I need to store this before it’s corrected, because the Wikipedia entry for slapstick film is gloriously stupid.
“Slapstick films are a type of comedy film that employ slapstick comedy with five main conventions:
“
The strangest things will pull you out of a movie. Early on in the Fincher film, Zodiac, it shows the mail being sorted in the mail room in a newspaper office. ( In anticipation of the Zodiac killer’s letter arriving. )
This did not feel like a real mail room to me. Most clearly, it was too slow. Perhaps there are more laid-back mail rooms where you can take your time to read an address and luxuriantly place it where it needs to go, but I seriously doubt that it would be at a daily newspaper.
I posted earlier about the McLarenator
I’ve made a small but significant change. It can now load a series of numbered images into the waveform. It basically allows you to convert any video into a sound of the same length. (Most videos won’t sound GOOD, but there you go.)
Click the little film-strip and select the first in a series of JPEG or PNG files. For example, if you picked a file named “image001.jpg” then it will try to find “image002.jpg” “image003.jpg” and so on until it runs out.
The number in the file name should be right before the dot. If you have a file named “file01A2.jpg” it will ignore the 01 and only increment the 2, because it’s right next to the dot.
It will show a “loading” message that will count up until it runs out of images. As long as the “image sequence” button is on, it will ignore the specified frequency and length. Instead, it will base the length on the number of images loaded and the FPS (frames per second.)
You can download the updated version here. Or you can get the AIR version.
I recently finished two videos, Walking from TV to Fridge, and the Story of Flin Flon.
So I ended up coming across this article that references both The Pepperpot from Creighton, (previously known as Sambo’s Pepperpot) and Hunky Bill. For me, kind of a weird combination of nostalgia and legal arguments about racism.
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=lawpapers
I found this piece of paper the other day, which contains my analysis of the editing in the video for the Nerd Folia cover of Amazing Horse.
It was made just by putting the video into iMovie, and splitting it at every point where there’s a cut. The right column is the iMovie track, the left column is the length of each shot in seconds, and the centre column is the number of people in each shot.
Things that may be noteworthy: First and last shot are among the longest. There are shots with 1, 2, and 5 people in them, but none with 3 or 4, and the shot with 5 seems to consist of only one setup. Probably composing a shot for one or two people is easy, but for 5 is more time-consuming. (Also the camera is on a tripod, so maybe they didn’t have a 6th person to hold the camera.)
Here’s a cool thing from the internet, that generates sound based on the code you enter.
Earlier, I discussed William and Sly and some rules changes between the first and second game.
I had trouble comparing the quest structure of the two games using only words, so I’ve drawn graphs of the two:
It’s similar in concept to “skill trees” or “crafting graphs.” For each thing you can get in the game, I’ve identified which can be found directly, and which have prerequisites.
I’m not sure yet how to identify subsets of items. For example most mushrooms can be found directly, but a subset of the mushrooms are inside locked chests, which need a key as a prerequisite. Also, I didn’t treat stationary objects as items for this list. In one sense, getting a mushroom from a chest has two prerequisites, the key and the chest, not just the key. But I left out the chest to keep it simpler. You can think of the “conversion method” for the key as bringing the key to the right location.
For the prerequisite arrows, I tried to colour code them because I think there’s value in the diversity of how you use them. (I may also think of these as converting one or more items into another item. This article on Free to Play games analyzed some of them according to “currencies” and how they can be converted. Also the same author wrote about The Sims Social with the same ideas.)
I colour coded them according to variation in the conversion methods. For example, using a key to open a locked chest is a conversion method, and it’s functionally equivalent to using a bomb to explode a rock, just a different metaphor. Both involve finding one item and bringing it to a location. However, using fire to release a frozen spirit is a slightly different method, since you have a time limit before the fire goes out. It turns that conversion method into a race, which is a different experience for the player. ( One way of criticizing the “social” games I linked above is there is little or no variation in the conversion method, despite a variety of metaphors. )
So variation is one metric you can get from the graph. The other is depth, which is how many conversion steps can you go from a base-level item? The base-level items, like Fairyflies, have no prerequisites to acquiring them, so they are base-level. Since fire can only be acquired by converting Fairyflies into fire, fire has a depth of one. Anything locked inside ice requires fire, so those items have a depth of two. Deeper items feel more valuable to the player. Some items were in places only accessible once you have the power to fly. To get flying, you release four fox spirits, which requires fire. So flying is three steps from a base-level item, and things that require flying are four steps away. There were even two journal pages in ice in locations only accessible by flying, so that requires you have both fire and flying. Would you consider that as having 5 pre-requisites, or would you just count it as the deeper of the two? The first game had as its deepest item destroying a monster, which is only three deep from fairyflies and didn’t have as much diversity in the methods required. (You had to unlock 13 runestones.)
In the examples of social games using “currencies” they can feel like a shallow game even when they have many different currencies if the method of converting currencies doesn’t have much diversity. So is diversity more important than depth?
Okay, so as much as I like redeeming “videogames as art” can you imagine a book or movie willingly advertising itself as a “timewaster?”
I played a game called William and Sly 2 and it was pretty neat. Got interested in checking out the prequel, and it’s a strong contrast that shows how much the creator learned between the first and second game.
Here are some of the things that changed from one to the other. Because I’ve recently been reading Game Feel I’ll classify the changes in terms the book might use.
Most of the game feel remains the same between games. The graphics are changed, and feel a little more polished. I didn’t notice any dramatic changes in the motion or input. Both have this lovely bounding motion, which feels very free and joyful. The biggest changes were in things I’d classify as rules changes.
In both games, you play as a fox named Sly, and William is a human who gives you a task to perform. In the first game, it is to restore 13 runestones that can be used for teleportation. In the second, it is to gather the 25 pages of a journal.
Each runestone requires that you collect 5 fairyflies to activate it. Each journal page can be collected simply by running over it, but some are hidden in some hard to reach places.
In the second game, in addition to William’s journal pages, you can get three more quests by praying at temples where a hooded figure will appear and give you a more or less cryptic request. The map is smaller, but I think by having multiple quests like that, you’re pushed to explore it more thoroughly. And since you’re doing four shorter quests instead of one long quest, there’s more variety. (On considering this, I’ve thought of a related metric to discuss, but I think it needs its own post.)
Most blatantly, the first game had a boss battle, which feels kind of at odds with most of the game. It also had creatures that pop out of the ground and try to steal your fairyflies. The second game dispenses with these monsters. Removing the monsters I think puts more emphasis on exploration. When there are monsters, you move just a little more cautiously. When there are monsters waiting to attack you, you’re as likely to be punished for exploring as rewarded.
Of course, the monsters were still very mild. They would never kill you, only steal your fairyfly magic, which you could replace. And removing this risk might at first blush appear to lead to a game without challenge to it. But there is still exploration, and joy to be had in the way this fox bounds through the landscape. It’s a gathering game, rather than a hunting game. And it’s not entirely without challenge. There are some things frozen in ice, that in order to release, you must race to with a flame before it burns out. And searching for all the hidden items has something challenge to it; there’s a reason why hide and seek is so popular to children.
The fairyfly respawning has been changed. I think in the first, the fairyflies respawn at a constant rate, while in the second, it’s been tweaked so they will be plentiful when you have few and rare when you already have many. This prevents you from hording them or being stingy if you have to use them. Gathering them when you need them doesn’t become a grind, but you don’t end up with more than you could possibly use.
I think comparing the two games is a great study because it highlights the value in these changes. Lucas made some good choices in designing the first game, but those things that he changed for the second game feel like the decisions that he made on autopilot for the first game. Of course there are monsters, don’t most games have monsters? Of course fairyflies should spawn at a constant rate, what else is there? It’s a difficult thing to force yourself to make every decision for a reason, it’s very tempting to go with the “obvious” choice, so it’s a huge demonstration of how he’s improved to make these changes for the second game, and it’s an excellent example we could all learn from.