HEAD BLOG

Jonathan Jones makes a wonderfully high minded claim that todays Leonardos (no, Turtle fans, that’s as in da Vinci) can be found alive and well and working at Pixar.

I can’t argue with that.

What I would add, however, is that the same drive, the same talent, can be found alive and well within the games industry.

If the search for experience, and giving people the ability to access and understand that experience isn’t just as worthy of the “art” tag then I’ll be Pollacksed.

Bioshock, Red Dead Redemption, Modern Warfare – these are brave strides into understanding and relaying the human experience in a way that can be accessed by millions.

That’s the line blurted out by lead guitarist Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup) in Cameron Crowe’s retro rockumentary, Almost Famous.

It’s a plea that cuts straight to the heart of the film, capturing the hopes and desires of boys everywhere as they make the transition into awkward adulthood.

For gamers and film-goers it holds resonance even after that transition is complete. The subject matter of many games, especially those with an 18 rating, is clearly designed to draw us back to our childhoods – but with an edge that makes it more acceptable, more adult to do so. So how do we explain the seemingly endless stream of “childish” games for sale that contribute, in general, to the view of gamers as childish and socially awkward?

It all revolves around archetypes of course and is linked to the idea that as creative people we draw our inspiration from what inspired us when we were young and most impressionable. It’s sort of a snake eating its own tail scenario and explains why we get rehash after rehash of watered down science fiction “ideas” like Babylon 5 – poor Star Trek retread if ever there was one.

Take one game, Red Dead Redemption, something currently being played by most of the people here at Head First. It plays directly into the hands of everyone who ever wanted to roam the Wild West. More than just making the lead character a cowboy, however, it lets you role play fully, bringing your own personality to the part just as a child would. I have a family relation who refuses to do anything bad and spends all of his time helping people. I know of someone else who takes every opportunity to drag strangers behind his horse.

It’s easy to build up a psychological profile of individuals as children.

It isn’t just games, however, it’s every form of media. The most mainstream (measured by commercial popularity) success stories are the ones which appeal most to children. Take Harry Potter or the Twilight series as an example. If, like me, you spend half your waking day sat on a train observing the commuting class spend half of their days glued into a book or watching a film on a two inch screen then you can’t help but notice the subject matter. It’s rarely Shakespeare.

Archetypes explain a little of what’s going on. We all (in Western culture at least) buy into the hero, the trickster etc. Yet to take GTAIV as an example we find that archetype only gets you so far. Listening to the buzz in the office surrounding games such as Red Dead, Mass Effect, GTAIV, Batman Arkham Asylum and Just Cause reveals audibly greater championing for the titles that are more linked to childhood than others. So as great as GTAIV undoubtedly is, it is a lot harder to associate (and relate) to an Eatern European gangster than it is to a cowboy or spaceman. Few children, one would hope, would yearn to become a gangster when they grow up.

To many of us, the notion of “cool” IS what we wanted to accomplish as a child. The hopes we had back then of emulating our grown-up heroes who, it has to be said, were probably caught in pursuit of their own childhood dreams.

Perhaps it is the remembrance of an unihibited childhood that draws us back to certain entertainment types but it is revealing that, back in Almost Famous, it is the adult rockstar pleading with the teenage reporter to make him look cool.

There's a snake in mah boots

I’ve never been a huge fan of westerns.

I don’t know why. I guess the setting never really appealed to me. Maybe the landscape of the old west wasn’t as much of a draw to the younger version of me as the notion of barrelling down the Death Star trench. I had no understanding of the freedom it represented – the lawlessness and the excitement. I grew up in a bungalow in Wigan, a million miles away from Cowboyland.

All that’s changed now. Well, since I’ve been playing Red Dead Redemption anyway.

I’m not saying that I now know just what life in the old west was like, due to me simply playing a game, but I’m starting to see why kids are expected to like “cowboy stuff”.

The multiplayer version of Red Dead Redemption is great fun. It contains all the iconic elements of life as an outlaw, without any of the boring stuff, like eating or resting or having to face the law if you shoot someone. I realise this semi-review arrives a good few weeks after everyone else’s, but it’s finally starting to hit home just how appealing the cowboy life can be.

The game world affords a similar sensibility to the old west, in that there are no real consequences for your actions. You can choose to help, befriend or shoot anyone or anything you happen across. And in an online multiplayer world where strangers inhabit the same space as you and your friends, this presents so many opportunities for fun, it’s unreal.

Last night I rode out across the plains of New Austin with three friends in my posse. We chose a simple mission and headed across land to our destination, only to find a group of other players had already arrived before us, intent on taking the loot we wanted so badly. What followed was an astonishingly enjoyable massacre that saw us ousting the bad guys, taking the swag and riding off into the sunset.

I never left my comfortable seat, but I had a storming time with a bunch of friends, playing a classic role in a guilt-free environment. Finally, I understand why the old west is such an enticing prospect.

I walked out the room last night with a little bit more of a swagger in my step.

Right. Start again. This is supposed to be a quick few thoughts on E3 2010 but quickly turned into a ramble on Kinect. That ramble has now been spun out into its own post going up in the very near future.

So, E3 2010, good eh? Wasn’t it?

Okay, maybe that wasn’t the right question, of course it was good it was a big huge gaming expo after all. The question I’m searching for should be was it disappointing? Even that doesn’t seem quite right, how can loads of great games being shown off disappoint?! How about… did it meet your expectations?

Each year I bemoan my inability to head off to LA and take in the spectacle that is E3. Not because I want to go networking with industry types but because I want to experience the utter madness of the launch events and be surrounded by the not-yet-released and newly announced games. But that is where my expectations would have sadly been left a little wanting this year.

There’s no denying the raft of spectacular and must have games that were on show this year. Fallout: New Vegas, Halo: Reach, Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, Assassins Creed: Brotherhood, Fable III, Medal of Honor, Gears of War 3, Dead Rising 2, Brink, Crackdown 2, and Call of Duty: Black Ops to name but a few(!) of those I am looking forward to.

Now read that list of games again. You’ve heard of them all haven’t you?

There in lies the problem. Almost every game or piece of hardware on show was already firmly on my radar. It was great to see new trailers and find out more information on Title-X but I really wanted something unexpected to wow me. I understand in an age of leaks and online journalism it is pretty difficult to keep things secret for long but still. The only titles I wasn’t aware of pre-E3 were the new Silent Hill game and NeverDead, both from Konami. No doubt there were more but none within my scope of interest. And I suspect these too were probably already known to many just that I hadn’t stumbled across them!

The same can be said of the new hardware announcements. Nothing I didn’t already have some degree of awareness about. Nintendo’s 3DS came close, I knew and had heard very little on it. Once again it appears Nintendo have got it right – introducing 3D to their already successful and established platform but ultimately keeping it simple and, more importantly, fun. Now for the obvious. I can’t talk about E3 without mentioning Kinect and Move. I have little interest in Move so more or less skimmed anything from Sony on the subject. Being an Xbox fan I was much more interested in Kinect and there’s nobody who can say it isn’t an impressive piece of kit. Technically it blows the competition clean out of the water but to be honest it’s big Cirque de Soleil showcase and subsequent presser left me feeling rather flat about the whole thing. Last year it was positioned as a real game changer, literally, with far reaching implications and possibilities. Nobody saw it coming, it was genius. Fast forward 12 months. After a very long build up the result was rather anti-climactic. The problem was too much was revealed the first time around. All that was left to show this year was an unfortunate name change, a new form factor not a million miles away from the dev kit and the games you’re going to be playing on it. None too surpassingly these were nothing we hadn’t seen before on the Wii which in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Even the announcement of a new ‘slim’ Xbox wasn’t enough to appease me (it didn’t help that I’d bought an new Super Elite only 6 weeks ago). Again, the rumours had been circulating for a while and really took the wind out of the sails when it was officially announced.

Ultimately there might not have been any real stand-out revelations but when you have so many talented developers and great publishers flooding the market with fantastic games you’re never really going to get a ‘disappointing’ E3. I may have been left a little underwhelmed overall but I’ll take solace in the many great games I’ve got to look forward to in the next 18 months, and if anybody would like to take me to E3 2011 then by all means do!

Microsoft kicked off the first big conference of E3 this year. It held the attention of the audiences with previews of upcoming game releases such as Gears of War 3 and Halo Reach and announced and all new slimline Xbox 360 but it was the Hands-Free Kinect presentation that was really the focus of the show.

Originally named Project Natal, Kinect is an upcoming motion control peripheral that requires no controller. It tracks your body movements allowing you to interact with games directly and was touted as being able to do a lot more than the Wii. Basically, Microsoft is jumping on the motion control train (and Sony seems to be following suit with Move) in order to grab a slice of the Nintendo pie. It makes sense, of course. Nintendo have shown that there is a lot of money to be made in the casual gaming market and any business would have to be very myopic to turn a blind eye to that.  Microsoft want in. They want some of those brand new casual gamers playing on their console and in order to do that they’ve come up with Kinect. I don’t think it’s going to work out.

It should be remembered that when Nintendo started marketing the Wii they moved into a blue ocean of opportunity where there was no competition. Whilst Microsoft and Sony were focusing on the more hardcore gaming crowd with the 360 and the PS3, Nintendo struck out to attract a brand new audience who had perhaps never been interested in gaming before. It resulted in the Wii selling millions. It also resulted in a lot of gamers who prefer a larger amount of depth and complexity in their games buying a 360 or PS3 instead of a Wii. If Microsoft want to sell to the more causal crowd they will be mostly be competing with Nintendo for customers rather than attracting brand new ones. They will have to convince them that Kinect is worth spending money on; which could end up being pretty expensive if the customer doesn’t already own a 360. They will probably have to convince them that they need Kinect even though it is probable they already own a Wii. Most importantly of all, they are going to have to convince them that the Kinect can provide a different sort of entertainment than the Wii.

Ingenuity. That’s what helped bring so much of the Wii’s success. Unfortunately, it seems to be lacking on Kinect. For every popular Nintendo title then Kinect has an answer. If you enjoy playing Mario Kart, why not have a go on Joyride? If you like using Wii Fit for exercise then give Your Shape a try! And it goes on – the answer to Just Dance is Dance Central, to Wii Sports is Kinect Sports, to Wii Sports Resort is Kinect Adventures. They’ve even got a giant tiger/kitten pet simulator called Kinectimals which is very, very reminiscent of Nintendogs. Nintendogs was released in 2005. Have there really been no original ideas since then? Do Microsoft believe that the controller free technology on Kinect is enough to push these games onto customers who are likely to already own similar games? Maybe they do and maybe they are right. Maybe they plan to make games in the future that really push the limits of motion control with new and interesting ideas. At the moment, I wouldn’t bet any money on it.

There is only one sure-fire way to create new gaming audiences and to put consoles in the hands of people who may not have wanted one previously – innovation. An audience normally doesn’t know what it wants until you invent it and tell them so – something Nintendo did very well with the Wii. To be fair, innovation is hard to do and it is easier to try and jump on a bandwagon for an audience that has already been proven to exist. Kinect is playing it safe by chasing Ninentdo’s casual gamer but it is unlikely to reap the grand rewards that Microsoft is hoping for.

Have Microsoft allowed too much time to pass between announcing Natal/Kinect and its release? From all the chatter at E3 it seems the veneer has worn thin and people have already moved on to the next big thing.

It’s been a few years since anyone at Head First attended E3. We tried it for a while, went along with the belief that decisions and impressions were made in equal quantity and that we would break into the States with our creative vision for how video games ought to be marketed.

The truth, however, is that E3 is a show for the public. It is designed to impress the journalists who then trumpet the products they fall for. It really is an amazing event for bringing the spectacle of gaming to the attention of the world.

Last year, that spectacle revolved mainly around Natal, a new take on technology championed by Nintendo through their groundbreaking Wii system. Natal, by Microsoft, blew everything else out of the water by appearing larger than life and selling itself on a dream.

It was a dream that managed to make Nintendo look as though they were just mumbling in their sleep. Here was the true vision of motion control, the future in vivid technicolor.

Microsoft had done what few people credit it capable of doing, they’d pulled an Apple out of the air.

Move on a year and much of the talk about Natal centres around the renaming to ‘Kinect’ an ugly portmanteau to many; and around fake families showing off the technology in demos that many commentators are labelling as disappointing. The buzz, hype and excitement of a year ago has been replaced by reality.

Practical limitations for gaming have been raised over this past year and the answers don’t sit well with the hardcore. Sony, touting their own motion controller now neatly called ‘Move’ are on full assault, pointing out that games need buttons and who wants to be seen playing with invisible guns like a five year old.

It’s clever marketing on Sony’s part who were seen as the poor cousins only last year with technology totally lacking in ‘wow’.

But timing really is everything and now the playing field seems a whole lot more level.

If Microsoft had announced, wowed and released within months rather than a year and a half then maybe they could have carried us along just as Apple seem to with each of their visionary but crippled devices.

That, however, isn’t the case and we’ve had a year to consider what we want (if anything) from motion controllers and are in a position to make calm, informed decisions. That means the money men must also address the economics of these devices, counting them against percentages of current ownership rather than, as once hoped, driving hard core consoles into the Wii owning public where fake families have been happily jumping up and down, waving their primitive sticks in the air, for years.

Would gaming benefit by following United Artists and Image Comics in creating a publishing model that put power into the hands of the developer?

I’m not talking here about sharing resources for marketing or creating a high profile publishing brand that the consumer can look to as a mark of quality simply because it’s developer led, not entirely at any rate. I’m talking more about creating a publisher that can better nurture the production of better games through a business that values ideas above strategic loss and minimal risk.

When Chaplin, Pickford and Fairbanks used their collective power to break away from the studio system they discovered that there was more to making money from movies than just starring in them. Being loved is one thing but producing the quantity of movies it takes to run a successful business… well that’s something else entirely.

Especially when, as an artist, you actually care about quality.

In the hands of Duke Nukem creator 3D Realms it would be easy to see a “talent first” studio fail before it started. Sure Broussard no doubt believes in quality but the harsh economic drive that makes an artistic venture financially viable isn’t all that evident.

A new publisher would most likely be drawn from the development studios who hit the headlines (not so long ago this name call would have almost certainly included Infinity Ward but times change). Their proven success at making huge hits grants them godlike power in calling the shots.

But are they the right model to follow?

There are, after all, other developers who produce big hits that make the money but don’t get the critical acclaim of the games press. The likes of Ben 10 and Carnival Games spring to mind. The latter especially because it doesn’t have any grand brand or technical wizardry driving its success. Carnival is, it appears, just a game that the quiet gamer wants to buy. And buy. And buy again.

Surely, in this new publishing model we are creating, they would get a seat.

Of course it depends on what a coalition of developers want out of such a publisher. Individually they can probably all get more of the profits or call the shots on IP.

So maybe they would want to create a publisher of been there done that; of experience where the developer of Carnival can turn to the developer of Duke Nukem and say “forget about the tech, just make him dance.”

Back when I was studying Victorian literature there was a seminar based on Mills & Boon and the art of writing to a market. Like most students of literature I was quick to dismiss the genre because a) I wasn’t the sort of reader who cared for heaving breasts and stallions being ridden by jodhpur wearing banking executives and b) I thought that sort of literature was “literature”; churned out for people who didn’t care what they read.

Ah, youth.

Luckily that same seminar set me right on how complex a craft the writing of Mills & Boon literature is. Sure it channelled great writers such as Emily Bronte but it did so knowingly and with a very clear understanding of a target market. The execution is also carried out by writers who can, y’know, write. Properly. They are clever, talented authors who know how to structure a novel and deliver total entertainment to their readership.

And by strange coincidence, I just saw this article.

Mills & Boon is targetted, commercial writing.

And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Anyone browsing through Waterstones these days (or watching ITV2) can’t have escaped what seems to be a glut of book covers featuring pale men, blood red roses and even paler women. It’s a style designed to signal that if you enjoyed Twilight by Stephanie Myers then you’ll love anything else in the “range”. Vampire fiction is hot property.

Like Mills & Boon though, it’s not the only range on the block. YA (young adult) fiction has many ranges appealing to many different readers (with a great deal of crossover appeal too).

And like Mills & Boon, these books are targetted, commercial and created by very talented writers.

Which got me thinking about how this approach works when it comes to creating games. Which it doesn’t.

Unfortunately.

Otherwise we’d be seeing some interesting games right now that tapped into this demand.

Development schedules, a desire for “originality”, costs, procedures – the list of why not to react to the market can be endless.

But what if games could react? What if a team of developers decided that instead of chasing the latest technology they would release games based on a simpler model which could be turned around within six months and be more focussed on engaging existing or potential gamers in the worlds they want to be engaged in.

Imagine a game based on the Max Payne engine. It has the right sort of feel and functionality to be host for a Vampire game. Why can’t that be repurposed to allow for different characters and a different storyline every six months? I know the reasons why it isn’t. But what are the reasons why it can’t be?

A new development model allowing for  game creators to dovetail their skills with those of the productive YA author could be exciting. It could develop a market for YA games that isn’t based on what a hardcore, live with games every day of my life developer sees as quality but rather based on the interests and aspirations of a generation who might want different things from their gaming time.

And yes, Head First has plenty of ideas what those things might be

Volkswagen have created a wonderful piece of what they call “social marketing” but which anybody familiar with gaming for the past thirty years would just call “gaming”.

At Head First we pursue work where we can make a difference; where we know that our ideas would be appropriate. Sometimes this takes us outside the games industry and the usual response is “where’s your relevance?”. I never struggle to find an answer.

I say something like games brings everybody together. To which I am told that the client isn’t a gamer.

I don’t believe them.

Everybody is a gamer.

They might not consider buying Modern Warfare 2 or Bioshock 2; they might not even own a “games machine”; but they are gamers.

The rise in what is commonly called social media has gaming built in as standard. Look at your friend’s Facebook updates and a game won’t be far away, clearly VW understand this.

Games unite people. Games teach people and games blaze the trail in terms of user experiences and technical accomplishments.

And if everybody is a gamer then it follows that there are certain elements they have in common; certain elements that can be used to reach them.

VW’s boast centres around the fact that their promotion had been downloaded over four million times. The “revelation” of their claim is supposed to be that all this was achieved without spending a penny on media. However, when you understand the power of gaming the revelation, however brilliant, isn’t surprising.

After 60+ hours of game play I came to the end of Dragon Age: Origins (DA:O) on the Xbox360 by Bioware. As with most games I have greatly enjoyed I was left with a slight sense of disappointment that it was over, but this game also left me with an emotion that game endings have not elicited in me before – excitement. Let me explain…

DA:O is a game based in European myth and fantasy but is really a game about choice. It is the game that Fable 2 promised to be and failed to deliver but perhaps with less whimsy. From the beginning you are presented with a large range of customisable options for your main character. You have freedom to define your specialist class (warrior, mage, etc.) and the appearance of your character is pretty much up to you (as an aside on this, I noticed that you were free to choose from a range of skintones for your character, but most NPC’s in the game were white – it would have been nice to see some more diversity within the game itself). There are six different origin stories for your character to begin the game from – each of these origins will significantly influence the choices available to you during the game.

Now, here is the thing about choice. Many video games (like Fable 2) have said they would offer it, but it very rarely has an impact on the game itself. In video games choices are limited to the extremes of morality – would you like to care for these orphan kittens or would you like to throw them in a river to drown? You are hardly ever presented with options that inhabit a morally grey area. More than that, these choices often have very little impact on the story narrative itself. You can be as evil or as good as you want and there are no direct consequences apart from perhaps a change in NPC dialogue. The choices do not influence the gameplay and you are still playing a linear narrative. Choices are meant to make games feel as if we are creating our own adventure instead of playing out a predetermined path. I had not yet played a game that makes me feel like that until I played DA:O.

DA:O offers the feeling of genuine choice when traveling through the lands of Ferelden. Of  course, there are times when I am stuck to the story path but I was not limited to having only 2 ways of moving the game forward (good vs. evil). I was presented with moral dilemmas that actually made me pause to think. Sometimes, all the options I was presented had persuasive good points and points and I really had to decide what I thought would be best either for myself, my companions or the world my characters inhabited. This also applied to conversations I had with many of the world’s NPC’s. These choices would then change the world of the game around me. Conversations may become closed off if I pissed someone off, new quests might open if I made a decision in favour of one person over another and companion characters might leave my party for good if I made certain decisions. Sometimes, I couldn’t even guess what the outcome may be so I was forced to rely on what I thought was the best thing to do, rather than try to second guess the game to make sure things went in my favour. Because of this I really felt like I was carving my own path through the game and the adventure was unique to me.

All this relates to the end of the game. The epilogue quite clearly shows you how your actions and decisions have changed the world of Ferelden for good. Depending on how you play the game there is a diverse set of outcomes that will likely vary from player to player. Now, this is what excited me. Bioware has another game called Mass Effect that is also based on these principles of choice but in a sci-fi rather than fantasy setting. Mass Effect 2 is due to be released in 2010 and will use the players Mass Effect save in order to continue the story. I can already see that the DA:O epilogue will have a significant impact on the sequel I am sure Bioware are planning to make. This is why the game made me feel like I was left on a cliffhanger – the story, MY story is not yet over. It will continue and my previous decisions will impact on what happens. I am left to wonder if that demon I let go in exchange for 25 soverighns will come back to haunt me (I needed the money at the time!) or if it really was a good idea to get romantically involved with a certain character. I want to know!

DA:O has not promised me choice but then denied me the ability to shape my own story. It made me feel like I was having an adventure. I am sure that in 20 years (maybe even 5 years!) the choices presented by Bioware in DA:O will look limited and trite in comparison to the games being produced, but I really think that this game is one of the first to understand what choice really means. If you look closely, sure, DA:O still moved my character down a pre-planned narrative but it was up to me how I got there. I think this is where the future lies. I could go back and replay DA:O with a different character and different choices to see where I end up, but I don’t want to. I played this game by deciding to do what I thought was best. I look forward to finding out the consequences to that.