Compare/Contrast - Little Red Riding Hood vs. The Nautilus

Little Red Riding Hood vs. The Nautilus - 41032899

For my compare contrast I’m going to look into the similarities and differences between our virtual environments ‘pick a’ path’ story and the Nautilus project. The Nautilus project is a virtual environment that allows multiple players to interact with each other as well as the game. The idea is to control a submarine with body movements with in the space and complete tasks in the context of an underwater realm. Our project is an individual participation piece that allows the user to navigate through the story which has a number of different paths and outcomes to choose from. The story we’ve chosen is loosely based on the Brothers Grimm story, Little Red Riding Hood.”

The focus of the Nautilus project is to create a game that “involves not only human-computer interaction, but also human-human interaction in the interactive virtual space.” [1] “The players use their natural body movements and interact with each other to control the game” [2]. They can control up or down movement through the realm by either jumping up and down or standing still. They players do not have any role specific positions in the space and the game encourages group participation. An example of a task within the game may include trying to rescue a dolphin in which case, “players move around together in real space in order to navigate where and how fast their virtual underwater vessel moves. [4]


On the other hand, our project is aimed at individuals and immersing them in an interactive space. We’ve chosen to make our space individual so as to make the interaction more personal. The user has total control of which path to take and their reasons why are not questioned; it’s their story to a degree. Control of the pick a’ path interactive environment is through a number of themed pressure sensors. To choose one path over another, the user selects the corresponding buttons. For example, to run away from the wolf, chose option a, to fight the wolf chosen option b.

The multiplayer’s control of the vessel in the Nautilus project is achieved through a series of pressure pads on the floor of the space. "The system is based on 49 pressure-sensitive floor tiles … Each of the floor tiles contains a microcontroller board and four sensors (one at each corner), giving 196 sensors in total.” [1] The information from the sensors is then relayed to a host computer which can then process the data and provide the appropriate responses. Such responses would be the direction and depth of the vessel that the users control.

When it comes to our project, the control the user has over the story is accomplished through a series of sensors that manipulate the interface through the use of an EZIO board. Through the use of themed buttons the user tells the interface which path has been chosen and the interface responds appropriately. The buttons will be themed in the way that they will resemble things which little red riding hood may have on her person or perhaps in the basket. We will also have sensors which detect the user as they enter the space and respond by starting the story.

When it comes to the constraints of the project, one of the major issues with the Nautilus is that of space. To be a multiplayer game, the space would have to be the size of a small room. This may not be possible when it comes to galleries and exhibitions where space is an issue. Secondly, considering that the space is designed for children, noise levels may become an issue depending on where the work is exhibited.

In comparison, some of the same constraints may apply to our virtual environment. Predominately there is the constraint of space as our installation involves rear projection. Additionally to this our installation itself is a two metre cubed space which may be problematic when proposing sites to present the virtual environment. Consistent with the constraints of the Nautilus is that of sound and volume restraints. We plan to have our installation complete with surround sound at increased volume so as to enhance the immersion of people within of the space. This may limit the chances of our environment being accepted into different exhibits.

On a conceptual level the Nautilus is quite different from existing forms of virtual reality gaming. “Conventional virtual reality games try to make the user interface transparent or invisible through the use of head-mounted displays and data gloves.” [1] By using floor sensors I believe they have succeeded in making the interface interaction almost invisible. The outcome is that users are encouraged to focus on the game rather then manipulating the corresponding technology. I believe this enhances the immersion of the users with in the space. Rather then being intimidated by the interface and controls they can interact naturally with the game.

This is somewhat similar to our environment as the modes of interaction are minimal but the outcomes are potentially quite extensive. This means that on a conceptual level the user becomes more involved in consuming the experience rather then being distracted by how they should try and work it. If the user feels they have to learn a new form of interaction to play the game or read the story, immersion and consumption of the environment would be impaired. I think it also makes the experience more personal as the users are thinking more about what they want from the game than how to manipulate the technology to reach there goals.

An important element of the design of the Nautilus project is that the “development work relied heavily on a User-Centred Design (UCD). The scenarios created during the design characterized the players and the desired activities… The methods used in the evaluation were qualitative and included interviews, observation and video recordings” [1]. By including the users in the design stage it is more likely that the design will fall into the level of usability appropriate to the proposed user. In their findings users thought that “controlling a game through one’s body movement and position was ‘new and exhilarating.’ … In addition, playing as a team in an interactive virtual space was found to be engaging, natural and fun.” [3] This boasts that it was “successfully designed for and with the assistance of children.” [4]

As we progress in the design of our proposed virtual environment, it is clear that the advantages to doing user testing are limitless. Once we have a prototype we will endeavor to go through a stage of intensive usability testing. By doing so we hope to achieve an enhanced level of interactivity and uncover unforeseen problems with the design. By getting children who know nothing of the project and of this style of interaction we hope to attain a high level of objective, constructive feedback.

­­In general, on a conceptual level, I believe the two projects are quite similar. They both rely on a reduced level of understanding of computer systems and endeavor to enhance user immersion through the use of ubiquitous computing.


Works Cited

[1] “An Intuitive Game in an Intelligent Ubiquitous Environment”
by Jaana Leikas, Hanna Strömberg, Antti Väätänen and Luc Cluitmans.
(2004) http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw57/leikas.html

[2] “E-Ball: A Hybrid Athletics/Video Game” by Jian Dong (2004)
http://www.ece.ubc.ca/~elec518/previous/hit2004/papers/Dong.pdf

[3] “An Ambient Intelligence Platform for Physical Play” by Ron Wakkary, Marek Hatala, Robb Lovell, Milena Droumeva
http://www.sfu.ca/~rwakkary/papers/p764-wakkary.pdf

[4] The Projected Playscape: Enabling New Play Scenarios with Computer Vision and Non-Structured Rule Sets by Catherine Herdlick
http://a.parsons.edu/~cherdlick/thesis/dec_research.pdf ­­