Chip Morningstar and Randall Farmer highlight the idea of naïve natural planning when it comes to the design of multi-faceted computer programs in their composition entitled The Lessons of Lucasfilm’s Habitat. The Habitat project was “the first attempt to create a many player online virtual environment (664).” In its beginning stages computer programming and software reflected a single user interface. With this idea of multi-player the system would allow for a population of users in a single cyberspace. With such a large scale development there are bound to be mistakes and failures which is what Morningstar and Farmer attempt to explain, “our hope is that the next generation of builder of virtual worlds can benefit from our experiences and our mistakes.” They argue that for the success of a virtual world development there is a need to learn from the lessons of Habitat. Their main argument is that “a cyberspace is defined more by interactions among the actors within it than by the technology with which it is implemented (664).” It is not the technology itself that creates the virtual game but it is the connection of a many-participant environmental interaction and the communication channels between the medium. In doing this the authors ask future designers to consider Habitats faults like the carrying capacity, or bandwidth’s limitations, to focus upon interactions with objects or artifacts instead of how the screen is changing. Other noted potential keys of success would be avoiding at all costs a “central planning” where they do not focus on the large simultaneous reactions of those engaged. There is also a moral code that must be debated and sorted, including violence and gun usage. Moreover keeping reality consistent, “results will flourish when operations are smoother and there should be a greater harmony among the user community (674).” The future of such software is achievable through “coming to grips with the problems of world creation and management (676).”
From the parts I could comprehend I agree with the fact that for large populations of people to partake in a virtual reality like Habitat, there needs to be a series of regulated management. If the focus is to make the human interactions among gamers more life-like within the graphical environment, then there needs to be smooth transitions of artifacts and speedy graphic connections. I understand the object-oriented world model is what will make implementing cyberspace a realistic system. I think of the expansion of new media such as online poker games or the SIMS when listening to the construction of Habitat. Thousands of actors play simultaneously, with infinite amounts of games. The thought process is almost mind boggling to think about. With online poker, the screen background is set up to look like you are sitting at the poker table; its use is being object-oriented to create a real life gaming experience with an anonymous opponent. With this idea of creating computer-mediated, virtual environments I ask you to ponder these questions:
- Do you agree with the authors statement that the “idea of cyberspace is necessarily a many-participant environment?”
- If you were designing your own virtual reality world what do you think would make it most successful? What could potentially make it fail?
- “Conflict is the essence of drama.” In the debate of including guns, violence, murder and repercussion in virtual gamming, do you believe these elements add or detract from the virtual environment? Would the game be more successful with or without them?
- What is your definition/explanation of what it means to have an “object-oriented world”?
Posts
Answering 1: I agree wholeheartedly. So much of what we have read about new media is strong emphasis that anyone and everyone can and should participate. Cyberspace networks are the circulatory system driving new media, and interactions between people make ideas happen more effectively. Otherwise, information between lesser people would falter, become stale. With everyone involved, communications appear infinite, and in relations to cyber worlds, this is crucial in maintaining a truer interface.
ReplyDeleteAlso, on a different note, did anyone else laugh when they were explaining the problem with the gun that killed in one shot, and having to work within the game to get it back from the player? Because I just thought of the South Park episode where the four boys are playing World of Warcraft, and some guy in another city has gotten so high in levels, he kills everyone in the game, including the admins. Anyway, it's funny, reminded me of that.
ReplyDeleteI'm a nerd, haha.
In response to the third question: I’m not a gamer, I used to own a Gameboy but nothing comparable to what these two pieces are discussing. I’ve always argued against the idea of guns and weaponry in games, stating that it influences younger children and creates a more violent society for future generations. I feel as if that is only ignorance talking. On some level, I still think that games with high violence such as Call of Duty and others do have a psychological effect, as referenced by Turkle most video games do. However, from the readings I’ve also learned that most gamers respect the separate worlds involved in gaming and in reality. “…we felt that players should be able to ‘materially’ effect each other in ways that went beyond simply talking, way that required real moral choices to be made by participants” (NMR 671). According to Turkle, gamers play in order to have a different role, inhabit someone else’s mind (NMR 502). Morningstar and Farmer therefore introduced weaponry to greater increase this involvement and interaction of its audiences. Another note-in The Matrix an agent tells Neo that the first world they simulated was all about optimism and the results were general disbelief and overall chaos. I feel that a negative side to games also creates appeal, and a reason to play. In conclusion, although negative images can create negative real world thoughts, most gamers keep world separate and the violence in video games is needed in order to be successful.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Olivia’s post and the third question, one shouldn’t feel ignorant in regards to the subject of whether or not violent video games creates a more violent future society when played by young children. There have been many cases where violence has occurred and was influenced by game behavior. That being said, that is why there are content ratings done by the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board); they’re there to make sure explicit gameplay isn’t played by younger people. This explicit content that includes guns, violence, and killing do add to the gaming experience. If a gamer wants to go into war with advanced weaponry, they play Call of Duty, if they want to hunt ducks, they play Duckhunter. Games would not be successful if a gamer could not truly immerse themselves into what they are playing and quoting Olivia, “a negative side to games creates appeal”. Furthermore, it should be of note that I am talking about a mature audience experiencing this explicit content, and not the younger, more impressionable game players because it is the mature audience that is able to separate worlds involving gaming and reality as discussed by Morningstar and Farmer (671).
ReplyDelete