November 2007 Archives

For the past few weeks, I've been quietly mulling over the future of Facebook, trying to figure out whats next for the juggernaut and, inspired largely by a post from Ellysa Cahoy, whether or not the novelty of Mark Zukerberg's baby has started to wear off. For most of the early adopters, the honeymoon is over, and Facebook has either become as routine as brushing your teeth or been dismissed in favor of the next new thing.

Its not all that profound (though it might be surprising given some of my previous posts) that I don't expect Facebook to last forever. All good things must come to an end, and though I think Facebook still has plenty of time left in the spotlight, it will eventually be replaced by "insert oddly titled application here".

But when its time comes, what shall it be that slays the beast? None can be sure, though I happened across an interesting OpEd piece a few days back that suggested that Facebook would not fall from without, but rather from within. The write up can probably best be articulated through its closing sentences.

That's why I don't worry about Facebook taking over the net. As more users flock to it, the chances that the person who precipitates your exodus will find you increases. Once that happens, poof, away you go -- and Facebook joins SixDegrees, Friendster and their pals on the scrapheap of net.history.

Essentially, writer Cory Doctorow is suggesting that its not Facebook's competition that will destroy it, but rather the very nature of the application itself - the unnatural way in which it combines all of your social networks into one intermingled jumble. This is compounded by the fact that there is a social pressure not to deny anyone from your network, meaning that people you may not really know, or worse still not really like, end up forcing their way into your parade until eventually you just give up and back away (now thats a spicy run on sentence!). I'm sure the irony of such an end isnt lost on any of you.

I've gotten on my soap box more than once about the notion of judgment in these sort of environments, so I'll spare you another tirade. Today hip cats, I'm putting my ear to the people, to find out just how misguided I am! =D

Question 1 for today:
Do you make judgments of people based on the things you see from their social networking profiles? Does the prospect that others may judge you concern you when you post content to your own profile? Why or why not?

Question 2:
How comfortable would you feel removing someone from your friends list, or denying a friend request of an acquaintance of co-worker who you did not feel comfortable sharing information with? Would you be offended if someone removed you from their friends list? Do you think its a good or bad thing to have people other than those you would consider good friends observing your virtual social life?

Cole has, for some time, been predicting that Web 3.0 would be in essence, the internet's version of the great depression. The read /write culture of sharing and openness and conversations and engagement will fall away into a world of walled knowledge and a return to the privacy of old. A backlash of sorts - the other end of the spectrum. Off the cuff it doesnt seem possible. After all, anyone who has participated in web 2.0 understands its potential to generate great things. But after reading Doctorow's writeup, and thinking about the questions posed above, perhaps its more possible than I thought. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with Web 2.0 - but rather because of our own flaws as species.

I'll stop before I get a little too philosophical for my own good =) But I'd love to hear what you guys think!

Image from quotesfromtheoffice.com

Recently, I've been pretty jacked up in preparation for the release of Assassin's Creed - a new blockbuster video game title from Ubisoft. The game was released on Wednesday, and thanks in large part to the sacrifice of a significant amount of sleep and a very patient girlfriend, I finished up the game friday night.

Initially, I was thinking that I would hop on the old blog after finishing Creed and writeup a review of the gameplay since I've never really done that and most reviews I read irritate me =) But after playing the game, I decided I'd go a little different route, and instead do a writeup on an aspect of the game that pleasantly surprised me - the historical accuracy.

Warning: This post will contain spoilers. So I'd stop reading here if you don't want any of the games plot ruined for you.

For those who don't know the scoop with this game, we'll start with the basics. Assassin's Creed is set during the Third Crusade, more specifically in 1191. The game world is enormous, spanning the middle eastern cities of Jerusalem, Damascus, Acre, and Masyaf, as well as "the kingdom" - the non city environment which connect the cities. Your play the part of Altair, and in case the game's title doesnt make it obvious, you are an assassin. The story follows Altair as he ends the lives of 9 individuals in the interest of bringing peace to the region . Wholesome family entertainment at its finest ;-)

But as I mentioned, AC's Studio Ubisoft spent quite a lot of time recreating the game world with historical accuracy. Like what? Lets talk turkey.

• Altair is a member of the Hashshashin - an organized group responsible for multiple assassinations during the Crusades period. A little tidbit for you - the word "assassin" comes from Hashshashin.
• Nearly all of the assassin controlled buildings in the game contain one or more small smoking bowls, which I would bet is a somewhat PC way of referring to the ancient tradition of the Hashshashins consuming hashish (a drug) prior to carrying out their missions. The fact that the word Hashshashins looks strikingly similar to the word hashish is not a coincidence.
• Part of the game based creed of the Assassin is never to harm innocents, and your health will actually drop should you let your blade slip against the wrong people. This corresponds with the Hashshashin's vow not to harm the innocent. The real assassin sect did not believe in the use of "less personal" weapons such as poisons, and Altair's disgust is made clear when a character in game does just that.
• The Hashshashin also believed in making a spectacle of their targets to instill a fear of their order - your missions with Altair respect this tradition. No matter who you kill, you always kill them in public with plenty of bystanders and of course, armed guards, nearby.
• As you "partake in altercations" with guards in the various cities of Assassins Creed, you'll hear many different languages yelling at you - English, French, German, and Arabic that I could hear. This diversity in language matches the diversity in the armies of the 3rd Crusade.
• The uniforms of your foes are also historically accurate, from the signature Red Cross of the Knights Templar to the black and white of the Holy Roman Empire, to the red garb and gold lions of King Richard.
• At various spots throughout each of the major cities, you'll come across activists who hold small crowds as they shout various war propaganda specific to whatever side controls said city. I sat on a rooftop edge at one point and listened to to the entire message of one of the Muslim speakers in Damascus. Not only did he curse Richard the Christian King, and praise Saladin (the leader of the Muslim armies) multiple times, but he also got a little more specific. Check out this line:
  "I stand before you to deliver a warning! Should Richard take Jaffa, there will be no stopping him! He will march on Jerusalem next. We must end this before it has a chance to begin.". Interestingly enough, following the Battle of Arsuf, Richard did lead the Christian armies to capture Jaffa, though a truce between Richard and Saladin came to pass before an all out assault on Jerusalem. Regardless, this foreshadowing on the part of a random towns person and seeing a crowd gather around him and murmur adds an interesting dynamic to the game, and adds depth to the historical experience.

  The Major Players
  

• Your principle nemesis in Assassins Creed is Robert de Sable, the leader of the Knights Templar. As it were, Robert de Sable was actually a real person, a real crusader, and the real Grand Master of the Knights Templar from 1191-1193.
• Assassins Creed features several appearances by King Richard the Lionhearted. Most know him from Robin Hood fame, but Richard was a very major player in the 3rd Crusade. In July of 1191, the English King lead the Crusader armies to a successful siege of Acre - the exact city where you first see him and the only city you deal with that is under Crusader control. You then encounter Richard again towards the end of the game at the Battle of Arsuf - a real battle in which he lead the Crusader armies to victory over Saladin en route to Jaffa. After this battle, in a conversation between Altair and Richard, there are allusions to peace between Richard and Saladin. Though the game doesnt last long enough to see it, that peace came in the form of a truce and the end of the 3rd Crusade in 1192.
• Speaking of Richard, if you listen to him speak in Assassin's Creed, you'll notice he doesnt sound quite English, but rather has the twinge of a French accent. As first, I had chalked this up to a poor choice in voice actors on Ubisoft's part given that Richard is, after all, the English King. But I decided to do a little homework... and would you believe that I was pwned. As it turns out, King Richard 's mother (Eleanor of Aquitane) was French, and he lived with her native country for quite some time. Essentially, he was raised French. Its a subtle detail but indicative of Ubisoft's attention to the little things.
• One of your early targets is Garnier de Naplouse, who according to the game is a sadistic doctor that has been experimenting on patients within his hospital in Acre. Garnier, like Richard and Robert, was also a real person and was present in the Holy Land during the 3rd Crusade. Whats more, he was a member of the Knights Hospitaller, an order created to supervise hospitals and provide care for Christians who traveled to the region. It appears that the real Garnier was more a military leader than a doctor, as he lead the Knights Hospitaller during the battle of Arsuf. I've been unable to find any record of him having experimented on patients in his care, so his tie to the hospital is a clever dramatization on the part of Ubisoft. The word Hospitaller is used several times during the Garnier mission, a clear reference to his real life origins.
• William de Montferrat is another one of your in game targets that is based on a real person, however there is a less historically accurate tie than some of the other figures mentioned. William was indeed a noble of influence who participated in the Crusades, and he did die in 1191, but, that I've found, he never served in any sort of leadership capacity in Acre.
• In the game, William's son, Conrad, is mentioned several times. He too was a real person, though he never appears in the game beyond references. It is curious that Ubisoft chose to use William rather than Conrad as one of your targets, seeing as Conrad was assassinated by the Hashshashin in real life in 1192.
• One of your later targets in the game is Sibrand. Though it was not disclosed in game, Sibrand was a Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights from 1190-1192. In life he resided in Acre, and Acre is in fact where you kill him. His accent in AC is appropriately German.

Landmarks
In addition to the references Assassins's Creed makes to historical people and events, the cities you play in were also constructed with an eye towards historical accuracy.

• In the game, your home base is the city of Masyaf, which should come as no surprise given that Masyaf is the historical base of the Hashshashin. I'm far from a Crusader scholar, but from the images I've seen, the city appears to have been recreated with a reasonable degree of accuracy on its virtual Syrian mountainside.
• I mentioned earlier that Richard's in game presence in Acre is tied to his real involvement in the siege of the city. Well sieging a city does not occur without a little collateral damage, and the Assassin's Creed version of Acre has just that. As you approach the cities outer gate, small palisade (wooden spike) walls, numerous corpses, and smoking ruins greet you. Within the city, the walls show signs of damage and buildings around the city lie in ruin.
• Acre is a port city which feeds into Haifa Bay and the greater Mediterranean Sea. The digital recreation captures the port beautifully.
• Jerusalem comes complete with several key religious landmarks, including the underground ruins of Soloman's temple, the Dome of the Rock, the al-Aqsa Mosque (I believe), and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Soloman's temple and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre are both referenced by name during various missions. According to IGN, the Tower of David is also visible from within Jerusalem, but I havent't confirmed that one myself yet.
• In Damascus, there is a recreation of what I believe to be the Omayyad mosque
• In general, the architectural design of the cities, from the houses, to the markets, to the citadels is impressive, with an eye toward accurately representing the buildings of the time.

More than likely, if you're not a student of the Crusades or a gamer with a curious cat nature, all of this will have been more boring than watching paint dry. But the details are the small (though delicious) potatoes. There is a much bigger picture in all this.

When I talk about the opportunity for video games to support learning, Assassins Creed has provided one of the best examples I've ever seen. Yes it is a game about killing people. No its not historically accurate to the letter. But it is a game that gives you an opportunity to see, and feel, and experience so many of the things that a history class can only give you in words, and to play through some very real historical events during the 3rd Crusade. Its fun. Its incredibly immersive. And it can teach you something (lots of things if you are paying attention) in the process.

I'm not suggesting that Assassins Creed could serve as the primary means of teaching a history class. Thats a bit ridiculous even for me =). But it is the perfect example of a game that could serve as a learning supplement to more traditional mediums - one that can bring educational materials to life in a way that textbooks and lectures can only dream of. It might be a game about death and violence, but Assassins Creed has a huge educational upside with both direct and incidental learning opportunities around every corner. I highly advise checking it out, if even briefly. I'll try and update this post with any additional historical references I can find and maybe even post some screen shots that I didnt pilfer from other gaming sites =)

Images taken from Wikipedia.com, pcworld.com, and ign.com
Not that this is a research paper, but a lot of my background checks game from "The Crusades" by Hans Eberhard Mayer, notes from my Penn State Hist 108 class, Wikipedia and various referencing sites.

As a parent or guardian, at what age would you 1) allow your child to create a social networking profile (ie Myspace, Facebook, etc) 2) allow your child to play violent video games (ie a Grand Theft Auto) and for good measure 3) allow your child to participate in a virtual world environment (be it an MMO game or a place like Second Life) in which open chat is permitted?

Given some of my previous posts (er rants), this seems like a pretty obvious question to ask. And while I've discussed it in round about ways with a few friends and family members, I've never discussed it with people professionally. I'd like to think I have a lot of experience with games and social networks, but one thing I have absolutely no experience with is being a parent. I have a dog, but thankfully dogs are relatively low maintenance when it comes to dealing with... you know... complex social/ ethical issues and cognitive development. A lack of opposable thumbs also helps to alleviate some of that stress. I've baby sat before... but that is usually successful through an increasing series of bribes. So what that leaves me with is a mish-mash of my own childhood experiences, observations from watching other people parent, and a whole bunch of Stubstyle theories that may or may not be based on Mobster movies. And it goes without saying thats not quite the real thing.

I know most people who read blogs don't like to comment. And I know child rearing tends to be a very personal and sometimes sensitive topic even for people without children. So it goes without saying that there is no pressure to post your thoughts publicly if such things would makes you uncomfortable. I'd welcome offline conversations as well, or even just some private reflection =)

So if you have children of your own, would like children, are related to children, or have ever seen a child (no children needed to comment) and would like to share your thoughts - I'd love to hear what you all think.

I won't pretend to be a guru when it comes to popular music, or the music industry in general. I try and stay well versed enough that I could hold a conversation with a 15 year old without being deemed "uncool" or "old". But despite my half efforts to stay cool, the non internet embodied voices in my first life head have already started up with comments like "how can they listen to this drivel". To be old in youth. Or maybe Im actually old. How depressing.

But one thing I do know about the music industry is that it isnt what it once was in years past. What that does NOT mean is that I think the biz is dying. Oh contrare mon ami. In fact, I think the music industry is doing quite well... when its willing to find ways to think outside the box. After all, churning out an endless supply of CDs (or vinyls, or cassette tapes - we'll leave mp3s out of this for obvious reasons) isnt exactly a forward thinking business model. Changing times call for changing answers to the question of how to get music to people and make a little coin doing it. Examples? How about American Idol. Cell phone ring tones. And of course video games. Gah???

Thats right folks. Video games provide an awesome opportunity for artists to expose themselves in an increasingly saturated media market. I first heard the Fall Out Boys thanks to the Burnout car racing franchise. Madden '03 introduced me to "Body Crumbles" (Dry Cell) and "Walk Away" (Epidemic) - two songs that to this day are a part of my workout playlist. Tony Hawk 2 lead me to the band Powerman 5000. And these are just a few examples - all this from games where music provides ambiance. Dont even get me started on games that are actually about music. Guitar Hero has perpetually embedded Kansas' "Carry on My WayWard Son" and Stevie Ray Vaugh's "Pride and Joy" in my head, and given the way that franchise is selling, I don't suspect I'm the only one who has been woo-edd by the musical siren's call. Did Stub just say Kansas? Yes... I did.

Game soundtracks using real music isnt a new concept - its been happening since the 90s. But what started as a fringe idea is gaining more and more traction with a much wider range of musicians. Guitar Hero 3, for example brought in Slash, Bret Michaels, Tom Morello (Rage Against the Machine/ Audioslave) and the Sex Pistols to do sound recording and or motion capture for the game. In another recent example Korn, who played our very own BJC back in October, is recording an entirely new track for the upcoming game Haze.

In some cases, in game music gives small time bands an opportunity to be heard on an enormous stage. In some cases, it gives larger, more established groups the chance to be heard by an entirely new demographic. But the result in both cases is the same - exposure (as in 1 billion plays). And exposure (que up the Puff Daddy) is "all about the Benjamins baby".

Now exposure, regardless of your industry, is a big deal. But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most of you are not record executives, aspiring musicians (except Gary) or obsessive gamers. Thusly this post might seem novel but not entirely relevant. So whats the hook? No surprises here...

Experiential content wins. I've mentioned two kinds of games in this post: games where music supports the content and games where music is the content. Both succeed in making an impression on the user because they allow the user to experience, rather than passively listen to, the music. If Kansas comes on the radio, at best I hear it and forget about it in 10 minutes (or ignore it all together). At worst I change the station. But if you plunk me down in front of an Xbox in a situation where I am a part of the song (interactivity), I'm given incentives to play it well (which happens through repetition) AND I can play it with my friends then all of a sudden I'm playing Kansas air guitar in the shower. A song is just a song, but a song in an interactive, social, fun filled game becomes a memory. This notion is one that Allan had shared with me in response to a blog post way back in the day. It was true then. Its true now. And the music industry has started to figure it all out. But its most certainly not the only place this lesson applies. Giant metaphor? Hmmm...

As always, just some food for thought. Carry on my wayward sons.

Many thanks to Emily for sharing this little nugget of joy - an amusing song about Facebook. Happy Friday all.

Depending on who you ask, many of the popular entertainment mediums of today tend to leave a bad taste in people's mouths. Television is drivel. Rap music is misogynistic. Video games are making our youth fat and violent. I'm sure you've heard it all before. But despite all the often (but not universally) unfounded public negativity, popular media does have the unique opportunity to use its powers for the purposes of good. Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel, or Car Talk on NPR are great examples of shows that can be informative, interesting, and even educational while still making for compelling entertainment.

But there is a much more passive way that entertainment can serve the common good - by drawing attention to things (wasnt that a wonderfully vague statement?). For example, who remembers Romeo + Juliet the movie? If you're anything like me, you spend a good bit of mental energy trying to block any and everything that involves Leonardo Dicaprio - but we're among friends here in this enormously public venue, so its ok to admit that you've seen it.

Anyway the point is that that movie used its influence to give a literary classic a hip, fresh look, and in doing so provided an opportunity to reach an entirely new generation that might never have read the Shakespearian tragedy. Im sure the film wasnt a perfect recreation of dear old William's handy work, though it did manage to come pretty close, right down to the signature Shakespeare language. But more importantly, it made Romeo and Juliet a cool story that teenagers could relate to as opposed to an old musty "classic". Anyone want to place any bets on the last time Shakespeare was cool? Another great example would be Lord of the Rings. Prior to their film release, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings book trilogy was popular, but far more cult than mainstream. The movies explode and all of a sudden everyone is running to Barnes and Noble to picks up the books (present company included). Coincidence? Thats a negatory good buddy.

Step forward a few years, and we stand on the doorstep of another movie inspired by a famous literary work, the CGI version of Beowulf. The original poem is considered by many to be a literary staple, and it can often be found on the reading lists of highschool or college English classes. But Beowulf, like Shakespeare, was written in a time when language was used quite differently from the way its used now. Even if reading the "modern english" version, the poem can be difficult for some to get through. Die well if you have to read it in its native old-english, where phrases like "Him þa ellenrof andswarode" abound. Yes, thats actually english. As you can imagine, such language can pose a barrier to comprehension and ultimately appreciation for a tremendous work.

The upcoming film has gotten a lot of press for its "total CGI" approach as well as some of the big Hollywood names who are lending their voices and likenesses to making the story come together. But in the end, Beowulf the Movie, like Romeo + Juliet, is an example of film using its influence to expose a new audience to literature. And make a bunch of people rich. (As a side note, I should mention that I have not yet seen the new Beowulf movie, so for the purposes of this post I am making the unproven assumption that it is largely based on the Beowulf poem - this may not in fact be the case)

In todays world, no high octane Hollywood production is complete without a video game. Enter Beowulf the game and with it, an interesting notion. Movies can use their influence to help bring literature to the masses. Could video games do the same? And taking it a step further, could video games offer an entirely new way to help teach lit?

Now before I'm sent to the gallows by an angry mob of English instructors I most certainly concede that there is substantially more to the study of literature than just basic plot. How a story is written, is in many cases, more import than the story itself, and diction or writing style cannot easily be transfered to more contemporary mediums without loosing much of their original message/feel. Quite simply, there are many literary instances in which the written word could never be replaced.

But thats sort of the point. As Ive mentioned before, my general view on edugames is that they should be used as a tool to support, not replace more traditional teaching methods. The pop culture video game (or movie for that matter) is the teaser that inspires people to try something new, reinforces lessons in class, or just provides a fun way to engage material.

Playing Moby DIck for the Playstation 3 or The Odyssey on the Wii wouldnt teach anyone how to read. It wouldnt teach you to recognize the nuances of fine writing, or help you appreciate tone, style, or language use. And I can almost promise that you wouldnt find the subtle reflections of the human condition on your game console (well... at least not yet). And its probably worth mentioning that not every great book would make a playable game. I can't really see Best Buy opening at midnight for a Gatsby The Game release. But lit-gaming could provide a memorable, interactive way to bring literature into the lives of those who might never otherwise give it a chance. And whether we're talking about a class or a hobbyist, it might just send a few more people to the local library too.

Off the deep end? Sure. Blasphemous? Probably. But you never know - It might just be crazy enough to work.

Disclaimer: I tend to use "English" as a synonym for "Literature" when referring to classes due to my own experiences. My apologies if this is confusing.

Images from Wikipedia.com and Gamespot.com