I can see Taylor's vision here clearly: a building full of strangers sharing a gaming experience in way unrealized to date. This sounds like a lot of fun and I can't wait until it is reality. My comment is in regards to why such a development should or would come to be. It reads like a product/service to be sold in the private sector for the benefit of consumers and the businesses (theaters, game developers, etc.) that would produce the experience. This is all fine, except that the concept of Changemakers and Ashoka is solving persistent social problems through innovative means and systemic change, in this case through the innovative application of video game media. If Taylor's idea really is the natural progression of two industries, that is fine too, but that is really marketplace economics fueling private development-definitely not social entrepreneurship. "Open sourcing social solutions" implies that something is being solved, yet Taylor has failed a problem aside from the diminishing profitability of the theater business. I would contend that this is a private problem, not a social one.
However, I would like to posit the problem that Taylor did not explicitly describe: the reduced sense of community arising from technological developments that encourage many people to live an isolated and individualized way of life. Online video games where personal interaction is limited; people spending increasingly more times on their computers and comparatively less time interacting with real people; "unplugging" from the social interactions inherent to going into public by "plugging" into media players, portable dvd players, portable television (all of these things enjoyed via headphones that in a sense remove people from the social environment they are in while in public); all of these behaviors are replacing the behaviors that in past times connected strangers, such as the public movie experience.
If it is acknowledged that this "erosion of the social interaction experience" by technological lifestyles that favor individualized behaviors and activities is indeed a social problem, then there would hence be a need for a solution. That is where is Taylor's "theater gaming" experience comes in. Such activity would encourage social interaction amongst strangers and community members rather than online via a chat/comments interface common to online games. If the games developed proved to rival these games that keep teens and young adults in front of their computer screens, such innovation could redefine the way people interact with respect to gaming, Taylor's original point. I see great promise for such enterprise. Industry will certainly take up the plan, assuming it proves profitable, once Taylor has successfully marketed the idea.
When I was in a theater recently, watching "The Simpsons Movie" on opening weekend, I observed a very prominent experience of social interaction. The Simpsons is a part of American culture common to many, many people. This was a packed theater and everyone one of us had a relationship to the little yellow characters on the screen, as we have all watched their development and impact over nearly 20 years of programming. It was OK for strangers to share a laugh or two, to talk a bit more during the movie, to, in general, share a social experience. This experience felt very different that my previous experiences in the movie theaters: people sitting far away from each other, "shushing" each other, in general trying to have an individual experience out in a public place. From a social psychology perspective, it is good for people to interact, as we are social creatures. I would welcome any innovation that has the promise of restoring interaction amongst people in a time where individuals increasingly want to be left alone and "do their own thing."
Comentarios
I can see Taylor's vision here clearly: a building full of strangers sharing a gaming experience in way unrealized to date. This sounds like a lot of fun and I can't wait until it is reality. My comment is in regards to why such a development should or would come to be. It reads like a product/service to be sold in the private sector for the benefit of consumers and the businesses (theaters, game developers, etc.) that would produce the experience. This is all fine, except that the concept of Changemakers and Ashoka is solving persistent social problems through innovative means and systemic change, in this case through the innovative application of video game media. If Taylor's idea really is the natural progression of two industries, that is fine too, but that is really marketplace economics fueling private development-definitely not social entrepreneurship. "Open sourcing social solutions" implies that something is being solved, yet Taylor has failed a problem aside from the diminishing profitability of the theater business. I would contend that this is a private problem, not a social one.
However, I would like to posit the problem that Taylor did not explicitly describe: the reduced sense of community arising from technological developments that encourage many people to live an isolated and individualized way of life. Online video games where personal interaction is limited; people spending increasingly more times on their computers and comparatively less time interacting with real people; "unplugging" from the social interactions inherent to going into public by "plugging" into media players, portable dvd players, portable television (all of these things enjoyed via headphones that in a sense remove people from the social environment they are in while in public); all of these behaviors are replacing the behaviors that in past times connected strangers, such as the public movie experience.
If it is acknowledged that this "erosion of the social interaction experience" by technological lifestyles that favor individualized behaviors and activities is indeed a social problem, then there would hence be a need for a solution. That is where is Taylor's "theater gaming" experience comes in. Such activity would encourage social interaction amongst strangers and community members rather than online via a chat/comments interface common to online games. If the games developed proved to rival these games that keep teens and young adults in front of their computer screens, such innovation could redefine the way people interact with respect to gaming, Taylor's original point. I see great promise for such enterprise. Industry will certainly take up the plan, assuming it proves profitable, once Taylor has successfully marketed the idea.
When I was in a theater recently, watching "The Simpsons Movie" on opening weekend, I observed a very prominent experience of social interaction. The Simpsons is a part of American culture common to many, many people. This was a packed theater and everyone one of us had a relationship to the little yellow characters on the screen, as we have all watched their development and impact over nearly 20 years of programming. It was OK for strangers to share a laugh or two, to talk a bit more during the movie, to, in general, share a social experience. This experience felt very different that my previous experiences in the movie theaters: people sitting far away from each other, "shushing" each other, in general trying to have an individual experience out in a public place. From a social psychology perspective, it is good for people to interact, as we are social creatures. I would welcome any innovation that has the promise of restoring interaction amongst people in a time where individuals increasingly want to be left alone and "do their own thing."
Just my two cents.
Enviar un comentario nuevo