Ludo-narrative resonance and dissonance refer to when a games gameplay mechanics can assist or conflict with story elements respectively. Both ludo-narrative resonance dissonance have an effect on the immersion of a game, generally the resonance brings you into a game and the dissonance drags you out.
Ludo-narrative resonance as mentioned above is when the mechanics of a game can assist the story. This aside from shooting the bad guys because the character doesn't like them, or anything else that is literally doing what the game is saying should happen, is generally considered the rarer of the two. SPOILER ALERT; As an example in The Last Of Us as the protagonist Joel you kill pretty much everyone who gets in your way and this is directly acknowledge by dialog, and all the melee combat is relentlessly brutal, all of that lends itself to Joel's survival of the fittest mentality and adds evidence to the idea that Joel may not quite be a hero in the story. A simpler less context heavy example is playing Trevor in GTA V, you go around stealing cars and killing everyone in sight, but Trevor is very clearly mentally unstable and its very believable for him to go out and do that, unlike CJ in San Andreas who is rebuilding Grove Street by decapitating and old lady then molotoving her body before parking you car on a prostitute and detonating it with plastic explosive. I wouldn't say that really adds to the story of GTA but it still technically comes under ludo-narrative resonance, but at least it doesn't detract from the story.
When mechanics of play are detrimental to the story it results in ludo-narrative dissonance. This is extremely common, as most games are games first and foremost with gameplay taking priority over story, at least during gameplay at least. There are examples of this all over the place, from average Joe mowing down hundreds upon hundreds of nameless thugs/terrorists/nazi's but the moment you hit a cutscene they have a mental breakdown after shooting one person, or nigh immortal supersoldiers for characters when they are supposedly human, or when they are actually supposed to be unstoppable supersoldiers they have some ridiculous one hit kill weakness (cough cough Halo). This all can bring you out of the game such as the moment you ponder how your heroic adventurer can slaughter hundreds of men or just plain do something ridiculous (you can grapple hook cops off the roof in Batman: Arkham Origins, try it's hilarious), or it can just piss you off, I have thrown a controller or two because some c*** stabbed me in the foot and killed me. Also a punch from, Mei a 5' possibly overweight or overdressed (heatstroke, come on people) scientist, and Soldier 76 a 6'1" super soldier smashing the butt of his rifle hurt the same amount, fuck off, thats about as believable as an 11 year old kid in Africa building a battle robot... wait a minute. Basically this shit just doesn't make sense, but that's okay, it doesn't always need to, unless maybe it's Metal Gear, which takes everything into account, but that still doesn't make sense anyway.
This topic is a bit more cut and dry than the others, it would probably be better if ludo-narrative resonance where the gameplay assists the story was more prominent, but we don't want everything to be pretentious crap where everything has to mean something profound. This may be a bachelor of arts but I ain't some nancy boy hipster prick who thinks I'm better than someone because I can make up some bullshit meaning for why Masterchief has to fight the covenant instead of hug it out, Vietnam's over they can all shut the fuck up now.
Monday 20 March 2017
Entry 04: Realistic vs Stylised Aesthetics
There are two main schools of thought on the direction of aesthetic design and graphics in video games; realistic graphics or an intentionally stylised design. And just like 3rd person and 1st person, one is not explicitly greater than the other, and just comes down to preference.
Realistic "graphics" refers to an aesthetic style which is intended to be realistic as possible given the current hardware capabilities. Generally this is considered more desirable and impressive by most people. As our technology and artistic skills increase so to does our ability to graphically render more realistic looking video games. An immediate drawback to this is that graphics now take majority of a personal computers grunt, the mere existence of graphics cards prove this, however this also means that as we want to improve graphics we must also improve the hardware and graphical engines that power these games, pushing forward computing technology. Focusing on this style of aesthetics also has other practical applications such as generating photos of you in different countries so you can look important on facebook, when you in fact spent your time modelling your own face and not learning about photoshop, there are also medical applications but who cares about that.
Meanwhile what people refer to as stylised aesthetics or graphics is where the aesthetic style of a game forgoes the attempt at creating the most realist appearance they could in favour of something more artistic. There is a distinct advantage to stylised aesthetics over realistic ones is a timeless appearance. Focusing on designing a game based on a particular art style allows the games appearance to never look dated aside from the resolution (which can be updated most of the time), cell shading (comic book style lighting) with solid lines in games is a good example of this, provided that the models are smooth enough and the game has skilled artists a game will forever look good as a homage to the art of comic books. However a result of this in contrast to a realist style pushing the technology, the technology could stagnate. If the games look 'good' for extended periods of time without further development companies will start to see that they don't need to put money into furthering the technology used, creating a new status quo for how games are made, which even with many different visual styles from many different artists it will eventually hit a wall and just stop dead flat and just like Call of Duty it will all be the same shit.
Ultimately we need both realistic and stylised graphics, both because everyone has a different preference and because we need to continue the technology but still preserve masterful games.
Realistic "graphics" refers to an aesthetic style which is intended to be realistic as possible given the current hardware capabilities. Generally this is considered more desirable and impressive by most people. As our technology and artistic skills increase so to does our ability to graphically render more realistic looking video games. An immediate drawback to this is that graphics now take majority of a personal computers grunt, the mere existence of graphics cards prove this, however this also means that as we want to improve graphics we must also improve the hardware and graphical engines that power these games, pushing forward computing technology. Focusing on this style of aesthetics also has other practical applications such as generating photos of you in different countries so you can look important on facebook, when you in fact spent your time modelling your own face and not learning about photoshop, there are also medical applications but who cares about that.
Meanwhile what people refer to as stylised aesthetics or graphics is where the aesthetic style of a game forgoes the attempt at creating the most realist appearance they could in favour of something more artistic. There is a distinct advantage to stylised aesthetics over realistic ones is a timeless appearance. Focusing on designing a game based on a particular art style allows the games appearance to never look dated aside from the resolution (which can be updated most of the time), cell shading (comic book style lighting) with solid lines in games is a good example of this, provided that the models are smooth enough and the game has skilled artists a game will forever look good as a homage to the art of comic books. However a result of this in contrast to a realist style pushing the technology, the technology could stagnate. If the games look 'good' for extended periods of time without further development companies will start to see that they don't need to put money into furthering the technology used, creating a new status quo for how games are made, which even with many different visual styles from many different artists it will eventually hit a wall and just stop dead flat and just like Call of Duty it will all be the same shit.
Ultimately we need both realistic and stylised graphics, both because everyone has a different preference and because we need to continue the technology but still preserve masterful games.
Monday 6 March 2017
Entry 03: 1st person vs 3rd person
Since the dawn of time Mountain Dew and Rockstar energy drink addicts have been at each others throat arguing which is better, 1st person or 3rd person perspective in shooters. Of course both of these groups tend to be dickheads with no basis to their argument. While each perspective has it's merits neither is decidedly better than the other, simply because each game is different anyway. Now even though I already made any argument redundant I need a higher word count so here we go.
The first person perspective places the players camera within the head (or on the headless shoulders) of their in game avatar, while the third person perspective places the perspective places the camera behind the player. Much like how the terms first and third person are used in writing it implies the difference between 'I' and 'Them' when referring to the protagonist. This places you into the boots of you're character, you are Gordon Freeman, you are Doomguy, you are B.J. Blazkowicz, you are Masterchief. But while this method immerses you into the actions of your character and lets you live a power fantasy it can pull you out of the overall story by making you these voiceless blank slates made for self insertion.
Third person shooters separate you from your roided out death machine of a protagonist, letting you peer safely from over their massive shoulders. If you has some kind of a personality disorder that caused you to believe you really were the character in a first person shooter you no longer have that problem, as third person shooters don't make much of an effort to make you personally feel like you could be the character. Initially that doesn't as enticing until you come to the conclusion that it allows for stronger stories with much more flushed out characters and better scripts, the flat and simple "Sir, finishing this fight" becomes "eat shit and die, motherfucker," okay maybe that wasn't the best example, but the characters are actually characters not just blank slates to allow you to embody. These characters carry can usually carry a stronger story being that they are fully realised, and none of this is even considering gameplay yet.
Finally getting around to the gameplay aspects, the first person shooter as stated before puts you in the boots of the camera. Your camera is further forward and you could almost swear you are holding the gun in your mouth, this immediately has some advantages, your skill based accuracy and rang is generally better, simply because you are closer to where you are actually firing from. The advantage is negligible, especially when I found an exploit in a certain triple a third person shooter that lets bullets clip through cover (don't ask I'm not sharing my secrets), but the difference is noticeable at times, otherwise some third person games wouldn't insert first person as a feature. A distinct characteristic of most first person shooters, is speed, especially on on the pc. First person shooters (competitive anyway) are all about fast reflexes, 90 degree turns finishing with a head shot and teabagging. These quick snapshots would only be possible without the limitations of "realistic movement" and are also more necessary with the smaller cone of vision.
Third person shooters are often coverbased. Coverbased meaning you slam your back into a wall and pray to Lord Gaben you don't flanked while taking potshots and using you're magical camera to look around the corner. Naturally this coverbased gameplay is much slower than the break neck speed of a first person shooter, slugging around cover to cover, playing much more defensively, unless you just run around with a shotgun anyway, speed was also effect by the use of complete and realistic(ish) animations when running around. You also have a wider perspective due to the camera being placed back, yes I know the angle is more or less the same the camera is just moved back, but it still gives you a greater sense of vision and spatial awareness, and even some games allow you to rotate your characters vision with out aiming, again aiding in a much more defensive style of gameplay. But these are more a matter of preference rather than a solid pro or con, same goes for first person shooters.
I reiterate this argument is pointless, but just as people will always bitch about an opposing console they will about this. So I will close this with a few simple statements. You can either be the character or you can follow A character, It's irrelevant as long as you enjoy it. You may consider some features of either perspective as advantages or disadvantages, but still irrelevant, if you are playing competitively then your opponents are playing with the same advantages and/or disadvantages as you, all that matters is which are you better at compared to the average. That is all.
The first person perspective places the players camera within the head (or on the headless shoulders) of their in game avatar, while the third person perspective places the perspective places the camera behind the player. Much like how the terms first and third person are used in writing it implies the difference between 'I' and 'Them' when referring to the protagonist. This places you into the boots of you're character, you are Gordon Freeman, you are Doomguy, you are B.J. Blazkowicz, you are Masterchief. But while this method immerses you into the actions of your character and lets you live a power fantasy it can pull you out of the overall story by making you these voiceless blank slates made for self insertion.
Third person shooters separate you from your roided out death machine of a protagonist, letting you peer safely from over their massive shoulders. If you has some kind of a personality disorder that caused you to believe you really were the character in a first person shooter you no longer have that problem, as third person shooters don't make much of an effort to make you personally feel like you could be the character. Initially that doesn't as enticing until you come to the conclusion that it allows for stronger stories with much more flushed out characters and better scripts, the flat and simple "Sir, finishing this fight" becomes "eat shit and die, motherfucker," okay maybe that wasn't the best example, but the characters are actually characters not just blank slates to allow you to embody. These characters carry can usually carry a stronger story being that they are fully realised, and none of this is even considering gameplay yet.
Finally getting around to the gameplay aspects, the first person shooter as stated before puts you in the boots of the camera. Your camera is further forward and you could almost swear you are holding the gun in your mouth, this immediately has some advantages, your skill based accuracy and rang is generally better, simply because you are closer to where you are actually firing from. The advantage is negligible, especially when I found an exploit in a certain triple a third person shooter that lets bullets clip through cover (don't ask I'm not sharing my secrets), but the difference is noticeable at times, otherwise some third person games wouldn't insert first person as a feature. A distinct characteristic of most first person shooters, is speed, especially on on the pc. First person shooters (competitive anyway) are all about fast reflexes, 90 degree turns finishing with a head shot and teabagging. These quick snapshots would only be possible without the limitations of "realistic movement" and are also more necessary with the smaller cone of vision.
Third person shooters are often coverbased. Coverbased meaning you slam your back into a wall and pray to Lord Gaben you don't flanked while taking potshots and using you're magical camera to look around the corner. Naturally this coverbased gameplay is much slower than the break neck speed of a first person shooter, slugging around cover to cover, playing much more defensively, unless you just run around with a shotgun anyway, speed was also effect by the use of complete and realistic(ish) animations when running around. You also have a wider perspective due to the camera being placed back, yes I know the angle is more or less the same the camera is just moved back, but it still gives you a greater sense of vision and spatial awareness, and even some games allow you to rotate your characters vision with out aiming, again aiding in a much more defensive style of gameplay. But these are more a matter of preference rather than a solid pro or con, same goes for first person shooters.
I reiterate this argument is pointless, but just as people will always bitch about an opposing console they will about this. So I will close this with a few simple statements. You can either be the character or you can follow A character, It's irrelevant as long as you enjoy it. You may consider some features of either perspective as advantages or disadvantages, but still irrelevant, if you are playing competitively then your opponents are playing with the same advantages and/or disadvantages as you, all that matters is which are you better at compared to the average. That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)