Well it was that time of year again, a gamer's haven - E3!! I wish I could have been but of course it's not in the UK, it was in Los Angales and it was all over the interweb via GameTrailers, GameSpot, IGN and other gaming sites and tech blogs - I was following Geoff on GameTrailers along with YouTube's own iJustine providing all the social media's updates.
It was Microsoft first turn in the spotlight, nothing major was announced in terms of hardware (that was Sony and Nintendo's area of excitement, but that will be discussed later) but it was a few software updates i.e. It's pride and joy ... The Kinect!! Now I have a Kinect at home and my opinion of it fluctuates quite allot, I mean it is great in terms of tech breakthrough but for me I am more of a core gamer and jumping up and down, firing an invisible gun and basically moving around like a maniac. So Kinect was one of Microsoft's main highlights, announcements included little programs created from the brand in a little package called 'Fun Labs'. One for example is called 'Kinect Me' which allows you to make a photo realistic Avatar of yourself, after a quick use of it last night I have to say it was pretty good. It firstly asks if you are Male or Female, then takes a passport-like photo followed by at body shot where you have to stand in the guidelines. After a couple of seconds...poof...there is avatar you! Unfortunately at the moment you can only share photos which is quite an anti-climax in my opinion. Another main reveal was an addition to one of the biggest gaming francheise in history...HALO! Yes, yes, Halo 4 is coming...exciting huh!? A trailer was shown with some tantalising points, I can't wait to get my thumbs on that game! (oh and apparently it's not by Bungie any more!)
This is getting quite long now and I'm typing this on my iPad resulting in some finger cramp so I'll talk about Sony's conference. Honest, I was sitting at home waiting for the announcement of the NGP or now called 'Vita'. I was amazed, my brother was sitting next to me with his anti-Sony quips and ended up walking out the room. I do think Xbox is better but that's beside the point, cutting this short...I want one!
Ahhh the future! The possibilities are limitless! If you have been following my blogs then you may have noticed that their all about technology, a key theme is how fast it has grown. The question that can be asked is, 'Who knows?' because the future is indefinite - that's the beauty of it, anyone can get speculating! So, with that in mind this blog is me rambling on about what my idea of the future is for Digital Culture.
One major idea that will become an everyday use is holograms. This bit of tech will allow us to access various places without leaving our homes. It will also enable the military to train its troops in realistic environments without being killed or hurt. Technology like this has already been used to demonstrate its capabilities:
On CNN a holographic image of a correspondent was projected into the studio
The Holodeck: The user
can re-create anything
This obviously is in the very very early stages and is not really true to the holographic name. This is because the only way she can be seen is by watching it through a TV, the man can't actually see her too, only through a TV. A hologram should be seen without any aid, now I can only refer to films here, in Star Wars the famous 'You are my only hope' scene is how a hologram should work. If it is perfected in the future the Holodeck should become a reality, every home may have one. The Holodeck is a room from Star Trek (I know, another film, but these original ideas are what fuels technology today) where the user can create a bespoke 'program' and enter, interact and become part of it. This however increases the chance of society become lost in what is not real, I will talk about this later.
Televisions will improve just as they have already, from the boxed CRT screens to the HD and now 3D ready flat plasma or LCD screens the future of this technology will only get better. One currently in development is OLED screens, these TV's are to replace LCD and Plasma screens as an industry standard. At the moment they are only of small size and cost high amounts but as the tech evolves the price will drop massively as seen recently with HD TV's. This OLED technology can turn flexible and transparent reaching for that familiar sight in many Sci-Fi films. Who knows, could this lead to the Harry Potter style newspapers where the images actually move??
So TV's will constantly improve, here is a video to show what the far future holds (of course, only conceptual sadly):
So what the future holds, we don't know but from inspiration from films and other bits of tech we can create conceptual ideas. Ubiquity will be the key in my opinion, as we live our lives everything will be streamed to us instantly in real-time. But if things like the Holodeck becoming a reality it could make us lazy, make us more reliant on technology than we already are. If the Internet turns into a Virtual Reality where the user can actually walk into the Net then we could loose what is real and eventually become to like what is real and stay in what is not. If we can create anything in the Holodeck then why would we want to leave? The internet idea, similar to the concept in a Futurama episode allows the social aspect to become magnified, but if this all happens will we be able to trust everything that we see?
If you woke up tomorrow and there was no modern technology what would you do? There was no Internet, no mobile phones, television, games consoles or computers, how would you live? The answer - you would find it extremely hard. Most global companies would not function and would fail, their video conferencing, emailing, word processing, stock marketing would be gone. I'd assume you as a person would be bored with no Facebook, Youtube or gaming to keep you entertained. In our situation, we rely heavily on technology.
When this situation is applied to LEDC's (Less Economically Developed Country) their lives would be almost unchanged. They don't have the tech to alter their culture and so do not rely on it to live. To get crops for example, they would have to grow, manage and harvest by hand. They do not use heavy machinery to aid them, tractors, combine harvesters or smart watering systems to grow them like we do in MEDC's (More Economically Developed Country).
A good example of how dependent we are on technology is a story to do with Apple's alarm clock feature on its iPhone's. People failed to get to work because their phone failed to tell them to...what does that say for us a civilisation? You can imagine the excuses that the boss would have gotten for these guys:
"...people angrily blogging or Tweeting about being late for work or for travel arrangements."
The natural routine of going to sleep has become dependent on technology, unless our iPhone's say 'hey, its time for work buddy' then you miss that crucial train or get stuck in that endless stream of traffic and end up late for work.
Let's move on to mobile phones. This bit of tech has evolved from just making calls, to texting, to surfing the internet and now mobile gaming. Without a mobile phone we wouldn't as a nation be able to contact anyone. I couldn't imagine what our world would become, perhaps sending letters? Or even sending owls to deliver parchment Harry Potter style. Anyone mentioning that today would probably think of using a quill, ink and wax sealing it with their family crest. They would think this because technology has altered our culture massively. Most of the generations now are not used to using these archaic pieces of technology - yes, yes, they are technology!
It may seem odd now with iPhones and 3D TV's but writing is a technology. According to TheFreeDictionary, Technology is defined as:
"the methods and tools that a society has developed in order to facilitate the solution of its practical problems"
In a way, technology has changed how we think of technology itself mainly because of the uses it has. So, yes, writing is a technology. Farming is too, LEDC's rely on this technology but no to the extent that we do. The same is for fishing. Some countries use heavy machinery while others use traditional nets and perseverance.
Fishing in Vietnam
Fishing with Modern Tech = OVERFISHING!
This large separation between MEDC's and LEDC's has a professional educated name, 'The Digital Divide'. This basically means that some people can't afford to or can't get the technology seen in richer countries ... but is this a good thing?
If countries that are not used to the more recent technology like phones, TV's and games consoles is that ok? I would say yes, mainly because they don't need it. We don't either (well, maybe mobile phones - just for calling though), our culture has become so engrossed in technology that it is just for luxuary i.e. iPad. LEDC's don't need these surely, they have managed to survive this far without them. The only bit of tech that is vitally needed is healthcare. This is one benefit to having a more developed country, money can be used to research and implement drugs to cure killer diseases. Organisational events such as Red Nose Day or Comic Relief allow this 'proper technology' to be distributed within a poor society. So although the Digital Divide is apparent and some claim that it is not fair that other countries do not get access to the quality of technology, they don't need it because they don't rely on it. In a more closer situation like the USA for example,their Digital Divide affects them more heavily because they do rely on modern technologies. See the video below on the Digital Divide in the US:
In the video from 2009, "about half of all Americans aren't connected". This can have large effects on that generation as they grow up. Growing up in a technology centred country and not being able to gain the technicity required for most jobs, it can seriously deprive certain communities. In poorer countries the younger generations do not have access to the technology but do not need it to get a job.
There's no hiding it, technology is everyware! Literally everyware!
Nope, those are not spelling mistakes, it is actually a term coined by Adam Greenfield in his book 'Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing'. In it he describes how we as a civilization will become so engrossed in technology that we will not even notice we're using it. This is true, to an extent, of surveillance cameras in our Urban Space.
When you travel around in your own little world, who is watching? Or even, how many people are watching? We in Britain are the most surveillance heavy country in the world with an averaging number of 4.2m CCTV cameras*
*source from BBC 2nd November 2006
There are some debates over whether these are actually doing the jobs that they were meant for when implemented into society in relation to their cost to the government and to the general tax payers. In an article on Ezine Articles,
"In the UK, where an average person may be watched 300 times a day by the prevalent closed circuit television systems, numerous case studies paired with crime statistics have been used by Britain's Home Office to determine the effectiveness of these CCTV systems and to see how well CCTV saves time and money for their police force. In fact, from 1999 to 2001, the British government spent £170 million (approximately $250 million) for closed circuit television security schemes in town and in city centers, car parks, crime hot spots and in residential areas."
From this quote, the amount of money spent is not always benefiting society in terms of keeping crime rates down. But they are there for a 'peace of mind' for the society, they feel safer walking down a dark street, this is one of the many benefits. They also allow the police to get to the scene of a crime (usually fights caused by ruffians on a Saturday night) without the wait for someone watching to call 999. I agree, there are numerous positive points as well as many negative ones, usually involved in money from the tax payer. But the reason why we pay tax as a nation is that if a day comes when we need the security system, it is there for us. It is exactly the same as the NHS.
Scrap the NHS - I'm going private
If the people who argue against paying tax for the CCTV system that doesn't benefit from their services then surely they should feel the same about the NHS? They are paying money so when, if they are injured, they can be fixed-up freely because the nation has contributed into your recovery. If we didn't pay for the CCTV system as a nation, if your were battling a case in court against a man who ran over a family member of yours and you needed the video evidence of him actually speeding you would not be able to get that footage - unless you paid £X amount of money. It's almost like going private in the NHS - you only pay money for when you actually need it but that often leads to massive amounts of money. In a documentary by Michael Moore called Sicko, a man who lost his fingers in a sawing accident had to pay something like $50,000+ to have ONE finger back on, because he didn't have Health Insurance (or America doesn't support the idea of Universal Health Care because, quite clearly in the documentary, they are scared of becoming a communist nation). That isn't the UK at all, are we not a nation that prides itself in nationalism, full of community spirit?
Then there are people who are so paranoid that they are being watched, they feel claustrophobic, trapped. I'm not like that at all, for me they are a piece of ubiquitous tech, there when needed. This is just my attitude, but, I've got nothing to hide. Until the government starts to go all Orson Wells on us - putting cameras in our homes, then they have my support.
Oh yes, another war has started! Surely there is room for two mobile OS's (Operating System)??
........Oh no, both are fighting for the #1 spot in superiority in mobile technology!
I can remember when phones were like bricks, yes I'm 19 years old, so not like this:
A possibly lethal
weapon
..........but more like this:
Small and Ugly
GREAT!
Back then was a time where mobile phones were just used to call and text people, crazy I know, but now they are utilized as a gaming platform via things called applications or 'apps'. These apps are small programs which are downloaded and installed onto your phone. In the good-old days you would navigate your phone via endless menu lists, now in the 21st century you navigate via a graphical user interface covering an OS. These OS are very similar to ones that work on a laptop or desktop computer and are the ones that are in battle with each other. But this battle has been seen before, on computer OS's MacOS (Apple) and Windows (Microsoft). Now it is the war of the phones, Apple's iOS and Google's Android!
In this blog post I will be focusing mainly on the difference in the two OS's because they are basically opposite in how they function in terms of sharing with their users making this war very interesting.
I will begin with Android first. This relatively new mobile OS has taken the world by storm, mainly because there was a gap in the market. The phone universe needed a new OS, I mean, there was Apple but nothing else really that captured the attention of the customers. The thing is that it is not restricted to only one type of phone, unlike iOS, Android can be installed and used on Samsung's, LG, Motorola, and HTC's. This allowed the customers to keep to their preferred phone make while still making use of the Google OS. Another thing to why it has been attractive to these phone manufacturers is that they can put their own slant on the OS, for the Samsung Galaxy S, the phone is run by Android but Samsung have added their own menu system to keep it their own.
See the video above? Android was released in 2008 and the video clearly shows how popular the OS has become. One of the main reasons why it has become so successful is because of its Open-source software. This kind of software is the tipping point to who will eventually win this OS war because Apple doesn't use this, they are all corporate like. The term Open-source will be explained more later.
Now its Apple's turn! Apple are know for their uber-cool designs and unique products and their software is similar. Apple's iOS was first seen on the original iPhone and nothing has really changed in terms of looks. Today some people are becoming a bit bored of the same look on every software update, compared to Android, who updates regularly with alphabetically organised software names such as Froyo, Gingerbread and Honeycomb (yea! their cool!). But mentioned before, Apple do not support Open-source software. Ok, now I will talk about it...
Open-source is a term used to describe the allowance of the final programming code to the public. It is allowed to be altered and used to structure other creations. From the website, How Stuff Works I think they explain it very well:
"Most software that you buy or download only comes in the compiled ready-to-run version. Compiled means that the actual program code that the developer created, known as the source code, has run through a special program called a compiler that translates the source code into a form that the computer can understand. It is extremely difficult to modify the compiled version of most applications and nearly impossible to see exactly how the developer created different parts of the program. Most commercial software manufacturers see this as an advantage that keeps other companies from copying their code and using it in a competing product. It also gives them control over the quality and features found in a particular product.
Open source software is at the opposite end of the spectrum. The source code is included with the compiled version and modification or customization is actually encouraged. The software developers who support the open source concept believe that by allowing anyone who's interested to modify the source code, the application will be more useful and error-free over the long term."
With Android using this they encourage the users of this code to experiment, but what is to stop them from creating something completely different and compete with the platform? On their website they describe their Governance Philosophy, in it they state:
"Uncontrolled customization can, of course, lead to incompatible implementations. To prevent this, the AOSP also maintains the Android Compatibility Program, which spells out what it means to be "Android compatible", and what is required of device builders to achieve that status. Anyone can (and will!) use the Android source code for any purpose, and we welcome all such uses. However, in order to take part in the shared ecosystem of applications that we are building around Android, device builders must participate in the Compatibility Program.
Though Android consists of multiple sub-projects, this is strictly a project-management technique. We view and manage Android as a single, holistic software product, not a "distribution", specification, or collection of replaceable parts. Our intent is that device builders port Android to a device; they don't implement a specification or curate a distribution."
Now that the source code has been released the community can begin to change and alter it, the community can download the Android Software Development Kit (SDK) allowing them to use the tools to create their open Apps (Applications are one of the main factors to a successful mobile OS). The users of this require no skill at all and once created, can be placed onto Android's Marketplace. This is at the other end of the scale for Apple. Apple as I have mentioned before is a very very corporate business and expects only the best content for its customers. With this in mind your average, Tom, Dick and Harry can't get creating. A subscription charge must be paid ($99 yearly) to get use of the development tools that Apple provide. This allows only the more dedicated developers to get creating leaving all the novice's out in the cold. In my opinion this is a good filtering system. Now, I own an Android phone so I'm entitled to say this, the market place is clogged up with poor amateur apps that are not worth downloading. Whereas on Apple's App Store there is rarely a very poor game mainly because they have experienced developers working in their circle. Oh but you may be thinking surely any novice can pay the $99 and get going, well no. Apple have a rigorous application process. This process can take up to months and even then, the app may still get rejected. The rules are also tightly adhered to, a submitted application is tested and each rule is applied, if it fails it does not get onto the app store - simples!
Here is an example*: A man called Nick Bonatsakis submitted his 'DuckPhone' to the popular fruit business. His app was tribute to the phone seen in Jersey Shore. After a wait the app creator received this:
“Dear Atlantia Software LLC,
We’ve reviewed your application DuckPhone and we have determined that this application contains minimal user functionality and will not be appropriate for the App Store.
If you would like to share it with friends and family, we recommend you review the Ad Hoc method on the Distribution tab of the iPhone Developer Portal for details on distributing this application among a small group of people of your choosing or if you believe that you can add additional user functionality to DuckPhone we encourage you to do so and resubmit it for review.
Sincerely,
iPhone App Review Team”
*Example from crunchgear.com
Notice the reason to why this was rejected: 'Minimal User Functionality' - Whaat!? This is coming from a store that has accepted the app getting the user to hold a button for as long as possible, this to me is minimal user functionality! Later on in the source from crunchgear.com the words, "Apple wants a pristine App Store and will get it at any cost". This summarises their system very well in my opinion.
Their not going easy on Android too, they don't want anything to do with them at all, the word 'Android' has been banned from their store and could result in your application being banned - wow, vicious.
The war will continue I'm sure for years to come, with two very strong competitors in the ring it is hard to tell. Apple with their design and marketing skills and Android with Google as their daddy.
If you have ever played a video game then you will have come across multiple glitches I'm sure, you know the ones, your walking around and suddenly you get stuck on something invisible? Or you can't advance any further over the map because of the 'invisible wall' or 'pipeline'? These are all typical when playing, but can some glitches be used to give the player rewards?
A glitch is simply a programming error that is hard to troubleshoot because it is not apparent to all players and may not happen all the time. Players can use these errors in the computer code to access areas that may be difficult to get to or to get an unfriendly advantage on other players - these people are know as 'Glitchers'. Although most glitches are unintentionally in the games code the developers may put some in on purpose, these give the players some sort of reward, not to help them advance in the game, but just some sort of 'thanks for playing our game and exploring the boundaries, here is a little prize' sort of thing. These are know as Easter Eggs in the video game community.
The first evidence of an in-game Easter Egg is in Atari's retro game "Adventure", it it the player's reward for experimenting with the game. To get this egg the player must:
1. Get the bridge
2. Take it inside the black castle
3. Find the central room that causes the screen to flicker. You must have an object with you to see the flicker, as it takes 3 game sprites to cause flicker (you, the "dot" and the 3rd object, in this case the bridge)
4. Use the bridge to get into the secret chamber in the middle of that room
5. Inside that the secret chamber there is a "dot" -- pick it up by pressing into the lower right corner of the chamber.
6. Take the dot to the main hallway (below the golden castle)
7. Once there the dot will cause one of the hallway barriers to disappear. Note that you need to have another object in the room (key, sword, duck, etc.) to make the barrier disappear. You also usually have to have the "dot" in front of you to go through.
8. You can then enter a hidden chamber that lists a message from the programmers
The history behind this first Easter Egg is that the creator, Warren Robinette, didn't like the fact that Atari did not allow its programmers to get credit for making the game. In his frustration he altered the code allowing people to discover who the talent really was. The message from the programmers mentioned in point 8 is simply his name:
The message: "Created by Warren Robinette"
Ever since, game developers have been doing the same, rewarding players for simply exploring the boundaries of the game. Some examples are shown below:
In this Easter Egg notice how there is no glitch. This is the case in some games, instead of using a fault in the game the developers just place funny events into hard to reach areas, almost all the time they are funny. It is a surprise to the gamers because they are out of place and often link to other popular games, in this case: Portal developed by Valve.
This next one is from Halo: Reach on the Xbox 360, check it out:
This sort of Easter Egg is one that provides the most reward sensation in my opinion. It is hard to get to firstly, the switch placed at the very edge of the map and then the spawning into an unknown tunnel. This egg really keeps the player guessing into what is happening.
One from Assassins Creed 2:
This similar to the Fable 3 one above rewards the player for being curious.
GTA4:
I find Easter Eggs a really interesting point to look at because the developers harness glitches and turn them into something entertaining. They can also just put random things into its structure to make it more interesting too. In an interview from VideoJug they ask a game developer a series of questions, one being, "Why do developers put easter eggs in games?"
His answer:
"I think developers put Easter eggs into games just for fun. It's a nod and a wink to the fans; it's a nod and a wink to the players. An Easter egg is usually a little bit cheeky, but it's good fun and they're always meant in good humour."
We play video games because their ultimately a blast to play! There is so much fun in entering a reality other than our own, become another person with often superior qualities to our own. But why are they fun to play?
In this post I will be looking specifically at Pac-Man!
To make a successful video game it needs some hooks to keep the gamer playing as well as aporias and epiphanies.
Aporias are certain things programmed into the game to make it challenging, in an essay by Kristine Jørgensen published online she defines it as,
"a localisable problem in a computer game that must be overcome by some uncertain actions. In this thesis the term implies any problem in a game that the player needs to comprehend and solve by a combination of actions."
These are often paired with the actions that overcome them - called Epiphanies. It is this that creates a sense of accomplishment along with different types of gaming hooks which will be explained later on.
So, what makes Pac-Man so fun to play?
Well, if you haven't played it before have a go!
See, did you have fun? But why?
One of the first reasons why it is fun to play is the rules, they are simple to understand and make it a game full of excitement:
- Pac-Man (you) has to get all the Pills around the board
- Power Pills can be used to capture the Ghosts sending them back to the middle of the board
- Pac-Man has to avoid the Ghosts
- You move Pac-Man with the arrow keys
Another reason why the little yellow fella' is fun to play is something called the Magic Circle, this idea was created by a historian Johan Huizinga in his book 'Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture' in it he lists multiple "play-grounds" where games are played - the Magic Circle as one of them. Huizinga's concept was later applied to Digital Games by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman in 'Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals', in this they both agree that although Huizinga's term is a single play-ground it is used as shorthand for a fictional and temporary world created when a game begins.
The players involved within the game are within its Magic Circle, in a board game for example, the Magic Circle here would be the room it was played. In Pac-Man it is slightly different, today you can play Pac-Man on your computer so the Magic Circle is smaller compared to a board game, it is just you and the computer. This kind of circle magnifies the immersion levels considerably because there are no distractions. This kind of game, being a one player hosts Tactical Immersion - where you the player enters 'the zone', you stare at the screen and don't really think about the button presses on the keyboard.
Within the circle of a board game you as players agree to an almost invisible contract to how the game plays, but as soon as you leave the room you leave the Magic Circle. In the past Pac-Man was a phenomenon in the arcades. Tonnes of kids would flock to these machines and play and play and play trying to get #1 on the scoreboards. The Magic Circle here is much more social compared to the one on the computer, it is almost like a board game's although it is still a one player game others watching can become immersed. I mentioned the competitive element to Pac-Man, this is another and a large one to why the game is so competitive.
Both online today and back in the arcades getting the high scores means everything, and because Pac-Man is such a quick game if you loose then you can retry almost instantly - there are no loading screens! This kind of play is a specific gameplay hook. There are specific things within a game that keeps the gamer playing:
- Action Hooks-
These allow the character to be moved by the player providing interaction between the two, almost like an extension to yourself often with special/signature moves.
-Resource Hooks-
These provide a resource system in the game i.e. health or ammo. It adds another layer into how the game functions because the player has to go looking for them when they run low. This makes the game, again, more involving.
-Tactical/Strategic Hooks-
These are typical in RPG's (Role Playing Games) as they allow choice, for example, weapon choice, powers in level growth and discussed in previous posts, every play through of an RGP can be different because of these hooks. Another example is in driving games, the player may choose to draft behind other players to gain a speed advantage. Again, these are not all essential but may provide tactical advantages over other players.
-Time Hooks-
These kinds of hooks are involving the player with events to come in the future. Waiting to spawn on Call of Duty or waiting for a weapon to appear is another. They allow the player to think ahead and plan their strategy. A basic time hook is a simple timer, when it reaches zero it is game over. This is such a powerful tool in playing games, especially ones that involve tactical immersion i.e. Pac-Man or Tetris. The player will then try and beat their score and rise the ranks to be the best.
With hooks looked at, the most applicable to Pac-Man are Time Hooks and Action Hooks.
Mentioned before, Aporia and Epiphanies. In Pac-Man the in-game problems (the aporias) are the pesky ghosts and to an extent, the walls and the actualcontrol mechanics. The controls are unique in that you must press a direction before Pac-Man gets there. This emphasises the tactical side and increases the immersion. Mirrored to this, the epiphany is getting the power pills and capturing the ghosts. Mastering the controls and the navigation through the maze is another. Getting used to the controls in any game is essential but some can be very difficult to grasp. Games like this are fighting games such as Tekken and the newly released Marvel Vs Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds. Within these games are very complex moves and combos, these are the aporias but mastering them and pulling them off in an online match are the epiphanies. Click here to see this frantic gameplay in action.
Few! So, there you have it...that is why Pac-Man is sooo fun to play!
Did you ever met my friend Aristotle? Well, he was a Greek Philosopher that came up with three poetics that applies to narrative, these are known as the Arristotle Poetics:
1) Beginning
2) Middle
3) End
These are pretty key in how books, films and games are created. Imagine if the book you were reading had no ending, or you started watching a film half-way through, it would be infuriating wouldn't it?
With literature and other media of that sort using those poetics, you could say that as the audience; you were experiencing it in a linear way, from point A, to point D at the end. But is it different in video games seen today?
Are Video Games today changing traditional narratives?
As video games have become increasingly interactive and graphically immersive the way the story or plot is told can change depending on the player's actions throughout the game. Games typical of this are RPG's (Role Playing Games) where the player usually creates a character from a various array of selections i.e. race, power, clothes etc. This straight away makes it a unique experience as the main character used in the story is different to everyone else playing. In a book for example, everyone reading will have the same description on the page in every copy, imagination creates the character's looks but primarily the character is who the author wants him/her to be. This begs the question of whether or not authors are actually dying out, not the books; this will be looked at later on in the post.
An RPG that uses this 'player-told story' is the Fable series by Lionhead Studios. Fable 2 released in 2008 really played on the idea of changing traditional narratives. Check out the video below from an interview with one of the main creators, Peter Molyneux:
The 'Free-Roaming' World
A quote from the biginning of the clip is a great example to use that stresses the point that Aristotle's Poetics are not being re-written but changed and altered, "...has an incredable story that morphs around what your [the player] like and allows you to be whoever you want to be, whether its good or evil, pure or corrupt." Moloyneux talks about how the player can get married and buy houses, this really allows the story to be experienced at a unique pace to someone else. He also keeps using the word "free-roaming" when he talks about the world that the story is set, this is an epitomising point because it really contradicts the idea of a linear path typically seen when reading books. Molyneux seems like he's homing in on changing the traditional narratives seen in the Modern Warfare franchise when you follow a set path through check points and triggers.
Take a look at this other video with interviews from some writers and other fans of the game and how in-depth the story is:
The player in Mass Effect
Another game that experiments with different narrative methods is Mass Effect. This game series by BioWare really focus's on in-game choices. The main area here to talk about is the conversations. In this game the player can choose which line of dialogue to say allowing the conversation to unfold differently every time. This is similar to Fable as it gives the narrative a more user-controlled feel rather than the script writer's. Choosing different lines of dialogue can create tension between the player and the crew member, can create a love story within the main story and can even unlock various parts that would not be accessible because the player did not choose to get to know that person well enough.
In games like Mass Effect or Fable the in-game choices allow the story to unfold around the player ultimately creating a completelydifferent ending to the story. In Mass Effect for example, during the game you may wish to have more evil morales to that of one of your companions, that companion leaves the party and therefore doesn't join you at the end for support during a massive onslaught. Or if you are enemies with a party member he/she may not listen to your commands at he end of the game resulting in their demise. This links to the idea that authors are somewhat not the main element any more, they lay the foundations for the player (audience) to create their own experience. Are the players actually becoming the author? I suppose we do certain things within the story that catalyse the story to unfold but in my opinion, the idea of a game having a beginning, a middle and an end is still apparent but the rate at which they are experienced differs.
Another quick game to look at, Heavy Rain. This is a different take on traditional games mainly because it is a different genre all together. Heavy Rain is solely an interactive book, the main strengths in its production and experience is its story.
See how the choices that the player can choose floats dynamically around the main protagonist. This game is extending the power of what traditional novels provide: an immersive experience from beginning to end. The same is for Heavy Rain except it allows the player to deviate from the beginning point to the end point freely.
Think about this for a second, what is your home-page? What is the first page that opens on your browser? I'm pretty sure it may be Google or another search engine. It may not, but most people reading this will have it set.
Ok, think about this; how do you actually get to a website that isn't in your favourites? You wont memorise the URL, well I hope not, instead you will type into a search engine the name and from there you will gain access.
With the internet's primary use to share information, we navigate its entirety via search engines (Google, Yahoo!, Ask.com and Bing), but do these give websites a fair share in the availability to be seen by the public?
Search engines use rankings when you type certain key words into its search bar. The rankings are based on how popular the site is, how accurately matched it is to your query and now, how much they have been paid to be higher in the list that you see making it more likely for it to be clicked on. Once you click 'search' the engine goes through 3 stages:
1) Web Crawling
2) Indexing
3) Searching
(NOTE: This is quite complicated so bare with me..)
In the Web Crawling stage the engine uses a bit of AI (see my Are We Able To Create AI post for more information), sometimes known as a spider - a designed program that searches through web links, to gather the initial stages of the search. Next is the Indexing stage, here the program organises the web pages in order matching the words or phrases that was entered in the search box. The words or phrases that are looked through on the sites are call Meta-Tags. These tags are specific or key words set by the site creator allowing search engines to pick them up, an example would be this blog post. This week's topic is on search engines, information, internet etc. these will all be used as tags that will make it easier for it to be noticed. Once that has been done the final Searching stage begins, this is when all of the sites and the result of your search is displayed. Remember this all takes seconds, sometimes less. Here I'll show you, I'll do a search on Google now on the word 'pizza': lets see how long it takes...
...wow, 0.21 seconds! This just proves that search engines are the most helpful tool on the internet, look at all the results I recieved, '197,000,000', I don't even know what that is...I think 197 million? Anyway, that's allot of information right? I would say, more than enough, which is why this blog post is partly named 'Information Overload', its almost like Google is boasting the amount of results it gives - arrogant search engine!
With this large amount of information, there should be a fair chance that smaller more independent businesses, but there isn't. When I searched 'pizza' the top three pages were:
This is most probably because Dominos and Pizza Hut have paid Google to be a higher rank in it's servers. This is wrong in my opinion because it means that an independent place is stuck on page 10 of the search, the 10th 'O' in Google's interface or number 100, 000 in the list - and let's face it, your not going to sieve through every link to the 10th page.
There have been experiments done to compare how users interact with the screen (the positioning of the data from web searches), the experiments were conducted by Gord Hotchkiss:
Notice the following:
- how tightly Google keeps attention focused on the upper left corner of the search results
- how attention drops off the further down you go on the page
- ads in the right column generally do not get much attention
(www.training.seobook.com/google-ranking-value)
Notice on this picture, it shows how long each link is looked at along with the amount of clicks it receives. It shows that links at the top (mainly 1-6) are most likely to be seen, as it gets further down the page some aren't even looked at - see the eye test above.
Staying on the idea about Google rankings, in a post on ramzws.com it talks about how much you spend on getting a website created but then not even making it onto Google. I think this quote, "If you can't find your website in Google then just how much of a bargain was that $495 website?" is a great one to focus on. Because search engines are the encapsulating tool when it comes to browsing the web, if your website doesn't appear then it is almost lost in cyberspace, hardly anyone will come across your site unless they enter in very specific key words. In the blog post on 'ramzws' it says that a site costing $5000 with more pages will probably be seen on search engines more than one with a couple of pages worth $400. I reckon this is wrong, it completely isolates the more independent companies wanting to be seen on the internet although I would agree that it is some what a competitive area, companies battling it out to get to #1 on Google but they must have as much right as the larger companies surely?
