace, with the game's more powerful weapons decimating opponents until they are nothing more than piles of gibs (now there's a word you don't hear very often anymore). It would later be put to (better?) use in Raven's Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast, where the violent nature of dismemberment was significantly toned down to correspond with the expectations of Star Wars fans.
The visuals themselves, which seemed fantastic at the time, are pretty indicative of the state of computer graphics toward the end of the millenium. The lighting looked great for the era, there's decent use of detail textures on most surfaces, and particle effects on weapons and explosions are gritty and appropriate to the setting. There are some animated facial expressions in there, bearing in mind that this was at a time when we didn't have the technology to simulate beads of sweat rolling down the brows of our space marines. Characters make expressions that vaguely correlate with whatever dialogue is spilling out of their mouths, which incidentally click open and closed with each syllable.
The Gameplay
The six or eight hours I spent replaying this a while ago were pretty uniform from start to finish: keep shooting until you find a bigger gun. Repeat. It's a winning formula I suppose, seeing as I went and did that for six or eight hours without answering the urge to do something productive with my time. And you do find some pretty big guns toward the end. So, I guess there's that.
The thing that separates SoF from shooters today (and the reason I still actually play it from time to time) is the design of some of the game's missions. While the actual level aesthetics range from mundane (sewers, trenches, other places that typically suck as gameplay environments) to inspired (the Siberian levels stand out as pretty well designed, plus there's a train mission that is actually pretty fun), it's the actual topographical design of these levels that makes the game more than a fleeting memory.
With the influx of shooters striving to match the cinematic quality of games like Modern Warfare and Halo, modern level design has deteriorated to the point that an entire game can be composed of a linear series of staged confrontations and scripted sequences. To form a stronger metaphor; rather than exploring an environment or solving problems, the player is instead barrelling down a long, linear hallway (the game from start to finish), often led by friendly NPCs who issue direct instructions of where to go and who to fight along the way. This isn't terrible or boring firstly because this structure of gameplay translates to a more cinematic and theatrical experience, and secondly because developers spend their budgets stuffing that hallway with every graphical effect, scripted sequence and hollywood voice actor they can afford. (Of course companies like Activision and Rockstar and EA put so much money into advertising - if these games bomb, it would be like releasing a blockbuster movie in cinemas worldwide and taking in only twenty bucks on opening weekend.)
The actual mission design of SoF is more of an indication of what the genre was like in the late 1990's. Enemies appear and behave as intermittent distractions as the player explores the level in search of the mission's critical path. There's a transparent reliance on AI scripting which was of course typical of the period, but does affect the game's replay value. The real redeeming factor that might make this game more than a brief distraction is the mission design. Levels frequently wrap back on themselves, and do occasionally offer multiple pathways for exploration and progression (qualities that seem to have become unpopular to some extent in modern design).
The plot manages to string together the mission objectives in a coherent manner, though there are moments where overly complicated design and the absence of explanatory cues will leave the player confounded, endlessly scouring the environment in an effort to rediscover the critical pathway.There's also a level near the end of the game wherein the critical path is concealed behind a hidden door that looks like a book case... in a mansion full of bookcases. I'm sure that seemed like an excellent design idea at the time, but it seems like a big middle-finger to the player, particularly if they are silly enough to be playing through that level with no-clipping turned on.
The Verdict
Soldier of Fortune, though definitely not a must-play from the millennial period, does feature a bunch of cool stuff, not least of which would be the multiplayer which still evokes a lot of fond memories for me. There's not much to take away from a design standpoint, beyond a few instances of snazzy level design and a sterling example of how not to design a final boss confrontation. But hey, if you've got time to kill, there is certainly fun to be had with SoF; just not in any kind of lasting or meaningful sense.
Among the Few Figurines I Would Consider Keeping on My Desk
I know this admission may prompt the revocation of my Geekdom-membership card, but I've never been able to stand the idea of investing hundreds of dollars in the purchase of statues and figurines to line my desk and clutter my workspace. Unoccupied desk space was a prime commodity back when I still had my widescreen desktop PC, a Wacom drawing tablet, and speakers plus sound system (and, you know... a desk to keep all of this shit on), and it always seemed like a waste of money to go buying big, extravagant, and typically fragile figurines of video game/movie characters when they would no doubt end up being jammed into a corner of my bedroom so that I might have somewhere to hang my shirts.
All of this said, every so often I do spot the odd statue or tchotchke on Kotaku that makes me regret that I don't have space in my heart (or my desk) for two-foot tall effigies of nuclear-equipped walking battle tanks, cybernetic ninjas with detachable weapons, or posable personality spheres that will stare at me accusingly while I work. And now I'm growing fearful that on my deathbed, I'm going to catch myself reflecting that there was a distinct absence of 12" plastic effigies in my life.
Take my money, if you must. Just please permit me to find inspiration in toys for ever and always.
Human Revolution
I haven't been this excited for a new game since Far Cry 2. Reading Rock Paper Shotgun's preview article, I find myself considering buying a new PC just to play a video game for the first time since 2006.
Project Gnar – GUTS Everywhere
So as I mentioned in the last Project Gnar post, the first two goals of my development approach revolve around tool development for content creation down the line. The catch here is that in order to design proper art and content-creation tools, I need to have some idea of how content is going to be loaded and used in-game. I also need to keep in mind that I may not be the only person to use these tools (and in fact, considering how much stuff I'm trying to keep in the project scope, it's almost certain that I'll need the help of another artist/designer to help handle the workload). Ultimately, I can't afford to just throw together tools that offer basic functionality with a UI that is unusable by anyone except the unassuming idiot who designed it.
Today's post is about the content creation process, the nature of game objects in Gnar, and how these things led me to combine ideas for multiple utilities into a single tool which I have dubbed "the Gnarly Unified Tool for Sprites", or 'GUTS' for short.
Preceding GUTS
My primary development goal (preceding the building of the actual game engine) lies in establishing the process of building content (mainly graphics) for Gnar and developing software to fast-track that process, packaging content in a way that is convenient for the engine to access.
My first approach consisted of developing two separate tools; one for the creation of animated sprites, and a second for building game entities. I created the first tool vehemently in just about one sitting (with a two hour break for snowboarding), naming it "Sprite Factory". Sprite Factory was an interface for assembling animated sequences from single same-resolution image files, ultimately assembling them into what is referred to as a 'sprite map' - a single flat image containing the tiled animation frames for a single sprite.
A sprite map taken from one of the Super Mario games on the Super Nintendo. And yeah, I don't know which one. Because I don't care.
Sprite Factory would also 'bake' an XML file listing the vital data for the sprite in question, including the coordinates of each animation frame as it was located within the sprite map. It was foreseeable that the game would then load this data at runtime, storing this animation data for playback during gameplay.
Having completed Sprite Factory, I began planning the next tool to be developed - the entity creation tool. I started thinking about game entities, like terrain and obstacles, and how I should go about creating structures to describe these things. My first idea was to stick with vector structures for determining regions of an entity and determining their reactionary behaviour, building entities from rectangles and circles mapped to the coordinates of the entity's sprite surface. (Rectangles and circles are mathematically simpler for the purpose of collision detection.)
Creating a UI for the entity tool that would allow a user to 'lay down' these rectangular/circular regions on top of an animated sprite would definitely be a hassle, and I was left with the problem of what to do with the regions when the sprite in question was animated. Regions would also need to be animated in some sense. This would again complicate the collision detection process, which seemed ridiculous seeing as the game is 2D and it would be less complex to just perform single pixel-based comparisons to detect collisions between sprites and regions.
The solution (which seemed kind of obvious in hindsight) was to use separate sprite maps to describe this region data. With this method, the collision data for a particular animated sequence could change in synchronisation with the animation itself. This solution also provided an easy way of determining where a collision occurs simply by retrieving the pixel at a given location. The only downside would be that I would still need another tool to create this entity region data; a tool which would replicate much of the functionality of Sprite Factory whether I wanted it to or not. Immediately the question comes to mind, "Why have two tools with remarkably similar purposes when the output of both is required for any kind of collision-based game entity?"
Making My GUTS
Looking at my progress with Sprite Factory, I realised I had the right idea. The tool I needed had to be able to create two different types of sprite maps - a sprite map of in-game graphics, and another map of collision data. In addition to the sprite map co-ordinate data, the resulting XML would also include coordinates for the collision map and definitions of what parts of the collision map correspond to what type of collision (more on this later).
And a rock was born.
Consider a simple stationary obstacle, such as this rock. The first part, the in-game visual representation of a rock, is a straight forward sprite. This thing isn't even animated, so just the one 16x16 frame is fine. With GUTS, attaching some collision information to the rock is as simple as creating a second 16x16 frame showing the collidable region of the rock in a single opaque colour. GUTS allows me to determine the behaviour of a collision with the rock and its effect on the player. By adding both images as Sprite and Collision keyframes and specifying some collision properties, I'm ready to export the entity for use in-game in under a minute.
The tool itself uses two separate 'layers' for sprite and collision frames, meaning that collisions can be animated in the same way that visual graphics are queued in Sprite Factory. The final output for an exported sprite consists of an image file (a sprite map), a second image (a collision map), and an XML file with all sequence/collision data.
And With GUTS In Hand...
This whole development exercise has reminded me of how important the Model-View-Controller approach is when it comes to designing these kinds of applications. The sheer amount of code I crunched out just to stitch the UI together is something I'd probably be embarrassed to show any other developer, and I really ought to know better given my experience writing ad hoc tools for artists during my time as an employed Technical Artist. Lesson learned.
I can't afford the time to go back and reimplement GUTS now (nor can I be bothered when this version is functionally operational), but I definitely want to take the time to work on a new version of this tool (especially if I find myself working on another project after Gnar). I've already got a tonne of ideas in store for the second version, not least of which would be a much more maintainable redesign and making some of the custom UI components reusable outside of GUTS.
War and Video Games
I've recently started watching The Pacific - a miniseries narrated by Tom Hanks about several veterans experiences in World War II.
I was expecting it to be something like an 8-hour-long Saving Private Ryan, but I've got to say it's made me a lot more sensitive to the sacrifices made by our elder generation in the second World War. And much like when I saw The Hurt Locker, I found myself wondering if maybe it's not OK that we make video games based on these experiences.
After watching about four hours of men blowing up and going insane in the dark, I paused to rewatch the latest trailer for Battlefield 3. I actually really like this trailer, mostly because it sets a standard of what that multiplayer experience is going to look like. But that's beside the point.
Something about having watched The Pacific (I feel obligated to watch the interviews with the real veterans at the start of every episode) made it click in my head - we shouldn't be making games of the horrific tragedy of World Wars, particularly when the survivors of that war are still around to witness the obscenity of it. Watching the Battlefield trailer, all I could think was that this was a game set in a war that is still in progress. Is that OK? There are people out there who are fighting for real on the other side of the planet. Is it alright that we let people (including kids) play games about dodging car bombs and flanking Iraqi militia? How do the actual veterans feel about this?
Or perhaps watching The Pacific has turned me over-sensitive. There have been detractors of games based on real wars since the old arcade days and before, and likewise for films and music inspired and based around real-world conflicts. But when I'm playing as an American veteran hunkered down underground in some Vietcong rat's nest, crawling around with a flash light and knife while my compatriots are slain around me, I can't help but think that maybe it's time for game designers to take a look at some different source material.