August 2008 Archives

As I sit here at my desk, struggling to stay motivated during the waning hours of Friday afternoon, I figured it was time for a little off topic hilarity.  Todays absurdity comes straight from the Japanese Gameshow archives - courtesy of my main man Brian Shook.

Soccer with binoculars on.  You know you've always wanted to know what it would look like.




Enjoy Labor Day weekend everyone - and don't forget to celebrate the first Saturday of college football by rooting for the Penn State tomorrow.  LETS GO STATE!

There are only a handful of podcasts I listen to with any regularity, not so much out of lack of interest, but lack of "fit" I suppose.  Unlike music, my concentration tends to wane if I try to listen to podcasts while I work.  I don't travel particularly often.  My daily commute lasts all of about 5 minutes.  No podcast I've ever heard quite conveys that "fire it up" mentality I need at the gym.  Excuses excuses. 

Anyway, one of the podcasts I try to make time for at least semi-regularly is the Harvard Business Ideacast - a once a week, innovation themed show devoted to gauging what some of the top leaders in business are (or should) be thinking about.  They might not always contain earth shattering revelations, but they do provide high level food for thought more often than not.  And at about 10 minutes a pop, its easy to fit into to my non-podcast friendly lifestyle.

Last week, I was catching up on some back-casts (back issue podcasts?) when I came across one titled "What Kind of Leader Will You Be".  The podcast featured guest Bill Taylor, and was based around a blog post he had written back in May, which proposed 5 questions every young leader should ask themselves.

The first question, which serves as the title of this blog post, was the one I found the most interesting: why should great people want to work with you?

We've all been a part of job interviews when  we were asked what we could bring to an organization, or what our strengths are - the good old  "why should we hire you" question.  But "why should great people want to work with you" is a whole new beast - one that speaks to less tangible traits - the kind you probably wouldn't find in the average job descriptions, or gracing the average resume. 

Clearly, Bill was asking the question of leaders who, in an era footnoted by the increasing significance of job satisfaction, will be called upon to sell their company to an applicant pool with discerning tastes. 

But I started thinking about this question on a personal level, outside of the boundaries of cover letter buzz words.  What is it that makes me worth working with?  Any inspired professional strives to work with great people - but why should those great people want to return the favor?

In the interest of not sounding overly self indulgent, I won't go into what I came up with for myself (unless you really want to know).  But there might have been greater value in answering the question than in the final answers themselves anyway.  Not in thinking up the same cliche interview keywords, but rather in considering how I want to be viewed and remembered (or perhaps even accepted) by the community of "great people" that inspire me.

No pressure to share you responses here if you'd prefer not to - but I will most certainly ask the question in hopes that you'll take a few minutes to ponder it.

What should great people want to work with you?




Also Check Out:

• Allan Gyorke asking "what is your superpower"

Image from democratandchronicle.com

This absolutely blew my mind.  Check out this video.


In case the clues didnt give it away, what you just saw was not an interview with a real person.  "Emily" is a tech demo, a computer generated character created by the company Image Metrics.  If you study the video with a fine tooth comb, you can notice a few imperfections.  But I'll be honest - had this video been aired on the nightly news I would have never given her humanity a second thought.  Wow.

Though the awesome factor of this video is in and of itself worthy of a post, the plot thickens a little bit when you find out that Image Metrics specializes in video game and film CG.  Care to up the anti a bit more?  They have worked in conjunction with Rockstar to recreate human animations for several of the Grand Theft Auto games.

I tend to be a pretty staunch defender of video game violence.  I do it not because I harbor within me some sort of demented desire to hurt people, but precisely because I don't.  And when you read that parents are now more terrifed of video games than of porn or alcohol, it tends to drive you batty.  "The devil you don't" I suppose.

But despite my support and enjoyment of video game violence, and the amazing technological achievement that "Emily' represents - putting the two together (the next logical step) gives me pause.

Image Metrics works on GTA games.  Image Metrics created Emily.  What if Emily was in the next GTA game?  Could I pull the virtual trigger on a character as "realistic" as her?  Media violence in any form is ok in my book because its not real.  Emily, as it turns out, is still not real, no matter how real she appears.  But then again, how real did you think she was when you started watching the video?

Obviously there are multiple obstacles to realism that makes games games as far as your mind is concerned.  For example the need to insert a disk, or the need for a screen to project them on, or the need for external devices to manipulate them with.  Subtle details that continually remind you that you are playing a game, no matter how immersive it might be.  And for the moment, those clues continue to separate the virtual from the real - even if game characters looked and responded like Emily.

But inevitably, technology will do as technology does and find ways to overcome all obstacles in its path. 

What the eyes see the mind believes. If Emily is a part of the future of gaming, GTA 7 or 8 might be something worth actually worrying about - even for a virtual war criminal like me.

Could you carjack Emily?

Things have been relatively busy in the world of Stub of late, which unfortunately has lead to a lull in activity in this space over the past few weeks.  And though its been frustrating not to spend as much time writing as I typically do (that is, frustrating for me, likely a godsend for you), its been at the hands of some really exciting projects.

The bulk of my time has been taking up by an increased role in the Blogs@PSU Initiative where we've been:

• working with Dr. Carla Zembal-Saul on preparing a framework to allow the blog to serve as an ePortfolio platform for Education students. 
  
• working with Dean Chris Brady of the Schreyer's Honors College to pilot a program where a select group of incoming Honors freshman will blog throughout their college careers.  Not only with this set up unprecedented opportunities for learning and experiential reflection, but also an entirely new way to think about student advising.
• working internally to upgrade Blogs@PSU to Movable Type 4.2 in line with the beginning of the new semester.  Though any upgrade is meaningful, this upgrade is particularly significant because of the addition of the professional template set (a very easy way to use the blog to create a professional looking, 'non-bloglike', website).

If you are looking at this post through an RSS reader than you'll likely not notice, but the old schoolers in the crowd were greeted with an all new look to ChrisStubbs.com today.  In case you were wondering about that professional template I mentioned earlier, this site is an example of what it looks like.

There is a certain irony in that as I was devoting so much time to working on blogs I was neglecting my own.  But stepping away for a few weeks, as it turns out, was far more valuable than I could have anticipated.  Through working with Carla, Brad, Chris, Erin, and others over the past few weeks my eyes have finally been opened to the nearly limitless potential of the blog to be more than a blog - to be a true personal publishing platform. Much wiser people than myself have long since seen this vision, and thats whats been so exciting about these recent projects.  They have helped me to get it, on a level much deeper than I had before. 

But with that understanding comes the need to start walking the talk. 

And that brings us back to the new look of ChrisStubbs.com.  Though I intend to keep the blog itself pretty much the same, my hope over the coming weeks is to create a true Stub Hub - and I'm not talking about some ticket selling site (which, by the way, did not ask my permission for such a name, and will be hearing from my legal team).  A place which will serve not only as my blog, but as a crossroads for all of the activities which inspire it.  My blog, my tweets, my links, and a more comprehensive look at games (oh the games) are just a few of the things I'd like to add to this space.  I want this website to, as my friend Chris Millet proposed, join all the small pieces of my web 2.0 self together.  A place that represents me in a much more complete way and one that hopefully helps to continue creating new opportunities to move the grand conversation forward.

So my apologies in advance if I spam your RSS reader with half constructed pages and perplexing plugins.  Its all in the name of progress.  Or at least thats what I'm telling myself.

Stay tuned as we bring the one stop Stub shop to life.  This should be fun.

 

I try not to post to much on really stupid decisions when it comes to gaming.  For starters, I think there are a lot of really positive things to discuss around video games, and the media does a more than adequate job at spewing nonsensical propaganda.  I also just prefer to be a positive person most of the time (its almost football season - that helps). 

But every once and a while, a bit of gaming news comes out that just stuns me into oblivion.  And when a dedicated, lifelong, gaming enthusiast breaks out the WTFsauce, well... it might just be something worth talking about.  At least in my head.

Gears of War 2, a hugely anticipated game is set to hit the Xbox 360 this holiday season.  If you are not familiar with Gears, essentially you pick up a gun and shoot anything that moves for about 10 hours.  Yes I know - highly sophisticated stuff.  But despite the mind numbingly overplayed game theme, Gears of War was exceptional - a beautiful, well designed gem that reinvented the way cover is used in shooters. 

In case the "oh my god shoot them" theme didnt give it away, the game's main weapon (the lancer, shown below) should probably clue you in on another key ingredient in Gear.  It was incredibly violent.


Yep.  Chainsaw.  On a machine gun.  Originally I had posted a screen of what exactly you did with the Lancer.  But I'm sure you can guess.  Besides, we pride ourselves on being a family friendly blog and you non gamers would have horrible nightmares ;-)

Game sequels, like any sequel, have a tendency to try and outdo their predecessors, and Gears of War 2 is no exception.  By all accounts, its bigger, more feature rich (and more bad ass if I might add) than the first installment.  It is also, as you can probably imagine, going to be more violent.  But it has recently been announced that Gears 2 will also ship with something else Gears 1 did not - an optional violence and profanity filter (did I forget to mention the characters also tend to swear a lot?)

As explained by the designers, this new filter will allow users, if they choose, to replace the game's blood effects with sparks, and profane language with gibberish.

Speaking of gibberish...

Before I go on my rant, I should probably be fair.  Filters of this type have been around for a long time - I remember Mortal Kombat having one way back in the 1990s.  So its not as though idea is the fault of Epic Games.

Having said that, the violence filter makes about as much sense today as it did in the 1990s, which gives something in common with Vanilla Ice's hair.  <shudder>

Heres the problem I have with a violence filter - who exactly is it serving?  Violence accepting gamers who double as hemophobics? 

If you like Gears of War, its pretty safe to assume that fictional violence does not make you uncomfortable. 

If you did not like Gears of War and the excessive violence was the reason, the sequel is still violent.  More violent actually.  And removing the blood effects does not change what it is that you are doing to enemy combatants.  Turning on the filter does not turn Gears of War into Mario Brothers. 

If you follow the logical breadcrumb trail, it won't be long until you come to underage children who are getting their hands on Gears 2.  Maybe the filter is for their benefit.  Well 1) I don't know any children that would willingly enable that kind of censorship and 2) if as a parent, you are ok with your children curb stomping, dismembering, or blowing the heads off fictional enemies as long as there is no fake blood or profanity, then perhaps we should talk.

But what about that whole desensitization thing.  If vulnerable minds see enough fake blood, then one day real blood wont bother them anymore.  Then they'll become vampires!  Yes...

Ninja Gaiden 2 is frequently cited for having the unusual trait of allowing the bodies of those you had slain to linger for an unusually long time.  Mechanically, your enemies were not preserved forever, but unless you did significant backtracking you'd never know that.  Unlike most games, where fallen foes disappear quickly if not immediately, Ninja Gaiden gave your enemies a presence.   They were "more real" in that sense, not ghosts to be dispatched and forgotten about.

Clive Thompson, of Wired had a very good writeup on this aspect of Ninja Gaiden 2 a few months back.  A few mashed up quotes from his piece...

"So when you put it that way, this idea -- that the bodies of everyone we kill just sort of wink out of existence -- is so hilariously pregnant with misplaced dread that it's practically Freudian. It's as if our violent games can't quite bear to have us face up to the dimensions of what we're doing. So they just get rid of the evidence....You really do get a better sense that you're a sociopath when the evidence of your crimes is stacked around you. On the other hand, you could argue that the moral and aesthetic content of all those racked-up corpses isn't negative. It can be meaningful in a sneaky way: As I meandered back over the scenes of my previous slaughters, the preposterously huge body count sometimes had a Wagnerian feel to it -- all this senseless, tragic death! ...Let the dead lie. We'll learn something about them -- and, maybe, ourselves."

There are programmatical reasons why you'd have the dead vanish from a game, but overall, I love the point that Clive is making.  Do we not have an obligation as gamers (or game designers) to demand a certain degree of ownership of our virtual actions?  Obviously nothing in a game is real, so that ownership should not be punitive (it is still a game), but would reflection be such a bad thing?  It it "bleeds", it means it is "alive".  If it leaves a "corpse", it means you "killed" it (notice all the quotation marks).  That is not is not some sort of parallel between game actions and real ones - but I think that it creates a substantially more meaningful experience - one that makes you think, if even only for a moment.  

Obviously I'm over-analyzing all of this.  I've been playing violent video games for a long time, and I've long since supported the position that game violence has no business being mistaken for some sort of precursor (or inspiration) for real world violence.  The lack of consequences is precisely what makes games what they are. 

But I'm also a supporter of games as medium that could afford to be taken, and to take itself a bit more seriously.  If you are really worried about the violent content in your games, don't play or make Gears of War 2.  And if you do, stick to your guns - don't offer up token, nonsensical "solutions" to a dubious "problem" to appease politicians, social conservatives and clueless parents.   

Go big or go home.  If virtual blood makes you uncomfortable, make you shouldn't being playing virtually violent games.  And if it doesnt make you uncomfortable, guess what?  You're probably a perfect sane, nonviolent member of the human race. But that doesnt mean your virtual actions shouldnt warrant the slightest bit of though and reflection. 

I'm tired of games without substance.  Even if the only substance is pixelated blood.





Images from gearsofwarrealm.com and smh.com.au 

Back in May, I posted on the death of PC gaming.  And because I'm one to beat a pinata horse until I am showered with delicious candy...  In an interview last week, Id co-founder John Carmack said that his company was going to be headed in a more console centric direction, moving away from a PC first mindset. 


I... er.... yea thats the best graphic I've ever made =)  

While Carmack was careful not to suggest that Id was actually turning its back on PC gaming completely, the point is clear.  This news was particularly eyebrow raising, not because it supports my previous prediction, bu because of the history of this particular company.  For those don't know, Id essentially defined PC gaming with their 1993 smash hit Doom, and have been a mainstay of PC game design ever since.  Now they are backing away from the platform that they helped to define so many moons ago.

There are two big questions in my mind right now.

1) Does anyone (in a business sense) really care all that much if PC gaming dies?  Clearly Dell has a stake in the PC gaming market.  But with Microsoft and Sony (two big players in computer market) spearheading consoles of their own, hardware producers getting involved in the living room market, and game designers simply migrating their focus, does anyone really care if PC gaming fails?

2)  How significant are Apple's iPhone aspirations in the gaming sphere?

EDIT:
After doing a little digging, apparently the aforementioned John Carmack stated that he feels as though the iPhone is a more powerful gaming platform than the Nintendo DS and PSP combined - nearing the power of the Playstation 2.  I'm Amish so I don't have an iPhone, and far be it from me to question Carmack the Wise but but that seems a midge overstated.  If its not... well then... that changes everything. 


More to come on this I'm sure.



Original images from wikipedia.com, blogs.pcworld.com, and jesusheartsmusic.com - combined with the abundance of free time that I apparently have on my hands.

  

This semester, I've had the distinct pleasure of doing a little teaching in the form of a few guest lectures for some freshmen IST students.  Its an experience I've most certainly enjoyed and might just have to explore doing more of in the future if given the opportunity.  Though I should probably figure out if I was any good at it first... Ha! 

This semester wasnt my first time at the front of a class, but it was the first time I've been given a blank check and an open mic to corrupt the minds of America's youth.  <Evil laugh>

And I have to say, despite the fact that the experience gave me a new found appreciation for a fraction of the work that must go into planning and delivering an entire class, I had a lot of fun.  I'm relatively young as far as our office goes, but I'm still 4 years removed from my own undergrad days, 8 years the senior of the new freshmen in these classes.  I pride myself on bringing a millennial perspective to the academic conversation, and without getting too big headed, I'd like to think I'm at least acceptably cool ... marginally cool?  Better than uncool?  Ok fine I'm lame. 

Things can change a lot in 8 years and to be honest, its nice to reconnect - to be back in the classroom watching, listening, and realizing how in touch, or totally out of touch I really am, even if only for a few hours.  No disrespect to any of the tools, metrics, or surveys we use to guide our efforts here at ETS - they are all top notch.  But they are no substitute for taking it to the street, at least not for me.

If you've never been fortunate enough to teach in a technology classroom, its interesting to say the least.  For the greenhorns in the audience, I've prepared a simulation for you.  Begin talking while staring at the following image.

Obviously I'm exaggerating slightly for effect.... some labs are oriented in vertical rows ;-)  But the point is, when classrooms are filled with computers, you can be fairly confident that, you'll see about as many profiles cast in the cool glow of a monitor as eyes looking back at you.  The occasional ultra-low volume YouTube clip followed by visibly restrained laughter only reinforces the message.  These students are doing other things in class besides listening to you.  No surprises there, right?

Though if this is a new experience for you, at first, it is somewhat humbling.  Do I totally suck?  Am I not engaging enough?  Am I boring these students into oblivion?  Are they just apathetic learners?   

But as time goes on, and you talk into the void for longer and longer, you slowly realize that despite the clearly divided attention, things are sinking in. The message is getting across.  And people are participating.  People are paying attention.  It just might not look like what you'd think.

Yesterday, one of the most vocal students during my lectures was playing World of Warcraft the entire time with the guy next to him.  He responded to as many ideas, shared as many of his own insights as anyone in the class.  But between his comments, you'd never guess to look at him that he had any interest at all in what I was saying.   Things however, are not always as they appear.  Clearly he was listening.  Clearly he was paying attention.  He was balancing it all with something he enjoyed doing.  And he was very obviously not the exception, but the rule. 

What I was seeing was the new look of engagement.  Truth be told, it shouldnt be some sort of big epiphany.  I get the multitasking, twitch attention deficient culture.  But to experience it from the other side of the coin... it only solidified some of the thoughts I've been having about a 21st century education.    

In debriefing with Bart (the course's instructor) after class yesterday, he shared that this had been a disorienting revelation for him too - something that had taken some time to get used to.   I'm not suggesting that every student who was face planted in a monitor was fully vested in what I was saying, or that eye contact is becoming some kind of lost art (there were plenty of students who appeared "traditionally engaged").  But clearly the classroom... the student of today, of tomorrow, has more to them than meets the eye. 

To what end?  Am I heralding the end of the sage on the stage?  Probably not.  But I do herald an end to their dominance.  Make no mistake, the sage is just another input now.  Attention is something to be earned, not expected and the days of monopolizing it are over.  And you know what?  Thats perfectly ok with me.  If the message makes it from point A to point B, who am I to worry about what happens in the meantime?  Undoubtedly, some would consider this divided attention to be rude.  But the students are doing exactly what we all know they do - what we as educators hope to capitalize on.  Who are we to begrudge them for that?  If you don't like looking at profile head shots, maybe the questions should be going inwards instead of outwards.  What are you doing to engage?  Maybe just maybe, if you can make all these so called "distractions" work for you instead of against you, you'll create something worth looking up from the screen at.  But then again... looks arent everything.   

Hopefully the 50 or so students got something out of my involvement in their class.  I know I learned a lot - probably a lot more than I taught.



P.S.  In a beautiful bit of irony, the image of the students at computers that I used above comes from the website of an Apple tool designed to manage and control what students are doing on their computers.  Control.  <shakes head>


Images from Apple.com and freshinkonline.com

Early last week, Cole threw down a challenge to himself and anyone else who was interested.  That challenge was to make one meaningful blog post a day, every weekday for the month of August.  Today begins the first full week of that effort.

I'm very excited to see what I hope will be a plethora of new (or perhaps consistent?) writers contributing their ideas to the blogposphere.  Though personally, the one post per day challenge isnt quite for me.  I've come to enjoy writing for personal reflection, and though its not an overly time consuming activity for me, it is one that demands the right state of mind.  I have a feeling a post quota would end up making a chore of something I enjoy.  Guess I'm not cut out to be a newspaper columnist, eh? 

At its core, I just don't feel as though I need any more me.  "What a strange thing to say", but its true.  I'm pretty comfortable with the amount of time I spend thinking and writing about my ideas.  That doesnt mean I'm perfect at it, or that I couldnt afford to spend some more time doing it.  But I already know how to engage myself.  I can do introspection...even if the results are nonsensical.  And for me, thats been the biggest reason to keep blogging.  I meant the nonsense, not the introspection ;-)

Robin Smail had a great post last week, discussing her own motivations for participating in the "One Post a Day Challenge".  To quote her "I'm going to rely on the community for much of my input".

Robin's post, and that quote in particular, really struck a chord with me.  Though I may not have an interest in posting once a day, that is an activity about me - my thoughts, my ideas, my writing.  Why not turn things on their head, and make the "One Post A Day" challenge, not about me, but about the community?  About other people's thoughts, ideas, and writing.  The world may not be ready (or want, or need) more of Stub's voices.  But we could all stand to do a little more reaching out to other people's.  I can keep looking in the mirror.  It doesnt mean I can't look around too.

Isnt it ridiculous that I was driven to write a post about Robin's, even to talk it with her in person about it, but I left no comment on her post itself?  That just will not do.       

And so, inspired by Robin's post and some questions I asked a long time ago, I'm going to participate in this initiative in Stubstyle fashion with the "One Comment A Day" challenge - the result of a BS Breakfast conversation with Stevie Rocco.  The rules?  Only to make at least one comment on someone else's blog every weekday for the month of August.  I'll try and keep said comments meaningful, but its me - you know I can't make that promise =)  

I have every intention of continuing to write my own posts in the meantime (I know you were worried).  But this isnt about me - and thats what makes it so great. 

Let the challenge... or perhaps more appropriately the conversation begin.





Image from icanhascheezburger.com