Introducing... the iWish

I call this the iWish because I wish Sony would get their act together and improve the PSP. So many people are doing such amazing and innovative things these days, and yet the only innovative thing to happen to the PSP since 2005 was that it got a little slimmer. Whoopedy-frikkin-doo-dah-day.

But I didn't make the iWish image to talk about that.

I made it so I could talk about THE FUTURE OF GADGETS!!! ...and, in particular, about two main trends taking place:

1. All types of hand-held gadgets are being integrated into one- becoming a single do-all device.
2. The need for a single User-Interface to link all the functions of this "do-all device" is beginning to emerge, but has yet to be created.

This post will discuss the limitations of designing a do-all-device and then explore the exciting possibilities of an omni-UI.


ALL GADGETS ARE BECOMING ONE

Eventually there'll be simply one gadget that does everything. Period. Or to be more specific- everything related to information. This uber-device won't blend your cocktail, trim your hedges, or replace your electric shaver, but it will do everything else besides. It's your phone/ internet/ GPS/ camera/ tv-tuner/ projector/ gamepad/ media-player/ umpc/ scanner/ RFID/ universal-remote-contol/ game controller/ flashlight/ laserpointer/ etc, etc... in one. I call this do-all device an Omni-Gadget (if only to put an air of godliness around the idea). The iWish is a whimsical glimpse of what an omni-gadget might look like.

If you're wanting to design a do-all-phone, then you only need to wait for the next iteration of the iPhone, as you won't get much better a design than that. But if you want to design an omni-gadget, a device that does everything, then you've got to make some design sacrifices- and here's why...

If an omni-gadget actually really genuinely does do "everything" then it should also play games. And properly. If it does, (and it should if it is to meet its own definition) then this automatically adds the need to hold it like a controller, not to mention adding about 12 points of input to go with it (buttons, triggers, sticks, etc). You'll never be able to play Grand Theft Auto on an iPhone. You will have to have a full amount of gamer user inputs in the final omni-gadget design regardless. This will inevitably make any design of an omni-gadget a clunky, unweildy, brick-like behemoth. If you didn't need to play games, then you could essentially do away with everything and simply have a touch screen and nothing more. ...However you would still need the screen to slide up to reveal a space for keyboard/trackpad functionality firstly because typing on a touch screen isn't very good, but also because the device will be used for so many different applications that it will require a trackpad/keyboard area. So that's another design hindrance. Then we run into the size of the screen itself. Since the omni-gadget will also act as a UMPC (ultra mobile personal computer) the screen must therefore be big enough to make this a happy experience. And if that isn't enough, the omni-gadget will also be your main photo-snapping and video camera as well, not a secondary one, so it needs to have an overall depth to the device large enough to house a decent photo-capturing mechanism inside it. This would include a zoom function of at least x3 capability. This, with the thickness of the sliding screen and keyboard, already makes it quite obese as far as gadgets go. Aesthetically, it needs to make an even further sacrifice by leaving a space large enough near the front panel for a web cam so it can make video calls. All these are restrictions to design.

An omni-gadget must include:

• the buttons of a full controller
• as big a touchscreen as possible
• a keyboard
• a decent sized camera and zoom
• a webcam right next to the screen

...and yet still be small enough to fit in your pocket. ...That's tough.

The best design solution I've seen that goes towards satisfying all these requirements and still manage to look pretty is the PSP (minus the camera and webcam of course). And, indeed, the PSP is a very sexy looking thing. When it first came out it was eye-poppingly beautiful. Well done to Sony. The PSP provides a good starting point to what an omni-gadget might look like, which is why I ripped it off with my iWish image. Ironically though, a PSP is not the ideal design for playing games. The ergonomics of holding it for long periods of time is less than ideal. From a purely ergonomic perspective, if you cut a gamecube controller in half and put a screen in the middle, that would be the template for the perfect ergonomic games-playing omni-gadget. The trouble is that this design would be as ugly as sin. There is actually a way to have proper controller ergonomics, still with the PSP design, but I wasn't able to show that here with the iWish, however I hope to do so with further iterations of the concept. So, using the PSP as a starting point, squeeze in all the extra functions, like: Camera, GPS, wi-fi, infra-red, keyboard, webcam, SSD (solid-state drive), phone connectivity, etc, and this would be... an omni-gadget. Huzzah!

(NOTE: You wouldn't put this thing to your ear when you get a call though, as my friend assumed, because that would look ridiculous. You'd either speak into the mic along the earbud's cord, or speak at the screen as you would a friend on skype infront of your PC. It's not a phone. Besides which, bringing an entire device near your head in order for you to operate it is probably a concept that won't be around for much longer, historically-speaking).

A lot of people will ridicule me about integrating a keyboard into the design and accuse me of out-dated thinking. Keyboards are old-tech, they'll say. Well, besides my practical qualms I have with touchscreen-only devices, the keyboard in the iWish image is meant to represent a keyboard that also doubles as a trackpad. (A touchpad-keyboard? A track-board? A keytrackpad?) Imagine a trackpad three or four times the size of the trackpad on your laptop. Now imagine this over-sized trackpad with keyboard buttons cut into it. If you press your finger on a key it will depress like a regular key on a keyboard- making a satisfying click! But if you run your finger across the keys without pressing any of them, then it acts as a trackpad. This allows for much more functionality and flexibility that was previously unachievable.* At the side of the keyed-trackpad you would have a dedicated toggle key to switch between this surface acting as a keyboard and acting as a trackpad. It is another example of gadgets becoming integrated into one another... and goes towards the argument of not relying on a touch screen as your only input device. (Besides, if a keyboard is as undesirable to look at as what Apple wants us to believe, nor used all the time, then making the screen slide over it is the perfect design solution. 'nuff said).

I may also get a lot of criticism talking about an omni-gadget with such a large part of its design being dedicated to games. As you can see from the extra icons around them, these gaming buttons are multi-functional depending on what the omni-gadget is doing. It means that you can not just:

• play games,
• but also have full functionality of a digital camera,
• and be able to interface with any games console (so you'd always have a spare controller when you go to a friend's house. (Only possible with two thumb sticks (A wasted opportunity from Sony)))
• and these extra game buttons also enable the device to act as a universal remote control converting the gaming buttons to volume, channel, play, pause, etc.

So these extra gaming buttons enable the device to be much more. The tragedy is that it makes the final design look comparitively ugly next to the iPhone. I struggled with the idea of not including gaming buttons until I realised that this is like comparing apples to oranges because an omni-gadget isn't a phone. Right now the iPhone can do a lot, and the new version (iPhone 2?) will do a whole lot more. But the iPhone is still, essentially, a phone that does a lot, but it isn't every gadget all in one. That's an omni-gadget. Different.

Think of a phone as something you would take with you most places that can do extra things adequately.

Think of an omni-gadget as something you'd take with you everywhere- trekking, on research assignments, lectures, work- and be able to do everything brilliantly without compromise.

Using this comparison a phone and an omni-gadget seems to be a different product. In a lot of ways I see the omni-gadget as being a version of that utopian sci-fi vision of the future where everyone has a personal robot who does everything for them. It's their friend, their servant, their teacher, and their connection to the Global Brain that links all knowledge. (Which will most likely end up being called Google Brain).

Design-wise, some people will then ask: If there are so many gaming buttons around the screen, then why put 6 more buttons along the top? (A, B, C, 1, 2 and 3) Originally it was to fill up the dead space on either side of the iSight camera, but when it came time to thinking about ideas for the omni-UI (not shown) I felt that even with the best UI in the world... you would still need the reliability of a dedicated button for your favourite or most used functions. A lot of iPhone users won't be able to (or won't want to) understand this, but real buttons are essential, particularly when you need to get to a function without actually looking at what you're doing. I want to be able to not even look at the device and still be able to access its main functions. For example...

Let's say there's an event that needs a photo as quickly as possible. You're at an international press conference and take the wrong door. You enter and see George W Bush with his hand down Condi's pants! It's a photo for both the history books and the tabloids. They both look up as you grab your omni-gadget. The last thing you want to do is look at what screen you're in and find where the camera icon is. By that time George's hand is out and it's only you who knows the truth- not the world. So ideally, you want to hit a button dedicated to the camera as soon as you grabbed the device from your pocket, so that by the time the camera is pointing at them you are ready to take the shot (and let the World know what everyone has suspected all along).

At the end of the day I believe the omni-gadget of the future will look a lot like the iWish (except for the UI shown here), and that it will be a tussle between the iPhone clones and the omni-gadgets. This battle will take place on cafe tables and boardroom tables across the world. One person will put down their iClone, the other will put down their massive PSP-like omni-gadget, and it will be the scope of functionality that will decide the victor, not the design. You'll most likely get a version with gaming buttons, one without, and an accessory that everyone will despise that will try to solve the disparity.



ONE UI TO RULE THEM ALL

The UI aspect of an omni-gadget is what fascinates me the most- even though I haven't provided any images of the ideas I have for an omni-UI design in this post. The mock iPhone UI that I placed on the iWish was only meant to be funny, and a little provocative. I don't believe the iPhone UI, as pretty as it is, will be able to cope once more PC-like functionality becomes integrated into iPhones, however the slow crunching of gears when it tries will be interesting to watch. Most likely we'll see many companys' attempts end up as a collection of bits stuck together, rather than a seamless intuitive UI experience. The main reason why I believe this will occur is because of how we currently look at communication. Right now we differentiate between texts, chat messages and emails, and then create further divisions between their sources (Gchat, iChat, MSN messenger, Skype chat, etc). If the gadgets that provide the communication are becoming integrated, then why wouldn't the mediums of communication become integrated also? For example: If a friend wants to send me a written message, and I receive that message, what do I care if it's a Gchat or an iChat or a Yahoo Mail or a hotmail? They are words, and I receive them. That's all I care about. Period. The same goes for voice and video.

Essentially the omni-gadget UI will act as shell for all forms of communication to operate underneath- The user only being able to see the shell. I could have three different kinds of text communications sent to me in three different formats, but all I would see would be simply: 3 messages.

A txt can be as long as an email. An email as short as a txt. Formats defined by their size no longer matter. Nor should data attachments.

If I were to write a message on my omni-gadget and send it with a data package attached, the UI shell would be intelligently choosing the best way to send that information on my behalf- in whatever format- as I'm typing it.

With communication completely integrated by the omni-gadget's UI it means that my device will show me only four types of mediums:

• text
• sound
• video
• data (ie. programs)

Stripping down to just four formats will make organising files and information much easier than today's file sorting on PCs. And with future UIs being a mixture of a 2d and 3d interface, file sorting will be easier still. The desktop as we know it today may emerge into something quite different in the coming years- and following on from that, how we use them will change also.

An example of a completely integrated UI in action would be a white screen with a single cursor in the middle. All input is case sensitive. As soon as I type in a word or a number I should be able to see icons appear that correspond to what I may need. Type in a number and calculator buttons and unit conversion buttons appear. Type in a word and icons for search engines, or contact lists appear. Let's say I type in: "Hey, what are you doing?". I touch my contact list icon, and a screen of faces appears. I touch the face I want, let's say Hayley's, and I get prompt: Send / Attach / Cancel. I touch Send and I've just sent this sentence (as a txt/email/whatever) to Hayley, and in just three taps. From this "Info" screen I can access many layers of functionality within the same device.

The understanding that there is so much the omni-gadget can do, yet it's the UI's responsibility to get you to every function as quickly and intuitively as you can means 2 things need to happen:

1. Dedicated buttons/icons for favourite functions need to be one tap away.
2. If there is no dedicated button/icon available to get you to a function then you need to be able to get to where you're going as simply as possible.

This last point requires an interface all unto itself, otherwise you'll get the iPhone screen with page after page of icons- which would look messy, and confusing. So without using the smörgåsbord option, yet still be able to get to everything, you would need a Hub screen. From here, in order to contain the omni-gadget's entire spectrum of functionality into one branching tree we would start with five pools of basic motivation:

• Camera (Take/Shoot/Record/Collect) Access to the cameras and mics on the device.
• Info (Search/Find) Access to the internet, calculator, unit-converter,etc, but with cross-over with other pools of functionality (like Contact Lists, etc).
• Work (Sort/Organise/Create) Access to Hubbub- a file sorting and clean-up screen, iProject (more on this later), Office Apps including Photoshop, Data-backup, etc.
• Play (Entertain) Access to a Windows Media Center-style screen accessing all media, including games, podcasts, radio, tv, and iProject files.
• Contact (Share/Communicate) Access to the phone/vid-phone, Contact List, etc.

Items like the Diary, Time, and technical asides (like battery life and signal strength) are always easily accessible from almost every screen.

Two more ideas...

iProject - This is essentially a Flash-movie maker. With access to more information these days, and the ability to share and spread that information, I believe a public and global self-education system will emerge and this will take the form of micro-docos (small documentaries). These small edu-packs will be between 1 to 15 minutes long and use simple animations, graphs, videos, music and speech, etc, and be packaged as either youtube videos or sent as iProject files. These small education packs have so far been highly effective ways to expose ideas and inspire others. I personally recommend the video podcasts of TEDtalks. iProject would enable people to articulate and spread their ideas as efficiently and effectively as possible from their single do-all devices.

Handshake*- Instead of having a separate profile for Blogger, Facebook, Gmail, Xbox live, Sony Home, etc, why not have an Omni-profile. One profile that collects all your profiles together. You could then share your profile with others just as you would when swapping business cards (except this business card would also have your date of birth, a photo, plus a few other stats). When you meet someone new, who also has an omni-gadget (or a device with an Omni-UI) you could ask if they would like to 'handshake'. You would hit the shake icon, which would send out your signal, and they would do the same. You would then verify that you want to shake with this person. You now have added their photo and contact details directly into your Contact List, along with an annual birthday reminder added into your diary.



CONCLUSION

Originally I started thinking about an omni-gadget when I was sitting with a friend in a cafe in India. An old man came and asked if my friend had the latest Lonely Planet, which she did. As they pored over this heavily-bookmarked 2-inch thick tome, I started thinking about how that thick wad of tourist information could be easily condensed to a digital file and read on an e-reader of some description. Then... I thought about all Lonely Planets collected into one digital volume. Then... I thought about integrating that information database to a wikipedia database, then integrating that into google earth, and what kind of a device I'd use to look at that information on. Then I thought:

What would the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy look like if we were to attempt to make it today?

This thought propelled me on to the idea of a single and indispensable device that would do everything you would need it to, or want it to, if you were to travel the world. From the middle of the ocean, to the densest city, to the harshest desert, to the highest mountain. No matter what country, culture or language. A currency converter, a language converter, a dictionary, and knowledge database with or without an internet connection. From then on I've been engrossed with the idea and have yet to let it go.

I hope, at some point in the future, to make a working 3-d model of the omni-gadget incorporating everything I've talked about here and more. I'm particularly interested in exploring the ideas for the omni-UI.

Please feel free to share with me your ideas in the comments section.

Cheers,

Mat Brady






*This indicates an idea I haven't patented, nor ever will. Feel like using it? Go right ahead. And if, by chance, you have an opening for someone in product development, then by all means look me up. :)

Cloverfield 2

(SPOILER ALERT!)

(Updated post)

Having just watched Cloverfield -the film that finally outdid September 11 for the biggest Big-Bada-Boom. (Who would have thought real world events would out-Hollywood Hollywood itself?)- this film has inspired me to plot out, with disconcerting ease, the script outline that will be Cloverfield 2...

• Cloverfield 2 will have you experience the same event, with the same handycam mode, but through the eyes of a soldier via a helmet cam. If you notice in the first movie all the marines have cameras on their helmets. (Ha!)
  
• The movie will begin at the start of the emergency. The helmet cam buzzes to life with your best mate checking your cam.
  
• The captain tells you to look lively and explains the shit going down in NYC right now. (The captain is a nasty piece of work, and despises you) You're scrambling into a chopper as this is happening. Your camera will be faulty, and will turn off and on with strong blows to the head. This will allow the filmmakers to cut out bits of the movie that will drag.
  
• You (the cameraman) will have another stupid camera-based name like Zoom, or Andy (as in "Andy Cam"- geddit?) and you will be part of a 12 man unit assigned to the NYC shit storm.
  
• As the main character you'll have several cross-over points to the original story with the original cast, and eventually carry the story further than the previous.
• There'll be more focus on the smaller bugs in the sequel, and the extra number in your team will be used to have more gruesome deaths and with extended visceral action. (Think 'Aliens').
• Since the first one was a very romance-based quest, this one will be much more actiony, and lots more room for comedy as well. Then motivation will be to get back to your girlfriend (who is constantly calling you- your mobile phone and intercom will be crucial story drivers in this sequel).
• The conversations you'll have with your sexy, but dumb girlfriend will be hilarious and provide much needed comedy relief. He will constantly placate her and put up with her hounding because he's so horny for her.
  
• You'll act as part of a concerted well-organized military force until the Captain dies early on- the Creature lands its paw directly on him- and this fragments the team.
  
• The ground force will be shattered and bewildered until the tanks roll in -this is where you get your mojo back and hitch a ride on the back of a tank (you'll pass Rob, Hud, and the others in the street- glancing at them briefly) to make a heroic bid to destroy the Creature head-on. This will have a small effect, but mostly just get the Creature's attention, at which time it starts playing Whack-A-Tank and begins throwing the other tanks around. (The one you rode in on will be thrown into the big tv screen at Times Square making a very satisfying explosion -with yet more way-too-obvious product placement advertising).
• The Creature approaches and then stops straight over you. You panic, but then see a group of soldiers with RPGs (Rocket-Propelled Grenade launchers) arrive. They fire at the beast while it is directly over you. It seems to do incredible damage, because the monster rears back and screams. Its feet land with a thunderous boom and everyone is knocked to the ground.
• Your teammates will think that its dying as it screams again, twisting its head. Just as the RPG guys reload (with the Creature over you) you'll be rained on by bugs (which will be filmed by a news reporter -which is the footage that was seen in the first movie) and you'll need to run and fight your way to safety into an underground car park (destroying several beautiful cars in the process). It's bug mayhem.
  
• Scattered you'll get the message to regroup at an emergency head quarters where they've set up a make-shift hospital (re: first movie). One of your buddies will have lost his hand to the bugs and is bleeding badly.
  
• Your remaining team mates (7 of them, including stumpy) will head down a sewer and shoot their way to the meeting point. There'll be bugs galore, and after a major shoot out three of your team mates will be bitten. Your handless buddy will look like shit, and will explode with wriggling larvae- which are already bursting out with small claws. Your unit treads on them all, then look at each other knowing what will become of the bitten and double-time it to the hospital with the screeches of more bugs on your tail.
  
• You'll be relatively safe, then glance up and see a solitary bug lunge at your head knocking the camera to black.
  
• Your face is the first thing the camera sees again. You just fixed it (and re-established who you are to the audience). There'll be a comment here about how that last bug was killed.
  
• You put your helmet on and see yourselves in the emergency HQ/hospital. The quarantine boys in plastic blue uniforms see the bites on your buddies and tell you to take them to the quarantine area. They're asking a barrage of questions: "When were you bitten?", "How long ago?", etc.
• They never make it. One explodes along a corridor wall. You and your buddies start squashing the bugs and the quarantine boys yell at you to stop. They open a cooler room door and drag the body bits in there as the other quarantine boys take the other two away.
  
• You glance in to the cooler room and see layers of mutilated corpses. In amongst them are frozen smaller bugs from the bodies- twitching, fighting the cold.
  
• On the way back you hear someone screams, "Bite!" You see Marlena being taken to quarantine and watch her explode much more clearly than the first movie. Rob, Hud and Lily pass you, panicking.
• (UPDATE: You see another person in quarantine that hasn't been bitten, but is horribly mutated. You ask: "What happened to her?" No-one knows. She mutates larger, fights off some troops, and runs away. (Her name is Jamie Lascano- you'll hear more about her in the third movie) -see my post below)
  
• You report to the commander. He's giving orders- talking about the final round of air strikes, and the evacuation of the citizens and military for the Hammer Down Protocol.
• A hot female lab-coated biologist is with him and begins talking about the Creature's regenerative powers.
  
• There'll be some dialog here about where the Creature came from and what it's weaknesses are. (My guess is it fell to Earth. (UPDATE: This is wrong, it's a sea creature from Earth) And it's weakness could be the kind of air it breathes- the puffers on the sides of its mouth are to siphon nitrogen from the air and convert it to a nitrogen-based highly explosive gas- which it breathes).
  
• The plan is to get to the safe zone and initiate Hammer Down (a mini-nuke).
• Bugs will then fall out of the roof and get the party started again.
  
• You'll be chased through the building. The way to the roof will be blocked. Another way will need to be taken- through the stairwell and then through a vacated floors. The Creature will look into your floor with its huge eye and yell- just to establish its presence for an upcoming scene).
  
• You'll run out of bullets half-way through the vacated floor and be down to your pistol and a lead pipe.
  
• (You may also meet at this point a crazy French film-maker who asks you a bunch of strange questions- his entire quirky movie will be a short film in the special edition dvd).
  
• You, the captain, the hottie and your two buddies reach the building's roof- followed by the most amount of bugs you have seen so far. You all barricade the final door as bugs gnaw at the other side.
  
• The Cloverfield monster walks right past you as a wave of air strikes screech overhead. Boom!
  
• You see the chopper and hail it down. As the chopper approaches you'll get to see the creature almost dying -like you saw in the first movie from chopper- and at the last second you will see it attack Hud's chopper. The Creature will turn to you, huffing, and approach, just as the bugs get through your barricade and attack. One of your mates dies- swarmed by bugs.
  
• You hold the bugs off as the others get on. The creature approaches, the chopper starts taking off, you're still on the roof gunning and clubbing bugs. Your best mate in the chopper calls for you- C'mon! There is a razor-thin escape as the bugs leap to attack your chopper, just as you leap over the building's edge to grab it's landing leg. A bug also leaps and grabs your leg! Just as you grab the chopper, the Cloverfield monster hurtles into the building you were on, which you can see perfectly from your aerial perspective, and takes out all the bugs that have just been attacking you for the last 10 mins (except for the bug on your leg).
• The bug on your leg runs up your body and into the chopper causing pandemonium inside the cabin (remember: you're still hanging from the landing beam). The rogue bug attacks the pilot and in the process the chopper is getting closer to the ground (Central Park). It gets closer and closer to the ground as gunfire goes off in the cabin. The commander divesout over you, yelling "abandon vehicle", landing in the trees. You let go soon after and watch the helicopter crash.
  
• You go over and rescue the hottie. And rescue a bag of munitions for good measure. The pilot is dead, and your best mate is trapped in his seat and pleads for you to help him. He has bite marks all over him. You point the gun at him. The hottie tells you- don't. But your mate begs you to kill him. You see the burning of the engine and let the explosion take care of him for you. The hottie (the bag of munitions) and you dive to safety.
• After a quick chat with the hottie for more exposition about how to kill the monster, you find the commander wounded.
  
• The Cloverfield monster limps towards you into Central Park, but stops short at another helicopter crash. It stops right over Hud and bites him in two. We see it in clear and gruesome detail.
  
• You help the commander get to a protected safe spot, hottie behind you. He apologises to the other two- I gotta do this -and radios in to initiate Hammer Down. They look over and see the creature limp away.
  
• You tell the commander to wait, and give you the chance to plant an explosive inside the creature's puffer glands. He tells you it's no use, he's going to initiate Hammer Down regardless. Then you make a 9-11 reference and tell him that this city has seen its share of devastation, you just need five minutes. He tells you you've got two- Go!
• You actually climb up the Creature's body, onto it's head (your girlfriend calls at this time, but you ignore it) and you cut into it's puffer gland- sticking your hand with the explosive into it. The Creature shakes you off (to a safe distance) and you land in the lake. The screen goes to black.
  
• The cam blitzes back to life- You see yourself crawling out onto the shore with the detonator in your hand. And the creature in the distance. Breathing heavily you say something witty before clicking the detonator. The Creature goes boom, and the explosion expands out in all directions. The shock wave hits you and the screen goes to black again.
• It comes to life seeing your blackened face. "There ya go. (exhausted) Gotta keep rolling..." You put your helmet on and walk towards the Creature's ground zero. Then a piece of meat falls near you. Then another. And suddenly it's raining meat- ala the exploding whale- (American ingenuity at its best).
  
• You run for cover which just happens to be the collapsed bridge Rod and Beth are now trapped under. When the meat rain stops you hear a whimper and realized someone's trapped under there. You rescue the two- they're okay, but their camera's busted.
  
• Your phone rings and it's your girlfriend. We hear him try to explain his way out of why he didn't answer her last call when she just tried ringing him (he was on the Creature at the time). Credits roll over this conversation.
• (UPDATE) After the credits have rolled we look over to see a fallen building from the Creature's blast. From out of the rubble a now enormous Jamie-Monster gets to its feet, gives a big Godzilla roar to the sky and disappears into the streets of Manhattan. (For an explanation to this read my post below)
  

And that, in ridiculous detail, is what I think will happen in the sequel. :)

Now a short review...

Cloverfield, for me, was the B-movie I never knew I was waiting for all my life. As much as I realise it's bad, (paradoxically) I can't fault it for being everything I want it to be. It's an extra-cheesey creature romp set in the only place it can be set in- New York- and it is the closest thing I've come to getting a computer game experience on the big screen. To break it down: Blair Witch + Godzilla = Brilliant Rubbish. Recycled rubbish at that. Cloverfield is so perfectly generic and profoundly cliched that there's a respect I am going to have to give to it when I call it a modern-day classic. And yet, at the same time, it's completely disposable. I hate myself for loving it as much as I do, but I can't help but love it. What a fun ride.

Personally, I can't wait for the slew of home-made Cloverfield short films that will be done by all the Star Wars fans that now have nothing to do. Go on, fellas. You know you want to.

M

GAME POST-MORTEM - Half-Life:Episode One

--------------------------------------
MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW!
--------------------------------------
















HALF-LIFE 2: EPISODE ONE POST-MORTEM

This feedback is dedicated to HL2:EP1 and is divided into five sections.
(Episodic Content, Character Relationship, Weaknesses, Strengths, HL3).
FYI: I have completed EP1 along with all other Valve products.



EPISODIC CONTENT
Even though Half-Life has already been episodic with it expansion packs and the sequel, it's first formal episodic content has delivered brilliantly. Well done.

But as exciting as this new step forward has been for the HL franchise, my only concern is what side effect being formally episodic has to its content. Particularly in regards to innovation. Whereas true sequels require innovation, formally episodic content can fall quickly into a steady pattern of only meeting a perfunctory list of basic criteria, and little more. For example: each new episode of any episodic content (of any franchise) will need to deliver on a set of basic requirements to make it a valid and worthwhile iteration of the series (and purchase for the customer):
- A technological tweak (HDR Bloom)
- A new enemy (Zombine)
- A new weapon (flares)
- A memorable experience (Being thrown across the chasm)
- A reveal of the greater plot (Destruction of the citadel)
- A teaser for the next episode (A glimpse of the Hunters)
- All our favourite characters (D0g, Alyx, etc).

HL2 obviously delivered in all these areas. It was not an advance in terms of leaps and bounds from what we have seen before, but it was a sure and steady single step forward. Opposing Force on the otherhand, a mere expansion pack, went far beyond what Episode One did in the context of the above criteria. (And was hailed accordingly).

However this seems to be the true role of episodic content, to dole out the excitement of a franchise in measured steps leaving the role of innovation to the mod community and its official sequels. Is this measuring down also a watering down, or does the industry work better for a franchise in more manic bursts? Time will tell.

Personally I was hoping for one of two things: either a stronger story-driven game, or more new content to compensate. It should be said here that, in my opinion, the atmosphere and experience of HL2 was very satisfying when valued at its parts, but I couldn't appreciate it in the context of the whole because I felt there was a lack of story telling prowess that the first Half-Life excelled at. I go into this later (under the section Weaknesses). So even as I still had a geat time playing both HL2 and EP1, it did end up being a series of exciting events, rather than a cohesive whole experience. For example, being thrown across the chasm was a fun idea, even if the "roller coaster ride" that came diretly after it seemed a tad corny, but essentially this was part of what you paid your 20 bucks for. The other reason was to battle some new enemies and gain more insight into the story left behind from HL2, which had left me with more questions than answers.

This really is enough to sustain episodic content, but the player will always know that any dramatic improvement to the engine, or even gameplay, must come from a completely new game, like HL3 for instance, and not the episodes following HL2. I personally believe you will successfully reach EP3 before players tire from the abscence of anything substantially new (beyond the above mentioned criteria at least) and start moaning for HL3.
The fact is though, that's exactly what I hope you do.



CHARACTER RELATIONSHIP

If you were to read only one section in this letter I hope it is this one, as I think this is the area you place most importance on when crafting a game, and it is what I'm most concerned about when playing a game. It might not be what attracts me to a game to begin with, but it's certainly what keeps me there.

It's true that you reinvented character relationships in the FPS genre with the original Half-Life by using the rudimentary stay/follow command, not to mention the clever use of the NPC's idle banter and their recognition of you as a person in their world, but you certainly accelerated the idea in HL2, and refined it even more with EP1.

You may be slightly disappointed to hear that my greatest character relationship experience during the entire HL story arc was actually from your first game. You may be further disappointed to hear that it was also an experience unintended by your designers. It happened about half-way through the original Half-Life story where I had to get to a main elevator that led me to the surface. The areas just before this had several stranded or hiding scientists scattered here and there and I took it upon myself to rescue these people, each and every one of them, from all of the areas I had access to at the time. I ended up with a group of eleven people behind me. 7 scientists and 4 guards.

It was a great feeling to feel in charge of a group whose safety I was responsible for, and who were trusting enough to follow me and, in the guards cases, even to lend a hand. I had to organise them in stages by grouping them in safe areas while I cleared the area ahead. I also felt a bond with these people, like I was really helping, and I imagined what it would be like if they were bantering with each other, becoming friends and enemies within the group, and each one acting on whatever strengths they had to help- like in classic disaster movies. The opportunity to have real drama in this circumstances was clear. At the end of my rescue adventure I reached the elevator hoping to bring them up and lead them to safety, but alas this never happened because it was never intended for me to rescue them in the first place, let alone all of them. I was hoping that by rescuing a total number I would be rewarded by them returning with back-up, perhaps during a tough boss fight, or even to activate something that would grant me access to a secret area, or make my progress easier in some way. This experience, although unintended, was the most compelling character-based interaction I felt during the entire HL series. It may be of interest to you that I felt the same type of emotional bond in the PS2 game, Ico, only much much deeper.

The kind of emotional bond you're trying to achieve for players with Alyx is not only very different to this, but I'll assert: impossible. The problem with Alyx is that you're not really helping her. She can look after herself. When you do "help" her reach a switch to open a door, you're actually helping yourself. She doesn’t really enter into the player's "need equation". The player must care about Alyx's safety before we can even start thinking of Alyx as a real person (in the context of an action-themed adventure).

The other game, besides Ico, that had a strong character relationship for me was Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. In this game the Prince would bicker to himself about what an ingrateful and annoying woman his female counterpart is (when she wasn't there of course) and that she needed to be tamed like all women, and then he would drop his chauvenistic bravado and admit that he admired her in some way, and then snap himself out of it. Beyond being a hilarious insight into the character's mind, the believable relationship that slowly built up between the two created a relationship that you soon became emotionally attached to, and then wished to preserve in how you played the game. Being a well-scripted, well-paced and well-acted unfolding of events allowed for most of this emotional work to be done for you however. Essentially, the player was forced to follow the motivation of the character they played, not their own, but how much you wished to do this was determined by how much you were affected by its story.

The Prince's love interest, Farah, was very much like Alyx in her tone and temperament and is closer to the type of relationship you're aiming for with Alyx and Gordon. The main problem in creating this kind of relationship though is that Gordon isn't actually a character. He's a ghost without personality, or expression, or voice. Essentially, he is a gun with eyes, and because the gun element isn't valid when relating to Alyx we can simplify it even further: Gordon Freeman is merely a floating set of eyeballs. Period. To ask the player (Gordon) to have a relationship with Alyx is weakened by this degree of minimalism because all a floating set of eyeballs will do is look at what it likes and dislikes and approve or disapprove. And that's as far as the relationship can go. Fairly superficial, really. This may explain why a lot of players approved of Dr Breen's lab partner, Judith Mossman, over Alyx because of simple physical preferences. Eyeballs, it seems, are rather fickle.

So how do you solve this?

I have some suggestions in the last section (HL3) for advanced solutions, but in practical terms (particularly with the limitations of episodic content) my key suggestion is to think like a woman.

Put yourself in Alyx's shoes: Imagine the guy you were interested in wasn't giving you any of the kind of attention you really wanted from him. He's distant. Cold. He has never touched you with his hands, even though you've hugged him. And as much as you try you can't get a word out of the guy. So you do the only thing you can do: You make him jealous.

Why not make Alyx fall in love with another NPC? Anyone but you. Make her new sweetheart a pathetic, but endearing peacenik. An emotionally sensitive guy (everything you're not) and who is a mouthpiece for the soul of the resistance (another thing you cannot be, since you have no mouth), yet he is conflicted with himself because he detests violence (Okay, you hate him). And then engineer events so that, not only do you bear witness to the blossoming of this forsaken love, but you are put in a position where you actually have to protect the guy you now hate. Ha ha ha ha haa… Have Alyx choose whether to go out and help her fancy pants new boyfriend, or to stay on and help you- And get her to choose him. That's got to hurt. But why stop there? There is so much more you can do with this new guy. At the end of the game, kill him, just after the player has approved of the couple, and even begins to like the guy. Be cruel. It works. And in doing so the player is now more emotionally closer to Alyx because they've experienced a wider range of emotional with her. It requires a stepping back in order to move further forward.

Personally I was never truly emotionally invested in Alyx, or her father (even though I had many fond memories of the tv show- Benson). But I did get very emotionally invested in the plight of the citizens of City 17, which made me disappointed that there wasn't an emotionally satisfying conclusion to their plight at the end of HL2. On this point, I also was very opposed to the way these citizens were used as cannon fodder during the game. It cheapened the experience of fighting with them, knowing they have been assigned to my squad with the pre-arranged purpose of dying in battle. This also obviated any emotional response I could have had to them. At least when I rescued those 11 people in the original Half-Life I could be happy knowing I left them alive.

Even though I expected casualties with the citizens of City 17, I didn't like being put in a position where I had to use their lives in order to preserve my own. I realise the scenario in HL2 is that of a civil war, but I wanted to know the people I fought with longer than a transition between chapters. I wanted to know their names, form opinions about them, to remember them next time we met and appreciate their different personalities. And I wanted to ensure that the people who fought with me all survived. Just as I felt during my experience of rescuing the group of 11 scientists and guards in the original Half-Life.

As an example of this in play, imagine there are 4 citizens of City 17 whom you've given names to. Tom, Dick, Harry and Rosanna. If you choose to, they can fight with you during the entire game, right to the end even- if you can ensure their survival. They all have specific dialogue that is recorded for this perfect-score scenario, enhancing the story without being crucial to it. There may even be a specifically orchestrated scene in which one of them dies (Dick) or close to it, simply for drama's sake. But this is a scene that a player, who hasn't bothered to preserve their lives, obviously wouldn't see.

If any of these four dies they are replaced by a no-name stand-in (like the current citizens of City 17) who spout their regular occasional phrases, and the rest of the game is played in this way. If you're a fun junkie you'd lose your core team in the first few battles and the big explosion at the end will be enough to satisfy you. If you're into being immersed in the experience then you'll see that your team survives to the end, and the emotional reward is the enhancement to the game that you've worked to achieve.

WEAKNESSES

The story of HL2 and EP1 both suffer from a disunity of ideas. To explain what I mean by this phrase I'd like to refer to the original game, Half-Life, which had a strong unity of ideas. In the original HL I was introduced to its world (with a train ride) so that I could have a strong understanding of how much things will have changed after the disaster. This meant that I had a contextual starting point to work from. I then made my way through what was causing the disaster, and finally to it's source. It is a clear journey, and the elements along the way make sense to each other, and even strengthen each other in their interactions. I start at one world and end at another, but the elements between make it clear why.

The story of HL2 and the Episode One lack this clear exposition of ideas (and events). It's as though I started reading a book half way through and put it down before I got to the end. For example:

When I arrived at City17 I soon realise it has been invaded and subjugated by the Combine. The problem is I have no idea what it looked like before, so I can't have any emotional response to what it looks like now, apart from my immediate response. Nor do I have much response to what happens to it from this point on. The same applies to its citizenry. I am compelled to help them because they are clearly oppressed, but I don't know what they've been through, nor how much they've changed, nor even who they are as a people. This helps support what I mentioned before about creating a bond with the people you fight with. If more of the NPCs could have been given more lasting personalities, instead of being disposable, it would have provided an excellent opportunity for story exposition and the evolving emotional ties which would have helped deepen the experience of the game.

From the perspective of Gordon Freeman the world of HL2 seems like an alternate reality. I don't know if the Ant Lions are part of this world, or part of the Combine's world, or even if they are related to the incident at Black Mesa. I've never seen the Ant Lions before, even on Xen. Does any character in the game ever explain where they come from?

Another story element that passes without explanation is the dried sea bed. I don't know if this was a result of Black Mesa, the invasion, or global warming.

Essentially, the HL2 and EP1 story elements are floating around without relation to each other. Each element is cool in their own right, but they're not working together. It makes for a great game, but tough to write a story with an engaging narrative.

It's ironic that HL2 is set in a European city, because it provides a wonderful metaphor to encapsulate my overall impression of the HL2 world: It comes across as foreign, and at the end of the day my experience of it is that of a tourist, not a resident. This is the crucial difference between my enjoyment of the original HL, a game that is one of my top five favourite games I've ever played, and HL2, a game that was a stunning achievement, a wonderful and thrilling experience, but just not as emotionally gripping as the first.

(Judging by one of Alyx's anecdotes, the world of HL2 could very well be an alternate reality: Just as I was about to crawl into an air vent, Alyx spoke about how "some days" Dr Kleiner, Barney and I (Gordon) used to race each other into an empty office room via air vents and other means. This never happened. I didn't spend a single day at work with either Barney or Dr Kleiner for this to be possible. The Black Mesa incident happened on my first day on the job. What exactly was she talking about?)

STRENGTHS

I've definitely been very honest in my feedback. As honest as I can be. But I also hope I've been fair, and not harsh. The strongest thing I can praise about HL2:Episode One is that it's more of the Half-Life 2 that I've enjoyed so much in the past.

Or to put it another way, it's more of Valve. The quality of this product is incredible, and Valve has never let us down. Not once.

My personal favourite moments during Episode One are:
When I saw my first glimpse of a Hunter.
When I saw the beautiful pulsating sphere that was the Citadel's core.
Being thrown across the chasm by D0g.
After the crash in the Stalker train.
Seeing the advisors close up as they were being evacuated in their escape pods.
Watching the citadel collapse at the very end.
Blocking antlion hives with car bodies.
The list goes on and on. Each scenario had a signature of cool. It was exciting, tense, and fun. Everything we've come to expect, but with a little bit more.

HALF-LIFE 3

In HL3 I want it to open up to a very blurry image of Gordon. He moves his glasses into frame and puts them on. We see ourselves as him looking into a mirror. We get closer and see the detail of our face. Our hand wipes over our eyes and rests at our beard, scratching it. The face is war weary and heavy with emotion. Gordon says: "You look like shit". We turn a little to see behind us the G-man. The mirror shatters. The room fragments. White light fills the space and we are now hurtling fast through a dark void. We look down at our hands. We see our body, slowly spinning in the air. The player gains control. Pieces of the room float around us. We are drawn to a powerful light. We come to our senses in a steel room. The G-man sits opposite us, "Hello, Mr Freeman". We look down, we are strapped to a chair. We listen, and wait.

Basically I would like Gordon to have a body, and therefore a real-world presence. I want to be able to feel like I really am Gordon Freeman and that when a player hugs me (like Alyx did) it actually means something in relation to the player. Or when I'm on a thin ledge I want to look down and see where my feet are and how close I am to falling off it. I want to push open doors, pull levers, type in codes- with my hand. Even to have Gordon's shadow be cast over the keyboard, or lever, or door handle, that I am operating.

Let's say I'm in a thin corridor and Alyx is just ahead of me. My gun automatically drops when my crosshairs go over her. I get closer- within touching distance. My hand touches her back and she then presses against the wall knowing that I want to pass. And I pass.

To continue the example, we reach an open room. I stand infront of a console that she needs to get to. I'm facing the console. She turns me around by my shoulder and says, "Excuse me, Gordon, but I need to operate this thing." I stand there confused, not sure what she wants me to do. She pushes both her hands on my chest, politely pushing me backwards, out of the way.

Stuff like that. The Namco game, Breakdown, has begun this trend. What this would mean to the implausible idea of Gordon carrying around his entire arsenal is another thing entirely. Personally I think the character elected gun limit is a proven idea, thanks to Halo. Imagine the gravity gun has been modified into a glove. This would allow for, say, a three gun limit (plus grenades) to envigorate the combat experience. When the ammunition is out the default becomes your hand/gravity gun. I like the notion of carefully hanging on to particular weapons, and using Alyx to hold two of my less used ones. This creates an extra dependency on her and keeps things believable. It also provides excellent opportunities for drama when Alyx is separated from me and I'm left with my minimum number of weapons to survive.

And, yes, I want Gordon to speak. Not a lot, but enough to know his personal motivation.

This begs the question however: If Gordon is a full-bodied, speaking, thinking individual, then is this still Half-Life? Or is it an altogether new product? Can the fundamentals of HL evolve with the game's success and still maintain the integrity of the original product? I believe it can. Obviously there are some lines that can't be crossed, for very specific reasons, but I believe the ability to speak does not harm the experience of the game, but enhances it. In fact, it would make the balancing act between story-telling and the action that much easier. Afterall, the in-jokes of Gordon's silence can only stretch so far.

I would also like my second monitor to be a complimentary screen for the action happening in the game. To explain: As I'm playing the game on one monitor, in first-person, on the other monitor I can see a variety of related images. These may take the form of: a roving camera (as if an invisible movie director is filming me); or seeing through the eyes of another character that I send off to get help (like D0g); or it could be a map of my surroundings; or the view from my recently-fired guided missile, etc, etc…

I'd like to be able to drag this view into my main screen as a smaller HUD window (on my suit's visor, if you will)- because I also want people who don't have an extra screen to enjoy this concept. My reasons for requesting this extra screen for the action primarily comes from the need to identify myself as a character existing in and interacting with the HL2 world, and to also act as a constant visual reminder of who I am, what I'm doing and why I'm there in the first place.

Secondary to the reasons for this request are the possibilities it opens for new types of gameplay. With a second screen at my disposal obviously teamwork can be incredibly enhanced. Timing your actions to the other characters behaviour. Even using the map to assign the other character/s to new locations. Or even... to hack a Combine security system and use the sentry guns and other equipment against the Combine soldiers allowing you, by proxy, to navigate Alyx safely through the building. (This is an idea stolen directly from one of my favourite Amiga games: Interphase).

I'd also like to see the ragdoll physics on humans less like a ragdoll, and more like a human. For instance when a Combine soldier dies they fall to the ground in an immediate and discracefully floppy spectacle. I'd like to see a gradation of control if even over a second or two between the point of zero health and the time they hit the ground. I'd also like to see them maintain some elastic tension of their limbs that can keep them in a relatively believable position once limp. Too often I see the bodies of the Combine twisted in positions that are simply not believable, and therefore breaking the illusion of the moment.

It would be wonderful to see the Combine get hurt and limp away, retreating to a med-unit. (Afterall, they were put there for them. Weren't they?) To have the Combine work as a squad more, like the marines did in the original. This was incredibly challenging, and very rewarding when successfully defeating them. Even if the Combine can convert humans to their ranks, it would still make for very interesting combat to see the Combine rescue their wounded.

It's very difficult, extreeeemely difficult for me to stop writing down these ideas, as you have probably already noticed, but I'll fight the urge to continue and stop here.


Gabe, for me to write as much as I have should be an excellent indicator to how much I appreciate and admire your work. Thank you for providing us with such a wonderful experience.

My highest regards,
Mat Brady

GAME REVIEW ADDENDUM - Resident Evil 4

This following letter was printed in Hyper Magazine (Issue 141)

Consider this a Reader's Addendum to your Resident Evil 4 review…

By now you should have bought the higher-priced Collector's Edition of RE4. (How the only edition available can be called a "Collector's Edition" is beyond me, other than to squeeze an extra ten bucks out of every copy). You should have either played a long way through it or completed the game and possibly gone onto a second round (like I did to see what the guns maxed out are like- not much different).

RE4 is a good game executed brilliantly, but does this make it a great game? Even though it's touted as a radical new improvement for the RE series the art still outshone the game design in leaps and bounds. Don't be fooled by the gorgeous attention to detail and the stunning animation and environments, they are all there to distract you from the glaring inconsistencies of the game. I loved playing it. It was fun, but in the end, it was as pointless as its story. Collecting the Red, Blue and Green gems to complete a "puzzle" or to angle the mirrors so that the light hits the switch to open the door is so very very old now, (four games old to be precise) and for a game as realistically gritty and "Mature" as RE4 this clunky Red Blue Green game design is not just a bad fit, it's a kludge. (Look it up).

Somewhere along the way you will ask yourself, how is it that axe-throwing zombie-esque villagers carry around boxes of ammunition? Why do the robed clergy of RE4's creepy creepy cult carry incendiary grenades, yet fail to use them while they lumber up to the barrel of my shotgun? Why do security doors open up when I take a precious item from its secured place? (Last time I checked that's when security doors close).

Or most of all, how can the Merchant that you buy all your new weapons and upgrades from even exist? With all these murderous villagers and cult members everywhere, how does he survive? And moreso, how does he get from where you just left- to where you've just fought tooth and nail to get to- before you did??? The gaps of logic are as horrific as the games content and destroy so much of the atmosphere and suspension of disbelief the art team went overboard trying to create.

To regain the tension and drama promised of the term "Survival Horror" I would have opted instead to lose the Merchant entirely, and with it all the gold in the game (since there'd be no merchant to buy from anymore). Definitely lose the way these simple peasant villagers drop unimaginable amounts of convenient items for you. There are far better ways to drop ammo in a game than this. Please. Also, I would have had more Creepy Cult and less Hi-Tech Laboratories. Did any of the reviews even point out how mindless zombie peasants could have the presence of mind to use electronic key cards and high tech genetics equipment, but then be stupid enough not take cover when you're shooting a machine gun at them? If you want to scare me, Capcom, I mean reeeally scare me, then have the story and game design make some sense at least. For example: It would have been great if you had a 2 gun restriction (like Halo) and Ashley (the girl you are rescuing) was used to carry any extra guns or equipment- then she would have replaced that horribly intrusive inventory screen. The effects of this to the gameplay would have been a much better fit- The more you load on the poor girl the slower she would walk. Asking her to follow you gives you access to more weapons, but also puts her in more danger. So what do I do? Survive on little and play it safer, or risk Ashley's life and get through it easier? These are almost ethical questions! And this is precisely the level of mature game design that needs to be asked of the new generation of games these days. Not the tired standard of being able to pause an enemy mid-attack to go look in an imaginary briefcase of weapons for a more appropriate one. Or at the very worst, asking the player to collect a red gem, green gem, and blue gem, and insert them into holes conveniently gem-shaped. What condescendingly pointless shite. Christ almighty, Capcom, don't be afraid to grow up a little bit, will you?

Now don't get me wrong, if I want fun RedGreenBlue game design then give me Zelda:Wind Waker any day. I'd argue that even it had more sophisticated game design than RE4 does. But if we're talking a new generation of survival horror for the growing main-stream market then for all the great innovations RE4 did have (like context-sensitive areas, etc) overall it still falls embarrassingly short of the mark. Perhaps we will only see a true reinvention of the series when a good game executed brilliantly isn't reviewed as a great game.

.

M

.

.

.

Hey M,

.

You raise some good points, but we can't help but think that Resident Evil is the wrong series to start demanding more mature game design and logical consistency in. For us it just doesn't matter that the villages are full of weaponry, ammo and life curing herbs, nor that the Merchant couldn't realistically get to his shop locations. They're just devices to keep the game flowing smoothly and work wonderfully in that context. By your logic healing yourself with herbs isn't realistic so Leon should only have one life bar for the whole game. And stepping in a bear trap should cripple Leon and not allow him to go any further. That just wouldn't be fun.

.

We do like your idea about having Ashley carry your excess weaponry, however, and certainly the obtuse puzzles could definitely be improved, but RE4 is first and foremost a game about atmosphere and intensity and we think it does this particularly well. You're meant to switch your brain off and enjoy it!

.

Moving away from RE4 though, there's certainly a case for more believability in games, but it must always be balanced against ensuring the title is fun. Games have linear storylines for a reason (as infuriating as that may be), and they let you get shot a bunch of times without dying for a reason. There is hope, however, for change and maturation, and many developers are aware of the need to break free of these artificial devices. David Perry outlines some of these things he'd like to see on page 38 for instance, and a game like Half-Life 2 (although constrained to many of the conventions of the genre) built in physics related puzzles as an intuitive part of the game world, as opposed to the inanity of "find the red key for the red door" type game design.

.

Cam Shea, Editor

.

.

.

Cam missed my point a little. Adding realism doesn't mean getting caught in a bear trap and staying there. That's not my point, but RE4 could have easily implimented some realistic solutions in place of their old ones (which have been inherited from their previous games from as way back as 1997). By doing so would have only made the game better. I'll also add that it would have been more appropriate to the extraordinary effort their art team went to.

My main point can really be summarised as so: Good game design doesn't invent solutions that are preposterous to the reality of the story for the sake of retaining fun. This is a kludge. Good game design invents solutions that stay within the reality of the story, but do exactly the same as the old game devices do, only better since they are in context with the events of the game. There is no compromise on the fun, or the story, when game design solutions do exactly job as those in 1997, only more intelligently/creatively/both. When I see so many of the old devices still being used in games it tells me loud an clear that for all the bells and whistles, there really isn't a lot of creativity in the games industry.

.

Prince Of Persia is a terrific example of good game design. The dagger of time is clever as a story device and game device which creatively and intelligently solves many of the kludges of the old game genres Prince Of Persia stemmed from. In fact, its harmonisation and reinvention of the platform, adventure and fighting genres makes me believe that good game design ignores genres. And why wouldn't it? Afterall, the term "genre" is really just another word for mold, and the purpose of molds are to create imitations. So what is the most common trend in games development? Imitations. But when someone creates a game with genuine innovation, what do the critics proclaim? That X developer has created a new genre. And so what then does the industry do? That's right... make imitations.

.

We need to destroy our genres.

.

(It's an easy prediction to see that in a few years there will be a much larger number of independent games developers who will act as the mad scientists of the games industry. Their role is to innovate on low budget titles (ie. taking all the risk) mostly with proprietory software (mods) while the major games developers immitate the most popular of these indie games in big budget titles (ie. taking no risk, making all the money and giving no credit to the people who came up with the original idea). Re: Gish and Loco Roco.

.

.

GAME REVIEW - Gish

GISH

I enjoyed this game a lot, but I enjoyed the idea more. It was terrific to see such a good idea taken to the next level with Loco Roco on the PSP.

Loco Roco has that friendly Zelda: Wind Waker art style about it that you can't help but smile as you play it. Loco Roco has definitely lived up to the idea that was obviously inspired by Gish, even if the Gish creators weren't able to, however that may be more to do with budget than anything else.

But still... there was something very cool about the nasty ball of tar that was Gish. Perhaps it was the way his eyes stayed perfectly level with the ground as his body moved around him. Or maybe it was his perfectly white fangs. Who knows? Gish was just such a damn cool character that I couldn't help but do some fan art for it (which is very rare for me indeed) ...




I enjoyed playing as Gish so much that I was also inspired to pitch in some suggestions for the game...

















Unfortunately even with the pictures to help them they couldn't understand the ideas I was trying to get across. They saw suggestion 6 and thought I meant balancing on their heads was how you killed your enemies, which they pointed out was already in the game. Er... yeah! If only they read the little yellow writing I had with each image. Oh well.

GAME POST-MORTEM - Fahrenheit

--------------------------------------
MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW!
--------------------------------------
















FAHRENHEIT POST-MORTEM

My overall criticism has more to do with the general perception of what the game was reviewed as ("A Next Generation in the Adventure Game genre") rather than the game itself. Since I felt the Adventure genre was almost a dead, and then to see Fahrenheit gain such high praise from reviews raised my expectations into thinking that Fahrenheit would be a complete reinvention of the idea of an Interactive Movie/Adventure Game. In some ways it was, and in very brave ways as well, but it wasn't a complete rethinking of the genre. Some elements within the game still remained true to the old generation of point & click adventures, and sadly these came across as very dated, and even out of place. One example that stood out more than any other was finding batteries to put in a radio, and then to fashion a bit of wire as its antenna. I found this so 'old school' that it made me wonder what the reaction would be from the new generation of gamers who don't know the old point & click style of games. They'd possibly see this as something of a banal chore- something that should have been automated instead of something a player needed to do what was crucial to the story.

From this I concluded that the ultimate motivation for anyone playing an Interactive Movie now days is that the player gets a chance to alter the flow of the story. I'll concede that sometimes finding objects and putting them together is required as part of the story, and in some examples of Fahrenheit this really worked, like mending your wounds infront of the bathroom mirror or hiding the evidence before the police came into my apartment. These were engaging and complimented the story perfectly. But finding batteries for a radio, or a bottle of alchohol and some glasses in the kitchen for my ex-girlfriend, not only burst the illusion of being in a movie, but dragged the pace of the game's story down to a crawl. The only places where this type of very slow 'old-school' play fitted well (and has always fitted well in many games before it) was during the crime scene investigation scenes- for obvious reasons. However I don't want to simply leave this as a negative criticism, so in the next two paragraphs I've provided a possible reinvention to this old school theme (where it doesn't apply to a "find the clues"-type scenario).

During a game, when finding a collection of items and fashioning them into something useful is necessary (for instance, the character is locked in a basement and needs to escape) instead of picking up everything and putting them into a bag/inventory screen to then piece together later in an environment that is completely incongruous to the game's reality, perhaps this could act as a viable alternative:

The player walks around the room and naturally sees objects of interest. He picks up a curtain rod to look at it. We see a cut-scene of him hitting his captor over the head with it- the rod breaks immediately and the main character is shot dead, returning us to the reality of the basement. He puts it back down and keeps looking around seeing some old goggles. He puts them over his eyes without putting them on fully, throws them down. "Hmph." Keeps looking. The idea here is that the player finds things just by looking at them. He doesn't even need to pick them up. Once the player is satisfied by how much he has "found" he chooses to sit down and think. This "thinking time" becomes the alternative to the inventory screen and would look like the main character sitting in the middle of the room looking around him. The player puts their cursor over the areas of the room where they found the curtain rod for instance, and an ethereal zoomed version of the curtain rod appears. We hear the characters inner monologue: "That curtain rod…" The player drags it to the area where the goggles were. "Maybe…" A small window appears showing the result of mixing them together at the foot of the screen (there is space for three of these windows). The small window shows the character wearing the goggles and holding the curtain rod (and looking rather stupid). Inner monologue, "What am I thinking?..." The on-screen character sitting down then shakes his head in disappointment of himself. The next "thought window" uses the curtain rod to dislodge the gas pipe on the wall. We see this enacted out in the next small "thought window" that the player creates. The idea here is that the player puts scenarios together in his mind and then chooses the ones he wants to act on (and even in what order). The beauty of this is that the player is also the audience and they will automatically assume that the game will do exactly what they tell it to do in the way that they tell it. When the "thoughts" are played out in the game's reality the events could purposefully unfold in a different way, not just for dramatic effect, but to allow the player to think on their feet in a new action sequence. (I've included an alternative idea for action sequences further on).

Another example of how the roots of old-school games had a negative impact on Fahrenheit was a nasty trait of all third person games- Wall Running. It first came to my attention when playing Resident Evil. The game character has a tendency to go into a running animation cycle and drag themselves along the wall. As a joke I would do this for my friends in real life immitating the Resident Evil characters. It's funny because it looks ridiculous and yet every third person game I've seen since still does it. I believe any serious attempt at creating a movie experience must have the game characters moving and behaving in the same way that characters act in movies. In this respect poly count becomes secondary to the animation, provided the animation is always preserving the illusion that these are real people acting and responding in a real world.

The obvious problem here is that as soon as you give the controls to someone they will run the character into a wall. Therefore if players won't give your character the acting abilities they need, you have to provide it for them and put in place whatever restrictions are necessary for this to happen. I like the idea of giving the player 'quarter control', the player has only enough control to guide their character to where they want them to be and to do what they want them to do, but not enough to make them look stupid. For eg. if there is no threat in the area, the player automatically walks everywhere. In large areas he might go into a brisk walk, or even jog if it's open enough, but would never run. When approaching a wall he will stop before he reaches it, perhaps even turning back around, since no-one walks up to a wall and stares at it. The idea is that you are guiding a characters actions, but you aren't the character himself. There could be storylines that could make this make sense (like playing as the character's conscience (or id) but the character himself reacts to their environment as they see fit). On saying all this, I thought Fahrenheits overall animation was brilliant and held up the reality of the characters greatly. The children playing tag in the park was eerily real.

The context sensitive actions to open doors and operate objects were excellent, particularly the movement sensitive elements giving the game a much more tactile and involving sensation. Areas where this worked best was when young Lucas had to climb a wire fence in the army barracks, moving his body left and right as he climbed. Areas where it became troublesome though were doors in general. I found myself mixing up which way the doors opened more often than not (depending on if I was going in or out). I felt the idea was good, but possibly a little to literal or strict as a general rule. In some areas it got quite frustrating when the context sensitive menus would disappear if I got too close to the object I'm trying to manipulate, needing instead to stand a step back most times. Harking back to the animation, each action the player performed seemed very separate, even staggered, but I believe that is because in these areas it was referencing the old school gameplay.

If I had a meta-criticism of Fahrenheit it would be that the game felt like a series of small mini-games linked together rather than a cohesive unified experience. I could almost blame the old school elements for this alone, but to be brutally honest the stealth (mini-games?) sections in the army barracks seemed like a forced addition to the overall game. They didn't have the same allure than the rest of the game possibly because they didn't use any of the trademark action sequences (of analogue stick reactions) that the older Lucas enjoyed. In fact, with the exception of the hide & seek scene, the stealth sections of the game were my least enjoyable moments, since other games have a far more refined version of the stealth in Fahrenheit. Perhaps if there were more than one way to infiltrate the army barracks or if the young Lucas had just as much Analogue Actions Sequences as the old Lucas it may have saved it, but as it stood I was glad to get back to the main game.

I felt the Analogue Action Sequences were really fantastic, particularly the first time I used them intensively- against the giant ticks in Lucas' office. I really liked the feeling I got from having to react so fast. It felt like I was playing Lucas' conscience instead of him. It wasn't direct control, and it wasn't Dragon's Lair, but more like 'quarter control' and this felt right. These action sequences were one of the two main strengths of your game. (The other being the game's story premise- being able to play as the murderer and his pursuers).

My general feedback on these Action Sequences was that the coloured markers were way too colourful, looking like they would be more suitable in a Mario Party Game than a gritty interactive movie. They were also far too opaque when not in use. But aside from this I felt as though the decision to use both analogue controllers may have caused an unexpected problem. Although using both sticks played well, the fact is that to do this you had to display two coloured circles, which I felt cluttered the screen and distracted you from the action. It seemed similar to the problem of games like "Puzzle Fighter" where the players concentration is almost completely on the blocks infront of the image, and the action that happens behind it is secondary- to the point of being almost irrelevant. In the context of an Interactive Movie however, I think it should be the other way around. Seeing the action should take the prime focus, with the players actions being played off to the side. In the example I've created in Flash I've used only one analogue stick for the movement allowing for a space in the centre to watch the action unfold. The idea is that you watch the action in the middle, but you control the action through your peripheral vision. In my example I've used one analogue stick but I also include the analogue button (and a less colourful palette).

The other element I've addressed in my example is the idea at the heart of interactive movies- the ability to alter the storyline. With alternative storylines branching out and coming back to key scenes and continuing on again, I thought about how best to organise this so that replaying scenes to change their outcome is intuitive and enjoyable (and won't require playing the entire game again).

Here is my rudimentary mock-up of the above two concepts (navigating a branching storyline and controlling action sequences using peripheral vision)...

BRANCHING STORYLINE CONCEPT
(Requires Flash) 1MB

As you can see from this crude example, a player could follow their own storyline (literally) and go back and create a new story tangeant from any scene. It also adds as a way to clearly see what parts of the game remain unexplored. The truth is that I couldn't really alter the story in Fahrenheit to the degree that would make it a true Interactive Movie (with the exception of the three alternate endings). What I mean by this is that there are 45 scenes in Fahrenheit and each one will be visited with the same objectives needing to be accomplished regardless of what happened in the previous scenes. Even though it was a nice touch to choose which character you'd play as from scene to scene the actual storyline never changed significantly enough.

When I first started playing I thought about my favourite movie, The Matrix, done as an interactive movie. I imagined what would have happened if Morpheus died before Neo could rescue him from Agent Smith, or if Neo didn't enter Trinity's car, and how that would have affected the tone of the rest of the movie, and ultimately, the ending. It is this range of alteration that I naturally associate with interactive movies. In my opinion it would be better to play an interactive movie with only 15 scenes from start to finish, but with 30 wildly different alternatives behind these, as opposed to 45 scenes from start to finish with relatively few alternatives. The players "fun" being had from the way they can change events. The payoff for doing so being always surprising and engaging. (I also like the idea when the player completes all the scenes that they can choose the scenes they enjoyed the most into their definitive storyline and play through it as a movie in and of itself, say, for their friends!)

Keep in mind that because replaying events for interesting/entertaining alternatives is fun then I believe that being very strict, and even cruel, in regards to the player missing opportunities in dialogue or story during their first game can in fact be very motivating. I'd even go so far as to remove any chance of replaying scenes (or having quick saves) in this first run so as to promote 1. the focus and tension the player has playing the game and 2. the replay value later on. The consequences of the players actions, even in failed situations might not necessarily result in a story arc that is worse than if they had succeeded- just as it happens in real life. The twisting storyline and surprising outcomes would have the player receive a full emotional experience no matter what story arc they happened to be on. The idea that to get the best experience out of a storyline is to have a string of successful situations is "game-oriented thinking". What movie has the main character needing to win all the time? (Neo couldn't replay from a previous save when he failed to jump between buildings and nor shoud any Interactive Movie character) Almost always the tools of turmoil and crisis are used for great drama, and I believe the same thinking should extend to interactive movies also. The only, and obvious, exception to this rule is when the main character dies and the life of the story therefore dies along with him. In this case a replay from a continue point is unavoidable, unless of course the story is crafted in a way where it can give sense to this (for instance, if the player was already dead (like Lucas at the end) and comes to thirty minutes later having to suffer (or be rewarded by) the consequences of his defeat).

(As a quick aside, if there's one thing I love about computer games it's when the game design mechanics are put into contextual harmony with the story. Context. Context. Context. When it's achieved between design and story it lifts the entire game beyond what any one of these factors could do by themselves. For eg. In Prince Of Persia: Sands Of Time the dagger is used to reverse time to replay a nasty fall, or missed ledge. This game design mechanic works perfectly within the context of the story and therefore both are enhanced as a result. Whether game design must bend for the story, or vice versa, it's always obvious when things make sense for one at the sacrifice of the other).

For the player to be forced to accept the consequences of failure during first time play may sound a little too harsh, but the controls are easy enough for the player to know what they need to do the first time around and they've also been supplied a brilliantly entertaining tutorial that they can come back to at any time. So why not make them play it for real? They will always have access to the Scene Select menu once it has been finished. With a clear warning at the start that there are no second chances until the end, it would make for a rivetting glued-to-the-seat cinematic experience.

In almost every computer game I've ever played the universe revolves around the player. It dotes on the player, waiting on their every move. This is absolute fantasy and cripples the thrill of being at the mercy and wonderment of another world or another universe. In real life things keep going no matter if you've kept up with them or not. To have the player work for their time in the spotlight only adds to the excitement. Again, keep in mind that the fun had by the player (beyond playing the game) is replaying the game. I'd even dare say that replaying the game IS playing the game when it comes to interactive movies, but that could be stretching things a little. The idea here is that the show must go on- and that's exciting.

The three different ways Fahrenheit is approached as an interactive movie are:
1. Action sequences
2. Point&Click adventure secitons
3. Real-time dialogue decisions

Out of all three only the first one was truly a next-gen idea, and all three will be open to unique reinterpretations when others game studios take up the challenge of making their Interactive Movies. But even though I enjoyed the real-time dialogues there seemed to be little motivation for making the right decisions. I would have liked to have seen conversations or even relationships have larger impacts from my choices. There's so many different ways real-time dialogues can be approached that it's almost useless writing an alternative, but for the sake of being positive I feel I must anyway:

I believe, like in real life, you don't get all the choices of what you'd like to say straight away because you can't think of all your choices all at once. In dialogue, the first answer that enters your mind is the most instinctual, and then as more come to you they are more refined. So too should it be in an interactive movie. One option would appear, then the next as they are thought of. The character umming and ahhing until they make a decision.

You've also used the real-time dialogue technique to make decisions about real events, like when Lucas accepts the cross or not. I personally disagree with using this mechanic on physical actions as it makes it a little like a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book. I would have preferred instead to see Lucas look down at the crucifix, hands in his pockets, his brother beckoning him to "Take it, Lucas" and in two seconds time if the player hasn't move the stick to the right Lucas would say, "No, I don't need that" or whatever his line was). I have seen this in games before and I prefer it much more than screen prompts, especially as it is more in keeping with the cinematic format. However it did make me think of different ways to approach the same idea. Unfortunately, I used an action sequence to describe it, and for doing so I now consider the following Flash example as a failed experiment…

MY FAILED EXPERIMENT
(Requires Flash) 1MB

It was supposed to provide an example of how a player can be intuitively taken from their actions to a selection screen, make a decision, and then continue into the action (possibly even begin an Action Sequence ala Lucas' battle with the giant tick monsters. By the way, the girl in this example was supposed to be Carla Valenti and the bug in the background was supposed to be the giant tick monsters that Lucas hallucinated in his office, even though Carla nor anyone could see them). Let's move on…

The dialogue sections bring me to the most puzzling element in Fahrenheit- the Mental Health guage. This was a great idea and immediately got me caring about my character (almost like an emotionally-complicated Tamagotchi). I'll also say that even though I prefer no on screen guages or indicators (like Ico) I felt that having a Mental Health gauge seemed entirely appropriate when playing a character in an interactive movie. However, the old school methodologies crept in once again to tarnish even this. The Mental Health guage seemed to simply be a replacement for a health bar rather than used in a way worthy of being included in a next generation adventure game.

To explain- When I replayed Fahrenheit I did so with the specific intent to "break the game" rather than act out a genuinely alternative storyline. I wanted to see what would happen if I made all the wrong decisions. For example, when I first played it I saved the young boy's life from drowning, but during the second time around I let him die. This had no real lasting effect on my character other than a drop in my Mental Health guage and a moment's reflection from my character- "There's not a day goes by that I don't regret that decision." What I would have liked to have seen is my character change his personality as result of his moral choices, whether it be a corruption of his soul or a redemption, but some type of internal change that will affect your characters persona and what that will mean to your role within the story. Maybe then Lucas could have said something like this: "There was nothing I could for that kid. He had it comin'... We all got it comin'."

For instance, at 100% mental health I was "diagnosed" as Normal, but I felt that the guage should go beyond Normal to Confident instead. The motivation for doing so (to put it into context within the game) would have then allowed the character access to situations or dialogue depending on his level of mental health. You wouldn't be able to face up to an enemy with low confidence in yourself. Nor could you garner the sympathetic support of others if were too confident. But moreso, I felt the character should change within themselves. If I let the child near the ice rink die, and rudely brushed off my ex-girlfriend, and killed the cop that came into my apartment, this should mean I cannot access a certain storyline (and therefore a certain ending). The only way around this is if I seek redemption for my misdeeds. Seeking redemption for a bad decision may not sound like something players usually choose to do, but if you were trying to play as a good character and you made a terrible mistake, but couldn't go back to replay it, then chances are you would try to save the soul of your character before the end is through.

Unfortunately, without including any story context for the Mental Health guage it reduced its purpose within the game as simply "something I had to prevent from reaching zero". In this respect it dominated the freedom I had in making decisions during the game, regardless of whether or not I would have made those decisions anyway.

The last thing I'd like to say about the Mental Health guage is that it would have been nice to have seen the emotional status of the characters reflected in their body language. To see them slouch, shake their head and tsk, tsk, at even the smallest inconvenience, or to see them walk with a confident stride, would have added an extra dimension to their on-screen presence and personality.

I hope by now I haven't given you the impression that I disliked the game. I liked it a lot. I found it more inspiring than enjoyable, if that makes sense. However there were elements to it that I genuinely had trouble with, in particular was the in-game camera. The worst time I had struggling against the camera was in Lucas' apartment when I had to find the key before the cop busted down my door, and there was no clue as to where, or in which room, it was. I remember that switching cameras close to a wall got me visually "lost" and I had to sacrifice this moment to replay it. Perhaps if the camera was positioned over the key itself and I simply had to navigate through the furniture towards it would have been the ideal solution. In fact, having the Camera Switch on R1 and R2 switch to pre-set camera positions tailored for each scene would have been preferable as a handy means of escape when visually lost. Also, the camera when controlled by the player was too "springy" and not at all cinematic. Perhaps simply a slower Right Analog camera with a reset to default on Right Analog button may have been a more cinematic approach, instead of "springing back" to neutral. It would have also been nice to have the Pause screen as a first person view so that you could look around to get your bearings and find an exit in a stressful situation (not to mention make for some great screenshots).

Lastly, you lost me with the story. I won't go into detail about this like I did with the other elements of the game, since a lot of the reviews have done this already. But I will say that I would have much preferred to have sacrificed a lot of the surreal enemies and the "end of the world" climax for a more human drama and ending. I believe this would have strengthened the wonderfully told and intelligent human drama the game began with. In fact, if I haven't said it before, the idea of being able to play as a murderer and the two detectives tracking him down wasn't just great story telling and a wonderful premise for a game, but I also count it as a stroke of genius.

Looking through my notes, I have scratched together a generic model of an interactive movie/episodic adventure template where information is the means of exchange and ethics are used within the game design. I was going to write it down at the end here, since it was inspired from playing Fahrenheit, but I fear I've taxed your patience long enough.

I would just like to finally say that Fahrenheit has advanced the ideas of what an Interactive Movie can be and has opened a world of dialogue amongst lovers of the Adventure Game genre.

Kudos to Quantic Dreams for this accomplishment.

Best regards,
Mat Brady

GAME POST-MORTEM - Zelda: Wind Waker

------------------------------------------
MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW!
------------------------------------------
















ZELDA:WINDWAKER POST-MORTEM

Before I begin I need to state for the record that I had never played a Zelda game before this one. Perhaps it was the joy of playing a game title where it had enough inspiration and refinement from its previous games that made me appreciate it so much. Perhaps it was the art style that I've always been looking for in a game, but never realised it until now. Whatever magical element it was that made Zelda: Wind Waker so special it has become one of the greatest gaming experiences ever. With that out of the way, let's begin...

This post-mortem is divided into two simple categories: "What I Liked", and "What I Didn't Like".

I'll get the negatives out of the way first. I was surprised to see there were so many of them for a game I so thoroughly enjoyed. These are roughly organised from the lesser comments to the doozies.

WHAT I DISLIKED ABOUT ZELDA:WW...

I would have liked the chance to learn Hyrulian as reward for playing an obscure side quest, rather than understanding it only during the second time you play the game. (This is a COMPLETE Ico rip-off, btw. In fact, I dare say they ripped off Ico too much. Kudos to Ico for being so brilliant. It remains as one of my fave games of all time). Basically I didn't think playing through the game a second time was reward enough for having played it through the first time. Instead, I would have liked it if I was to go back to playing the game in the reality of having finished it (think Jak2) so that I had the opportunity to complete all the side quests that I may have missed or not known about before defeating Ganondorf. (Let's face it, if you wanted to start the game again, wouldn't you have simply selected Start New Game?) When you complete all the side missions and collected all the maps and basically finished the game to 100% (without the percentage score anywhere - which I actually liked not seeing) THEN I think it would have been cool to play the game again, but as Tetra, sailing on her pirate ship with her crew, completing all the missions that she helped with first time around, and finally to help Link fight Ganondorf. It wouldn't have been as long to play, but it would have been a very cool bonus.

I found that there was nothing really good to save money for. The most I spent my money on was getting Tingle to laboriously decipher all my maps. (He should have said: I see you have X maps in your possession, I'll decipher them all for you at X rupees or I'll do just one for Y rupees. Would have been nice). After Tingles expensive map exercise and purchasing all the interesting items to put around Windfall Island, there really was nothing to do with my money. This is where I would have liked the Personal Oasis to come into its own. It would have been excellent if you get the deeds to this rarely visited island (as the lady says) and it's completely decrepid! :) You spend all your money (at the end of the game) fixing the place up and putting extra rooms on (such as an art gallery for all the sliding puzzle images you complete, or a personal picto gallery for your favourite 4 pictos you've taken, or a spotlight room for a single favourite figurine to stand which you'd pay an arm and a leg for from the gallery owner). The task of making your personal oasis look lovely and special would have not only given you more sense of ownership about it, but it would also make collecting rupees and searching for sunken treasure a lot more exciting- I became disappointed with a haul if it only contained rupees.

The Nintendo Gallery had some annoying featues. The first of which is that you have to travel back and forth to the gallery (with a picto box that can only take 3 shots) to collect all 134 figurines! Assuming you took a successful shot each time, you would have to return to this place at least 45 times, and then individually have to: show your photo, perform Song of Passing twice, view figurine to be able to show the next picto - 134 times! That's way too tedious. And what's the reward if you collect them all? A figurine of yourself on the ship, but don't get too excited, because if you didn't take a colour picto of Aryll with her original dress on in the first play through, then you're unable to collect all of the figurines and you have to reload the first game and lose any figurines you collected during the second playthrough. Ngh. I would have liked it more if the Gallery Owner asked you to take specific photos of particular and difficult targets (let's say 3 per gallery), and on collecting one of these hard to get pictos (let's say a Forsaken Forrest bat), you would gain a third of the figurines from the Forsaken Forest gallery. Once you'd collected all the Forsaken Forest figurines (ie. taken three pictos of specific FF inhabitants) then the FF would gain its best feature, which is, when you activate the figurine to take a closer look at it, you can also activate a small animation of it as well. That would have been awesome. :) (and a lot more fun to accomplish this way). I'd also like to have seen the figurines in toon rendered mode instead of the lit gaussian mode that they have now, or at least a toggle option to look at it like