pixelidentities

Months of real gaming have passed with extraordinary levels such as creating a possible future US president, wrapping up a 2 years´ life in 5 suitcases and a surfboard bag, and living in 3 different countries in three weeks. New tasks are: living in the Arab immigrant quarters in the suburbs of Stockholm, working as a research associate at the Zurich University of the Arts and writing on my book on the blurring of reality and fiction in alternate reality games at the Interactive Institute in Kista, Sweden. Game On, and welcome back to my blog!

We all know: Reality TV shows don´t represent reality how it really is (what that is, is another question). Reality TV shows are always & to some extent fabricated, manipulated, scripted, edited etc., but they do like to propose that what the spectators see is the naked truth. And we, the spectators, like to pretend, at least to some extent, that we believe. The question that has been popping up for me while watching the last season (s14) of The Bachelor and now the current seasons of “The Bachelorette” and “True Beauty” concerns the perspective of the participants on site. They know they are entering a reality TV show. They know it’s a game, it’s a contest, they’ve seen previous shows, they know the rules.

What happens therefore at some point that some of them are losing it the way they do? Do they simply lose their perspective, completely ignore the fact that it’s all a game? Is it just that they start taking things too seriously? Do the producers mostly pick the delusional type of persons, or is their deviation just an effect that has carefully been produced, been fabricated for the benefit of the spectator?

Let’s take Frank, one of the participants of “The Bachelorette”, for example. He came to the show with high expectations and has almost completely fallen in love by the time he met Ali, the bachelorette (stalker alarm!). Their first one-on-one date in Hollywood (week 2) went marvelous and Frank and Ali shared their first kiss. Ali, who’s been in the exact same position as a participant of the last season’s “The Bachelor” (being the first one to be chosen on the one-on-one date with bachelor Jake) and who therefore knows the rules of the game, gives Frank a tender warning before they part. “The next few days are gonna be crazy. Remember that we shared this intimate moment and we’ll always have that, no matter what happens”. (Ali herself had reacted with enormous jealousy after hearing intimate stories of Jake’s next one-on-one date with Vienna; wounds from which she would never quite recover during the whole Bachelor season).

Frank and Ali on their first date

What happens next? As suggested in previews, Frank is completely losing it when seeing Ali kissing other contestants. As he already told Ali on the night of the rose ceremony of week 2, it’s been really hard for him knowing that she was out on dates with other men, while “I think of you as my girlfriend”. Really?! Has somebody completely forgotten that this was part of the game? We know he has seen at least the last season of “the Bachelor” (where his admiration of Ali started), therefore knowing the context and procedures of the show. How could this blurring of reality and fiction happen?

We can’t just answer this question by calling Frank delusional (even though it’s tempting), since this has happened to many previous contestants as well; this reaction of participants being an integral part of the show that spectators even rely on.

My guess is that (unless Frank & the previous contestants are really good actors which fooled me) what we witness is a conflict of real emotions in a game environment. Frank has really fallen in love (or believes he does); even though he intellectually knows that the way “The Bachelorette” goes is that Ali is expected to date, snugle up to and kiss etc. several man (otherwise the show wouldn’t work), but he doesn’t care. To him his emotions and what happened on the date is real, authentic, unique. They have to be and he’s expected to feel that way, otherwise he would even be called insincere and not “here for the right reasons”. He would be an obvious player (and we know what happens to them: they get booed and eventually kicked out: just like Craig M. for example). He has no other choice than to suffer watching Ali perform the same rituals with other men. His best option would be to juggle, to take a humorous stand, to take himself a tiny bit less seriously. But not too much! We want see him struggle, suffer, fail, for real!

Or as good as real: Even though the official goal of the show is nothing less serious than finding the wife/husband (and the spectators like to pretend to believe this as well), the least of the Bachelor/Bachelorette couples actually stayed together in the end, let alone get married. It IS a game, at the end. A game that pretends it’s not, while relying on the participant’s knowledge that it indeed is one (without them actually revealing it too much). Pretty much an alternate reality game with its TINAG (”This Is Not A Game”) aesthetics, actually. But the wicked part is that the game also relies on participants getting their perspective blurred, by playing with their hearts & minds.

We therefore have three types of player roles that the participants can take on or even switch between: a) the obvious player (he knows it’s a game, doesn’t invest his emotions, he might pretend for a bit (but not enough) and gets tattled on by the others who pretend to be shocked) b) the hesitant player (who has a hard time to let his emotions develop because he know it’s a game and not for real and he cannot pretend it is) c) the confused player (who knows it’s a game but gets confused because his emotions are taking over for real; he can’t pretend anymore).

And then, of course, the master player: the bachelor or the bachelorette. They know very much it’s a game & are able to pretend very much that everything is real to them (remember Jake: “I’ve fallen in love with Gia.” “I truly love Vienna.” “I’m crazy about Tenley.” “I just can’t wait to see Ali again.”) Their game play is that convincing that I find it almost spooky, and it must be, to some extent, either schizophrenic (if their emotions are at least partly real) or pretty cold hearted (if it’s all game to them). That Ali was actually warning Frank - giving him meta play info on how the game will play out in the next few days - was pretty remarkable (since nobody talks ABOUT the game, since TINAG), and it will be interesting to see how everyone will be holding up. Game on!

“If SuperMario Was Made Today”: What a nice reflection on contemporary game design with its compulsory transmedial / social community drive!

Future Play Conference: “Explore Groundbreaking Visions for the Future of Game Development”

Es gäbe vieles zu beklagen über die an die GDC Canada gekoppelte internationale Futureplay-Konferenz in Vancouver vom 6./7. Mai 2010: Schlechteste Organisation aller Zeiten (”notification of acceptance” 2 Wochen vor Konferenzbeginn), kostenpflichtiger Internet-Zugang im Konferenzzentrum (15$ pro Tag), trotz Ankündigung keine Speaker-Freipässe zur GDC Konferenz (sondern nur zur Expohalle), 100 Dollar Tagungsgebühr und kein schlappes Gipfeli in Sicht. Wirklich kriminell sind aber m.E.

a) rigorose Auswahlverfahren im Vorfeld mit unklaren Kriterien, die Vortragenden den Vorzug geben, welche ihr eingegebenes Paper gekonnt im Eilzugtempo & motivationsfrei vorlesen. Wieso wird so wenig Gewicht auf die didaktische Performance vor Ort gelegt, die ausschlaggebend für die Aufmerksamkeit der Zuschauer und somit für die Nachhaltigkeit des Gesagten im Besucherhirn ist? Ich verlange von nun an: Videoeingaben statt der traditionellen CfPs!

b) Konferenzposter, die im Jahr 2010 über die Narrativität von Cutscenes in Adventure Games (= “embedded storytelling”!!) berichten,

und b) die fast komplette Absenz von Spielstationen in der Expohalle der GDC Canada. Dass ausser 3 PS3 ModNation Racers (love!) Stations, einem XBox Shooter (gähn) und Flyers in Frisbee-Form (yay!) nichts Spielbares vorhanden war, stösst bei mir auf absolutes Unverständnis. Nichts gegen Theoretisiererei über Games, im Gegenteil, aber die Spielefeindlichkeit gewisser (Spiel-!)Akademiker ist absurd. Und dabei ist die GAMES DEVELOPERS CONFERENCE ja überhaupt kein rein akademischer Anlass, sondern will mit der Expohalle auch Innovationen in der Gamelandschaft aufzeigen und jedwelche Interessenten gewinnen. Dachte ich zumindest, finde ich aber schwierig, wenn dies anhand von ausgedruckten Screenshots geschehen soll. Da könnte man auch zu Hause bleiben und sich ein Gamerheftli unter die Nase halten. Zum Glück gibt es die goldenen Konferenzbesuchergründe c) Jobsuche, d) Netzwerken und, in Vancouver absolut unschlagbar, und darum ist (fast) aller Konferenzärger vergessen, i) Location:

coming any minute! Just need another coffee first.

Read Jeff Watson’s Interview with me on RemoteDevice in the meantime!

Why can’t we buy real fate with virtual money? The idea struck me when playing Fallen London - besides the thought that buying fate is just another absurdity of digital life that presents itself not as a paradox but as a simple normality.

“Fate” in Fallen Londong means shuffling your cards -  quite a beautiful analogy…

http://echobazaar.failbettergames.com/Fate

It’s about time that somebody discovers the political power of Dirty Dancing.

I personally like this hommage to Patrick Swayze very much.

As the latest wave of comments with Russian URLs sweeps over this blog, I can’t help but feeling slightly & irrationally flattered - especially when the comments are as poetic as this one:

“Thanks for poem, I entirely much liked your newest post. I muse on you should despatch more time, you without a doubt father natural skill as a remedy for blogging!”

I’ll keep my blog moderated, though.

Keeping my transmedia literacies steady and surfing the web I just browsed the San Diego Zoo website for a visit tomorrow. So I stumbled via the San Diego Zoo over koalas to this picture, embedded in a Japanese newsletter for the Cairn Zoo in Australia.

After I readily set the photo as my new desktop picture (too cute!), it occurred to me that this photo could be faked (too cute, right?). So I went back to the Japanese site and tried to get some context. Just one problem: all in Japanese. Not with: google translate.

I copied the capture above the picture:

????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????

and it translates to:

Parents can be found at Corner House koala koala park.
When you shoot a baby koala, so flash is prohibited, please take precautions.

Seems authentic to me

Was worth the search. And because Japanese websites are just full of cuties, here’s another one:

The TV-show Castle, Season 1 Episode 5 (”Little Girl Lost”) is about the kidnapping of an 8 year old girl. The ransom delivery is taking place at foyer of a business complex. The 75′000 dollars were requested to be dropped in a specified gray-yellow backpack to the corner of a shoe polish stand (in the picture: Castle delivering the ransom).

The kidnapper disguised his pick-up with an ImprovEverywhere-like performance art stunt. He had placed an ad on Craiglist for a performance art piece for YouTube, asking people to gather at the lobby wearing the same backpack. Of course the police fell for the game.