I think that hypertext fiction can be considered "interactive" as it allows the readers to make choices which will lead to many different possible conclusions. The selection of different certain choices will lead to an entirely different stories, and thus, different experiences. The stories perceived by the readers are not predictable beforehand.
I find that hypertext fiction opens up a new and wider dimension which can't be done or would be too cumbersome if it were to be done, in a printed book. It manages to hold the multitudes of complex networks of lexias together in an organised way, which could not be accomplished in a printed book. Millions of lexias or more can be linked to one another at different points in the network. Thus, it is also possible to allow more choices with more lexias, hence, providing more varied experiences compared to printed books. In this way, readers can read through the hypertext fiction many times until he is exhausted or grow bored of it.
It would also be easier for the readers to navigate the different lexias with just the click of the mouse. Readers do not have to turn and search of the pages in a printed book. With a site map, readers can just go to the site that he chooses. Furthermore, it saves the readers time to search for the pages, thus, keeping the focus of the narrative intact.
Hypertext fiction also creates a sense of mystery within the reader because the reader will not know the percentages of the lexias he has gone through and what surprises might await him in those lexias that he did not go through or lexias that were denied access due to some choices made. In the case of a printed book, it will not be possible to create the sense of mystery as the reader can see the structure of the fiction. In my opinion, this might be advantageous or disadvantages depending on the nature of the readers. If the reader is patient enough to accept the challenge of concurring the hypertext fiction, he will continue to navigate it. However, if the reader is one that wanted to know only the conclusion and does not have the time to navigate through the whole experience, he will most probably be unsatisfied with the outcome.
In addition, if it is an internet-based hypertext fiction, the author can easily alters the storyline, based on the feedback of the readers. Or the author can also make it possible to allow the readers to become authors by asking the readers to construct their own different lexias and send them to the author, who will incorporate them together to form different lines of new narratives. This would not be possible in the case of a printed books which will need a rather long time to be published.
Hence, hypertext fictions expands the dimensions and improves the interactivity of the already existing structure of the narrative in the printed book form.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
Blog Exercise 4: Fighting Fantasy book!
It was fun and enjoyable to play the Fighting Fantasy book in class. That was the first time I read the Fighting Fantasy book. We chose the "Master of Chaos." It is interesting to note that the narrative can still be exciting and coherent while engaging readers in a game story in which the readers are free to choose the story paths, which ultimately lead to different stories with various denouements.
I find the narrative "well-formed" no matter which choices the readers opt for. There is still continuity and the story is still engaging. But sometimes, although one is given two choices, I noticed that whichever choices will inevitably lead the reader back to the same path to reach the kernels of the story, thus, those are just temporary diversions to create the illusions of choices. We didn't played long enough. Maybe if we play long enough and experience the paths the different choices lead to, perhaps we might notice that the choices are just illusions to make it look interactive. Perhaps the storyline is the same after all with maybe only one or two conclusions. Or maybe the illusions of choices function to let the readers assemble their own paths, and thus lead to different experiences.
I find the Fighting Fantasy book requires non-trivial effort and mechanical effort on the part of the readers to make the narrative progress. The readers need to throw the dice, make choices, calculate the scores, frequently turn the pages, etc.... It is indeed a very interesting concept of interactivity but the playing part of it is another matter. The interactivity of the book depends very much on the readers. If the reader finds the throwing of dice and calculating the scores in playing a game in which the end scores determine whether the reader will win the fight with an enemy cumbersome, most probably they will just assume that they won the game and proceed to the next scene. Thus, maybe more interesting games should be introduced to make the book more exciting instead of just throwing dices and calculating scores.
Some commented that they will not care whether the character in the story survives during the start of the game and will often exposes them to danger. However, they will want to keep the character alive after playing it for a long time. Whereas, some commented that they do not want their character to die by choosing the safer routes, but was still exposes to danger. It is interesting to note how the author tries to involve the readers in the game story. There is always some elements of risks involved in games. For me, I will carefully take some risks to explore the different paths but still wanted to keep the character alive in order to know how the story unfolds itself. Maybe I am more interested in the narrative part of the book compared to the game.
We discussed whether how different would it be if this form of game story was played using computer instead. I think that computer has the capability to picture the scenes, and create the sound effects and special effects, thus, engaging the audience more. The audience do not have to picture the scenes of the story themselves. Besides that, it will also save the hassle of recording and calculating the scores as computer has the capability to do that. Without all these activities, the audience will be able to focus on the experiences of the story itself. However, would this mean that the process has become more trivial, suggesting that the old media form of the book involves more non-trivial effort, thus, more cybertext than the new media, in this case, the computer?
Or perhaps, other interactive elements, such as the control of the fighting using the keyboards, can be used to substitute the interactive elements in the book to maintain the level of non-trivial effort. Maybe old media and new media can both be interactive, but in a different way.
I find the narrative "well-formed" no matter which choices the readers opt for. There is still continuity and the story is still engaging. But sometimes, although one is given two choices, I noticed that whichever choices will inevitably lead the reader back to the same path to reach the kernels of the story, thus, those are just temporary diversions to create the illusions of choices. We didn't played long enough. Maybe if we play long enough and experience the paths the different choices lead to, perhaps we might notice that the choices are just illusions to make it look interactive. Perhaps the storyline is the same after all with maybe only one or two conclusions. Or maybe the illusions of choices function to let the readers assemble their own paths, and thus lead to different experiences.
I find the Fighting Fantasy book requires non-trivial effort and mechanical effort on the part of the readers to make the narrative progress. The readers need to throw the dice, make choices, calculate the scores, frequently turn the pages, etc.... It is indeed a very interesting concept of interactivity but the playing part of it is another matter. The interactivity of the book depends very much on the readers. If the reader finds the throwing of dice and calculating the scores in playing a game in which the end scores determine whether the reader will win the fight with an enemy cumbersome, most probably they will just assume that they won the game and proceed to the next scene. Thus, maybe more interesting games should be introduced to make the book more exciting instead of just throwing dices and calculating scores.
Some commented that they will not care whether the character in the story survives during the start of the game and will often exposes them to danger. However, they will want to keep the character alive after playing it for a long time. Whereas, some commented that they do not want their character to die by choosing the safer routes, but was still exposes to danger. It is interesting to note how the author tries to involve the readers in the game story. There is always some elements of risks involved in games. For me, I will carefully take some risks to explore the different paths but still wanted to keep the character alive in order to know how the story unfolds itself. Maybe I am more interested in the narrative part of the book compared to the game.
We discussed whether how different would it be if this form of game story was played using computer instead. I think that computer has the capability to picture the scenes, and create the sound effects and special effects, thus, engaging the audience more. The audience do not have to picture the scenes of the story themselves. Besides that, it will also save the hassle of recording and calculating the scores as computer has the capability to do that. Without all these activities, the audience will be able to focus on the experiences of the story itself. However, would this mean that the process has become more trivial, suggesting that the old media form of the book involves more non-trivial effort, thus, more cybertext than the new media, in this case, the computer?
Or perhaps, other interactive elements, such as the control of the fighting using the keyboards, can be used to substitute the interactive elements in the book to maintain the level of non-trivial effort. Maybe old media and new media can both be interactive, but in a different way.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Interactivity
It's rather challenging to add interactivity to the story of Little Red Riding Hood without altering the original story. Although we are allowed to alter certain parts of the story, I felt that altering such a famous and well-known fable might not be easily accepted by the already pre-conditioned minds of the audiences. Thus, our group tried to maintain the kernels of the story while trying to add interactivity to it. Now, numerous problems arose in our minds - What kind of interactivity are we going to use? How do we keep the story interesting? How to maintain the coherence and interactivity of the story at the same time?
Chris Crawford defined interactivity as "a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak." Alternatively, it can be defined as involving the process of input, coding, and output between two actors. So, in order to add interactivity, the audiences have to become the participants. We should allow the audience to make choices. But if we were to jumble up the plots of the story and allow the audiences to arrange them according to their own picks, like what one of the groups presented on the powerpoint, then the story will most likely become incoherent.
So, we came up with the idea of a forum theatre, in which audiences were given the opportunity to participate and perform in the play. If they feel that the actors should react in another way, they are allowed to interfere in the midst of the play and comment on it or even take over his/her role. I feel that this method is interesting and appropriate as many knows the story of the Little Red Riding Hood and there won't be much difficulties in explaining the story to the audiences. This methods also allows more interactivity in the sense that it not only allows the audiences to comment on the play, but it also provide the opportunity to the audiences to play a role in the story. Using this method, we can also maintain the kernels of the story as other performers will not allow the others to simply ruin the story. To guard against any purposeful attempt to ruin the storyline, perhaps one performer from the group should always stay in the play. Besides that, a narrator can also serve as a story guide to the audiences.
Other groups also offered some interesting points. There is another group who uses powerpoint and allows choices to be made by audiences on the paths of the stories. However, they restricted much of the choices available. Ultimately, the audiences were being pushed to select the only path available. I felt that maybe they can make the stories more interesting by altering the satelites of the story a little by providing more available paths and yet can still reach back to the same conclusion, similar to the structure of "The Theater Tree: A Combinatory Play." This will be able to engage the audiences as they have to be prepared for the unexpected. I find the method used by Hitomi's group very interesting. They narrated the story from the point of view of the different characters in the story, thus, giving us more insights and understanding into the different character. Perhaps, this story can be made into a narrative computer game in which every player assumes the role of different characters in the story. Perhaps there can be dialog boxes as well for the players to communicate and keep the story going - some sort of theatre forum in the form of computer but with fixed players. Besides that, it can serve as an educational game for the kids as well.
1. Does a potential narrative such as Paul Fournel’s “The Tree Theatre: A Combinatory Play” or Raymond Queneau's "A Story as You Like it" satisfy Crawford’s definition of interactivity? Could it be considered an example of interactive media? Why/why not?
Chris Crawford defined interactivity as "a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak," analogous to the process of input, coding, and output. I would consider the "The Theatre Tree: A Combinatory Play" and Raymond Queneau's "A Story as You Like it" satisfied Crawford's definition of interactivity and is an example of interactive media as the processes of input, coding, and output are involved between the story and the reader. The reader were given the choices to choose the progress of the story. The story inputs to the reader when the reader is reading it. At the junction of two choices, the reader have to think and make his choice and output to the story. The story then received the selected choice and output to the reader to go to the next section where the choice leads to. So, in this way, the reader is also a participant to the determination of the storyline.
Chris Crawford defined interactivity as "a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak." Alternatively, it can be defined as involving the process of input, coding, and output between two actors. So, in order to add interactivity, the audiences have to become the participants. We should allow the audience to make choices. But if we were to jumble up the plots of the story and allow the audiences to arrange them according to their own picks, like what one of the groups presented on the powerpoint, then the story will most likely become incoherent.
So, we came up with the idea of a forum theatre, in which audiences were given the opportunity to participate and perform in the play. If they feel that the actors should react in another way, they are allowed to interfere in the midst of the play and comment on it or even take over his/her role. I feel that this method is interesting and appropriate as many knows the story of the Little Red Riding Hood and there won't be much difficulties in explaining the story to the audiences. This methods also allows more interactivity in the sense that it not only allows the audiences to comment on the play, but it also provide the opportunity to the audiences to play a role in the story. Using this method, we can also maintain the kernels of the story as other performers will not allow the others to simply ruin the story. To guard against any purposeful attempt to ruin the storyline, perhaps one performer from the group should always stay in the play. Besides that, a narrator can also serve as a story guide to the audiences.
Other groups also offered some interesting points. There is another group who uses powerpoint and allows choices to be made by audiences on the paths of the stories. However, they restricted much of the choices available. Ultimately, the audiences were being pushed to select the only path available. I felt that maybe they can make the stories more interesting by altering the satelites of the story a little by providing more available paths and yet can still reach back to the same conclusion, similar to the structure of "The Theater Tree: A Combinatory Play." This will be able to engage the audiences as they have to be prepared for the unexpected. I find the method used by Hitomi's group very interesting. They narrated the story from the point of view of the different characters in the story, thus, giving us more insights and understanding into the different character. Perhaps, this story can be made into a narrative computer game in which every player assumes the role of different characters in the story. Perhaps there can be dialog boxes as well for the players to communicate and keep the story going - some sort of theatre forum in the form of computer but with fixed players. Besides that, it can serve as an educational game for the kids as well.
1. Does a potential narrative such as Paul Fournel’s “The Tree Theatre: A Combinatory Play” or Raymond Queneau's "A Story as You Like it" satisfy Crawford’s definition of interactivity? Could it be considered an example of interactive media? Why/why not?
Chris Crawford defined interactivity as "a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak," analogous to the process of input, coding, and output. I would consider the "The Theatre Tree: A Combinatory Play" and Raymond Queneau's "A Story as You Like it" satisfied Crawford's definition of interactivity and is an example of interactive media as the processes of input, coding, and output are involved between the story and the reader. The reader were given the choices to choose the progress of the story. The story inputs to the reader when the reader is reading it. At the junction of two choices, the reader have to think and make his choice and output to the story. The story then received the selected choice and output to the reader to go to the next section where the choice leads to. So, in this way, the reader is also a participant to the determination of the storyline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)