MINECRAFT VR/3D/3D python programming tutorials

3D and game editors, AI, archaeology, Architecture, design, Virtual Reality, visualisation,

MODELS/TERRAIN

We are looking at creating a projected/tracked 3D environment of Perth and Curtin for Curtin Library’s makerspace using Digital Elevation Models (DEM) from sites like

  1. http://vterrain.org/Locations/au/ e.g. http://www.simmersionholdings.com/customers/stories/city-of-perth.html
  2. Then, import into minecraft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJf2_pQo0dQ
  3. Or from Google Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wha2m4_CPoo

Python

We are looking at creating Python for archaeologists & historians in Minecraft:

Minecraft in a high end game engine and vice versa

Minecraft projection

Minecraft & Oculus & gear

Minecraft in 3D?

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/492117/3d-vision/minecraft-does-minecraft-work-in-3d-/

Game Engines and VR (CryEngine UDK/UE4 Blender & Unity)

3D and game editors, Virtual Reality, visualisation, , , , , ,

CRYENGINE (get it free here)

UnrealEngine4 (get the UDK here)

BLENDER (get it free here)

UNITY (get it free here)

nb Image above Unreal Tournament from downloadable model at http://publicvr.org/

Deep, Thick, Playful Mapping: a Spatial/GeoHumanities Reading List for Beginners

Conference

Thanks for the list!

Visualizing Medieval Places

Some of the participants in my Spatial Humanities and Digital Mapping workshop at the Digital Humanities Institute – Beirut in March 2015 asked for a reading list to begin to learn more about the field.  Since I am interested in literature, the list has a literary slant.  Here goes…

All online materials last consulted: 9 April 2015.  Last update of the bibliography: 15 April 2015.  Feel free to make suggestions!

Alves, Daniel and Ana Isabel Queiroz. “Exploring Literary Landscapes: From Texts to Spatiotemporal Analysis Through Collaborative Work and GIS,” IJHAC 9.1 (2015): 57-73. Web.

Daniels, Stephen and Dydia DeLyser. Envisaging Landscapes and Making Worlds: Geography and the Humanities (London: Routledge, 2011). Print.

Bodenhamer, David J., John Corrigan and Trevor M. Harris. Spatial Humanities: GIS and the Future of Humanities Scholarship (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2010). Print.

—. Deep Maps and Spatial Narratives (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2015). Print.

Dear, Michael, Jim…

View original post 483 more words

Virtual Heritage Models: in Search of Meaningful Infrastructure

Book, infrastructure, virtual heritage, , , ,

Above is title of book chapter being revised/reviewed for Ashgate’s Cultural Heritage Creative Tools and Archives (edited book).

At 7,799 words I hope I am not asked to revise upwards!

Alternative title: Preserving the Heritage Component of Virtual Heritage

Abstract:
Teaching virtual heritage through the careful inspection, contextualization and modification of 3D digital heritage models is still problematic. Models are hard to find, impossible to download and edit, in unusual, unwieldy or obsolete formats, and many are standalone 3D meshes with no accompanying metadata or information on how the data was acquired, how the models can be shared (and if they can be edited), and how accurate the scanning or modeling process was, or the scholarly documents, field reports, photographs and site plans that allowed the designers to extract enough information for their models. Where there are suitable models in standard formats that are available from repositories, such as in Europeana library portal, they are encased in PDF format and cannot be extended, altered or otherwise removed from the PDF. Part of the problem has been with the development of virtual heritage; part of the problem has been with a lack of necessary infrastructure. In this chapter I will suggest another way of looking at virtual heritage, and I will promote the concept of a scholarly ecosystem for virtual heritage where both the media assets involved and the communities (of scholars, shareholders and the general public) are all active participants in the development of digital heritage that is a part of living heritage.

—About 7000 words later —

Conclusion: A New Virtual Heritage Infrastructure

I hope I have been clear about three major points. I have argued that virtual heritage will not successful as digital heritage if it cannot even preserve its own models and it will not be effective if it cannot implement digital technologies great advantages: real-time reconfiguration to suit the learner, device and task at hand; individual personalization; increased sense of agency; automatic tracking and evaluation mechanisms; and filtered community feedback. My suggestion is to implement not so much a single file format but to agree upon a shared relationship between assets. For want of a better word, I have described the overall relationship of components of virtual heritage infrastructure as a scholarly ecosystem.

Secondly, in this new age of digital communication the 3D model must be recognized as a key scholarly resource (Di Benedetto et al., 2014). As a core part of a scholarly ecosystem the model should be traceable, it should link to previous works and to related scholarly information. I suggest that the model should be component-based so that parts can be directly linked and updated. Web models would be dynamically created at runtime. The model should be engaging so extensive playtesting and evaluation is required to ensure it actually does engage its intended audience. As part of a scholarly infrastructure, the 3D model format (and all related data formats) should be easy to find and reliable. It should not require huge files to download or it should at least provide users with enough information to decide whether and what to download. Metadata can also help record the completeness, measurement methodology and accuracy of the models and Linked Open Data can help connect these media assets in a sensible and useful way.

Thirdly, the community of scholars, students and the wider public should be involved and we must endeavour to meaningfully incorporate their understanding, feedback and participation, this is a core requirement of UNESCO World Heritage status. Community involvement is a must for scholars as well and so I suggest that the virtual heritage projects dynamically link to journals and refereed conference papers and to the list of tools and methods that were used in the project. A robust feedback system could help continually improve the system. Other shareholder issues such as varying levels of learning skills, and varying levels of knowledge required or cultural knowledge that needs to be hidden (privacy and ownership issues) should also be incorporated into the project.

Virtual Heritage vs Gamification. Fight!

3D and game editors, archaeology, Conference, digital heritage, game, virtual heritage

I shared on twitter a concern I had about the apparently uncritical acceptance (and especially increasing acceptance) of gamification.

I say apparently as perhaps authors of various publications do have a critical appreciation of the risks and connotations of gamification, but they don’t always share it.

Even though I touched on this in Critical Gaming, I need some percolation time for this but something for me to think about as to my immediate reaction and aversion to this (uncritical use of) gamification is that

  • Gamification ‘sounds’ to my ears like a trivialization of heritage. In my own research if you tell someone a digital archaeology simulation is a game they have less trouble navigating and performing tasks in the simulation but they take less care and have less respect for the cultural significance, authenticity and accuracy of that simulation.
  • Plus there seems to be a hidden or invisible formula: non-games, add gamification fairy dust,….games!
  • For if you search for richer and more defensible definitions of gamification it seems to me these definitions are getting harder and harder to separate from games per se.
  • Gamification implies there is a simple conversion over to games and it is a binary relationship,  there are games or non-games. We need a term that implies some but not all aspects of games have been applied/incorporated/added. Ludification? Unfortunately no, it has a dangerous related meaning! Perhaps something that reflects a Paideia/Ludus scale? Playful learning or play-based learning seems to be the closest fit for me so far..

Luckily I am not alone, thanks to Trevor Owens directing me to his Meanification article and to Shawn Graham for his Gamification article. Gotta love academification.

 

 

“PeerJ can’t possibly last because the numbers don’t add up.”

Conference

But it is predominantly for the sciences I believe?

Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

I had an email out of the blue this morning, from someone I’d not previously corresponded with, asking me an important question about PeerJ. I thought it was worth sharing the question, and its answer, more generally. So here it is.

Do you have any insight into the PeerJ business model? When I try to persuade people to publish in PeerJ, a very common response is that the journal can’t possibly last because the numbers don’t add up.

And indeed PeerJ’s financial model does seem too good to be true: rather than charging an APC of $1350 (as PLOS ONE does) or $3000 (as the legacy publishers do for their not-really-open hybrid articles), PeerJ charges just $99 per author — which buys not just the right to publish one article, but one per year for life. (Or you can pay $300 for the right to publish any number of…

View original post 443 more words

What has pushed me towards Open Access, or at least, more open and scholar friendly publications

infrastructure, Journal, publication, , , , ,

I was asked to help manage a special session of Entertainment Computing on Entertainment in Serious Games and Entertaining Serious Purposes, UTS, Sydney 2014.
Then I was asked to help edit a special issue of Entertainment Computing on Serious Games. I accepted, nice people.
My paper “Entertaining The Similarities And Distinctions Between Serious Games and Virtual Heritage Projects” also went through review (by reviewers unknown) and after some serious defense of my essay which I think is relevant to virtual heritage people in general, it was accepted.
And now today Elsevier the publisher asked me to sign online forms.
This is what dumbfounded me:

Open Access: No, I do not want to publish my article gold open access, and would like my final published article to be immediately available to all subscribers.

I have to sign this and agree to this, OR pay. No alternatives.
I do want my journal article to be open access but as I helped edit the special issue FOR FREE, wrote the article FOR FREE, and have to sign away all my rights to a journal publisher that did nothing except create a huge amount of work for me, I am rather UPSET that I am forced to sign that I DON’T WANT OPEN ACCESS. I do, I JUST DON”T WANT TO PAY FOR IT.

So if you are reading this Elsevier, I suggest you change your dictatorial and deliberately misconstruing forms. I suggest you give people more options AT THE START.

With a profit from 2014 of 955 million pounds ($1.27 billion) and 1.18 billion pounds the year before, I think you can afford to!

It saddens me that there are no established open access journals in my research area of virtual heritage (well, unless the author pays for it).
But I will keep looking.

Publish or Perish?

Academic, Digital Humanities, , , , ,

In Australia the Prime Minister has recently criticized academic publications,  they aren’t value for money as they don’t directly lead to commercial outcomes, patents etc.

Prime Minister Turnbull wants to end the “publish or perish” culture in which academics are pressured to focus on constant publishing rather than producing work with commercial and community benefit.

Does that mean the government will support open access journals or reduce academic funding? Or transfer that money to STEM and business partnerships?

Under Dr Finkel’s proposal, the amount of revenue generated from industry and other users of research would be used to help determine how university research is funded.

I am afraid it will be the latter. While I am a supporter of closer relationships between universities and business – something our Australian Research Council grant system does not adequately address – there is always a need for non-commercial research.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last week told a public forum: “Everyone I talk to thinks that the problem is that academics have got – their incentives are very much associated with publish or perish.”

And if the Prime Minister ever bothered to ask me, I would reply support OPEN ACCESS publications, which are currently not recognized by your Excellence in Research for Australia system!

The problem is more:

  • The reduction of funding to universities even though 20 of our universities are in the top 400 in the world.
  • The Australian government’s lack of funding support for innovation and exchange with the EU’s Horizon 2020!
  • The government reducing funding cuts for research centres and universities (and the government funding to science research hits a 30 year low).
  • The government and university focus on large and time consuming grant applications rather than effective grant applications that are evaluated to ensure they do what they promise and not just say they are new.
  • Grants should be given to people on merit rather than on previous grant success!
  • The government’s determination of national science and research objectives as reliance on pipeline science and technology when
    1. Science is more than just applied manufacturing; it requires critical thinking and fundamental research (not always directly and immediately applied to commercial returns).
    2. International education is Australia’s fourth largest export market.
    3. The Australian coterie of lawyer trained politicians owes its members’ education and subsequent careers to Plato and Aristotle i.e. humanities…
    4. The lack of suitable funding for Australian research infrastructure cripples everyone, scientists and humanities scholars.
    5. Lack of funding into community-based research puts you behind Europe and New Zealand and won’t prepare us for social problems such as potential conflict in the future.

Dramatically and instantly removing funding for publication only further destabilizes the higher education system, creates ruptures between academics here and overseas, and will not encourage academics to come to Australia.

That said, a strategic and thoughtful investigation into research funding and dissemination of results would be most welcome.

OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHERS

Speaking of Open Access here are some of the open access publication schemes NOT recognized by the Excellence in Research for Australia framework:

  1. http://punctumbooks.com/titles/the-digital-humanist/
  2. http://openhumanitiespress.org/plastic-bodies.html
  3. http://www.matteringpress.org/news/first-four-books-will-be
  4. http://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/367/vertical-readings-in-dantes-comedy/54e1823d42b1f797e97bb800dda4b22c

 

Thanks to the Open Humanities twitter feed.

#cfp the ‘Interactive Pasts’ conference

3D and game editors, Conference, digital heritage, Symposium, , ,

http://www.valueproject.nl/media/introducing-the-interactive-pasts-conference/ …

This conference will explore the intersections of archaeology and video games. Its aim is to bring scholars and students from archaeology, history, heritage and museum studies together with game developers and designers. The program will allow for both in-depth treatment of the topic in the form of presentations, open discussion, as well as skill transference and the establishment of new ties between academia and the creative industry.

Due: January 31st 2016.

Abstracts: max. 200 words.

Date: 4-5 April 2016

Location: Leiden The Netherlands

new Journal article in draft

Journal, ,

DiGRA2015 conference are publishing a selection of the full conference papers in their new ToDiGRA journal. They asked me if I would submit my paper below.
I will but first I have to seriously revise it as I published part of it in my Critical Gaming book and as a very DH tailored paper for Digital Humanities Congress, Sheffield 2014.
Any suggestions on what I have missed or what needs improving?

Quite a bit I think! Plus I should probably have been more polemical and addressed more games.

Roleplaying and Rituals For Cultural Heritage-Orientated Games
URL: http://www.digra.org/digital-library/publications/roleplaying-and-rituals-for-cultural-heritage-orientated-games/

Roles and rituals are essential for creating, situating and maintaining cultural practices. Computer Role-Playing games (CRPGs) and virtual online worlds that appear to simulate different cultures are well known and highly popular. So it might appear that the roles and rituals of traditional cultures are easily ported to computer games. However, I contend that the meaning behind worlds, rituals and roles are not fully explored in these digital games and virtual worlds and that more work needs to be done to create more moving rituals, role enrichment and worldfulness. I will provide examples from The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Bethesda, 2006, 2011) to reveal some of the difficulties in creating digitally simulated social and cultural worlds, but I will also suggest some design ideas that could improve them in terms of cultural presence and social presence.

new Journal article: Experiential realism and digital place-making

Journal, ,

This article will be published next month in Metaverse Creativity

Abstract

Despite originating as practical aides for the design of real-world architecture, Computer Aided Design and Draughting (CADD) software tools initially encountered a great deal of resistance, in part because of their initial expense and apparent technical complexity, but also because they were seen as blunt tools, crude instrumentation inadequate for the artistic expression of place. In March 2004, at an informal seminar hosted at the University of Melbourne in Australia, the eminent scholar Professor Marco Frascari argued that computer reconstructions of architecture were far too exact and thus too limited in conveying the mood and atmosphere of architecture. With all due respect to Professor Frascari, this article will argue the converse: that recent developments in interactive technology offer new and exciting ways of conveying ‘lived’ and experientially deepened notions of architectural place-making.

…

Conclusion

While we may have initially praised virtual reality for not being constrained by limitations, the continued success of games based on challenges and thematic constraints have shown us that limitations may be desirable rather than a necessary evil. Technology can create artificial freedom, but it is a shallow type of freedom if there is nothing to escape from. Therefore, embodying and socially embedding a visitor in a virtual world may at first seem more confining than does the liquid freedom proposed over a decade ago for virtually built environments (Novak 1991), but it may actually improve the user experience rather than detract from it.

While clear and cohesive evaluations of why certain places appear to be rich and meaningful may elude us – for how do you test the experience of a city in a laboratory – virtual worlds and other types of digital environments still require places if they are to be memorable, rich experiences and returned to.

Place-making is experiential, the success of organically developed historic towns versus the criticism of modern architecturally designed urban spaces should remind us that uniform design frameworks may look aesthetically pleasing but are not necessarily experientially fulfilling. While architects can create wonderfully evocative and atmospheric sketches, the built environment seldom conveys the spirit of their doodles and visualizations, precisely because the imagination is not required to look past the lines and the dots; the experience is already filled in. Thus, my response to Professor Fascari is not so much a negation of his criticisms as is a request for reflection. To suggest that digital technology cannot be evocative or memorable is to avoid the real issue: how do we digitally design or otherwise afford a sense of place? That said, I do not suggest there is any one concrete and clear definition and prescription of place. I have suggested five aspects of place that my students and I have attempted to evoke in our projects in order to break down the spatial monotony and shallowness of many digital environments. I am sure there are many more aspects of digital place-making to explore.

How to invite a keynote … or Visiting Fellow

Academic, ,

I might be interested in digital media but I am the first to admit talking in person to others is always preferable. I was invited by a Dutch and a European-North African collective a week or two ago myself, but both were hoping I’d be able to fund and organize my way without too much clarity (from my end at least) as to research/publication outputs or funding assistance. I have since cleared this up but it occurred to me that the following steps may help.

Inviting an overseas academic is a tried and true way of not just sharing ideas but also focusing them. Sadly, despite it being a practice at universities for decades if not for centuries, the process is often ill-defined and vague.
So with all the experience of – not very much really apart from organizing a visiting fellowship as a past dean and winning 5 visiting scholar grants at my current university – here are my views for what they are worth on making the process go a little easier.

  • Be clear with how definite your event will be. If it relies on funding I think most academics would prefer being asked anyway with the proviso that they are also informed as to the certainty, key dates, or whether the event depends on them turning up.
  • As for money be clear on funding, for what, and how definite it is and by the second email do advise them if there are tax implications or visa or university visitor requirements.
  • If the event will have a published outcome, tell them! And give details. Perhaps the speaker can suggest publication outlets if you don’t have any. In many universities (well, at least in Australia and New Zealand), a publication will be an added drawcard for both the academic and the head of department or Dean who is typically the person who must agree to sign off on their leave from the University.
  • While the speaker is at your university, you can increase the effectiveness of their visit by asking them to critique or talk to or listen to postgraduates or departmental seminars. You do need to ask them first though as they may need time to recover from a gruelling trip (often plane trips are at the end of the day so it is not just the plane hours that can be taxing. And I have also found that trips with more stops can actually add to stress and tiredness).
  • Listen to their travel requests or suggestions, they are often more experienced about travel from their country to yours than you are, and possibly even your travel agent. On the other hand they won’t know any unique travel requirements and limitations on travel your University travel provider has.
  • If inviting someone from the Southern Hemisphere please remember they probably have a TOTALLY different teaching semester system. In Australia academics typically find it easier to get away mid November to end of February (summer holidays), Easter(4 days around the 3rd week of March), the 2nd and 3rd week of April (mid-semester 1 break) the first two weeks of July (our semester break), the last week of September and the first week of October (mid-semester 2 break).
  • It is vital the invited speaker be informed of any restrictions on their trip especially if they book their own trip! I once nearly got into serious trouble for visiting a conference as part of a semi-funded talk in Germany. The department had funding requirements that the entire trip had to be direct and only for x days. I gave my talk and then was handed the repayment form with this sheet of conditions! It was probably my fault but the whole problem took something like 6-8 months to resolve.

If you are inviting a Visiting Fellow

  • Schedule their visit to the campus so they don’t arrive and there is no one to meet them!
  • They will need to have a clear map and a list of useful names or names of people they will meet is extra helpful.
  • Ensure you know if they require office space, chargers, PC or library access. Always useful to know what sort of computer they are bringing, Mac Air laptop users often forget their connecting gadgets/dongles!
  • If there is a third party co-organising make sure someone is taking responsibly for the above!
  • Let your colleagues know they are visiting, and their research interests/latest projects and publications.
  • If they are a Visiting Fellow ask them for constructive feedback on their invitation and visit so you can improve the process for the next visitor.
  • Take the opportunity to advertise the scheme online and via social media as it is a good way of communicating the research interests of your department or centre and people will keep you in mind when they book their academic leave or etc.
  • Consider, for a Visiting Fellowship, to schedule it near a conference or annual event so they can attend and present at both..

Entertaining The Similarities And Distinctions Between Serious Games and Virtual Heritage Projects

Conference

update:
The article is available online (i.e. Is published)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875952115000324

 
I will have another journal article out in a special issue of Entertainment Computing, entitled “Entertainment in Serious Games and Entertaining Serious Purposes”. I assume it will be out early next year. The special issue is edited by Tim Marsh, Helmut Hlavacs and myself, but I still had to answer to some formidable questions from reviewers to get this one published!

Title: Entertaining The Similarities And Distinctions Between Serious Games and Virtual Heritage Projects

Abstract: This article summarizes past definitions of entertainment, serious games and virtual heritage in order to discuss whether virtual heritage has particular problems not directly addressed by conventional serious games. For virtual heritage, typical game-style entertainment poses particular ethical problems, especially around the simulation of historic violence and the possible trivialization of culturally sensitive and significant material. While virtual heritage can be considered to share some features of serious games, there are significantly different emphases on objectives. Despite these distinctions, virtual heritage projects could still meet serious games-style objectives while entertaining participants.

The overall aim of this article is to determine whether entertainment helps or constrains the primary purposes of virtual heritage projects. My contribution here is to provide reasons for my suggestion that the aims of virtual heritage aims are not primarily the same as those of serious games, and that the aims of the former are even less related to commercial games. The first step of this venture is to re-examine the definition and scope of serious games, then compare the aims of serious games with the main aim of virtual heritage. I conclude with a discussion of whether this aim is at odds to or congruent with the aims of gaming per se.

…

Conclusion

I initially raised the question of whether entertainment helps or constrains the primary purposes of virtual heritage projects. Given the increasing number of literature on serious games and heritage and given the arguments by former proponents in virtual learning environments (Stone, 2005, 2009) that serious games is the future I think it is reasonable to answer in the affirmative.

I have however argued that the aims of virtual heritage are not primarily the same as those of most serious games, and that the aims of the former are even less related to commercial games. I have debated the finer details of various writers on definitions of serious games, although I have focused on a paper from Marsh (2011) as it provided both a clear definition and a good summary of some the major definitional issues in the field. This led me to suggesting a simpler definition of serious games, and to warn that a comprehensive and useful classification system still appears to be a future prospect. Much more immediately practical would be to develop a theory of serious games in relation to specific content, in order to ensure that game design principles are appropriate and best leverage the objectives of the subject domain. So in this instance I investigated the relatively narrow yet still problematic research area of virtual heritage.

I suggested another way of considering serious games and I have applied this new interpretation to virtual heritage, with particular emphasis on aims as stated by UNESCO. I have redefined the oft-quoted notion of virtual heritage, but both my and Stone’s definitions are predicated around the notion that virtual heritage does not merely display heritage objects and sites, but also attempts to convey why preservation of those objects and sites were valuable to the original inhabitants and why they have value to us today.

After briefly reviewing eight major themes and issues (genre baggage, violence, explorative learning, authenticity, privacy, novel entertainment, the evaluation of meaningful learning, and deploying digital heritage assets as part of an open-ended and flexible system), I am drawn to the conclusion that virtual heritage does not aim for the same outcomes as serious games per se, and although all of these issues may also be issues for other types of serious games, these eight issues are of direct importance to virtual heritage. So virtual heritage games may still be serious games (and indeed culture itself includes both entertainment in general and games in particular) but virtual heritage game projects have particular requirements that are not shared with typical serious games.

Secondly, I have argued that although entertainment media poses risks for the primary aim of virtual heritage, it is possible for virtual heritage to be entertaining and still fullfil this primary aim of communicating cultural significance. For virtual heritage games must be both educational and entertaining if they are to captivate, inform, instruct or inspire their intended audience, but they do not need to be obviously entertaining and educational at the same time.

Proposed keynote for INAH talk, December 4 Mexico

3D and game editors, Academic, Conference, digital heritage, , , , ,

The Red Tematica de Tecnologías Digitales para la Difusión del Patrimonio Cultural (Research Network on Digital Technologies for the Dissemination of Cultural Heritage) invited me to Mexico City on December 4 for their conference Human-Computer Interaction, Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Interaction Design), I was asked to talk about the following:

We expect you to deliver a 45 minutes presentation, followed by 15 mins questions. It would be great if you can focus on your concept of interactive history and virtual reality, serious games, etc. The audience is composed by cultural heritage professionals (archaeologists, curators, museum personnel, librarians, etc.).

Does my below abstract sound like it is answering the above? I am not too sure:

Virtual Heritage Projects versus Digital Heritage Infrastructure

In this talk I provide my definition and perspective on Virtual Heritage and an overview of its major problems: obsolete, unreliable or overly expensive technology, a critical lack of evaluation studies, restricted interaction, low-impact pedagogical outcomes and limited community involvement. Despite two decades of research and advancing technological sophistication, the same problems are still evident. This suggests a more serious underlying issue: virtual heritage lacks a scholarly ecology, an overall system and community that provide feedback, management and scalability to virtual heritage research.

For example, in the call for the recent http://www.digitalheritage2015.org/ conference call (“The largest international scientific event on digital heritage”), evaluation is not a central issue, listed under Computer Graphics and Interaction, not under Analysis and Interpretation.  And where is the focus on the user experience or examples of long-term infrastructure with feedback from the community and not just from IT professionals?  Neither archaeologist nor technology expert is necessarily trained in user experience design. The projects described in papers are too often inaccessible and even less frequently preserved and the needs of the projected audience are seldom effectively evaluated.

As an antidote I will present some reflective ideas and methods, plus case studies that resolve or promise to help resolve some if not all of these issues. One way to address the importance of virtual heritage is to redefine it. I suggest virtual heritage is the attempt to convey not just the appearance but also the meaning and significance of cultural artefacts and the associated social agency that designed and used them, through the use of interactive and immersive digital media. As it has been a focus of my research I will also cover the usefulness but also danger of applying game-based design and game-based learning ideas to the development and preservation of Virtual Heritage.

Archaeology and Games-draft article

archaeology, game, Journal, ,

Impressed with Shawn Graham’s decision to blog a draft of his paper I decided to do the same … here is a draft of a more informal paper/article for <name of journal omitted to protect the innocent>, for a special issue/forum on games and archaeology.

Any issues, queries, suggestions, please let me know! Please remember, this is only a draft.

-Erik

Title: Bringing Your A-Game To Digital Archaeology: Why Serious Games And Virtual Heritage Have Let The Side Down And What We Can Do About It

Author: Ear Zow Digital

Wandering around museums or visiting art galleries and school fairs a relatively impartial observer might notice the paucity of interactive historical exhibitions. In particular there is a disconnect between serious games masquerading as entertainment and the aims and motivations of archaeology. Surely this is resolved by virtual heritage projects (Virtual Reality applied to cultural heritage) and interactive virtual learning environments? After all we have therapy games, flight simulators, online role-playing games, even games involving archaeological site inspections. Unfortunately we have few successful case studies that are shareable, robust and clearly delivering learning outcomes.

Early virtual heritage environments were low resolution, unreliable or required specialist equipment, with limited interaction. Games were and still are far more interactive and are arguably the most successful form of virtual environment, so it would seem to be a masterstroke to use game engines for virtual heritage.

Why have games succeeded where virtual reality has failed? In terms of consumer technology there is virtually no competition. Games are typically highly polished, focused products. Large and loyal audiences follow them and if they allow modding (modification of their content) then the community of fans will produce an enviable amount of content, useful feedback and grassroots marketing for the game companies. Virtual reality companies don’t have the loyal audience base, the dedicated and copyrighted content and technology pipeline, or the free advertising.

Game consoles are now the entertainment centers of so many living rooms, the game consoles and related games can last and be viable for ten years or more and in many countries the game industry makes more money than the film industry. Virtual Reality, by contrast, seems to move from hype cycle to hype cycle. The recent media blitz of head mounted displays is exciting and no doubt I will also buy one, but just like the earlier pretenders the technology has great promise but the inspiring long-term content only appears to exist in videos and artists’ impressions.

As interactive entertainment most computer games follow obvious genres and feature affordances (well-known themes, rewards and feedback on performance), they challenge people to find out more rather than telling them everything (a sometimes annoying and overloading aspect of virtual environments) and in most games learning through failure is acceptable (and required). And here lies another advantage for games over virtual environments: games offer procedural knowledge rather than the descriptive and prescriptive knowledge) found in virtual learning environments.

Most definitions and explanations of games include the following three features: a game has some goal in mind that the player works to achieve; systematic or emergent rules; and is considered a form of play or competition. Above all else, games are possibility spaces, they offer different ways of approaching the same problems and because they are played in the “magical circle” failure does not lead to actual harm, which allows people to test out new strategies. That is why, unlike other academics, I don’t view a game as primarily a rules-based system. I think of a game as an engaging (not frustrating) challenge that offers up the possibility of temporary or permanent tactical resolution without harmful outcomes to the real world situation of the participant.

Despite the comparative success of computer games, successful serious games and education-focused virtual heritage games are few and far between. The following preconceptions about games (and game-based learning) could explain why more interactive and game-like heritage environments have not emerged as both engaging entertainment and as successful educational applications.

The first and I think most common preconception of games is that they are puerile wastes of time. For an academic argument against this view, any publication on game-based learning by James Gee will provide some interesting insights, while Steve Johnson in Everything Bad is Good for You writes in a similar if humorous way on how games help hone skills.

Many critics believe games are only for children. Such a view would conveniently ignore the adult enjoyment of sports, but it also neglects the question of how we learn about culture. In the vast majority of societies around the world people learn about culture as children through play, games and roleplaying. Games are also an integral method for transmitting cultural mores and social knowledge. In “The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (http://w hc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/) UNESCO specifically state they may provide assistance for informational material such as multimedia to promote the Convention and World Heritage “especially for young people.”

A related criticism of computer games is that they are only about fantasy. While it is true that some human computer interaction (HCI) experts see fantasy as a key component of games, fantasy is also a popular component of literature and fantasy provides a series of perceived affordances, the player is asked to let their imagination fill in the gaps. So perhaps thematic imagination is a more appropriate term. Fantasy creates imaginative affordances, we have a greater idea of what to expect and how to behave when we see fantasy genres and we are more willing to suspend disbelief. Fantasy helps induce narrative coherence and is a feasible vehicle to convey mythology connected to archaeology sites.

Games are not only about fantasy for many are also highly dependent on simulating violence. Yet some of the biggest selling games are not violent, for example Minecraft, Mario and the Sims series: the Sims. A more serious problem for my research has been when the real-world historical context to simulate is itself both horrific and hard to grasp. My objection to violent computer games is not so much that they simulate violence but that they don’t provide situations for the player to question the ubiquitous and gratuitous use of violence. Be definition computer games are good at computing options quickly so it is easier to cater for reflex-based challenges, stopping the player from thinking, from having time to reflect, but challenging them to both move and aim (coordinate) at the same time. And when mainstream game interaction is applied to virtual heritage and digital archaeology, the information learnt is not meaningful or clearly applicable to the real world and the skills developed are not easily transferrable.

Marshall McLuhan apparently once said “Anyone who thinks there is a difference between education and entertainment doesn’t know the first thing about either.” I have not found the origin for this quote but this saying is popular for a reason: many automatically assume entertainment is not educational or that to be meaningful, education cannot be entertaining. In the area of history this is a very worrying point, a recent survey of the American public found that while they were charmed and inspired by the word “past”, the word “history” reminded them of a school-time subject that they dreaded (Rosenzweig and Thelen, 2000).

Gamification could be the commercial savior for many educational designers but it has many critics. Fuchs ( 2013) explained gamification as the use of game-based rules structures and interfaces by corporations “to manage and control brand-communities and to create value”, this definition reveals both the attraction of gamification to business and the derision it has received from game designers and academics.

A more technical objection to using games for digital archaeology projects is that they can only provide low-resolution quality for images, movies and real-time interaction. With all due respect, game engines (such as Crysis and Unreal 4) and archaeological environments created in game engines (such as http://www.westergrenart.com/ or http://www.byzantium1200.com/) would challenge many CADD (computer-aided design and drafting) showcases. In 2015 the Guardian newspaper released an article declaring we are entering the era of photorealistic rendering (Stuart, 2015). Autodesk (the company behind the biggest CADD programs) have recognized the threat and now sell their own game engine. Even if CADD did produce higher-resolution and more accurate 3D models, what advantage would this offer over game-based real-time interactive environments where the general public is free to explore?

The last preconception or rather I should say concern about games is that they are not suitable for preservation due to software and hardware obsolescence. Game-based virtual heritage environments are not great as digital heritage, the technology does not last and the content is not maintained and updated. I agree this is a major problem, but the problem is more a lack of suitably maintained infrastructure than technology. In terms of usability research, there are very few surveys and tangible results that have helped improve the field but the biggest issue is preservation of the research data and 3D models. We still lack a systematic pipeline featuring open source software, a well-organized online archive of 3D models in a robust open format, globally accepted metadata and a community who reviews, critiques, augments and maintains suitable content.

Definitions vary but virtual heritage is not an effective communication medium and is certainly not a great exponent of digital heritage. Many of the great virtual heritage showcases such as Rome Reborn, or Beyond Space and Time (IBM) have been taken offline, use proprietary software, or have simply disappeared due to a lack of long-term maintenance. So there are very few existing exemplars and accessible showcases to learn from, (CINECA’s Blender pipeline: https://www.blendernetwork.org/cineca is an exception to the rule).

Many game engines can now export to a variety of 3D formats and run across a variety of platforms and devices. They can export VRML and now also WebGL so interactive 3D models can run in an Internet browser without requiring the end user to download a web-based plugin. Some game engines can dynamically import media assets at runtime; others can run off a database.

UNESCO recently accepted my proposal to build a chair in cultural heritage and visualization to look at these issues from an Australian perspective. We intend to survey and collate existing world heritage models, unify the metadata schemas, determine the best and most robust 3D format for online archives and web-based displays, provide training material on free open source software such as Blender and demonstrate ways to link 3D models and subcomponents to relevant online resources.

Conclusion: Archaeologists and Games Do Not Mix?

Archaeologists and suitable games could mix if games existed that leverage game mechanics to help teach archaeological methods, approaches and interpretations. As far as I know, archaeologists don’t have easy to translate mechanics for their process of discovery and understanding that we can transform into game mechanics to engage and educate the public with the methods and approaches of archaeology and heritage studies. And yet virtual heritage environments should be interactive because data changes and technologies change. Interaction can provide for different types of learning preferences and interaction will draw in the younger generations.

My solution is to suggest that rather than concentrate on the technology archaeologists should focus on the expected audience. What do we want to show with digital technology, for what purpose, for which audience and how will we know when we have succeeded?

References

Fuchs, M. 2013. CfP: Rethinking Gamification Workshop [Online]. Germany: Art and Civic Media Lab at the Centre for Digital Cultures, Leuphana University Germany. Available: http://projects.digital-cultures.net/gamification/2013/02/07/118/ [Accessed 15 October 2015].

Rosenzweig, R. & Thelen, D. 2000. The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life, New York, Columbia University Press.

Stuart, K. 2015. Photorealism – the future of video game visuals. The Guardian [Online]. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/12/future-of-video-gaming-visuals-nvidia-rendering [Accessed 31 October 2015].

upcoming article for MIT Presence (2015? 2016?)

Academic, AI, digital heritage, Journal, publication, ,

This article may provoke some responses..

Title:
Defining Cultural Agents for Virtual Heritage Environments

For:
Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments-Special Issue on “Immersive and Living Virtual Heritage: Agents and Enhanced Environments”

Keywords:
Cultural agents, virtual heritage, computational archaeology, visualization, virtual environments, immersion.

Abstract
This article describes the primary ways in which intelligent agents have been employed in virtual heritage projects and explains how the special requirements of virtual heritage environments necessitate the development of cultural agents. How do we distinguish between social agents and cultural agents? Can cultural agents meet these specific heritage objectives?

Introduction
As the call to papers for this special issue has noted, “Most heritage applications lacked a sense of immersion in terms of ‘livingness’, life, behaviour and intelligent agents in the virtual environments, and there has not been any progression in such developments since a decade ago. This criticism of “lifeless” and “sterile” digital environments (and virtual heritage environments in particular) is shared by various scholars (Papagiannakis et al., 2002; Roussou, 2008) but a simple directive to ‘populate’ a virtual environment with intelligent agents masquerading as walk-on characters will not necessarily communicate cultural significance (Bogdanovych, Rodriguez, Simoff, & Cohen, 2009). And communicating cultural significance is an objective of virtual heritage environments even if it is not a requirement of all virtual environments.

…

Summary
Virtual heritage environments have special needs that create more criteria than those required by mainstream digital environments and too many agent-virtual heritage projects have not communicated the significance and value of the heritage content) due to their focus on perfecting the technology. In their attempt to create more engagement, virtual environment researchers and designers have conflated social presence with cultural presence (Champion, 2005, 2011; Flynn, 2007). A solution is to develop agents who help interpret cultural cues and transmit to the human participant a sense of situated cultural presence and an awareness through place-specific and time-specific interaction of the cultural local significance of the simulated sites, artefacts and events. Such agents would be cultural agents, not merely social agents, as they would convey accummulated and place-specific cultural knowledge that would outlast or extend beyond their own individual ‘lives’

.

Virtual Heritage Metadata

3D and game editors, digital heritage, Digital Humanities, infrastructure,

Metadata

Are there recent advancements and agreements in the design use and sharing of metadata for Virtual Heritage? Recent modifications of CIDOC-CRM and Dublin Core particularly for 3D Heritage Models would be appreciated. CARARE version 2 is pubically available and there are various papers on the topic but I have not found any large-scale agreement and deployment of any scheme that focuses on 3D Virtual Heritage.

Because in 2007 and 2011, Laia Tost and I suggested virtual heritage projects should be based on: care, accuracy, sensitivity, effective and inspirational pedagogical features, is collaborative and evaluation-orientated. Extrapolating from these aims, I suggest the following features are desirable for designing 3D virtual heritage models or developing an infrastructure that can support virtual heritage models for the purpose of classroom teaching and public dissemination:

  1. Data accuracy: the level of accuracy and type of data capture method should be associated with the model, as well as the geographical location.
  2. Format limitations: any known limitations or required conditions due to the digital format or way in which the data was created, should also be associated with the model.
  3. Provenance: the record of ownership and scholarship and community input should be recorded and accessible (the source and the ownership rights).
  4. Community protocols: social, cultural and institutional protocols that guide who accesses the sourced cultural heritage and how that should affect the transmission, distribution and dissemination of the digitally simulated model.
  5. Authenticity: the known, extrapolated, omitted, simplified and imagined areas and components of the model should be identified in some form of thematic (and preferably standardised) schema.
  6. Cultural presence: models should aim towards explaining the cultural significance of the original site, and give an impression of the situated cultural value of the place as experienced by the original inhabitants.
  7. Evaluation Data: these aims should be clearly explained and any evaluation data of participants should be linked to (or otherwise associated with) the models.
  8. Purpose: the generic ways in which original creators and shareholders intended the models could be edited or otherwise modified should be described.

The first three considerations (and possibly all of the others, especially 5: Authenticity) require the careful and appropriate use of metadata.As Wise and Miller (1997) have noted, metadata (‘data about data’), allows users to be informed without having to access the entire body of data, it helps us find information and it helps us to group and link ‘bodies of information’ together. In 2008, Addison proposed the following virtual heritage metadata:

Type#Data Encoding/Format
Whati.HeritageID (a superset of existing WorldHeritageID)
 Ii.Title/brief description
 IiiHeritage Type/Classification (e.g.: cultural: archaeological …)
 iv.Heritage Time Period (e.g.: geologic or historic time)
 v.Heritage Time Span
Whyvi.Purpose (reason recorded/produced)
Howvii.Recording Device Parameters (type, sample rate, precision …)
 viii.Secondary Device(s) (data manipulation)
 ix.Environmental conditions
Whomx.Submitter and Date of Submission
 xi.Rights given/withheld
 xii.Author/Copyright Holder
 xiii.Sponsor/Funder/Client
Whenxiv.Date (of recording, manipulation)
Wherexv.Location (Latitude/Longitude + compass direction if applicable)

References

ADDISON, A. 2008. The Vanishing Virtual. In: KALAY, Y. E., KVAN, T. & AFFLECK, J. (eds.) New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage. Oxon UK: Routledge.

BENNETT, M. J. 2015. Presentation on Evaluating the Creation and Preservation Challenges of Photogrammetry-based 3D Models.

KULASEKARAN, S., TRELOGAN, J., ESTEVA, M. & JOHNSON, M. Metadata integration for an archaeology collection architecture. Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, 2014. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, 53-63.

REINHARD, A. 2013. Publishing Archaeological Linked Open Data: From Steampunk to Sustainability [Online]. Available: http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/7/reinhard/ [Accessed 23 7].

TOST, L. P. & CHAMPION, E. 2011. Evaluating Presence in Cultural Heritage Projects. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18, 83-102.

WISE, A. & MILLER, P. 1997. WHY METADATA MATTERS IN ARCHAEOLOGY. Internet Archaeology, Online.