Technical Functionality and Gaming

Technical understanding of whatever we might be doing or planning on doing is, needless to say, essential. Otherwise, we might at some point find ourselves in a position where we might feel hindered or stuck because we don’t have the appropriate technical know-how. This is especially true now, when we are seeing an increasing interest and use of technology in so many different ways. It’s hard to escape it. 

As far as a technical understanding within gaming is concerned, it is fairly easy to say that a user with a greater understanding of how a game functions will be able to get farther within the game than one who does not understand it at all, or one who has limited knowledge. The degree of knowledge depends on the user’s personal interest. More often than not, if a user continually is seen as returning to the game, he can be said to have interest and with time, he/she can gain a little technical understanding simply by repetition and a little exploration. 

An undeniable element, of course, remains the difficulty of the particular game in question. Take for instance, Second Life: if you do not have any technical understanding of the how it works,  you cant really use it, or your use will be limited. In a complicated environment like Second Life, it might take you longer to get used to or understand the code,  and that too if you know how to read code or have any interest in it. You might not succeed if you don’t understand the technical functionality of games. On the other hand, if you do understand technical functionality of the particular game, you could gradually master the levels, or try to gain the maximum score, or act in whichever way the game functions to win the game ultimately. 

~ Cyberattack on google hit password too.

It’s all connected.

It can be quite difficult to separate intentions and/or impact technology, invention, discovery, etc. in other words, any object or service that did not exist before, can have on society (I use this term loosely). As per the Winner reading, certain technologies do have very calculated political consequences, case in point, the highways in Long Island to keep the lower income folk out of certain neighborhoods. 

Regardless of what sort of technology we might be talking about, it is bound to have an impact on several different levels and on several different aspects. That is to say that technology through it’s use is bound to have a social, political and economic impact, whatever the technology might be. This same concept ties well with the Tim Wu article on net neutrality. Wu tries to explain using the fast food chain, KFC as an example, comparing it’s exclusive deal with Pepsi to hypothetical situation in which a particular highway would only allow GM cars to go on it’s roads. Here, the decision to allow only one vendor or one car company on the roads is a decision that will have an impact on a massive group of people. Folks eating at KFC cannot order Coke products and the non-GM cars cannot be allowed on the roads. So, one decision, be it small or big, will undoubtedly show ripple effects on everything around. 

This article just came out yesterday:

http://mashable.com/2010/04/07/digital-economy-bill/  

The bill just went through a Third Reading with little opposition, and still has a way to go before it will become a law.  It will be interesting to see how this is going to affect media in general and the direction it will take.