User talk:CaDowns

This is the discussion page for CaDowns (discuss • contribs)

Something Cool I found Online
The Stanley Parable

The Stanley Parable is a video game in the genre of interactive storytelling. First created by Davey Wreden in 2011 as a modification for Half Life 2 utilising the Source Engine created by Valve Corporation, the game was further developed by the independent studio Galactic Cafe and released as a standalone game in 2013.

The game, while in a first person perspective, does not feature any action sequences nor includes any gunplay. The player takes on the role of Stanley - an office worker - and simply walks around the map. The map, an office block, is devoid of any other Non-Playable Characters (NPC). All motivation to continue the story forward is the result of an omniscient Narrator (Voiced by Kevan Brighting). However, the player-character is able to challenge the narrator by ignoring his narration, changing the entire path of the game.

If following all of the narrators instructions, a short story plays out to a empty, yet optimistic finale. However, multiple paths exist for the player, all of which significantly change the storyline and even affect how the narrator wishes to deal with the players transgressions. The many ways in which The Stanley Parable can play out is one of the many reasons the game has attracted a significant cult following within modern gaming. IGN reviews the piece as 'funny, self-referential, surprising, and sometimes uncomfortable to play, a tale told not through one linear story but instead through many different branching paths that twists the illusion of control that video games work so hard to give us'.

The character of the Narrator has also faced widespread acclaim in the eyes of the modern gamer, as Kevan Brightings humorous performance is nuanced and varied in a fashion normally unseen in other contemporary, 'interactive storytelling' games. PC Gamer describes the character as 'At times, he feels like an antagonist, but really he's narrative design personified. He's as trapped by your chaotic whim as you are by his retribution. Depending on the path you're walking, he can be grandiose, affectionate, cold, impassioned, pleading, and, more often than not, wearied'.

The illusion of control is actively questioned by The Stanley Parable. This finds particular resonance in modern gaming, as a variety of other games -independent and heavily commercialised- have begun to question player agency in their own content: Irrational Games Bioshock (2007) and Bioshock Infinite (2013) question the idea of agency within their own storylines and serve as good examples of this.

The Stanley Parable finds itself alongside other 'Interactive Storytelling' games such as the Fullbright Company's Gone Home, Numinous Games' That Dragon, Cancer and Wreden's later work with Everything Unlimited Ltd, The Beginner's Guide.

CaDowns (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Hi, CaDowns, I haven't heard of this game before but from your description it sounds really interesting! I find the interactive storytelling genre really fascinating, as the technological aspects like coding and programming, I imagine, must be very impressive, as well as the writers' abilities to create multiple narratives for the player to follow. There's something very thrilling about being able to - or at least have the illusion of - take a character and shape it into someone you want it to be through the interactive situations; and it is great that no matter what you choose to do, the narrative will always be gripping and rewarding. Interactive storytelling is also fascinating in the way that you can learn a lot about a person from the choices that they make within the game - however, it is wrong to assume that their choices reflect their personality, as they could be shaping the character into someone more heroic and selfless, or more cruel and merciless, than the person themselves. I feel like interactive storytelling has really opened up what the definition of a game is, and seeing some now where they are styled more as an interactive movie than, say, an RPG, is really exciting and interesting. Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I played The Stanley parable not too long ago and I absolutely loved it. Half the fun was trying to figure out all the possible ways to disobey and antagonise the Narrator, and provoke reactions from them. I've previously played Portal and Portal 2 from Valve Corporations and those two games share a lot of similarities with The Stanley Parable even when the storyline in Portal games is more fixed. I enjoy the trope of using a narrator in games, or characters that have similar power, like Portal's GLaDOS. This is definitely an area of games I am interested to follow, and hope that in the future there will be more games like this. All in all games that allow you in some shape or form to create your own version of the game are highly entertaining - a good example of this would be Bioware and their Mass Effect and Dragon Age series. Interactive gaming is making video games all the more interesting and personal. --Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise 1: Formative Feedback
This review of The Stanley Parable is informative and well written. You've made good use of wiki markup (although unfortunately your footnotes have gone to the bottom of the page rather than the section, which would be worth investigating for future exercises). Your response could be improved through tying your discussion back to core module themes. Unfortunately, you have not responded to colleagues' post for this particular exercise: remember that this is an important component of all wiki-based work in this module.

A post of this standard roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor: Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work. Sprowberry (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Educational Assignment Two: Online Visibility
My personal experience with the digital world would have begun at roughly 10 years old, with accounts on MMORPG browser games, such as Runescape. By the time I reached high school, I would have set up my first social media account properly on Bebo. Myspace, I did dabble in, but bebo was much more popular within my local community, therefore preferable for my online visibility. At thirteen, I traded out the relatively obsolete Bebo with Facebook, a seemingly more mature platform to a teenager. Outside of social media, my online visibility was shaped by online gaming culture. With both Steam and Xbox live accounts, I was visible and the information I elected to place on my profile easily accessible.

By the present, my online visibility is a concern of mine. As far as social media platforms, I have not really expanded beyond the aforementioned facebook and online gaming profiles. Although, I have linked my relatively recent Spotify account to my Facebook, this was predominantly to avoid hassle when signing up and have proceeded to disable any of my activity from being published. I have most of facebook's privacy and security measures in place, and I very rarely post online. Within this year alone, I have posted online on four separate occasions, only one of which was public; previously to this, it had been almost exactly a year since my last post. This does not prevent photographs of me being available to the public however, as unfortunately I believe that the connectivity between accounts with varying degrees of security has allowed for the distribution of information I would rather keep private. However, photographs of my friends and I on day-trips are not harmful, nor a nuisance, and I am more than happy to have them on my profile, as I always enjoy the accompanying memories of the event.

I simply believe that I do not want to post statements online that I will ultimately come to regret as misguided, and be found guilty of what at the time was an unintentional error. Additionally, I do not feel as though my own experience and perspective on the world at large necessarily requires being shared with the world: I continually doubt whether material I publish would be willingly consumed or even considered relevant. I am prepared to share opinion publicly, but endeavour to avoid joining any social bandwagons because popular social pressure demands it, as opposed to my own moral decision: I make commentary on that which I feel deserves commentary.

I ultimately use Facebook as a social calendar and a way to message my friends freely, as opposed to any method of creating an online persona; rather, my lack of online activity makes my persona that of a consumer, as opposed to a creator.

CaDowns (discuss • contribs) 10:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Very well-written piece. I understand the feeling of just linking things for convenience. In the back of my head when it says to "Sign Up with Facebook" I know that its probably collecting tons of data so it can sell me stuff or whatever, but it is usually worth it. About a week ago I actually went through and deleted apps and things I had connected with Facebook that I had not used in a long time. I have certainly found it more addicting, unfortunately, which I do not really like but that is just one of the interesting things about it- since it is changing moment by moment there is always something new to see, to grab your attention, especially when those those things are done by people you know. Nice job. Also, The Stanley Parable rocks. High Five, lmao Stafoya (discuss • contribs) 09:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a really interesting piece, and your stance on being afraid for something coming back to bite you later. It makes you think about the people who tend to post a lot of their opinions online, because that might be a problem for people who don't have many privacy settings on their social media platforms. I respect that you go against the grain and do not give into the peer pressure of getting various forms of social media. Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 11:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC) Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 11:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You brought up an interesting point about being tagged in other peoples photos on Facebook and therefore having little control over what appears as your image online. What is your opinion then on the facial recognition software that Facebook uses in order to increase the likeliness of being tagged, should this be taken away? --HoDstripes (discuss • contribs) 21:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Assignment 3: Information Overload - Response
The entire nature of the internet is arguably based on the availability of information and knowledge in an easily accessible format. Naturally, this can lead to circumstances in which the sheer vastness of information available is somewhat overwhelming, and requires a personal and selective method of choosing what information I digest.

Ultimately, I often find myself relying on sources I routinely consult as opposed to selecting other commentators and creators at random. This extends to not only informal sources of information, such as friends on social media platforms, but also recognised news outlets, professional or otherwise. Much in the way my parents would buy the same newspaper on a weekly basis, I consult the same sources of information routinely online. This, I believe, is the result of a relationship of trust between myself as a consumer and the creator of the information I require; I trust that they are correct and have the necessary evidence to back up this knowledge. On a lesser level, I find the writing style of some creators to be more to my own particular taste than others, or they provide coverage on events or pastimes I have a specific interest in. Additionally, the precedent set by my own upbringing in regards to familial repeated consumption of the same print media makes my own dependence on online sources nothing especially unusual in my eyes.

However, it could be argued that there is a definite reliance on digital culture and the accessibility of information available online. In my experience, in the event of being without a connected device, it is especially common to feel disconnected from the wider world. As much as I personally resent this reliance, in this digital age it is almost as though the addiction to online connectivity to the wider world, and the resulting information overload, has become an aspect of day to day living within society. Mandiberg argues that this is now a 'world where being networked to people and information whenever and wherever you need it is just assumed'. It is now more common to be barraged with information than not. This has created a dependency in which this 'overload' is now actively desired in the event of disconnection through physical means, such as a lost device or faulty connection. To use Sherry Turkle's phrasing, 'always-on' culture makes it impossible to avoid the overload of information.

CaDowns (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Firstly, this was very well written and made for easy reading. Secondly, I was interested by your reference to your parents buying the same newspaper. When I was thinking about the essay question I thought of the way we choose magazines or newspapers from packed shelves in newsagents. When so much information is available to us and trying to get our attention, how do we sift through the noise and find something that appeals to us? Although I admit in my own experience I buy magazines less because I trust the source and more because of the entertainment they provide. I also agree with your point regarding the addiction to online connectivity becoming part of day-to-day life. I struggle to imagine what could possibly undo this development, and feel it's just going to be a fact of our descendants lives that they are constantly connected and exchanging information. -ReluctantCyborg (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that with such a wealth of information out there, finding reliable sources can be extremely challenging, and your point about relying on the same sources that we know we can trust is probably one of the only things we can do. I also agree with your point that there is definitely a dependency with staying connected to this vast stream of information, and in situations without my device I often find myself feeling lost. Petrichorblue (discuss • contribs) 12:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Educational Assignment Four: Wikibooks Assessment Review.
The Wikibooks project certainly had utopian ambitions. The concept of a group of people working individually within a digital collaborative environment in order to make use of their cognitive surplus is, in itself, an example of putting theory into practice. The speed at which the project could come together was also a noteworthy aspect of the assignment, as it proves the effectiveness of the internet as a digital networking platform. However, utopian idealism doesn't always hold up to its lofty expectations, and this would certainly be considered somewhat true of the wikibooks project.

The core concept, of harnessing the cognitive surplus of a wide group of students in order to generate course-work for assessment purposes is a novel concept. However, within this concept lies a few unfortunate, yet realistic hurdles the project fell victim of. The nature of the digital collaboration meant work would be produced by users at varying speeds. On some occasions, work was left till the last minute, on others it was started as soon as work on the project officially began. This variation of personal input is probably unremarkable, and to be somewhat expected. The ramifications of this however, are multiple. The entire nature of this project as an assessed piece of work placed students in direct competition with one another over grades, based on their contribution to the project in the form of 'contribs'. 'Contribs', in my own experience, ranged from large blocks of text that were edited several times, to almost line-by-line entries of an equivalent length. In this instance, if the work produces the same result, why should those who operated on a more frequent posting gain a better grade than those who operate better by composing themselves offline, and posting their work in a single effort? The end result is, of course, the same. The gamification of this assessment through inadvertently making the 'contribs' the defining factor, I felt somewhat undermined the concept of creating a piece of useable academic writing.

But I digress. While working with my group was indeed a pleasure, as they responded quickly to my enquiries and I to theirs, I still feel as though the fact we met in person on two separate occasions to discuss the layout of our chapter and distribute topics accordingly was of great benefit. Yet again, as there is no digital proof of this interaction, I feel as though the active pursuit of collaborative creation has been somewhat stifled by gamification and the desire to accumulate 'contribs'. We conversed online regardless, although I personally felt as though such conversation was forced in order to demonstrate an understanding of the grading scheme.

I personally enjoyed writing my sections of the wikibook, as I find the research element of constructing a working case-study of a topic to be a worthwhile use of time. As an individual researcher, I felt as though this project did benefit me, as it allowed me to produce work utilising a new platform. However, as I am a student with a view to learning, I understand the importance of a grading system in relation to the work at hand. And despite its necessity, the ultimate underlying importance of grades did have an impact in the collaborative dealings of the users involved, and I personally believe that the competition this prompted betrayed the ideals of the project as a whole.

CaDowns (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * Really enjoyed reading your text as I share quite many of your opinions. Your point of the gamification of the assessment is really on point and something I've been thinking as well. During this project contributions were created for the sake of contributions, and in some cases it just took away from the quality of our work. While working in smaller groups and being able to meet with them face-to-face was okay, trying to reach the rest of the people working for the chapters seemed unnecessarily difficult. As you said, people worked in different speeds and created different amounts of content and this made it difficult to construct some parts of the book. Sometimes waiting for an answer to your message on the chapter talk page seemed the most infuriating thing in the world. All things considered this project did teach us a lot about the intricacies of group work and some of the parts you were able to conduct by yourself did give some insight to the course. Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your comment on the various work speeds of the contributors and how this could be an issue. I think it was interesting that you mentioned some students may have drafted their pieces elsewhere and then uploaded them on one occasion, ultimately putting out the same content but lowering their contributions. Although this was in contrast with the goals of the Wikibook i.e. continuous 'always-on' output, thinking about it, it may be a result of the competitive editing environment. If a piece of work was being done over a period of time on the page, there was the danger that someone else may finish it before you have the chance to, meaning a large chunk of your research and time goes to waste. Maybe having restrictions on whose content could be edited at certain times would be a good idea? That could be as simple as stating underneath the piece 'to be concluded'. What do you think? --HoDstripes (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with what you've said. People have different time schedules and they work differently. It doesn't mean that one type is more effective than the other, but in this case were forced to not leave the majority of the work for the last minute in order to get enough contributions. However, for the end result, I think the content would be the most important thing, but the "civic web" is based on collaboration between people who share the same interest. I think that's why project didn't work out for most of the people. --Evp09 (discuss • contribs) 21:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
There's only evidence of a narrow spread of contributions and discussion on group page. The exercises are better, as they progressively move from anecdote to critical reflection with integration of relevant secondary sources, containing a healthy amount of analysis as well as description. Your contribution to wikibooks demonstrate a fair understanding of theory through worked case studies of technological and cultural determinism.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, although some ideas and procedures more securely grasped than others
 * evidence of independent reading of somewhat circumscribed range of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring variable depth of understanding
 * satisfactory level of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * satisfactory level of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of variable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)