Winter "Break"...

First semester of capstone is finished, and the next one will unfold in a month. It has been a rough semester for me, but I managed to develop a capstone idea that I am excited about (and probably more importantly, one that won't fail me at the end of the year).

The lack of time that I have remaining before capstone presentations has me worried, though. I would feel so much better about my project if I knew I had more time to work on it, but I feel that too much time was spent in areas that I feel are not very important to the overall piece. This is not to say that I've been slacking--I must've spent over 100 hours working on the 3D model of my character--but simply that animation is a slow process that requires a lot of patience and time. On the plus side, I have all of winter break to work on this, and I am hoping to get a lot of it completed by the end of it, but at the same time I know that the chances of me getting "enough" completed by then are pretty slim. But that's my plan for this so-called "vacation".

Fun.

Multi-Technique Animation Media Proposal

I forgot to post this a few days ago to the blog (I think I posted it everywhere else that I needed to), but anyways, you can find my media proposal for my project here. It also has my prototype on it, made in Flash. The ActionScript behind it was quite annoying to work out, but after a few hours of kicking and cursing I managed to make it work.

Computer-Free Capstone (again)

Now to do the computer-free capstone assignment again, except this time for my current idea.

This exact project would very likely be impossible to mimic without a computer. However, with some modifications to my current idea, it could be done. Instead of having all the animation clips played simultaneously on top of each other, and switching the clips back and forth so that you can only see one clip at any given time, they could all be played on separate TVs, all next to each other (so that one TV is playing one style of animation, and the next TV is playing another, etc.). They could play from VHS tapes that basically consist of nothing but that one animation clip being looped over and over on it. Of course, the animation techniques would be limited to those that don't rely on computers to do in the first place (3D computer animation is obviously out, but claymation, which is also 3D, will still work). Each of the TVs would begin to play at the same time, so that all the VHS tapes are synchronized. To simplify my idea even further to the bare essentials of it, I could forget about using animations at all, and simply use paintings in a gallery--each painting is of the same object or scene, but created using a different style (realism, abstract, impressionist, cubist, etc.). This would be the simplest idea of the two.

I think out of the two ideas above, the animation one, although more difficult, would be the more effective one. However, I feel neither of those ideas are as effective as the one that still needs a computer. First of all, removing the computer would remove a couple of possible animation techniques that require it. Secondly, I feel it is more effective when only one technique is playing at any given time, and that having all the clips lined up next to each other detracts from the overall effect of the project.

New Proposal Paper

I've been doing a lot of catch-up work recently, ever since I changed my idea over to the animation. I already have a prototype set up for the project, but I will be posting that later, once I get the media proposal up and running (which won't take too long, I hope, except for some issues I'm currently having with Cordova). The new text proposal can be viewed here.

Multi-Technique Animation: the Variant

So after doing some brainstorming, and after having a talk with one of my capstone classmates, I have a variation to my capstone idea. This is how I described it in my intent in the Pool:

I will still be using many different animation techniques. But instead of it being a linear narrative incorporating all the techniques into one piece, I was thinking about using a very short narrative (maybe 30 seconds long), and animating it using each of the techniques (so that there would be a 30-second long 3D computer animation, a 30-second long 1920s-era cartoon, etc.). The narratives would be synchronized with each other, so that the action was happening at the same time in each animation.

After all the animation is over, I would assemble them all together (in Flash, MaxMSP, or something) so that only one of the techniques will be playing at a time. The viewer can then push a button and effectively switch the style of the animation from one technique into another instantly, during playback of the piece (and since the action is synchronized, the switch wouldn't disrupt the narrative much). This gives the viewer near complete control over the visual style of the animation.

The narrative itself is something I am yet to work out, though. It would be very short, though, so that I would still have time to animate all the different techniques. I also haven't decided if I was going to use a normal narrative, or one that loops. Either one would work for this variant.

This might be more work for me in the long run, but it would prove to be a more interesting (and more interactive) piece.

Gazira Babeli: Second Life Hacker

The other link Jon sent me was about Italian "Second Life" coder Gazira Babeli. Her avatar for "Second Life" has been hacked so that she is able to summon swarms of Super Mario armies, punctuation marks, tornadoes, and "grey goo". It seems she would attack rude users who engage in improper netiquette with these maneuvers, forcing the users to think twice before speaking rudely again.

I've never played "Second Life" myself, but from what I've heard it is essentially a virtual world for players to create an avatar and enjoy a life outside their own. There doesn't seem to be any real objectives beyond just socializing and enjoying oneself. Very much like Anarchy MUD, actually. This gets me thinking about how flexible I should allow Anarchy MUD to be; the more flexibility I allow, the better chance another Gazira Babeli joins the game and hacks it to her favor. But at the same time, if the game is easily hackable, it might be very possible that the hackers would disallow any other players from ever joining the game. How flexible is "too flexible"?

BumpList

During our discussion last week (I was presenting my media proposal and simulation for Anarchy MUD), Jon sent me two links to websites that might help me flesh out that idea more. If I end up switching over to the animation, these links wouldn't matter too much, but I'll post about them anyways. The first one is for BumpList.

BumpList is, as the website describes it, "an email community for the determined". It is essentially an open forum that anyone can join and post to, as long as they have a valid email address, but there's a catch: BumpList can only hold six subscriptions (Or is it five? The website gave both numbers. Perhaps it changed to allow one or two more after a while). What this means is that when a new person subscribes to the forum, the oldest subscription is removed so that the list only has six people. If that person who was bumped wants to post again, he/she would need to resubscribe.

Unfortunately, the forum seems to be down until they find a new server, and the last date mentioned on the website was in 2004, so I don't think it will come back, but the idea behind the website fits one of the principles behind Anarchy MUD, and so is something to take note of.

Multi-Technique Animation

So I came up with a new capstone idea. It's currently up for reviews and suggestions in the Pool. Hopefully it's not torn apart too much, because I really want to get working on it soon (capstone presentations are at the end of February, which is not even four months away! Why are the presentations so much earlier this year than in previous years?!). This is how I described my intent in the Pool:

I intend on creating a short animated story that incorporates many different types of animation techniques and styles into one piece. Some of these include, but are not limited to: 3D computer animation, 1920s-era black-and-white silent cartoons, Golden Age cartoons (eg. Looney Tunes), claymation, Japanese-style, vector, etc.

The story goes roughly as follows: the main character, originally 3D-computer animated, soon finds himself lost in a 1920s-style cartoon, and it becomes his objective to try to get back home to the medium which he belongs.

This piece will allow me to experiment with a vast number of styles, and play around with interesting transitions between two different styles. It also gives me the opportunity to be creative and try to devise new and innovative styles.

Computer-Free is the Way to Be

This week, Jon gave the class the challenge to reimagine our current capstone ideas so that they do not use any "typical" new media (ie., no computers, Internet, videos, etc.).


Envisioning "Anarchy MUD" without typical new media would probably result in a complex, Nomic-style board game. In fact, the game itself would not be too far off from Nomic; basically, instead of focusing on changing the rules of the game itself, it focuses on changing the game itself: adding , editing, and removing rooms, items, monsters, and other players. And unlike Nomic, voting won't occur--during each person's turn, he/she would either add something to the board, or edit/delete something already on the board (or another player). At the end of each person's turn, everyone else would either approve or disapprove of that player's action (or do neither, if he/she chooses). For each approved vote, that player gains one point, and for each disapprove, that players loses a point. Some actions would require the player to have a certain number of points before he/she is able to perform it, such as possibly needing ten points before removing another person from the game, or perhaps needing a certain amount of points before being able to add/modify/remove more than one thing per turn. Some actions would have penalties, such as losing many points after removing a player. Players who have been removed from the game may come back as a new player, with no points; likewise, anyone else can join the game at any time with no points as well. As my current plans with "Anarchy MUD" don't actually have a way for a player to win, the same would apply for this game. The players can devise their own way to "win", if they so choose, or they can just play until everyone is bored (or angry with each other).

I think the computer-free version of Anarchy MUD would be almost as effective as the normal version, and perhaps even more so for some aspects of the game. Some issues would need to be addressed in regards to items/rooms/monsters that players create, and what kind of game impact each would have, but not being confined by computer code opens up the possibilities for what these things can do. For example, someone might decide to make a Wand of Player Deletion, which would allow him to remove other players on his turn at will if he uses it--everyone might disapprove of it, causing the player a lot of point loss, but likewise the next player might consider destroying the new item to prevent it from being used in play, so there's a self-balancing aspect to some things. Rooms and monsters would be harder to implement, but with a little thought they might play a role in this game. But come to think about it, they play a miniscule role in the online version as well. Huh. Looks like I would have a bit more to conceptualize.

Anarchy MUD Simulation

Last night, I created a rough simulation demonstrating basic game play and interaction for Anarchy MUD. The simulation (made in Flash) can be found here. Likewise, in theory it really should also be found in the media proposal site I posted earlier, but it seems the First Class web publishing server has problems with me updating my site. In other words, the "Simulation" link still points to a blank page, and not to my updated page featuring the simulation.

Meh. I can't complain, as it's free.

Media Proposal

My media proposal for Anarchy MUD can be found here. I was up late last night working on it, and I had it posted to the pool, but I forgot to post it to my blog until about three minutes ago. The simulation will arrive in the next few days, and will also be found in the media proposal.

Only around seventeen years too late?

I was researching late last night for some possible source codes that I could work off from for Anarchy MUD, and I stumbled into something that could either make or break my project: TinyMUD. Apparently, about seventeen years ago, James Aspnes developed a MUD that allows all players, and not just administrators, to create items and rooms. Later derivatives improved on this, allowing more control over the world (such as being able to destroy items and rooms as well, adding recovery methods for deleted work, creating a system to limit power to certain players, and even allowing universal game rules to be changed (like Nomic)). The more I researched it, the more I've discovered games that had the same exact characteristics of Anarchy MUD. Every characteristic was present in another game somewhere.

Except for one.

As flexible as all of these games seem to be, I am yet to find one that incorporates the modification and deletion of player characters as a feature. This might be my only saving grace. It is also, in my opinion, the most interesting characteristic, so I'm not completely dismayed that everything else has been done before. If anything, it might make programming that much easier, if I am able to use the source code from a TinyMUD or TinyMUD-derivative game. I will be doing some more research, however, to make sure that I am indeed doing something at least partially original.

Ingenuity is hard work.

Feeling like a stick in the MUD

It has been very busy for me recently, so I haven't had much of a chance to update my blog beyond adding my proposal paper. I have been doing a lot of reviewing of other people's capstone ideas, giving suggestions, writing and editing my proposal paper and Gantt chart, and other random school work that I haven't had much time to work on my actual project.

I am also daunted by the task of working on a project that I've had little experience with, outside of actually playing a few MUDs a few years ago. I will either need to learn a programming language (not exactly sure what that language will be yet, at least not until after I research what is available), or make friends with someone willing to code for me. Thankfully, I do not believe I am forced to start from scratch; there are many source codes available for MUDs that are very basic, and allow designers to work off of and improve to fit their game better. I believe one of my first steps I will need to take is to research what is available for me to work from, and go with the one that fits my idea the best. This saves me about three heart attacks and an aneurysm, because I will not be forced to develop the entire system from the ground up and instead will have more time to create a solid and hopefully functional game.

If anyone knows of anyone who has actually had experience building MUDs before, I would love to receive a little bit of help.

Proposal, Version 2.0

I have revised my "Anarchy MUD" proposal paper for Mike Scott's capstone class. It hasn't changed too much, with the exception of a shiny Gantt chart replacing the old and ugly table I once had. You can find my newest version for download here (188k, .doc file). As before, any review of this would be most appreciated by myself.

Proposal Paper

It has been a very busy and stressful week, so updates have been slow as of late. I'll make up for it soon. However, I have finished my first draft of my proposal paper, which can be found here (35k, .doc file). As always, critique is welcome.

EDIT: Whoops, in my sleep-deprived state of mind, I forgot to add that the proposal is for "Anarchy MUD". So now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Spore

Jon Ippolito sent me another link, but this time it's to a "dated" article (March 2005) that previews a game code-named Spore (The game, developed by the people who created the Sim games, were originally planning on calling the game Sim Everything, but the code-name Spore stuck).

Spore is an evolution simulator, where you begin the game as a small microbe and eventually evolve into a creature. As the game progresses, your fully-customized creature becomes sentient and starts a tribe, and eventually a civilization. Ultimately, you acquire the technology to travel to other parts of the world, and even one of millions of planets, many populated by other beings. These other beings would be creatures created by other players, which have been automatically uploaded to their server and distributed around to other players, thus creating a unique "massive single-player online game".

The article talks about Will Wright's thought behind designing the game, and how he pushed away from having enormous teams of artists and animators creating everything needed for the game, and instead focuses on code-based procedural creation of not only the creatures, but the buildings and worlds they inhabit. The procedural generation doesn't rely on pre-designed images, but instead uses complex mathematical formulas to create everything; this effectively reduces the file sizes of other players' creatures down to under 1 kilobyte, making distribution of characters incredibly easy. The procedural generation doesn't stop at just the looks, however, it also can be used to smartly predict how the character would be animated (two legs vs. four legs vs. ten legs, how fast it moves, what limb it uses to hold objects primarily, etc.). And suddenly, a game that would normally require a gargantuan army of artists and animators and would take up a huge amount of disk space is instead able to be created by a significantly smaller team of coders and will take up much less hard drive space. On top of that, the creative possibilities open up, and are literally endless.

This is relevant to my Anarchy MUD idea because it's basically a game where the players create the world (or in this case, the universe) around them. This also has a playability advantage over my idea, in that the players aren't able to break the game and ruin it for everyone else. I haven't decided yet if I will keep the easy destruction of everything ability in later approaches of my idea, or if I can somehow incorporate a way to limit it, and if so, how would I go about limiting it. Just more things to think about.

Lunchtimers

In response to my "Sand Box" idea I mentioned earlier, one of my classmates sent me a link to Lunchtimers, which is an interactive refrigerator magnet simulator. Players can move around colorful letters to spell words or sentences, and everyone has equal control over where the letters are placed (so someone in the middle of writing something can get his letters removed by someone else also writing something). Play isn't limited to just words, though--another player and I spent the last ten minutes organizing all the letters by color, and then sorted out each magnet by letter. Already, our work is being decimated by other players, and no one can expect their words to survive for too long. Sadly, the game seems to be most popular with thirteen-year-olds, and so the language reflects that, but the idea behind the game is clever nonetheless.

When I was brainstorming "Sand Box", I actually was partially inspired by this game, but I could not remember what it was called. It's a good thing some people in the class have a better memory than I do. The largest difference between Lunchtimers and Sand Box would be that Sand Box would allow for more control over the visual aspects: you are not limited to refrigerator magnets, and are able to hand draw not only your letters, but whatever you like. This, of course, would be much more difficult to program, and would definitely use more resources than Lunchtimers, but the trade-off might be worth it.

Man With A Movie Camera

Another link Jon Ippolito sent me for research purposes is for an experimental film initiated by Perry Bard called Man With a Movie Camera. It is essentially a "participatory video", in which people from anywhere around the world select a shot or a scene from the original script of Dziga Vertov's 1929 film Man With A Movie Camera, film it, and submit it to the website so that everyone's shots can be compiled into one film.

This gets me thinking about how I could do something similar with my idea for an animation. Unfortunately, it would be nigh impossible for me to ask many people to animate a shot or scene, as there are far fewer people who have the capability to animate (especially in 3D, but if I were to do this, I wouldn't limit the media to strictly 3D computer animation) than there are people who can film. Almost anyone can pick up a camera and use it, and get their scene done within a day or two. An animation is much more involved, and creating a scene of the same length might take weeks, or even months. But it's a good idea to start with, nonetheless, and it might help inspire me for my capstone piece.

Nomic

While researching for ideas and inspiration regarding capstone, Jon Ippolito sent me a link that talked about the game Nomic. Nomic is a game invented in 1982 by Peter Suber, and is essentially a game where proposing and voting on rule changes is the game itself. It begins with a simple, yet flexible set of rules (which are all able to be modified and/or removed if the players elect to do such a thing), and the simple goal of reaching 100 points. Everything, including the goal, is able to be changed, but the players must propose the change and vote on it. And actually, even the whole voting part is not immune to being changed--if the players elect a new way for rules to be added or modified (such as a dictatorship, instead of a democracy, for example), then that new way takes effect. There's even a rule that demands that the rules be followed, and if players vote away that rule, then they must suffer the consequences that result from their action.

I'm interested in testing out Nomic with a few people sometime, so I can see how people behave in such a setting. In some ways, Nomic is similar to my "Anarchy MUD" idea, such as the notion that the players have total control over the game's mechanics. However, my current idea is more like a Nomic that starts with almost no rules (but at the same time, there is also no goal to be achieved, and no way to "win"). Also, everyone has equal power, and there's nothing preventing a 4-month old veteran character from being deleted by some random bloke who just happens to try out the game for the first time. As a result, things can get very messy. I am currently thinking of ways to implement "levels" of admin rights, so that people that somehow "earn" higher levels of admin are able to do more, or at least have more power over what they do (for example, perhaps a new character can't outright "ban" someone, but can grant "admin points" to other people, and those people can do the same back. Positive points allows admins to go up in levels, and negative points force them down levels. The higher level you are, the more points you can grant/remove. If you're at a sufficiently negative number, you are deleted. So in this way, a high-level admin can auto-ban a new character, whereas a new character can't immediately ban a higher character, unless he got help from others who want to get rid of him. Higher level characters would also have more control over the game world itself, such as perhaps being able to create/destroy more rooms/items/monsters per day than other admins. Etc., etc., blah, blah, you get the picture). Maybe I can work out some way to do it after studying how the game Nomic is played. And maybe I might even think up a "goal" for Anarchy MUD, of some sort (although simply trying to achieve a high level of admin might be goal enough).

If anyone is interested in testing out Nomic with me sometime, we can try to work out something.

Clustering #5

Clustering #4

Masstransiscope

While doing some research about the zoetrope, looking for sources of inspiration for my capstone idea, I came across this neat little piece by Bill Brand, dubbed the Masstransiscope. Made in Brooklyn, New York in September 1980, Brand used the same principles behind the zoetrope to create a 228-frame animation that is viewable only by passengers riding past it while on the subway. I recommend taking a look at the website for yourself.

I found the piece very clever, and got me thinking about how else an animation can be presented. Could there be another way for me to publicly display an animation using the zoetrope (or other analog optical toy) as the basis of it? I don't have access to a subway system, or anything resembling one, in the middle of Maine, so what other alternatives might be available for me? Vehicles would be too dangerous, as distracting the drivers is always a bad idea--I would not like to be responsible for causing a dozen accidents on the highway.

I suppose I don't have much else to say, except that it's just more ideas for me to ponder over.

Where I currently stand...

I guess now is as good of a time as any to upload images of my claracter for the 3-d animation I'm working on. He is loosely modeled after Indiana Jones. Loosely. It is a slow process, and I estimate that I've spent around 100 hours working on him (much of that time was spent researching, as I am still learning the ins and outs of Maya). There is still quite a bit more work that he needs... the biggest one being that I need to finish up his rigging (that's why his full-body pose is like that). I've got his skeleton set up, and it's attached to the skin, but now I need to go back through and paint his skin weights for each of his joints so that they move properly. If you're wondering what the heck that means, go ahead and look it up somewhere... just thinking about it gives me nightmares.

Thankfully, I've finished setting up his facial animation, so at least that part is all set. The last five renders are just me playing around with his face. Don't laugh too much. (I apparently also forgot to smooth out his teeth before rendering, so they look very square. They look much better after being smoothed out. Trust me). The last image was inspired by capstone.

Critique on my character so far? Like it? Hate it? Want to give me money?

Animation brainstorming, again.

So I've been thinking some more about what I could do with my animation for a capstone project. Okay, actually I've been thinking a lot about it. My brain is thoroughly stormed. Anyways, I have been thinking about doing my animation normally, without any thrills, chills, and spills of new media thrown into the fray, but instead considering how it could be presented, new media-style.

My current idea involves using a zoetrope to view and/or manipulate the finished 3-d animation. For those of you who don't know what a zoetrope is (and are too lazy to click on the link I gave), it's essentially a wheel that contains about a dozen or so slits cut out of it, and inside this wheel is a series of images (usually on a strip of paper), and spinning the wheel while looking through the slits creates an animation out of the series of images. Yeah, you're probably familiar with those things, but just never realized they had a name. Invented in the early 1800s, they were the predecessors of modern film. They have many drawbacks, however, one of the largest being that the animation seen is limited to about 1 seconds long, and can only loop the images. So it might be more appropriate to think of it as the predecessor of annoying animated .gifs instead.

Anyways, back to my project. I actually have two different manifestations of generally the same idea in my head right now--one being the "easy" way, and one being the "harder, but of course better" way. I'll explain the better way in this post. I'm thinking about setting up the zoetrope so that a projection of my animation can only be viewed while looking through the zoetrope. The viewer would need to spin the zoetrope in order for the animation to play (the faster you spin the wheel, the faster the animation--and sound accompanying it--is played), and since it's being projected into the zoetrope, and is not on a strip of paper, the animation can be played through in its entirety, regardless of length. It'll be hard because, well, I don't know how I would do it. Would it even be possible, or practical, to have the animation projected into the zoetrope?

I may as well mention the "easy" way too. It's essentially identical to the above approach, except instead of it being viewed inside the zoetrope, it would probably just be viewed on a regular monitor. The viewer would still have the ability to spin the wheel, manipulating the speed of playback. The downfall with this idea, for me, is that it lacks the punch that would be achieved if the viewer had to look at it through the zoetrope. It is essentially one of the earliest forms of animation meeting one of the newest forms, all in one piece. Old collides with new. Wham! Did you feel that punch? I sure did.

I would love to hear feedback about this idea. In the meantime, I'll continue storming my brain, or braining my storm, or whatever.

Henry Jenkins' New Media Definition

a. How does capstone measure up according to the definition proposed in Henry Jenkins' "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"? For this entry, describe the principle that your project fits best and the one it fits worst. How might you alter your project to fit better?

b. Do you agree or disagree with Jenkins' definition, and why?

Like Manovich's definition, Jenkins' definition of New Media features multiple different principles. However, none of Jenkins' principles are the same as Manovich's. Oh, and there are eight of them this time--to qualify as "new media", it must be: innovative, convergent, everyday, appropriative, networked, global, generational, and unequal. Out of the three New Media big-wigs, Jenkins does the best at tearing apart at my animation idea, so I suppose I'll start with the principle that fits the worst with my idea. I believe "generational" might be the worst, but I think the principle itself is an odd term--yes, I do realize that cultural norms have been changing so fast that our parents are vastly culturally different from us, and new media is partially to blame for it, but that doesn't seem to describe new media itself as much as new media's consequences, so it might be best for me to ignore that term and pick a different one to call my worst: innovative. I'm not sure if creation of a storyline for an animation by the masses (as opposed from one or two individuals) is innovative or not, but I know that a 3-D animation itself isn't. There have been 3-D animations being made for a few decades now, and even though artists are getting better working with this new method, it's mostly not "new" nowadays. My best of Jenkins' principles is "networked", which the premise of the storyline creation process relies on; the network allows anybody from anywhere in the world to assist in creating the story.

Do I agree with Jenkins' definition? Again, as it turns out, the answer is yes and no. Mostly no. I've already mentioned earlier how I felt that "generational" doesn't exactly belong in the definition as I see it. But ignoring that, I also don't agree too much with innovative, as I don't believe that something needs to be totally unique for it to fall under new media. To me, new media is an art. Innovation does occur in art from time to time (take Jackson Pollock's style of art, for instance), but it's far from required for the piece to be successful. Most of the other principles I do agree with on varying levels, but I feel like Jenkins' article isn't trying to define the term New Media so much as it's trying to define the effects of New Media on our culture (which fits better with the title of the article, Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape). I am curious if anyone else felt this way about this article, or if I am just being naive.

Lev Manovich's New Media Definition

a. How does capstone measure up according to the definition proposed in Lev Manovich's "What Is New Media?" For this entry, describe the principle that your project fits best and the one it fits worst. How might you alter your project to fit better?

b. Do you agree or disagree with Manovich's definition, and why?

Manovich's definition, even more so than Crosbie's, favors a 3-D computer-generated animation as New Media. In fact, the hardest part about Part A of this assignment might be finding which principle fits the worst, as they all fit to some degree. Manovich defined New Media as following five principles: numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding. For a computer animation, I believe the strongest principle it fits under is numerical representation--essentially, that a new media object can be defined mathematically, and that the object is subject to algorithmic manipulation. On a computer, 3-D shapes are created through highly complex mathematical formulas (usually in the form of polygons or NURBS), and animating said shapes requires hefty formula manipulation. The 3-D modeling and animation program Maya handles all these formulas internally, so the artist doesn't require a masters degree in mathematics in order to create a sphere, but the math is still present. Even after the animation is finished, mathematics are present in simply being able to watch the finished product (whether on a computer or with the aid of a DVD player). So which principle does this fit the worst? This is a tough one, but I think "automation" barely wins the title. Automation deals mostly with artificial intelligence and letting the computer automatically generate objects. The animation relies heavily on automatically generating objects (I can create a perfect sphere simply by pressing one button, instead of trying to carefully shape polygons and vertices by hand), but artificial intelligence, even though surprisingly present, plays a relatively small role in comparison.

So, Part B. Do I agree with this definition? Again, like Crosbie's definition, yes and no. Manovich's definition restricts some aspects that I feel qualify as "new media" too much, while at the same time opening it up too wide for objects I don't believe are "new media". Using his definition as a framework, I can explain how a normal .jpeg image is new media--not as easily as I could explain an animation, however, but many of the basics are present: it comprises of mathematical formulas, is structured (different pixels making up one image), can be created and altered automatically (such as with filters in Photoshop), can exist in many versions, and is machine-readable. I could explain it further if I felt like it, but I am pressed for time. So if a simple .jpeg image can easily fit into Manovich's definition, then a series of multiple .jpeg images being rapidly played in succession (ie., a film or animation) also fits the bill.

Vin Crosbie's New Media Definition

I'm going to try to develop my animation idea further by reading how three of the big heads of New Media define the term "New Media" (of course, it's different for each of them). Hopefully after I've read each of their definitions and have compared what they wrote to what I've been thinking about doing, I might be able to add to my idea (or come up with something better). My first post is in regards to Vin Crosbie's definition.

a. How does your capstone measure up according to the definition proposed in Vin Crosbie's "What Is New Media?" How might you alter your project to fit better?

b. Do you agree or disagree with Crosbie's definition, and why?

Vin Crosbie described the three communications media as "one-to-one" (Interpersonal Media), "one-to-many" (Mass Media), and "many-to-many". The last one is the newest, therefore "New Media". It's pretty difficult for me to measure up how a 3-D computer-generated animation fits Crosbie's proposed definition, as he thoroughly pointed out that there is a clear distinction between "medium" and "vehicle" (ie., the world wide web is not a medium, but a vehicle used in conjunction to the medium). There is only one "new medium", in terms of communications media, and everything else that manifests within it is simply a vehicle. The personalized website is a vehicle, and so are computer games. If those two are considered by Crosbie to fall under "new media", then an animation that has been created using the computer also fits the bill. In fact, not much altering would be required in order to make my project fit his definition better; I could place my finished animation online (perhaps on a personalized website?), and include a "Play" button at the start so that the viewer had control over when the animation begins to play, and already it's chock full o' New Media.

Now for part B of the assignment, I have to say I only partially agree with his definition. Many of his examples do fit my opinion about "new media", but I also think that new media is not solely confined to technology. Granted, his article was written in 1998--almost a decade ago--and many things have changed since then, so I can't hold it against the man. One thing that I felt needed more elaboration in his article was one of his examples: "Some computer games, such as Myst, are New Medium vehicles". What qualifies "some" computer games as New Medium vehicles, and others not? And his example doesn't clarify it any--what makes Myst any more "new media" than, say, Zork? The only major difference in gameplay is Myst uses sounds and images instead of text (The original Zork was released in 1979, compared to Myst's 1993--fourteen years later--so the gameplay itself isn't exactly "new"). Perhaps if Crosbie gave us an example of a computer game that was not new media, including an explanation for his choice, then perhaps I could better agree with his definition.

Clustering #3

Clustering #2

. Anyone who comes to the website can alter the sand box in any way, and it'll affect the appearance of the sand box on everyone's browser. Billy can write his name in the sand, and Susie can watch the sand being altered on her own computer from the other side of the continent. Some things you could do in the sandbox would be:

• Writing or drawing in it;
• Building sand castles and moats;
• Digging up items, and burying other items;
• Destroying other people's sand creations;
• Fill in your own idea here

Sadly, I would not know how to allow you to throw actual sand at people's eyes over the internet. If I did, I would probably be a millionaire.

Clustering #1

• What if, instead of only a few select people, everyone was given admin rights? Anyone who joined the "game" would have the ability to create, modify, and destroy anything--rooms, monsters, items, gold, even other players (in the case of "destroy"). Would chaos rule the game world, led by those who simply thrive in the sheer destruction of other players and/or their precious creations, or would order miraculously unfold (perhaps out of sheer fear that, if you delete someone's account or creations, that they might retaliate against you and your work). Or would something unexpected happen? From my perspective (being the creator), would it be wise if I limited the admin powers so that they couldn't destroy others' accounts, or let there be no boundaries except those imposed by the players themselves? More importantly, how would I set up the system so that people can even edit this game world? I guess I'll ignore the technical questions for now, and just stick with conceptual.
• Most MUDs that are out there basically feature a world where you can collect currency and items, and allow you to fight other players or NPCs (non-player characters). The themes may differ vastly between them (fantasy, sci-fi, modern... there are even some rated-X adult-oriented ones as well, but I will not discuss those), but the overall structure is mostly the same. What other possibilities could be explored? How about a game that is based on not killing, but perhaps making peace? How would such a game work? Or what about a game where the roles are reversed--you play as a "monster", having to fight off those annoying "player characters" who keep invading your home and killing you and your friends just so they can loot your treasure?

I would love to hear your opinion on any of these ideas. In the meantime, I'll continue brainstorming other potential capstone ideas. Oh, and that cluster chart I mentioned earlier is right below. I used bubbl.us to create it. Quite a nice and fun little tool, if I do say so myself.