1.How can interface differences affect the sense of presence within a simulated world and the enjoyment from a video game?

When it comes to the interface of video games, gaming companies take various approaches in order to capture a presence in a simulated world. Motion gaming was popular for a few years. It was first introduced with the Nintendo Wii, and later adopted by Sony and Microsoft with their own renditions of motion gaming. Motion gaming did not last very long however, it seemed only a novelty. While it seemed immersive at first, the motion controllers and motion capturing were quite inaccurate. They also limited the amount of freedom and agency that the player had. With limited agency, many games felt extremely repetitive. There was almost no variety in the game play due to limited controls, the motion capturing was inaccurate, and overall the games were quite dull and boring. They were immersive to some degree, but being immersed does not necessarily entail fun, not with motion gaming at least.

In the current market of gaming, it seems as though companies have abandoned motion gaming. They have returned to their baseline premise of using the classic controller model. While the controller itself is not as immersive as motion gaming, it’s immersive in its own aspect as it gives the player much more control over their character/avatar. In that sense the presence in the simulated world increases as the player has more agency. Also, it has become the standard in current gaming that controllers have a vibrating function. Depending on what game is being played, the controller will vibrate based on various factors. One of the most common elements that cause a controller to vibrate is when the player is attacked or harmed. This vibration increases the presence in the simulated world as it provides a small physical simulated stimulation of what the avatar experiences in game. It provides physical immersion for the player as they are able to actually feel some stimulation depending on the actions taken by the player.

Furthermore, many games now have the option to be played in first person mode. The game gives the player to opportunity to experience the simulated world from the perspective of the protagonist, and in this sense the game is made to immerse the player in the simulated world. While the player is not immersed physically, they are definitely immersed visually as they put themselves in the position of the game character when they play the game in first person. First person games are created to make the player feel as if they themselves are the protagonists of the game. They’re made to give the player the immersion of having the presence within the simulated world.

2.How can one experience both agency and ownership within a game world? Give at least one example.

Online gaming, especially in first person shooters like Call of Duty, is one of the ways players can experience both agency and ownership within the in game world. In the game, players have the liberty to customize their character however they want. They can change their clothing, their facial features, and even the emblem that they wear. More importantly, players can choose which type of weapons they want their character to wield. This weapon choice gives the player ownership, but furthermore it gives the player agency over his character/avatar. They choose who to attack and who to spare, but more importantly they influence the scoring of the game. The player can influence their environment by setting up various weapon traps that can drastically alter the approaches and tactics implored by opposing players. Players can gain various perks/bonus weapons which create a diverse and spontaneous match. Every game has a standard set of rules, but every player has ownership of their own character and with that ownership they also have the agency to drastically alter the outcome of the match.

I personally believe that the language of film is both universal in some aspects but also culturally contingent in others. For example, there are established rules and norms in the language of film that everyone understands. Everyone, regardless of culture, understands that a film montage represents the quick passage of time. It’s also understood that in a reverse shot reverse sequence the two subjects that are in frame are looking at each other without having to show the both of them in the same frame. There are various film techniques that have been established that create the language of film and it allows for a universal viewing and understanding. However, when it comes to what the language of film represents and the interpretation of film it becomes more culturally contingent. Just how we discussed in class
film draws more on the signifier rather than the signified. The signifier varies greatly from culture to culture depending on the sign. For example, in America the female body is heavily sexualized and so when a nude female body is portrayed/signified in films the audience arrives at a sexual connotation. In Europe however the female body is seen more in an artistic fashion and there’s not such a heavy emphasis on sexuality, so European audiences tend to not be so fazed by the portrayal of nude females in film. This differentiation in signifier connotations across cultures is what causes many films to become censored in an attempt to better please the respective cultural norms.  Culture affects the reading of film and images because all cultures have various and differing meanings for film, icons, and images. The signifier changes from culture to culture.

I do not agree with Monaco, I believe that film in itself is a language. In its basic form film is used to communicate. Film expresses meaning, it expresses ideas and thoughts. Whether it’s a simple fictional tale or a hard pressing documentary, film has meaning and it communicates messages, just like writing.  Perhaps during the early days of film could it have been argued as not being a language, but film is much more advanced and complicated now that in its own respective way it is definitely a language. Maybe it is not a language when approached in the ways of conventional rhetorical analysis but film differs immensely from what has come before it. Images have meaning and they’re considered a language, film is simply a collection of fast moving images, therefore film should also be considered a language.

Just like the reading said, film is easy to understand, and that is precisely why it’s so difficult to explain. When we watch a film we know exactly what we’re seeing on screen. To some degree it’s very literal what we see. The reason why film is hard to explain isn’t because were explaining what we see, were attempting to explain what we feel, how we feel, and why exactly film makes us feel the emotions we feel. That’s always been the hardest part to explain about film. It invokes emotion that is extremely difficult to pinpoint and explain.

A filmmaker’s choice affects our connotative abilities because filmmakers choose what they want us to see and they guide our eyes. They present everything right in front of us and they leave it to us to interpret what they’re presenting. Filmmaker’s have more control over the signified and they leave the rest up to audience for interpretation.

While the article does give a heavy emphasis on the control that the media holds over Hillary’s image, Hillary still holds a pretty significant amount of control over her own image.We saw a perfect example in class with the news clip that we watched on YouTube where Hillary was criticized for steering away from the traditional female housewife stereotype.  She was criticized for lacking femininity and in response Hillary set up a cookie bake off against Barbara Bush to prove her femininity and to prove that she still holds traditional housewife values. Also, it’s not just Hillary that has power and control over her image, but it’s also the network of people whom she knows within the media. Being the powerful and well known politician that she is, Hillary for sure must have connections in the media that can aid her in crafting her public image.  Furthermore, her political party must hold a significant amount of control through the connections they have amongst the media. Democratic and liberal news outlets will tend to defend their political representatives so it’s in their best interest to craft a positive image for Hillary when she is attacked and downplayed by the opposing news outlets. That’s not to say that the image that the democratic and liberal news outlets release is a truthful one, for all we know the image they portray could be completely fabricated, but nonetheless this levels out the playing field and it gives Hillary significant control over her own image.

Like the article stated, with enough repetition anything can become truth, or at least it can become accepted by the general public as truth. One example found that’s quite recent is with the Obama campaign when he was running for office. His posters were plastered everywhere with the slogan written right underneath “HOPE”. This slogan became one of Obama’s main taglines and soon supporters from all over the U.S began to rally behind Obama to what they believed was the only hope for America. The constant combination of Obama’s face with the word “HOPE” eventually made it to where they both came under the same connotation and soon people began to associate Obama’s face with hope and with that many came to consider that as the truth. Another example, one found in the article, is how NBC presents a montage before their news broadcasts which serves to take the viewer through the history of NBC. The montage shows the changing peacock logo between 1952 and 1998 and it shows the news anchors that have progressed over the years. This repeated introduction before every broadcast is done to persuade the viewers that NBC is a credible news source. NBC’s claim is that they have been covering the news since 1952 so they are the most trustworthy and experienced news outlet and therefore the viewer should watch and trust what NBC says. Given enough broadcasts and given enough viewings by the public, soon the viewers will begin to adopt NBC’s claim. It is in that moment that NBC’s claims have become truth for some viewers.