Reflection on the previous week:
Feedback from Week Two was that -
Strangeness was apparent
It was interactive (see Arnold Van Gennep - Rites of Passage)
Strangeness is uncanny
Viewing experience as a group (as well as VR)
Use of Sound
Target Audience?
Light and color play
Story/Narrative
Strangeness as artificial and natural
Playing with the psyche
Use of flight?
Find readings on "Strangeness"
Addressing all to do with strangeness, it was good to see that people recognized that there was strangeness in the artefact. Although it is still not very apparent as I still do not have a narrative, I plan to continue to try to incorporate strangeness into my artefacts.
On viewing experience as a group many said that they would prefer that everyone could experience the game/artefact together/simultaneously, which while it can be done, it cannot be done in VR. To remedy this I could create two versions of the game, port one to my laptop and have them side by side so people could see the world but through different lenses.
The use of sound, light and color play all somewhat come together to show that some new things are widely accepted and appreciated but that others should come back from previous iterations or projects. The use of sound, while new, did have draw backs where it was quite overwhleming or the sound itself didn't fit the artefact. Other times it worked well in moving the player along in the game. Light and color could come back in the form they originated in from a former class in the future.
The Target Audience for my game/project is mainly for those who have experience in games/VR and/or are within the 18-34 age range. I want these people to be able to articulately explain what they experienced and, if something triggered them, then what was it? It also means that they can take what they will from the experience. There is also the tiny part of me that says it doesn't want children to be the audience as they could break the hardware.
As mentioned before I need a narrative to drive the journey I plan to take players and viewers on. For this I am tossing up whether I use Purakau: Maori Myths Retold by Maori Writers, edited by Witi Ihimaera and Whiti Hereaka. There will be stories that fit the weird and uncanny-ness that I want to present in my game, it is just about if I use this book, and then from that what story/ies I then take from it.
Someone mentioned the ability to fly in the game, while this could be cool, and was techinically done in the game (due to oversight) it may also cause VR Sickness. From the classmate who playtested this level they thought it cool to be so high above the trees but found that their sense of balance was gone and that it did set off some unease/queasiness. So as much as it would be cool to do and use, it is a piece of feedback I cannot heed.
This week we make our own constraints. So we set the amount, time, and size for our artefact creation. So for this, I decided to have 6 artefacts at 2 hours each, and 2 artefacts at 3 hours each this way I could make a lot for a little. Then it would leave me with about 5-6 hours' worth of time for reflective statements, documentation, and any other written work that was necessary. The next words we have to choose are based on contexts and distribution, so the words I chose were Interpret and Locate for contexts, and Virtual and Participate for distribution.
This week's artefacts (as video featuring everything within the space):
Statement:
This statement uses what was written in Week Two of this class, and underneath then continues the journey.
(From Week Two)
Like the short-lived nature of the words Dissolve and Ephemeral, I use particle systems. While in an editor, they can last infinitely, outside of it can be just short moments, fleeting ones if you will. Layer and Amalgamate combine other ingredients (or keywords) to form new ideas or generate updates for old ones. While my use of Solid is in how fragmented things are, the use of Standardized is just that. Flipping the words, finding their antonyms or related words helps shape the artefacts I produce; they get me thinking outside of the square yet refine what I bring to the table. Processes that these have gone through and are a part of include constant iteration, playtesting, and prototyping. The iteration focuses on honing the use of, say, particle systems and their movement. Playtesting consists of playing the game, finding what works and what failed miserably, to which both are great. Prototyping, in its many forms, uses the shift from paper (analogue) to video game (digital), upgrading the use or flow of an artefact, and the process of creating said artefacts (linking it back to the iterative process).
(Continuation)
In using all current keywords, new and old, I have found they correlate to my question and to each other. By adding Interpret, Locate, Virtual, and Participate, it joins together the placement of the viewer and what I want to come out of it. The first three words started off the creative process, generating ideas while the second began to refine and expand on this. Interpret becomes how I literally want the viewer to interpret my artefact, what do they take away from it and why. Locate is where I've placed the viewer and it connects to Virtual with this. You are also finding your way through the level, locating the end/what you deem is the end. Participate is the nature of playing this artefact, for this week's artefacts there are two versions of this for multiple audiences.
The updated question, while not fully related to artefacts currently (due to Te Ao Maori not being present), makes good use of all keywords in its descriptive sense.
Comentários