Perspective on performance which will reflect on the game quality itself. Radically changing mindset + purpose of game.Focus on quality of game/ performance rather than outcome. Experience and self growth over winning.

sums up previous point-"general state"= the almost intangible spirt/ competitiveness and pride in a game. This state allows the fluid pace of a game -like 'ping pong' which is what makes an 'excellent game'

A community game that is completely built on trust and good intentions is difficult to maintain. Especially when that game is life and definitely not something you want to lose. Could this be the reason people may make bad or say questionable decisions sometimes?

Honestly I agree with this a lot. It undermines a well-played game in like an online game when the enemy surrenders or when making a smurf account to play against lower ranked players.

I think this is interesting because some people might consider these virtual hangouts first spaces rather than third spaces as Oldenburg suggests. If first and second spaces are based on comfort and frequency in visits, then I think this would be even more true. Especially now with the recent quarantine, online spaces may contest or even beat out our home for first space rather than third or second spaces.

54 years for a project? That's honestly crazy for me especially since the software in this day in age is probably obsolete. At the time, it was probably revolutionary on paper though.

Haha, the amount of misinformation or ignorance regarding covid-19 is actually insane to me. Honestly is the only reason it has taken so long for us to leave Phase 1 and actually get vaccines out (and still people are trying to discredit those as well!)

Harmful content can be posted under the guise of a familiar and "safe" face like Peppa Pig

Youtube creators are taking advantage of unsupervised children at a frightening level

As someone who started using the internet an unusually early age, I can say that this infrastructural violence literally applies to everybody. Content is marketed towards literally every existing human on Earth, and there isn't really a way to avoid it.

Honestly, all the animated children stuff (Billion Surprise Toys, etc.) always was so uncanny to me. It actually makes so much more sense that these things are automated. It's pretty genius actually. It definitely works and easily takes advantage of children.

In order to create more benefits, broadcasters create a lot of videos that can attract children and parents, using colors, animations and music to attract attention.But I think they have not really considered the help and educational significance of these videos to children, and let more children indulge in these animations, occupying a lot of time in their lives.

gaming thrives on the fact that you are being immersed in a world as a new character, not as yourself like with gamification in the workplace

Us (NPC) vs moneymakers, corporate companies (the game)

This is an interesting sentiment, but I am able to see this point of view. When I see hordes of people walking around engrossed in their phones, it does remind me of meatbots.

-ification is what corporate needs: repeated format and structure, not enjoyment

Gaming does not equal fun, especially while in the hands of corporate

I find this specific selection interesting as games can be considered wrong. To me, I feel like games and their specific features could be subjective, and whether it can be enjoyed depends on individual players.

Honestly I kinda feel this. An interactive element does not turn something that was better as a different medium into a full on game worth of someone's time.

One of Facebook's most dangerous and unique thing is their algorithm. It essentially recommends you things that it predicts you would like and tries to keep you engaged and it can be super addicting. It's sort of scary thinking about how if you'd let a kid grow up completely on facebook and youtube with their algorithms, they'd probably have a serious addiction to it similar to that of a drug addict.

There have been a lot of instances of Facebook being involved in different conspiracies. The algorithms that Facebook use have been abused to manipulate political elections and events.

You can't get rid of it, Qanon has become so big that it's network of followers will make their own social media platform, if it comes down to that. We saw this earlier this year with the app Parlor

Fueling the flames of "the media is fake" arguments

Qanon is an anonymous user with seriously incriminating "intel," while also preaching DT as the one who will expose these criminals and save America? Pretty much

I believe that Facebook's policies and guidelines changed shortly after this event regarding filters and safety

It shows that facebook has played an important role in the spread of QAnon. As a social platform facebook has a lot of users, so the scope of dissemination of any information is very large.

The fact that people are fighting this hard for something that is widely been discredited is crazy to me. What do families of followers think when they see this type of reasoning at play?

Honestly, the conspiracy group types are not exactly my favorite. This type of reasoning definitely reminds me of anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers.

I've actually followed Anonymous on Facebook for a while and kept up a little with conspiracies on YouTube. I don't follow "Qanon" but I didn't realize that it was pushing more towards supporting right wing politics. I remember when conspiracy theories and New Age concepts had a community of people who supported left wing politics and were hippies. Now that's all flipped which is interesting.

Big data helped Trump win, but now Big Data is the #1 public enemy to his supporters

This is the millenial/older gen Z's "Where were you when you found out JFK was shot" moment.

I love how this is worded, because while the character is being controlled by the player, that does not mean the player IS the character, nor do they have the same abilities or traits.

I feel like that in games there isn't any real boundaries, so when they say they pick pocket people in the game, I don't imagine them in real life doing that (they could, but I'd like to think they don't). It's games that allows people to do what they normally can't and what makes gaming so fun when you can try all these things; because it's a virtual identity, it's not really you(?).

This reminds me of a game I play called Divinity Original Sin 2 with choices like this. The relationship between virtual and real-life identities that cause us and our characters to make these choices is very interesting.

Honestly, I think the relationship between the 3 identities ties up very nicely ending with projective. Both virtual, real-life and projective identities go hand and hand and form a neat connection. The author does a good job showcasing this identity through Bead-Bead.

I thought that this section was interesting because I've heard some different perspectives about how people like to represent themselves in games. Some people like to pick a character that represents themselves, but others like to pick someone that does not represent themselves, but rather a character they would like to work with in the game.

I find it really interesting that video game creators can make statements within their games without its players even really realizing it. These real world biases can be seen in multiple different patterns as well.

I think this is a very interesting point because out of all the games that I've played that have not had definitive backstories, I've never really thought about thinking about what the history of the game might be. I oftentimes just accept what is happening and just play the game for what it is.

Hitman's play requires the player to think a lot because You have to calculate multiple steps after you start engaging.

With Alexandra pointing these out, I can recall times where I unintentionally ask myself these questions about a game. Like in Stardew Valley. I think about how this could connect to the real world and what state my farm might take place in.

Constraints influence but work within the bounds (rules) of the State. With two levels of interactivity, the audience (player) is able to stay engaged and potentially have a more positive experience with the model (game) because the model is constantly "shifting and evolving". This will make the audience experience something "new".

I dont game, but i can understand this concept through the context of digital animation called "moving hold". The objective is make the scene/subject look like its passing through time and not just stay completely still (flat) when the scene is still.They achieve this by drawing the same scene/subject several times and animate it all together. The organic tracing will cause some differences when sequenced together. The outcome is the audience is not interrupted by abrupt stillness, instead they are met with an interesting "still" moment.

I never noticed this before, but now that I realize it, it is very true. Even other than chess this applies to sports, tabletop games and even work in some cases

bis236

Didn't think I would see a game I play here haha. This game definitely rewards slower and more tactical play. Information is king, similar to Valorant and it's one of the reasons I like Siege a lot.

This is definitely an interesting concept to think about. The rules of chess are defined internationally but no one is really stopping someone from moving a pawn 3 sqaures up.

This reminds of when I used to play YuGiOh card game with friends as a kid. Combining monster's attacks, summoning strong dudes out of nowhere and bending the rules was commonplace and no one can really stop us except ourselves.

In order to play video games, there is a lot of experimentation to figure out the best possible solution to a game. For example in chess, you are looking at the board and testing each possible move and its outcome in your head, in order to play the best possible move.

I think comparing chess to video games is a great way to show what constraints and states are. The game of chess is very similar to the structure of other video games and comparing the two helped to understand some of the concepts and structures that we see in video games.

I wonder if this is like one of those secret areas in a game that's hidden. Like in Mario when you have to go into one of the green tubes to find the gold coin.

Its easier for me to understand this concept when I say that state fits into constraint based on the individual choices made by the player.

When thinking of traditional games, games such as basketball or football come to mind. The possible external constraints could be other players, teammates, coaches, viewers, etc.

I thought this was a really good example of the difference between constraints and state when in the context of games. This line of thinking can easily be applied to any game if you take the time to compare the difference.

this is basically defined the differences between the contrains and the state in the article from a overviewed way.

this refers back to the basketball games, figure 2-4. and game interface can be looped by the role of a players. one player or one team can get the score continuous. so, the result is not directly caused by the term of the users played. this is not a reason-lead directed order in another ways, there is not a standrad way for the background to run the data, ( maybe a if loop in insert)

The second paragraph on page 1 helps explain ergodic literature, but I'm wondering -- can ergodic literature go from nonergodic to ergodic based on time? What about language barriers?

Some people find that they can be themselves online without having to deal with in-person judgments. For example, first impressions in-person are really important but online you have time to make a first impression and really cultivate your image.

I feel like everyone who uses social media to connect with others is networking. Online networking gives everyone a chance to share ideas and knowledge.

We have now evolved to having "computers" in our pockets. Like phones and ipads.

I was surprised to see that there was such a large percentage of older people using the internet. I would have though it would be under 35%

Interesting sites. Never heard of them before

This is one of the easiest ways to find people who share similar interests online. It's so much easier to find a community who share the same ideas, interests, hobbies, etc. It's really cool to see how big these online communities grow and in a way that offline ones can't do. With the help of social media, those from all around the world are able to connect and not limiting it to just one place or area.

When I enter a hashtag in the height of it's trending moment, I become so energetic, like I am truly interacting with hundreds of users at once and we are all apart of a moment. When I browse hashtags that are stagnant, it feels more like I am reading about something that are already happened. There is a physical difference there.

I love this. It is very reminiscent of the idea that social media is not true to real life, and the poster selectively chooses what they want you to see. With that being said, most of us social media users are aware of this, but still find ourselves comparing each other.

I never really considered the accessibility that cell phones have -- regardless of social class or income, it is incredibly common for everybody to have a cell phone, I would even consider it a basic necessity because it allows for basic communication.

I feel this kinda on an interpersonal/deep level. I've met a lot of my friends online and even the friends I am well acquainted with in real life I have strengthened my bonds with in the form of video calls or video games.

I've never thought about how much of an impact the online world has on me, especially in these social distancing times.

Huh, it's pretty's interesting that media was named this way initially to mean a broad definition of just something that delivers data and information.

While news media is still prevalent, I find it interesting how media has become more closely associated with entertainment such as referencing a Facebook feed or a video game pertaining to a form of media.

This reminds me of how bullying can occur digitally but might not occur physically. The effects are still the same. Bullying physically or digitally will still produce the same outcome, but they are just separated by the digital or physical world.

This is interesting because many people do go online seeking forms of communities or online relationships with others. However, they are never expecting to find anything authentic. This shows that it is somewhat easy to develop deeper connections online that in person.

Because that they are not with you physically, you are forced to learn about the other person's personality traits instead of their physical traits. You get to really learn about them thus creating a sense of them being "present" while actually not being there in person.

This reminds me of 'FOMO', fear of missing out, which can be leads to depression and social anxiety among teenagers.

Society is responsible to teach how to use technology/internet properly to prevent future cybercrimes and regulations as well.

In one of my previous classes that I took we practiced and learned about performance noticing where we use our bodies senses and etc in order to take notes on the performance. She spoke about although we're seeing it through a screen/online instead of physically in person, if you pay attention closely and allow your body to focus and notice you will still be able to end up with same reactions you would as in person.

This is interesting point of view of 'virtual' especially we are moving fast into VR and 4th industrial revolution.

Although it may be thought of as two different things, in reality the brain picks it up either one as a real experience and our bodies are able to react accordingly equally.

symbolism and representation

However, we also ourselves begin to create alter versions of ourselves which we choose to show and portray within social spaces/digital environment. How we choose to be viewed or seen online.

everything connected

cyberbullying and its consequences

I feel like reason for this is because it allows the individual something to ground themselves to as well as gives them guideline or bases to form a sense of "self".

Example is like virtual reality where it is made to mimic the real world and seems the capture it exactly but it isn't real.

In computing, a daemon is 'a background process that handles requests for services such as print spooling and file transfers, and is dormant when not required.' This is what the subconscious mind does 24/7. Humans are made of organic systems (bots) that work together to support the physical.

This transcends the perspective of the physical but everything we experience through digital media is also physical through it's emotional impact within the human neurosystem which, subsequently stimulates reaction and neuroplasticity.

Semiotic archetypes are important to human consciousness and psychology. Many video games are strewn with repurposed symbolism.

Check out "Snow Crash" by Neal Stephenson for an interesting presentation of 'cyberspace' and the digitization of human consciousness.

We can add 'cyberpsychology' which can be defined as being 'a developing field that encompasses all psychological phenomena associated with or affected by emerging technology.'

The Internet says, "1 : being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted a virtual dictator. 2 : being on or simulated on a computer or computer network print or virtual books a virtual keyboard : such as. a : occurring or existing primarily online virtual shopping." So the term applies as is, considering that these activities are facilitated by digital technology.

This is exceptionally evident during this pandemic!

This paragraph describes a process of 'enculturation', which "is the process by which people learn the dynamics of their surrounding culture and acquire values and norms appropriate or necessary to that culture and its worldviews." This promotes a cultural neuroplasticity that, once embrained is the "vibe" that is described.

People have multiple emotions while using the internet, and that's why internet can kill. Does social media make people more or less lonely? It depends on how people use it. Social media affect us in both ways negatively and positively, and it is a place for people to express their life and personalities. The gap between two ways is actually huge, which is very important of how correctly using social media.

It is interesting to see how all of these sites have grown into larger businesses by creating ads geared towards its users. It is often hard to avoid the ads as sites such as Facebook and instagram use data mining to know exactly what a user would click on.

This was nothing really new to me considering I see ratios happen on twitter all the time. The idea of being ratioed on twitter isn't anything new, but the term was made more recently. No one wants to be ratioed, but some tweet what they know will get them attention whether it be good or bad.

I find this to be very true. I barely read anymore and I take any aoppurtunity to find video content instead.

I certainly don't think online games can exactly make you anti-social. But I think games can be equally as damaging and have the ability to definitely make people isolate themselves and anti-social. Sexual harassments, hate speech, and many other bad things are amplified in online video games and having a person doing most of their socializing in these environments could lead to isolation and being anti-social. This is super debatable, but basically my thought process is if I had my kid grow up purely on games that have a toxic audience (ex. CS:GO or like most FPS games, not trying to hate) without any real social interactions, i'd feel like no one in the real world would want to talk to them due to them developing terrible and toxic social skills and in turn isolates them.

"We're a generation of idiots -- smartphones and dumb people."

I really appreciate this specific line, although blunt. I understand the general message of this video, but there are several points that I disagree with. Our world is constantly changing, and I do not think that deleting all of our social media would necessarily be beneficial.

I think this is more important than ever for people to understand. It is important to remember that everyone you interact with online, via game, chatroom, etc, is a real person. It always pays to be kind and treat people with respect from the get-go, despite the anonymity that comes with being on the internet (That is slowly going away as time moves on). Your actions and words have real consequences despite being within a digital space.

When people see the opponent said something bad on them against their reputation or benefit, they will just call them "fake"

This is one of the reasons why a lot of people quit using Whatsapp. And there are some new texting platforms came out like signal and clubhouse which they claim there is no personal information to be sold and leaked out.

interesting, this also connects with wanting to be correct

This is the definite true.

I remember Epic Games tried to go to court with Apple due to this, since Apple removed Fortnite since Epic Games would not give them any money from the in ad purchases.

I can definitely see that

I've actually never heard this before first time.

I swear there were a few laws about monopolies, but then again these companies have so much many that it would not matter.

I can say that I agree with some of the points in the video. And in my opinion, this article is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

If the system cannot use algorithms to exclude videos that have a negative impact on children, then these video platforms should enable manual review.

"In recent months Chinese regulators have taken steps to exert more control over tech companies." This is a big concern for American Tech companies that have to succumb to the powers of china. If Google doesnt move into china and comply with their censorship techniques, china will just copy google and put them out of business. So chinese policy has a large effect on the U.S.

"The State Council has signaled that under the national social credit system people will be penalized for the crime of spreading online rumors, among other offenses, and that those deemed “seriously untrustworthy” can expect to receive substandard services." This is going to create a world that can be easily take advantage of to discourage certain people or groups to become obsolete and irrelevant in public discussion. It'll seclude people more than ever.

"Ant Financial wasn’t the only entity keen on using data to measure people’s worth." This reminds of the black mirror epsidoe in which people were ranked socially by there interactions with people. Which in my opinion is very unhealthy and creates an even more unhealthy society.

Gamification is easy. It offers simple, repeatable approaches in which benefit, honor, and aesthetics are less important than facility. For the consultants and the startups, that means selling the same bullshit in book, workshop, platform, or API form over and over again, at limited incremental cost. It ticks a box. Social media strategy? Check. Games strategy? Check.

I agree with this, many business just use gamification as a tool to sell their products rather than focusing on the quality of the products. However, what's unexpected is that there are many consumers keep going with the flow of that strategy without knowing the truth behind it.

Being trolled isn't the same as being silenced, or ejected from the digital public square. This article wouldn't exist if the author were truly being silenced.

What happens to those labels when they are condensed into an individual? I would argue the ease of content engagement lends to the abundance of shortsighted, emotional responses when the participation barrier is as low as it is.

I don't agree with the author making this opposition. It depends on the culture and lifestyle. But I have to admit that technology really affects the way we asscosciate with strangers.

Connections made during the video game

While imaginations happening, the meaning of what happening also comes up. (connections made during video game playing)

When we playing video games, between the moments that making the tactical decision, imaginations are also happening. (connections made during video game playing)

Connections made when playing a game

People didn't want to read instructions. To be successful, I had to come up with a game people already knew how to play; something so simple that any drunk in any bar could play. (14)

I think this would be a helpful tip for people who are starting with game development! As I reflect, I, as a game player, tend to play the games that is similar to the games I enjoyed playing.

Learning how to play a game is often a matter of internalizing a set of external constraints. With chess, this process is explicit—we read the rules and memorize them. But with a videogame, we learn the rules mostly by experimentation. (11)

It is very interesting and true that we learn to play video games by experimenting because there are many external constraints in video games compared to classic and board games. As we experimenting the external constraint in the video game, we start to figure out another way to resolve the problem, thus develop the new sets of rules in that circumstances, and the internal constraints will be modified a little bit to make the game more interesting.

Tells us what is important for ergodic literature.

From personal experience receiving harsh news via text message or phone call can be even worse than a social interaction. Depending on the news it is good to be in an environment in which you feel safe.

The language of public ownership is pushing, dilegating the blame, responsibility and work of environmental damage to all communities, when really it's the big industrial and corporate companies that need to take ownership.

In my opinion, I believe this is a lie that they are feeding that says hey we're doing good, giving back to these disadvantaged communities -- when in reality, all it's doing is providing jobs that will continue to exploit the labor of disadvantaged communities to clean-up the damage the privileged/big companies have done to the earth and have them and their labor solve the problems of climate-crisis. Also, why should disadvantaged communities work to clean-up and fix the enviroment and their land, when privileged, industrials are the ones who destroyed it the most?

Why is this the catalyst for legislative reaction/response?

I'm trying to grasp how it is that we're so concerned and focused on global economy and global financial crisis when money, finances, wealth, economy won't matter if the planet and environment is dead/dies. Further on that, why does it take an initiative around sustainable economy to catalyze what should immediately be of concern which is sustainable natural environment and life. Money controls people in disturbing/wrong ways -- it has to effect the white man's pockets in order for them to care.

I often feel the same, in not just ecological issues but around a lot of human rights and social justice issues. It's a pain that you hold knowing there is an issue, you're doing your best to become knowledgable and do what you can as an individual, but inevitability there is still loss, whether an ecological loss, a person of color's loss, a loss of rights. It is a sense of mourning that we hold, but unsure how to move forward when it seems larger than you and the issue isn't resolved.

This.

We need to reshape America to be about the people... as in, all people, not just the privileged few. Thinking about inclusion necessarily means we address climate change as it threatens any sort of social stability we seek.