Category Archives: New Media

Poverty and Facade

Here’s a possibility brought to the front by Anne. This time Trip leaves. Poor Anne. All she wanted was some good drink and to catch up on old times.

TRIP
I’m — I’m just… af — afraid of… of being poor.

GRACE
Poor? Trip, we have so much! What do you —

ANNE
why

TRIP
It never feels like enough!

TRIP
As a kid… it — it was… My family was always on the edge.

GRACE
So you weren’t rich, but —

TRIP
We even spent six months in a shelter once.

GRACE
Oh my God…!

ANNE
wow

TRIP
All of this stuff…

TRIP
Is a kind of protection from that ever happening again.

TRIP
uhh…

GRACE
uhh…

GRACE
Oh my God…!

TRIP
Wait, Anne, Grace, there’s more…

(ANNE comforts trip.)

GRACE
More?

ANNE
more

TRIP
Grace…

TRIP
uhh…

TRIP
See… I’m… ashamed of my parents.

GRACE
What!? Your parents are great.

ANNE
ashamed

GRACE
I love seeing them…

TRIP
I know, I know. But compared to yours… they’re so … ignorant.

ANNE
why

GRACE
But they’re real. I hate how my parents are pretending to be something —

ANNE
why

TRIP
I’ve tried hard to be like your family —

GRACE
Trip… really? … I don’t —

TRIP
But I feel like a phony. I feel like I can never get rid of my past.

ANNE
why

TRIP
It’s kind of like I don’t know who I am anymore.

TRIP
uhh…

GRACE
uhh…

GRACE
Oh my God…!

GRACE
Anne, I, uhh…

GRACE
This changes everything…

TRIP
Yes, it does change everything.

ANNE
you love each other

TRIP
I think it’s over.

GRACE
Trip, what —

TRIP
No!!

ANNE
why

TRIP
It’s over, Grace, can’t you see that?

GRACE
Wha… You just told me —

ANNE
no

TRIP
I just told you something about us I should have said a long time ago:

TRIP
You think I’m phony for hating my parents, and wishing they were like yours.

More on Façade

There have been further, and very interesting developments with Facade. Susan Gibb at Spinning is showing that she’s much more dexterous with the work than I. She’s been able to find other means of helping to resolve Trip and Grace’s dilemma.

Deeper into Facade

I’ve probed deeper into Trip and Gace and have generated further stageplays. The last few times I tried to take on more of a persona, such as the lonely Nicole, who wants to revive a relationship with Trip they experienced so long ago, and that Nicole who wants to leave the apartment and take a walk.

But I keep coming up against this:

GRACE
Nicole, I’ve actually been paying close attention to what you’ve been saying tonight.

GRACE
You’ve really been pushing me.

GRACE
It makes me wonder if you’re really my friend…?

TRIP
Grace!

GRACE
Nicole, I’ve got to ask you — yes or no…

GRACE
Do you really think that…

GRACE
praising me…

GRACE
praising Trip…

GRACE
telling me to make art…

GRACE
and what you said about listening too much to your spouse…

GRACE
that it’s all supposed to make me realize something about myself?

These are responses to a Nicole who has come to the apartment with light-hearted responses and lots of questions. But Grace has not been “paying close attention.” And there’s not much else I want to do.

I’d love to hear about more experiences with Grace and Trip.

Facade and “realism”

Michael Mateas and Andrew Stern’s Facade has an interesting and compelling way of drawing you into the lives of Trip and Grace, the two principle character’s of their situational sim. Ultimately, the concept is wonderful, but it’s also tricky and frustrating. You play the role of an old friend come for a visit and find yourself in a wreck of a relationship. The problem with the relationship is simple: both Trip and Grace feel as if they are not living their “true” lives. Are they mere decorators; have they failed at designing their lives or take the right path? It could be your job to see them through to the truth, whatever that truth may be: is Grace an artist? Is Trip enlightened? Should they stay together or find freedom on their own? Are they lying to themselves and to you? Are these lies healthy or caustic?

The compelling part is to dig deep enough into Grace and Trip to find some resolution to their situation or to learn “the heart of the matter.” And so you keep coming back to their amazingly liquid environment to interact, to try different words, gestures, questions, and phrases. I keep returning with question as to the extent of the vocabulary the “system” will respond to. The frustration comes when you feel that you’re not being listened to or that the AI engine’s direction takes off without any ability to restrain it and that indeed words that you think are perfectly appropriate for response, such as “love” and “explain” seem to be unrecognizable. In a conversation with old friends–whatever the situation–you can direct comments or questions to an individual, but in Facade it appears that “directing” a question to Grace can lead to a “question” to Trip, one that you hadn’t intended (this kills the drama), and this makes for odd and flat and bewildering outcomes. So you close and come back and try something else.

In one run, I asked about a sculpture and Trip wondered why I was criticizing him. In another, I asked for water, breaking a scenario that would’ve led to an argument about making drinks. This led to a screaming match that seemed to come out of nowhere, causeless (a drama killer).

But I keep coming back. In another session, Grace finally came to the conclusion that she was an artist and that was that. But the realization was “flawed.” I didn’t generate “the outcome” and Grace continually referred to things that I had not remarked on, such as the view outside their apartment and some unstated agreement I had supposedly made on her behalf (against Trip). But I keep coming back.

In another scenario, playing the role of “Carol,” I attempted to comfort Grace but she seems to want to take this as flirtation. The AI forces a flirtation scenario so forcefully that Grace’s reaction is “no longer” dramatic but predictable (Grace will almost always assume that if you have chosen a woman’s persona at the start of the drama, Trip must have latent feelings for you) and this generative scenario, when it arises, makes you shake your head, visualizing the machine.

This is both the failure of the simDrama and its saving grace. I have it in my head that if I learn to be a “better” friend, then Trip and Grace will learn from my best wishes. Grace and Trip are strange, just like friends in need. And I think I should keep trying.

Does Facade generate dramatic outcomes that give a sense of closure? My answer is no. The eventualities don’t surprise, and the reactions of Grace and Trip to your interactions come off as programmed. As you interact you feel a part of the scene and not a part of the scene. You are there and not there. Still, this may be my mistake.

Facade is made for experiment, for different approaches, for answers beyond what may be obvious, but I have yet to fall into the propensity to snap or call Trip a butthead or Grace a lesbian just to see what will happen (which seems to be a favorite approach on discussion boards). I think this not only diminishes Andrew and Michael but also Grace and Trip. I don’t want to do this, although I made lots of mistakes at the start by unintentionally poking Trip in the eye before learning how to use the arrow keys to enter the apartment.

I come back to see if I can keep them together or learn something new from them (how have parents pressured them; is sex an issue?)–I think I did, by drawing Grace and Trip into a situation where one came to aide of the other and I as Brenda was dismissed (but always to the same eject)–but why couldn’t I have stayed and enjoyed some happier resolution in this specific case?

As a look into a “holodeck of sorts,” a term I use with inexactitude, Facade fascinates–the possibilities that this digital stage opens up are incredibly interesting. And I look forward to more approaches like this, but it will be a long hard road until a true sense of meaningful “interaction” surfaces so that an avatar, such as Al, can get beyond sensing the machine mind behind the characters with whom you interact.

I’m still looking for a real sense of “choice” and “causality,” for the mobility to “shape” the outcome, in Facade. Should I expect Grace and Trip to learn from “me”? At this point this “learning” has yet to surface. But I keep coming back. I wonder how deep I can go.

To enjoy the drama yourself, you can download Facade here.

Other Selves and Space

You see, we all have a second life, and we bottle it up in our fantasies and stop time.

When a cute waitress brushes your hand as she hands you the check, when a glowing mom and dad walk by hand-in-hand with their children as precious as lambs or a Jaguar glides down the street, a glimmering metal beast, you slip into fantasy, into your second life.

These images of fantasy are powerful. And frozen. We collect them and collect them until our fantasy life is a junk drawer of unrelated things.

In Second Life (link mine), these bits and pieces come back to life, tangible and in motion. It’s like opening that junk drawer of experience and suddenly realizing you have all the pieces you need to build a moon rocket or make cheese.

From David Thomas’ Architecture and Vice in The Escapist.

Sounds like New Media learning

From Businessweek online

B-schools are are now trying to go beyond the single elective in product design by linking up with design schools. One of best programs in the country is the Integrated Product Development track for MBAs at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. Designers, engineers, and marketers mix it up in the classroom to develop prototypes of useful products that are commercially viable. MBAs more accustomed to financial analysis and bottom-line issues are pushed to think more creatively. “Innovation is critical in management. You have to innovate to compete and survive,” says Carnegie Mellon Dean Kenneth B. Dunn.

I’d suggest that an important issue here is where to start this learning. Could be in Tunxis’ New Media Program. Here we know that solving problems “is” a creative act. Poets and photographers do it all the time. Just watch Congress try to throw bricks at stone.

GT4, AI, and other numbers

Over these past few months I’ve been tinkering with Gran Turismo 4, the latest version of Polyphony Digital’s “Real Driving Simulator.” This version represents an improvement over the A-spec release in two ways: the physics engine and the Artificial Intelligence engine. In GT4, opponents are smarter and tougher. In terms of physics, you never really got a sense of environmental elements in GT3, such as elevation and surface, but in GT4, elevation can be dizzying and road surfaces really jog the undercarriage and if you get bogged down in the sand, you’re basically sunk.

In terms of the simulator’s AI, improvements have been made, but there are still major stumbling blocks. For example, in the GT All Stars race, in the Extreme Race category, you’re up against the hottest cars the game can muster. You can choose two participation modes: A-spec, where you drive, and B-spec, where you coach “your” AI driver through a race against the other AI drivers. In B-spec mode, my driver is fairly dense, even though I’ve accumulated quite a bit of points in this mode, which amount to adjustment variables which define AI experience. B-spec mode is interesting; it gets you through very long races. But in shorter, intense goes, the driver makes silly mistakes (and you can’t tell it not to, which I hope would be covered in GT5). On the other hand, I typically take care of the competition handily in A-spec mode, not because my car is incredible (it is, though), but because I don’t drive the way the game expects me to. My style is to muscle the car around corners and slide it quickly into the turns and to use horsepower to get it back on course. So, GT4 appears to set up a human vs. machine intelligence factor.

Case in point. In the positively scary Autumn Ring course, AI cars appear to take one turn at the wrong angle habitually. It’s not speed that’s the problem, it’s the line the cars choose to take at that speed. Autumn Ring climbs quickly, turns quickly, weaves, and hot cars can take the course at high speeds. I run the race myself, hit that dangerous curve, and can easily see why a driver would run off the road (I did it a lot). But, next time around, I adjust my line and take better care. In B-spec mode, my driver won’t make the adjustment; he continually zooms off the road and struggles to get back into the game (but so do a lot of the other bots). Hense, he’s dumb. It may be that as I acquire more B-spec points, the AI will adjust better. But for me, this isn’t the issue: the issue is the machine’s ability to make decisions “during” a race and my ability to charm it to do so. In this sense, the manager mode in GT4 still needs improvement at both the calculation and interface level.

GT4 is amazing, really. A-spec mode is still my favorite way to go. But given the physics engine and the cranking up of the speed factor, which really taxes my ability to react at 200 mp with a real sense of jolt, B-spec is a fantastic idea.

Crude simulations

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports on several learning and teaching techniques at various institutions. In Stage Simulations, for example, Jeff Young goes to the Wharton School and finds students facing a simulation that focuses on resource management

Lee Moss and Dominic Meoli sit in a small meeting room here nervously staring at a computer screen. They are master’s students at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, but for the moment they are playing the role of representatives from a small Middle Eastern country deciding how many barrels of oil their nation should produce.

. . .

When the simulation began at the start of the three-hour class session, and each group of students retired to a different computer-equipped meeting room, Mr. Moss and Mr. Meoli quickly determined that if all the countries produced 38.3 barrels of oil, they would maximize total profits, and each country would make the same amount. And the students knew that if the countries collectively produced too much oil, the market would flood and they would all lose money. So during each turn the teams must decide whether or not to produce a few extra barrels and risk sparking a production arms race — a classic “prisoner’s dilemma.”

For the first few rounds, things go smoothly. The Web-based computer system controlling the simulation shows exactly what each country produces, so if one nation strays from the optimal price, others can see, and can scold them via electronic messages.

But starting with Round 5, the computer system no longer lets the teams communicate. And the system no longer shows details of what each country produces, but instead displays only the total combined production of the teams.

That’s when things get interesting.

One of the countries decides to increase its output to snag some extra profits. In the next round, Mr. Moss and Mr. Meoli decide to retaliate by drastically raising their own output — to 55 barrels — to try to stage a comeback. “We went thermonuclear,” jokes Mr. Moss of their production spike. Unbeknownst to them, the other teams also raise output.

World oil prices promptly collapse.

The simulation and ideas behind it were the result of collaboration between the professor and programmers at the college, which, for me, is the important part of all this. What did the simulation reinforce in the students? To deal still means that you have to get out, meet people face to face, and negociate. Very Good.

Thanks to Christina Gowtowka for the send.