technoculture203-09

I was interested to discover that studies had revealed lack of social interaction as the largest factor deterring females from “action” games. In response to this, I have decided to post about a small, free game built around the theme of social interaction, though it is by no means an “action” game.

Click here to play the new version of Tanaka's Friendly Adventure online

Click here to download the original version of Tanaka's Friendly Adventure (Windows only)



All interaction in this game is handled with the arrow keys. Using these, the player moves the central character Tanaka, choosing from one of four directions to pursue in a seemingly endless grid of identical intersections. At each intersection a new friend appears to join Tanaka. This repeats until enough friends have been collected for Tanaka's party.

To me it seems that the theme of social interaction is distanced from the actions actually performed in the game, but I suppose it could be argued that one can make friends just by walking around. Walking as the only gameplay makes for a boring game, but this is redeemed through “party mode” in which the cute characters encountered throughout the game are displayed along with amusing descriptions.



The game uses a retro aesthetic, featuring basic chiptune-style music, only a few colours and a very limited supply of pixels. This style exists not out of any necessity but rather to draw reference to a simpler time in the history of video games.

If you'd rather not play the game at all, you can watch a rather low-quality video of the game in action. Or, if you're the sort of person who would be obsessed with collecting every friend, a fan-made map of the game has been created to assist you.

I would like to hear about whether this appeals to people or not. Comments, though I don't expect to see many, will probably influence my future blog posts.

I recently found this interesting article in the NZ herald about the increase and expansion of the digital TV platform, Freeview. The link to the article can be found here.
Anyways, what I discovered was that since Freeview’s NZ launch back in 2006, it is estimated that over 250,000 Freeview decoders have been sold in NZ, therefore reaching around 16 percent of the population.

The government originally said that they would switch off the analogue TV signals when digital TV reached 75% of households or by 2012, whichever comes soon. However, in this article it states that government is planning to switch off analogue TV signals by 2015.

Now I’m thinking, why would they push back the shut off date??? Is it because the adoption of digital TV wasn’t as rapid as they thought it would be? Or is it because the set-top boxes required to watch digital television are too pricey??

I believe that the true reason for lack of adoption is the added value of having the Freeview platform. As a Freeview HD user, I can confirm that the main added benefit of having Freeview HD is to watch channels 1, 2 and 3 in HD. HD (high definition) signals make no difference on the old crt TV’s, basically because they are not capable of displaying signal. So what Freeview should be doing is adding channels which have real value.

Freeview could really up its game if TVNZ or Mediaworks launched new channels with current and hit shows in the United States, that don’t already fit into the current weekly broadcast schedule.

So after reading the ... reading (and thoroughly enjoying it I might add) I decided to venture forth and find out out how many people I know play the apparently popular World of Warcraft game. I even decided to be professional and ask (over text. Go technology!!!) an even six girls and six guys, all aged 19-20.

What I found was that out of the guys, only one admitted playing WoW on a regular basis, two have played WoW at some point and the other three have never played it and have no intention of doing so in the near future. I myself have never played it and I am not particularly bothered about it.

For the girls it was split even: three play WoW on a regular basis, while the remaining three have either never heard of it or are not interested in playing it.

So in this utterly amateur case the girls out play the boys in gaming. Why was that? I asked myself. Was it a random occurance or the beginning of a trend? I honestly had no idea and after a full day at uni I was in no position to think deeply about the issue. So I asked them. Only two responded (cheap nerdy so-called 'friends') and their responses were similar: They both enjoyed playing WoW on a purely escapist level (as in real-life is a tad depressing for these bonnie lasses). One also played it to have some type of social interaction with real people while sitting at home in the dark staring at a screen for hours on end while the other said that she did also enjoy "kicking other peoples asses". Neither of these girls have a problem with violence or gore in video games and they also do not have an opinion on the hyper-sexualised images of men or women (and their sub-human counterparts) other than the fact that its "just fantasy".

So are girls becoming more like boys in terms or video game preference and experience? Hard to say but if they are, I say about time. Being the youngest and only boy in the family with an Xbox and two controllers and two sisters is rather tedious.

I've been using Blogger for years and never been suspected of a 'terms and conditions' violation before. Apparently this blog (but not its sister 314 blog) has been picked up by a bot as a potential spam blog and so I've had to request it be reviewed by a human being to 'unlock it' again. Apart from the mild tech-rage it has provoked in me, it has got me really puzzled as to what characteristics of this blog led the bot up the wrong path... Anyway, I'm glad to see it isn't blocking posts, but there is an extra requirement for word verification (I hate those things - often can't read them!) that I expect will stay in place for a day or two. Spam - pah!

Spurred on by this article, I've been thinking about the role of digital technology in our everyday lives and whether or not we are dependent on it or is it so engrained in our society now that it is normality?


Psychologists have found that technological dependency is an authentic addiction, on par with alcohol and drug addiction. However as technology evolves and becomes essential to everyday life, does this addiction become irrelevant? Arguably, if everyone that spent 13 hours a week online (as stated in this article, in my opinion an easily achievable feat, especially if your job required this) were classed as addicted then we'd have a seriously troubled society right?!


So maybe this isn't an addiction or dependency but the way forward for the future? I guess that's something only time will tell.

In Monday’s “Gender in the Digital Age” lecture we discussed the possibility of there being a stereotyped gender representation in the type of picture (posed/ staged, singular, couple, group, humorous, sporting activity) males versus females may choose to upload as their profile picture.
Upon examination of my friend list on facebook.com I have come up with the following set of figures:

Males

3% posed/ staged/ self photo (attempting to look tough, definitely no smiling).
41% single person shots
5% couple shots (males canoodling with their girlfriend).
21% group shots
8% humorous shots
22% activity shots (predominantly sporting: skateboarding, snowboarding, wakeboarding and fishing activities).

Females

7% posed/ staged/ self photo (generally trying profusely to look like a hawt shawtay- hair, makeup, and pout, taken from a high angle)
36% single person shots
11% couple shots (females embraced with boyfriend)
34% group shots
1% humorous shots
11% activity shots (more travel adventure shots, some snowboarding).

Single person shots seemed to be the preferred choice of both males and females which was interesting to see after the class discussion. Certainly there is some distinction between the sexes and the nature of a photograph they choose to display as their profile picture. As we discussed in class the differences do illustrate and support idealized gender representations of masculinity and femininity. For example, it would be fair to say that it is more normalized for males to have activity shots as their profile pictures because skateboarding, snowboarding, wakeboarding, and fishing are all male dominated sports that are associated with being masculine rather than feminine, which could be a reason why half as many females choose (or even possess) such action shots to use as their profile picture.

We also discussed the idea that more males would have humorous profile pictures compared to females which turned out to be the case here, and although it was not the dominant choice by males it was far more prevalent in comparison to females, which can again be linked to ideas of males and the acceptance of Tomfoolery in general.

Also worth a note is the female’s inclination to include her boyfriend in her profile shot.

I'm looking at my friends list on Facebook and checking for any evidence of 'gendered performance' within the their online faces of display pictures. I am quite surprised to find that just as many males have solo, 'posed' pictures of themselves as do their female counterparts. (One macho man is even posing on a pole). The remaining display pictures shows what was suggested in class today of the male tendency to use shots of themselves participating in activities (wheather it be snowboarding or dressing up as Harry Potter) while the females prefer social group shots in intimate pairs or small groups of three or four friends (looking glamorous on a night out most predominantly).

In regards to the gender performance in the gaming realm, I have to agree with a student's comment that she was not surprised at the way that genders are represented (most notably in 'Second World') to impossible standards of 'ideal beauty'. In my opinion it isn't a good thing for males and females to be fixated on unattainable body standards yet the likes of 'Second World's' character's bodies are so exaggerated it is hard for me to take it seriously. I guess in a way I have become numb or a disbeliever in what media (in all forms) considers as beautiful because with the ease and excess of manipulation that goes into making an image of a person 'more attractive' has led me to not believe what I see anymore.


In the words of Public Enemy - "Fight The Power!"

Going off the discussion in the lecture today about social networking website profile pictures, and what (if any) differences there are between the pictures of males and females, I had a quick browse through my friend list to investigate this further.

In the lecture, ideas were raised as to whether females have more solo pictures of themselves than males, and whether males have more 'random' or 'humorous' pictures, or pictures that aren't necessarily of themselves.

However, I found that nearly all the people in my friend network on Facebook (both males and females) have profile pictures that are of more than one person; usually a photo taken in a social situation with friends, such as at a party or some other setting. Interestingly enough, as was discussed in the lecture, females were more likely to have profile pictures of themselves. There was only a few males who had profile pictures that were of themselves, and (as also brought up in the lecture), they were often doing something, and not just posing for the camera as most of the females were in their solo photos.

But the majority of the people in my network, as mentioned, have profile photos of themselves with at least one other person. So perhaps, the ideas that there is a large difference in this area between males and females that were brought up today are not necessarily true in reality.

Even the US President warns against the current social networking tool Facebook ("Crackbook"). "Are you on Facebook" has become one of the most common ice breaker lines for young people and the subject of many adult dinner parties discussing what the youth doing, thinking they are totally hip - you don't need to invade their cyber space too. However when I reveal that I don't have an account I am met with mixed emotions, commonly "how do you survive?!", and more interestingly "I wish I could delete mine...", as if they were trying desperately to reunite with the real world. I did however dip my cyber stick temporarily to promote my 21st birthday for a month which was interesting to explore the inner workings of this society. While it served its purpose effectively, I began to sympathize with those who had been jealous of my rock solid resistance. In order to make my escape smoother, I created a fake email address to use, however I was annoyed by the details that it tried force out of me, as this beast wanted to dice me up and turn me into a tray of statistics. Thankfully I made it out alive without too severe withdrawal symptoms...

Another annoying aspect was the miniature box you are given to send personal messages, and I really wandered whether this community encourages communication? It seems to be more in line with Twitter limiting you to 140 characters per post - 20 less than a text message! 140 characters provides a rather limited space to transmit any kind of information in my opinion. We cant concentrate on something for more than 140 characters, surely we're ready to downsize again... It seems these minimized communication tools are growing, and, shrinking. I wonder if the Facebook resistance is growing?

How about the collapse of Facebook? It seems they are running into increasing problems, particularly with the content copyright, as people wake up and realize how they are locked into 'the system' and at mercy to heavy statistical analysis. Who knows they could be bandying your face around the net!

... are up on CECIL. Please bear in mind they are just a skeleton outline to which you should add your own notes from the class. We're discussing issues of gender in next week's lecture. Why? Hopefully that will become clear at the time if it's not already. But in case any of you are not likely to spend the coming weekend parading around the Internet pretending to be a member of the opposite sex, here's a piece of light-hearted reading to get you thinking (though the issue can take on rather more serious proportions as a very contentious proposal to introduce "Gender Verification" into Second Life recently proved). OK, so we won't be focusing too much on 'virtual cross-dressing' in the lecture itself (though it's a good topic for tutes and the blog) but it helps to prise open the question of gender and new media quite well. Are we (and should we be) free to shed our offline gender identities when we enter the virtual spaces of online games, communities and so on? (My favourite quote from the article: "Erica Poole, a 31-year-old legal secretary in Austin, says she's picked up a few ways to spot a male disguised as a female in online games. 'The fact that they are scantily clad is a huge clue' she said. 'And often the bigger the breasts, the more likely it's a guy... Also, most guys don't use a lot of emotions, even when they're trying to be a girl.'") And why does gender even matter when it comes to new media and the Internet? It's just a tool, right? Have a great weekend, however you spend it.

I've just come back from seeing We Live in Public at the NZ International Film Festival. Besides being by far the best film I've seen at the festival this year, it uniquely charts the social and cultural significance of the Internet in our lives over the past decade by focusing on the life of one individual.

Here's the synopsis:

On the 40th anniversary of the Internet, WE LIVE IN PUBLIC tells the story of the effect the web is having on our society, as seen through the eyes of “the greatest Internet pioneer you’ve never heard of,” visionary Josh Harris. Award-winning director, Ondi Timoner (DIG!), documented his tumultuous life for more than a decade, to create a riveting, cautionary tale of what to expect as the virtual world inevitably takes control of our lives.

Josh Harris, often called the “Warhol of the Web,” founded Pseudo.com, the first Internet television network during the infamous dot-com boom of the 1990s. He also created his vision of the future: an underground bunker in NYC where 100 people lived together on camera for 30 days over the turn of the millennium. (The project, named QUIET, also became the subject of Ondi Timoner’s first cut of her documentary about Harris. Her film shared the project’s name.) With Quiet, Harris proved how, in the not-so-distant future of life online, we will willingly trade our privacy for the connection and recognition we all deeply desire. Through his experiments, including another six-month stint living under 24-hour live surveillance online which led him to mental collapse, he demonstrated the price we will all pay for living in public.

For me it raised far more questions than I have answers and I've found doing a fair bit of future gazing and looking very closely in the rear view mirror. Reflecting on the future that theorists and media/technology commentators predicted a decade ago, many of those visions have been realised, just not always quite in the fully utopian or distopian ways that were predicted. Personally I think the development of the technology itself feels quite slow relative to our adoption of it, which I do find slightly disquieting.

If anyone else has seen the film I'd be keen to hear your thoughts. If you haven't seen it I'm fairly sure it will get a general release here soon.

I found this article in The Guardian interesting. It highlights some of
the issues around ownership, security and consumer rights as we
increasingly move towards a cloud computing model which sees resources
(infrastructure, platforms or services) virtualised and hosted online
by service providers such as Amazon, Microsoft, Apple or Google.

Why did Big Brother remove paid-for content from Amazon's Kindles?

"Kindle users were left seething when Amazon removed paid-for content
from their devices, while the Popfly and GeoCities services are to
close. How did we lose control of the digital products we use?"

I haven't figured out if we can syndicate blog posts to both the 203 and 314 blogs yet so for the time being here's a link to a post from me on the 314 blog on what's to love about Twitter.

By the way, if anyone needs help to get started with blogging, please let me know.

... according to new UK research featured in today's Guardian. "The survey of 1,000 fans also shows that many14 to 18 year olds are now streaming music regularly online using services such as YouTube and Spotify."

Technology Review weighs up the strengths and limitations of the new search technology hyped as sounding the death knell for Google et al (it's some way off that yet, is the verdict).

Here's a piece from danah boyd, updating some earlier (and interesting) work on class distinctions between MySpace and FB.