The following is a videorecording of a presentation by CarrieLynn D. Reinhard at the 2010 International Communication Association conference in Singapore. This presentation focuses on discussing new interaction potentials for distributing, exhibiting and consuming television content. One case study discussed concerns the Second Life television show, Metanomics.
The following is a videorecording of a presentation by CarrieLynn D. Reinhard at the 2010 International Communication Association conference in Singapore. This presentation was at a preconference on audience studies: the focus of the presentation is on how to combine interviews as data collection methods with an experimental data collection framework.
This map shows locations of the VW project’s affiliated partners and collaborators. You can also download the .kmz file to view the locations with Google Earth.
According to Wagner James Au at New World Notes, the documentary about Second Life, Life 2.0, will be receiving an American broadcast through the cable network owned by the American daytime queen and trendsetter, Oprah Winfrey. The Oprah Winfrey Network, OWN, has purchased the broadcast rights for the documentary sometime in 2011. The film had previously received official selections at both the Sundance Film Festival and the SXSW Film Festival. The air date is set to coincide with the documentary’s release on DVD and digital download: so if you do not have access to OWN, either because your cable provider does not carry it or you live out side of the United States, look to be able to see the entire documentary about life in Second Life sometime next year.
As you may recall, back in May I asked all our blog readers to take part in the first round of a three round dialogue about what is a virtual world. The questions of round 1 were used to elicit answers that subsequently structured the activities of round 2, which occurred during our sponsored international workshop on virtual worlds.
At this workshop, participants gathered into groups and were asked to visually depict certain terms in virtual worlds studies for how they relate to each other. The terms they had to work with were: virtual world, virtual reality, virtual environment, MMORPG, MUVE, MUD, and 3D web/internet. These terms were used in this task because they were most often chosen by those who participated in round 1 of the dialogue.
The groups were relatively interdisciplinary, which had both its drawbacks and benefits. The full extent of the groups’ dynamics will provide a useful data source for analyzing how people communicate across these differences. Such an analysis will hopefully be forthcoming. What I can present now, and what we can talk about for the third (but hopefully not the last) round of this dialogue, are the visual representations of how these terms relate to each other. I have gathered said representations into a slideshow embedded below.
Now, to make this another round of the dialogue, I am going to say what I see in these visual representations, and I invite you to comment upon my analysis.
In analyzing the discussions from round 1 and visual representations from round 2, what I focused on where the characteristics being used to categorize new media technologies as being representative of virtual world technologies, or not being thereby representative. These characteristics elide over distinctions we may make between social worlds, gaming worlds and hybrid worlds. The analysis focuses on how people used these characteristics as boundary requirements: that is, what elements of the technology have to be present in order for that technology to be classifiable as virtual worlds technology. In looking for such boundary requirements, I could see 13 categories emerge; however, only3 of them are unique from other new media technologies.
As much as possible, I retained the participants’ words to describe these boundary requirements. The 13 categories, and the 3 unique ones (indicated in bold), are :
Depiction: dimensional category, from pure text to pure visual, from 2D to some variation on 3D, with potential for multimodality
Space: sense of space, of a place that is “there”
Analogic: metaphorical, world-like, comparisons based on human culture, society, geography and physical appearance, physics
Communication: dimensional category, from asynchronous to synchronous, focusing on ability to be communicative
Prescribed: dimensional category, considering the extent to which goals, progress, objective, narrative are structured before use
These categories of boundary requirements emerged out of the discussions and visual representations. They may not represent all the necessary and sufficient conditions people have for defining what is a virtual world, but they do appear to reflect the general consensus of those definings in that: the three bolded entries are particular characteristics of virtual world technologies that help to separate them from other new media technologies, especially those other technologies that occur via the internet. The remaining 10 boundary requirements can be found in other internet technologies; but, it is in their occurring with the 3 unique boundary requirements that the categorization of what makes an internet technology a virtual worlds technology truly crystallizes.
To that end, a definition that could be said to emerge from this collection of boundary requirements may read as follows:
“A depiction of a prescribed, nonphysical, persistent, computer-mediated, analogic space that becomes a place for users to immerse themselves via avatars within it while coming together to interact and communicate.”
As I have mentioned, this is my take on the discussions and representations; as such, it is only through further discussion that we can come to some agreement as to the viability of these results. To that end, I would ask you to consider the following questions:
To what extent do you agree/disagree on the categories of boundary requirements discussed in this analysis? What leads you to your agreements/disagreements?
Does defining what is/is not a virtual world help the future of virtual worlds, business and/or research? What leads you to say so?
Does defining what is/is not a virtual world hinder the future of virtual worlds, business and/or research? What leads you to say so?
I look forward to any further discussion on this topic. Additionally, if anyone has any suggestions for future work that can be done with this data or on this topic in general, please let us know.
Earlier this year I reported on a virtual world the Singapore government had created for the upcoming premiere of the Youth Olympics, being held in Singapore this August. In that post I reported on my brief sojourn into this world and described it as a hybrid world: not an MMORPG, but more prescribed activity-based than Twinity and Second Life.
I had gone into this world as preparation for a meeting I would have with the organization in Singapore responsible for its development: the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore. Attending the meeting with me was Mikala Hansbøl of the Danish project Serious Games on a Global Market Place. Because of her interest in education, and as the Virtual Worlds Research Group has not written or discussed much the education sector’s interest in and utilization of virtual worlds, we structured this meeting with the IDA to be focused on education-based virtual worlds.
To that end, there were three projects from Singapore who had representatives at this meeting.
IDA Singapore, represented primarily by Jonathan Tan, Manager.
For IDA Singapore, Tan showed us more in-depth the virtual world created for the Youth Olympics: Singapore 2010 Odyssey. Outside of the area I earlier explored, there was an attempt by the developers to create a faux mirror world of Singapore. Part of their argument for this design was to help prepare the Olympians, their family and friends, and the spectators for what they would experience when in the city and the country. According to Tan, they also “intend to allow normal everyday non-Olympian users to enjoy, participate and have a feel of the spirit of the Games virtually, allowing those who do not have the opportunity to physically come down to Singapore, to have a peek of some of the landmarks we have here.”
However, it was the hybrid nature of the world that most impressed me. Beyond the various sporting games incorporated into the world, which could be multiplayer, they had designed flash games that could be played at various parts in the world. Additionally, certain locations provided the structure for users to go on a quest within the world. Thus, while the appearance and interface are more akin to Second Life, the activities provided in it mirror a variety of online games, from puzzle games to MMORPGs. You can learn more about this world from a trailer for the world.
IDA is not only focused on education related projects: they oversee the development of ICT in a variety of sectors. Within the past several years, the Singapore government has been interested in incentivizing research and development of virtual world technologies, as the government considers this work to be a growth industry. Both of the educational projects represented in this meeting stem from this increased interest in working with virtual world technologies; as such, their projects are in the development stage.
For ITE, Thang discussed their institution’s interest in developing a world to help educate their students. The institute’s education is primarily focused on preparing professionals for various technical jobs, such as nurses, designers, and educators. They are interested in how to use virtual worlds to simulate the types of experiences such professionals have in their careers, so as to prepare their students to cope with such scenarios in the real world.
For Beacon, Dr. Yong discussed their desire to create a hybrid world. Further along in their planning than ITE, Beacon is hoping to create a closed world that incorporates social spaces for their students to gather, while also designing specific spaces to provide educational material. The hope is for this world to supplement what is being taught in the classes, and to give the children and their parents spaces to interact with the teachers and the coursework in different, and hopefully interesting, ways.
These projects represent only a sampling of what Singapore is hoping to accomplish by investing in virtual world technologies. According to Tan, the hope is to make Singapore the Asian center for virtual worlds, which includes both entertainment and more serious ventures, such as education.
If you are interested in contacting any of these projects, then please let me know. ITE and Beacon would be interested in hearing others experiences designing and/or using virtual worlds for educational purposes.
Recent Comments