Messy Christmas...

[kneeshooter]

So here it is - Christmas. To celebrate I've been enjoying a festive games of CounterStrike and Day of Defeat. Fragging, or more likely being fragged by my fellow man (or more likely l33t kiddies). This could be interpreted as being tragically sad - and gentle reader you're probably right.

I like to consider this relaxing, and it probably does relax parts of the brain - relying instead on instinct and reaction rather than higher-order thinking skills. This didn't quite happen like that for me as I was considering, based on these games and seeing ephraim on the infamous Anarchy Online, how gaming is bringing together communities and people in a real (though limited interaction) virtual environment - and how exciting it was that these actually worked. Now all I have to do is work out how I can use this as part of the otherwise-stuff talk I'm doing in the beginning of Jan for work... big screen Half-Life anyone for an audience of teachers?!

Most of the other stuff I've done has already been written by other people, but needless to say it's fun. (quondam, pax_draconis and boglin). Except of course my great rediscovery of the Lord of the Rings boardgame - now that the novel, friendly and innovative co-operative play has been slightly altered so that someone plays Sauron - and lo I did oppress the little people until their doom was upon them.

The only question now is to turn the other PC back on and game some more, put Photoshop on and play with that or step back on that old slippery slope which I almost _found_ again last night and think about writing some LRP...

Oh - and I clearly need to go on a diet - I've had three bits of clothing this Christmas - a cycling jacket (spot on); LotR novelty trunks (too big - what impression do my friends have of my body?) a t-shirt (not XL - I didn't realise that they made t-shirts that weren't XL). Made me grin :-) Pre-Whitby diet starts - erm - soon!

Comments

Re: Philosophical computer geekery... coming from one in the field.

[kneeshooter]

Now now, you're just being picky. I'm sure you reaslised I mean real as in "deliverable, achieved" not "ideas or philosophy".

But I sense I'm going to lose any argument on this due to the years you've spent _studying_ this stuff...

Re: Philosophical computer geekery... coming from one in the field.

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Nah, Jimfer just talks a better class of b*llocks :-)

And it is possible to have a real virtual environment, as soon as you have a workable definition of virtual that allows you to define environments into either virtual or not virtual.

For example, say you decided that your definition of virtual environment included 3d imagery, stereo sound and 360 degree perception. Any virtual environment that didn't include all those factors would, ipso facto not be real.

So ner. :-)

Re: Philosophical computer geekery... coming from one in the field.

[kneeshooter]

Go John!

Actually my own understanding of real and unreal tends to have the context of numbers thanks to my sensible choice of degree.

Mind you, that caused me some private amusement playing cs when some of my team were talking about how difficult Maths GCSE is... Then this morning one was asking another if he was 14 yet or not.

As well as feeling old, sjh helpful pointed out that I could probably get into trouble playing with minors at my age...

[jfs.livejournal.com]

The essential mistake you are making is limiting your definition of "real".

You're taking a binary approach, where environments can either be real or virtual. That's fine, if you are willing to only accept that definition of real.

However, the work has far more nuances that this. In the same way you can have a real fake, it is perfectly possible to have a real virtual environment.

Perhaps (for Simon's sake) if I express it properly:

He and I are talking about a (Real (Virtual Environment)) whereas you seem to be talking about a (Real Virtual Environment).

The 'realness' of the 'virtual environment' describes how close it comes to the definition of 'virtual environment' not to how close it comes to the definition of 'real'.

Hope that makes it all clear now? :-)

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Mea culpa, not enough smilies.

Apologies if you misread my tone - I wasn't intending to insult your hard work over the last three years.

However, I would dispute your categorisation of what I meant by real. Perhaps if I explain more.

A real apple has certain characteristics, one of which is that it can be eaten (not necessarily that it is edible, mind.)

A wooden apple is not a real apple because it lacks many of the characteristics that if I had more biology I could describe.

A wooden apple can, however be a real wooden apple by being both made of wood and apple shaped.

In the same way, if you can describe the characteristics of a virtual reality, you can describe an example of a virtual reality as either real or not, depending on whether it matches your defined characteristics or not.

If a ghost "pops out of a wall" and I was convinced that it wasn't a special effect, or an hallucination, or one of several other possibilities, yes, I would describe it as a real ghost. But not for the reasons that you think.

And a real virtual jug would be real because it was a virtual jug, not a virtual tea cup. :-)