In task 1 I had to deconstruct the game and analyse the important aspects of it, this included the genres, codes and conventions, selection of content and more. The conclusion I gained from this was that gamer developers will create their games with multiple ways on how to present it, without any one of the five categories I analysed the game wouldn't be as good as it is and maybe wouldn't be around today. From the way the game addresses the player to the codes and conventions, each part has to be done correctly and in a way that the player can understand it and decode it using their inquisitive skills.
Task 2
After I had deconstructed the game I decided to interview my cousin, this was to see if I could draw any similarities between my dissection of the game and his. I showed my cousin the presentation I had created before we began so he could get an idea of what kind of answers he would have to give to help me with feedback. The answers I got can now be compared to the deconstruction I made of the game in the previous task.
Conclusion
The way my cousin deconstructed the game was done in a similar fashion to mine. When I asked him the questions he would try take in what I said and decode the game using my question. There we very little differences in his answers compared to my deconstruction but the part that is different is the way he compared other platformers and used them to examples to explain his answer, I didn't think that Mario could be compared to Crash as one is 2D and the other is 3D but he used good clear examples and I learned even more about how to deconstruct the game. I distinct similarity in our opinions was about how whacky the game and character were. We could both see that the game looked quite unique and vivid in colours and used a humorous character to portray this quirky adventure he goes on.
No comments:
Post a Comment