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.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)