Category Archives: Learning and Ideas

Where is my dumb robot?

The PolyBlog
November 11 2016

I confess I have a bit of a techie mentality. I paid for part of my university life through working tech support areas and software installation services at universities, as well as helping teach a few practical sessions with professionals upgrading their computer skills. And when I started working for government, a lot of what garnered early positive feedback was my computer skills. I’ve done programming too. But where I stop being a techie usually is when it moves from software to hardware. There I’m relatively lost. Yet when people talk about Artificial Intelligence, better use of data, and all those wonderful things that are more software-oriented, they omit the part that I think is really possible in the short-run. The physical hardware with some basic programming.

People are all excited in the industry about “smart cars”, but long before I get a smart car, can someone tell me why I don’t have a dumb robot yet?

I don’t mean those simple robots that are merely self-propelled vacuum cleaners nor the ones for kids that roll like BB-8 or respond to a couple of voice commands or are in the shape of a pet. I’m talking about a dumb, simple, repetitive-task performing robot.

There’s an article over at the Harvard Business Review blogs by Andrew Ng called What Artificial Intelligence Can and Can’t Do Right Now (link may expire) and I love it for the way it approaches what AI can do by comparing it to the way humans process things. Basically, the argument is that if our brain can figure out what to do in less than a second, then the number of variables are relatively small, there are discrete choices and outcomes, and thus you can automate the task to a machine. Basically machine and supervised learning to teach a machine how to do it.

What do I want in a dumb robot? Someone who can do things for me during the day that I don’t need to do myself. Let’s walk through a typical day and the things that I should be able to have already…

I start my day with my alarm clock beeping at me. No real need to automate that, the alarm clock does exactly what it should do, a tried and true technology. But what if I roll over, turn off the alarm, and accidentally fall back asleep. I don’t mean I hit snooze, I mean I turned off the alarm. Now there is no backup. No mental nudge to say stay awake. What if my dumb robot (DR), let’s call it Jeeves, what if Jeeves was programmed that unless I override his programming the night before had access to my calendar and saw that it was 8:00 and I have a work meeting at 9:00, but I was still in bed. Could Jeeves beep at me? Or even in a nice voice (maybe reminiscent of my mom calling me when I was a kid to get my butt out of bed) saying “Paul, are you up yet?”. Maybe more insistent if I don’t answer. The backup to my own false sense of infallibility.

But let’s say I get up on time and I’m heading for the shower. Do I want Jeeves to turn on the shower for me and have it pre-heated to the right temperature before I come in? Nothing particularly challenging about that. Movement to a preset location, turning a knob to a specific point, good to go. Not much of a time-saver, most people wouldn’t bother. But you could have Jeeves do it.

Now, showering, brushing your teeth, voiding, those are tasks you’re going to perform yourself. But if you had a slight disability, are there basic things Jeeves could do to hold an arm out to assist with transitions? Hand you a towel? Monitor you in case you fall and call someone if you do? Could Jeeves even assist with bathing for those who need it? That’s probably a bridge too far right now, but not an impassable chasm.

But as you finish up in the bathroom, could Jeeves make you breakfast? Your bowls, utensils, cereal, juice, glasses are all pretty much going to be in the same place every day, so automating the robot to fill a bowl with cereal and a glass with juice shouldn’t be that difficult. You just need some flexibility to identify to Jeeves what your bowls and glasses look like, the layout of your kitchen, etc. although scanning/mapping software would do that for it pretty easily. A more advanced version might even be able to crack open a couple of eggs, butter bread or toast, make you a fried egg sandwich so breakfast is ready whenever you are.

Once everything is over, presumably Jeeves could clean up and put dishes in the dishwasher, etc. Could maybe clean them, and put them back in exactly the same spot as the day before, but perhaps not.

When I go to work each morning, there are basically six things I take with me. My tablet, my work blackberry, my personal phone, usually a book that I’m reading, my notebook, and my work pass. There are some other things in my bag, etc., but those six are pretty standard. I might or might not wear a coat depending on the day, different shoes, mitts, hats, always my car keys, but those are contextual. And once in a while, I forget something. Like my work pass. Why? Because I stopped somewhere on the way home, put it in the pocket of my jacket, got home, hung up the jacket, and forgot to put the pass on the shelf by the front door where I’ll see it. No biggie, but why am I using mental energy to remember to put it specifically in the same spot or remembering the next day? What if each of those six items had a small RFID tag on it that Jeeves would monitor. And if they weren’t all in my bag as I go to head out in the morning, Jeeves would say, “Excuse me, Paul, I don’t believe you have your work pass with you.” My first reaction will be, “What? No, of course I do, it’s right here in my … umm, why isn’t my pass in my bag? Oh right, it’s over here. Thanks Jeeves/memory jogger.” Is that a big deal? Of course not, but I bet I would program it to scan for the RFID’s when I’m leaving for the days when my brain is focused on the seven things my son, wife and I are talking about as we scramble to get out the door. Heck, sometimes it’s as simple as something got placed on top of my pass and I can’t physically see it on my shelf, and so I head out thinking I have everything.

Here’s where some of us will diverge. Lots of people would love to take the robot to work. That’s a bridge too far for me. If work wants to automate tasks, great, I shouldn’t bring my own “robot” to work to help me do my job. If so, why not just hire the robot?

But while I’m at work, could Jeeves vacuum the house? Clean a toilet? Wash pre-sorted laundry? Hang it on a line to dry or throw in the dryer and check if it is dry when done? Cut the grass? Shovel snow…oh, that would be sweet.

Could Jeeves be programmed with a more sophisticated kitchen module that would allow it to chop vegetables? Basically act as a sous-chef? Maybe even, with remote activation, throw a pizza in or a pre-assembled casserole so it’s ready when we all get home? I hesitate to go so far as having a full cookbook with multiple ingredients, but that is only an RFID tag on a standard sized container away from doable. Could he open the door and receive a package from UPS or FedEx? Could he collect the mail from a central box?

After supper, can it also double as a stand-in for a playmate for someone who is single or whose friends are busy that night? Get your mind out of the gutter. I mean rather than playing a board game or card game against a computer screen, could it roll dice, charge you rent in Monopoly, learn to throw and catch a frisbee? Or a baseball? Could it be programmed with multiple pitching styles to act like an automated pitcher that adjusts to your level and technique so you don’t have to hit balls by yourself and chase them? Could it act as pitcher with five little scouts running around it that chase balls and bring them back? Could it play basic tennis? Those are more about the design of the robot’s arms/movements than about technique for hitting or throwing a ball, so yes, they all could be done.

As I’m getting ready for bed, Jeeves could turn off all the lights downstairs (heck, an app can do that now). Jeeves could also monitor the location and charging status of my e-devices, and if they are not on the charger, go and get them and put them on charge. Or double check my to do list verbally with me to see if there is anything to adjust, delete, add. A personal secretary app, not unlike some of the functions Siri does now. But more interactive, following me around while I do other things.

And all of those things are doable. A dumb robot, personal assistant, digital butler, e-handmaiden, non-sentient slave. An article I read some time ago talked about the issue of android rights, similar basically to the idea that was raised in the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Is an high-AI android property like a toaster? Or as the AI evolves, does it meet any criteria for self-awareness or even sentience? Except it missed the point.

Developers are looking for smart androids. People are looking for dumb robots.

If you had a Jeeves, what would you want it to do that you hate doing yourself?

And where the hell is our Jeeves?

A horror-filled business case…

The PolyBlog
August 25 2016

Back in January of this year, Joe Castaldo published an article through Canadian Business magazine. It has a relatively innocuous title — “The Last Days of Target” — but the sub-title gives you a hint of the content…”The untold tale of Target Canada’s difficult birth, tough life and brutal death”. I didn’t see the article at the time, and I’m not even sure I would have clicked if I had. After all, wasn’t the demise of Target relatively straight-forward?

It seemed so to the casual observer. Towers, K-mart, Woolco, Zellers…all of them went down-market, bottomed out, and couldn’t make it work. Enter Target to try and tread the same path with a hopefully different ending. One more akin to Walmart. I’d been curious about Target when it opened, in the same way that I am curious when I see a coffee shop open and close in a location, only to be replaced a few months later by, yes, you guessed it, another coffee shop. Particularly when it isn’t part of a chain that will sustain it through the lean start-up months…somebody else just tried the same thing in the same spot and went bust. Yet here is someone else dreaming their dream, and repeating the same process, options, and outcomes.

When I visited Target, I saw slightly better clothing options than the previous Zellers, prices were good, nothing that stood out in electronics, toys, etc. that said: “buy me”. And, while I did buy a few things over time, I did notice a lot of empty shelves at times but far more importantly? Empty stores. No one was shopping there. You could shoot a cannon through the store, just as you could have through most Zellers outlets, particularly the one in the same location previously. Some people said Target would make money off the groceries and household consumables, but that’s not really a draw for me. I like shopping at PC stores or other various grocers. And Shoppers Drug Mart serves me just fine. I wasn’t their prime demographic, true, but I’m not against saving money if the place is reliable.

Yet reading Castaldo’s article is like reading a mix between a Harvard Business Case and a Stephen King horror novel. The errors and screw-ups and just complete incompetent management behind the scenes are mind-boggling. Back when I was in university, we did a “practical” strategic analysis of a local recycling company. We were all young business students, wanting to help them plan their strategic future, we were going to help them figure it out, bring our academic excellence to bear. After working with them over a few weeks, it became painfully obvious — their biggest threat was their own operation. They needed to make sure they could get the big doors open at the factory reliably EVERY morning so they get the trucks on the road for pickups, long before they could start thinking, “What’s next?”. And that was our recommendation…forget the future, you got to make sure the doors are open. After reading the article, I’m left with the same reaction — forget all their business acumen, how did they even get the doors open on the first store?

The article is awesome, but here are some of the highlights:

  • they couldn’t figure out basic distribution from warehouse to the retail stores, and to be able to restock … basic principles stores have been doing for years yet they ended up with extensive empty shelves in stores…it even took them 2 years to figure out that dates for delivery from vendors were being interpreted as shipping dates instead of when they should arrive…2 YEARS????;
  • choosing SAP to integrate all their systems with a two-year window and not paying enough attention to data integrity (see this excerpt: A team assigned to investigate the problem discovered an astounding number of errors. Product dimensions would be in inches, not centimetres or entered in the wrong order: width by height by length, instead of, say, length by width by height. Sometimes the wrong currency was used. Item descriptions were vague. Important information was missing. There were myriad typos. “You name it, it was wrong,” says a former employee. “It was a disaster.”)…end result? Only 30% accuracy;
  • registers spit out the wrong change or charged the wrong prices or oftentimes confirmed credit card payments that hadn’t actually gone through;
  • massively ambitious launch schedules; and,
  • insanely optimistic sales projections, particularly when they decided not to try and compete on groceries to get people into the store given the level of existing competition on groceries in Canada.

The standard explanations for the scope of the disaster are there…nobody wanted to be the bearer of bad tidings, they tried to make something work with new untested techno systems rather than adjusting working solutions, leaders were not experienced battle-tested problem solvers, over-extension happened before solidifying the basics, a lack of training…the usual suspects. All knowable though.

However, two examples really stood out for me. First, their internal business analysts switched off the “warning” indicators in their software for stock replenishment so that they wouldn’t look bad (not unlike removing the battery in your fire alarm because you don’t like the noise instead of seeing why smoke is filling your house). Second, one week they released their new flyer and every item on the first page was out of stock before the stores even opened that week.

While they fixed a lot of the issues, it was too little too late. Kind of like the classic cliché, they didn’t get a second chance to make a good first impression.

As an aside I love the reference to their decision to use SAP though…that decoding it was like peeling an onion, there were many layers and it made you want to cry.

Hard to believe that a company the size of Target could get SO many things wrong, and some of them pretty basic as well as known pitfalls to avoid.

I really wanted to like Adam van Koeverden’s post…

The PolyBlog
August 17 2016

Some of you probably saw Adam van Koeverden’s post earlier this week on his blog, as many people shared it across Facebook (http://www.vankayak.com/blog/2016/8/12/feminism-in-sport.html). It even got picked up by the Huffington Post, which guaranteed a lot more clicks and sharings.

And when I saw the theme, I really wanted to like it. The basic premise is he had seen an interview between Ron McLean and Adam Kleek on CBC, and in the interview, Kleek had criticized Eugenie Bouchard’s focus at the Olympics. So van Koeverden was writing to take Kleek to task for what he perceived to be sexist commentary, with the backing principle that men should call out men when they do this. It shouldn’t just be women saying, “Hey…..”.

I love the premise. I do. And so I saw the headlines, jumped on the click, started reading, and then faltered. Because as so often is the case with these things, the blog entry makes a few claims that seem to me to be sweeping generalizations that weaken the call-out. You can read the original post linked above, so I don’t have to repeat it here. Let me instead summarize the argument into a few key points so you’ll see where my hesitancy lies.

  1. Kleek shouldn’t comment on tennis as he isn’t an expert.
  2. Kleek shouldn’t judge “focus” or “commitment” by a person’s social media presence, etc.
  3. Kleek suggested she may have a stronger desire to be a media darling.
  4. Kleek did a “girlish impression”
  5. Three Olympian women objected to the commentary.
  6. Symbolic of other sexist behaviour, such as asking her to “twirl” (Australian reporter faux pas) or the Sun calling Penny Oleksiak “Pretty Penny”.
  7. Men should call out men, not just leave it to women to object
  8. Men don’t get asked these terrible questions.
  9. Men don’t get asked about performance vs. social media distraction
  10. It’s generational, perhaps….digital millennialism.
  11. Eugenie is doing amazing so no basis for criticism.
  12. If three women object, accept their view and apologize. If they’re offended, an apology is required.

Okay, so I summarized a little too much, too many sub-points, but you get a pretty good overview of his argument. But I’m going to deal with them in groups, and somewhat out of order. If you have read my posts before, you know I’m long-winded, so there is a nice little recap/summary at the bottom before I get to the part that actually matters.

It doesn’t happen to men (6, 8, 9) — This is the most popular line out there, since if it only happens to women, it must be sexist. Except it does happen to men. Regularly. For example, at this Olympics, what was one of the most shared images? A photo of Michael Phelps supposedly glaring at his opponent, along with EXTENSIVE commentary about the apparent social media war between them … and guess what sort of questions came with it? Oh yeah, that it might be a DISTRACTION from focusing on the races.

The number one male swimmer in the history of the Olympics, his medal count outweighs numerous country totals, and yes, they’re asking if social media distracts him from his focus. I guess too that Adam missed the comments on the CBC during London and Vancouver and Sochi about the “hotness” of some of the guys, including Canadian female Olympic athletes joking about the guys on the air. And I’m certain no female commentator anywhere would have dared comment on the oiled-up Tongalese flag bearer. And certainly not on CBC. Oh, wait.

I don’t want to be too harsh though, as most people perpetuate this “myth” that it is exclusively only happening to women. It shows up in politics — Hillary questioned about her wardrobe but never Trump. Why? Because the media spent two months discussing his hair and the size of his penis.

It shows up in Hollywood, with red carpet divas objecting to fashion questions when they are wearing tens of thousands of dollars worth of accessories, greater than many viewers’ annual income, for one night of the year where they go for high glamour and glitz and sparkle. But that should be off-limits because no one (except the 1000s who buy fashion mags and tabloid coverage of the events) could ever care about such silly topics on such an important day as Hollywood paying expensive tribute to itself. Of course, if you followed that line of logic, you should also probably never comment on a bride’s dress on her wedding day because that’s incidental to the importance of her making a gigantic personal commitment to someone.

People might argue though that these are isolated incidents, I need more evidence. Okay, let’s take women out of the equation for the moment. Even the Olympics. Let’s look at a widely covered sport like football in the NFL. If “focus” and “outside distractions” commentary only happen to women, there would be no mention anywhere in NFL coverage. Right? That’s the logic. Except every year there are multiple stories about this running back or that wide receiver, often rookies with money in their pockets for the first time, often with the bright lights of the big show in their eyes, not being able to focus on the game. That their off-field behaviour is a “distraction” from their “job” of competing at the highest level. Every single year. And yes, lots of references to social media as part of the “problem”.

If the blog said that we do it MORE to women, I would be happy to agree. I think we still have a sexist society, and I think it is reflected in journalism and particularly sports journalism. Saying it is “only” women is pretty selective interpretation.

If it was “sexist” to question Eugenie about social media because Kleek was male, should Andi Petrillo apologize to Phelps for any on-air discussion of the social media stuff he was involved in? Does the CBC owe an apology to Tonga?

I’ll come back to the “twirl” issue later.

Don’t comment on tennis / Eugenie is doing great (1,11) — This one is hard to get behind on any level. There’s this little thing called freedom of speech and it lets you comment on any topic you want. Usually, if you do, and you sound like an idiot, it’s pretty obvious. And people cough, turn away, and ignore the idiot. I find it hard to think it benefits anyone to “call anyone out” because they don’t know something. Particularly when you start by saying “Hey, I don’t know anything about the topic either.” Okay then, if so, maybe you should shut yourself too, if you’re calling someone else out about it.

And if we want our talking heads of any form to always know what they’re talking about, there are going to be a lot fewer employed talking heads and a lot of dead air coverage of some sports. Not necessarily a bad thing, just that I have some sympathy for those paid to be on air for a lot of hours with a microphone and no script. And Kleek may not know anything about tennis, but he does know what it is like to be a professional athlete, to get ready for big events, to try and focus on a competition while the world swirls around you asking you to do silly things like 30-second interviews to tell people “what it’s like to win/lose/compete”.

Digitalism/Social media presence is poor evidence (2, 3, 10) — On this point, I agree wholeheartedly with van Koeverden. Generations view it differently, just as younger people travelling often want to check in on FB while older people often are like “relax, unplug!”. It’s part of their digital life. And if van Koeverden wants to say Kleek is out of touch with modern life, sure go ahead. I won’t join in the piling on, for a simple reason. If I have to respect a younger generation for valuing social media, I have to respect the older person for not doing so. Doesn’t strike me as a reason to “call someone out”, nor in such an aggressive fashion. Not to mention there are already 1000s of articles out there about generation gaps and how the older generation doesn’t understand horseless carriages / rock ‘n ‘roll / drugs / sex / digital worlds.

Three women objected so he should apologize (5, 12) — If his mom taught him that, he should go back and have a chat about how people end up being doormats. Cuz that is the same attitude that forces many women to stay with abusive husbands. It’s their duty to apologize because, well, the other person says so. No, that’s not how life works, except in the world of “we have to be politically correct all the time”.

Sure, we have a stereotype out there that if someone bumps into a Canadian, the Canadian will apologize. And I don’t disagree that it would be a “good” thing for him to do. Nice. Canadian even. But that’s not what the blog says. It says he SHOULD do it, i.e. there’s a right from women to an apology and whether he was right/wrong or entitled to express an opinion, he has a duty to render the apology.

So I’m offended by the post implying that men do this to women all the time. And by the assertion that if I don’t agree, I’m part of the problem. Well, I don’t agree to his lines of argument, does that mean he owes me an apology? No. It means we disagree.

The test isn’t simply whether one feels offended, that’s one’s subjective bias. If that was the test, everyone everywhere would have to apologize for everything ever said on TV as there is someone somewhere who will take offence. It happens. And lots of times we shake our heads at them and think, “What a whackjob, that isn’t what that means”.

The test isn’t who objects, it is what was said and to whom. Kleek didn’t comment on the three women who objected. He commented on Bouchard. So, the question is does he owe an apology to HER and HER ALONE, not all women everywhere who might be offended on her behalf.

I said I would come back to the “twirl” example, and this is where it comes in. Just as van Koeverden says he doesn’t need to defend all women, they can do so themselves, so can Bouchard. When the Australian reporter, for whatever stupid reason, asked her do a little twirl to show off how cute she was, Bouchard had a choice to make. She could object and say no. She could object and explain why. She could walk away. She’s a big girl, more than capable of taking care of herself. And what did she do? She laughed it off, did the twirl in a cheeky little fashion (which to my mind was done as much to mock the reporter, not satisfy him), and went on with her life. Was it the most “feminist” response? Was it the best response? Not me to judge. Her life, her choice.

Was she offended? I have no idea. Just as with this one. While it is fine for van Koeverden, or any of the three Olympian women, to take issue with the statement and suggest it was inappropriate, the only person who can truly say if it was offending is Bouchard. And if so, then we move to analysis, somewhat more objective than the rhetoric of van Koeverden’s blog, to say, “Does the evidence (like in the blog) suggest there is something there?”

Quick recap — criticizing focus or digitalism happens to men and women, it is not inherently sexist. The fact Kleek was a man and Bouchard a woman didn’t make it so either. Sexism requires it to be BECAUSE Bouchard is a woman, not just of the opposite sex. It’s a symptom, perhaps, but not the basis. Equally, commenting without expert knowledge of social media or tennis isn’t inherently sexist either.

So, if all that is true in my mind, why would I want to support the blog?

Because Kleek didn’t just question her focus or media or commitment.

He did a “girlish impression” that was meant to be demeaning and belittling. Because “girlish” was bad. That only “girls” worried about hairstyles and fashion. Because it meant she wasn’t a real athlete. And that it was a way to mock her, that her sex made her less.

THAT is sexism pure and simple.

And if van Koeverden wants to call out anyone for doing THAT, without the other misplaced rhetoric, more power to him. Or anyone. Male or female. Because that kind of behaviour is unacceptable.

And it deserves not only an apology from Kleek, but it also deserves an apology from CBC for allowing it to air and once aired, not immediately denouncing it and banning Kleek from all future broadcasts.

You shouldn’t get a second chance to make a lasting sexist impression on the millions of Canadians tuned to watch the best the world has to offer, not the worst.

Understanding Video Games – Week 6 – How To Interpret Games

The PolyBlog
June 14 2016

Week 6 of “Understanding Video Games”, a University of Alberta Course offered by Leah Hackman and Sean Gouglas through Coursera, focuses on how to interpret/analyze a game with 5 videos this week.

Overall, the premise is that massive multiplayer online games are ripe for study given the richness of information and diversity of players. The videos walk through the beginnings of MMOs with multi-user dungeon games (MUDs), and how MMOs added to it with advanced GUI and recognizable visual settings. In particular, Hackman and Gouglas work their way through Ultima (which added both positive social interactions and negative ones such as griefing), Everquest (innovation through adding 3D interfaces, but also led to selling characters in the real world and early references to online addictions), Second Life (showing that it wasn’t all about weird fantasy worlds), and the true powerhouse, World of Warcraft.

Back in Week 1, we learned about a variety of elements in games and Week 2 focused on how “games” differ from simple “play”. Week 3 introduced the contrast between linear, progressive gameplay and more emergent gameplay brought to it by the various players. Week 4 introduced us to a mechanical structure of how to break down games into component pieces, and Week 5 tried a narrative approach to explaining games.

This week stepped back a bit and pulled from literary theory to talk about a structural way of analyzing games and the interrelationships between the parts starting with:

  1. Hardware, program code
  2. Functionality
  3. Gameplay
  4. Meaning of a game (relying on semiotics, signs and symbols)
  5. Referentiality (and how it represents a genre or crosslinks to other games and game types)
  6. Socio-culture (how it fits within the outside world or what is brought to the game by players).

Again relying on literary theory, they add in “post-structuralism” tropes and how language defines reality, and thus a question about what can the language of a game tell you about the designer’s beliefs, arguments, views of reality, etc.? In particular, they talk about procedural rhetoric (rules, interactivity, language, mechanics to make an argument) and how the rules reflect the world view of the game designer.

However, for me, I am not convinced it is about a world view, so much as it is a slice of a world view, particularly as meaning is more than just the rules (i.e. as they note, it also includes play and agency). More importantly, when they talk about WWII fight simulators, and about what is missing due to focusing entirely on technology, I’m not convinced it represents a denial of the other pieces, just that the other pieces don’t make for interesting or fun gameplay. Often it is easier to set warfare on strange alien planets just to avoid controversy around “supposed meaning” rather than the intent of the designer which is to have warfare, but without the political arguments that might creep into the discourse, and distract from what is meant to be simpler gameplay, not a debate.

Understanding Video Games – Week 5 – Story and Games

The PolyBlog
June 7 2016

Week 5 of “Understanding Video Games”, a University of Alberta Course offered by Leah Hackman and Sean Gouglas through Coursera, focuses on “stories and games” with 7 videos.

  1. Role-playing Games (14:16) — This is an overview of RPGs in general, including D&D, Ultima, Quest for Glory, Final Fantasy, etc. to illustrate sweeping storylines with common structural building blocks (character, plot, genre). For me, I’m more interested in the story elements of the game (narratology) over the game mechanics (ludology).
  2. Character (7:16) — This video explain the analytical framework from standard literary concepts (protagonist hero, antagonist villain, tritagonist third person narrator/expositor or sidekick). Pretty basic.
  3. Plot (19:21) — This video elaborates the framework to go from chronicle (facts) to plot where events are linked and show causation, but not necessarily linearly (more so on average than other forms of entertainment). It also argues that you can use the classic 3-part (beginning, middle, end) or 5-part dramatic arc (exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, denouement). However, there is a really cool interview with a Mass Effect writer and how they handled multiple branching storylines (it’s an illusion using two people who are always the drivers of a conversation, and the third wheel can be any other character who may or may not join the conversation, but allows the illusion of total differentiation based on which characters survive to that scene vs. the reality that it is still tightly controlled narrative/dialogue).
  4. Genre (4:15) — It’s a very short video, mostly to introduce the idea of viewers/players bringing certain expectations to certain genres, and the ability to suspend disbelief. Pretty basic.
  5. The Hero’s Journey (29:22) — The big video is an overview of Joseph Campbell’s male-dominated monomyth, which serves as a for growth. The monomyth has three main components…the departure (call to adventure, refusal of the call and punishment like woman-in-the-refrigerator, supernatural aid, crossing the threshold / overcome guardian, and belly of the whale), the initiation (road of trials with everything familiar gone to allow capacity development, meeting with the powerful goddess and getting a gift and/or experiencing love, the temptress to give it up, atonement with the father, apotheosis/acceptance of terrible truth with sacrifice, ultimate boon to achieve inner peace), and the return (refusal of the return, magic flight, rescue from without, crossing the return threshold to show independence, master of two worlds, and accept reward/freedom to live). While I see the truth of the criticisms of the model (default male-orientation, the open-endedness as it includes everything, and its misuse as prescriptive storytelling), it’s a pretty powerful story arc for the true “hero’s journey”.
  6. Games Aren’t Books (17:37) — The video raises the question of how interactivity can violate literary theory, such as Campbell’s monomyth while noting that all media is interactive in some form.
  7. Branching Narrative (8:39) — This video gives an overview of hypertext fiction/interactive fiction/ text-based adventures linked to the development of branching narratives.

Overall, the two big pieces I liked this week was Campbell’s breakdown, partly as a huge majority of games follow the hero’s journey arc, and the interview with the software designer and how they faked some aspects of differentiation and customization/interactivity.