October Reference List

Reading:

• Baillie-de Byl, P. 2004. Programming believable characters for computer games. Hingham, MA: Charles River Media.
• Barrington, B. 2007. The complete book of drawing skills. London: Arcturus Publishing.
• Hartas, L. 2005.  The art of game characters. Lewes: ILEX.
• Mattesi, M.D. 2008. Character design from life drawing. Burlington, MA: Focal Press.
• Solarski, C. 2012. Drawing basics and video game art: classic to cutting-edge art techniques for winning video game design. New York: Watson-Guptill.
• Solarski, C. 2013. The Aesthetics of Game Art and Game Design. [online]. Gamasutra. Available from: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/185676/the_aesthetics_of_game_art_and_.php?print=1. [Accessed 16 October 2013].
• Tillman, B. 2012. Creative character design. MA: Focal Press.

Watching:

• Doctor who: the complete seventh series. 2013. [dvd]. Directed by Saul Metzstein et al. London: BBC One.
• How to train your dragon. 2010. [animated film]. Directed by Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois. Glendale, California: DreamWorks Animation.
• Lilo & Stitch. 2002. [animated film]. Directed by Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois. Burbank, California: Walt Disney Pictures.
• Megamind. 2010. [animated film]. Directed by Tom McGrath. Glendale, California: DreamWorks Animation.
• Men in black. 1997. [film]. Directed by Barry Sonnenfeld. Univeral City, California: Amblin Entertainment.
• Monsters, Inc. 2001. [animated film]. Directed by Pete Docter. Burbank, California: Walt Disney Pictures.
• Supernatural: the complete eighth season. 2013. [dvd]. Directed by Robert Singer et al. British Columbia: Warner Bros. Television.
• X-files. 2008. [film]. Directed by Chris Carter. Los Angeles, California: Ten Thirteen Productions.

Games:

• Brothers: a tale of two sons. 2013. [digital]. Microsoft Xbox 360. Starbreeze Studios.
• Dragon age: origins. 2009. [disk]. Microsoft Xbox 360. BioWare.
• Enslaved: odyssey to the west. 2010. [disk]. Microsoft Xbox 360. Ninja Theory.
• Gears of war. 2006. [disk]. Microsoft Xbox 360. Epic Games.
• Halo 2. 2004. [disk]. Microsoft Xbox. Bungie Studios.
• Halo: Reach. 2010. [disk]. Microsoft Xbox 360. Bungie Studios.
• Ico. 2002. [disk]. Sony Playstation 2. Team Ico.
• Jak & Daxter: the precursor legacy. 2001. [disk]. Sony Playstation 2. Naughty Dog.
• The last of us. 2013. [disk]. Sony Playstation 3. Naughty Dog.
• The Legend of Spyro: A New Beginning. 2006. [disk]. Microsoft Xbox 360. Krome Studios.
• Mass effect. 2007. [disk]. Microsoft Xbox 360. BioWare.
• Prince of Persia. 2008. [disk]. Microsoft Xbox 360. Ubisoft Montreal.
• Ratchet & Clank. 2002. [disk]. Sony Playstation 2. Insomniac Games.

To Investigate:

• Tillman, B. 2012. Creative character design. MA: Focal Press.
• Freeman, D. 2004. Creating emotion in games: the craft and art of emotioneering. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
• Gray, C. and Malins, J. 2004. Visualizing research: a guide to the research process in art and design. Aldershot: Ashgate.
• Laughey, D. 2007. Key themes in media theory. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Media Test: Duo Silhouettes & Shapes

Based on the shape and silhouette theory I discussed in a previous post, I decided to test its validity by examining the elements in practice. I've selected the most popular choices for my case studies as part of this examination. I used images that showed the duos as clearly as possible, traced their silhouette, and added the red lines over it to form the most obvious square, circle, and triangle shapes. The theory is that these shapes have pre-existing aesthetic assumptions that have formed over art history and human perception. Circles are soft, friendly, safe and represent innocence, youth, femininity; Squares show strength, maturity, stability, balance, and stubbornness; Triangles are athletic, dynamic, precarious, and convey aggression, masculinity, force, and energy.

It has been mentioned by both Chris Solarski and Michael D. Mattesi that the theory is not a definitive formula, which I agree with in many ways. For example, the effects vary in the character's design over different art styles. Shapes are much clearer to see in more simplistic visuals based from cartoons etc, and the more realistic an art style the harder it is to define them. You can see this in Ratchet and Clank which are more readable, but once you start looking at more realistic forms and proportions characters start to look the same, lose their uniqueness, and tend to be made of mostly varying sizes of rectangles. Use of stylisation can help make a few of these realistic-based styles pop, as with Monkey who hunches and has rounded shoulders and long limbs, making him relate to the animal he's named after. It also appears that creature-based designs like in Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, or Spyro who are naturally more unique in form where shapes are easier to read than in humans.

Shapes can also be interpreted in the character's gestures and movements. In The Last of Us, the world is very realistic in most senses, and the characters move in paced lines dictated by real world physics, whereas in Ratchet & Clank, when you jump you move in an arc and movements are more exaggerated. Other examples could be when the character is injured, and this low state in health could show in a more sluggish or restricted appearance. Overall, I believe there to be a ratio between this theory and its effectiveness to the visual style used, as the more realistic an appearance or movement, the less defined shapes and their impact are.

Action Plan & Meeting with Ryan Locke

In this weeks group mentor seminar, Lynn and Brian showed us examples of past works critical frameworks as a cyclic development process. I thought doing my own initial cycle and framework would help me see the bigger picture and plan out my project easier as a whole. Now obviously, this is going to change constantly throughout the year, but seeing it more laid out like this will help convey what I intend to do. The framework will help me analyse others work, and then use that criteria to help inform my own designs. In a way, I've already started identifying themes of influence in companion character games, so I'm off to a good start.

I had a meeting today with Ryan, as he showed an interest in my idea on companion characters in games in the presentation last week. Our talk started off with reaffirming what it is I'm researching. I think from this I've come to realise that while I'm looking at companions in general, I'm mostly looking at duo characters, so this dynamic will be different from three characters or larger teams, and should start referring to it more like that. I think looking at other companions will help inform the research on the whole, and the differences between how they're designed and used is something I'm going to look at.

I talked about my growing interest in duo character hierarchy, the typical roles and archetypes expected, and how that influences the character's relationships and gameplay. I went on to how I've been reviewing games so far; defined by examining their character design, their story and interaction, and the co-op gameplay. Our talk helped develop this to the framework you see above, which has evolved to design, gameplay, relationship and compatibility.

I've also identified a strong distinction in games with duos in terms of target audience, as in many cases there's two humans in more realistic art styles and genres with a mature subject matter, and then there's either two creatures or one with a human, and these are often more cartoon-like in style and aimed at children. I mentioned I was going to do another exercise based on existing characters, and instead of changing their roles, I'll change their genre, and see the effect it has on the art style and target audience.

Ryan said I'm off to a good start in categorising the character types and why they're formed like that, and that my progress is really good. He said I was confident in talking about the subject, which actually helped boost my confidence. I still feel a little stagnant, but the practical work has had a positive impact on me.

I should note that I have said in the past that I'll be doing case studies, which I have studied, but not focused on too much at the minute as Robin will be giving a lecture in the coming weeks on how to write them, so I'll wait until then before fully working on them.

Media Tests: Silhouettes

Since the presentation, I've striven to do more practical work as suggested while finishing reading The Art of Game Characters. I started off with these silhouettes, but only for practice at drawing with my tablet, which has only recently been working properly. As the pipelines in character design tend to be increasingly digital, I thought it best to push myself into the medium. The figures are simply basic poses and not truly design related.

When it came to do my own character silhouettes, I found the idea of going digital a bit difficult still, and given practical work has had me stumped I decided to go traditional just to get me going then switch over. Here, I used inks and watercolour pencil to create these designs. As shown by the blank splash on the bottom left, I started with a wash of colour to take away the white background, then a darker wash to give a basic shape. I then took the pencil to sketch the design based on that shape. I finished with another darker wash of ink for the shadows to give more depth. Overall, I'm quite pleased with the process. My aim was to just let go and stop thinking of and planning the design, and this really helped to do that. I didn't use references, but I can already see influences from existing products shining through. I find this interesting, and figure down the road exercises like this will help flush out stereotypical traits in character design.

I've decided to try and go to the extra life drawing classes that are on every Thursday, in another attempt to loosen up and produce art just for the fun of it. My first few quick poses were as terrible as expected, being out of practice as I am, but once the longer poses started I could really get into getting the models features anatomically correct. This class is in high demand, so I know I wouldn't be allowed to go every week, sometimes not even every two, but I will apply as regularly as I can as it truly helped.

Project Presentation 1

Today I had my pitch presentation at 10am in the HMC Cinema, where I introduced my project idea and direction. Instead of just linking to the relevant documents, I've shown the content here as there are new points I've brought up, and showing them as part of the presentation gives them more context.

Slide 1
Hello and welcome. I'm Katrina Craig, and this is my honours project pitch presentation.

Slide 2
I started out my project by evaluating my interests and skills. I knew that the topic shouldn't be trivial or for personal agendas, but instead driven by academic research. I sorted out my thoughts by writing down my ideas in a mindmap, and wrote rough research aims to determine each idea's potential.

Slide 3

The main ideas I was interested in were:

• Visual consistency of game world culture between characters, props, and their environment.
• Character customisation and the importance of personalised visuals to gamers.
• Character classes and the evolution of archetypes.
• Having a constant NPC companion and their effect on gameplay.
• The differences between playable character design and NPC design.

These topics got me thinking about the hierarchy of characters in games, and how the focus is always on the main character; their design, and their story. So what if it wasn't? Or if the spotlight had to be shared? How important are NPCs?

Slide 4

This then developed into my initial research aim: "To investigate the effective use of companion characters in games, and to research what influences their design."

Slide 5

I believe this is a valuable topic to investigate due to the rising popularity of games aspiring to be like movies in terms of a more dedicated focus on narrative and character development. It is my belief that characters are what evoke the strongest emotional responses, and are a key factor in bringing a game to life and giving it personality.

I've observed that the use of companion characters have been received with mixed reviews in the past, yet are a currently popular. I want to know what are the impacts of using companions instead of just one main character, and how different the design process is, and why.

I will explore this topic first by examining how existing products have used companion characters successfully, and look at the process to inform my own methodologies to be reflected in my practice based research.

Slide 6

With a defined topic at hand, I asked myself what it was that I wanted to explore about companion characters in games. I identified these questions with common themes that could influence their existance, and these were: visual design, story and interaction, and gameplay.

The main issues that I want to research include: the hierarchy of roles between the companions and their archetypes; how having two or more characters effects the various levels of customisation; the overall believability of the characters and game, and the sense of them belonging to the same world; how both characters can be appealing to a wide audience and having the same level of connection to the player; and the effect on design due to gameplay mechanics.

Slide 7

Throughout my research I intend to explore these influences I believe have an impact on basic character design as well as companion based designs. With many of these elements, I wish to experiment with practical exercises to see their individual potential, and then again later on in a framework to see how they work together.

I'm currently experimenting with designing purely with digital media, as I almost always sketch on paper then scan and enhance, but digitally is what seems to be the industry standard. Using my tablet to practice silhouettes of simple human figures, I wanted to just go with the flow and stop planning and thinking about what the design is going to look like.

Slide 8

I am currently reading The Art of Game Characters by Leo Hartas, and although a little dated, I think many of the principles still apply. I think this quote is a good expression of my thoughts when dealing with character design in general: How can I create not just one original character to stand out from the rest, but two?

Slide 9

So what makes a good game character? These two quotes cover the aspects that both these artists expect when designing a new character. There must be something aesthetically pleasing about a character, like their looks or personality, but most importantly they must have something relatable about them so that players can connect to them. Following down this direction, I hope to create a framework that would help describe the essentials a character needs to be successful.

Slide 10

As part of my research into companions in games, I intend to take a deeper look at games that already use them as case studies. This will hopefully not only allow me to see their pipeline, but how it was recieved by gamers - what was liked, and what went wrong.

Made in 2008, Prince of Persia was one of the first games that came to mind when thinking of companions in games. Looking at the balance between design, story and gameplay, I would say gameplay is put first. As a Prince of Persia game, it was all about fitting in with the previous style of acrobatic game mechanics and environmental puzzles. While the design is also strong, the characters visually memorable, most interaction had to be triggered by the player and is obvisously not as important.

Slide 11

2010's Enslaved: Odyssey to the West leans more towards story and character development, yet has the nice touch of the teamwork mechanics melding into the gameplay more seamlessly. There are a number of moves that are repeatable, but a new one is staggered into the storyline so it doesn't feel too distracting from the immersion. I think this game has a healthy balance between design, story and gameplay.

Slide 12

In the case of The Last of Us, made in 2012, it's of my opinion that the tables have turned from Prince of Persia, and the game heavily focuses on story and building the relationship between the characters. There are teamwork mechanics, but to me they're a little more obvious, and with a smaller amount of them, they become a little more repetitive.

Looking at these examples overall, it shows to me that as previously mentioned, I believe narrative and character development is becoming more popular in games, and the mechanics used between the characters has slowed in progress. I think what one of the problems are is the time it takes to activate a teamwork mechanic in recent games, as they are more heavily cinematic.

Slide 13

I intend to explore this further, looking into other games that have used companions such as Ratchet & Clank, Jax & Daxter, Spyro and many more. Many others that come to mind are non-human characters that have younger target audiences and genres. This is an aspect that needs more research.

Slide 14

As for my final outcome, at the moment I look to using what I've learned to create original companions, possibly sets for different genres and target market, and choose a pair to take into 3D as I've never modelled a character before, and feel it would be a good push for my skills to showcase.

Slide 15

Thank you for listening. Any questions?

---

Feedback

Overall, I think my presentation went really well. I started off a bit jittery; I presented towards the end of the group, and in the beginning after listening to other's projects I started to feel mine had no meaningful purpose. When it actually came to my time, I felt a little unsure, and I had never been so nervous since my first presentations back in second year. My hands were shaking, and my voice kept wavering, my mind kept going blank and I had to keep referring back to my notes. But in the end I got through it, and the feedback really helped boost my confidence.

Lynn started off with saying that it was a very interesting idea, and that it had come a long way from what I had shown her in the first week. I had mentioned in one of the earlier posts where I had got to when I had my meeting with Lynn. She said it was good that I was looking at existing games using companion characters, and mentioned Ico and its uniqueness, which I'll be investigating at a later date.

Brian said I was thourough in my contextual research, and that I had built up my knowledge of the territory. Ryan was excited by my project idea, and that there's so much I could do for it. He said it was good I was starting to recognise companion types and to continue to explore their different roles, what makes a good companion visually and narratively, and why they are together in the first place. He also mentioned the effect of art style and genre, and how that relates to target audience. He said the project is a good idea because co-op is big right now, and it's interesting to see who really is the main character, and who's story is really being told.

All lecturers mentioned that I was at a good place so I shouldn't be afraid of really starting some practical work, and that there was a danger of having a good theoretical grounding, but my practical wouldn't be balanced and fall behind. It was recommended to just start reacting and drawing existing characters, evaluate how their relationship works and then change it up. Brian said to start to anchor my theory with practical activities, and that I could use what's called post-production rationale, where I just produce work and then find it's purpose after rather than the other way around, which is what's got me stuck.

Link to Honours Project Presentation 1.

Link to Honours Project Presentation 1 Script.

Action Points

• Finish reading The Art of Game Characters and document relevant quotes.
• Do more in depth case study documentation for the games already reviewed, then look at more games using companion characters.
• Start practical work! Finish silhouette figures. Evaluate existing characters by copying and playing with their designs.

Shape & Silhouette Theory

I've known of the idea of the psychology of shapes and silhouette for a few years now, but I can't pinpoint where I learned it, much like having knowledge of the colour wheel and relevant theories, but not knowing specifically where it came from. I've just carried on with the thought that these theories are a commonly accepted practice that many artists agree on, which justifies them. Now, I want to go into the ideas with more depth, and actually provide evidence that shows my research.

Going back through my art books, I've found references to such theories. In The Complete Book of Drawing skills by Barrington Barber, form and shape is discussed as a way to "break down the process of visual perception to its fundamentals". It explains that our eyes take in shape, colour, light and shade, and our mind interprets images based on our experience to form something we recognise; "Shape is the outline visual impression we have of an object. Because we get used to seeing objects in certain positions we tend to see what we expect to see rather than what is actually there".

The chapter goes on to continue with how instinctive recognition uses characteristics of an object to define it and its role, and how there are clues to its identity in the shape. In this series of silhouettes below, you can tell by experience and symbol associations that the images are planes, but the details in their main frames allows you to identify the individual models of the aircraft. This works in the same way in other given examples, such as when you see the Eiffel Tower, you think Paris, or the East when you see the Taj Mahal.

I found an article online by Chris Solarski called The Aesthetics of Game Art and Game Design, which covers the psychology of shapes and dynamic composition in depth, extending the theory from not just character shape but also the way they move in animations, the paths laid out in levels, and the relation of their shape to the shape of the environment. It mentions this is based on the topics from his book, Drawing Basics and Video Game Art, which I'll be looking into to cover this topic in much more depth.

It begins with saying artists can deconstruct objects into their simplest form to aid in rendering reality, and that primitive shapes have aesthetic associations in art, in relation to our life experiences and sense of touch:

Circle: innocence, youth, energy, femininity
Square: maturity, stability, balance, stubbornness
Triangle: aggression, masculinity, force

He gives the example of the sphere, cube, and star objects pictured above on a table, then imagine shaking that table to show their properties. The sphere would roll, and the cube would stay in place. If the objects were thrown at you, you'd catch the sphere easily, but would hesitate with the star because of the sharp edges. This concept of associations with the three shapes, which Solarski refers to as a shape spectrum of emotions, can be incorporated into any design, as shown in the example below. He also states that this is not a definitive formula, but a tool to assess artwork.

This theory can be applied to various design elements. These were the examples given:

Character Personality: Mario is dynamic, youthful, and positive, and circular based. Luigi is the supportive brotherly type, shown in his vertical rectangle figure, and Wario is aligned to the triangle, which portrays his aggressive enemy role.

Character Animations & Paths: Lines of movement can be used to convey personality, emotion, or physical status, which can clearly show alignment to curves (delicate, dynamic), straight lines (slow, peaceful), or angular lines (aggressive). Journey uses broadly visualised lines in the character's movements in such a way; "In the opening sections of the game, the character has an upright posture and jumps freely and gracefully. But we witness a delicate shift in the character's physical state as we eventually guide it up into the storm where it begins to hunch forward against the pounding winds."

Character Shape vs Environment Shape: A character's relation to their environment can suggest similar responses and create narrative. "A circular character in a circular environment (top-left) exhibits a sense of harmony because the character's shape is echoed in its surroundings. The echo gives us a sense of home -- suggesting that here is where the character belongs. We also get a sense of harmony if both the character and environment are square, or triangular (lower-right), although the change of primary shape gives us a different aesthetic sensation. We get a sense of dissonance when character and environment shapes contrast each other. A circular character appears threatened when placed in an edgy environment (top-right); while a triangular character appears the threat in a soft and rounded environment (lower-left)."

Solarski also states breaking the conventions of these shapes can make more interesting characters. For instance, a character might be full of triangles and their design portrays them as a villain, but they might turn out to be the hero who is friendly and kind. This makes the story emotionally richer and engaging.

In Michael D. Mattesi's Character Design from Life Drawing, the artist discusses the importance of understanding depth and flatness in art, or form and shape respectively. By using shape design to build up the smaller elements allows for an interesting launch point before filling it with form and detail. He states, however, that it's best not to get trapped into drawing like this too often as it can result in a flat, dead design (much like Solarski); "The shapes are abstract parameters of the figure for placement relationships". Using shapes is only one step to make unique designs, and should be built upon further. He uses shapes as abstract thoughts to aid in placement of the figure, and proportion is secondary. Again, shapes are said to have emotional relationships to us:

Triangle (Point down): athletic, dynamic, precarious
Triangle (Point up): solidity, unmoving, energetic
Circle: friendly, soft, safe
Square: strength, solidity 

As you can see in the image, he goes on to apply force to the bottom row of shapes to bring them to life, whereas the top row is static because of their symmetry. This theory follows his rules of straight to curve design in depth to create forceful shapes; the curve represents force, and the straight line is structure. 

From this selection of artists, it's clear they each conform to certain aspects of shape theory, such as emotional or aesthetic qualities in certain shapes, our instinctive associations with the forms silhouettes make, and the process of using shapes to build upon for interesting designs. I agree with most of what they say, and so will try applying this to my work in my practice-based research to see what kind of impact it has on my style and process.

Archetypes at a Glance

Leo Hartas' book The Art of Game Characters may be a little dated (2005), but I believe a number of the principles can still apply to today's games. It showcases a number of popular characters and examines their appeal and the techniques involved in their creation. What stands out the most to me, however, is the format of the chapters which have been titled after a combination of character archetypes and art styles. Archetypes represent strong traits that are found in characters, which allows us to categorise them. They have become an interest of mine in how they help to reveal the base identity of characters in games, where their design might give me certain expectations for their personality. This is an area I'd like to explore in depth, because while individual characters can be categorised, how can this be applied to pairings? Can they still have that strong sense of being a unit if their individual archetypes are dramatically different? The following is how Hartas has described each chapter type with a few examples of each.

Game Cuties
Cute cartoon characters. e.g. Pac-Man, Mario Brothers, Donkey Kong, The Legend of Zelda's Link, Rayman, etc...

Big Biceps
Tough guys with muscles. e.g. Superman, Spiderman, Fantastic Four, Duke Nukem, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, etc...

Sexy and Sassy
Attractive and alluring characters. Tomb Raider's Lara Croft, Beyond Good and Evil's Jade, Kya: Dark Lineage, World of Warcraft, Dead Or Alive, etc... 

Mad, Bad, and Dangerous To Know
Bryronic heroes. Hitman, Max Payne, Metal Gear Solid's Snake, Gabriel Knight, Darkwatch: Curse of the West's Jericho, etc...

Femme Fatale
Sirens. Tomb Raider's Lara Croft, Blood Rayne, Prince of Persia: Warrior Within's Shahdee, Final Fantasy x-2's Paine, Darkwatch: Curse of the West's Tala, etc...

The Reluctant Hero
Victims of circumstance. Beyond Good and Evil's Jade, Devil May Cry's Dante, Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, Final Fantasy XII's Ashe, Ico, Driv3r's Tanner, etc...

Fascinating Flaws
Anti-heroes and villains. Grand Theft Auto. Driv3r's Tanner, Soul Calibur 2's Nightmare, Killer 7's Harman Smith, etc...

Mainly By Cunning
Tricksters. Thief's Garret, Splinter Cell, Deus Ex, Commandos, Silent Storm, Galleon, etc...

It Could Be You
The everyman. The Sims, Space Colony, Animal Crossing, Beyond Good and Evil's Jade, etc...

Baby Face
Manga. Fightin' Jam's Ingrid, Animal Crossing, Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne, Skies of Arcadia, Dragonball, etc...

Behind the Mask
First-person characters. Halo's Master Chief, Half Life's Gordon Freeman, Red Faction 2, Timesplitters, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Doom 3, etc...

Do You Speak Elvish?
Fantasy creatures. World of Warcraft, Everquest, Lineage 2: The Chaotic Chronicle, Chaos League, Kohan II: Kings of War, etc...

Monster Mash
Robots, dinosaurs, and aliens. Fable, Grabbed by the Ghoulies, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes, Ico, Blood Rayne, The Lord of the Creatures, etc...

Oddballs
Wacky characters. Ratchet & Clank, Psychonauts, Rayman, Voodoo Vince, Armed and Dangerous, etc...

Bosses From Hell
The big baddy. Final Fantasy X-2, Sudeki, The Legend of Kay, Kameo: Elements of Power, etc...

While reading this book, I've recognised the archetypes quite clearly, and have also thought of more modern characters that would fit in the categories. In certain cases, the sections in the book are more art style based, such as the manga and cute chapters, but overall - is there certain art style associations with archetypes too? Would an archetype suit some visuals better than others, and how much does the story and gameplay impact this?

After a quick preview of Bryan Tillman's Creative Character Design, he dedicates a chapter to archetypes and their importance. A major point Tillman tries to get across is that "The character is always in service to the story", so that it is the story that will dictate if you need a hero, not the other way around. The selection he studies are based from today's most prevalent archetypes set by the psychologist Carl Jung, as follows;

The Hero: brave, selfless, willing to help others no matter the cost.
The Shadow: strong connection to instinctual animal past, ruthless, mysterious, disagreeable, evil.
The Fool: goes through the story in a confused state, gets others into undesirable situations, tests the main character's reactions.
The Anima/Animus: (Female/Male) embodies human urges, sexual desires, love interest.
The Mentor: has profound knowledge, helps protagonist realise full potential, often associated with age and wisdom, like a parent.
The Trickster: constantly pushing for change, good or evil, moves story for their own benefit, puppet masters, influences character's decisions.

From these two books, the are some commonly agreed archetypes. Once I get a copy of Tillman's book, I'll study his interpretation more, and for now I'll look into Carl Jung's extended list that was mentioned. Once I have a better understanding of archetypes, I'll examine how this has been applied in existing games with pairs. Do the individual characters fit a certain type? Can both be the same type, or is it best if they're similar or contrasting? How does archetype effect the pair's hierarchy?

What might be interesting to do is define the terms of my own archetypes, but keeping them recognisable, as cross referencing may not be an exact fit in some cases. As this will be a design project, with the final outcome most likely being a non-interactive visual, how much should I let archetypes affect my characters? They are there as building blocks, to aid in conveying role and hint at personality, so they can't stay too basic or go too far from the base concept least my designs lack that spark of familiarity. Perhaps I should also go back to Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces, as this might help define structure as well.

Duos In Entertainment Media

To have a fuller understanding of paired companions, of how they're created and used, I think it's best to look beyond just games. Of course, games as an interactive platform are different in many ways from films, tv, novels etc, but I believe there should be many similarities in the foundations. At the very least, partial narrative elements and the development of relationships should be transferable, as well as character design itself.

In a game with pairs, both characters are vital and need to be of high quality in design as well as performance. They should both be considered main characters, and be equally developed. By reviewing what has been done before, I can start to form assumptions on their levels of success and why. In many of these media, the characters are a prime focus of the story, as the narrative usually follows the events that occur to or around them, how they deal with it and so on, which is what engages the viewers emotionally. The following are examples of duos in various media:

What is standing out most to me for now is the types of pairings there are, and the relationships they tend to form. Can duo archetypes be conveyed through design like single characters can? This also brings to mind how the hierarchy is portrayed too. In terms of variables that are used to differentiate between characters, there's: size, age, gender, intelligence, status etc. A good way to show this is contrast: big and small, young and old, male and female, brains and brawn, rich and poor etc. These existing types can already have certain connotations, such as the brains being small, and the brawn big. But in these areas, out of which pair is controlled by the user? Often you would play the younger character, and be taught by the mentor throughout the game. But what if you were the one teaching? Would players enjoy a mix up of the archetype? In some cases there might not be enough of a foothold to get a good story or experience. An example I read of once was in Programming Believable Characters For Computer Games by Penny Baillie-de Byl, where in a god game ruling over a city, everyone wants to play the god, not the janitor. But can certain circumstances make this more interesting by breaking convention?

Project Refinement & Direction

I've gone back over the lecture and seminar notes for the past three weeks to help focus my thoughts. I feel at the moment that even though I have a strong idea, I have so many things already in mind that I could do, but I can't prioritise and get to actually doing anything besides reading.

The first lecture was an overview of fourth year, and the second was about academic research. Now obviously, throughout this project I want to get better at the skills associated with my chosen field, but I knew before that it shouldn't drive my project, and that the topic shouldn't be superficial. I feel that my idea revolving around companion characters in games is good for both academic and personal research. It involves the area I'm interested in, character design, but it's also a topic in games that I can see that can be explored intellectually and academically. When talking about the forms of research, obviously artistic research will be my main source, but it's highly possible I'll have to dabble into others. For instance, humanities or scientific research, like psychology in terms of the player experience. The notes also talked about research paradigms, which is a way to describe different philosophies, or ways of thinking.

The third lecture discussed theories, which are used to provide a framework to analyse and understand art and media. The theoretical view we take can influence how we interpret artwork, so I think this is an important area to look into. From the examples we were given, I can already see how they would influence my way of thinking, such as aesthetic theory, semiotics, interactionism etc. I already have plans to research shape and colour theory for character design, and I think focusing on reading up on these topics will help identify practical activities I could be doing that have a formed purpose.

The first seminar, while in week two, was about the non-linear research process and developing aims and objectives. This, along with the jellyfish exercise, really helped me clearly define my research domain and topic, and got me thinking of directions to go down. The second seminar was about developing critical frameworks for our research, which the literature review will focus on. It should consider key theories and ideas and how they could be applied practically. The third group mentor exercise was to do a practice pitch presentation in a small group. This helped in terms of formatting my thoughts from the jellyfish into a proper presentation, and the feedback from peers was insightful as it got discussion going.

So now, I've taken the notes above and tried to define my project idea by its standards.

What?

Domain & Topic

Companion characters in games.

Initial Research Aim

To investigate the effective use of companion characters in games, and what influences their design.

Initial Objectives

- Critique existing video game products using companion characters and conduct case studies to record the findings.
- Evaluate industry standards in character design pipeline process and methodology to help inform my own.
- To be continued...

Why?

I believe this is a valuable topic to investigate due to both academic and personal reasons. Character design is an interest of mine, and my own preferences in games revolves around those that have strong characters and story, believing that they are what evoke the strongest emotional responses, and are a key factor in bringing a game to life and giving it personality. I've observed narrative and aesthetic have become increasingly popular for games in the last few years, and that companion characters are a current trend. However, there has been some mixed reviews of games that use such mechanics, and I want to know why, and how that can be improved.

How?

Lectures have shown that theories and critical frameworks will be important in researching and developing work for my project. I'll start off by fully examining how existing products have used companion characters, then looking at the relevant theories and methodologies they have used to inspire more in-depth research for those topics. With these in mind, I will begin practical exercises by using the knowledge I have gained.

Jellyfish

Week two's group mentor exercise was the jellyfish, with the aim to help identify themes and key research interests. We were to write down questions relating to areas of our interest, then to colour code common themes and prioritise them. This should help recognise practical activities and literature to address the questions. I've put off posting mine up because I kept coming up with more things to add, then realised that that's always going to happen as my project evolves. So, here is the initial approach for direction to research.

Teams vs Pairs

Now is the time to focus my ideas for this project. From my self-evaluation of my skills and processes, and the discussion with a lecturer, I know I want to concentrate on character design revolving around the various connections between the playable character and major NPCs. I believe this route will allow me to focus on the design and storytelling aspects, but also take influence from the interactive elements of games. Such a project will aid me to fill some of the technical gaps in my skills, such as the more digital based pipeline of the industry like silhouette thumbnails, and using my tablet rather than sketching traditionally and scanning. This will hopefully speed up my production overall, as well as improve my painting skills.

Off the top of my head, thinking about the games that use companions, there's a distinct path they tend to follow - teams or pairings. The games I'm looking at are the type where companions are of the more significant format, where the characters are usually constant once they join, and personal relationship and story can be developed more efficiently. There are other games which have main NPC characters who work with the playable character, but to me don't bond together enough to be considered a unit, like in Fable 3 where your allies come and go depending on their role for that part of the story. Here is a list I've compiled of suitable games.

Teams	Pairs
Dragon Age series Mass Effect series Final Fantasy series Gears of War series Lost Odyssey Infinite Undiscovery The Last Remnant Enchanted Arms Halo: Reach Sonic Heroes Sonic Riders Pokemon series Harry Potter series Binary Domain Thomas Was Alone	Enslaved: Odyssey to the West Prince of Persia The Legend of Spyro series Ratchet & Clank series Jak & Daxter series Army of Two series Hunted: The Demon's Forge The Last of Us Ico Shadow of the Colossus Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons Fable series The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Fallout series Pokemon Yellow The Legend of Zelda series Banjo-Kazooie Papo & Yo Whiplash Folklore

Within the team and paired types, there are more defined structures, formations, and patterns that reoccur. This could dictate the relationship between the characters, the storyline, the gameplay, or the player's experience as part of that set. The following are examples of those that I've noticed.

1.1. Team: Strangers - Here, the player gathers a range of characters to aid them in the story, often many in number, where you pick two or three for individual missions. Some characters may be optional in the sense that unless they are needed for the main storyline progression, you could skip having them join your team. Usually, the playable character is a leader, and other members are new to each other. This gives you the opportunity to learn about them in a more natural way, talking and interacting with them, and overall the group develops together.

In the Mass Effect series, the protagonist Sheppard can be created from a small number of pre-designed backgrounds, and morality driven communication establishes strong personality and behavioural traits, but in Dragon Age the protagonist is essentially a blank slate for the player to imprint on, and options that dictate their responses are on spur of the moment decisions that have no lasting or build up effect on how the character acts. The only other characterisation shown is in which origin story you pick, which is more of a storytelling element than a way to show the character's personality.

1.2. Team: Established - Another variation of team based characters is where they are already formed, and have a background and history together set in place. In Halo: Reach, you're the new member joining an already formed team, which stays the same throughout the game. Your character is a blank slate, and the player is the one trying to fit into the group. Instead of leading it, you follow orders, and the story tends to be more linear in that your decisions don't have as much impact on events. In the opening scene of Halo: Reach, the playable character doesn't show his face or have a name, just a codename, whereas the others in the established group have names and show their faces, and have much more distinct personalities. As the newbie, you start as feeling a little unwanted, but despite the other members being distant at first, they come to trust each other. The relationship development is different from everyone being strangers to each other, and is more about trying to find your place.

Halo: Reach Opening Scenes

In comparison, in Gears of War, your character is more developed and pre-designed in personality. The opening scene shows the player announcing they know the NPC that frees you, and comments throughout continue to show they have history. Here, there are already established relationships and quirks between the members, and the format this is shown in is to teach the audience of what's been pre-determined rather than a blank slate to make the impression of a fresh start.

Gears of War Opening Scenes

2.1. Pair: Strangers - Often in this situation the opening scenes have two characters meet by chance, and the player takes control of one of them to continue the story. In Enslaved: Odyssey to the West the playable character is forced to protect the second as they travel, but their relationship develops until they are friends and willingly work together. This type is clear for allowing the player to learn of the characters as they interact. The opening scenes put the characters in a situation that showcases their personality; Monkey is a hot headed capable fighter, brash, and a little violent, shown by his reaction to being enslaved; and Trip reveals her tech savvy abilities by hacking the ship they crashed on and the slave headband, and admits she doesn't have the skills to survive by herself. As you play you learn to adapt to use both characters full potential.

Enslaved: Odyssey to the West Opening Scenes

Similarly in Prince of Persia, the two characters meet and decide to work together to solve a common problem, and the player learns of each character gradually. This way, the player has to figure out for themselves how best to use each character's abilities in every situation. There's less of having a teammate because of wanting their skill set and more of taking what your given. In the first 10-20 minutes or so of the opening scenes, you can instantly tell the Prince is athletic by how he controls his fall down the cliff, and that he's flirty in the way he responds to first meeting Elika. He's charming and heroic as he steps in to presumably save the damsel in distress. Elika is also athletic in the way you see her run and jump about. She's polite but strict because she's so focused on her goals, and independent in that she doesn't rely on the Prince if she doesn't have to. She's determined to do her duty and heal her land despite the danger.

Prince of Persia Opening Scenes

2.2. Pair: Established - In this format, again personalities tend to be pre-designed, but with the relationship between the two characters formed as well, and the player is told their story instead of learning it as they do. It feels to me the player is more obviously a third person, and can empathise with situations rather than experience them as if they were one of the characters. At the start of Jak & Daxter: The Precursor Legacy you see Jak is the leading character who likes to explore and seek adventure, while Daxter is the follower who is afraid of danger but brags of his exploits. I found it unique that Jak doesn't talk, and personality has to be shown through his actions and expressions while Daxter picks up the slack.

Jak & Daxter: The Precursor Legacy Opening Scenes

With Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, there is already a strong connection between the characters in being family. They have formed ways of teamwork to move about in the environment, and the player has to figure out who does what best. By their actions and how both deal with the same situation, you can see the younger brother is more playful and energetic, and the older is calmer and more responsible.

Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons Opening Scenes

It seems in pairings, it's more common to have pre-designed personalities and stories than the blank slate or multi-choice option in teams. With having less NPCs to learn about, is it more important to have their characteristics strongly established? This may also have to do with the games genre, which might dictate expected ways of playing the game; the previous team based games are of the role playing genre, and the pairing are more of an adventure-platform type, both which have typical storytelling styles. In pairings, usually the player controls one character who leads, where in teams you can often give orders and swap who you're playing. The player's interactivity is different when either type is formed by strangers or is already established, as you either learn as the characters do, or are shown rather than taught.

I think in the end, I would prefer at least a smaller number of NPC companions, with the hope that their personalities and story would be developed to a higher quality. You'd come to care about them more because of your longer exposure to them, as well as being able to focus on them as characters rather than missions. There are a number of games that have NPC main characters but aren't duos that have proved to me that a concentration on those few people can still create strong emotional investment. Halo 2 is one such game, where the Master Chief and the Arbiter are well defined characters, each with their own goals and desires. They start off as enemies, then are forced to work together and eventually become allies through to the next instalment.

As such, I've decided that my companions are going to be a pair. I feel that despite the popularity of using teams, they're becoming too common, and a duo would be a little more fresh. With teams, there's the risk that they may be a little underdeveloped individually and are easier to fit into stereotypes. I've always been a little annoyed in the larger team based games that in one playthrough I might not get to know all of them to their full potential. What's the point in having so many characters if you can't use them all? I know forming your own mini team is strategic in most cases, but I've always had a stronger interest in story, and going on repetitive missions to earn each and every one's favour gets boring and disconnects me from the immersion. With a pair, to me the potential is greater.