question 3. jungle book
3. Discussing the concept of interpretation, or "filling in the gaps", in narrative, Chatman states that “there is… a class of indeterminacies… that arise from the peculiar nature of the medium. The medium may specialize in certain narrative effects and not others. For instance, the cinema may easily – and does routinely – present characters without expressing the contents of their minds… verbal narrative, on the other hand, finds such restrictions difficult… Conversely, verbal narrative may elect not to present some visual aspect… The cinema, however, cannot avoid a rather precise representation of visual detail.” Think of an example of the use of narrative in interactive media. With reference to your example, suggest what the “peculiar nature” of interactive media may be, and which narrative effects it may specialize in. I’m going to use the example of Jungle book here. The movie Jungle book (if I do not recall this wrongly) is narrated. Later, there was a computer game version of it which made it rather interactive. So what is the peculiar nature of both? The movie, as a medium, does routinely present the characters; and as it moves from scene to scene, it is able to convey the idea of simultaneous happenings. (Can this be considered as multiple layers of representation?) In addition, the story, while being narrated, allows the viewer to take on the third person perspective. Therefore, the viewer can see what’s going on, on both sides of the story though they are not given the choice to switch between either one.
It also provides visual (dressing, facial expression, setting) and sound effects to enhance the overall experience of the viewer.
In contrast, the game version of the movie moves from scene to scene in a linear fashion. It is developed such that the player has to complete a stage first before the story unfolds. This technique allows the player control in the game but limited choice in the story. The story in the game appears as a text message across the screen, as told by the panther. The player is then expected to fill in the gaps between each stage of the story. They are allowed to imagine what has happened between each level (since the level itself is of no relevance to the show) or to base it upon what they know happened in the story. In this sense the player is presented with different possibilities of filling in the gap (mentally), while keeping the narrative structure is kept intact. The task of the game at each level, however, is of no much relevance to the story.
In the game and while playing the character of jungle boy, you essentially cannot tell what the character is thinking nor any of the characters. They don’t really speak either. It does however provide visual and sound effects as well. However there are limitations to this in the game in terms of facial expression of the character. The player is also only able to take on the first person perspective and has to explore the game on his own. As he is taking on the perspective of the jungle boy, the player is not able to switch mode to view things from the perspective of other characters. This might give the player a sense of ownership.
questioning 2
After what seems like ages, here is my answer for question 2...
2. Chatman observes that “whether… the author elects to order the reporting of events according to their causal sequence or to reverse them in a flashback effect – only certain possibilities can occur… Of course certain events or existents that are not immediately relevant maybe brought in. But at some point their relevance must emerge, otherwise we object that the narrative is ‘ill-formed.’” This is the notion of self-regulation.Interactive media allows for choice and control on the part of the reader/user. What problem does this raise for self-regulation? What, if anything, does this suggest about designing interactive narrative?
Choice and control on the part of the reader may give rise to the issue of whether the outcome gives rise to the experience of open or closed interactivity. If it is open interactivity, it will make room for more possibilities. The user may opt for something which may not be entirely relevant to the story and therefore, it pushes against the notion of self regulation. Yet, even if it is relevant, the outcome of the narrative may vary. The structure of the narrative may also change.
I think the important questions that we have to address and consider are what kind of experience do users expect out of it, to what extent do we want the narrative structure to remain intact and how much control and choice should we bestow upon the player. These questions help us to determine, to some extent, the level of thought, consideration and effort that has to go into developing a narrative into an interactive.
We must also be reminded that the extent to which the user has control and choice depends very much on the designing of the interactive media. Perhaps the design can be such as to limit the choices available but yet to provide the perception that the player has control and choice? Or even make it seem as though the option available is the natural choice? Perhaps various possible paths taken will eventually link back to the narrative? Possibilities and options may be accorded to the player but we also have to understand the significance of providing them as well as knowing how it enhances the game or narrative.
Having to take into account the narrative aspect, the element of interactivity as well as control and choice, designing an interactive narrative is really no mean feat. A lot of thought has to be given to it
narrative in interactive media. My take on it with Spiderman
Alright.. time to get down to blogging again.
Here is my thoughts for the first question. :P
2. In the Introduction to Story and Discourse, Chatman quotes Claude Bremond, who says: “Any sort of narrative message… may be transposed from one to another medium without losing its essential properties: the subject of a story may serve as argument for a ballet, that of a novel, can be transposed to stage or screen, one can recount in words a film to someone who has not seen it.” Chatman goes on to suggest that “transposability of the story is the strongest reason for arguing that narratives are indeed structures independent of any medium”. Choose a narrative that has been expressed in both an interactive and a non-interactive medium, for example the game Tomb Raider and the movie Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. Discuss how the transposition to/from interactive media has changed the narrative. Has the structure of the narrative remained intact?
Here I refer to the Spiderman 2 game. The transposition of the narrative from a movie to that of interactive media certainly has an impact on the narrative itself. Yet, it must be remembered that the structure of the narrative remains somewhat intact.
The key concept of the game is simple and its narrative structure is similar to the movie in the sense that Spiderman helps to stop crime by villains such as Doc Ock. The game allows players to explore the world of the movie. Players get to be Spiderman and interact with other characters from the film, battle movie villains and experience settings and scenarios which have been inspired by the film. The discrete elements of the game -the characters, settings and events contribute to the wholeness of the story, which is, in this case similar to that in the movie. In addition, as the player manoeuvre in the virtual world, transformation is constantly taking place as Spiderman strives to save the world. In this sense, we can safely say that the structure of the narrative thus remains intact.
In tackling the question on how interactive media has changed the narrati
ve, we must first remember that the player has now taken on the role of spiderman. In other words, the player is now immersed in the story line and is no longer having a third person viewpoint of the sequence of events. Rather, the individual now is seeing things from the perspective of Spiderman. Having a first person perspective, he/she may not be entirely aware of the intentions and evil plotting of the villain. This is quite unlike the movie whereby, having a third person perspective as an audience, the viewer is able to see and understand the intentions of both parties. The understanding of the story is thus a result of ‘first hand’ experience on the part of the player. To put differently and to use another form of illustration, this form of narrative is like the use of process statements (instead of stasis statements) to talk about an event.
In addition, how the story unfolds is to a large extent dependent on the skills of the player in handling crime in the game. The player can also decide how he or she wants to fight a particular crime. This bestows a degree of control and choice on the user. However, losing to the villain in the game will result in the ending of the game and therefore the ending of the story will probably not be the same (in that round at least, there is always the option of restarting the game :P. The wonders of interactive media).
Underground Bounty Hunter. Cinemadventure
It's a tuesday evening at 5pm and there is nothing too interesting to comment about how i passed my time since my class ended for the day...I was just surfing on the net and suddenly, I came across something pretty cool which i believe many of you (those who happen to be reading my blog *Hi Alex and anyone else! :P*) might be interested in. I've cut and pasted the news article from this website
http://news.cnet.co.uk/gamesgear/0,39029682,49283095,00.htm onto my blog for easy reading. So do scroll down and read it k? It's about an online project that Screenwriter and producer Darryl Quarles came up with. It essentially combines movies with videogame interactivity. How cool is that?! :P I was tempted to give it shot but it costs 15 bucks (i think it's in USD) and you have to pay by visa or mastercard, none of which i have. What's the catch? If you manage to solve the mystery, there is money to be won and hehz...it could be an interesting research paper too. (hmm..so why am i sharing this with you, you wonder..) Well, good things must be shared! (and...anyone wants to sponsor me for this game? *grin*)
Anyway, here goes the article:Screenwriter and producer Darryl Quarles didn't fully comprehend how much work would be involved when he came up with
Underground Bounty Hunter, an online project that combines movies with videogame interactivity.
Quarles is writing, directing and shooting all ten episodes. Players take on the role of the eponymous bounty hunter in order to capture an unambiguously bad guy. To do this, players interact after each 3- or 4-minute scene. What they do and the decisions they make determine what course of action the heroic hunter takes next.
All of the settings are resolutely urban and characterised for dramatic effect, Quarles says. There also are dubious characters known as snitches that are available -- for a consideration -- should players get stuck.
"There's a snitch on each page you can pay for information, but it may or may not be helpful," Quarles says. "The odds are one in three that they will provide a great clue. You have to decide."
The idea for Underground percolated many months before solidifying into the genre Quarles christened 'cinemaventure'.
"I've always been fascinated by how you could have a feature film that crosses into the videogame world and the Internet world," he says. "I wanted to come up with something I thought was original and fresh, something with a new edge."
He also found inspiration from watching his kids stay intently absorbed with videogames for hour after hour and learned from what captured their attention.
The Underground interactive movies last about 80 or 90 minutes end to end, but Quarles has to write, direct and shoot each of the different outcomes separately. He therefore had to put all of his other work on hold for about a year.
"It was a huge task," he says, "and we can't tell even the actors what's going on because that would give away the clues."
That discretion is more important than with many games, since there are cash and other awards along the way to the grand prize of $100,000 and a role in the next episode of Underground Bounty Hunter. Players must be at least 18 years old and pay a $25 (£13) entry fee for their chance to capture the criminal.
Underground is self-financed. "For me, it really was one of those big challenges that I had to do," Quarles says. "If you can get out and flex your creative muscle and do something you haven't ever done before, you get even better as a screenwriter, director and producer."
He also gained a new appreciation of exactly how much work goes into making a movie because he has to handle pre-production, post-production and everything in between. "I now know all those aspects of the 14- to 16-hour shoot days, too," Quarles says in mock weariness.
Now that the interactive series is under way, Quarles is able to balance working on the second episode of Underground with writing a Sanford and Son script for Sony Pictures. Those will be added to a list of credits that already includes Big Momma's House, Big Momma's House 2, Black Knight, Soldier Boyz and Rat Race.
Run Lola Run
Finally...
3. Narrative, interactivity and play – how does Run Lola Run reflect these concerns? How does this relate to Manovich’s concept of transcoding?Narrative:
It brings the viewer through the story from the start to the end. There is a transition between two states and there is a climax.
Play:
Even though the story base is about the same, there are still unpredictable points as the character explores different options in the show. THe entire show is essentially about exploring options, finding out some possibilities and the outcomes. The choices we make and the response of lola in the show does influence the outcome to some extent. Each time Lola goes through the entire story, she learns something new and tries to make a change in the subsequent attempts or to get around a barrier. It evokes several questions such as 'what if...'. THis brings about the 'pushing against the rules' tendency. In the show, Lola seemed to be able to have the option of 'restarting' the story and making necessary changes but within a defined boundary and structure. ANd this happens as long as the ending which she wants to see is not achieved. This gives the sense of control..
Interactivity:
We make the connections ourselves. In this case, it is not so much of the affect of two actors as it doesn’t really respond to us. I would say that it is fixed interactivity as the paths are preprogrammed. We, as viewers, have no option of deciding what other moves she should take. However, there is the illusion created that we are helping her to make a choice, to some extent.
How does this relate to transcoding?
We experience the cultural layer without seeing the underlying component - the computer layer. This is important for the overall experience.
Interactivity
Phew! as hard as i tried...i could not keep the answer for question 1 short! I shall make another attempt for question 2...
2. Manovich questions the usefulness of the term interactivity, suggesting that “once an object is represented in a computer, it automatically becomes interactive. Therefore, to call computer media ‘interactive’ is meaningless – it simply means stating the most basic fact about computers.” In contrast, in “What exactly is Interactivity?” Chris Crawford proposes a much stricter definition of interactivity. Compare these differing views, with reference to your own experience of interactive media systems.Firstly, to recall Crawford’s definition of interactivity. Interactivity in his view is a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think and speak. (Input, process, output.) He was also careful to point out that interactivity is not about reacting or participating.
Manovich, on the other hand, points out that anything that is represented in a computer is naturally interactive. He was referring to both physical interaction as well as psychological interaction.
First and foremost, i must add that the use of the computer is not necessary interactive. If we are just reading something online, there is only a one way flow of information to the reader. Therefore, it is certainly not always a two way thing. It lacks the two actors which crawford states is necessary for interaction.
On the other hand, if the definition of interactive here is referred to as the psychological interaction or the impact that the media system has on the mind (which is however, a one way flow) then computers can be considered as interactive.
I suppose that there has to be a compromise drawn such that interactivity is not only defined by one and only one meaning. The definition of interactivity, in my opinion, should nclude the influence that two actors may have on one anohter as well as, the the thought processes involved. In a way, this psychological aspect as suggested by Manovich may be a subset of the definition put forward by crawford where the actors take time to think and draw our own conclusions.
What is New Media??
First question to be answered on my blog!!
1. In “What is New Media?” Lev Manovich proposes 5 principles of new media: numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding. Choose an example that you consider to be “new media”, and describe it in terms of these principles. What implications do these principles have for narrative and play within interactive media?Firstly, i must admit that i am still trying to figure this out. The term New Media seems so clear and yet so vague all at the same time. Just as i think that i am about to understand it, it starts to slip away... :( I find all the categorization a little challenging. In any case, i shall attempt to answer this question..and if i dream up something that makes more sense than this, i shall return to edit my post.. hehz
New Media. Can MSN Messenger be considered New Media? It seems more like a new communication means... but can it not be considered part of the internet too? (someone save me!) hmm..with reference to the definition of new media from
http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid26_gci213507,00.html (i thought it'd be good for me to refer to another defintion to get a better understanding of the term), i am inclined to believe that the online community - Friendster is a form of new media. After all, it does represent a convergence of computing and media technologies such as digital photographs, video, sound.
Alright, to describe it in terms of the 5 principles which Lev Manovich raised. Here goes:
a. Numerical Representation
Firstly, all types of 'new media', whether its pictures, text or videos or music, must be translated into 1s and 0s. To put it differently, for example to have a picture on the screen, a picture is first transcoded into some code which a program can read to open the file, and those codes are then transcoded into 1s and 0s by the computer. Therefore, to come up with an online committee such as friendster, lots of programming work and coding needs to be done. These will then be understood by the computer in its numerical representation. Therefore, my example here satisfy the first principle proposed by Manovich. (yay!)
b. Modularity
Okie..now, to tackle Modularity. Recalling what Manovich means when he used the term modularity, we can safely say that Friendster is a collection of discrete elements. Friendster offers the option of displaying one's pictures, media clips and sound(i think). Even messages too! They are all elements that are stored independently of one another and can be modified without having to change the rest. In fact, the above mentioned are themselves represented as collections of discrete samples. This all ties in with his definition of modularity. I quote Manovich, "In short, a new media object consists of independent parts, each of which consists of smaller independent parts, and so on, down to the level of the smallest 'atoms' ".
c. Automation
Hmm... can the automatic updates of friends' information pass off for this? Even the option of the sending of emails to one's email account to remind oneself of someone's birthday is automated. It also automatically generates information with regards to friends' bulletin, profiles etc for one's perusal upon reaching the webpage.
d. Variability
Friendster allows for variablity. Users are able to decide on the information,media, sound, pictures, that they want to put on the website. The top searches, ads are not fixed either and can change with time. The content on each friendster webpage is therefore specific to an individual as the content varies.
e. Transcoding
This involves the notion that the images or words being displayed have been translated from a different kind of language. Manovich cites the example of the images displayed on our screens, as though they appear to be words or pictures, there is code and things far less accessible to the normal person behind those normal images. This ties in with what was mentioned in point A. We have a blend of human and computer meanings in the sense that what appears comprehensible and meaningful to us is also represented in the computer's own language. As such, both user and computer understands it.
so what implications do these principles have for narrative and play within interactive media? I believe that all of them combined, work towards the provision of choices to the user. It also presents information which the user as well as computer, can instinctively understand.
A short description of myself
Hello!
I just thought i'd give a brief introduction of myself. I am Shamantha, a year 3 student majoring in Sociology. I look forward to a fun and enriching semester with everyone in class! :)
Have a great semester ahead!
