Creativity, the talent myth and craft

Firstly, what are the definitions of both creativity and talent? The two are often interchanged, but sometimes are not used correctly.

Michael Mumford suggested "“Over the course of the last decade, however, we seem to have reached a general agreement that creativity involves the production of novel, useful products”. This means that creativity is making things or solutions that are original and useful. Talent is a little different than creativity. It’s defined as a natural born ability, which is above average. Talent is really useful, but personally I also think it requires a lot of work to get to what most people call talented. 

A lot of ancient cultures, such as ancient Greece, China and India didn’t have the concept of creativity. Art was considered more discovery than creative. Plato did not believe in creativity, replying to the question "Will we say, of a painter, that he makes something?” with “Certainly not, he merely imitates."

The modern day idea of creativity is thought to have originated from western culture, during the renaissance. During this time there was a big art movement.

Creativity is often associated with the fields of art and literature, although it is there in other fields. However, in art and literature, it often considered enough to have only the originality, and not the usefulness. This can lead to some confusion in the term creativity. A person who works in an office (say in logistics) can be creative, thinking up creative solutions to the problems presented to them.

Creativity is a very useful skill to have in the game art industry. It is considered a ‘creative industry’. However, I would argue that the creativity that is needed for these jobs is more the type that needs to produce things that are both useful and original. Were as in different jobs, such as fine art, originality might be celebrated more. For example, Henri Matisse’s work has a very good use of colour, but his paintings can sometimes be a little abstract. This is not a criticism, is just that it’s aiming in a different direction.

Let me put it this way. Children often have lots of creativity, especially when drawing. They will draw whatever comes into their heads. But it’s not really something that you can take and present to an art director. Drawings that we need to make have to be founded in reality. This adds a lot of rules, but being creative often means that you can work round constrictions and still produce something that is original.

On a slightly tangent note, there is an artist, Dave Devries, who takes children’s drawing and repaints them. The result is slightly disturbing, but shows off their crazy ideas really well. 

In the games industry, I think creativity can be shown in different way. It could be an original art style. Or it could be a new gameplay mechanic. It could even be a fantastic score. Best of course would be a combination of things. Sometimes the bigger AAA titles can get a bit samey, sticking to formula because it is guaranteed to make profit. But taking risks and producing something a bit more creative can make something new, innovative and fresh. This is something that, in my opinion, the industry needs.

updating again

Sorry I haven't updated this as much as I should have done, the group project has eaten up  a lot of my time. It's been ok, if nothing else it's made me speed up making assets. It now seems laughable that we were given something like three weeks to make a pile of trash.

I'm not too far behind in Visual Design either (surprisingly). Currently doing the cultural walks project, which was really confusing. The brief seemed really vague, unlike what we had done before, and not very focused on game art. I've  made it into a small inner city garden, and I guess that'll be ok, it can be an environment. Not been feeling so great about things in general, the other day I was painting and nothing seemed to be going right, it just looked rubbish to me. I know I'm progressing, but it's so slow, and everyone else just seems so much better and to be progressing so much faster. 

I've started going to the life drawing on Thursday, which is a lot nicer than the one on Monday. I get more done, its less restrictive and it just feels more productive. It would be nice if we could get a male model in this year though, we've only had female models and it would be nice to get some variety.

And I know I'm a bit behind in Critical Studies.

from generalist to specialist

The games industry is a very fast changing industry. Because it is relatively new compared to other entertainment industries, for example, the film industry, it is constantly shifting. The technology used to create games has gone from very basic 3d models to the high poly models that we have today in the space of my lifetime, and shows very little signs of slowing down.

Because the industry is growing so quickly, it means new job roles are being created. In the past, a very small team of people worked on games. For example, two people, Nolan Bushnell and Ted Dabney, created pong, which was a very early game . Now big budget games often have hundreds of people working on them. For example, the games developer Naughty Dog employs over 170 people. However, this company was started by just two people, Jason Rubin and Andy Gavin.  The job roles that people have has also become more specialised. There was a time where the programmers would make all the graphics themselves and the role we are training for didn't exist.

An exception to this could be the growing amounts indie game developers. They usually have smaller teams, with people taking on multiple roles. The internet has helped greatly with this, as it allows small developers to promote their games to a wider audience. The finished game can also be made available for download, which cuts down the cost of distribution and allow more people to get a copy of their game. An example of this is mine craft, which was originally made by one person, Markus Persson, and later expanded to a larger team . Also, the wide spread use of smart phones has lead to more mobile games, which has been great for smaller  developers as these games are smaller and do not require such a large team to produce.

Because of the size of games, some companies use outsourcing . The definition of this is   'Outsourcing is any task, operation, job or process that could be performed by employees within an organization, but is instead contracted to a third party for a significant period of time.' This is used because outsourcing companies are often in countries outside of Europe and north America, so it costs less. They are often used on big projects were lots of assets need to be made. However, some people are afraid that outsourcing limits the jobs available to  game artists in the uk, as it is cheaper to outsource a lot of assets. On the other hand, it is often difficult to tell what you might get back; the benefits of having a team in one place can't be under estimated, as it makes it a lot easier to communicate between people and make sure that everyone is on the same page.

Because the industry changes so quickly, it is difficult to be able to predict what will happen in the next ten years or so. More and more specialised jobs may be created as games get bigger, or it may be that smaller teams will become more predominate, with employees taking on multiple roles. Personally, because of this, I don't think it is a good idea to become too specialised while working on this course, as you never know what developments might happen in the future or what jobs will be available.

http://operationstech.about.com/od/glossary/g/Outsourcing.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft#Development

update

Just a general update this week, not really sure what to put but I haven't done so in a while. Don't worry, I'll be back to doing my coursework next week. Now I've caught back up with that a bit. 

I was getting a bit worried, the visual design work was piling up and I was still behind on my blog. I don't want to get bad marks like last year. I really don't know how personal I need to make this blog, or if at all. Anyway, completed my masters study painting, decided to go with Ivan Shishkin. His art is so cool an detailed, I shouldn't have chosen him to be honest as my final is nowhere near as detailed even though I spent a lot of time on it. I also did a oil painting as well, but that turned out even worse.

The queens building project is still ok. It would be nice if we were given some tutorials for udk, we've only had too and one was from third years. Also there doesn't seem to be anything on blackboard to help out. It feels a bit like starting out with 3Ds max last year, except worse. I know we have to adapt and learn new programs, but it just feels like we could be taught more.

This new Viking project in Visual Design, I'm not so sure about it. I've got a feeling that people are going to go for crazy things like huge warriors duel wielding giant battle axes. We had a choice, but the 1960's Paris thing didn't seem appealing to me. I'm trying to take this in a realistic way, but then it's difficult to make it interesting.

Interactive Design

At first, arcade games had simple controls. You would usually have a joystick, or maybe one or two buttons as well. Nowadays, with the emergence of consoles as the main game systems, controllers that use many more buttons and usually two analogue sticks are the norm.

One of the first things I thought of when starting this task was this, the Nintendo power glove for the N64.

It sounds on paper like a good idea, controlling the game with your movements. But it was so poorly executed that it just made the games difficult to play. Each game needed a different code entered on the glove, which was overcomplicated.

How The powerglove was ment to be

Currently, motion control has had a comeback. And once again it was Nintendo with the wii console. This was extremely successful, as the wii outsold other consoles on the market despite its lower graphical capabilities. One of the differences could have been that the power glove is that the wiis controls are easy to use and actually work. Most people can just pick up a controller and go. However, some people have criticised that not all games need motion control and that it is just a gimmick.

Both Sony and Microsoft have also brought out their own motion control accessories. The move on the playstation 3 has been criticised as being a rip off of the Wii controller. The Kinnect for the Xbox 360 is a bit more inventive, as it uses the players bodies as the controller, but is still now as wide spread as the games that use the wii remotes motion controls. The real question is why. It could be because of a changing market, with a move towards smart phone games. It is also possible that its because the wii has gained a more mainstream following, with people who would not usually play games owning this console. Or it could be a price factor, the wii being cheaper than the other two motion control options.

There is also the emergence of 3D. A new type of 3D is used currently, and 3D TVs have been on sale a while. However, even though some games are compatible with 3D, the hefty price tag has dissuaded some gamers from investing. There was also issues with the 3DS, with some players reporting that  'the console had left them feeling sick, suffering briefly with blurred vision and dizzy spells'. Personally, I don't think 3D in games will last long.

Most people think in the future we'll have minority report style computers, and that maybe that's what our games will be like as well. However, I think that its possible that things could be getting too complicated. I know that my mum can't use a playstation controller, it's something people that have been playing games a while take for granted. If things become more complicated, then it may  alienate the mainstream audience.

 The future

Another way things could go is that consoles become obsolete. Some people think that playing games on smart phones is going to be the future of gaming. These mostly use touch screen technology  . Of course, things could go all futuristic with guns and other specialised controllers, but the problem is that these ways of playing can only be used for one type of game. If you had a cockpit of a plane in your front room, then you can't exactly play a plat former with it. 

 at this point you might as well buy a plane

Although I still hope they hurry up and build that computer from minority report.

 This is how I want to build things in 3Ds Max

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12970809

Sound in Games

Sound is another elements of games, one that is often overlooked. However, it is incredibly important. Successful sounds in games add to the atmosphere of a game, creates tension, and adds believability.

 Series of games will often have a theme, or a recognisable style in its music. For example, the metal gear series has its theme (I'm being biased, this is one of my favourites) which is strongly orchestral. 

As with other series, this theme has altered slightly between games, but remains recognisable. Another example of this is the Elder scrolls series, where the music is the same, but has been performed differently to reflect the tone of each individual game.

Many of the current generation of games use an orchestra to perform their scores, however, in the past this was impossible. The storage space for games was minimal, as was the technology they were being played on. This meant that composers only had a limited means of creating music. However, because of these limits, some of these pieces of music are some of the most recognisable video game themes. For example, most people will recognise this:

It shows that not all soundtracks need a huge orchestra to be effective. Personally, I remember the battle themes from Pokemon to be very effective at creating tension. Although I was a bit younger when I was playing them, I still think they hold up today. (listening to this brought back a lot of memories)

Some of the most successful soundtracks are actually the ones you don't notice.  For example, personally, I find the Silent hill series soundtrack very effective in creating an atmosphere. I don't think it would be nearly as scary if it had a different soundtrack . Take this scene for example. if you watch it without sound, and  its nowhere near as scary or threatening as with the sound on. 

It's the sound that adds that atmosphere. Without it the game would not have the same effect, and this applies to all genres of games, not just horror.

 It's not just the soundtrack that is important. The sound effects in a game can add realism and believability. This can be the sounds of guns, footsteps, ambient noise, explosions, even simple things like knocking a can over. If done correctly, the player shouldn't notice these, but they really add to the emersion.

There is a lot of cross over between the film music world and the game one. Composters that work in film or television often work in the video game industry as well. For example Harry Gregson-Williams who has composed for films such as X-Men Origins: Wolverine but has also made scores for video games such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Another example is Greg Edmonson, who worker on television programs such as Firefly and video games such as the uncharted series. These two professions overlap, because both games and films need a good score to bring them to life.