Re: [-empyre-] "shooting" in gaming equated with Violence?

> that a game so essentially similar in
> action [you use the 
> word "shooting", after all], can in the end be
> bereft of violent implication?

In the game I use the term "identify" and that - with
the actual game seems to be enough. Without the game
present I found that the term "shoot" was my only
option. There simply was not a better term to describe
the action.

This is not a failure of language, but of physical
space. Within the real world, objects that move and
intersect with each other do so in a typically
violence act. The energy of motion is translated into
the shattering stress an object takes on impact. No
word other than "shoot" was ever needed previously
because the situation always held a level of violent

In contrast, in the virtual world, no pixels are ever
harmed.  It is not a violent act. Only the lingering
narrative of real space creates a sense that violence
is occuring. So then, if you seek to encourage virtual
space as a fantasy mirror of the real then no change
is possible. 

But what if virtual space is an extension of reality,
not a mirror? Cannot (and in fact must not) new rules
be formed? Are we humans able to create new
interpretations of this extended reality?

I'm of belief that we as humans do can, and to borrow
a little from the French, it's a matter of success.
The question of extended vs mirrored reality is a way
for me to mention Noel Carrol who noted that a farmers
plow on film served a different purpose than an actual
plow. Without the actual plow, the filmic one cannot
exist nor can the filmic one alter it's connection
with the real (at least by itself). The real plow in
contrast is a man-made device created to empower the
farmer. It is new, it is an alteration of reality.

So then, is a virtual "shoot" an act that is
filmic/mirror or a real/extension? If real, the action
is subject to the rules that created the real plow.
Still, the answer can be either. (Though the typical
game narrative acts with the limitations of filmic).  

If an interaction within virtual space can be seen as
empowering/useful then the stigma of a violent reality
will fade. There is an element of a Catch 22 here. One
that demands the underlying narrative issues of the
action be redefined. In the field of interacting with
virtual space, mechanical engineering is replaced by
metaphorical engineering.

In moving violent action aka shooting into one of
using one mobile object to select another. I've tried
to strip/repurpose the narrative of the action. (This
highlights the question of lucid & narrative. (in the
sense that I agree with Janet Murray is Tetris has a
narrative) The problem here is similiar to that that
Henry Jenkins describes in "What drove Pistacho Nuts"?
I feel that Lucid action is not "non" or "anti"
narrative, it is more of self-contained narrative.  

To start the repurposing the use of one moving object
to select another in a virtual space, one applies
small narrative changes to both the lucid and written
narratives within the game. If successful, a new word
or a redefined word will arise. If successful, I'll
get paid ; ) (and so far it's promising, no marine
biologist would wish to harm a fish or encourage harm
(through my game) and they, as of yet have been


ps (Hope this wasn't too scattered. I've been thinking
about this for a while. At some point I'll rewrite
this as an actual paper) 

While the fish game isn't online, others are at (try Code Blue)



    The reality of the building does not 
    consist in the four walls and roof but
    in the space within to be lived.

    - Laotzu

      well, Laotzu said it but I did it.

    - Frank Lloyd Wright, after learning
      his philosophy behind the Unity Temple
      had been expressed 5,000 years earlier.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. 

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.