Augmented reality can have effect on very realistic issues such as control vs freedom. The division between virtual and reality is becoming so blurred that I thought it might turn to become a problem in future. With reference to my game, even though it is not an augmented reality game at all, I thought there are some relevance in terms of the two main concepts I will be discussing.
Control vs Freedom
Control and freedom are seemingly opposite concepts but it is funny how people want to achieve both at the same time. Augmented realities provide us with more freedom in game play but at the same time, the actions, data, information etc are constantly monitored and recorded by game moderators or developers. This shows one of the contradictions in the concepts of control and freedom.
In reality, we seek freedom in the things we do and we however, set rules for ourselves to follow and eventually, it turned into control for ourselves. An example off head now would be the skipping rope game. It's a really paidic game with almost no rules involved and players can basically play with it any way they like. This is freedom. Then, they proceed to decide how the game should be played and eventually set rules and winning criteria etc, and thus, it became a ludic game. This is what I see as a contradicting and ironic yet playable situation whereby freedom is given yet players somehow set some control and restrict the freedom eventually.
In AuditionSEA, I thought it shows this kind of irony as well but it is at different levels - the level of game developers and moderators and also, the level of players. Players demanded freedom in the game and thus, game developers modified the game such that there will be freestyle movements every now and then in a battle.
Free style movements allow players to play with any keys they like in order to create any movements. However, as much as what freedom is said to be given to the players, there is actually a huge part of control on the part of game developers. Why do I say so? It is because the number of arrows that you can press according to your wish is still limited. Eventually, there will be a preset set of keys appearing when you are about to finish that move. And by then, you won't be able to press any arrows as you wish. You will need to follow what's given on the screen, key in accordingly in order to complete that move.
Here, we see how control and freedom works together, thus creating a somewhat pseudo-freedom that gives the players a fake idea about how free their game play is when it actually is even more highly controlled.
Control is not necessarily bad and freedom is not necessarily good! In my opinion, I thought a good balance is very important. Having certain amount of control is important in game play in order to ensure that the game is not misused and to track if there's any loopholes broken through by the players. In this case, we can see control as a form of monitoring and ensuring that the game is working well and working the way it is. Thus, control is definitely necessary. Freedom is important as well because it provides the players with more options to their game play experience and allows more exploration of the game, which might lead to better improvements of new suggestions for the game. Therefore, I see both negative and positive in control vs freedom and I believe a balance is important. Just like AuditionSEA as discussed above, I thought the combination of control and freedom is successful because game developers have control over the freestyle part event though it is a freestyle move. If without control, players might type a long long stretch of arrows without restrictions and hence, might cause problems to the game play. Thus, it can be considered as a good example of control + freedom instead of control vs freedom.
Division between virtual and reality
The division between virtual and reality is indeed blurring with the inventions of augmented reality games, applications, functions, etc. Other than how reality and virtual can be played together as though they belong to the same world, the virtual can also be used to guide and/or modify the reality. For example, the 3D movies give us a sense of realism. Sometimes, when water splashes on the 3D screen, we shun as though the water will splash onto us! This is an example of how the virtual affects the reality. It affects our behaviour and if the division between the two worlds is blurred, I strongly believe that people's behaviours will be affected and adjusted.
In my game, virtual does not really merge together with reality during the game play itself but I thought it is incorporated into the online chats and the commitment level of the players.
In online chats, users usually speak in their normal conversation style, which helps other users create an impression of their avatar. Since we can't see the actual player, we direct all the impressions and made-up understanding of the user to his/her avatar and form certain judgement on him/her. For instance, when my friend got defeated by other players, he started criticizing the avatar's dressing and its character, ignoring the fact that there is actually someone in reality behind that avatar. This made me think that the online personas have slowly became who we are despite not showing your face or even your real name on the game. This then shows a merge between virtual and reality when we discuss about self identity.
Commitment level wise, I think it depends on individual players. I know of a friend who is super addicted to AuditionSEA for a few years and he really commits himself to the game as though it is part of his life, just like how bathing is part of our life. He also refers to the avatar as "me" or "I". If he needs to play Audition, he would say "I need to dance now" instead of "I need to play Audition now". From here, we can see how the game has an influence in the reality especially when it is gradually being woven into the daily lives.
The line between virtual and reality is blurring and my stand is that it has both negative and positive effects. It is considered negative when users or players get so engrossed and that they became lost in the combined world. They might lose their direction and get confused. It also instills a form of identity which might differ from their actual self. It also ensures certain level of commitment, which players might feel obliged and the need to play the games since it is already part of the life.
Reflections
In my opinion, I thought that even though AuditionSEA is not an augmented reality game, we can still find certain similar points as discussed in the reading. Also, AuditionSEA is a close to reality game because (like mentioned is earlier posts), the setting of the game is in a city and having dance battles at such places is still realistic since we can see it in real life. Even though it is not augmented reality yet, at least it is has the potential to become an augmented reality game. For example, it could go mobile and the game setting could be the reality taken by the players. Then, atmosphere, colour schemes and song types changes with the type of images taken. For example, picture of sushi shop --> use japanese music. Something like that. Might be rather interesting right!! Haha.
My suggestion might work but problems will arise. One that I can think of now is how absorbed the players will be into the game play when it becomes augmented reality. Players will randomly stop at places to take photo of the place and start battling with other people. Reality cannot be considered reality anymore because the reality is "sync-ed" into the virtual world and at the same time, the virtual world is not virtual anymore because realism is included. This brings us to the question of control and freedom once again. The ability to change the background setting provides us freedom but the choice of music, colour schemes, etc is still controlled and determined by the developers. Thus, this summarizes my entire blog entry about the contradiction between control and freedom and augmented reality.
My question
So who exactly is the controller of freedom?
Who enjoys freedom most in an augmented play? Is it the developers/moderators? Or the players?
No comments:
Post a Comment