At first it seemed like I was never going to be done with collecting the note cards. It is really interesting how every single step is shown throughout the tutorial. I am not a computer graphics kind of person but I learned how to build a chair using the Second Life creation tutorials. I was able to rotate, stretch, position, and color every thing about the chair I wanted to create.
Something unfortunate about all of the note cards is that they were way too in depth for me to be able to use all of them. I was only able to pick out some of the main cards I thought I might need and then play the rest by ear because the Edit toolbar was really self-explanatory
I designed my chair to be abstract and colorful, but the main thing I wanted to do with my chair is make it look like it defied gravity; to make a round object balancing on a single point. This sort of chair would never be likely in real life, but on SL, anything is possible. Weight distribution is something that I didn't have to deal with while building.
Also, in real life, no one would be able to climb up in the chair because it is way too tall for a non-rock climber to sit in. I placed the chair on a random hillside; but once you sit in it, you have a great view from there; the ocean, beach houses, and a beautiful sunset. Who wouldn't want to sit there.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Second Life
I've never heard of Second Life until this class, but I am familiar with interactive worlds on such video games as World of Warcraft and Lord of the Rings. The main thing that strikes me about Second Life is the fact that you can do anything you want. You can walk, talk, and act with few strings attached.
When I chose my avatar, I picked the "nightclub male," not because I love going clubbing, which I don't, but because I chose to make my Second Life avatar to be an alter ego, someone who I could go around and party with. I wanted to look like I'm always having a great time, to catch peoples' eye. But you can't just keep the basic look of your avatar, you have to customize him/her to look different than everyone else's avatar.
My First time interacting on SL, I introduced myself to two very interesting avatars. Lacie Seale and Chantale Boucher helped me get started. They gave me some cool clothes to choose from, gestures, and skins. It was interesting how easily I could socialize with random people, but I don't know for sure who they are. I guess they are just Lacie and Chantale.
The main thing that I wanted to accomplish when customizing my avatar, was essentially to look hot (to other girl), trendy clothing, and flashy body language. My avatar walks different than he did when I first signed in, now he looks more "alive," with a little sway and an "uh huh girlfriend" pose when he rests (hand on his hip and weight shifted to that side).
Some things that I do not like in Second Life is the amount of sexual reference throughout the domains. The most crowded places that I have visited in the game turn out to be pornographic places. And since those ARE the most crowded rooms, what is the point of Second Life? To find people to hook up with? It seems like this game is the same thing as Match.com or Adultfriendfinder.com.
When I log in to SL, I fly around and try to find things to do. Since I can't trust anyone on there to look and act like they really do in real life, it makes me want to treat it like any other video game (fly around and knock things over basically). Although it is early in my SL life, I don't know all of this for sure, but my impression so far is negative. It doesn't seem real enough for me.
When I chose my avatar, I picked the "nightclub male," not because I love going clubbing, which I don't, but because I chose to make my Second Life avatar to be an alter ego, someone who I could go around and party with. I wanted to look like I'm always having a great time, to catch peoples' eye. But you can't just keep the basic look of your avatar, you have to customize him/her to look different than everyone else's avatar.
My First time interacting on SL, I introduced myself to two very interesting avatars. Lacie Seale and Chantale Boucher helped me get started. They gave me some cool clothes to choose from, gestures, and skins. It was interesting how easily I could socialize with random people, but I don't know for sure who they are. I guess they are just Lacie and Chantale.
The main thing that I wanted to accomplish when customizing my avatar, was essentially to look hot (to other girl), trendy clothing, and flashy body language. My avatar walks different than he did when I first signed in, now he looks more "alive," with a little sway and an "uh huh girlfriend" pose when he rests (hand on his hip and weight shifted to that side).
Some things that I do not like in Second Life is the amount of sexual reference throughout the domains. The most crowded places that I have visited in the game turn out to be pornographic places. And since those ARE the most crowded rooms, what is the point of Second Life? To find people to hook up with? It seems like this game is the same thing as Match.com or Adultfriendfinder.com.
When I log in to SL, I fly around and try to find things to do. Since I can't trust anyone on there to look and act like they really do in real life, it makes me want to treat it like any other video game (fly around and knock things over basically). Although it is early in my SL life, I don't know all of this for sure, but my impression so far is negative. It doesn't seem real enough for me.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Going Digital
When I signed up for freshmen classes in high school, I entered a class called Media Technology. Most of the time we were screwing around, but we spent some good quality time shooting and editing videos. When it came time to make a digital story I was pumped. Glassner uses the term "participatory fiction" and how it isn't that popular. I think that making a digital story is the best example of participatory fiction. Anything you want can be put together how you want it and you can have it say whatever you want. This is what makes the digital story appealing to me; I was able to have a temporary taste of a "godlike authority." (as far as editing a movie goes)
In chapter eight of Glassner's book, he talks about "time control" and how the author identifies the beginning and end. When making a digital story it's pretty obvious when the beginning and end are, but I think the most important thing is length. "Too much sugar for a dime;" something we try to avoid in shooting and editing videos. We have to tell a story in the amount of time for the viewer not to get bored. While editing my story, I chose to make it shorter because I had a simple story to tell, and I didn't want the viewers "changing channels" on me, so I made it short and sweet. On page 277 of Glassner, is a quote "It should feel new: A player's experiences through the game should each feel new."
I want to get back to the interactiveness of stories and games idea. It seems as though some of the more interesting stories are the ones with plenty of interactive qualities for the viewers, but Glassner, in chapter 10, says there is a "myth of interactivity." It is a common mistake to agree that "more interactivity makes any experience better." I think an example of this are digital stories. The only thing that viewers can interact with digital stories is watching and talking about it later, there are no "chose your own adventure" options throughout these stories. That's where the authority figure is most present, and it is up to this figure to make the story good or bad.
In chapter eight of Glassner's book, he talks about "time control" and how the author identifies the beginning and end. When making a digital story it's pretty obvious when the beginning and end are, but I think the most important thing is length. "Too much sugar for a dime;" something we try to avoid in shooting and editing videos. We have to tell a story in the amount of time for the viewer not to get bored. While editing my story, I chose to make it shorter because I had a simple story to tell, and I didn't want the viewers "changing channels" on me, so I made it short and sweet. On page 277 of Glassner, is a quote "It should feel new: A player's experiences through the game should each feel new."
I want to get back to the interactiveness of stories and games idea. It seems as though some of the more interesting stories are the ones with plenty of interactive qualities for the viewers, but Glassner, in chapter 10, says there is a "myth of interactivity." It is a common mistake to agree that "more interactivity makes any experience better." I think an example of this are digital stories. The only thing that viewers can interact with digital stories is watching and talking about it later, there are no "chose your own adventure" options throughout these stories. That's where the authority figure is most present, and it is up to this figure to make the story good or bad.
Monday, September 24, 2007
"Gamers" or "Lamers"
I remember when my dad brought our first computer home. Using MS DOS I was able to hook up some killer games of space invaders. It got old so quick! Before the Internet we were not able to interact with other people through gaming (only if we went to the arcade and physically challenged someone). It is so easy now to sit down at our computers get into a gunfight with someone in Sri Lanka.
Today I am actually going to Best Buy to purchase an XBOX 360 and Halo 3 and receive the best gaming experience possible. I will be in contact with millions of peope that are interacting with me in an online world. Video games have been one of my favorite activities and I usually had the latest and greatest systems, but never had any online play. My games would get boring and I would get tired of playing, but with the availability of the online multiplayer I can't seem to put the controller down. Now I see why we call them computer nerds.
In his book, Glassner talks about "resources" or "commodities" in which people compete for and achieve victories. The xbox 360 has a hard drive that saves games and stats. People can view eachother's capabilities before playing the game, therefore creating a more level playing field for everyone. In the 7th chapter, "Gameplay," Glassner overviews the "teammate error and self error." If someone harms a teammate the server has the ability to kick them out, or punish them by deducting points which is the authority figure for the online domain. Actions like cheating, cursing, and being offensive any other way will result in a punishment. So at least it won't be like a bunch of bad-mouthing truckers on CB radios.
In part 4 of Glassner's book, "Merging Stories and Games" he emphasizes on the need of good storylines to accompany the games. The best story is on that can be shaped and rediculed by those who participate and changed for the better. If someone tells us a story, it's the final word. What happened in that story stays in that story until we tell it with our own spin on things, and gaming can do that. The antagonist and protagonist of gaming stories are defined by the different people that play. Thats where the interactive part comes in. We play in different scenarios everytime, with different people everytime. It is a way to not only succeed in the game, but to succeed in actually winning against a real person. In a way, it brings a story to life.
Whenever people plug into any online world, they can put their own voice in the story. If there was an internet domain that was totally blank and users were to be put in it; they would develop the room themselves. They would interact with eachother, form a setting from eachothers likes and dislikes, and ultimately "live a second life" if they wanted to.
Are the games becoming too addicting? Last night I spent 4 or 5 hours playing Xbox Live. For some reason I just could not put the controller down. In Nevada, two parents were arrested for neglecting their kids because they were gaming too much. I know that may be a little rediculous, but like I said; I didn't put the controller down ALL NIGHT!
Today I am actually going to Best Buy to purchase an XBOX 360 and Halo 3 and receive the best gaming experience possible. I will be in contact with millions of peope that are interacting with me in an online world. Video games have been one of my favorite activities and I usually had the latest and greatest systems, but never had any online play. My games would get boring and I would get tired of playing, but with the availability of the online multiplayer I can't seem to put the controller down. Now I see why we call them computer nerds.
In his book, Glassner talks about "resources" or "commodities" in which people compete for and achieve victories. The xbox 360 has a hard drive that saves games and stats. People can view eachother's capabilities before playing the game, therefore creating a more level playing field for everyone. In the 7th chapter, "Gameplay," Glassner overviews the "teammate error and self error." If someone harms a teammate the server has the ability to kick them out, or punish them by deducting points which is the authority figure for the online domain. Actions like cheating, cursing, and being offensive any other way will result in a punishment. So at least it won't be like a bunch of bad-mouthing truckers on CB radios.
In part 4 of Glassner's book, "Merging Stories and Games" he emphasizes on the need of good storylines to accompany the games. The best story is on that can be shaped and rediculed by those who participate and changed for the better. If someone tells us a story, it's the final word. What happened in that story stays in that story until we tell it with our own spin on things, and gaming can do that. The antagonist and protagonist of gaming stories are defined by the different people that play. Thats where the interactive part comes in. We play in different scenarios everytime, with different people everytime. It is a way to not only succeed in the game, but to succeed in actually winning against a real person. In a way, it brings a story to life.
Whenever people plug into any online world, they can put their own voice in the story. If there was an internet domain that was totally blank and users were to be put in it; they would develop the room themselves. They would interact with eachother, form a setting from eachothers likes and dislikes, and ultimately "live a second life" if they wanted to.
Are the games becoming too addicting? Last night I spent 4 or 5 hours playing Xbox Live. For some reason I just could not put the controller down. In Nevada, two parents were arrested for neglecting their kids because they were gaming too much. I know that may be a little rediculous, but like I said; I didn't put the controller down ALL NIGHT!
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Culture Converging? Oh My!
I remember when my dad bought our first computer. This was way before the mouse was associated with a computer. Using F1, 2, 3, 4, and so on, we navigated our way through the two or three programs that our MS DOS computer had. We knew nothing of the world wide web and the capabilities we would have from sitting in our favorite chair. I sure as heck didn't think I'd be asking my first girlfriend to go steady with me without even leaving my house.
There are so many different ways that technology is advancing; through new "black boxes" which are making every task in our lives easier. Instead of going to the post office, I send an email. Whenever I pay a bill, I do it online. Whenever I have a question, I actually answer it using my phone for Wikipedia. All this is made possible through my black boxes; they are everywhere and they do it all for us.
Usually I consider myself what Jenkins calls "Zappers." I have no sympathy for media, everything I see or do has to hold my attention perfectly or else I will "zap" it. When it comes to surfing online I don't go to certain websites, I click on anything and everything that catches my eye. And I think that the reason why media is converging. Every producer is thinking of new ways to get right in front of the consumer. Technology is there for that.
How easy is it for us to stay in our comfort zones while still being connected to the world. People need interaction with others as a way to stay sane. When I said I asked my first girlfriend to go steady with me I used the peer to peer network AOL Instant Messenger. I didn't stutter and my words were perfectly chosen. I was able to put so much of myself out there without risking to get hurt because it was easier not being in front of that person. The internet does not discriminate on distances between.
The thing that bothers me about media converging is that it may affect the responsibility that people have; to be outgoing and not waiting for things to come to them. But I think that is actually the problem. Deep down we all want the world to come to us and I think that media convergence is exacerbating this. Where is our assertiveness? I think the only thing wrong with the convergence is it is making us lazy, but isn't that the point? To not have to do anything and still have it all?
There are so many different ways that technology is advancing; through new "black boxes" which are making every task in our lives easier. Instead of going to the post office, I send an email. Whenever I pay a bill, I do it online. Whenever I have a question, I actually answer it using my phone for Wikipedia. All this is made possible through my black boxes; they are everywhere and they do it all for us.
Usually I consider myself what Jenkins calls "Zappers." I have no sympathy for media, everything I see or do has to hold my attention perfectly or else I will "zap" it. When it comes to surfing online I don't go to certain websites, I click on anything and everything that catches my eye. And I think that the reason why media is converging. Every producer is thinking of new ways to get right in front of the consumer. Technology is there for that.
How easy is it for us to stay in our comfort zones while still being connected to the world. People need interaction with others as a way to stay sane. When I said I asked my first girlfriend to go steady with me I used the peer to peer network AOL Instant Messenger. I didn't stutter and my words were perfectly chosen. I was able to put so much of myself out there without risking to get hurt because it was easier not being in front of that person. The internet does not discriminate on distances between.
The thing that bothers me about media converging is that it may affect the responsibility that people have; to be outgoing and not waiting for things to come to them. But I think that is actually the problem. Deep down we all want the world to come to us and I think that media convergence is exacerbating this. Where is our assertiveness? I think the only thing wrong with the convergence is it is making us lazy, but isn't that the point? To not have to do anything and still have it all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)