I think one of the most interesting concepts Mr. Gertz mentioned was that of socializing the audience, i.e. forcing togetherness. Just as a virtual experience can be enhanced by involving real-world physical activity, so it can also be enhanced by involving real-world social interaction. I'm trying to decide how much this has to do with designing a piece for a family-oriented space, and how much it should be applied in general. I think there's a fine line to be walked there, because I know if I'm investigating an exhibit/entertainment venue on my own I'm pretty shy and am in gear to do things by myself. However, I have been drawn into activities with total strangers that have been incredibly fun and meaningful - I wonder how you go about designing an environment that promotes openness and interaction with total strangers.

As a side note, having never visited a Disney establishment I couldn't help feeling like all Disney rides/games/experiences are built for four people. Was this a false impression? I realize that these pieces are highly specialized, but (as someone from a family of five) I wonder what sort of group-size flexibilty can be accomodated in interactive experiences like these.

Comparatively, LBE(Location Based Entertainment), Theme Parks and Museums ask all-sided understandings on designing interactivity for the mass and in mass scale. Technically, almost all kinds of media have interactive potentials of being adapted on recreational, educational (and maybe medical etc.) purpose.

I appreciate Larry's surefooted approaches to create new mass interactivities by "Playtest, Playtest and Playtest" before it's carried out public. However, I believe people can do more to shorten the "crucial seconds" to attract the eyeless crowd from 15 to less. And, maybe for certain instance, the subsequential training 20 seconds could be blended into the "paly" itself taking advantage of "training by playing", the trick like that of the digital interactivity "Loop". I think Larry's designs are good model of creating interactivity with multimedia--not necessarily those of the computer, for larger group's hob-and-nob collaboration(or immediate confrontation), and in more open and natural surroundings.

I think, if a public interactivity gains its end to be "played" as connivance being taken as whatever metaphor, it becomes easier for participants to conduct eventially at the same beat thus to better achieve THEIR goal of it. For designers, this might be the most interesting part of mass interactivity design. No wonder why many recreational interactivities are in surrealistic style whereas educational interactive projects are much more difficult to design.

The public space of interactivity changes a lot of the assumptions we make (and I'm talking about those of us in a lab, on a desktop computer, you know who you are). Everything from learning curve to the experience to just how durable the interface has to be must be considered. I also find it heartening that the creative area of Disney Quest was among the most popular (and lucrative, for you cynics and you commerically minded).

I'm very interested in the role of museums and interactivity. I grew up reading science books and visiting many science museums (including the ones directly south of USC). I know people who would hit me for saying this, and I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but in this context it's very relevant: The universe provides amazing narratives on its own, almost always putting conventional fiction to shame. Actual history reads better than reality televsion. It's amazing that domains like the museum do not take more advantage of what they display and teach. The narrative serves to teach the subject.

When I was ten I read about a storm three times the size of Earth raging across Jupiter, Napoleon's disastrous march to Russia that left hundreds of thousands dead, and don't even get me started on the development of life over the course of the Earth's existence. I grew up with these as stories as much as facts, and they influenced my passion for knowledge and creativity. This is what really get me whenever Hollywood or a museum (or a high school class, for that matter) routinely fails at a historical representation... the stuff practically writes itself, and tends to get more interesting the deeper you delve.
Tweaking elements to get a "better story" simulataneously cheapens the subject matter and diminishes the power of the narrative. In a museum context, where your 90 minute screenplay doesn't threaten the subject (although admittedly other things do) can allow a great deal of freedom on the part of the designer.

Paradoxically, like the education of sex and driving, education of history and science has had the tragedy of reducing a fairly exciting subject into a dull chore, forcing folks to watch infomercials or go to the mall. This does not have to be the case, it really doesn't. Interacitivity and immersion are always teaching something, even as they entertain.

I thought that his point of creating the “illusion of interactivity” was fascinating, because most of the rides are telling a linear story, but through noise, vibration, etc., they are making the participants feel that they have control. Jess commented earlier whether Disney rides were geared towards 4 riders and I think the majority of their rides are made to accommodate the “average” American family with 2.5 kids. However, I remember distinctly the last time I visited Disneyworld; there was an alien-themed ride that accommodated at least 30 people. The ride created the illusion that you could escape the alien chasing you and spitting at you. Yes, they had a jet of water spray you during the ride. The ride was very engaging. At one point I remember taking my eyes off the screen and realizing that everyone in my row was moving the same way even though we thought we had control of our individual seats and the controls in front of us. It was my favorite ride, because of the sensory overload and the sense of fun it created.

He mentioned that retail interactivity is a growing area. Having an actual attraction in the store would be a huge marketing draw. I image that it would have to change periodically in order to keep drawing new customers. I think that some of the upscale retail clothing stores in New York, like Prada, are using a form of interactivity to let customers try on different clothes without having to change what they are wearing. So it is a kind of new, interactive, virtual dressing room. I think it holds possibilities in lots of areas.

The look at some of the physical games that they created was pretty interesting, especially in light of what is considered the most recent savior of the traditional video game arcade: the physical music-based game. Of course, this too shall pass, and if Zemeckis was right, we won't be moving our limbs for entertainment by 2015.

Of course, how the heck do you learn to play a game if you can't see how it is played?

It's been almost two decades since I was last at a Disney establishment, but i remember as a child enjoying watching the people have fun. I was a very, VERY big five year old kid, and my did I have fun doing what amounted to clumsy imitation as I went from ride to ride. Nowadays, I'm big on creating things that afford performance, but OH, if they could be so infectious as the concert of activity that figures so prominently in my memories.

Listening to Larry Gerz's lecture, although it was about location based entertainment, it made me keep thinking about the virtual 3D world that I've been fascinated by and also I could realize again that the game world itself was always the biggest reason for me to be totally into a game. My favorite game janre was adventure, and I liked to explorer a game world that made me feel that I was entering into another world in which I could experience something fantastic out of an ordinary life, out of my limited ability to actually move my body to some other place. I like the feeling that I'm suddenly absorbed into a totally different world through the little window of a screen by just clicking a button. SO, actually creating a physical space that I cannot reach anytime I want to, and also which costs unbelievably big money to construct made me feel overwhelmed. But I think there's lots of things we can share between physical space and virtual world in terms of designing. We can also use a virtual world as a prototype of a real world. Listening to Mr. Gerz's lecture I realized that when it comes to the interactivity between players in a space, whether it's virtual space or physical space, there should be fundamental issues that are common to the both of them. Building various zones, planing interaction between players in the zones, giving the zones their own unique charateristics and also considering the interactivity between the zones to make them as a whole experience of a journey was a really big inspiration for me to think about the virtual world I want to create. Also after this lecture, I became more appreciating about the fact that I have this virtual world in which I can create my own space where my imagination is the limit. In addtion to that, also I became more interested in the interface that links us between a virtual world and a physical space like he talked about the PIN SLAM game. "if some physical interface involved in a virtual game, the enjoyment increases more than 20 times" I got interested in the interface design because it is where the transition between two worlds happens.

The speaker leaves me grappling with definition of interactivity in this program. The notion of acting back leaves me wondering to what extent this needs to occur to be considered 'interactive'.

Many Disneyland rides, you sit back and let a the ride happen. The suspended reality is heightened by tricking the visual thru impossible camera moves and adding other senses. But in no way (besides stopping the ride) are you able to act back and influence the roller coaster in magic mountain or the pirates of the carribean. Ok, so you can spin your pod in the haunted house but only if you're heavy and distracted enough.

I can't wait to see what Disney has in store for us in Hong Kong when they open the newest addition to their theme parks.

http://www.hongkongdisneyland.com/eng/preview/diary/hkdisneyland_fs.html

I think location based entertainment is the last surviving dinosaur from the common public entertainment species. As local arcades continue to go out of business, maybe places like Disneyland will be the only locations where people will still be able to enjoy more immersive forms of entertainment (like the shuttle piloting mission at Epcot). I remember going to Sega City in Toronto when I was in middle school - my 4 or 5 minute Indy 500 race against seven other players still rates as the most "immersive" experience in my book. Nothing beats a metallic car body on hydraulic pistons, positional audio, and a huge screen. Hopefully such rich and exciting experiences will become more common in the educational realm. Such an interactive, multiplayer cooperative type of installation would draw crowds to places like the California Science Center for example.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: