The Cave

Summary The visit to the virtual reality lab was nothing like I what I had expected. I thought it would be more along the lines of the general 3D quality you find in theaters with the basic glasses and I did not realize that such a level of interactivity was possible. I was surprised by the amount of control the person with the joystick and head-tracking goggles had and it was amusing to see the predictable head jerks as objects got closer to everyone’s faces because the experience felt so real. The mapping world with the pottery was undoubtedly the most relevant to the class and I wish we had the time to create our map in the lab. It is unfortunate that the ceiling was not a part of it and that they did not have a back wall but hopefully that is something that can be developed in the future. Inquiry It will be interesting to see how the technology in the virtual reality lab will be applied in the future. To me it seems that it would be particularly useful with the military and schools because the military can train their soldiers without putting them in actual danger and making sure they are qualified and well-prepared, while schools, especially med schools, can recreate the human body or anything they need. I would love to see that technology applied to video games because as immersed as a player gets when they are playing even a simple game like Super Mario on the Nintendo, it would be amazing to play Halo or COD in 3D. The issue with relying so heavily on virtual reality would be that people could become disconnected with reality and there would be even less interactions between people. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see how such technology is being used a few years from now. 1. How was your experience in The Cave and what was the most/least appealing thing to you? 2. Where do you see this technology being used a few years from now? 3. Do you think this technology will become even more mainstream in the future and if so, how long do you think it will take for this to happen? 4. What would be some issues with spreading the use of virtual reality?

Continue Reading

Response Is The Medium

Summary

Krueger argues against the belief that man-machine interaction is limited to a man poking at a machine and provides evidence that supports his claim that there are ways that are more interesting for men and machines to relate. He argues that there is such a thing as responsive environments which break away from the “seated man poking at a machine with his fingers or perhaps waving a wand over a data tablet” (379). He depicts the evolution from its beginnings in 1969 to his current project, VIDEOPLACE.

He starts by describing the technology that was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. GLOWFLOW, created in 1969, was visually successful but obtained a hesitant response because the artist believed it was more important that the environment respond. METAPLAY, exhibited a year later, focused on the issues with GLOWFLOW and the interaction between the environment and the individual was emphasized. PSYCHIC SPACE was used for the musical expression as well as the interactive experience and Maze also focused on the interaction between the participant and the environment. All paved the way for the integration of humans into a responsive environment. His own project, VIDEOPLACE, is conceptual and unites people in different locations within a common visual experience.

One of Krueger’s main points is that the response is the medium. He claims that the “video medium has the potential of being more rich and variable in some ways, than reality itself” (384). He describes the importance of responsive environments and risks criticism from those who believe the response is not as important as the visual appeal. He argues that the “distinguishing aspect of medium is…the fact that it responds to the viewer in an interesting way” (385) so it must know what the participant is doing and has to be able to respond to the participant. He ends his argument by stating that the responsive environment is not limited to the arts. It can be applied in education, offering students an engaging environment where they will be more eager to learn, psychology to study human behavior, and psychotherapy because certain environments can evoke and expand behavior. His concluding statement is that the “design of such intimate technology is an aesthetic issue as much as an engineering one” (389) and we have to recognize this in order to understand what we have created.

Inquiry

After visiting the reality lab, I fully agree with Krueger’s argument. It took me a while to grasp onto the notion that the response was the medium but after reading the various applications he described I was able to understand and thus form a decision on whether or not I agreed with him. I believe fully responsive environments are the future and we are well on our way to creating such technology. The example that I could visualize the most was using it for psychotherapy. It could be used to enable people to get over their fears and it can create seemingly hostile environments without the dangers of real life. It seems that responsive environments are already making their way into people’s homes and in it probably won’t be long before every home has some sort of illustration of this.

An example of the response as the medium is the virtual reality lab. The participant controls their surroundings with the joystick that responds to movement much like the Wii remotes do. They are able to navigate around the platform and when wearing the lenses that control the movements they are able to walk into different areas of the virtual reality, such as looking through the parts of the heart and seeing the other areas. It is all about the environment responding to the movements of the individual and the individual being able to control what happens.

1. Do you believe that someday we will be completely dependent on responsive environments and what are the dangers if that happens?
2. Do you agree with Krueger that the response is the medium or do you believe that something else is the medium?
3. How else can virtual reality be used? Do the pros of a responsive environment outweigh the cons?

Continue Reading

"Web-Based Memorializing After September 11" - Foot & Warnick

Summary Foot & Warnick's paper had a single purpose: "to fill gaps in current scholarship on Web-based memorializing by exploring the online modulation of public and private or vernacular modes of memorializing" (p.73). By developing a conceptual framework (set of constructs between ideas and evidence that can be used in future studies) Foot & Warnick hoped to study a small set of sites and comparitive analyze them and the way they utilized the concept of Web-based memorializing. Like Socolovsky's article, Foot & Warnick focus on the changeability and manipulation of the web medium. They argue that the allowance of the individual to interact, change, and co-create work online in the memorial make web memorials a way for an ndividual to gain a public voice. According to Foot & Warnick, "The Web offers a communication environment in which individuals and networks of individuals can quickly mount sites that are themselves " 'open documents' inviting an unspecified range of visitors (in fact: anybody) to add something of their own" (Geser,1998 section 3, par.7)" (p.77). This point attests to the fact, that unlike physical memorials such as gravesits and memorial services, Web-based memorials provide more opportunities to develop and be manipulated over time (p.78). This, again, enhances the ability for an individual to make their voice heard in ways that mass media does not allow, and in ways that physical memorials cannot. Finally, Foot & Warnick create their conceptual framework from which they are able to analyze the small group of sites they selected. The framework they developed focuses on 7 distinct ideas: 1) the object or focus of commemoration, 2) evidence of co-production, 3) univocal or multivocal based, 4) the speed of the memorial's online posting, 5) how dynamic the memorial is, 6) the memorial's intended audience, and 7) the victims positioning in reality (p. 88, 89, 90). Using this framework, Foot & Warnick were able to distinguish a patter between site developers and the content of the given site. They found that differences between sites created by individuals and sites created by institutions are not clear cut, but that there are suggestions that the sites vary by producer type (p.92). The authors suggest that individually produced sites are created more rapidly following the tragic event than those created by institutions, and that the individually created sites are more open to manipulation and co-production than those created by institutions. From this conclusion, it is obvious that Foot & Warnick intended to provide fellow researchers with evidence to aid them in their analysis of different memorials across the realm of the internet. Inquiry I would like to respond to the evidence provided by Foot & Warnick regarding interaction and co-production of Web-based memorials vs. that of "offline" memorials. Personally, I feel that all memorials in any form are just ways that people cope with their loss, and I find that memorials are a very different way than I would cope. Memorials to me are just that; memories of ones lossed. I now have a new outlook on memorials though, in light of this article and of Socolovksy's article. By changing my perception of memorials as strictly "offline" and based on the heroic or tragic events that occured involving mass amounts of people, I recognize that online memorials have enabled this type of remembrance for individuals as well. While I may not ever create my own online memorial, I think it is an excellent way for people to cope with their loss and to have a place where they can go and reflect on the lives of the deceased. As far as interaction, manipulation, and co production, however, I find this topic to be somewhat disrespectful. I feel that people's need to make themselves a part of another's life is selfish and has no place in the realm of death, grieving and loss. Take funerals for example: a funeral is not a way for the bereaved to popularize or change the life of the deceased, rather funerals are a way to celebrate the life lived by the deceased individual, or individuals. I feel that being able to change online content to better suit one's self disrespects the deceased in the sense that their lives can be defaces by political and social agendas posted online. Examples include hate speech toward terrorists on 9/11 memorial sites, and also gun control advocates on sites that are made to commemorate the lives of the slain students at Columbine High School. Memorials, whether online or off, should be a place to go and simply reflect on the life of a deceased individual, not places where we go and discuss issues related to their death in a socio-political context. Political arenas and forums are a better place for this discussion. I do think Web-based memorials are a good way for people to go and get their thoughts and feelings out, but keep in mind that anyone can access the Web and say anything that they want. For this reason, I feel that death has now been publicized negatively, in the sense that we are leaving ourselves, the bereaved, open to discussion that should not be a part of the celebration of a life once lived. Therfore, in conclusion, I feel that memorials should remain a fixed-content entity and should not be left open to be changed or manipulated by anyone, but rather should be created by the bereaved as an obituary is; to let people know someone has been lossed and if you know that person feel free to leave a comment regarding your reflection on their life and possibly offering condolences to family and friends. Respect the lives of those that have left this world, and don't deface their death by polluting memorials with political and social speech in favor of an ideal or agenda, rather take the example of their death and communicate those ideals or agendas in a different arena, but not in the space of the memorial itself. 1. Do you think that memorials and deaths should be used to gain traction in political fights such as the gun control movement resulting from Columbine or the anti-terrorism movement stemming from 9/11? 2. Do you agree that memorials, online or off, should be a reverant place and that discussion of issues should take place outside of the realm of the memorial, say in a blog or separate arena, yet should still allow evidence from a death to be presented or do you think that death should be kept private and not used at all to progress any agenda? 3. What are the consequences of using digital representations to remember lives of real people that existed in real places? 4. Finally, do you think that it is necessary to analyze memorials, of any form, or is it obvious that they are just ways to remember the deceased and to cope with the loss of them?

Continue Reading

"Cyber-Spaces of Grief" - Socolovsky

Summary In her article "Cyber-Spaces of Grief: Online Memorials and the Columbine High School Shootings", Maya Socolovsky talks about the effects of online memorials on society and our management of grief through these online memorials. Speaking to viewers of online memorials, and to anyone who's experienced loss/death, Socolovsky begins to analyze and explain the effects of online memorials. She quickly starts off by saying that the public desire to monumentalize suggests an anxiety about and an inability to deal with grief (p.468). Emphasizing a resurgence of community and the desire to be heard unanimously in one collective voice, Socolovsky explains throughout her article that online memorialsare places where people can go to accept death, to fill the void of loss, and to even gain "celebrity status" (p.477). These memorials also serve, according to Socolovsky, as archives or storage units of our memory, allowing us to turn over the responsibility of remembering to the "cult of computers"; our mnemonic idols (p.468). Socolovsky continues to touch on various questions she asks of the reader throughout the article, but circles back around in her conclusion by tying in the online memorials of the Columbine High School shooting victims to the ability of internet memorials to fill voids that physical and spatial monuments cannot. She argues that by transcending time and space, online memorials eliminate the silence and absence of death that is created by physicality by way of creating forums that exist for people to discuss collectively about loss (misery loves company) and to share their story with the world, creating a sense of immortality for the deceased, and giving the bereaved a sense of closure and satisfaction knowing that their loved one will be forever marked in history. Inquiry Socolovsky's claim that online memorials fill emptiness or voids created by death or loss is a controversial one indeed. The fact is, no matter what we do on a given day to remember someone we no longer have with us, we cannot wake up the following morning and speak to this person directly, get a response from them, or even physically touch them. As far as Socolovsky is concerned, online memorials are places where one can go and interact with the deceased. Many online memorials through the home site of www.virtualmemorials.com have posts that speak directly to the deceased. While many cope differently, and this is obviously one of many coping mechanisms, in no way shape or form is it possible for the people they are "directly communicating with" to respond. This still leaves us with the absence, or void, of personal interaction. As far as physcially interacting with the deceased; it's not possible. Interactive websites with photos and other simulacra, to also use a term from Socolovsky regarding digital images (p.469) may serve a great purpose as far as remembrance, but don't enable us to interact with the deceased individuals. Though a void may be filled by being able to see an image of the deceased, the fact is that they are still deceased and we cannot truly see them, not in the real. Thus, we are again left with a void of being able to personally interact. Though Socolovsky is correct in saying that online memorials fill some void, they do not fill any void different that that filled by physical memorials, photographs, personal memories, or stories told by other family members or friends. Online memorials are not a place to escape ghosts or absence of an individual as Socolovsky suggests, rather they are simply just another way to cope with the loss of someone near and dear to the bereaved. For this reason, online memorials will continue to pop up, espeically as those around the world continue to grow more and more connected through the medium of the internet, and for this reason new ideas will be generated through this medium to help those who have suffered a loss better cope with it. Questions How do online memorials affect the ways that we understand and cope with loss and grief? Do you think that the ability of the internet to transcend time and space, in the sense that we can view any deceased person whenever and wherever so long as they have a memorial online, has an effect on how we cope with loss? Does this lack of time and space serve as a symbol of disrespect to the deceased; would they be "upset" if they knew that we could simply "close" their memory with the touch of a button? Do internet memorials lack a place for ghosts to reside, as Socolovsky claims physical memorials enable, or are they another place that one can go and get that haunted feeling?

Continue Reading

Semiotic Domains: Is Playing Video Games a "Waste of Time?"

Game Experience Summary

For my “game,” I decided to use JacksonPollock.org. Even though this is not your typical game, it can become a game with yourself to create the artwork that you desire. When you enter the website, a blank screen appears. However, whenever you move your mouse paint splatters and creates different lines and shapes based on how quickly the mouse is moved. Whenever you click the mouse, the line color changes, ranging throughout the entire color spectrum. This is more of a form of art than gaming, but the interaction that you have with the screen can classify it as a game.

Summary

“Semiotic Domains: Is Playing Video Games a Waste of Time?” is the second chapter in a book released to justify video games and their benefits to society. Gee uses the term “literacy” and argues that it goes beyond its traditional meaning of “the ability to read and write” (17). In order to be literate in society today, one needs to be able to go beyond decoding and be able to link outside information to understand a concept on a deeper level and produce results in this context, this can be seen in multimodal texts. This gives rise to semiotic domains. Gee explains these to be different forms of signs in different realms of communication (19). For each semiotic domain, there are two ways for it to be viewed—internally and externally. Internally meaning the type of content the domain addresses and externally “in terms of people engages in a set of social practices (27). Gee’s main points go beyond his application to video games. They can be applied to learning in any semiotic domain (41). His arguments are based off of five learning principles: active, critical learning, design, semiotic, semiotic domains, and metalevel thinking about semiotic domains.

He concludes that video games are not a waste of time because they teach the player how to become literate in another domain than what is natural. He gives an example of how the grandfather of a six-year old boy misunderstands video games as a problem on content (22). In reality, “the game encourages him to think of himself as an active problem solver, one who persists in trying to solve problems even after making mistakes, on who, in fact, does not see mistakes as errors but as opportunities for reflection and learning” (36). Even though the content of the video game many be a “waste” to some, the skills learned can be applied to other semiotic domains, making you better off than non-players.

Inquiry

Prior to this reading, I would have agreed with many others that playing video games are a waste of time. However, Gee makes many compelling arguments that have made me agree with him (for the most part). I do think that critical learning can take place when playing video games, although in some not as much as others. Growing up without a gaming system, I think what held me back the most from playing video games was that I was not “in” the affinity group. With every semiotic domain, comes a different content that needs to be understood in order to produce in the domain. Since I did not know the gaming language, I did not succeed or have fun playing games. This held me back from experiencing the learning that Gee says comes with video games.

Although learning can take place when gaming, there are times when it becomes a negative asset opposed to a positive one. An example of this is when the player spends more time in his game world rather than learning in the actual world. Even though with technology improvements communication to other humans occurs when gaming, in each semiotic domain a different kind of learning takes place. In order to succeed in society, one needs more than to just be fluent in gaming. Therefore, even though it is a type of learning process, other types of learning process take precedence.

One of Gee’s main arguments is that in order to be well off in the world today, one needs to be literate in more than just reading and writing of a language. It can be semiotic domains that do not even include words, or it can simply be knowledge needed to understand a written document. Since text messaging has become popular, a new type of language has emerged—text shorthand. If you ask any teenager what “btw,” “brb,” “lol,” etc. mean, many will be able to answer without hesitation. Nowadays, in order to understand an email, text, etc. one would have to be able to decipher this language. Even though a message may be in a familiar language, one would need to be able to decode more than just words.

Questions

1. As a result of New Media, what other types of literacy are needed to understand commonly faced phenomenon?

2. After playing the online video games, do you agree with Gee's thoughts on critical thinking within this semiotic domain?

3. Do you think that the literacy gained from playing video games is useful in society today? Will this change in the future?

Continue Reading

"The Lessons of Lucasfilm's Habitat" - Chip Morningstar and F. Randall Farmer

Summary:

"The Lessons of Lucasfilm's Habitat" is a case study that looks at one of the first online, multiplayer games, Habitat, from the perspective of the developers themselves. Morningstar and Farmer use this article primarily to describe their experiences and give advice for future application of online, multiplayer technology, addressing future developers of the technology they pioneered. The authors argue that "cyberspace is defined more by the interactions among the actors within it than by the technology with which it is implemented" (664). Cyberspace is characterized by "the sharedness of the virtual environment, and not the display technology used to transport users into that environment" (676). Even though the developers of Habitat were using the primitive Commodore 64 as their platform for the game, they believe that the distribution method is not important as long as the user's experience is positive. Expectations of graphics ability will increase with the increase in technology development.

Within the article, the authors make several arguments about future use of this technology. Although some lessons are technical in nature, such as bandwidth concerns and the necessity of object-oriented data representation, many of their lessons focus on the interaction between themselves (the developers) and the players within their game. They state that there are two levels of "virtuality" within a game's structure: the infrastructure level, "where the laws that govern 'reality' have their genesis," and the experiential level, "which is what users see and interact with" (672). A strong case is made against mixing these two levels in any capacity. They also argue that online multiplayer games are very different from developing standard games because while a normal game programmer can shape every hour of gameplay, an online environment is more open-ended, allowing each individual user to shape his or her own experience. The authors make the claim that in order for online multiplayer games to truly expand into games with millions of users, cheating must be prevented, and user configuration of content should be expected. It is clear that the authors are trying to help the further development of this form of technology by clearly stating what they believe they did right and wrong in their experience, even self-criticizing themselves in some instances.

Inquiry:

The argument that "cyberspace is defined more by the interactions among the actors within it than by the technology with which it is implemented" is one that contradicts certain ideas that we have studied before (664). Marshall McLuhan strongly believes that "the medium is the message," yet Habitat's medium (Commodore 64) is argued by the developers as being unimportant to the overall function of the game. The message is not the medium, but rather the interactions among the users within the medium. I will have to disagree with the game developers here, assuming that it is understood that the console is the medium. I believe that Habitat being played on the Commodore 64 shapes the gaming experience in a way that affects the communication that occurs. For example, if the Commodore 64 was able to relay voice chat instead of strictly text, the communication experience would be completely different, meaning that the medium is having a sizable effect on the message. If it is assumed that cyberspace itself is the medium, then the authors are in agreement with McLuhan. Cyberspace as a medium is directly enabling the mass communication to occur.

I agree with the argument made that the "infrastructure level" and "experiential level" should be kept separate. Individuals play games like Habitat for the simulated experience generated by the experiential level of a game. If the infrastructure level interferes, that simulation is lost, and the real world comes to the forefront, negating the positive effect of the game on the user. In online games today, developers typically stay out of the experiential level, aside from interfering with situations of cheating or harassment. Having played a (now defunct) online game myself, having the ability to shape your own path though the game instead of being forced to follow a standard path is one of the greatest appeals in online gaming. The Habitat developers learned this fact early on, realizing that the true value of an online game is in the connections established and communication that occurs, not necessarily like the strict format of a traditional offline game.

Questions:

• In the article, the authors make the claim that they "do not possess the ability to produce an automation that approaches the complexity of a real human being," so they did not even attempt to make characters like this in the game (666-667). Do you believe that our technology has come far enough to create true, simulated humans within video games? What are some examples?

• In this article, many problems were listed with Habitat as an early online multiplayer game. Do you see any of these same problems still present in mass multiplayer games today?

• The authors pose the following question: "Is an Avatar an extension of a human being (thus entitled to be treated as you would treat a real person) or a Pac-Man-like critter destined to die a thousand deaths or something else entirely" (672)? Given the prevalence of "Avatars" across many forms of media (social networking, video games, etc), do you believe this question has been answered? What is your opinion on the matter?

Continue Reading

"Video Games and Computer Holding Power" - Sherry Turkle

Note about the author: Sherry Turkle is the current Director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self Program in Science, Technology, and Society, studying "the evolving connections between people and artifacts." [Source]

Summary:

Video games and Computer Holding Power is an excerpt from Sherry Turkle's book entitled The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit, published in 1984. In this excerpt, Turkle discusses the introduction of video games into mainstream culture, comparing the technologies involved to specific predecessors, as well as looking at individual examples through personal stories. She begins the excerpt discussing the wide-spread use of the computer in 1980s society. Turkle makes the claim early on in the excerpt that "the computer culture [is] a culture of rules and simulation," using video games as the primary example (501). Video games are often thought of as being a form of mindless entertainment; however, Turkle argues that the strategy and logic necessary to successfully play most video games goes beyond the stereotypical understanding of games as simple hand-eye coordination. She argues that the danger of video games "is not the danger of mindless play, but of the infatuation with the challenge of simulated worlds" (508). Video games are able to create identical, simulated experiences that cause certain individuals to strive for perfection within the "rule-governed" nature of the game itself.

The transition from pinball to video games is a thorough example Turkle uses to make the claim that video games have transcended the mechanical limitations of pinball, instead, creating a simulated situation where "a representation of a ball, unlike a real one, never need obey the laws of gravity unless the programmer wants it to" (502). It is clear that Turkle's excerpt is targeted toward an audience skeptical of the idea that video games have a role in society. For example, Turkle's primary argument is that although video games, when taken to obsessive extremes, can be harmful, the simulated challenge they create and "total concentration [they require] is a form of relaxation" (509). In this argument, Turkle is acknowledging that the simulation created by video games can be negatively seductive to some, but beneficial to others.

Inquiry:

In Turkle's excerpt from her book, is it difficult to respond strongly to some of her claims because she clearly presents both sides of the story. Several specific examples from individuals she interviews demonstrate the fact that video games can have a positive, calming effect on the players. In opposition to the view, an argument is also made that video games can be seductive in nature with the promise of a "perfect response" (512).

The idea that "the computer culture [is] a culture of rules and simulation" is an argument I agree with completely. The whole premise of a video game is one of simulation. In the present day, we have consoles like the Wii where you can play simulated bowling, simulated baseball, simulated boxing, simulated tennis, and simulated golf (and that's just Wii Sports!). Even when looking at older games Turkle mentions like Pong and Pac-Man, it is clear that these games are trying to simulate an aspect of the real world. In the case of Pac-Man, the simulated experience does not exist in the real world, but the idea of needing to accomplish certain goals before an enemy stops you is a real world idea manifested by the ghosts, food, and the maze. All video games attempt to simulate some aspect of society, either directly or indirectly, because this simulated experience is what people want to momentarily take their concerns out of the real world.

It was always clear that people became easily obsessed with games that seemed simplistic in nature more so than extremely complicated games. Although there are those who are considered "hardcore gamers," only opting to play the complicated games created today, I would argue that the majority of the general public enjoys simple games. For example, Bejeweled is an online game that is simple - change the order of colored gems in an effort to group them together and eliminate them. As of 2008, it has been downloaded well over 150 million times. It is clear that people like the simple nature of this game because it has a set of clearly defined rules; yet, it is interesting to note that people still try to exploit these simple rules in the spirit of competition. For example, if you type "Bejeweled" into YouTube, the first few results are discussing ways to cheat at this simple game. People enjoy these simple games, as Turkle mentions, because they are fixed, allowing the opportunity for individuals to seek perfection (even through cheating).

Questions:

• Turkle argues that children learning to use computers "seems to threaten a new kind of generation gap" (500). Do you believe that current video games continue to create a generation gap among individuals, or are current video games more accessible to all generations? How does this compare with video games in the 1980s?

• Turkle asks the following question: "Will the player of the games of the future be in a more complex world than is offered by today's games, but still in a world that is created by someone else? Or will the player be the designer of his or her own game" (506)? In the 26 years that have passed since this excerpt was published, can you give examples of games in which the players design their own gaming experience?

• What is it about "simple" or "fixed" games that makes them so appealing to such a wide range of individuals? What entertainment value do they hold that resonates with people?

Continue Reading