Future Cinema

The Future of Fakes

Hey y’all
Just watched this episode of Follow This, the Netflix docu-series about BuzzFeed’s coverage of the internet.
The episode (s01 e07) was about technologies that fake audio and video and thought you might find it interesting. It’s 18minutes long:
https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/80217889

Links & 4 Questions about Isbister

Hi all! Some links following up on last week’s discussion of the algorithmically created artwork: a sort of generic article detailing how it sold WAY over initial prices of $7-10,000 – https://www.cnn.com/style/article/obvious-ai-art-christies-auction-smart-creativity/index.html ; as well, here is art critic Jerry Saltz’s response to the sale – http://www.vulture.com/2018/10/an-artificial-intelligence-artwork-just-sold-for-usd400-000.html#comments . I think his thoughts are interesting in the context of this course – he argues that digital files and algorithms are materials and/or tools (like a paintbrush or paint) which the artist uses. By extension, this painting is not art, or is a “bad” (maybe disingenuous) piece of art. Interesting!

As long as we’re talking money, one last link too: https://arvrjourney.com/report-vr-and-ar-device-market-to-hit-1-8-billion-in-2018-3c33b4e5dd5c

And now my four questions!

1. In what ways do you see elements of gaming fitting into the social networks we use on a day-to-day basis (3). I’m thinking in particular of reward structures, and Isbister’s later discussion of virtual “gifts” – is a like a gift? A reward? I’m interested too in discussing the extra-game content, like chatrooms, texting, Youtube playthroughs, that emerge on social media, and often enrich a game world (63) – how do you think designers can build in elements of gameplay that allow for that? What are the most important aspect of that dynamic?

2. Returning to our previous discussion of the phone ringing during the concert, and the expectations of an audience within a virtual world (i.e. how they should behave as a way of experiencing that world), what do you think is the more important document: the game itself, or the experience of playing the game? What differentiates those two things? Where does a designer’s “intentions” fall away in the experience of the game? In what ways might that be liberating?

3. Inline with my first question, what do you think is the role of meta-games, and trying to “break” games or test their limits are to the enjoyment of a game (39)? What does it mean to create a game within a designed game – playing “tag” in GTA for example, or joining a motorcycle gang? What might user-added modifications add to a game beyond the designer’s intentions? This might build on our discussion of glitches from last week. Consider too Machinima (like ones built in Second Life or Red VS Blue) – worlds created out of worlds…

4. Sherry Turkle’s very important works Life on the Screen (1995) and The Second Self (1984) are essential to understanding the earlier, and rich, gaming and online world histories that have formed contemporary experience (with The Second Self, not coincidently being released just a year before Haraway’s “A Cyborg Manifesto”) – Turkle is referenced for the first time in Isbister text on page 54. While these two texts are marked by a positivity and sensitivity towards virtual worlds and their players that was, frankly, not common during those periods, why do you think her more recent takes on social media (https://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together?language=en) are more negative? What do you think are the key differences, potentially, between the gaming spaces she upholds, and the social media spaces she denigrates? I might link this to Isbister’s flagging of the contemporary notion of “ubiquitous connection (109).

Questions for “How Games Move Us.”

1.)   Isbister’s introduction focuses partially on the reasons why games have struggled to gain mainstream acceptance, as well as noting the barriers to entry for non-gamers. One of her brief acknowledgements is to “skill level,” which I believe to be possibly the greatest barrier. In what ways would one’s inability to complete an intended decision render potential emotionality and affective capacity inaccessible? Is this a barrier to entry with other mediums, or even other forms of play? And in what ways does personal skill level limit potential for interactive social play discussed in later chapters?

2.)   One of the more interesting images from How Games Move Us involves a comparison between Little Big Planet and the Harold Lloyd film Saftey Last. In what ways have video games become more cinematic or borrowed elements from cinema for evocative purposes?

3.)   Isbister mentions Sr. Wii Bowling leagues, which acted as bowling leagues for those who could no longer attend bowling events physically. Could the concepts of social games be extrapolated for high-performance athletes rehabilitating injuries to keep their skills sharp? If so, what could this suggest about the realism and transferable skills present in gaming?

4.)   A few years back, a friend of mine told me that his teenage son and their friends were holding Minecraft elections. I never followed up on this development; however, this seems to be akin to the concepts raised within How Games Move Us. This question is multifaceted, and answers to both parts should be contextualized through use of the text and personal response. First, what would define success for the Minecraft election? Second, do you believe they were successful? Why, or why not?

Tags: emotions, Future Cinema, video games

How Games Move Us Emotion by Design Questions

“Players controlling avatars project themselves into the character on four levels: visceral, cognitive, social, and fantasy.” (11)

If people really do connect on these four levels, how easy is it becoming to get lost in the game?
Might one become dissassociated with reality if there is such a strong connection between player and charcter exists, especially as technology and therefore the connection, improves?

RE: Waco Resurrection
Again, if players are connected on four levels and the “game designers heightens the connection between player and avatar by requiring players to wear custom helmets designed for the experience.” (16) and taking into account Eddo Stern’s assertion that a film about Koresh would never receive this amount of criticism…

Given that the whole point of this book is that games provide a feeling of accomplishment and pride in the player’s achievements that films and books cannot, is this a valid arguement for Stern to make given the subject matter?

Waco is still a prominent touchstone for American militias and anti-governmental ‘forces’ (social and political based) in the U.S..
For reasons of social responsibility, should this game have been made?
Or would not making the game be a form of self-censorship?
Or if it is censorship, would it be justified?

As movement “coordinated physical activity involving mutual gaze” (96) is being incorporated more and more into games, (Pixel Motion, Hit Me etc), when does society recognize it as being less a ‘video game’ and more of a sport?

Questions for Isbister’s ‘How Games Move Us’

2.  In the first two chapters, Isbister discusses “meaningful choices,” but one is led to question what can concretely be defined as “meaningful choice”?  With the limited amount of choice and selection in even the most impressive of platforms, is truly meaningful choice actually possible?

3. Isbister concludes chapter three by stating:

“While these seem like new concerns, our society already confronts these questions every day, over more prosaic “technologies” such as makeup and clothing, as well as in the use of social media to manage social identity. Adding a layer of environmental responsiveness, and the dynamics of interpersonal interaction with and through augmentation technologies, will continue to challenge our ability to sort out all of these very human concerns” (86).

As someone who has engaged with makeup for work, performance, and various means of self-expression (often with social media), I found this connection rather interesting.  While I am sure some would consider this somewhat of a conceptual leap, others may perceive a natural evolution here.  Is this a relevant comparison to makeup, clothing, and social media?

4. In chapter four, Isbister states, ““Like the anthropologist returning home from a foreign culture, the voyager in virtuality can return to a real world better equipped to understand its artifices” (189).     While I find this statement encouraging, I am also inclined to have some reservations due to its generalization.  To return better equipped for the real world, are there certain concerns that must be engaged with throughout the transition from online to offline?

Sarah’s questions from reading Katherine Isbister’s “How Games Move Us: Emotion by Design”

Hey guys! Here are my questions for this week :)

1. First chapter. A quote from Will Wright, designer of The Sims. Yes, I agree that games have the emotional impact of films. Wait, hold up – how could you have “never [felt] pride, or guilt, watching a movie”? Unlike games, it is rare to have “the chance to influence outcomes through one’s own efforts” in a film, but it still conjures up empathy, and unthreads a web of emotions and memories. Do we not feel a bit of shame, guilt, and fear whilst watching the inhabitable garbage-dump Earth in Wall-E? Or pride when the underdogs or heroes we identify with with taste that sweet victory? Is this a personal sensibility thing or is there a missed connection here?
2. In discussing the role of flow theory, game designer, Janova Chen, argues that “too little ability can result in anxiety and frustration; too little challenge can result in boredom or apathy.”  I agree that I would want these factors to be evident in the game I play, but I am also suspicious of the quicksand-like nature of flow for gamers who are already immersed in this world. In “The Role of Flow Experience in Cyber-Game Addiction,” Chou and Ting argue that “flow experience – the emotional state embracing perceptional distortion and enjoyment – shows a much stronger impact on addiction” more so than consumers who exhibit “repitition of [their] favorite activities.”We have discussed the role of immersion in VR, but I wonder if flow in video games is much more dangerous.
3. Cart Life sounds like a hidden gem that no one really wants, kind of like a pair of brown leather shoes that are practical, but not so glamorous. I am even hopeful that Cart Life could build empathy in its players. The game has been well received with shiny accolades, but it never reached its stardom like The Sims.  How do we market atypical games such as this to gain more players, make it sexy, while sustaining its ‘healthy’ attributes?
4. In discussing the potential danger of growing dependency on wearable augmentation, Isbister writes that we already wear ‘masks’ comprised of “makeup, clothing, and social identity.” Is it a strong argument to use make-up and clothing through which we identify and express ourselves in real life as examples to make her case? Also, what are the “real-life dangers of augmented reality” – even in games? In their article, “The Real-life Dangers of Augmented Reality,” researchers Eric E. Sableman and Roger Lam state that “rigorous studies on [augmented reality’s] effects on vision and mobility have yet to be done.” They state that “augmented reality can cause you to misjudge the speed of oncoming cars, underestimate your reaction time, and unintentionally ignore the hazards of navigating the real world.” Do you think augmented-reality games could diminish our motor skills and pose danger while exploring the real world in a game setting?

Questions from Immersive Worlds

hi everyone. thanks for all these interesting questions that people have posted. it’s really great to sit with your thoughts/questions. apologies, my questions are a little late from last week. i keep forgetting to post immediately following class… will aim to post in advance for tomorrow’s class. for now, below are some more questions from last week’s reaadings:

1. Less of a question, more of an observation — I found many parts of this book useful in terms of thinking about making. Over the last years of experimenting in my own work, I’ve been really struggling with articulating the craft behind creating immersive and transmedia works. I found this book a very useful reminder that design and principles of design offer extremely valuable insights (and importanlty language/lens) into the principles behind installing a space/building a world and ultimately telling a story through space.

2. Following from my first point, I’m curious what people think, in general, about the usefulness of the Immersive Worlds book? What kind of critical responses emerged for people in the room? What kind of interest was generated from the read? And especially, what kind of utility does this read offer?

3. At the risk of being unnecessarily repetitive, I’m really intrigued by and curious about the assertion that “artifacts have politics”… and in general, feel the Design Justice article is getting at exactly the kinds of critical questions that we have been circling around in all of our readings. What are people’s responses to the assertion that: “different people experience algorithmic decision support systems differently, and we must redesign these systems based on the lived experience of those they harm”? And what are suggestions and approaches for designing systems that begin with a critical intersectional lens?

Questions from The Immersive Worlds Handbook

1. What is the outcome of applying worldmaking techniques to future cinema applications/contexts? At what point does the experience transcend “cinema” and morph into a tangential exploration mediated by all of the technology and media involved?

2. How can we deal with the burden of autonomy for the guest/viewer? How do practical limits on interaction and exploration within time limited experiences or more guided narratives change the extent to which immersion can be achieved?

3. In what ways do we suspend our disbelief in everyday retail or public spaces given that many of the techniques for creating immersive worlds are employed by the designers of these spaces?

4. Early in the book Lukas notes that in most cases an immersive world is created to appeal to the majority of society and should be accessible to anyone (ideally). Again, as these immersive tactics are used within regular public settings, so in what ways do establishments or public spaces compromise certain aspects of their immersion to accommodate for the general public?

Belated questions from last week and the future

I apologize to everyone. I messed up last week and read the Network Aesthetics book. Reading week was extremely hectic and I made the mistake, so I had to spend the weekend reading The Immersive Worlds Handbook to develop my questions for the week.

1)  An artificial intelligence system being developed at Facebook has created its own language. It developed a system of code words to make communication more efficient. Researchers shut the system down when they realized the AI was no longer using English. The observations made at Facebook are the latest in a long line of similar cases. In each instance, an AI being monitored by humans has diverged from its training in English to develop its own language. The resulting phrases appear to be nonsensical gibberish to humans but contain semantic meaning when interpreted by AI “agents.” – James Walker, Digital Journal http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/a-step-closer-to-skynet-ai-invents-a-language-humans-can-t-read/article/498142

Why are we pursuing an AI, only to shut it down when it shows the intelligence and initiative that we are trying to get it to create? If we’re that afraid of it then why are we doing it?

2) Can the long term influence and effect of AI on our culture and more importantly, our economy ever be understood before we’ve fully committed to it?

3) Can an AI be taught to understand social history and social progress and our goals as a species to be better in order for it to contribute to our society?

And now for questions from Network Aesthetics:

1) We have networked novels, movies, and videogames, the American military speaks of “network-centric warfare” to fight terrorist networks, we have television and radio networks, and collectively human beings form a network that, collectively, has more information than any one individual much like the internet.

Are computer networks, for data or art or anything a new idea or is it a result our our growing realization that networks are, possibly, a more natural state of life similiar to fractals?

2) Christopher Castiglia and Russ Castronovo speak of “the capacity for aesthetics to ground a post-identity collectively.” By this they make examples of book clubs and the cinema, but say it applies more to online cultural works like video games. (141)

Is this simply another way to catagorize hobbyists or is this something deeper?

3)“Our networked life allows us to hide from each other, even as we are tethered to each other.” (179)

How much longer are we going to be able to ‘hide’ from each other? Is this a worry or will the market demand that ability to maintain our individual privacy?

4) “In her study, Turkle returns repeatedly to the way that daily use of networked technologies reveals ‘a certain fatigue with the difficulties of life with people.’ “Today,” she writes, “our machine dream is to be never alone but always in control. This can’t happen when one is fact-to-face with a person.”” (179)

Is technology becoming a substitute for human contact? How is this affecting day to day relationships and how we deal with other people?

Questions from Wednesday’s Class / Stanford Study on VR and Empathy

Hello Everyone,

I think most of my points were covered in the discussion, but here are questions from Wednesday.  Also, below is an interesting article about a Stanford study on VR and empathy.

1. In Chapter Five (pg. 138), Lukas describes immersive spaces as evoking the emotions of immersion, which are essentially qualities of awe, the sense of the epic, a sense of completeness, and feelings of imagination.  One might initially believe that by illuminating these qualities, Lukas will also evoke a description of the sublime (at least in a Kantian sense), but seems to stop short of discussing experiences that may be overwhelming and/or terrifying in nature.  If this is true, is only eliciting such tempered emotive states stunting participants from a truly memorable experience?  This is rather subjective from person-to-person, but I found myself questioning how engaged such described experiences were.

2. I found the concept of Sleep No More quite fascinating, notably due to its abandonment of language.  To some extent, this reminded me somewhat of John Cage’s 4’33, which was essentially articulated to be four minutes and thirty-three seconds of silence, but in reality, the point was to drawn attend to the impossibility of silence and illuminate the vast array of ambient sound in a given location.  Given that Sleep No More removes the linguistic element so fundamental to theatrical performance, do we gain similar insights that would be missed in a traditional setting?

3. The success of Sleep No More also led to other related productions, notably one that took place in China in 2016.  In both instances, the production was able to make use of large, aesthetically memorable spaces to carry out the performances.  If we were to transplant such a performance in a smaller and/or less ‘spectactular’ space, would the performative aspect still work?  If so, how important is the space/venue to an experience such as this one?

4. I found Domination Justice, A.I., and Escape from the Matrix of Domination interesting, and it reminded me of an article I recently read by Benjamin Singer, titled From the Medical Gaze to Sublime Mutations: The Ethics of (Re)Viewing Non-Normative Images, which explored ways to challenge systematic methods of gender binary-based discrimination through educating with a rhizomatic array of vastly diverse images.  Such initiatives hold great promise in my opinion, but can they somehow be utilized to reach a mass audience?

https://news.stanford.edu/2018/10/17/virtual-reality-can-help-make-people-empathetic/