I think new developing technologies, especially within the gaming industry is really exciting. Having more people participate in the formation of different video games just means more video games, made by people like myself, usually just for the sake of enjoyment. (Which is my favorite type of art). Of course you might end up with bad video games here and there, but I think it's overall more of a positive move for humanity, and gives more people a chance at enjoying video games.

I find this statement is very parallel to storytelling in a digital medium. As this question of ‘what isn't and is a video game’ is already being asked with storytelling.

Different types of art, like video games, are becoming much easier and more accessible to people because of rapidly advancing technology. However, this new method of creating video games may appear disheartening to those who have studied, worked hard, and attended school for it, as if all the effort they put into learning their craft has been abruptly overtaken by a new programme.

This is how I feel as an artist given the increase in stunning AI-generated image artwork. Why spend hours creating something when a cutting-edge piece of digital technology can create an original image that's arguably better looking than my art in only a few seconds? I believe that as new digital storytelling technologies are created, adapting to them seems to be the only viable course of action. Changing similarly to how people went from writing by hand, to a laptop. Digital technologies are made to arguably make our lives easier.

As it may help in maintaining humanity and its narratives within a digital medium, I believe the value of digital humanities will increase in the future. Knowing that our mediums were developed with intent is, in my opinion, one way to preserve their "authenticity" as we go forward in the digital realm. Regardless of whether you use Twine or another technology that saves time, your intent will still be apparent in the finished product. Instead, artwork created by AI or other machine learning software is based on keywords and lacks the same level of intention as a human artist.

I think this is an interesting parallel to the story telling medium and digital humanities. The question being what gets to be considered as a story? Here they are arguing what mediums, people, and situations are needed to be qualifiable as a gamer, similarly to how people labeled paper back novels, vinyl's, and CDs as the only 'authentic' way to tell a story,

As long as you have the necessary digital technology to connect, people can share and develop stories with each other through the use of enhanced communication without having to deal with real-world obstacles.

Making stories accessible digitally, or telling them through a digital media can further enhance the story as more people are able to consume and comment on it in a more digital community setting

Just because somethings difficult to grasp, doesn't disqualify it from being a possible meaningful story. The documents we went through had stories, and speeches from people although it was difficult to comprehend. Digital media, again, makes stories which are difficult to comprehend, comprehendible, an example being through distant reading with the Voyant software. .

So long as there's people around to tell stories, stories are going to be told through whatever technology they had available to them. Using digital media just seems more efficient

Obtaining the media or stories contained in these pre-web gadgets can be difficult for individuals who live remotely or have poor access to them. For instance, the price of a typical novel in a bookstore can range from $10 to $30. It becomes extremely expensive and time-consuming to get these pre-digital sources if you need many stories or information pieces from them (Trying to get the full picture of a story, looking for stories and information for school)  I think that saving stories digitally also lowered the amount of resources used to create these different products, for example a Kobo reader is filled with 'empty data', however that data is translatable into thousands of books. Are digital technologies and data really empty? Of course, many stories are best conveyed using pre digital materials as some paintings, vinyl records, and books from different stories each function as a piece of the overall narrative. However, I believe that many other kinds of stories are best shared online.

I think that meaningful data can be developed. Technically, every piece of data is produced for a particular reason, and one of those reasons could be to tell stories more effectively, abundantly, and freely to a wider audience. A story would be meaningless if no one heard it, wouldn't it? I contend that by making the story available digitally, more individuals can access it and give it their own interpretations, which I  think increases the story's significance. In essence, this provides the data even more value since more consumers can assign meaning to the data based on the story, meaning, or lack thereof.

History can often be archived and recorded in a prejudiced perspective, a favorable one. By considering other sources of information to be as valid as its origin sources, it has the opportunity to re-inform individuals on what occurred.

The best understanding of any historical event might be provided to people by combining primary and secondary sources and making the information widely accessible through a digital media. Utilizing metadata to most precisely identify the author and origin of a source.

I think bias's and leaving out certain details or information is a very common thing in history, as much of it is written on the premise of 'us vs them'. It's important to note and be critical of when reading primary sources.

Throughout the history of humanities, People have taken part of humanistic work, and the methods of conveying these humanistic works have remained relatively similar and consistent. These can be seen through oral story telling before the use of material base tools to record and expand upon established humanistic work. However with the innovation of more physical extensions, such as writing tools, and classrooms to discuss ideas with other individuals, the work of humanities continue to expand and evolve.

I think this really overlooked tool of Text editing and Processing is that it allows more people to enter the subject of humanities. It allows people who may not be good at writing, spelling. or grammar, to convey their ideas in a way where other people can understand them. Where as if writing on a non digital platform, they may not have access to those tools.

I think this comments on the previously established humanities tools. It comments on new innovations and tools introduced to make the work of humanities more accessible and easier to use, as to focus on the main ideas and art people want to communicate and display. This is seen through the question of 'do they use an old version, or do that create a new interactable version?' Would the interactive work of humanities be changed if it were to be updated with new and more efficient tools? or would it change the authenticity of its meaning, even if it were to mean bringing in more eyes to the idea?