MUDs

The presupposition for the reading today was on the uneventful side, but I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the article. I found the learning outcomes to be informative and highly interesting. To think...and online dungeon could mirror such classroom (dungeons to many) realities.

The breakdown of the player profiles: Achievers, Explorers, Socialites, and Imposers reminded me of my classroom. Because I teach a series of social-science 'explorations' in creativity, I find my students breakdown into very similar profiles.

Achievers. Like the MUD, my student achievers only care about the 'grade.' They are far less interested in digging into the software, creating innovative things, using our photo rendering or 3D prototyping tools...just whatever it takes to make the desired grade and away they go. Some achievers branch out into exploration, but it is just a mask for some pointless portfolio addition or a side project for a future interview they have planned for 2 years from now.

Explorers. These are my favorite students, and thankfully, I have lots of them. These students are far less interested in creating what they think makes the A, but to manipulate the projects into something they can use for themselves. I love how these students study the machines, get involved, trouble shoot, and try to run our equipment to the limits. I find these students less interested in the structure, but excel in the abstract

Socialites: I find this to be an interesting role in a MUD. What exactly does a MUD do for them? Why not just enter into a chat room? Interestingly, I have the same question for many of the uninterested students in my classes. Seriously, half my classes are electives...why enroll to just goof off? But, it was not until I read this paper that I finally realized it. I broke my classes down: 80% packaging, 10% graphics and 10% architecture. Graphics and architecture majors are usually the socialites...not that keen on using everything. But, I realized that they love interacting with the packaging students. They are introduced for the first time in my class, and by the end of the semester come in with weekend trips, laughs, and hang-overs. They really just enjoy the company of the structural people...where they are the geometric/graphic influence. I guess just good complements.

As for the killers, I am confident I know who they are. Just like the MUDs, these students seek out groups to join or projects to take on that will cause a disturbance. Last semester there was a student who took on an independent role to develop a catholic birth control package...knowing good and well the background of a hefty percentage of the class. Each semester there are always the students who get a kick out of disrupting class, purposely creating disrespectful media, and the common: poor attendance, non-participation, etc. that find there way inside.

Political Process

Many of the focus points of Bogost's thesis discuss the rules and processes of political systems - how these continuous/procedural 'games' have set rules that must be followed.

I was fascinated by Bogost's "breaking the rules" for improvements. His statement challenges the mundane and promotes the abstract and fascinating. In a similar context, I teach a human factors class where we cover "form vs. function," "flexibility and usability," and other procedural design decisions where the mainstream consider the functional/usable to be boring and stable.

I think this is a good idea. I never thought about the government as a rhetorical 'process' and a set of programed procedures

Procedural Rhetoric in flash games.

Tagged by Bogost...["procedural rhetoric," a type of rhetoric tied to the core affordances of computers: running processes and executing rule-based symbolic manipulation.]...

Leveraging the programming "rules," Madrid cradles the user intimately with program code. As candles are clicked on, they slowly fade out...creating a procedural dilemma: how does one activate all of the candles?

Cynthia linked me towards another great procedural game that has more of a "procedure" to it...

http://www.nofreerefills.org/files/packman/packman.html

As the 'gamer' in you "consumes" pacs, you race to read the next message about packaging and the environment. Interesting how the game affords the learning.

Procedural Mark Ward Sr.

Web 2.0 may not be as helpful as you think.

After a review Mark Ward Sr.'s blog on last weeks topic of "procedural rhetoric," I decided to Google the term to sample how the rest of the world interacts with my keywords.

Interestingly...I found that Mark Ward Sr. has dominated the Google search list with links on 3 of the top 4 results.

Seems that all procedural rhetoric leads back to Mark Ward Sr.

Notes: 9/3

Narratives:

Games as story telling devices. Players make their own stories.
Deep text.
Theoretical framework

Systems/Simulations:

narratives are not needed. Simulation more important.

People involved in games (interest groups):
industry designers, academics, gamers

CyberText: Intrigue and Discourse in the Adventure Game

Cybertext, 100: "Mary Ann Buckles argues convincingly that Adventure can be classified as
"folk art" in contrast to the popular commercial genre it later gave birth to.

What happened in the late 1980s when video game sales declined?

The reader 'is'....or at least produces the story (reference to cybertext)

Autism section is fairly funny....as the characters answer your questions/statements with nonsense...they 'break up' the "magic" of the game.

I think the author goes to the extreme during the analysis of the humor in the game (i.e. "hit leslie w/ flowers). I think it was a joke designed in the game.