First of all, Ryan points out that, when it comes to VR, people "are less
concerned with what has been achieved so far than with what will be
available in the very near future." I tend to agree with this (unless it's
the guy trying to get your $5 at some VR arcade in a shopping mall or on a
boardwalk somewhere).
Most of what follows in the article seems to do just that; it relies upon
technology not yet created, or at least not readily available to the public.
Ryan also states that immersion or "the blocking out of the physical world"
(Biocca's definition) "cannot be experienced if the user remains aware of
the physical generator of the data, namely the computer." Consequently, the
computer must eventually be invisible, or at least far enough removed that
the user doesn't know it's there. Can this really happen, after all, a
computer will still be neccessary to register, learn, and respond
accordingly to the senses in the VR world.
As far as the literary theory is concerned, Ryan includes a quote from
Pimentel and Texeira in order to draw a connection between VR and fiction:
"The question isn't whether the created world is as real as the physical
world, but whether the created world is real enough for you to suspend your
disbelief....This is the same mental shift that happens when you get wrapped
up in a good novel...." Just as the reader of a book tends to imagine the
world described and put himself within it, a similar activity takes place in
a virtual world, only you can actually experience the world around you with
your own senses rather than with just your imagination.
Arguements against immersion are also put forth within this text. Immersion
in a virtual world can be viewed as a "passive subjection to the authority
of the world-designer" True VR, however, should be able to learn from and
react to the user within the world. If this is the case, is the above
arguement founded? After all, the user would have the capability to change
objects or characteristics that the world-designer originally created.
This brings us to interactivity--"the power of the user to modify this
environment." Just as in real life, the VR environment, in it's reactions
to users' actions, should be somewhat predictable; after all, we do have
"intent-driven" actions. Pragmatic considerations must be present in VR
just as they are in real life. This being the case, can _anything_ really
happen in VR?
With a work of fiction, Ryan notes that no matter how caught up in the story
you become, there will always be moments when you are reminded that it is
only a literary creation. Yet a book maintains an element of interactivity
similar to hypertext. While in hypertext you can choose your own links and
hence the sequence of the text, readers draw different associations from
particular sections and symbols within novels. Your personal mental
activity makes the book interactive. In a simulative system however,
everything takes place in real time and is a result of the user's actions;
it does not simply display a pre-calculated response.
In comparing immersion and interactivity, Ryan feels that "attempts by
contemporary literature to emulate the interactivity of VR thus involve[s] a
sacrifice of the special pleasure derived from immersion. The more
interactive, the less immersive the text." On the other hand, in the VR
world, immersion and interactivity "do not stand in conflict.... The more
interactive a virtual world, the more immersive the experience."
Do you agree with these assertions? What do you suppose are the main
reasons for this difference?
-- Bob Solfanelli http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~rjs7v solf@virginia.edu"Alcohol is like love. The first kiss is magic, the second is intimate, the third is routine. After that you take the girl's clothes off." --Raymond Chandler