Betsy_Ch.5_Strickland_Q

This question is close to what Taco was saying with how we learn to read/interpret differnt symbols.

Strickland says, "We shift differently, we censor differently, we move differently, to sound, to text, to image, and to animation. Today, perforce, we are learning to oscillate differently, in new 'ratios..'" With this change in ratios is our brain really keeping up? I'm not a brain expert, however I would enjoy some brain research to see if brains are changing along with the technology to keep up. Is it that kids now, who are growing up with computers are faster because they can interpret faster?

How is our brain adapting to these new faster technologies?

RAFA_Ch.5_Douglas&Hargadon_I

" PG 196.- WHETHER BY ACCIDENT OR DESIGN, EARLY GAMES DEVELOPERS HAD HIT DIGITAL PAYDIRT BY FOUNDING THEIR FIRST VENTURES ON THE BEDROCK OF TWO ESSENTIALS: A RECIPE FOR INTERACTION THAT ALL BUT GUARANTEED A DEEPLY IMMERSIVE EXPERIENCE AND STRONG, NORMATIVE SCHEMAS BORROWED FROM ALREADY FAMILIAR FORMS OF ENTERTAINMENT". I DISAGREE HERE, I DO NOT THINK THE "PRIMITIVE" STYLE OF ARCADE GAMES HAS ANYTHING TO DO WHIT THE IMMERSIVE EXPERIENCE. PERSONALLY REGARDLESS THE GAME I'M PLAYING THE IMMERSION IS THE SAME, DOES NOT MATTER IF THE GAME IS A "RETRO" GAME OR ONE OF MY GAMES FROM MY X-BOX, PS2, NINTENDO, OR SEGA.

Nick_Ch5_Bernstein_Q

I really like the idea of Card Shark. I think it is a simple organization system, but would work. It really seems to make the whole idea of hypertext or interactive narrative simple. It breaks it all down to a bunch of If-Then loops, which makes sense to me from the ol' C++ programming. My question is simple...is it this simple? Card Shark has spawned alot of ideas in my head...I just don't understand what I am missing.

FLOOK_CH5_Douglas_and_Hargadon_Q(s)

I think Douglas and Hargadon did a splendid job breaking down interactive media into the path of immersion, engagement, and flow. The authors use schemas and scripts to explain how digital stories are constructed. However, I don’t think the authors provided anything new. They did not bring anything new to the table. I know that interactivity is media where the user immerses, engages, and follows the narrative (potentially). People can and often do get pleasure out of it. They just wrote down what we already know. There main question is why.

One of their main points was how, “To date, most studies of reading and hypertext have focused almost entirely on readers’ physical and cognitive encounters with texts…not from the affective pleasures readers derive from their encounters.” Great. Thanks.

They go on to say that because of schemas and scripts in other media, readers can focus on other things instead of the minutiae of the text. Again, great, thank you. I guess my big question is this: why are the authors in this book so hell bent on using traditional terms to describe a revolutionary medium(s)? Furthermore, why are they so concerned about defining “texts” on interactive media? Douglas and Hargadon go to great lengths to compare many books to hypertexts. Why? There is so much more to the internet, gaming, and digital storytelling worlds. I think they should have focused less on pleasure and more on emotion.