Hello and welcome. I'm Katrina, and this is my first progress presentation for my honours project.
To recap my project: My initial research aim was - "To investigate the effective use of companion characters in games, and to research what influences their design."Based on this, the research I've compiled so far explores aspects of duo companions characters in games, such as the typical archetype pairings and their hierarchy, as well as this effect on expected genre and art style in relation to the target audience.
While investigating these topics in general, more questions have come to mind which I can focus on:
- Are duo characters restricted to a particular genre? Do they simply work well for some and not others, or is it just a trend?
- How do character archetypes effect art style and genre?
- Is there a difference in production process for single main characters against duos, or duos and teams? Can they be done the same way, or is there more to consider? The image here is a flow chart of my own pipeline process when creating characters, and I plan to compare it to industry standard, and to duo character pipelines in particular.
- What's more memorable visually, the character's face and body, or the fashion? Outside of the character's personality and player experience, how can they impact the audience equally?
- How can you ensure the player has a connection to both characters? How can you ensure the character's are compatible with each other? Are they still considered successful if one is a favourite?
With my research expanding, I was inspired by a class lecture to create a basis for an action plan and a critical framework for which I can judge existing work on and compare my own to. Combined with character design theory and case studies into selected suitable games, I would then conduct practice based media tests to evaluate the effectiveness of the relevant element I'm looking into.
My framework developed into four main aspects of duo character design which I think effectively appraise the success of that pair. There's the visual component of the character's design, the relationship they have with each other, the teamwork gameplay mechanics, and their compatibility with each other and the player. Using this framework I will begin to apply the criteria to the games I've selected for case studies.
What I keep coming back to in this project is the duo's archetype hierarchy. I've observed a pattern forming throughout my research: there tends to be human or humanoid characters in the more realistic art styles with the grittier genres, usually aimed at adults; and then there's creature based characters with more cartoony styles and lighter genres aimed at younger audiences. Is this a trend because it works, or can it be broken?
Another observation I've made concerning hierarchy is that when dealing with a male and female pairing, the male is almost always the lead playable character, and in that games cover art, the male is always in the forefront of the image. This typically uses the male as the brute force in gameplay, with the thinking left to the female.
Interestingly, some games break this pattern in different ways. In The Last of Us, for the majority of the game you play Joel, but the narrative is for the most part telling Ellie's story through Joel's reactions, and in cover art it's the female taking the foreground. In Ico, you play the male character who again does the fighting, but the character is smaller than his female counterpart, who stands out a little more with their glowing design. A bigger body usually means they'll take the parts with the heavy lifting, like when dealing with Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons.
When it comes to creature character duos, the pattern tends to follow size based archetypes. There's the main playable character, and then there's the sidekick, who is almost always considerably smaller in stature. Gameplay has less teamwork mechanics and more just an NPC helping out. Again, a break in this trend is in Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon, where while Spyro is bigger than Sparxs, his companion Cynder is of equal size.So what decides which character is the lead? Should this be purposely conveyed through design such as size? Or should there be a more equal footing? Why in an archetype pairing like brains and brawn, brawn is the playable one?
So how dependant is a character's design on their archetype? The balance of form and function is important here: they must be fit for their role. So how different would an existing character's design be if their archetype changed? Ratchet is the hero, the adventurer. He's agile and impulsive. So what if he were more naïve and innocent? Or a more heavy hitter? Or more sly and cunning? These in-progress designs try to explore these changes, looking how much the silhouettes and individual shapes are effected.
In my research, shape and silhouette are an important part of character design. The character's silhouette must read clearly on screen so they're always easy to find against the backdrop. When dealing with creature pairings, a number of them have the smaller character being carried in some way, like Clank fitting onto Ratchet's back, and this changes normal gameplay silhouette.
Shape theory tells us that defined elements of a character's body can hint at their type of personality: generally, circles are friendly, squares are reliable, and triangles are evil. Ratchet mostly has a balance of squares and circles, but he does have some triangles, although this doesn't make him come across as aggressive, but rather more dynamic and possibly impulsive. Clank has the majority of squares, with a round head that helps balance him from a bulky character to one more suited for his size.
I have found, however, that shape theory starts to loose its effectiveness the more realistic an art style is. Exaggerated proportions are less frequent, so well-defined shapes are harder to see, especially in humanoid characters. Both Monkey and Trip are mostly squares, but have hints of circles in different areas of their bodies. It is harder to guess at their personality from both their silhouette and shapes.
Using the theories I have researched, I've begun to create my own media tests. These basic figures explore how effective body language is before elements like fashion are added. This test was also to practice for drawing using my tablet and painting digitally, which is commonly industry standard, which I am unused to.
Unused to speed painting digitally, I decided to go traditional to get me started designing, which also helped not being able to erase mistakes. I used two washes of ink to cover the white blankness and get a general shape. I then took a watercolour pencil to sketch line and detail. A final shadow wash helped bring these figures to definition. I think doing this type of exercise really helped just loosen up and not think too much about what I'm doing. I did find though that creatures were much easier to create rather than humanoids.
From here, I plan to do silhouette and shape studies of all the duo characters I've chosen from a range of suitable games, and to evaluate how much of their personality and archetype is told through them. I also want to continue exploring changing an existing character's archetype and seeing the effect it has on their design. I've developed an idea for my final product, where I create a duo set and a base design for each. I would then apply different archetypes to each, and see how that effects the personality portrayed.
Thank you for listening. Any questions?
---
FeedbackAgain, the presentation had a positive response. I wasn't half as nervous as I was last time, although the early start and bigger group made me a bit tired of waiting. Lynn began with saying the presentation was well structured and the project was much more manageable now. She said I had put together a solid plan to go forward, and that it was good to see me taking control of what I'm trying to achieve.
When I mentioned my critical framework included the teamwork mechanics, Lynn questioned how much mechanics then inform how we design characters, and is this because it's in an interactive form that we can't get around, because of immediate connotations? The example I had in my presentation was the bigger character doing all the heavy work.
I said I wanted to get a full idea of how duo companions work in games, not just visually, and as such mechanics are important. I define duos as two characters who work together and are both there for a purpose, not just by having two characters on screen. I understand I can't test mechanics as that isn't what I want to go into, but that they do effect the character's design.
Lynn agreed with this, saying it could just be a case of saying I'm aware of game mechanics and to keep that in mind, but it's outside the scope of my project. She continued saying that sometimes we need a character to achieve something, so they need to be designed to be able to achieve that. I don't need to go into depth with mechanics, but to convey form and function, address that the role of the character can be portrayed through associations of their design. I just need to make this clear and clarify it in my proposal; what's in the scope of the project and what I recognise is too big to go into.
She said overall, I'm making really good observations, and that she was interested in the goals I'm identifying. Again, she said it feels much more manageable, and that it's really nice to see the practical work I'm doing. When I commented I feel there's not much there, she said it's fine, and that I have a solid process for exploring, and that I'm identifying really interesting things.
Lynn was concerned I was attempting too many case studies, that I have a huge list. She said six games is okay, but that I need to find balance between digging down and really getting to know how duos are applied in fewer games, or use a lighter touch and skim over a bunch of games instead. She said I've done the skim, and to move forward I should decide to continue skimming or if it's worthwhile to dig, but not to dig down on all in my list as that's a crazy amount of work; six games is really healthy. She thinks I'm at a good point, and is really pleased with my progress.
Brian reiterated that I have a thorough approach, that I've looked at a wide range of characters, and is glad I'm not just looking at the visual aspects. He thinks interesting things might come from going deeper into the different types of archetypes and relationships between the characters, and would like to hear about the more subtle aspects involved.
He liked the idea of game compatibility with relationships, and commented that the idea of genre specific archetypes is interesting for him with the different kind of stories that could be told, and how given the experience nature of games, of the immersion of playing a character, could make it difficult to tell some stories. He went on to say that I've made close observations and deconstructed the different kinds of relationships, and that it's interesting I'm trying to take it beyond the stereotypical and why that deepens the performance. Lynn then mentioned Shadow of the Colossus, where the character has a companion in his horse, and that it's the only thing he has, so this has a different type of relationship that is dealt with differently mechanically as well.
I asked Brain after the presentation on feedback for my actual presentation skills, as I have a great amount of trouble speaking without a script. He said I have good structure, and to practice that in terms of telling a story with a set beginning, middle and end. I just need to move towards the point that I feel comfortable in my performance using cues, to show what I'm going to say and then say it. He said to think of it as stating a problem, set my major questions and aims, and then answer it through showing my work. Summarising is a good way to go, and that the audience can fill in the gaps if done right. I also asked if he had any recommendations about more duo or companion character based books, as most so far have been about general character design. He mentioned Screenplay: the foundations of screenwriting by Syd Field, and Story: substance, structure, style, and the principles of screenwriting by Robert McKee, while not directly dealing with games, are more about designing characters from the inside out and not visual dependant.
Link to Honours Project Presentation 2.
Link to Honours Project Presentation 2 Script.
Action Points
- Finish all examples of current media tests from selected games and make a post of them.
- Get first draft of proposal finished for feedback by lecturers.
- Work on blogging skills. Get out of the habit of thinking things are only worthwhile if perfected and finished.
- Investigate into the books recommended by Brian.
- Look at Creative Character Design by Bryan Tillman.
No comments:
Post a Comment