Friday, April 19, 2013

Gameplay vs Graphics

Don't Copy From This Blog...

Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Detection
There used to be a time when the graphics of a game would define how good it was. Every year a new game would be launched with better, more realistic graphics, and everyone knew that there had to be a point where the hardware simply wouldn't be able to cope up. There are computers which can beautifully run those heavy processor intensive games, but the average gamer cannot afford those systems. Even gaming consoles have a limit to which they can play the more graphic oriented titles.

Here's something interesting I found on my frequent trips to 9GAG,


Art of triangles-9GAG


There is a saturation point where we simply will not be distinguish the virtual world from reality. I have no doubt that in the next few iterations of the Gran Turismo series, cars will look so realistic that one will simply not be able to make out if it's real or virtual. It will be fascinating and wonderful to have a game which is indistinguishable from reality. But it might not be necessarily fun.

When I play Pokemon Emerald on my GameBoy Advance, I never did once dream of better graphics. The gameplay was so engaging that graphics simply didn't matter. Of course, Pokemon Emerald was made in the era of the GameBoy, so those pixelated graphics was the best Nintendo could come up with anyway. But even today, with titles such as Gran Turismo, Assasins Creed, and Call of Duty, Pokemon Emerald still has its appeal. Infact it might be even more appealing than any game on sale today. There is one simple reason why it's so much more appealing: I have more fun playing a simple Pokemon game than playing any modern title.


Pokemon FireRed in OpenEmu


Nintendo could not do much about the graphics, so there was a greater emphasis on the gameplay. They ended up making one of the most popular and successful games ever. Not only is the most involving role playing game till date, but it is also fun. The element of fun is what is lacking in many games. Call of Duty is extremely immersive and involving as well. It also gives players an adrenaline rush and was primarily designed to provide a unique experience. Not necessarily fun, unless you really enjoy shooting people. Yet Call of Duty has still retained it's USP of giving players a mindblowing experience at home. So Call of Duty can be classified as a different genre of gaming altogether, leaning toward simulation. But there are many other games that simply focus on graphics rather than gameplay. Aspyr's Star Wars games and Civilization series does seem excessively graphics oriented. TT Games Lego Star Wars is a brilliant Star Wars game, true to the heritage of Star Wars, but it is a lot more fun than the original Star Wars games.

When you play Pokemon, Mario, or any other old pixelated game, it's not as if you struggle to make out difference between each character. With higher resolution computer screens becoming more commonplace nowadays, it would be nice to double the pixel count, but there isn't any reason to give Mario facial expressions and emotions. Mario is the italian plumber who has to save a princess. No one needs to know anything beyond that. EA is another offender. We all love Need For Speed. But no one needs to play NFS with Gran Turismo level of detail. We all want arcade racing with cops. The first NFS game is genuinely very good. Simple arcade racing. We were quite happy with NFS Hot Pursuit 2. Police chases and racing. What more do you want from an NFS game? The latest NFS game, Most Wanted(Mk II) has returned to the roots of NFS gaming, and its really no surprise that it is very successful.

Codemaster has also given preference to gameplay for all their racing games. Race Driver: GRID shifted focus from racing to giving the player a unique experience with sights and sounds on race-day. So it might not be as pure a racing game as its predecessor, ToCA: Race Driver 3, but as a result it appeals to many more gamers. Even F1 2012 was designed to provide an experience of a Formula 1 driver, and was thus criticized for not being a true Formula 1 simulator. If it had been a Formula 1 simulator, no one apart from F1 drivers would have been able to play the game, and in any case you simply wouldn't know how realistic it is to a real Formula 1 car because a large majority of players haven't driven a Formula 1 car. Codemasters has struck a good balance of gameplay vs graphics. Even GRID 2 is a simple looking game, but all the new bits and bobs are under the hood.


F1 2012 Lotus F1

Time has come now, for simplistic gaming. Now achieving the right balance between gameplay and graphics is very important. Not only will the focus of the game developers be equally concentrated on gameplay and graphics and thus have a wider appeal, the emphasis on gameplay means that fun will come back to gaming.

It is hard to judge when a game has all the right elements to be successful. One of the main elements is its ability to entertain the player, to bring about a sense of fun. The only reason we play games is to have fun, plain and simple. So of course, every game has to be designed make the player have a good time. The only reason indie games are so popular is because indie game developers have nothing to lose and they are willing to head off toward a new direction of game design. Big game companies stake their reputation on every major game title, so they stick to a tried and tested formula which produces similar games. Who'd have thought Angry Birds would become popular. Sorry, thats an understatement. Angry Birds has entered into the history books and has become the prime selling point of merchandise manufactured by the Chinese. I've seen way too many Angry Bird theme stationery, clothing and food items. It is a very simple game, but it fulfilled a very crucial criteria. The simple to need to have some quick 5 minute gaming fun on a mobile device, anytime, anywhere. The graphics are nothing to write home about, Rovio simply made do with something that did the job, and was interpreted by players of all age groups. It's a simple, joyful, colourful game that fun to play.


Angry Birds Space


At the other end of the spectrum, games such as Infinity Blade exist. Complex, with insane graphics for a mobile device, it created quite a buzz when it was first revealed. But I never felt compelled to play it as much as I would love to play Angry Birds repeatedly. Rovio also released different versions of Angry Birds, with seasonal themes and partnerships with various sponsors. Last year, they sponsored Finnish Formula 1 drivers Kimi Raikkonen and Heikki Kovalainen. Odd choice of drivers, but Rovio is a Finnish company, and Finns know what they're doing. I'm pretty sure the story of Angry Birds is probably a business case study at some university somewhere. It really is a glimpse at what future game titles will try to emulate, and to do that, they need to refocus their priorities.

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Formula 1 China 2013

Don't Copy From This Blog...

Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Detection
This race is bought to you by Pirelli tyres. Spicing up F1 races since 2012.

No really. If it wasn't for the Pirelli tyres, this race would have been extremely drab and boring. More accurately, it was the choice of tyre compounds that made the difference. Pirelli bought the Soft and the Medium compound tyre to China. Quickly it became clear that the Soft compound wouldn't last all that long, and it was a situation similar to that in Australia, where the Supersoft tyre also degraded quickly.

Hamilton leads Raikkonen


Qualifying was relatively smooth. Until Q3 began. Till the last 3 minutes, no one went out on track. Some didn't. No one wanted to race the race on the Softs as they would barely last a couple of laps on race day. In a thrilling couple of minutes, Alonso, Hamilton, and Raikkonen set blisteringly fast times, all within a second. Lewis got pole position though, by three tenths of a second. Impressive. Although the top 7 all set times, they were on the softer compound. Button, Vettel, and Hulkenberg elected to start on the more durable Medium compound. So they were many different strategies to be played out and many different setups. With the varied pace of the cars, sparks were going to fly. Jules Bianchi once again, outqualified his team-mate by a massive margin of 0.757 seconds.



Sparks did fly, right from the start. Due to a software glitch, Raikkonen selected an incorrect clutch map, and lost two places at the start. Alonso, had a perfect start, and along with Massa they were right on Hamilton's tail, and on lap 5, they both overtook him on the first corner. Webber ran out of fuel in Q2 and started from the pitlane. Then in the race, he collided with Jean Eric Vergne, and smashed his front wing. While pitting for a new wing, his right rear tyre wasn't bolted on properly and his wheel fell off. Too bad he was notified of the defect so he wasn't doing 300 kmph when it happened. Raikkonen damaged his front wing and nose after rear ending Sergio Perez when he tried to overtake him. Kimi went for gap that didn't exist, so it was quite silly. Still, with that awful looking nose, he finished second and managed to preserve his tyres. He lost 0.25 seconds a lap which would later cost him a chance to challenge Alonso for the win. Alonso was in a league of his own. A beautifully timed strategy and brilliant drive ensured him a win. Hulkenberg who started on the medium tyres, switched to the softer compound for his middle stint which meant that he destroyed those tyres as he was still carrying a lot of fuel. Button however only stopped twice(all other stopped thrice) and finished 5th. Impressive with a car which was well off the pace. Sebastian Vettel, this season's new bad boy, like button elected to run the softer tyres toward the end of the race. Vettel saved the softer compound tyres for the last 5 laps of the race, and he had his chance to really push his car. After he switched to the softer compound tyres, he closed a 13 second gap to third placed Hamilton to 0.2 seconds at the chequered flag. Hamilton, meanwhile was battling it out with Kimi throughout the race for 2nd position, and it was a great battle. When Sebastion Vettel came into play in the closing stages, tension ensued till the last lap, where Hamilton was also pushing to catch Kimi who was barely a second ahead of him. On the last lap, backmarkers came into play, adding an extra element in the 3 way battle. Probably the most exciting moment of the race which was pretty action packed. Sutil was rear ended by Esteban, and his rear wing broke and then his brakes caught fire. Rosberg decided to retire with a broken anti-roll bar. Lewis Hamilton finished the Korean GP in 2012 with a broken anti-roll bar. Daniel Ricciardo finished 7th, and there were already rumours of Webber retiring to Le Mans, and Ricciardo taking his seat, or Raikkonen retiring with a final 2014 season with Red Bull.

Drive of the day goes to Alonso for making a very difficult race look easy. Kimi also deserves a mention as he adapted to his damaged car and preserved his tyres while maintaining good pace. A damaged front wing causes imbalance, and with Lotus already suffering understeer and front end grip issues, Kimi handled it all beautifully to clinch 2nd place. Jules Bianchi, who I am now a big fan of, kept his nose clean and finished 15th.

There's no point in criticising Pirelli. They made racing more unpredictable and exciting. It's not the tyres which are to blame/praise for the exciting racing. It's the tyre selection that really mixes things up. That is the reason why toward the end of 2012, conservative tyre choices ensured boring races. I'm pretty sure everyone would like to see Jules Bianchi in a Marussia win rather than Vettel in his Red Bull. If the Pirelli tyres can make it happen, I don't see any reason for complaints.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

OpenEmu Compiled for Mac

Don't Copy From This Blog...

Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Detection
OpenEmu is a open source emulator that will play pretty any game you played 'back in the day'. My 'back in the day' games were the Pokemon games.

Now the only way to play Pokemon on a Mac is with GameBoy emulators. VisualBoy is a very good option, with the ability to fast forward time and use various cheats. But it is slightly unstable, and the cheats and the fast forwarding option does spoil the game because you will inevitably use them. It's like a cake on a table, in a room full of other people. You don't simply ignore the cake. You will eat every bit of it. Then you will become violently sick because the cake was poisoned. The cheats and the fast forwarding is the poisoned cake. It ruins the game and you can't help but use them.

Enter OpenEmu. Not only will this emulate any sort of Nintendo device, it is stable, and it doesn't have anything extra. Open app, play the game. Thats it. No fuss. The best part is that it looks like an official Apple app. It's like a mini iTunes for emulators and games. It is beautifully designed.








This is how an emulator for the Mac should look like. You can modify the keys, or hook up a gamepad and modify the keys accordingly.





You can compile it yourself. It takes less than 10 minutes to compile if you already have Xcode. Here's a very simple guide to compile it yourself. If you don't have Xcode, or you want to save yourself the bother, here's a version I compiled.

Download Link 1
Download Link 2

Friday, April 5, 2013

The Importance of Design Direction

Don't Copy From This Blog...

Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Detection
There are quite a few articles on the internet, and in print giving reasons for Apple's meteoric rise to success. Those articles are very long, and the writers of those articles use big words because they think it makes them look sophisticated and highbrow. It gives me a headache, and big words only makes it seem as if you're trying too hard. Put simply, the only reason why Apple rocketed to success is because they had a radically different design direction to their rivals.

Design here isn't used in an aesthetic sense. Before Apple, or Steve Jobs, everyone assumed users of technology were just as smart as the people who made them. Steve Jobs assumed the users of his products were morons, and designed them in such a way so that even the most technologically challenged person could use them. Jobs called his design direction intuition.



According to the dictionary,

intuition |ɪntjʊˈɪʃ(É™)n|noun [ mass noun ]the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning: we shallallow our intuition to guide us.• count noun ] a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning: your insights and intuitions as a native speaker are positively sought.
Steve Jobs wasn't all that wrong in calling his customers morons. I don't think he ever said it verbally, but we all know that in the face of rapidly advancing technology, even the most tech savvy 5 year olds barely keep up. So there isn't a hope in hell that the average customer has any chance of using any new products. So he took the tech available, and buried it under an extremely simple interface so that it even users who are used to typewriters can easily use it. Till date I haven't seen a middle aged person take to a piece of modern technology as much as the iPad. The iPad is a masterstroke. Middle aged people who have lots of money love it because they can use it easily and keep up with the times, and because they have lots of money they don't mind Apple overcharging them. Another simple reason is that all Apple products simply work. It is a very attractive quality, and it's what makes German cars sell.

Apple designs products that simpletons can use easily. Nokia also perfected this design direction with its now ageing Symbian. Although they fell in a spot of trouble after Apple launched the iPhone due to what I suspect were a few fat cats scared of change. Now though, Nokia is back with Windows Phone 8, and they too are taking the right steps towards now what can now be called a 'successful design'. Samsung, however still doesn't quite understand the reason why Apple is so successful. It could do with the fact that they started off making mobile phones for the lower end of the market, where selling price of the phone was key, and everything else could, and was compromised on. It was, and is a successful strategy, and Samsung decided to adapt the same to the higher end of the market. At this end of the market however, selling price isn't key. Apple, and Nokia cottoned on this, and they soon became very successful. The only reason Samsung has a reasonably large market share is due to the only reason that will ensure its decline in the near future-its operating system, Google Android.

Google does a lot of things right. A list that includes it's search engine, translation, mapping and the ever entertaining Google Doodles. But they are horrible at making operating systems. The ChromeBook was a very shoddily put together weekend project that was aimed at a very specific market which was already taken over by the MacBook Air. Once you go Mac, you never go back? Thats the 11th commandment. It was a project which was doomed before it was ever conceptualised. Still Google hasn't given up, and now it has tried to take the fight to the MacBook Pro with what only be described as a jumped up ChromeBook with a touchscreen. It's hopeless. Its as if Google deliberately shot themselves in the knee, and then jumped off a cliff. I bet they're now simply hoping everyone forgets about the ChromeBook Pixel.

Android is another flawed design. Google nicked iOS in its infancy and then transformed it into Android as Larry Page was on Apple's board of directors. He quit and took the then young iOS into Google's hands. Steve Jobs was furious and he vowed to kill Android at any cost. Which is why Apple is suing Android whenever, and wherever. Nokia and Windows Phone 8 haven't attracted any attention. Android is an iOS clone gone horribly wrong. The design philosophy is stunted, and just like Windows 7, it was designed to be used by any number of manufacturers. So it is a compromised design, unlike Apple and Nokia, both of whom closely integrate their OS and hardware. Not only is a flawed design, but it is also technically inefficient, needing powerful processors to run anywhere near as smooth as iOS or WP8. Of course, many prefer Android because it's "open". There is a small percentage who use the open source OS for various project, but a majority of users use "open" as an excuse to get paid applications for free. In any case, Linux is a much better option, and it is much more versatile and powerful. No matter how many features Android might have, its just not going to match up to the user friendly interface of either iOS or WP8. The user friendly interface is a key point here. No matter how many more features are added to a device, the interface has to be able to maximise those features with minimal action.

iOS, and Mac OS X are classic examples of this design. Both have been constantly updated, but if a person who has been using the first version makes the jump to the latest version without having used any of the versions in between, the user would still feel at home, and would be able to use the device to its maximum potential. Microsoft too had followed a similar design direction, but then took a U-turn with Windows 8. This alienated many Windows 7 users, and forced them to revert back. It's not like Windows 8 is a huge leap forward either so the new UI which is supposed to work with touchscreen laptops and tablets is needlessly complicated. There is a reason why Apple didn't fit a touchscreen to the MacBook Air. There has rarely been a company like Apple which has managed to absolutely perfect their design direction and reap great rewards off it.


On a side note, a trend is emerging in design. The English are very good at this sort of thing. Apple, Formula 1, various fashion labels, all employ english designers. US, not so much. I might be wrong here, but it it something to do with education, or is it simply coincidence. Europe as a whole has better design sense than the US. Again, design isn't being referred to aesthetics, but the overall thinking behind any project.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

AutoShot: Automatic Screenshot Taker

Don't Copy From This Blog...

Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Detection
AutoShot. I couldn't resist naming an elementary AppleScript script. It was too good a name to pass up.

Autoshot automatically takes screenshots of your Mac while you play your game, or work on your project, so you can document your work or play, without having to press the combination of keys to take a screenshot. There are full fledged apps out there that might do this, but this is a simple script that can do the same. You can decide the delay between each screenshot, and for how long should the script take the screenshots.

Here is the code incase you want to edit it anyway. I took bits of code from places, as I'm slightly rusty at this. To change the format of the image, simply edit the ".png" bit.

display dialog "AutoShot: Automatic Screen Capture Script 
Gap between each shot(in seconds)" default answer "" buttons {"OK", "Cancel"} default button 1 --Q&A for user, to determine factors of taking screenshots
set beta to text returned of result
display dialog "Period of time for the screenshots to be taken(in minutes)" default answer "" buttons {"OK"} default button 1
set zeta to text returned of result --period of time for shots to be taken
display dialog "Screenshots will be saved on folder named 'AutoShot' on Desktop" buttons {"OK"} default button 1

set dFolder to "~/Desktop/AutoShot/"

do shell script ("mkdir -p " & dFolder)

set zeta1 to zeta * 60 --converting input to seconds
set alpha to (zeta1 / beta) --calculating no. of times the screenshot code has to be repeated


repeat alpha times --Repeat Code
set tTime to do shell script "date +%H%M%S"
do shell script ("screencapture " & dFolder & tTime & ".png")
delay beta --Gap between each shot
end repeat

The download link for the app that doesn't need AppleScript editor. Its a standalone app, so it'll run the script on simply running the app.

 
//PART 2