Creating a retro looking image in Photoshop

I started by setting my background colour to an off white one, as this would add to the worn and retro effect I was going for.   

I then used the custom shape too and selected a shape call ‘registration target 2’. Using the free transform tool I made the shape quite big so that you could only see a small portion of it. I made sure that the centre part of the image was in the lower left and corner.   

 

I wanted to change the colour of the shape to an off black colour, I tried to do this with th paint bucket tool when this message came up.

 

I clicked ok and this allowed me to change the colour using the paint bucket tool. I don’t want this colour to be too dominating so reduced the opacity to 29%. 

 

Next I had to make my multi coloured stripes. I used the magnetic lasso tool to trace the shape of one of the stripes. I then right clicked the finished outline and selected layer via copy.  

 

I used the paint bucket tool to changes the colour and he free transform tool to rotate and position it. I repeated this process until I had six stripes. 

 

Now I need to add some arrows. Again I did this using the custom shape tool. I used the free transform tool to rotate and position it and after rasterizing the layer, used the paint bucket tool to change it to a bright colour. 

I then needed to add several other shapes to the image to make it more of a montage. I used the custom shape tool to create them, changed the colour using the paint bucket tool and gave them a stroke – this would make them look more retro.   

 

Now that I have all my elements in position I will start to make it look more worn and retro. I needed to darken the colours slightly so added a new adjustment layer and selected hue and saturation. I made the hue – 16.  

 

I then created a new layer on top of all of my other layers and used the paint bucket tool to fill it with a light blue colour. I then selected filter, filter gallery and applied the texture ‘grain’ to the layer. I changed the blend mode of the layer to ‘colour burn’. 

I could now see my other images underneath this layer. 

I added another layer but filled it with a grey colour this time. I applied the filer ‘grain’ to this image as well. However on this layer I reduced the fill to 47%, as I didn’t want it to overpower the colours underneath it. I made the blend mode of this layer ‘linear burn’.   

The last thing I did was add a new layer and fill it with the same grey colour as before. Again I gave it a grain filter but this time I changed some of the grain properties.

I made the grain type horizontal and reduced the intensity slightly. I reduced the layer fill to 47% and made the blending mode for this layer overlay. Adding this grain will make my whole image look more worn like an old poster. 

Battleships!

When playing battleships many people approach it different ways. I go for an approach i like to call shove them everywhere and hope for the best. I randomly place my battleships everywhere and just hope that's enough to help me win. However when playing against Alex that wasn't going to be enough. He seemed to have luck on side as he sunk all but one of my battleships. I still hadn't even got one, it was at this point i felt like giving up on the game, i was more or less defeated why carry on there was no chance i could win. So when it came to talk about any changes we wanted to make to the game, this was an area we could agree needed work on.

We introduced an element we later called 'the killer square'. This was a single square both players had to place that, if their opponent hit, it would sink all of their battleships. This gave a losing player a chance to win, give them a glimmer of hope that if they hit that one square they could turn the game around and win out of the blue. Therefore give them an incentive to carry on playing. Just what i needed to want to carry on playing earlier.

Another good thing about this 'killer square' is it makes you play the game more tactically. You need to think about where you place this square, shoving it anywhere could ruin your game if your on a winning streak. You cant place it too close to your ships, in case they get taken down and your opponent mistakes that square as part of that ship. Too far away and it stands out too much.

Although when we played the game again no-one hit that square, we both still felt the pressure whenever the opposing player got close. Adding more unintentional tension to the game. However we both did also agree that when we got close to winning if our opponent did hit that square it would make losing the game even more frustrating. But then again when isnt losing a game frustrating?   

Response to Doug Church - Formal Abstract Design Tools

I thought this article was an interesting read. It really got me thinking about why designers insist on creating games which all seem so similar. There are so many first person shooters out there - Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Modern Warfare, Counter Strike etc ... so why if we have one do we need another? Sure they may change location, focus on a different war or even have a different guns but when you get down to it they are so similar is is only those little details that make one differ from another.

Maybe its the designers fault. So many young designers like to make the games they have played that the market has become over run with games that are just copies of previous hits. This was also a point that was suggested in the 'Dont be a Vidiot' article by Greg Costikyan. I agree with him to an extent, but i don't think that is the only issue. Perhaps so many ideas have been done its hard to find something new. I'm sure it is possible to create something exciting and fresh but i feel that games designers being given boundaries in what they can create by one thing only - publishers.

I studied Media studies at A Level and this is definitely a trend that runs through multiple industries. Like the movie industry, why when the world screams 'no more vampire movies!' do they insist in drowning us in them? The answer is an obvious one; money. A publishers priority is to make money so why take a risk? They know for a fact that a war game that has been published is doing great, they can just make something similar and do great too. So there instruct their team of designers to create a new war game similar to the latest craze, but give it better graphics or a new gun. And so they do.

So what is causing all this madness? I think we, the consumers, are to blame. I brought call of duty recently and i enjoyed it so much i brought the new medal of honor game too, just because it looked similar. Does that sound familiar? And that's the issue. This trend will continue until we say enough of this genre now! I wont buy it anymore i need somthing fresh, but really whats the chances of that happening? And so the trend will continue publishers will carry on making money and stop the designers doing what they do best, creating, inventing and designing.     

Reference:

Church, D., Gamasutra - Features - Formal Abstract Design Tools. Available at: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3357/formal%20abstract%20design%20tools.php

   

Types of games

James Newman discusses types of games in the extract we were given to read. He particularly focuses on four distinct forms that Caillois had already identified. Agon - in which competition is dominant, Alea - where chance and randomness are key, Ilinx - in which pleasure is derived from the moment and  Mimicry - in which games are oriented around simulation, make-believe and role play. It is easy to place games in to each of these sections and some games even fit into multiple categories. However i think that more categories could be added to this list, such as one that the key outcome is to have learnt something from the game (like an educational game). However i do like and agree with the categorises stated i just think there is room for expansion.

One game that focuses heavily on the Agon is fighting games such as Soul Calibur 4. The aim of the game is to beat the competition, whether that is in the form of another player (like a friend or someone online) or whether you are playing against the computer. There are also elements of Mimicry when you play the game on story mode, although you are to focused on winning to notice!

One game that i think includes a lot of Mimicry and Alea is Halo. You are pulled into and focus on the story as you work your way through the game beliveing that you are fighting in the war to protect earth. Also when you die you can spawn with random weapons and in multiple locations.

When trying to think of a game that involved the Ilinx i really couldnt think of any, however when i sat and focused on the subject i belive that actually all games contain an Ilinx element. If Ilinx is about movement it 'fuels' the two of the other catagories, for example if in Soul Calibur one player chooses a character that is slow moving, whilst the second player chooses a character is fast moving this adds to the competition (Agon) of the game. The pace you move through the game effects the story (Mimicry) as if you move slowly through the levels it can make you feel as if the game is dragging on.     

Reference:

Newman, J., 2004. Videogames, London: Routledge.

    

Paidea and ludus

After reading an extract from 'Videogames' by James Newman we then went on to discuss different games we define as being 'ludus' or 'paidea'.

One game i consider to be a ludus is Resident Evil. Although you appear to have the freedom to explore the map once you have fought your way through and defeated all of your enemies there is nothing left to do in that area except move on to the next level, forcing you to carry on with the game. The map isn't unlimited as you are restricted within areas and many objects you cant interact with, even if you think they could be useful within the game. Also if you play the game strategically by killing all the zombies the game will still end the same way even if you rush through all the levels. You are given clear objectives throughout and you can only proceed to the next level after you have completed each one.

One game i consider to be paidea is Harvest Moon. In the game you are given a farm and are left freely to go about your life dealing with all the issues that farmers face. You can choose which towns people you interact with, the animals you have, the crops you grow, the buildings you have built etc .... There is no way you can win or lose the game, you really just play it for the fun of it.

Although many games do fit into these categories i believe they cannot be 100% and one of the other. When i play a paidea game such as the Sims, i find i can get bored of it a lot quicker as i don't have any objectives other than the ones i create and that can be a tedious. However when i play a ludus game such as Halo i really enjoy working within boundaries and towards goals. In my opinion games that fall into the ludus category can be played for pleasure and games that fall into the paidea category, once the novelty wears off, aren't always that fun.  

Reference:

Newman, J., 2004. Videogames, London: Routledge.