One word: Work. Real life has kind of gobbled my time, just as I was making headway on Z2. It could be argued that I should be able to make time for the game, and that’s true, to a point. But Z2 needs large blocks of time spent on it for system implementation; chipping away at this sort of thing will only result in a “bitsy” game. It needs elegance, and that can only come from a holistic approach.

I will say that I’m seriously considering redoing combat. Again. The current system, while neat, takes away from what Zafehouse is all about. The game right now is about combat, and Zafehouse was never a combat simulator. I won’t be working on combat though once I get back to Z2. I’m keen to get the relationship systems up and running, as well as the survivor and safehouse stuff.

Combat will once again take the form of an event log, like the first game, but it will have a little more depth and interaction to it. But I want to stress that strategy and preparation are key in Zafehouse, not tactics. The current combat system does nothing to support this.

No related posts.

Seriously though, the idea of going back to journalism is appealing. But, I know I’ve found my home in the games industry. It’s more fun to make ‘em than write about ‘em. At least for me – I think a few people get hooked on the freebies and junkets and lose sight of what being a journo (let alone a games journo) is all about.

It’s great when you accept that you want to move on; it’s even better when you actually do. That’s the hard part.

No related posts.

The article itself is an extract from a series of essays for the Australia Council, so I’m not entirely sure how it ended up on The Age. It’s possible Mills is completely unaware that his diatribe is being viewed by eyes outside of his regular professional circles, and as such, open to criticism from the industries he so flippantly denounces.

Mills’ piece focuses on the New Media Fund, or specifically, its demolishment. More broadly the article puts forward the need to hold on fiercely to our artistic heritage and that all resources, primarily monetary, should be funnelled into is preservation at the expense of the new, regardless of form or credentials.

You’d think the essay would be entirely academic. Not so. In fact, Mills’ is happy to take low shots at anything he deems “nonsense”:

I opposed it [the New Media Fund] vehemently – and in vain – as it seemed to me just another example of meretricious, self-serving claptrap, which confused content with process, masquerading to the weak-minded as new, with a healthy sense of entitlement to whatever funds might happen to drop from the perch of government.

For a man so deeply involved in the performing arts, an industry propelled by creativity, this is an exceptionally narrow-minded view and, to put it bluntly, an immature one. I cannot see how anyone right of mind would approve of stagnation for any discipline, let alone embrace it with open arms, flowers, and a jar of body chocolate.

That’s not the end of it, however.

I had to read the following paragraph several times before I could fully appreciate its callowness:

No one buys a ticket to the theatre or concert hall to witness something ordinary, something that can be done by any reasonably intelligent person with a modicum of application and training, such as making a computer game or designing an earring.

This does not sound like the opinion of an informed individual. Far from it. What it does sound like is someone with little regard for what they deem insignificant. Anything they don’t understand or unwilling to expend the time to comprehend should be ignored.

The author’s argument can easily be reversed – with the correct training and education, any reasonably intelligent person can play an instrument or perform on stage. Heck, during my younger years I acted in and directed a number of plays, and I can confidently say that the performing arts and games development share a common but positive afflicition – a thirst for creativity. Both serve as fair outlets for the imagination. Something being “older” doesn’t automatically make it faultless or above question, and it certainly should not be wielded as a weapon to cut down perceived upstarts, especially ones that have proven countless times to be the basis of valid and respected industries for creative and commercial success.

I would go so far as to argue that developing a computer game requires more talent than playing an instrument. With enough practise, anyone can play a piano, guitar or violin competently, as can any discipline reliant on muscle memory. Making a competent computer game? People have been at it years and still churn out stinkers. Computers can also put together songs algorithmically that sound decent (we’ve been doing it since 1995), but ask them to make a computer game of any significant depth and you’re going to struggle.

But I digress. I don’t want to argue that games are superior in some way to traditional arts, because I don’t believe it to be true. They have their merits and drawbacks, and can be appreciated in myriad ways.

When Roger Ebert (perhaps naively) took to the Internet with his opinion of games and their lack of artistic merit, he eventually relented. While he did not capitulate on his view of games not being art, he did admit his interest in them was minimal, to the point that provided with the hardware and a title to play (thatgamecompany’s Flower), he still declined to give it a shot. As such, could not really assert his judgement as law, and the roaring flamethrowers of gamers everywhere withered in respectful silence. An excellent compromise, I feel.

As long as attitudes like Mills’ prevail, games will never be taken seriously at the higher levels of government where decisions on funding take place. Sadly, I believe it will take a generational shift to oust this view once and for all, or at least temper it with some much-needed humility and common sense.

Let us defend our heritage arts [The Age]

No related posts.

If you’re a Monkey Island fan, you might want to check out Jolly Rover. It’s a new point-and-click adventure from Aussie developer Brawsome, and it’s coming to Steam early next month.

Expected an interview from Andrew Goulding, left disappointed.

Screenplay
Developing for the iPhone

Demand for Australian programmers who can create applications for the iPhone is far exceeding supply, making it difficult and expensive for many companies who want to turn a great idea into a popular app.

Jason Hill continues to reinforce Screenplay’s Oz pedigree with a great interview with Conor O’Kane (formerly of Tantalus) and comments from Klicktock’s Matthew Hall. Setting the standard, and setting it high.

On the interview itself – why no questions about the iPhone 4.0 OS agreement? No good learning to use Torque or Unity for the express purpose of iPhone development if you can’t use them for… iPhone development! Worst case scenario, of course.

News.com.au
Brisbane Studio Behind Popular App Fruit Ninja

Since its release on April 21, the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch application — a game which involves slicing fruit like a ninja — has been downloaded by more than 400,000 people worldwide.

Cashing in on the iPad wave, but still good to see the local focus, especially on Fruit Ninja, which has only just started rolling its recognition snowball. Includes a couple of catchy, but info-light comments from the developer.

The Age
iPad games put Oz on the map
Video covering Firemint’s titles. Prefer my news in written form, but I’m sure this will be more digestible to the wordphobics.

No related posts.

The letter is apparently written by EA president Frank Gibeau. It summarises the company’s position on the lack of an R18+ rating for video games in Australia.

At one point I was a staunch supporter of a revised classification system. And, while I would still like reform, I’m tired of the Australian games media using it as its go-to “serious business” story. Where are the articles about the GFC and the games industy, and how it’s affected the local environment? Maybe I’m not reading enough print.

Warning: I’m about to go completely off topic. Don’t ask me why.

It appears Jason Hill’s Screenplay is probably the best source of news in this regard, his latest story on the slashing of Victoria’s Digital Media Fund is testament to this. But, Hill’s style of writing lacks passion; it’s dry without being truly analytical. That’s great for reporting news, but I expect more flavour from a gaming blog. Not that there’s anything bad about that. If there’s a blog I trust and respect, it’s Screenplay, and to me it’s a fortress of serious games reporting that, locally, is nigh untouchable.

On a more general note – Never been a fan of reader-scribed articles. I feel it dilutes your voice and if the articles are good enough to be published, you should be providing compensation, especially if said reader contributes regularly. The novelty of appearing on your favourite site wears off quickly, and after that, well, you’re just doing someone else’s job for them free. Heck, why not start your own blog?

I also understand what it’s like to write blog posts day after day – there’s not always something interesting to write about. But the stories are there… people just have to be passionate enough to go looking for them.

Anyway, enough tangents from me. Read EA’s release after the jump.

Media Statement: Electronic Arts’ Position on the R18+ Rating

Australian legislation should introduce an R18+ rating for video games
By Frank Gibeau, President, EA Games

As the Australian government evaluates the introduction of an 18+ category for video games within the OFLC age rating system, it’s important to remind ourselves that in today’s global video gaming audience, the average age of a gamer is 28.

At EA we are committed to the belief that adult consumers can have responsibility for their entertainment choices. Just as a grown ups can decide to see a film or read a book with mature themes, so should he or she be entitled to choose the same in interactive entertainment.

Government policies that don’t allow for the rating of mature content in video games effectively censor entertainment choices for adults. These policies show a poor understanding of today’s video gaming audience. Existing legislation in Australia that limits age ratings of games to 16, demonstrates a distance between those policies and the reality of the video game industry and the people that play interactive games in Australia today.

The spectrum of gamers is as wide as the viewership of television, movies, theatre, and the readers of books. Governments don’t insist that all books be written for children, or that all television shows be cartoons. Adult gamers want their governments to treat them with the same respect they get as movie goers and book readers. Adult Australians should be allowed to choose the games they play, including those with mature themes.

Around the world, our industry takes very seriously the responsibility we have to protect children from inappropriate content in games. We are committed to robust, easy- to-understand age rating systems designed to help people make appropriate content choices for the right age groups; the OFLC in Australia, the ESRB in North America, PEGI in Europe, CERO in Japan. These systems have been proven as the most efficient way to protect children from inappropriate content and offer parents the right set of information about a game through a recommended age rating, and on-pack information and icons to illustrate themes present within the content of the game.

A government policy that keeps our mature games out of stores and forces developers to rewrite code is censorship. It also forces lesser quality games into that marketplace, often stripped of their intended content and features. What will be next? Will adults be forced to see edited versions of mature films? Read books with certain chapters removed? As policy measures increase restrictions on available content, so too will consumers increase the practice of parallel imports from neighboring or same-language markets, depriving their home country economy of the associated industry revenue.

As the Australian government moves to participate in the economy of the global gaming market, policy makers should consider the environment they create for game makers. Governments that design policies hostile to game developers and their creative medium will struggle to attract investment from the global industry. The global gaming industry is robust and growing faster than any other entertainment medium. It has already largely surpassed cinema and music. If Australia seeks to benefit from this tremendous creative and economic opportunity, its policies should reflect an understanding of the marketplace and a willingness to participate.

A change in the Australian age rating system is needed. We call on the Attorneys General in their next general session to vote unanimously in favor of the introduction of an 18+ rating for video games to allow adults to make their own choices about the entertainment they choose to enjoy. The implementation of a new 18+ age rating classification is the right step for consumers, and for the industry, in Australia.

No related posts.

Twitter also happens to have uncommon letters in common with Twilight, which I hear is about emos vampires or something. And that’s good, right?

Zafehouse [Twitter]

No related posts.

So, after trying to find a nifty, edgy username like “cthulhu” or “macgyver”, I finally settled on logan_booker. If you happen to Twitter, feel free to follow me!

Logan Booker [Twitter]

No related posts.

There’s a story (it’s a little advertise-y) over at the Wall Street Journal about a fellow called Robert Smith? (the question mark is part of his name, it seems), an assistant professor at the University of Ottawa. He’s putting out a book soon on infectious diseases that’ll include a chapter called – wait for it – “When Zombies Attack!: Mathematical Modeling of an Outbreak of Zombie Infection“.

Gets me randy, it does. A bit from the WSJ story:

If you go for a cure, “unless the cure was 100%, which it would never be in reality, you can’t turn all the zombies back.” You wind up with “this equilibrium where people are always switching back and forth” between human and zombie. Entirely unsatisfactory.

Cure? Pfft, we know there’s no cure. Luckily, it seems there’s another answer:

…the students were interested in a mathematical technique that looks at intermittent pulses of activity. So they modeled a human counterattack that came in multiple waves.

“While aggressive quarantine may contain the epidemic, or a cure may lead to coexistence of humans and zombies,” they concluded, “the most effective way to contain the rise of the undead is to hit hard and hit often.”

The best part? You don’t need to buy the book to check out the research, the chapter is available free as a PDF. I just skimmed it and the amount of numbers mixed with letters mixed with insane is, well, insane. But the References section is packed with everything from Romero and Brooks to Mikami and Pegg, so the pedigree is super-fine.

Be warned, it’s dense as heck.

No related posts.

Update: Zafehouse.com is now live. I’ve changed the page graphics as well.

No related posts.

No related posts.

No related posts.