What were interesting for me was Juul’s words: “The advantage of structuring a game like this is that the player experiences a predefined story by completing the missions, while having freedom to solve the tasks in different ways. Even thought the player is in principle free to ignore the missions, most players will try to complete them because they want to, because it is more interesting to undertake the missions than not to (pp.82-83)”.
I had been thinking that the more freedom people have, it becomes more interesting to the players, because they can move on their own. But come to think of it, if there were no restrictions, and the player can do what ever they want to, it wouldn’t be playing the game, but rather, creating the game.
I was playing cards with my Singaporean friends when I came here. The game was similar to the one I knew in Japan, so I didn’t have difficulty understanding how to play, but the rules were slightly different. The Japanese version I knew is more restricting, and hence it was difficult for me to win the game in Singapore. I know I’m biased in ‘my way’ of playing the game, and not used to the Singaporean version, but I thought that more rules would make the game more exciting. …Though my friend said that it’s because I was losing too much! :P
I think that overcoming the restrictions makes the players excited about the game. Too much limitation is not, but by overcoming all the rules and making out the way, is challenging and exciting.
It’s like the rules in school – it’s exciting when we find a bypath!
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
The Pupper Mater Problem: Design for Real-World, Mission Based Gaming
I never heard of I Love Bees – sounds interesting! (This class really makes me get to know new things!) One thing that I thought about the ILB, was that by playing this ‘game’, the players feel some kind of freedom. If this was in a computer game, yes, it would be interesting, but maybe not much. Because there is a premise in their head that they can do anything in the real world makes the players excited about the game. Otherwise, I think you won’t take off your pants and dance in public!
Doing all those interactive games in class, I had been thinking about the freedom in game. In a game, there is always some kind of limitations – rules, time limits, and so on. There are restrictions in a game, and sometimes players feel they are being controlled (like me when I first did Zork) but at the same time, restrictions make the game more interesting. Player fulfill their self by making their way our in that restricted area.
But in ILB, they are in the real world. Although they are under the control of the puppet master, the player can escape from that situation at any moment. Moreover, the puppet masters are watching the players, and thus fulfill their needs. Mcgonigal also says that the players in power plays are ‘directing us to direct them better’. In contrast, in computer games, when the players try to move on their own, the character suddenly stops moving, or the time limit comes, or the so loved quote ‘That’s not a verb I recognize’ appears on screen.
Maybe this is why virtual reality world games (Is this the right name? The one we can make the same character as ourselves and move around in the game world, and it’s interactive.) are getting popular. The sense that we are in a similar place as the real world, but can move around as the player likes, make them feel some kind of freedom. Making the game world more similar to the real world, is maybe the way game designers can become like the puppet masters.
Doing all those interactive games in class, I had been thinking about the freedom in game. In a game, there is always some kind of limitations – rules, time limits, and so on. There are restrictions in a game, and sometimes players feel they are being controlled (like me when I first did Zork) but at the same time, restrictions make the game more interesting. Player fulfill their self by making their way our in that restricted area.
But in ILB, they are in the real world. Although they are under the control of the puppet master, the player can escape from that situation at any moment. Moreover, the puppet masters are watching the players, and thus fulfill their needs. Mcgonigal also says that the players in power plays are ‘directing us to direct them better’. In contrast, in computer games, when the players try to move on their own, the character suddenly stops moving, or the time limit comes, or the so loved quote ‘That’s not a verb I recognize’ appears on screen.
Maybe this is why virtual reality world games (Is this the right name? The one we can make the same character as ourselves and move around in the game world, and it’s interactive.) are getting popular. The sense that we are in a similar place as the real world, but can move around as the player likes, make them feel some kind of freedom. Making the game world more similar to the real world, is maybe the way game designers can become like the puppet masters.
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Game Design as Narrative Architecture
It is interesting for me that Eskelinen strongly denies Jenkin’s opinion about the relation between computer games and storytelling. I’m curious if he will define the ‘Create-your-adventure’ books as a story or not.
Although I agree that there are no stories in Pack-man or Tetris, I think there is a story in certain games such as RPGs or interactive fictions.
In a ‘normal’ story, the movements of the character, the storyline, and all the other story elements are pre-determined by the author. But in games, the users create the story while they are playing with it. I think this is the reason why games are difficult to be determined as a story. Because the narrative in the games are fleeting and changing constantly, many people will not recognize it as a story.
However, although probably Eskelinen will not agree, the process of playing the game means creating the story.
The player can use their own interpretation and make up their own narrative. But at the same time, in order to prevent the players from making the game into a too much non-linear (off the line) one, the game designer restricts the player by using the term ‘I don’t recognize the word’, make the player go through certain challenges, or something similar to that. By limiting some parts, some player may feel the constraints, but can still find his/her own way out to make a new narrative. Imagine if we took out all the game like elements from the games. I think there would be a story left there.
One of my friend once wrote a review in his blog about a game he played. I have never done the game before, but according to his explanation, it seems to be a game where the player explores in Chopin’s dream.
He said that the story of the game was way too bad, and because of the story, the quality of the game went down despite the beautiful images.
In his blog, he wrote that
I think that the other parts of the game were in high quality except the scenario. This fact is really mottainai! (wasteful)
…I didn’t even feel like watching the ending. I was too shocked and didn’t feel anything about the story.
From his review, we can actually see that players expect to seek a story inside the game – especially in RPGs. And in his opinion, it can even affect the quality of the game.
Although Eskelinen dismisses the fact that games are not like stories, I think there is actually a story in anything. I remember my senior student in Japan writing in his blog (sorry, again!) about his experience in Alaska. There, he stayed in a local house with a young married couple. In Alaska, because of the lack of resources, furniture, food, and many other things used in daily life are made by themselves. And he realized that because almost everything is handmade, he felt that there is a story in each product. The story is about the process making each goods.
It’s not like furniture, but playing games are also like the process of making furniture or food, in a sense. They don’t use any tools, only the users mind and hands, but still, we are making a story.
But can computer games really tell a story in a way that parents tell stories to their children?
When I was small, my parents used to read me books and sometimes tell their original stories. It was fun for me to imagine all the things and make the characters in my mind when they told me their own story. Although I think that computer games have a narrative, I wonder if they can tell stories in this way. If parents started to play a computer game before bed, that would give a complete different meaning to storytelling!
Although I agree that there are no stories in Pack-man or Tetris, I think there is a story in certain games such as RPGs or interactive fictions.
In a ‘normal’ story, the movements of the character, the storyline, and all the other story elements are pre-determined by the author. But in games, the users create the story while they are playing with it. I think this is the reason why games are difficult to be determined as a story. Because the narrative in the games are fleeting and changing constantly, many people will not recognize it as a story.
However, although probably Eskelinen will not agree, the process of playing the game means creating the story.
The player can use their own interpretation and make up their own narrative. But at the same time, in order to prevent the players from making the game into a too much non-linear (off the line) one, the game designer restricts the player by using the term ‘I don’t recognize the word’, make the player go through certain challenges, or something similar to that. By limiting some parts, some player may feel the constraints, but can still find his/her own way out to make a new narrative. Imagine if we took out all the game like elements from the games. I think there would be a story left there.
One of my friend once wrote a review in his blog about a game he played. I have never done the game before, but according to his explanation, it seems to be a game where the player explores in Chopin’s dream.
He said that the story of the game was way too bad, and because of the story, the quality of the game went down despite the beautiful images.
In his blog, he wrote that
I think that the other parts of the game were in high quality except the scenario. This fact is really mottainai! (wasteful)
…I didn’t even feel like watching the ending. I was too shocked and didn’t feel anything about the story.
From his review, we can actually see that players expect to seek a story inside the game – especially in RPGs. And in his opinion, it can even affect the quality of the game.
Although Eskelinen dismisses the fact that games are not like stories, I think there is actually a story in anything. I remember my senior student in Japan writing in his blog (sorry, again!) about his experience in Alaska. There, he stayed in a local house with a young married couple. In Alaska, because of the lack of resources, furniture, food, and many other things used in daily life are made by themselves. And he realized that because almost everything is handmade, he felt that there is a story in each product. The story is about the process making each goods.
It’s not like furniture, but playing games are also like the process of making furniture or food, in a sense. They don’t use any tools, only the users mind and hands, but still, we are making a story.
But can computer games really tell a story in a way that parents tell stories to their children?
When I was small, my parents used to read me books and sometimes tell their original stories. It was fun for me to imagine all the things and make the characters in my mind when they told me their own story. Although I think that computer games have a narrative, I wonder if they can tell stories in this way. If parents started to play a computer game before bed, that would give a complete different meaning to storytelling!
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
The stories in the interactive fiction
Last week when I played the interactive fiction alone, I saw it was not interactive – moreover, I thought it was restricted in many ways. (See last week’s blog post) However, when Mr. Mitchell played it in class, I had a different impression. With the assistance by others, I actually found it as interesting.
What was different from Shade and the Cinderella that we played in class, was while Shade had to complete the story on our own, in Cinderella, the player needs to somehow ‘stop’ the story, and try to make it into our desired one. Cinderella told the story regardless of our (or rather, a bird) existence. In order to stop the prince from marrying the step sisters, the player has to somewhat take action as a creature with no lips. What was fun in doing these games, was that we were able to manipulate the narrative by ourselves.
I felt that I had not realized how to play the game when doing alone. I was just trying to find my way out, trying to get close to the goal. But unfortunately, I couldn’t figure out how to achieve the goal, and concluded that it was not interesting, and not interactive.
This reminded me about when we talked about the hypertext 253 in class. I think I said that 253 was also not really attractive to me. But there were people who liked the text too. I remember Mr. Mitchell’s words, “Playing for the story”. I didn’t really get the meaning at that time, but I think this can relate to the interactive fiction now. Both in 253 and the ZORK, I was just trying to find the goal. Of course we have to get to the goal in the end (especially in interactive fictions), but in order to fully enjoy the game, we need to find the story inside it. That is, play for the story. We need to acknowledge the story, but at the same time, create it into a more interesting one for each of us.
Though I thought that interactive narrative is restricting our actions in the game, now I think it a bit different. In order to enjoy the game, the player needs to try and find out a way to make the narrative ‘interactive’, not just try to focus on achieving the goal.
What was different from Shade and the Cinderella that we played in class, was while Shade had to complete the story on our own, in Cinderella, the player needs to somehow ‘stop’ the story, and try to make it into our desired one. Cinderella told the story regardless of our (or rather, a bird) existence. In order to stop the prince from marrying the step sisters, the player has to somewhat take action as a creature with no lips. What was fun in doing these games, was that we were able to manipulate the narrative by ourselves.
I felt that I had not realized how to play the game when doing alone. I was just trying to find my way out, trying to get close to the goal. But unfortunately, I couldn’t figure out how to achieve the goal, and concluded that it was not interesting, and not interactive.
This reminded me about when we talked about the hypertext 253 in class. I think I said that 253 was also not really attractive to me. But there were people who liked the text too. I remember Mr. Mitchell’s words, “Playing for the story”. I didn’t really get the meaning at that time, but I think this can relate to the interactive fiction now. Both in 253 and the ZORK, I was just trying to find the goal. Of course we have to get to the goal in the end (especially in interactive fictions), but in order to fully enjoy the game, we need to find the story inside it. That is, play for the story. We need to acknowledge the story, but at the same time, create it into a more interesting one for each of us.
Though I thought that interactive narrative is restricting our actions in the game, now I think it a bit different. In order to enjoy the game, the player needs to try and find out a way to make the narrative ‘interactive’, not just try to focus on achieving the goal.
Monday, 8 October 2007
The Pleasure of the Text Adventure
In order to get a better understanding of interactive narrative, I tried playing ZORK 1. I think this was my first time to play interactive narrative online by myself. To tell the truth, while playing the game, I became a bit irritated. This was probably because I felt that the game was somewhat restricting to me. Although it is true that I can type out anything I want to, and the narrative depends on me, I did not feel completely independent. Some of the simplest words that I typed was not understood by the computer, and in order to get through the game, I had to give up some movements, or follow the requirements that the computer will probably expect. Therefore, I partly feel that interactive fiction is deceiving us to think that the users have a chance to move around freely. Really, the narrative is already decided, and the user plays the game in some sense ‘interactively’, predicting the next movement we should take.
Hypertext reminds me of a Japanese novel called “なんとなく、クリスタル” (Somewhat, Crystal). This is a novel nominated as Bungei-shou. This novel is full of annotation – there are almost three annotations in one line!! I couldn’t believe that this novel was praised, because I felt that the annotations were useless, and bothers the story. (Many critics say that because of the annotation, the novel was given attention). The annotations in this book were not the general information, but moreover, the personal opinion of the author. I think that is why I felt they were unnecessary.
(This is just an example of one novel, so I know that hypertext is not always like this.)
To tell the truth, because I am not a technical person, I thought that interactive fiction and hypertext fiction is both just kind of comouter game. However, because their approach is quite different, overall I agree with Montfort’s opinion that they are different.
But at the same time, it also gives me a similar impression too. The narrative is already decided, and users move around in that limited space. The moving around action differs by pushing the buttons, or typing out the words.Although it is hard to decide whether the two are different or not, I think interactive fiction gives us an expectation that we have a possibility to choose by ourselves, more than hypertext fiction.
Hypertext reminds me of a Japanese novel called “なんとなく、クリスタル” (Somewhat, Crystal). This is a novel nominated as Bungei-shou. This novel is full of annotation – there are almost three annotations in one line!! I couldn’t believe that this novel was praised, because I felt that the annotations were useless, and bothers the story. (Many critics say that because of the annotation, the novel was given attention). The annotations in this book were not the general information, but moreover, the personal opinion of the author. I think that is why I felt they were unnecessary.
(This is just an example of one novel, so I know that hypertext is not always like this.)
To tell the truth, because I am not a technical person, I thought that interactive fiction and hypertext fiction is both just kind of comouter game. However, because their approach is quite different, overall I agree with Montfort’s opinion that they are different.
But at the same time, it also gives me a similar impression too. The narrative is already decided, and users move around in that limited space. The moving around action differs by pushing the buttons, or typing out the words.Although it is hard to decide whether the two are different or not, I think interactive fiction gives us an expectation that we have a possibility to choose by ourselves, more than hypertext fiction.
Sunday, 7 October 2007
Group Project 1
Because I took some photos last class, I'll upload some to my blog!
I have to do my blog post as well...
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
253
Ryman says “In cyberspace, people become places”.
I checked in my Oxford Dictionary of English (2003), to see how ‘place’ is defined. It said,
Place: 1. a particular position, point, or an area in space; a location, 2. a portion of space designated or available for or being used by someone, 3. a position in a sequence or series, typically one ordered on the basis of merit.
So if it is true that "In cyberspace, people become places” as Ryman said, people must be defined as the above.
Actually, I agree with Ryman’s opinion. In the narrative, “253”, all the passengers have their own notion in mind, and was sitting, not being able to move. Of course they can stand up, talk, dance, and get off the train. However, because passengers cannot move from a certain place while the train is moving, it made it easier to imgaine the people as place. In 253’s case, I think it can be coined as the 2nd explanation in the Oxford Dictionary. Each passenger have their own individual appearance, inside infromation, notion, and nobody can interrupt their space. It is ‘being used by’ the characters.
I thought about the blog we are now using. The reader of the blog can have a sense of godlike feeling, maybe. Think like this:
The blog we have=seats in the train
The design of the blog=appearance of the passengers
The posts that we do every week=the notion of the passengers
Isn’t is a bit similar? And the readers can have a godlike feeling, because they can just see through the blog without getting in contact with the author. Readers can jump around blogs, start from which ever day the reader wants to start from, and never know the ending (because blogs don’t have a specific ending unless the writer is posting novels).
So, I think it’s safe to regard people as places in cyberspace. But at the same time, being ‘place’ seems to me as being digitalized, and only one aspect of the human is being showed to the out side. That is a bit sad ><
I checked in my Oxford Dictionary of English (2003), to see how ‘place’ is defined. It said,
Place: 1. a particular position, point, or an area in space; a location, 2. a portion of space designated or available for or being used by someone, 3. a position in a sequence or series, typically one ordered on the basis of merit.
So if it is true that "In cyberspace, people become places” as Ryman said, people must be defined as the above.
Actually, I agree with Ryman’s opinion. In the narrative, “253”, all the passengers have their own notion in mind, and was sitting, not being able to move. Of course they can stand up, talk, dance, and get off the train. However, because passengers cannot move from a certain place while the train is moving, it made it easier to imgaine the people as place. In 253’s case, I think it can be coined as the 2nd explanation in the Oxford Dictionary. Each passenger have their own individual appearance, inside infromation, notion, and nobody can interrupt their space. It is ‘being used by’ the characters.
I thought about the blog we are now using. The reader of the blog can have a sense of godlike feeling, maybe. Think like this:
The blog we have=seats in the train
The design of the blog=appearance of the passengers
The posts that we do every week=the notion of the passengers
Isn’t is a bit similar? And the readers can have a godlike feeling, because they can just see through the blog without getting in contact with the author. Readers can jump around blogs, start from which ever day the reader wants to start from, and never know the ending (because blogs don’t have a specific ending unless the writer is posting novels).
So, I think it’s safe to regard people as places in cyberspace. But at the same time, being ‘place’ seems to me as being digitalized, and only one aspect of the human is being showed to the out side. That is a bit sad ><
Saturday, 8 September 2007
The Fighting Fantasy Book
I think it was was my first time to try the Fighting Fantasy books. Although there were annoying parts, overall, it was interesting.
The annoying parts, are when the book forces us to go back to a certain scene even if we had not chosen that page in advance. Probably this is done in order to maintain the narrative of the book, but I felt like that we were being controlled.
When these Fighting Fantasy books were to be transformed to a computer game, I think the most difference would be the difficulty of the player not being able to go back to the previous scene.
When our group was playing the Fighting Fantasy book, there was a part where we need to pick one choice out of four. Ming Zhi (who was flipping the pages) put her finger in one page, and after taking a look at every choice, we decided to go to the most best looking one. I guess this is cheating, but in the format like these books, there is a high chance for the players doing these kind of things. However, in computer format, by manipulating the system, it is still possible to setup and prevent the readers from checking all the choices.
However, there are some players who tries to make a way in computer games too.
My brother (sorry, this is the 2nd time he comes up in this blog), when playing a game, he always saves the game in advance, and then goes out and fights with someone, or gamble with his money. If he loses, he simply turns off the computer, and then tries again from the previous scene where he has no damage or loss. In this way, he can try until he gets a clue how to beat up the bad guy. This procedure is a bit similar to flipping back a page in the Fighting Fantasy book.
But by setting up the program, game designers still have a chance to stop the player from 'cheating'. Some may say that this is restricting, but second thought, we don’t have a chance to go back in real life, so why not in games too?
The annoying parts, are when the book forces us to go back to a certain scene even if we had not chosen that page in advance. Probably this is done in order to maintain the narrative of the book, but I felt like that we were being controlled.
When these Fighting Fantasy books were to be transformed to a computer game, I think the most difference would be the difficulty of the player not being able to go back to the previous scene.
When our group was playing the Fighting Fantasy book, there was a part where we need to pick one choice out of four. Ming Zhi (who was flipping the pages) put her finger in one page, and after taking a look at every choice, we decided to go to the most best looking one. I guess this is cheating, but in the format like these books, there is a high chance for the players doing these kind of things. However, in computer format, by manipulating the system, it is still possible to setup and prevent the readers from checking all the choices.
However, there are some players who tries to make a way in computer games too.
My brother (sorry, this is the 2nd time he comes up in this blog), when playing a game, he always saves the game in advance, and then goes out and fights with someone, or gamble with his money. If he loses, he simply turns off the computer, and then tries again from the previous scene where he has no damage or loss. In this way, he can try until he gets a clue how to beat up the bad guy. This procedure is a bit similar to flipping back a page in the Fighting Fantasy book.
But by setting up the program, game designers still have a chance to stop the player from 'cheating'. Some may say that this is restricting, but second thought, we don’t have a chance to go back in real life, so why not in games too?
Tuesday, 4 September 2007
Ergodic Literature
According to Espen, nonlinear means ‘narratives that lacked or subverted a straightforward story line’. Considering this explanation, it can be said that Memento is a cybertext. As we saw, the movie was not definitely nonlinear, with the scenes going back and forth, consisting by the incidents happened in the past and future.
However, it is also difficult to assert that Memento is truly a cybertext. That is because the audience of the movie can never make choices. Even if we want to advice Leonard not to kill the man, or not to meet Natalie, or something else, that’s impossible. The audiences have to sit and just let the movie go. In this sense, the nature of cybertext is not seen in Memento. The audience should be safe and impotent.
But, is the audience of Memento really safe?
Because after we saw the movie, everyone looked puzzled, or, was trying to find out the consequence somehow (Maybe that’s because we’re USP students?). The audience of Memento cannot make a choice in reality, but they can, in their head. We keep on thinking - what if Leonard had made a different choice? Will his destiny change?
This is the same in ergodic literature. The reader/player can make choices, however, they also have to suffer of not choosing the other question.
What is different from other movies, and Memento then? Any movie can give the audience an impatient feeling towards the characters not choosing A rather than B. The most different thing about Memento is because of the way the story is told, and thus makes the audiences get confused and make them get into a ‘labyrinth’.
Cybertext can be enjoyed many times by choosing a different answer every time you play. This cannot be experienced in ‘normal movies’, but as I said in my first blog, Memento should – and can – be watched again. Every time we see the movie, we are sure to get a different feeling (I haven’t tried yet though).
It would be clear for me if I conclude that Memento is a cybertext, but still I have this question fuzzing in my mind – can it be defined as interactive, even if we can't choose the choices in the movie??
However, it is also difficult to assert that Memento is truly a cybertext. That is because the audience of the movie can never make choices. Even if we want to advice Leonard not to kill the man, or not to meet Natalie, or something else, that’s impossible. The audiences have to sit and just let the movie go. In this sense, the nature of cybertext is not seen in Memento. The audience should be safe and impotent.
But, is the audience of Memento really safe?
Because after we saw the movie, everyone looked puzzled, or, was trying to find out the consequence somehow (Maybe that’s because we’re USP students?). The audience of Memento cannot make a choice in reality, but they can, in their head. We keep on thinking - what if Leonard had made a different choice? Will his destiny change?
This is the same in ergodic literature. The reader/player can make choices, however, they also have to suffer of not choosing the other question.
What is different from other movies, and Memento then? Any movie can give the audience an impatient feeling towards the characters not choosing A rather than B. The most different thing about Memento is because of the way the story is told, and thus makes the audiences get confused and make them get into a ‘labyrinth’.
Cybertext can be enjoyed many times by choosing a different answer every time you play. This cannot be experienced in ‘normal movies’, but as I said in my first blog, Memento should – and can – be watched again. Every time we see the movie, we are sure to get a different feeling (I haven’t tried yet though).
It would be clear for me if I conclude that Memento is a cybertext, but still I have this question fuzzing in my mind – can it be defined as interactive, even if we can't choose the choices in the movie??
Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Story and Discourse
I was once watching my brother play an action RPG game (unfortunately, I don’t remember what the title was). It was a war game - the character was in the opponent’s field, and probably trying to kill the bad guys. The point of the game was, by contacting his companions on the wireless and obtaining information, the main character must fight by himself.
My brother was doing a pretty good job, until he got to an area where he had no idea which way to in the forest. So he called his companions with his wireless. However, the answer didn’t match to my brothers question. We were puzzled. Later, we found out that we should have contacted the companion a little later, because the answer was prepared for the next stage.
The positive part about interactive media is that the reader/user can create their own stories in their own way. It is possible for them to have their own choice, and end up in a totally different place. For the readers/users, they can have the feeling that they are actually having an interactive communication/action with the media.
However, because of the freeness in interactive media, it is possible for the reader/user to ignore the notion of the author, and act around vigorously. This may lead to the corruption of the self-regulation of the author. It is like the RPG game I mentioned above. Because we (players) had mistakenly questioned the companions too much, the game became an ill-formed one. This was not intentionally done, but what if someone kept on pushing the button when they are not supposed to do so? Wouldn’t the self-regulation get damaged?
In order to maintain the self-regulation of the author, they should give some instructions to the readers/users in order to convey his original narrative to them. However, I think this is a tough job to do, because too much restriction will mean that the game (or any media) is not interactive at all. But at the same time, too much relying on the reader/user may end up in a different subject too.I think interactive media has some kind of dilemma. In order to be always interactive, there should be much work to do.
My brother was doing a pretty good job, until he got to an area where he had no idea which way to in the forest. So he called his companions with his wireless. However, the answer didn’t match to my brothers question. We were puzzled. Later, we found out that we should have contacted the companion a little later, because the answer was prepared for the next stage.
The positive part about interactive media is that the reader/user can create their own stories in their own way. It is possible for them to have their own choice, and end up in a totally different place. For the readers/users, they can have the feeling that they are actually having an interactive communication/action with the media.
However, because of the freeness in interactive media, it is possible for the reader/user to ignore the notion of the author, and act around vigorously. This may lead to the corruption of the self-regulation of the author. It is like the RPG game I mentioned above. Because we (players) had mistakenly questioned the companions too much, the game became an ill-formed one. This was not intentionally done, but what if someone kept on pushing the button when they are not supposed to do so? Wouldn’t the self-regulation get damaged?
In order to maintain the self-regulation of the author, they should give some instructions to the readers/users in order to convey his original narrative to them. However, I think this is a tough job to do, because too much restriction will mean that the game (or any media) is not interactive at all. But at the same time, too much relying on the reader/user may end up in a different subject too.I think interactive media has some kind of dilemma. In order to be always interactive, there should be much work to do.
Tuesday, 21 August 2007
What exactly is interactivity?
Although I can admit several opinions of Crawford, I feel that they are a bit restrictive. Considering his opinion, we can say that an interactive conversation can only be found in a high-level one, for those who are in the professional field. However, I believe that interactivity is also in the moment when we are playing around with our friends. There may not be any liberal consideration, or a use of complicated words, but there are interactivity between the two.
Crawford’s definition sounds as if interactivity conversation cannot exist between unintelligent people. A while ago, I was talking with my friends drinking alcohol. We were kind of drunk, and I know that we were not considering about the what we were saying very much, but later on, I felt that it was quite a valuable moment for me. My friends had set out some keen advice for me, and maybe those cannot be said when we are sober. Maybe it is true that there are only low quality interactivity when we lack the three steps ( listen, think, and speak ) but I believe that there are some kind of response or reaction when talking with anybody.
Crawford’s definition sounds as if interactivity conversation cannot exist between unintelligent people. A while ago, I was talking with my friends drinking alcohol. We were kind of drunk, and I know that we were not considering about the what we were saying very much, but later on, I felt that it was quite a valuable moment for me. My friends had set out some keen advice for me, and maybe those cannot be said when we are sober. Maybe it is true that there are only low quality interactivity when we lack the three steps ( listen, think, and speak ) but I believe that there are some kind of response or reaction when talking with anybody.
Sunday, 19 August 2007
Memento
Memento was quite a difficult movie, but I think it was really impressive!
At first, I thought it was tough for the director to make this movie interesting – because the conclusion came first, and the audience won’t need to predict what would come next. However, because of the great editing, I didn’t get bored at all! But I also have to admit that because it was a bit confusing movie, concentrating on the scenes are required.
The most unique thing about this movie is the narrative. The scenes are not in chronicle order, and the conclusion comes first. It can be said that the initial scene is also the insight. Therefore, I guess the audience can get an experience like Leonard – who can have memories for only ten minutes.
Also, the movie consists of to parts – the colored parts, and the black and white parts.
The colored scenes is the main part of the movie, while the black and white scenes focus on the past and about Sammy Jankins – a person that Leonard must not forget. Because the two parts alternately comes on screen, and the colored part is solely complicated, the movie becomes confusing and attracting at the same time. It was quite interesting when the two parts synchronized together.
Memento is quite a psychological movie – of course because of Leonard’s lack of short-term memory, but because the movie also requires the audience to use their cognitive interactivity. When the audiences see a particular scene, they only see it in one perspective, but when the reverse scene comes up, you realize that you can see the scene as a totally different one than you did 10 minutes before.
I think this movie should be seen more than once, because it is so confusing. Well, not only confusing, but it would be quite interesting to see this in another perspective. I bet that if I see this movie again, I would see the scenes and characters in a completely different way.Moreover, I estimate that I would recognize the things that I never focused on at the first time.
At first, I thought it was tough for the director to make this movie interesting – because the conclusion came first, and the audience won’t need to predict what would come next. However, because of the great editing, I didn’t get bored at all! But I also have to admit that because it was a bit confusing movie, concentrating on the scenes are required.
The most unique thing about this movie is the narrative. The scenes are not in chronicle order, and the conclusion comes first. It can be said that the initial scene is also the insight. Therefore, I guess the audience can get an experience like Leonard – who can have memories for only ten minutes.
Also, the movie consists of to parts – the colored parts, and the black and white parts.
The colored scenes is the main part of the movie, while the black and white scenes focus on the past and about Sammy Jankins – a person that Leonard must not forget. Because the two parts alternately comes on screen, and the colored part is solely complicated, the movie becomes confusing and attracting at the same time. It was quite interesting when the two parts synchronized together.
Memento is quite a psychological movie – of course because of Leonard’s lack of short-term memory, but because the movie also requires the audience to use their cognitive interactivity. When the audiences see a particular scene, they only see it in one perspective, but when the reverse scene comes up, you realize that you can see the scene as a totally different one than you did 10 minutes before.
I think this movie should be seen more than once, because it is so confusing. Well, not only confusing, but it would be quite interesting to see this in another perspective. I bet that if I see this movie again, I would see the scenes and characters in a completely different way.Moreover, I estimate that I would recognize the things that I never focused on at the first time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)