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.
Tuesday, 28 August 2007
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)