Reflective post on SELF. NET

I thought the Workshops and use of Blogger suited this unit and the themes and issues we were discussing. They allowed us to interact with some of the issues dicussed that might have been more difficult to get to grips with if we had not had the opportunity to explore them more hands on or interactively in the workshop and through the use of the tute blog.
I think the online workshops were great to, as they gave us individually a chance to explore and play around with the digital culture we were discussing.
Obviously having an element of online work might have presented problems for some students if they were not familiar or used to working from the internet to such an extent, but the little teaching workshops at the beginning of the semester I think were a great way to get everyone up to speed. I also think it is important to try something new and innovative, and Self.Net allowed the perfect opportunity. It is good to take people out of the traditional comfort zone of University style teaching, but also, on saying that, it is important to work out what new methods add to the learning experience and what subtracts from it.
It is important to have the tutorials were people can discuss face to face and present ideas, and also to have this blog through which people can further bring up points and create a sense of community within the unit if they wish.
I think the problem raised about the nature of the essays that seem to not particularily fit with the ideas being emphasized in the course could easily be overcome. I think it is important to still have the traditional essay style way of addressing issues etc as it might become too confronting to bring in other methods of assessment altogether. However, in terms of participation marks and using blogger and the workshops, there could be room for more interactive work through the net etc. Eg, the use of posting up the webliographies and commenting on others over the blog was a good way to bring old style methods of assessment and new ones together.
Cyborg? haha well judging from the conversation in the last tutorial I would probably have to say I was one. Considering I wear contact lenses for a lot of the time and would be blind without them I cant escape technology. Also yes, the mobile phone features largely in my life, as well as internet connections blah blah blah etc. Simply my mobile phone seems to have become an essential method of organisng day to day activities with friends eg meeting for lunch etc, and my use of my laptop and internet allows me to email people and talk to people in other parts of the world, eg friends who have gone overseas. So, as well as my body being constituted of technology such as contact lenses, my social interactions and indeed things considered essential for human happiness such as community and friendship seems to be increasingly mediated by technology. I guess at the beginning of the course I accepted myslef as a cyborg depending on the definition one might wish to follow, which is what I still do. I wouldnt go as far as to say I fit the qualifications of 7 of 9 or whatever her name is in Star Trek, but if technology keeps progressing the way it does and we continue to consume it and incorporate it into our everday lives such as we have done with mobile phones etc, it seems that we could well end up in a similar state.
The question I always ponder about is whether all this technology, vaccines etc and daily drugs that people take to increase vitamins levels and all other things, has made the human essentially kind of soft. I mean, if we were to place ourselves back in time and try to survive would we die out, cos I hardly think we could be considered the 'fittest' anymore cos we rely so much on technology. People who would of died out from weakness, and even things like eyesight problems would surely of been bred out before, but becasue of technology we can still live on and pass on our weakness to the next generation (yes I know this is an incredibly pessimistic view but I might as well raise it). I always think about the "war of the worlds" and how the aliens were simply defeated by the common cold...one day will we be like the aliens?
Anyway, THanks TAMA I thoroughly enjoyed the course...:) you can give yourself a chocolate bar

Politics of Playing- Political Simulation Games

1) When looking at September 12, New York Defender and Kabul Kaboom, the idea of communicating a political message through interactive games would seem to be an ‘effective’ way of drawing people into relating to the message being conveyed. Interactivity is far more appealing than long pages of political protest, and would appeal to a wider audience. That said however, ‘games’ do appeal and invite a certain user or audience. And for the game to be completely successful in imparting an effective response in the user, he/she must be familiar with the use of standard computer games or have grown up with an understanding of their enjoyment and value. To reach a wider audience maybe an interactive flash movie would have been more appropriate as more mature audiences eg, say 40 and above, or those not interested in games, would have found more enjoyment. That said, these political simulation games, unlike any short flash film, offer a larger amount of user empathy and connection, and draws the player into the plight, connecting them on a more emotional level in such a short time. Eg, in New York Defender, the player is implicitly connected to say the plight of providing defense for American civilians, (eg taking on the role of say the military, CIA etc) in having to quickly detect the threat of incoming airplanes, and responding fast enough to shoot them. This however is a hopeless plight as the game suggests as, as fast as the player shoots, the number of planes will increase. The affect of having a game player feel a sense of inadequacy as defending his/her goal, has a much stronger affect in a shorted time on a personal level, than simply watching a flash movie. And in September 12 and Kabul Kaboom, the user can identify with more abstract political ideas and can be placed in positions more foreign and difficult to connect respectively.
2) I think the political message in all three of the games mentioned was immediately easy to recognise as soon as you play the game or finish playing the game. I think the notion of ‘I lose, therefore I think’, is incredibly strong, as in a game where you cant possibly win you tend to think, why the hell did anyone make a game like this? Because, naturally people associate games with entertainment, and connect them with the idea that they are meant to generate a sense of achievement, part of playing and enjoying it is being able to say, “Hey finally I killed Andariel with ice bolts after dieing 50 times!!”. Or alternatively, thinking about even the basic level of gameplay, say “Snake” on any mobile phone, people always want to get the high score, or ask what your highest score is. However, people would be far less amused saying to each other, “Hey did you play that game where you can’t win? How badly did you lose?”. Basically, in all three of these political games there is a low if not non existent level of enjoyment with the gameplay. You play September 12 and enjoy watching the cute little people walking around their city, and then as soon as you shoot the terrorist you think, “bollocks, hang on, more of them have been created then I killed!!” plus it is impossible to kill the terrorist even when you think they have walked to the edge and there aren’t any “nice” people around them. Almost instantaneously with your first interaction with the game, you feel a sense of failure and futile effort in trying to actually attempt what the game has told you to do. The goal seems non existent and reward even less so. Any user or player of computer games would immediately recognise and question the idea of this game, and even anyone not familiar with game play would pick up the political message.
3) I have absolutely no idea of a political game, I don’t have that much imagination lol. However, from looking at examples of political simulation games I would say the most effective way of creating one would be: a) have your idea create an interesting environment in which to play, eg, like in September 12 it was very cute, similar to Theme Hospital, because you would want to generate the idea that this game is for fun, and entertainment (even though it isn’t!!). b) I would be inclined not to mention in the instructions that there is no way to win the game, just to make the sense of defeat and futileness kick a bit harder because people would think they could win, after all, people think they can win a war. c) game play should be testing some kind of skill of the user, eg speed, accuracy, however no matter how fast how quick etc, the inbuilt nature of the game should increase exponentially to make achievement impossible. d) user should either fail simply by not completing the desired interaction that should cause a win state, or should have their interaction lead to increase negative effect instead of positive, e) finally, if the game either times out, or the player loses, a negative message should be written or some remark that reflects the political statement being made, instead of a traditional “Bad luck try again, or Congratulations”. Then at the end of the game, you could have a message saying it is impossible to win in a game such as “insert political action here=eg War, Terrorism etc”

I do think however, that Political Simulation Games would achieve a stronger impact on viewers/users associated with traditional gameplay, and who are looking for the standard notions of achievement etc that a game normally embodies. For someone who has no expectation of being able to win, or seeing it as a test of skill, the effect would be far less, although it would still be present on some level. Obviously because the nature of these Political Simulation Games rely on the already existing expectations of gameplay in order to make their point.

Look Everyone A MUD!!!

Hey everyone, since we were talking about MUD's last week and didnt think there are many left, here is one that you might like to look at.
I used to play on it when I was in school cos I am/was a great fan of Terry Pratchett's novels.
I have no idea how it is still going now, having only found it again the other day...anyway, take a look :)
Enjoy..
Discworld MUD

CyberLife's Creatures- Playing Games Simulating Worlds

Games are constructed with real life imitation. Technology, as it has become more advanced has led to more advanced versions of artificial life and its simulations of the real world in computer games.

Sarah Kember explores the nature of computer games, most specifically Cyberlife’s "Creatures", as well as "SimLife" and "SimCity" etc and notes their relation with reality, science and culture.

Her article explores the ways in which these simple computer games have been developed and been used by consumers, as well as a reflection on the nature of the game play involved.

It becomes apparent when reading her article that the genre of computer games Kember cites, draws on a particular aspect of game play. These games are not the macho shoot-em-ups seen today like the popular ‘Halo’ or the strategy games such as ‘Command and Conquer’, instead each one seemingly reflects on a more mundane aspect of human life and existence, such as the running of a city, management of environment, evolution, and even in the case of "Creatures"… small fluffy animals.

The ‘real world’ as such, has been transformed into a simulation that we can master within the square box of our computer. Within our computer, ‘virtual’ communities of animals, civilisations, species, gene pools etc are generated that we can manipulate (to a certain extent!). What Kember notes is interesting however, is how science, the idea of evolution, ‘life’, AI, biochemistry, has been taken over by the computer engineer, who now builds, gene by gene, element by element, a ‘living creature’.

As well as communities being created within the structure of these games, they also allow for users to create societies and communities through the internet. Kember notes that these communities, specifically that of "Creatures" indicates how the line between producer and consumer is becoming increasingly blurred as users of the computer game, with the right technical skill, have a free range and often help from the producers, to create new adaptations to the game and manipulate it. This can be seen by viewing the new release of the “creatures docking Station” http://www.gamewaredevelopment.co.uk/creatures_index.php and http://www.cyberlife-research.com/. Similar things can be seen through new developments from the “Sim” games, including the new "SimCity" game and "The Sims" http://www.maxis.com/ and http://thesims2.ea.com/community/

Naturally of course, as it becomes easier and easier to manipulate the game to ones own ends, questions arise, especially such as those concerning ‘artificial life’ such as “Creatures”, about the treatment and moral actions of many of the games players. Kember notes the activity of the player Antinorn and his creation of a website, where he displays his tortured and abused Norns and writes of how to torture Norns, spurring a myriad of abuse from other players and a number of ethical debates. Most interestingly in a mirror of real life the creation of the SPCN (Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Norns) *think of the RSPCA*.

It is interesting to consider the nature of Norns and their relationship with the player, it is far greater than the player/character relationship expressed by Mia in her article, as these Norns, as well as requiring the effort of constant care, are also autonomous ‘living’ creatures.

Furthermore, in terms of thinking about the environment and artificial (mirror) worlds created in the Sim games, Kember notes the educational benefits and learning possibilities these worlds offer. Yet we must also consider how the game positions the player/user, and the limits of their manipulations of the game…

“…imaginative or conscious autonomous agents pass through an object or instrumental stage to become microcosms of human- like cultures and societies in which human agents invest anthropological, psychological or sociological concerns. In other words, they become mirror worlds offering novel opportunities for narcissism.” Kember (CyberLife’s Creatues p109)