My idea for sensory deprivation wants to induce a sort of experience for the user to generate from their own mind or introspection
A lot of what I could think of felt too similar to my initial inspiration and i wanted to distance myself purely for the sake of not replicating an existing experiment even thought it’s highly successful.
Replication though, required quite a few similar elements especially to isolate the user from external stimulus and i think that would require some further planning
Idea 1: Sensory Deprivation
Act 1: User is in a vast open space with a glow in the distance drawing the user towards a general direction
Act 2: Odd forms and audio begin to draw the users attention
Act 3: All the visual stimuli begin to fade slowly but the audio remains, leaving the user to their own visuals
I found this video, which is a little similar to what I had in mind, i’d have no ground element either and the visuals would be in a closer proximity to the viewer and not like an overarching sky
I want people to get a sense of disorder and lack of control when they fall ill with any illness, especially since we can’t control how our internals work consciously
Idea 2: Replication
Story is of the start of an illness
Start with 1 cell
Every time you click it, it will replicate
There’s a chance that each replication will split into something bad
Eventually either a balance of only good cells occur or the system will be overrun
But personally these feel quite game-like, but I’m still keen on trying another medium to portray these stories
Eric Zimmerman’s article on the aforementioned points in the title was an interesting dive into the subject. For one, it felt like a good perspective opener, both as a refresher for some old ideas as well as fresh new ones. Especially in the way he breaks down ‘Interactivity’, particularly being an Interactive Media student myself. Bringing to mind something I didn’t expect, Meta-Activity. To me this aspect I’d have counted as a separate entity completely, especially because it feels like an activity after an interactive experience; also the aspect of fan culture also was a neat mention of this sort of interaction. Thinking back, and considering something I heard of previously, post-interaction aspects are also an area to be looked into. For example, the aforementioned ‘heard of previously’ interactive exhibit allowed for a 90 second snippet of your interaction with the exhibit to be uploaded to YouTube. Which I thought was nice, especially when I often wish I could take the experience along with me in some form after I’ve left the place.
Regarding play, for a moment while reading, I thought that play should be an integral aspect of a memorable exhibit, to which I counter-thought, I can think of exhibits or interactive experiences that don’t require play, to which I started to re-read the articles stance on the definitions of play. I’m still ruminating on this aspect to be honest, but it’s an interesting point that I’ll be delving into personally.
Other parts that I particularly liked was that play was a result, to paraphrase loosely, is a result of structure or rules; a reminder that in the creation of one thing, an opposite wouldn’t necessarily be a void. Additionally, that an aspect of a random restriction also introduces an aspect of play and fun, eg. A die.
I felt though, that his use of Ms Pac-Man was a bit of a stretch to spin the narrative that he did out of the game and to attribute its success to that narrative. I find the appeal to be in the pursuits of high scores, technical prowess to avoid the ghosts and its animated
graphics for its time. Its decline in popularity in my opinion shows that indeed it was not the narrative that kept its popular position. Did its narrative decline over the years or was it the invention of newer, “shiner” games? Narratives have been rehashed for years and presented in a myriad of ways without a decline in their viewership, save for contextually related themes.