Week 32, Year 2: Alice's Adventures Off The Map Post-Mortem.

If you’ve been following my blog, you’ll know that for the past 14 weeks I have been working on a project with 5 other Game Art students called Alice’s Adventures, Off the Map. Hosted by GameCity, Off the Map challenges students to use collections from the British Library as inspiration to create interactive digital media. DMU has participated since it began a few years ago as part of the second year curriculum. Game Art students in the past have been very successful and all of us were very excited for the competition. So at the start of February, we were placed into teams, given the brief and cut loose.

In our first team meeting, we began by discussing how we could impress the judges and win the competition. This was our first and probably most severe mistake. Of all the changes, difficulties and decisions I’ll discuss here, I feel this mind-set right from the start was the greatest hindrance to our project. Despite being a team of artists, we felt pressed to create a game. A complete and well-rounded interactive experience. Because of this, all of our early work and decisions were driven by trying to create a game. Something none of us have any experience in. What we should have done is play to our strengths. We should have designed a world first, and then added interactive elements and gameplay. While that statement flies in the face of conventional game design, we are not a conventional game development team. We are a team of 6 artists. It’s a question of priorities and our first priority should have always been simply, create something beautiful.

Of the three themes we could choose from, we picked Oxford, as we felt it was the most interesting. In the first week, I organised a trip to visit Oxford for a day, to gather reference, get a feel for the town and search for inspiration. Hiring a car was expensive and planning it all was exhausting, but it was one of the best things we did. It brought us closer as a team, we had a great time and it got us out of Leicester for a day. I’ve come to really appreciate that a change of scene is absolutely invaluable.

The closest we got to a team photo.

In the first few weeks we also setup a blog. Having a tool to divide the documentation work, right from the start, worked really well. None of us like to write when there's painting to be done, but updating it regularly allowed us to stay on top of it as a team. We found it very useful to keep our tutors in the loop throughout the project and notify them of any changes.

One of the biggest changes that took place was the decision to move from our original 'courtyard, street and river bank' idea, to the 'foggy streets' plan, in an attempt to cut back the amount of assets we'd need to create. While it was a good decision, it was made too hastily. We did need to dramatically reduce the scope of our project, but we did so without taking the time to properly visualize the new idea.

Layout plans. 'Foggy streets' (left) and 'river bank' (right).

Visualization ought to have played a central role to our work, however I feel we severely neglected that critical part of the process. As a team, we didn't take concepting as seriously as we should have and we were too distracted by 'the game idea'. The majority of the early concepts we produced were paintings for the sake of painting. With the exception of a good deal of overpaints, the lack of visual development throughout was another major barrier to a successful final outcome.

I especially missed an opportunity to do more concepting at the start of the project, but as usual it seems I was distracted by technical problems. My primary complaint these past few months has been feeling shackled to the engine. I learned a lot, but being the sole 'engine guy' was quite miserable, especially towards the end. However in hindsight this was largely self-inflicted, as we could have made major improvements in the way we divided the work.

Once a level reaches a certain size, using the usual 'make a list and distribute it evenly' method of assigning assets is inadequate. I learned this too late unfortunately, but it's a mistake I won't repeat. If I were to go back and do it again, I would allocate work by area, rather than by each individual asset. Everyone would be responsible for their section of the level, from concepting through to engine. This would diversify the work load, encourage team members to take pride in the key areas rather than individual assets, and promote seeking help and feedback from one another.

 The Apothecary.

The Lane.

The Streets.

The Alley.

The Florist.

The Garden.

I am left with mixed feelings at the end of this project. As you may have guessed at this point, I'm quite disappointed with our final outcome. We could have produced something of much higher quality, if we had only made better decisions. Our team should have achieved something vastly superior to what we did, but while we all work well individually, for a variety of reasons we don't work well as a group. This has been a monumentally frustrating experience, but I do feel I learned from it.

A small, masochistic part of me wants to go back and do it again, now that I can see all the places we took a wrong turn. But a big part of me is just glad it's over. Still, for next time:

• Visual Development and Communication is pivotal to the success of a project. Concepts should only serve to move an idea forward and improve the project. In future, I'll take this more seriously and ensure that I'm not wasting time with pretty pictures.
• An opportunity for a change of scene shouldn't be missed. We all probably spend too much time behind our desks. I certainly do, so next year I'm going to make more of an effort to visit different places.
• Divide the work up by area, not by asset. I had previously thought that the best way to divide tasks in a group was to delineate the work as much as possible and allocate it based on individual strengths and weaknesses. I was wrong. Next time, I will divide the work by area and not shy away from assigning challenging tasks to team members.
• Encourage and support one another. I think I underestimate the value of positive reinforcement and it's something I could definitely improve. Moving forward I will make an effort to be more encouraging.
• Make decisions based on what will make life easier. Work smarter, not harder. At the beginning of this project, we were all encouraged to create a 3D side-scroller. We chose not to, which in hindsight was probably a big mistake. Had we done a side-scroller, we would have avoided a lot of the problems we encountered.

It feels like I've been working on this forever, even though it's only been a few months. But then again, it's the longest project I've worked on nearly 3 times over. It's been a hell of a ride but if it pays off next year, it'll all have been worth it. See you then.

Week 30, Year 2: Time Lord Resubmission Post-Mortem.

The 'dichotomy character project' was by far my weakest project of the year. Due to poor planning, an overambitious idea, and falling ill, I produced an absolutely atrocious pair of characters. Happily, we were all given the chance to resubmit the project before the end of the year, so I've been working on it in the evenings, in-between writing essays and working on Off the Map.

I decided to drop the second character stretch goal and just focus on getting the one character right. I had limited spare time to work on it, but I wanted to produce something polished all the same. This is also the first time I've used Zbrush for a complete sculpt. As the original model was such a disaster, I decided to totally redo it. I'm quite pleased with the results and it's certainly a vast improvement!

The face and clothes came out well but I struggled with the shoulder piece. I'm aware that amazing hard surface results are possible in Zbrush, but I'm not even close to proficient enough with the software to be able to achieve them. I knew this would be a sticking point for me so I chose to use the original Timelord design, despite it being quite flat and plain.

I would've liked to incorporate more asymmetrical elements and varied materials to break up the character. I feel the main thing that's lacking is complexity and visual interest. I focused too much on tinkering with the DOTA 2 shader, when I should've been painting textures and trying to match the art style rather than the tech stuff.

It was also my first crack at retopology. Surprisingly, it went very smoothly. It's definitely something I will use in the future, so it was nice to get my head around it. But it was a slow process, as the characters modular nature required me to retopologize it piece by piece. 

This also became very time consuming during texturing, as each piece requires a set of 10 maps and masks. As the character was broken up into 8 'components', I had to author 80 of these which slowed me down significantly.

I learned a lot from redoing this project. While the final result is far from perfect, I feel that if I was to repeat the project a third time, I would finally get it spot on.

So, next time I will:

• Use more asymmetrical elements, varied materials and visual complexity to add interest. I should settle on the design, down to the details, from the start of the project.
• Be mindful of the tri-count and how it will be rigged during the design process. I wasted triangles on the hands by modelling individual fingers, which would be rigged using a maximum of 3 bones. I could've also used more triangles to add more interest to the silhouette.
• Don't use a primarily visual project as a technical exercise. I should have ensured accurate anatomy and proportion were in place before worrying about tools and software. This was the root of a lot of the problems I encountered throughout both the original and re-submitted project.
• Plan better. The first time round, the plan was wildly overambitious. The second time round, I wasted time as a result of not planning enough. Had I reduced the number of modular pieces, I would've had more time for iteration and stretch goals.

Week 18, Year 2: Oasis Post-Mortem.

We did it! The project is handed in and completed. First things first, check out the playthrough.

Pretty cool right? We're all immensely proud of it. 4 weeks is a short amount of time and it flew by, I can't believe we're already a month in to 2015. But in 4 weeks, we all feel as though we achieved a whole lot.

We stretched our texture budget to the limit to make this level. We were really keen to hit the cosy atmosphere in our concepts and we knew right from the start that we'd have to make a fair bit of stuff. There are 3 key things, I feel our team did particularly well:

• We didn't scope too large. I'd not heard of this term until a week ago, but something we did almost intuitively, right from the start, was reduce our idea to a minimal viable product. Or at least the 'minimal hand-in-able product'. Then we added stretch goals as the project progressed.
• We didn't waste time and stuck to our schedule. I make a lot of schedules, but rarely do I stick to them, because they're either unrealistic or I take deadlines too lightly. But not this time.
• We communicated well. Through-out the project, communication between team members was excellent. Most importantly, during the crucial early stages, we were all working together on site to arrive at a unified project idea.

No project is perfect however, and this project was no exception. Fortunately, as we initially scoped small, this is mostly a list of things we would have liked to have added, rather than a list of things we wish we hadn't done. And hopefully we will have time to go back and add those things in the future.

Of course, there is also the list of things that remain a bit broken; such as the arbitrarily teleporting doors and the landscape shading issues.

And don't even get me started on light maps.

I'm nit-picking though, overall this project was a great experience. Every member of the team was a pleasure to work with, and I'm full of optimism moving forward. 

This was a fantastic project and I took a lot from it. The task was exciting and an excellent exercise to prepare us for the monster project that's up next...but more on that next week.

Week 11, Year 2: Time Lord Post-Mortem.

As you may have read last week, the final crunch of the character dichotomy project was a painful one and it left a bitter taste in my mouth. At deadline-o'clock, all I could do was breathe an enormous sigh of relief and say "at least it's over".

But while it was a tough project, perhaps the toughest yet, I took a lot from it. Below is what I handed in. Keep reading and I'll elaborate on what went wrong. And right. But mostly wrong.

When the project was set, I made a plan. A realistic, concise and thought out plan. I then proceeded to ignore it completely. Not intentionally of course, but I did not consider the process during planning. I visualized an end result, divided up my time and steamed ahead. This led to a lot of wasted time and undefined tasks, where procrastination starts to creep in.

The bulk of my time was spent modelling. While a lot of time was wasted during this stage, this was where I learned the most. During pre-dev, I decided to model to realistic DOTA 2 specifications. This involved a fair bit of extra work, but as I expected, it was a very valuable exercise and I'm glad I based my project on an existing game with realistic constraints.

Most of the shortcomings that followed were a result of rushing as I ran out of time. Everything from the texturing onwards was extremely rushed and it shows in the final result. Despite my lack of time, I could have mitigated these problems with better prioritization. Specifically, more disciplined prioritization. It seems making plans is one thing, sticking to them is another.

My end of project presentation went better than expected. I was so burnt out, I thought I'd struggle to be enthusiastic but when I took a step back and looked at the project as a whole, I remembered it wasn't all bad. 

Really, it isn't even half bad. Most importantly the concept is strong, and that shows through despite the lack of polish.

Following the presentation, I created a paint over noting the most offensive errors.

Characters have never really inspired me in the same way that environments, props and vehicles have. While things may not have gone to plan this time, hopefully I will carry these lessons forward and the following projects will be more successful.

And I'm excited for the next one. No really, I am.

Week 7, Year 2: Egg Sentry Post-Mortem.

It's been another busy week; the final week of the Sentry Gun project. I'm pretty chuffed with the end result. It detects the player when they get close, it shoots lasers from the right place and it even has a firing sound.

And most importantly, it looks pretty egg-celent.

Final Render in Unreal Engine.

As you may have seen last week, I've been modelling a physical version of my sentry egg in the evenings. Because papier-mâché, Breaking Bad and stress eating, is a nice way to wind down from a day of crying into your keyboard.

OK I'm eggs-aggerating a little, it's not so bad. 

I'm really pleased with my physical model. I'm not sure that modelling board was the best choice of material as it's quite stubborn and doesn't bend easily. I ended up using a lot of superglue but at least it's strong. And the legs even fold in!

Physical Model, made with Papier-mâché and Modelling Board.

But what about the animation? Unfortunately, I ran out of time before I could get it popping open in engine. I massively underestimated how much work is involved in animating even simple objects. 

I also didn't account for inevitable beginner mistakes and the enormously intimidating curve editor.

You might say I over egg-stended myself.

lolwut?

That said, I was determined to have something to show for my hard work. So I got it working in 3DS Max and rendered out a video, which I then turned into this GIF.

Not bad for a first crack at animation. I think it's pretty egg-citing.

I may have spent too long on this.

Even though it was a bit of a mad scramble towards the end, I'm really pleased with this project. I broke out of my comfort zone, tried something new and arrived at a solid result.

While it was egg-sausting, this project was a very valuable eggs-ercise.

Ok that's it. I'm done. I promise. But I'll never be sorry.

Week 4, Year 2: The Cocoanut Grove Bathroom Post-Mortem.

On Thursday 23rd, we presented our finished Cocoanut Grove Bathroom scene. The team was pretty exhausted but we made it through our PechaKucha style presentation with minimal awkward pauses or meanderings. Had we not still been working on the scene the night before, it would have been very good to practice the presentation as a group beforehand, but I'll come back to that.

Our final scene is pictured below. We've yet to receive any formal feedback on it but the reception from our peers has been overwhelmingly positive and encouraging.

The Cocoanut Grove Bathroom, from The Aviator.

I feel pretty good about it now, but on presentation day, this wasn't the case. 

I felt we hadn't got close enough and I was frustrated by all the problems that could not be unseen. Problems that I could fix if I just had more time.

But we didn't have more time and the general group sentiment was 'I'm glad it's over'. It was disheartening to realize that our sense of relief was far greater than our sense of accomplishment. So I promptly persuaded everyone to go to the pub and talk it over...despite it being the middle of the day, in the middle of the week.

You'll have to excuse the photo, it'd been a late few nights!

We deliriously ordered some food and began to discuss the outcome of our 3 weeks of work. In our pub post-mortem, we narrowed down the projects shortcomings to two main weak points. Working independently from home, rather than in labs and prioritization.

The projects greatest flaw by far, was the way in which we all prioritized our work and managed our time. This key oversight has its roots in the initial work delegation at the start of the project.

Rough modularity analysis.

At the start of the project, we used the above image to delegate asset creation tasks. We distributed the work evenly, in a manner we all agreed to be fair. Crucially, each asset was looked at in terms of how difficult or time consuming it would be to create, rather than the contribution it provided to the final scene. For example, a set of cubicles seems easy enough to produce and relatively quick to model but when those cubicles occupy around 30% of your final image; they need to look pretty damn phenomenal!

Conversely, a light switch that contributes less than 1% just barely needs to look like a light switch. I spent around 20% of my asset creation time on making the best light switch I could make. Complete with bolts and finger marks.

In the final still, it's barely more than a speck.

I need to switch on my priorities!

It's not that I didn't consider that no one would see it, it's more a case of not realizing how much I'd need that time later on. Just a week later, the deadline was looming ever closer and I was clawing at every minute to try and resolve the lighting. Which by the way me-from-the-past, affects 100% of the final image.

This, and many other mistakes, may have been avoided had we worked in labs together. Our lack of in-person team work was brought up as the second major flaw in our project, due to the large volume of small problems that overwhelmed us in the final days. We unanimously felt that a great many of these could have been easily avoided had we worked next to each other, in labs, for the duration of the project.

Well isn't that a bright idea...

I realize that up to this point, I've been quite negative. And honestly, that reflects how I felt on the final day. But now I've had some distance from the project (and some sleep), I can look at the work we did with some objectivity.

What we accomplished was just shy of excellent. Despite unfamiliar tools and our lack of experience working in teams, we created a final image that we should all be very proud of.

And it's during projects like these that I learn the most. Projects that push me, frustrate me and force me to experiment. Particularly a task such as this, where shortcomings are so clear cut and irrefutable.

Final comparison.

In the end, I'm glad it's over but I'm glad I did it. Even if looking at it makes us cringe, we're proud of what we created.