Synthetic worlds...Moving through the future, are we now moving from sub-cultures to sub-worlds?! That is what this chapter of The Mechanics of World Making seems to demonstrate. I am well aware that there are thousands of people who spend hours each day engaged in video games and these synthetic worlds...but how far can this go? Castranova writes, "We don't know how many people might find the synthetic world to be better, but it might be quite a few..." What i find really scary here is the word 'BETTER'. Personally, it makes me a bit uncomfortable that people find the constructed world they live in through a monitor better than the real world, their real life. Though it is really fascinating how advanced technology is becoming, that so much interaction can take place between people through a synthetic illustrated world, I find it a bit scary. Children are already being raised with regular video games and TV distracting them from and blurring out the, apparently, hard real world, isn't that enough? Do we really need to create another persona, or a new, better 'reputation' as Castranova explains in a separate, artificial world? Similarly, we already see people creating new personas and reputations of themselves through online self-advertising sites such as Myspace, and that hasnt seemed to better life quality now has it.
In terms of the design of the 'worlds' and the 'technology of immersion', I do find it fascinating how succesful it has become (though I dont necessarily agree with the time spent engaged in it). What also is a bit strange is when the author excuses the lack of detail in these synthetic worlds by reasoning that,
"accurate detail is not the ultimate objective of any work of art (any good one, at least). Shakespeare's Veronese and danes and Celts are certainly not accurate depeictions of members of those historical culture groups, but it does not matter. We don't watch Shakespeare to learn about these folk, we do it to learn about ourselves."
I may be being ignorant, but I hardly think video games can easily be compared with Shakespeare. By venturing through a synthetic world, are people really engaged in a piece of art that is helping them learn about themselves? I guess this all goes back to what is considered art, and what real meaning is, which of course...I have no authority to say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Well regarding that list bit, Video Games can't be compared to Shakespeare. He wrote plays, you sit and watch a play, Video Games however are interactive. Therefore even more engaging.
But Video Games can be elevated to the level of how Shakespeare is analyzed because you can learn about yourself from Video Games.
They tell stories just like literature, art, films, they send out messages.
Right, some games especially earlier in the arcade days they were ways to while away the time, more like an Andy Warhol painting. aesthetically pleasing in its own respect, but commercial.
Nowadays, there have even been contests to make games based on Global Warming, effective games to educate people.
Games like Second Life where you live in a virtual world are a bit ridiculous, its not a video game, its an interactive chat room. To me its just an excuse to have virtual cyber sex and see an avatar perform it. A good portion of Second Life's users are Furries, anthropromorphic animals, people who wish they were animals but cannot be so they channel their obsession into this world.
But Video Games as a stand alone concept are brilliant, it takes sound, vision, thought, movement, and a newer type of art style, gameplay. It takes all those and combines them into one, its so immersive.
I know myself, a story has been so compelling in a Video Game that I have cried, many times my heart has begun racing, sometimes you lose yourself in the world. Just as in Shakespeare's long and thrilling monologues you can sometimes hear the thunder or see the lightning when yet there is none.
Its a similar concept, an open mind can go a long way.
To me what is more interesting is the direction that Video Games are heading in. The non-game games, such as Brain Age, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Vision Training, Face Training, etc. Games that are made to either bring people together, or improve an area of your life. In Japan they are using the Nintendo DS for museum tours, and storing cooking recipes. It's fascinating.
-James Dier
Cubstar
Castranova writes, "We don't know how many people might find the synthetic world to be better, but it might be quite a few..." What i find really scary here is the word 'BETTER'.
I completely agree that this is a scary article. I'll take it a step further: I think this is a completely ridiculous article and I can't for the life of me take it seriously. I do appreciate that this apparently avid gamer is extending himself from his flat-screen monitor and his darling polygons to write an article about the evolution of world-making, but I feel that Edward Castronova is a rare case for gamers. I know so many people whose physical lives go ignored when they have the option of immersing themselves in this sort of virtual reality. I thought perhaps as I was reading this, my mind would open a little to gamers, but it only confirms my hatred of simulated dimensions.
It reminded me of Chuck Klosterman's book of essays, "Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs" in which Chuck allows himself to get hooked on the Sims. Bad things happen to him in this simulated world and he's able to make fun of himself via third-person. It's hilarious, but ultimately, there is a hint of irony in the narrative. Here, there is no irony. The closest we get to irony in this article is this:
"Forcing voice into role-play mode is hard. It is one thing to mediate a contemporary person's body through a constructed, medieval-like avator; it is another thing to mediate his voice communications through some kind of constructed, medieval-sounding speaker. The sentiment of "Hey man there's this big-a$$ dragon right behind you, get moving" must be understood and then re-rendered as "Hail friend! The fire-breathing beast approacheth! Avaunt!"
It's ironic only because of how ridiculous the concept is. In a highly advanced technological world, how does a medieval vernacular fit in? How could it convince the audience that there is some kind of epic aura to the game when the person is still a user, the world is still composed of polygons and pixels, and the communication is still delivered through the interweb? I wrote next to this quote, "Why should this matter?" It doesn't matter-- it might add an interesting flavor to the environment if all the characters spoke in colloquials, but these details, as Castronova states, are irrelevant or unnecessary.
He does compare this simulated world to Shakespeare and does state that we learn more about ourselves than the historical details of the world delineated through meter. But here's the ultimate difference, one that terrifies me: Shakespeare, one of the most innovative writers the world has ever known, is being compared to the art of a simulated world. In most cases, people can relate more to virtual realities, intuitive gaming principles, and key commands than they can to Shakespeare. Shakespeare opens us to an uncomfortable colloquial, tempestuous journeys, and complex psychologies within characters. Surely, many games are able to do this in the game and of course, it's easier because you don't have to read to understand the landscape. You turn your computer on, you sit down, you stare at a monitor until your eyes glaze over with glee, and it's your digital doppleganger that you delight in. One could find themselves in Shakespeare, as Castronova suggests, but we read Shakespeare to understand psychologies pressured by the formation of histories. In other words (and I'm sorry if this comes off as pretentious, but I love Shakespeare), you have to try much harder to grasp even one theme in Shakespeare's works than you do to grasp the complexities of a simulated dimension. The saddest statistic I've read to date has been the average number of books Americans read a year: 0. That's right. The number is zero. Americans don't read anymore, which is the biggest problem in the world to me.
As I read this whole article, all I wanted to do was read great literature and escape this depressing world of digits and polygons that seems more and more to be upon us. The fact that advertising has made its way into gaming is not a surprise at all, since these companies know their audience-- an audience that gets their jollies from simulated fight scenes, from virtual commodities, and from virtual possessions. Of course they're more susceptible to external advertisements, just as anyone who watches a show like Heroes knows that every chance they get, they'll advertise Sprint phones in the hope that one may want to follow their favorite character on the show and purchase a phone. Messages embedded in messages: Virtual reality playing a role in actual habits of the physical world helps to create a manipulative median-- whether or not that median is McDonald's or not is another story-- in the game, if you can eat a McDonald's burger, it will only make the world that much more convincing. Things are commodified, codified, and decoded by the user. It is a game that is socially-conscious as well as corporate-conscious. It knows all the switches.
-Natalie Eilbert, swan_turtle.livejournal.com
Personally, I really don't understand how people can call the synthetic world "better." I mean, yes everything might go how you want it to, but thats only because you are in control of everything. This is misleading compared to real life becuase in the real world you can't go back and just click undo. You have to deal with decisions that you make, either good or bad.
Castronova says that "the worlds they see in there don't look exactly like the Earth they live in; they look much more pleasant than that."Of course it is going to look more pleasant than the real world because these synthetic worlds are peoples fantasies coming to life through a game. Not only can someone recreate their personal image in these worlds, but they can also build intimate relationships with other humans there.
I guess since I am not one to play these types of games I don't understand how people can think that these synthetic worlds are "better" than the real world. These worlds aren't real.
-michelle fetky
I completely agree that this is a ridiculous article, as well as alarming. I will go so far as to say that i feel that creating video games is an art, and i'll give some credit to those who play every once in awhile; it's not the end of the world...at least it's more interacting than tv. As for those people who live their lives more in the world of video games and less in real life, that is just terrifying. What else creeps me out is the fact that Shakespeare's plays are being compared to video games. Yes, people went to go watch his plays, but they weren't involved in his plays so much that every waking second was dedicated to a virtual reality and not reality itself. Video games now are too much like a replacement for everyday life. You talk to people and play with people that you only know by a made up gamer name and you interact with them more than people in real life. I have a friend who does this, and i cant tell you how much it annoys me when he ignores what i say because he's talking to some person in Canada who just took over the red tower or whatever. It's a sickening replacement for human interaction. And this article just seems like a joke to me.
-Kate Price
I keep reading how everyone finds it scary that people may find this virtual worlds "Better" than real life. Yeah, you may find that hard to believe as a sophisticated Purchase college student, but how about little kids? To the kid whose parents work all day and is stuck with a babysitter everyday after school, or the kid whose single parent is an alcoholic, video games may be the only way for them to escape their not so perfect, not so entertaining world. It is the one place where they have complete control over everything.
Video Games are also a positive way to waste your time as a teenager. The cause you to use your brain and react quickly. For some kids, this may be what keeps them out of trouble and away from drugs.
As an art form, video games should definitely be considered art. Lots of time and effort are put into these games and not just anyone can make one. It takes learning and knowledge. A video game is someone's trade. They incorporate many elements of art, such as lighting, color, sound, movement, and story line. The best part is they are interactive. It is the one piece of art that you do not sit back and watch, but instead, you play along as you watch the story unfold.
I agree that it seems scary how seriously some individuals view these synthetic worlds, comparing them to reality with such sincerity. Perhaps this is because I am not one to often play video games, or for that matter I rarely ever play video games at all, which puts a harsh bias on my opinion but it seems silly how seriously this article takes it self. Instead of viewing video games as simply a recreational activity, or in many cases severe waste of time, this article goes insofar as to essentially compare these synthetic worlds, originally meant purely for entertainment purposes, to reality, describing them as a spin off of reality, some even going so far as so deem these synthetic worlds as better than the real world. This concept of synthetic worlds reminded me of Hebdige’s article regarding the formation and incorporation of subcultures. In a sense these synthetic worlds can be seen as “sub-worlds” or spin-offs of the real world. However, similar to the case with subcultures these synthetic worlds could never truly exist on their own because they are based on reality and the real world.
-Maya Chayot
Firstly, ignoring the fact that in its day Shakespeare, too, was considered "lower art" for the common folk, letting what they are distract us from what they do for people is a huge mistake. Like Castronova says, we do it for us not the art - this made up world obviously offers something that the real world doesn't seem to. You put your finger on it when you brought up myspace - if you can't have 500 friends in the real world, at least you can seem like you do to strangers and acquaintances online. TV is famous for being what middle class Americans do when they get home from school or work. It's often said its because you don't have to think about it, you can just unwind, but I disagree. I believe it is because TV has dramatic structure, which means the protagonist will encounter adversity (just like you do, you can relate!) but then, and unlike you, he will face it (he will get the bully back, he will stand up to his boss) and more than likely come out on top. The viewer experiences catharsis, like Mulvey said, the protagonist is us. That's where I think Castronova misses the point, that world isn't a better one to the healthy and sane average America viewer/gamer, but a necessary part of the world we all share. We can't feed our high school principal to a giant snake, so Buffy has to do it for us. And that's the way it should be.
-Laura Kazdan
Post a Comment