"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

Digital Mapping

(Map of US Population Distribution) Barton and Barton are trying to emphasize in their article that the means and types of mapping have changed over the years, depending on what is deemed important by "consumers" of maps, and because of this, maps are overemphasizing and deemphasizing certain areas and aspects of life. They argue that maps exemplify power structures simply by the way that there are maps that are made and maps that are not made. This power structure is best exemplified in the quote "The map in particular and by implication, visual representations in general are seen as complicit with socio-control mechanisms inextricably linked to power and authority." (53) The idea that the map itself is being created by the author states the fact that the map is important. Obviously, this author has knowledge of map making to some degree, as well as power structures due the definitions of words such as hegemony in the article. The reader does not need to be familiar with cartography to fully understand the point of this article. The authors want there to be a way to make a map that is unbiased and neutral. A map that doesn't create an unequal power structure and doesn't discriminate. I think that in an ideal world, it would be wonderful to make visual images that have no bias, but I don't think it is possible. All maps are created with a bias, even the free google maps. There are areas that are more photographed than others, and people can pay to have businesses mapped that would tend to direct people to their company. Even companies like Amazon track your purchases "for your convenience" so they can make recommendations for other purchases for you. Their true intention is simply to make more money off the customer. Are new media maps positive/negative/both? Are there such things as completely neutral map? Should we even care if there is a motivation behind the creation of a map? Why?

Continue Reading

The Matrix

Definitions Matrix: something that constitutes the place or point from which something else originates, takes form, or develops: The Greco-Roman world was the matrix for Western civilization. Machine: an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work: a sewing machine. Summary: This movie can be viewed as a warning to people that humans are too dependent on machines. In the movie, Morpheus says to Neo, “Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines.” From the pen to the computer, people have relied on machines and technology to make their world easier, but this movie warns people that continual advancement of technology might not always be for the better. Humans are going to create technology through some means, probably through the computer, and eventually they will become either subservient or controlled by the machines. In the movie, the characters that were in the matrix were all under the control of the matrix, which was controlled by machines. The creators of this movie obviously created it to entertain people in general and to make money. I would guess that the largest group of viewers that this movie was intending to reach would be people interested in Science-Fiction because the idea that machines take over the world is the theme for many science fiction books and movies. The creators and actors have only their reputation and the money that was invested into the movie at stake. If people did not like the movie, or thought the idea for this movie was too inconceivable, then the movie might have flopped. Obviously the movie became a great success, and many people thought the idea of machines controlling the world interesting. After watching the movie, the audience leaves with a feeling that not all technology is good for society, and people cannot truly be free in society when they are being controlled by some outside force. Inquiry: I believe that there is some validity to the claim of this movie. I think that people need to be very careful with the technology they create because people tend to be nearsighted in terms of the effects of technology on people. When websites like Facebook and twitter were created, no one could have imagined the explosive effects that these social network societies had on people. The websites make it easier for people to connect with one another, but it also gives people an incredibly in-depth look to an individual’s life. Sometimes all of a person’s contact information is posted on Facebook, and people to never know who is looking at their information and what their intention is when viewing a person’s personal information. I think this movie also warns people about the fact that we begin to blur the lines of what is real and what isn't. Just as Neo used a computer simulator to train for battle with the evil robots, many United States soldiers prepare for combat by using shooting simulators as well as regular video games such as Halo to make it easier for them to be able to shoot at the target. The simulator guarantees that the soldier will be more likely to shoot at the target, but what does that say out our society if we create these kinds of technology. What is the matrix in our society? Who is controlling the flow of information and technology in our society? Are people controlled by the matrix in our society, or are they able to escape it? Where do the boundaries between the real and virtual end?

Continue Reading

"The Precession of Simulacra" - Baudrillard

Summary
Published in 1985, "Simulcra and Simulation," is the work of French philospher Jean Baudrillard in which he describes a world dominated by mass media, images, and symbols.  In this world of hyperreality, the line between true and false is blurred to the point where truth ceases to exist.  Utilizing an extended metaphor of a map and its territory, Baudrillard illustrates how it is not longer necessary to have discovered a territory before creating its map.  Instead, there is a loss of abstraction as the lines between the map and the territory are blurred.  The "real" is thus produced through models of control that can be reproduced indefinitely while defying natural laws such as scope and depth.  This altered state of real is then dubbed as being "hyperreal." Baudrillard also explores the differences between representations and simulations, claiming that representations are the equivalent of their symbol and are thus real; whereas simulations completely absorb the representation and negate the symbol as having value, instead creating a new meaning.  Baudrillard concludes that there is an increasing concern regarding simulations and their effects, for the lines between real and hyperreal are blurred to the point where nothing is "real."

Inquiry:
According to Baudrilard, in the realm of the hyperreal everything is accounted for as all solutions are calculated and nothing is ever given the chance to develop naturally.  This calculated nature is reflected in our impatience of the unknown and now that we are armed with the capability to shape the future nothing happens solely because of fate.  As we are capable of controlling our own destiny, we are now able to change the things we don't like about ourselves.  For examples, take the recent new media phenomenon of editing photos, specifically altering our bodies in photos.  Magazine covers feature individuals who merely possess the framework of the "perfect," person, who is consequently stretched, shrunk, buffed, and shined to perfection.  While the model is a real person, the image that we see belongs to the realm of the "hyperreal," in that it was created in a world controlled by an infinite number of combinatorial models that mix and match to create the "perfect" body that we see.


Points to Ponder:

• Do we live in a hyperreal world? How much of what we see/experience is actually "real"?
• If all actions are calculated, has this created an increase in predictability?
• Businesses are now held more accountable for their creations because we expect their products to last longer. Who is held responsible when the system fails? How are we becoming increasingly dependent on corporations to fulfill our "real," expectations?
• Baudrillard utilizes the example of Disneyland in his "America," piece to show how it is a place of illusions, where happy endings do exist and dreams come true.  In this land of hyperreal, Disneyland masks the reality of what the United States actually looks like, and presents us with an opportunity to go back to the pure American dream that never happened.
• Is anything in Disneyland actually "real," or is it entirely invested in the "hyperreal"?

Continue Reading

"Panopticisim" - Foucault

"The Panopticon is a machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring one is totally seen without ever seeing; in the central tower one sees everything without ever being seen" (p.5)

Summary

In his article entitled "Panopticism," Michel Foucault describes the ultimate surveillance mechanism known as the panopticon and its subsequent impact on society.  Often utilized in prisons, the structure of the panopticon is effective in that the constant fear of being watched causes individuals to self-monitor their actions in fear of being caught.  

According to Foucault it is the ultimate "utopia of a perfectly governed city," (p. 4),  as the panopticon functions as a lab of power where society can be examined in its de-individualized form.  Through observations, one can become more efficient in how to best control society, and thus have the ability to understand what motivates individuals to do what they do.  As knowledge follows the advancement of power, the panopticon becomes the ultimate way of examining "power of mind over mind," as those who are in the outer ring of the panopticon self-monitor their thoughts and actions to appease the all-seeing eye that keeps watch.  Foucault concludes that the concept of the Panopticon can be applied to anything, for it is ultimately a discipline mechanism that has evolved from a model of surveillance through the ages to something that could ultimately form a disciplinary society.

Inquiry

While the Panopticon's creator Bentham utilized this design for buildings, Foucault explores how the Panopticon could be applied to any venture, where absolute power is focused and honed on those in the periphery ring.  He claims that Bentham:

"dreamt of transforming into a network of mechanisms that would be everywhere and always alert, running through society without interference in space or time," (p. 7). 

As a society we are becoming increasingly dependent on automatic forms of new media such as calender updates, e-bill reminders, and text messages that delve into our private lives and personal information. Take the example of e-bill reminders - why deal with the hassle of remembering to pay your bills when you can sign up for e-bills, which automatically deduct your monthly payments from your bank of choice and apply said credit to your account. In the new media age where identity theft is far too common, this reliance on programs to access our personal bank accounts to pay for services that automate our lives demonstrates how far the Panopticon has infiltrated our daily lives. We, the consumer are in the periphery ring, self-monitoring our actions by paying bills on time to avoid legal consequences. Giant corporations sit in the "tower," controlling how much services cost, when services must be paid for, and cracking down on those who do not comply. Those who occupy the tower are nameless faces to us, we just know that at the end of the month when we see that our cell phone bill and utilities were paid for the system works. We are completely at the mercy of those in the "tower," who power our lives but pay little attention to the automatic e-bill programs that silently siphon funds away to pay for our life expenses without creating a ripple in our fast paced lives.


Given that we are becoming increasingly reliant on these invisible mechanisms that power our lives, here are some points to ponder:

• As new media becomes increasingly automatic, and the world powers are grappling to create bylaws that govern new media use, how does the Panopticon model fit into the rampant growth of new media? 
• Following the structure of the Panopticon, where those in the periphery ring exist in individual cells constantly self-monitoring their actions to avoid being caught, and those in the tower exist to keep watch over the outer ring, who is in the "tower," of today's Panopticon regarding new media?
• Should there be rules and regulations citing how those in the "tower," must enforce their power to avoid a total invasion of privacy? 
• Does privacy exist in the Panopticon model?

Continue Reading

Mythinformation

Mythinformation Summary Winner wrote Mythinformation to try to highlight to the public the fact that the technological/ computer revolution is not really going to revolutionize the political and social structures of a country. Access to all this new information and technology is not immediately going to make the world a better place either. Winner calls “mythinformation the almost religious conviction that a widespread adoption of computers and communications systems along with easy access to electronic information will automatically produce a better world for human living. (592)” Many people who claim that there is going to be a computer revolution overlook the fact that the problems that computers are going to solve can’t be remedied by the computer. I think that the author’s audience was people who were for the “computer revolution.” He begins his article by building up the computer revolution, and then in the middle, phrases his argument in a way as to how these revolutionaries are misguided. He writes about how the idea of increasing access to information is supposed to enhance democracy, but the belief is misguided. Every day, people have access to more and more information, including through the television. Since the advent of the television, there has actually been a decline in the participation of voting, because many people don’t have a real connection to the candidates now. I felt like this author must have some type of history background simply based on the style of his writing. He started the article off by writing about typical revolutions in Europe, and the way he structured his arguments was much the way one would read a historical document. I didn’t get the feeling from him that he was saying, “I’m right, you’re wrong”, but rather that he was trying to correct misconceptions about this so-called “revolution.” I think that this author has his reputation at stake. He is going against public opinion, and can be seen as controversial, which can become a positive or negative thing. Maybe the author is seeking to be more famous by writing something that is against popular opinion. I truly think that the author is just trying to make people be more aware of the fact that improvement in technology does not necessarily equate to a better society. Inquiry I don’t think that just because we have more information available to society, we are going to automatically be better off. There needs to some kind of active involvement with the knowledge that we gain from all this new technology before we become better off. I could search the internet, and probably find instructions on how to build a computer. However, I don’t know how to follow the instructions because I am unfamiliar with computer lingo/ hardware/ etc. I first need to be taught these concepts before I can “work” with them. However, I can search the internet for a recipe to make a cake, and make a cake. The reason for this is ONLY because I have the prior knowledge of how to bake. If I had never baked before in my life, I probably wouldn’t be able to make a very good cake. Questions How (if at all) does availability of technology lead to a better democratic and/or social process? New means of communication (facebook, twitter, texting) have changed the way that people communicate with one another. Are these changes for the better or worse? Winner argues that technology isn’t really a great equalizer with big business and government gaining more power, while others keep the same amount of power or lose it. Can you think of examples where technology has actually leveled the playing field for those involved?

Continue Reading