In our last lecture we discussed Structuralism.
When we think of an object we think about where it fits in between extremes called binary oppositions. as an example black and white, they are complete opposites. Man has allways represented black as dark/evil/scary and white as happy/pure/kind. However we do not represent a person wearing black to be evil or intemidating as we dont think any person who wears white is a saint there is no specific determination of an object/person from these points without any additional elements. the space between these two points are called the anomalous zone which sits different elements to a representing point. another example of this could be centaurs, these creatures have the uppser body of a man and the lower body of a hourse, however we do nor know any of the characteristic of it.
In games or lets say shooters in particular, when we spot a character our mind is engaged to understand it, we look at the clothing and think of opposites "is he wearing my teams cloths". another example is guns fallen from players, when see a gun on the floor and walk towards it we think to our selfs "character has died" "character is alive" though this is a simple example in games. In general if a character in a solo game walks towards you, we quickly analyse opposits, lighting/dark, are the clothing black/white and these elements help us understand what we are looking at
When we look at something our brain analyses elements/features of that object we think in opposites, its our nature to do so. for instance when looking at a dirty ashtray we look at it and we achnoledge that it is dirty and the binary opposite to this is having it clean we subconsiously imagin the opposites and evalute the object we are looking at.
Wednesday 10 November 2010
Tuesday 2 November 2010
Intertextuality
Since the start, people have been learning new things creating, manipulating ideas to take us where we are now, unfortunatlly nowadays there is nothing new or unique and any great work that has been produced has been influanced by some other work eaither intentionally or not.
In this weeks lecture we lernt about intertextuality. Intertextuality is the refrencing of media in one piece linked to a former one, this could be anying from clothing to painting's to games. intertexuality can be split into homage to recreate media in a respectfull/memorable way. It can also be split in to parody where people will use the previous media and recreate a more comedic version which in most cases taken at the expense of the previous media.
an example of a parody is the series family guy, they recreated 3 of stephen Kings stories in this case chainging the key aspects to have a comedic version, they reproduced "Shawshank's Redemption, Stand by me and misery. in the present day parody's are gaining popularity.
In this weeks lecture we lernt about intertextuality. Intertextuality is the refrencing of media in one piece linked to a former one, this could be anying from clothing to painting's to games. intertexuality can be split into homage to recreate media in a respectfull/memorable way. It can also be split in to parody where people will use the previous media and recreate a more comedic version which in most cases taken at the expense of the previous media.
an example of a parody is the series family guy, they recreated 3 of stephen Kings stories in this case chainging the key aspects to have a comedic version, they reproduced "Shawshank's Redemption, Stand by me and misery. in the present day parody's are gaining popularity.
Semiotics
Semiotics is about communication, its how we portray an image and understand the meaning of it, as humans we relate things things together, we can represent it unintentionaliy whether portraying something from its simplicity or its complextion we try to find a corresponding link.
We as humans portray links to everything we have learnt or experianced. we associate things with our memories, we deternine how closely connected an objext is to our image as we gather information to corrispond it with. in our lecture we learnt about how we recieve and understand what appears in front of us, when linking an object, what we see could be iconic, this is where what we see clearly represents what we imagine. We also see see simbolic things where it represents what we imagin however has no visual relevance to our perception such as a written word.
In our lecture we also lernt about denotation, this is where we undarstand what we see clearly for what it is for instance in a game we would see a gun on the floor there is no thinking to it, we understand what it is. we also learnt about connotation, this is where we suggest what we see and we associate it to what we think it is. for insance in a game when we see a gun its condition can help us understand its orgin and how it has been treated. finally we learnt about myths, this is where we assume information from its meaning for example in a game when we find a gun on the floor we assume who could have own'd it and even there intention.
We also learnt about paradigm. this is a veriaty of choices which we have to take. for instance, in the gears of war game you are compelled to make a desicion on where to go next, what actions to take. we learnt about syntagm, this is the option chosen from a selection of choices
in conclusion it was good :P
We as humans portray links to everything we have learnt or experianced. we associate things with our memories, we deternine how closely connected an objext is to our image as we gather information to corrispond it with. in our lecture we learnt about how we recieve and understand what appears in front of us, when linking an object, what we see could be iconic, this is where what we see clearly represents what we imagine. We also see see simbolic things where it represents what we imagin however has no visual relevance to our perception such as a written word.
In our lecture we also lernt about denotation, this is where we undarstand what we see clearly for what it is for instance in a game we would see a gun on the floor there is no thinking to it, we understand what it is. we also learnt about connotation, this is where we suggest what we see and we associate it to what we think it is. for insance in a game when we see a gun its condition can help us understand its orgin and how it has been treated. finally we learnt about myths, this is where we assume information from its meaning for example in a game when we find a gun on the floor we assume who could have own'd it and even there intention.
We also learnt about paradigm. this is a veriaty of choices which we have to take. for instance, in the gears of war game you are compelled to make a desicion on where to go next, what actions to take. we learnt about syntagm, this is the option chosen from a selection of choices
in conclusion it was good :P
Nadim's Realism Lecture
In our lecture we discussed realism. Realism is a description or a resemblance of a subject/object found in everyday life which has been portrayed/rendered from an object/subject that is not real but giving the illusion that it is real.
What first came to mind when we where in the lecture was, how would realism relate to modern games. I had a little think about specific games where the developers try to enhance a game and constantly aim to be more and more realistic. So, What makes a realistic game? is it the graphics? better AI? New Controls? a immersive storyline?
My favourite games are army based shooters, there are different types of shooters. first person shooters where the player interacts with the game through the eye of the character and third person shooters where the player interacts with the character from over the shoulder. these different types have there advantages but for each one there is a disadvantage which the other usually exceeds with so even as games become more realistic there is an aspect that makes it unrealistic.
my main point i wanted to get across is the aiming techniques. In reality a soldier would look through his gun scope and position the cross hair to the target and fires. Games have a big unrealistic aspect when it comes to aiming as a player would move the mouse which is stuck/positioned in the centre of the screen and has no option to move it within the frame, instead the whole frame/screen will move with it. However snipers in games have the most realistic targeting. as it follows the same principles as in reality as described above.
Games have developed to the point where what we look at is visually real: movements, physics and environments. but i cant stress enough about how this is recoiled. for instance a war game, players would run about in a simulated battle field but has no care of the circumstances of his actions as in games you can always start over, where as in reality a soldier would strategically move across the field, covering from his enemy's being cautious of every move as a mistake could cost him his life.
In conclusion we can assume that games will be more realistic and would be considered real in the future however in the meantime there are many aspects that remove realism from games.
What first came to mind when we where in the lecture was, how would realism relate to modern games. I had a little think about specific games where the developers try to enhance a game and constantly aim to be more and more realistic. So, What makes a realistic game? is it the graphics? better AI? New Controls? a immersive storyline?
My favourite games are army based shooters, there are different types of shooters. first person shooters where the player interacts with the game through the eye of the character and third person shooters where the player interacts with the character from over the shoulder. these different types have there advantages but for each one there is a disadvantage which the other usually exceeds with so even as games become more realistic there is an aspect that makes it unrealistic.
my main point i wanted to get across is the aiming techniques. In reality a soldier would look through his gun scope and position the cross hair to the target and fires. Games have a big unrealistic aspect when it comes to aiming as a player would move the mouse which is stuck/positioned in the centre of the screen and has no option to move it within the frame, instead the whole frame/screen will move with it. However snipers in games have the most realistic targeting. as it follows the same principles as in reality as described above.
Games have developed to the point where what we look at is visually real: movements, physics and environments. but i cant stress enough about how this is recoiled. for instance a war game, players would run about in a simulated battle field but has no care of the circumstances of his actions as in games you can always start over, where as in reality a soldier would strategically move across the field, covering from his enemy's being cautious of every move as a mistake could cost him his life.
In conclusion we can assume that games will be more realistic and would be considered real in the future however in the meantime there are many aspects that remove realism from games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)