Old Games, New Experience

This doesn't really have to do with augmented reality or what we discussed in class, but rather the first-person Tetris game linked to in the class blog.

I could have commented on the blog post, but I wanted to include some inline images. So, game the first:

3-D Stereogram (Magic Eye) Tetris
I don't think that my screenshot helps see the effect, but this is basically a magic eye poster version of Tetris. You've got to focus in a strange way so you can see actual pieces falling. I couldn't play very long because I had to sit in a weird position at my desk in order to reach the keyboard and maintain the Magic Eye effect.

And game two:

gnop
It's pong, but be the ball instead of the paddle. You have to control the pong ball through a series of pong screens that have more or less difficult paddles.

Question Mark and the Mysterians

The assignment for this week is to select a passage from one of the four articles we read this week, but I think I may end up drawing on Bell's article to supplement my argument against a passage from "Against Virtual Community." First off, I'll say that there are some issues that are brought up in the article that I don't completely disagree with, but as far as the main thrust of the article goes, I have to disagree with his assessment of virtual communities.

The portion of the article I want to look at is a few pages long, but I think I distill this. In a series of paragraphs from pages 230 and 231, Robins basically attempts to invalidate or argue against the idea of virtual communities (or "virtual culture") by positioning virtual communities not as spaces for meaningful intentional interaction or an effort to truly make the world smaller, but as nothing more than common places of escape in which individuals are trying to get away from dealing with the other. While Robins does not say that a community requires engagement with the other, he certainly uses the passage(s) from page 230 and 231 to cast doubt on the validity of virtual communities and the "virtual communitarians'" espoused goal of removing or limiting the impact of physical space in one-to-one or one-to-many, interactions with (each) other. The idea of "defeating" space is questioned and it is argued that physical/geographical space may be "gone" in one direction, but has grown in the other by separating from the real world. For example, one might be conceptually closer to a group on the other side of the world, but one's physical neighbor is further away than ever before.

His assessment of avoiding the other is fine; I completely see where he is coming from. As Bell ("Webs as Pegs") notes, people in virtual communities tend to self-select their communities and engage with people who share interests with them. It makes sense, kids do this in elementary through high school and we continue to do it in college by joining certain clubs or selecting majors that suit our preferences, and this, ideally, puts us in a physical world of like minded individuals. It is not as if in the physical world we MUST engage with everyone. This is where I start to diverge with Robins and his assessment. The idea that distance related to physical space is growing with increased closeness to virtual space is flawed. I argue that the space between my neighbor and I is vast no matter what if we don't share common interests. We can talk about this or that, but if we don't really share interests or get along, then the distance with/in the physical world is still present and practically insurmountable. Am I close to my neighbor and in the same community? I suppose. However, if I am not actively a part of that community what good is it? How is "escaping" that space and "retreating" to a virtual community lessening my connection with the physical when the connection is already superficial or even tenuous? Whether I am in the virtual community or not, my level of closeness with the physical world is not necessarily affected. I propose that virtual communities and space potentially afford an opportunity to interact and possibly uncover new unexplored links between an individual and physical world. This strengthened bond may not be created without exploring virtual communities. Even if one goes into virtual space to escape and simply avoid the other, again, it does not change the relationship to the physical world. I would argue that someone in that situation has already disengaged from that physical community and that space is lost either way. So, virtual communities in and of themselves aren't these home wreckers of physical relationships, but just another place to explore either good or bad.

I suppose one could keep pushing this out further and reach a point where they say "Increased time in virtual spaces causes a withdrawal from physical space in one generation and that filters down to the next and so on until we're all in these virtual "pods" and we don't interact with our physical communities." Ok, but how does that change society? I can't say, but I don't think it leads to the collapse of the world because our interactions have shifted from context A to context B. Will it be different? Of course. However, I'm certain that humanity and global societies will successfully adapt to the shift like generations before have dealt with writing, urbanization, the phone, etc.

[Edit: So, I added some more stuff after the jump, but it is basically the same as above just worded differently and using a different context... And I ramble on about Amish people and rain.]

Virtual Community, Schmirtual Community

Virtual communities, physical/meatspace communities, hybrid communities.. Man, Thursday's communities discussion was rather interesting, but I think I have to say that I might be slightly more uncertain about communities than when the class session started. Several of the online, but not solely virtual, communities I am a part of online are basically extensions of pre-existing communities aka hybrid communities. For example, online gaming communities (Steam, Xbox Live, PSN) where most of my online friends are people that I knew and know outside of that community, Facebook, our blogging groups (the disparate levels of my contribution aside), etc.

While the communities noted above do have a virtual component, I am hesitant to refer to them as virtual communities considering Wilson's definition noted in this week's blog assignment. The communities I most actively participate in blur the line between virtual and not. So, I think I'll have to refer to what feels like kind of an obvious example in online forums and/or websites with commenting areas.

Now, I'm not deeply embedded in these communities and I kind of hit and run when I do directly participate in them. For example on a site like Engadget or Kotaku I might see an article that has something that seems noteworthy and I'll make a quick comment "replying" to the author of the article or other people who have made some comment that I usually feel is completely insane. I don't know these people, my entire impression of their sanity and other characteristics are completely dependent on the persona and voice they choose to project in the context of that site, article, and comment post. However, I recognize their names and typically know what to expect from their comment as soon as I see their name and I obviously have some sort of connection to that individual, even if it is tenuous. Beyond simply conversing with people there is a sense of belonging or obligation to these invisible characters in some cases.

In at least three instances I can recall someone has offered to share invites to beta products, usually Google stuff, and I've felt a sense of obligation to go back to the same community I got the thing from and share that with other people who might have missed out. Occasionally, these "beta" communities that are inadvertently created in sharing invitations with other people may continue to perpetuate these things.

There's no way I'd call these people friends, but I don't think friendships or tight relationships are required to create/be a part of a virtual community. I look at this situation much like my neighbors in meatspace. My neighbor and I are part of the same community, but we don't really interact outside the occasional hello or whatnot. Sure establishing ongoing interpersonal relationships on these sites might make one more apt to come back or get more involved, but the shared space, exchange of information, and parallel interests shape and make the community a unit.

These virtual communities haven't really bled into non-virtual interactions very often, but there have been times where I've read something someone in the virtual community said and I've shared that with someone I know in the physical world who shares the same interests, but isn't in that particular community. However, most of my interest in the topics of gadgets and games really take place online. Not because my friends don't share those interests, but that information is online and my interest in the topics basically reside on the web and with these communities now.

Obvious technological and economic barriers to entry aside, I think there has to not only be a shared interest, but also a shared level of enthusiasm or knowledge about the topic the community focuses on. Much like a neighborhood community and neighbors are defined by physical proximity, virtual communities are defined by mental(?) proximity. In regard to the communities I noted above, there has to be an interest, familiarity with, and understanding of games and consumer technology that is beyond a fleeting interest.

The stuff after the jump is basically more of the same, but I quickly mention a previous deeper level of involvement in an online community: Online RPGs.

Cyberspace Is Made Out of People

I agree with Benedikt's assessment that none of the included descriptions of cyberspace accurately define the idea of cyberspace on their own. A little chunk of each definition is needed to come up with a reasonable explanation of what cyberspace is. However, the one that immediately stood out was definition three:

A common mental geography, built, in turn by consensus and revolution, canon and experiment; a territory swarming with data and lies, with mind stuff and memories of nature, with a million voices and two million eyes in a silent, invisible concert to enquiry, deal-making, dream sharing, and simple beholding.

Some of the other definitions resonated with me due to their mentions about information storage, pervasive connections, and reliance on technology/electricity, but this idea of the internet as a hidden and inescapable "place" full of shared experiences, information, truth, lies, friends, and foes is more important than how cyberspace is organized or what information is in it.

Cyberspace is comprised of many different features currently present in the web and other Internet services. Beyond these technological features, cyberspace, at its core, is made of competing, evolving, and sometimes flawed people and ideas. We could have the most impressive network connecting us to the greatest collection of information ever, but without a common space for open interaction between individuals, and the resultant new ideas, we would simply have an electronic version of a library. A scenario like this gives us a great resource, but it does not reflect the idea of cyberspace as a place where someone can exist, which seems to be an implied part of the definition noted above. Rather than being a place to store, find, and access information, cyberspace is a place where users can freely engage with that information and with other individuals who are exploring this shared, open, and data-rich environment.

Granted, people can explore information and interact with one another in a library. I don't disagree with this, but cyberspace is not simply a digital version of the staid physical library. A restrictive set of parameters defines access, behavior, and other factors in the environment of a library. This is not something that applies or should apply to cyberspace. Cyberspace should be a locale where people can explore ideas and share new conclusions. This is not to say that cyberspace should be anarchic, but the flow of information is not so tightly constrained that users are only consumers. There is a constant and dynamic bi-directional flow of information that helps develop an ever-changing pool of people, information, and ideas contributed by those who have access to and use cyberspace.

Without a venue for people to share their own content on the fly and make it available, somewhere people can yell at each other about competing ideas, or simply a place to carry on a simple conversation, cyberspace would be just another quiet sterile place that we could go to tackle some sort of intellectual problem. This is fine and I think a system like this has a place within cyberspace, but warehousing and making existing information available is a small part of cyberspace; the individual users noted in the above description are what define and shape cyberspace.

Salmon Missiles

This is a new class, so I figured I'd make a new blog. However, this introduction is pretty much going to be the same as my intro post for my Engl 373 blog, so here it goes.

My name is Kristopher (or Kris) and I'm a junior in the DTC program. Interests include things digital, technological, and cultural. I sometimes use odd titles or starting points for class blog posts and they're usually worked into the content of the post. This one will follow suit, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the introduction. I know this intro is brief and vague, but I don't know really know what I want to include so I'll address the seemingly insane salmon missile thing.

I was bored about a week ago and I figured that I would attempt to customize my emergency credit card. That journey ended in a fiery wreck today. After asking some people for suggestions on what I should put on the card and weeding out the guaranteed rejections I was left with these two:

Now, both are completely awesome, but I figured that the bear smoking and holding a tommy gun while riding a shark was more likely to be rejected. So, that meant the salmon missile launching mechabear was in. It's pretty good and doesn't seem to be problematic. The only possible objection I predicted was on the grounds of copyright because the image came from the ether of good ol' Internet. However, I was wrong because salmon missiles are apparently illegal firearms:

We will not approve any images that contain the following:

Socially unacceptable or discriminatory behavior, signs or statements (e.g. gangs, hatred, drugs/alcohol abuse, tobacco, graffiti, or illegal firearms use).

Maybe I missed something but I didn't see anything socially unacceptable or discriminatory. Based on their examples, I can only assume that a mechanical bear firing salmon missiles constitutes a depiction of illegal firearms use.