It’s with some regret that there’s been a hiatus in my blog entries these past few weeks: this has been due to the fairly frenetic pace of things in my academic and personal life that’s left little room for writing for pleasure. However, the realisation hit me today that… 1) If I procrastinate any longer, there’s a chance I’ll simply lose momentum with the blog-writing and stop; and 2) Given the impending ‘Trumpocalypse’ that looms, I’m probably best to jot down my thoughts while Britain still has internet access.

As ever, the theories component of the course continues to captivate. The last two weeks have seen us explore the issues of Representation, Identification & Identity (Week 5) and Semiotics (Week 6). Sadly, I don’t have the time to delve into any of these fascinating concepts in any real depth; however, I’ll briefly reflect on some of the interesting points that were raised when exploring these topics. A discussion that particularly stayed with me from these weeks relates to the problem posed by a games industry in which many developers are white and male. Speaking of the way in which meaning is created though signs that have different resonances with different people, Kelly spoke of a key problem that exists as a consequence of a male-dominated games industry: the signs that developers embed within their games (that may connote a certain type of meaning for them), could hold vastly different interpretations for people from different backgrounds. This reminded me of the excellent videos made by games journalist, Anita Sarkeesian, who points out some of the specific – and troubling – signs still used within video games today, like the pervasive use of the ‘damsel in distress’ trope. The discussions from these weeks has made me particularly keen on reexamining my own interpretations of signs and the meanings I might take for granted. As I continue to make games, I hope I may question some of my assumptions.

In terms of the games design component of the course, for the last two weeks we’ve focused on art, exploring elements such as the visual design principles and composition basics that one might consider when creating art for games. I found the composition basics especially interesting, where our teacher, Thaleia, explained to us how factors such as harmony, emphasis, rhythm and contrast might be used to make game art more engaging. Thaleia also taught us how to use Photoshop in order to create pixel art, which was huge fun! (Incidentally, the awesome picture that accompanies this week’s post is the handiwork of fellow student, Kaneez! My pixel art was decidedly less impressive…)

Perhaps my biggest piece of gaming news from the last few weeks, however, is related to something that occurred outside of Brunel. As I’ve mentioned in a previous blog post, earlier this year I’d entered a competition called Off The Map run by the British Library in association with the National Videogame Arcade (the NVA). The aim of this competition was to use the British Library’s digital archives in the creation of either a 3D game, a 2D game, or an interactive text based upon the theme of Shakespeare. Back in June, I’d entered a piece of interactive fiction into the competition, expecting to hear nothing, but on October 27th I was invited up to Nottingham to attend an event at the NVA in which I was informed that the piece I’d submitted had been awarded third place! False modesty aside, I was genuinely shocked since the pieces that were awarded first and second place were far more sophisticated than my own. The prize winners (Team Quattro), for example, created a piece based on The Tempest which was jaw-droppingly beautiful and can be seen here. All the same, despite feeling like something of an imposter, it was a honour to spend the night among such talented people and I had a great time!

I’ll sign off here with the promise that in the weeks to follow (providing our world isn’t destroyed) I’ll endeavour to stay on top of the blog! I imagine the postings may become fortnightly, though…