So it's finally just about done! It's not the design I was originally working on, but that'll come later. For now, I just need something working.

So anywho, here it is thus far. I've tested it with both Firefox 2.0.0.15 and Safari 3.1.2, but haven't gotten around to/been able to yet see how it looks in other browsers. If anyone would care to take a look, see how it stacks up to the example image I took, and let me know if there are any glaring errors, I'd be greatly appreciative. Or not, either way really works.

( Example hidden under cut for courtesy's sake. )

As previously stated, I've designed this blog to be a place to post statuses on various announced projects, news I've picked up from various sources, and concepts, bits and bobs of game design theory that I find interesting enough to share. It's been a while since I posted, however, so you can assume a variety of things that this could be due to:

A) I haven't learned anything of note.
B) I haven't done anything of note.
C) I've been too busy to note.

I'm glad to say that the answer is none other than C. Yes, I've actually been working on several things which I'm going to go ahead and throw out there. Here's the news!

I've been working on a new portfolio website, which should be up within the next week (in one form or another) with any luck. For future reference, you'll be able to find it here: www.emotebox.com

I've been knee-deep in several other projects, which will each be announced upon reaching the one third mark of production. Some of you might know a little or a lot about these projects, and some might even be involved in them! Check back for more info. I'm pretty excited about them.

In addition, I'm planning on relocating this particular blog, but so people don't have to keep checking some site outside of LJ, I'll be trying to set up an RSS feed through or to here. So no worries!

And here's some random work I've done lately, as far as art goes:

The Fall, as of.. over a year ago, actually.
Old Town, also a year ago.
Kendall Quest, a mock up game cover.
Sidhe the Dark, from World of Warcraft.
Sora the Pirate.
Rouke the Red, also from World of Warcraft.

Incidentally, if any of that strikes your fancy and you're looking for art to be done, I'm currently open for commissions and due to recent...interesting financial events, my prices have been severely reduced. Act now and I'll throw in a dish cloth!

And I don't know if anyone knew this or not, but technically, I'm not longer a digital illustration major, rather a 2-D animation major now. So look for some interesting .swf files soon!

I took a class on Aesthetics (as a branch of philosophy) last year. The focus of this class was not to define what art was and what art was not, but rather why we should care about art at all, it was a very informative and thought-provoking class that I'm extremely glad I took.
One of the projects in the class was to write a paper about aesthetic theories or concepts and go in depth with our explanations of our topics. For my paper I chose to write on (is it any surprise?) video games as an artistic medium. In particular I went into trying to define what a video game was, and justify it as an art form by comparing it to an already-established art form: film.

For the record, my current definition of a video game is: a non-physical visual art form that is both interactive and has a specific goal.

The reasoning for this being that if it's interactive and has a specific goal, but is of physical design, then it could be chess or poker, and not a video game at all. If it's non-physical, but not visual then it's an audio (or other such non-visual sensory output) game. If it's not interactive, then it's a video without the game element. And finally, if it doesn't have any sort of defined goals, then it's a virtual toy, not a game.

While I humbly admit that my writing on the subject was far from thorough or flawless, and that plenty of other people have done far better jobs speaking on the topic, I still hold that the definition I used is a valid one. One person in particular seems to agree with me: Game Design: Theory and Practice (2nd Edition) by Richard Rouse is a book I've been reading through as of late, and I have to say I love the way game theory and the application of such concepts are presented in the book. Anyone who is interested further on game design theory and the psychology of play should pick it up.

One topic that a whole chapter of the book is devoted to is the various approaches used to design a game. Two primary camps are that of Ludology and Narratology. Ludologists view games first and foremost as just that: games. Sets of mechanics and rules that one understands and manipulates to reach a goal. Narratologists, on the other hand, view games primarily as a story-telling medium.
The third approach to game design mentioned in the book is that of a technological view point. As technology improves, we're capable of creating games with different limitations, interfaces and environments, though some might argue that this is just another face of Ludology. However, better technology does also allows us to up the quality and/or complexity of the sub-arts within a game (visual graphics, music, non-musical audio, etc.).

What are your views on this, however?
What's most important in game design: good story, good gameplay, or good presentation? Why?

A trend that's been developing with software companies over the past while is that of open-sourcing developed software. Open-sourcing is the releasing of source code to the public, allowing them to develop there own software around the work of others. This is especially helpful for those who are breaking into the video game industry (and just about critical for those from the art field, who generally have little time or mind for programming) and are in need of a jump start for developing there own games.

Open-sourcing also gives more people the tools for which to create complicated works that they otherwise wouldn't be able to. From a view of video games as an artistic medium, this means that a larger crowd has access to powerful capabilities, which generally ends up with a swath of mediocre designs flooding the scene. However, you often also end up with a few true gems and a fair share of innovative concepts.

But does releasing software (that took so much hard work, time and money to develop) to public reduce the stock value of the company in question? The Wall Street Journal recently had an article on just this. There findings say that, in short, companies that explain the financial benefits of their open source plan were greeted with a stock-price increase of 1.6%, while those that didn't saw a decrease of the same amount.

This especially of note to those planning on entering the game design field under a larger company. It's not uncommon to work for companies that offer employee stock options. Companies such as Three Rings Designs is such a company that both offers stock options to its employees, and is devoted to releasing their work as open-source.

For more information on open-source game software, visit these links:
The Whirled Flash-Based MMO @ http://www.whirled.com/
Games Gardens @ http://www.gamegardens.com/
Sauerbraten/Cube 2 FPS Engine @ http://sauerbraten.org/

Yep! This journal is devoted entirely to such concepts. Progress on personal works will be posted here (large images will be LJ-Cut, of course) as well as thoughts, news and theory that I think might be of interest to game designers, or simply those who like to think harder about games than most. After all, game design as an artistic medium is a relatively new concept, and has plenty of room to grow yet.

So, if you're interested in such things, stay tuned. Your opinions and attention are appreciated!