Category: Media Design

Social Media 

Nonetheless, scientists have increasingly been engaging in science communication, together with universities, being pressured by the demand for „accountability“. 

Among scientists, the need for media attention and gaining visibility has created a competitive field, increasing the risk for tainting scientific knowledge with an underlying motive of gaining the attention of as many persons as possible. Some scientists have achieved a status as „visible scientists“ by actively engaging in popularization in order to increase their public visibility, however, this popularity is often not just owed to the fact that they have made particularly fascinating discoveries, but is also due to assuming controversial positions or being flamboyant in their status as a public figure. 

When looking at individual scientists, it is especially difficult to distinguish between their motives when it comes to science communication, as it is hard to recognize whether their goal is genuine communication to the public or self-promotion. 

Social media has proven to be a powerful tool to do both of these things simultaneously – performance indicators can be summed up in numbers enable comparability across the disciplinary boundaries, enhancing social media usage following this principle of quantified reputation. There has also been a noteworthy increase of the potential reach that can be achieved through the internet and altmetrics which can be controlled through quantitative indicators have been expanded. The motives of self-promotion merges perfectly with the demand for democratization, as platforms such as YouTube, Blogs, or Facebook are propagated as tools for direct communication that is not influenced by any intermediate gatekeepers, thus suggesting that scientists can genuinely communicate eye to eye with the public. What is not taken into account, however, is whether the appropriate audience is reached within the undifferentiated public. Furthermore, it must also be questioned whether social media communication offers content of sufficient quality and credibility as does communication through traditional mass media outlets. Also, there is a widespread uncritical usage of social media in the age of data capitalism which follows political and the advertising industry’s interest.

Social media communication is on the rise, with many scientists, institutes, and universities performing science communication through these channels.  Understandably so, as it offers opportunities and can be beneficial, however, it is necessary to keep some factors in mind. Major social media platforms are heavily dependent on income via advertisement fees. Of course, the advertisement industry is also present in other mass media tools, particularly newspapers, however, there is one significant difference, as journalists can operate independently next to the mass of advertisers. Social media operates on algorithms that seemingly optimize and personalize the contents for the user, which in turn means that communication is selected based on user preference. Social media communication tends to follow major opinions, creating spaces where users encounter content that reinforce their opinions and beliefs. A principle, that counters the actual intention of science communication, which is supposed to be informative, share new developments and foster critical thinking within the recipients. 

Social media platforms, however, are not neutral, as, for example, an incident with Facebook has shown where they indirectly admitted to actively influencing the „trending news“ part.

The lack of quality control on social media is a factor that definitely needs to be considered, especially seeing as the access to the medium is essentially unlimited. So, how much trust can be put into the mediums and channels?

It is certainly something to keep in mind, since social media is an important source for scientific knowledge. An important factor here is to make sure that the source of the knowledge is made known and can be considered credible. As scientists make more use of social media to share their progress, they are usually aware of the sources of the shared information. Therefore, to ensure successful, truthful science communication through these channels, it is essential to secure the credibility of communication and have a trustworthy communicator.

Source: Weingart, P. and Guenther, L. (2016). ‘Science communication and the issue of trust’. JCOM 15 (05), C01.
https://jcom.sissa.it/article/pubid/JCOM_1505_2016_C01/

https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050301

Discussion 

If scientists wish to be effective when it comes to communicating, they need to understand the beliefs of the relevant interest groups, businesses, policy makers, and other stakeholders in discussions that are in need of scientific expertise. 

Communicating ineffectively can be detrimental to both science and society. Science depends on the support of the public, requiring the people’s values and trust in science. Properly learning how to communicate is therefore invaluable, as it can help scientists to understand and address the questions their audiences are asking.

Source: The Science of Science Communication, S.465 https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.1312080110

Personal Conclusion

While the upper paragraphs are heavily focused on some of the challenges and even dangers that arise through methods of science communication, the author of this paper still believes that the newly arising channels are of great importance to the society, as there also lies so much potential in them, especially when it comes to the possibility of accessing knowledge, obtaining information with easy access, and enabling a public discourse, only to name a few. Still, the arising issues are something that need to be communicated too, as awareness when it comes to these factors will help the consumer to distinguish credible sources from non-credible ones at least to some extent. Communicating neutrally is, for sure, an immense challenge, and especially when one is working towards a cause or representing an institution, one will lean toward communicating findings in a way that benefits them in some way – be it in order to gauge a certain reaction, to strengthen an image, to secure funding, or to increase visibility. It is this author’s opinion that communicators should work on assuming more neutral and objective positions, and to be aware of the responsibility they carry when they communicate scientific knowledge to a broad public.

But also the general public has an obligation, which is to not lose their capability of critical thinking and to take on the responsibility of concerning and informing themselves properly and in-depth in order to make informed decisions.

The public needs to be aware and educated on these underlying critical topics, as they are undeniably influencing how, when and why we are being presented with certain information, and that may not be an easy task, as it has become easy to get comfortable with being fed information without even having to search for it. This, however, lacks conscious differentiation between credible and non-credible sources and puts one in danger of consuming content within a bubble that does not consider information outside of it. Sharing and obtaining knowledge requires effort from both sides – the scientific community and the general public.

In light of all challenges that come with connecting science and society, it is of great importance that scientists realize their ethical obligation to produce intelligible, factual information and to inform the public about relevant findings and research results. This should allow the public to make informed decisions based on science-based, reliable data and facts. Therefore, communication in the field has to be adequate in its form in order for people to be able to use the information that is being provided. To achieve this, universities and colleges need to better train scientists in the field of communicating their research to the public. Academics, policy makers and scientists have to come up with creative ways for effective media communication, building a collaborative environment between society and science.

Quelle: The Power of Science Communication, Jucan 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814050010

With the responsibility of the field of science communication comes much food for thought, especially with nowadays’ boom of science communication. 

The following paragraphs will explore some of the challenges that have been arising with it in a couple of different fields. 

Public Relations (PR)

Another challenge is the pressure on universities and research centers to perform in order to legitimize science funding in the eye of „public accountability“. Science is nowadays expected to be presented to the public, and these expectations have led to the original meaning of science communication (the reporting of research relevant to either practical issues and/or of educational pertinence) being sidetracked by the fixation on attention. Organizations tend to work in a „push-communication“ mode, communicating findings to the undifferentiated public. While this counts as science communication, since PR and press professionals take over some of the communication of the knowledge from their institution’s scientists (as institutions often employ PR specialists for controlling communication to the outside), this practice inevitably leads to science communication being influenced by the need to achieve certain purposes, such as building an image, branding, or marketing, resulting in a conflation of science communication with institutional propaganda.

Research centers and universities have been expanding their PR and press departments, creating another stakeholder group engaged  in science communication (PR specialists and press officers) which is engaged specifically in academic institutional communication. Some institutions’ communication to the public has been taken over entirely by press officers, which in turn implies that PR is the superior method of science communication, and following the assumption that scientists themselves are not sufficiently capable to communicate with the public on an appropriate level and to leave this to communication professionals. If that would be the general practice, PR professionals would be taking over science communication to the general public and taking it away from the scientists themselves, as the public is thought to be receptive only to PR communication. 

Source: Weingart, P. and Guenther, L. (2016). ‘Science communication and the issue of trust’. JCOM 15 (05), C01.
https://jcom.sissa.it/article/pubid/JCOM_1505_2016_C01/

https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050301

Press work

Media communication is a key factor and press professionals carry the responsibility of supplying the public with information. Depending on how well this work is done, it can either have a positive influence and prevent damage, or it itself can be the cause of damage. In order to better understand the challenges, this paragraph will focus on an example concerned with public health emergencies. According to the WHO, press work done in such emergency situations needs to be able to improve knowledge and understanding of the situation and actively framing a story before others can do so, establish an institution as the main source of expertise, to prevent rumors and misinformation, and gain support for certain endeavors. Issues can arise when, for example, long lasting events such as the pandemic influenza in Germany lead to official sources not providing information  at times, causing periods of time that are low in news. Such „empty spaces“ can be troublesome, as they tend to be filled with unofficial, misinformed and potentially damaging sources if official sources do not communicate. 

On the other hand, however, sharing too much active information is also not always perceived well, as having a constant presence of an issue present in media outlets can lead to uncertainty within the public. 

It is of great importance to communicate expert opinions that are reliable, and to decide very carefully, what should and has to be communicated to the public. Media outlets are multipliers, often defining the level of the public’s information. Information material that is created for media professionals, for example press releases, assessments of the situation or responses on frequently asked questions are often also being used by citizens and the professional public / expert audiences if they are available online. Often, press material is also the foundation for creating citizen information, and influence also the language used in such measures. Therefore, it needs to be recognized that there is a lot of responsibility falling to press and media professionals, especially when it comes to communicating swiftly.

Quelle: Sind wir gefährdet? Krisenkommunikation für ein Bundesinstitut auf dem Gebiet des Gesundheitsschutzes / Susanne Glasmacher

Introduction

Society is in need of science in order to achieve economic, political, and social success. At the same time, science lives off the talents, freedom, and the resources made available by the society. Especially in time of crisis such as epidemics, financial crisis, new medicinal information or earthquakes, it is essential to have scientifically based voices be heard and to do so via professional communication – as the risk of having topics not adequately represented in the public, and with that losing their resources, trust and relevance, is rising with each day that they are not communicated well or at all.  

In order to be effective, a lot of responsibility actually falls to the researchers themselves when it comes to communicating their findings. Ideally, scientists should not only present their respective findings, but also be prepared to take the public’s needs and views into consideration. 

Source: The Power of Science Communication, Jucan 2014

Overall, it can be said that science communication relies heavily on trust – and that goes for both internal and public/external science communication. The recipients of the knowledge need to trust the source itself but also in the chosen medium that is used to communicate the knowledge. 

Source: Weingart, P. and Guenther, L. (2016). ‘Science communication and the issue of trust’. JCOM 15 (05), C01.
https://jcom.sissa.it/article/pubid/JCOM_1505_2016_C01/

https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050301

Development & Challenges  

Over the last decades, science communication has transformed into its own industry. The historical roots of its popularization lie in the 19th century, where science started to become so specialized that it needed to be „translated“ for interested parties of the general public, a public that was fascinated by the knowledge science offered, sharing the devotion to generating knowledge for the common good. These popularizers are assumed to have been trusted just as much as science itself. 

Nowadays, however, we find ourselves in an entirely different state, no longer profiting as much from scientists, science journalists or professional popularizers who are engaged in relaying information to the public about new discoveries in research and their wider indications and significance for society. Rather, science communication has turned into an arena with various stakeholders battling for attention, seeking the power of definition due to the fact that money is an important factor in the game. Even the term „science communication“ itself has been subject to being battled for in its definition and multiple definitions of it have emerged.

Tools used for it cover an immense range, reaching from science journalism over social media, PR, museum exhibitions, social events, science centers, and much more.

This boom in the field of science communication is thought to have multiple interrelated causes. One of these causes would be the push for democratization of science. An element of this democratization would be the „engagement with the public“, a term that suggests scientists now reaching out to communicate with the common public. The demand for such outreach by scientists to communicate as much as possible with people has been increasing, attaining tremendous popularity as it is appealing to supporters of the principle of democratization and, at the same time, valuable for institutional PR (aimed at reaching as many people as possible) and political legitimation strategies (which strive for a voter majority).

Now, in principle, science is seen as the ultimate reference when it comes to reliable knowledge. Issues, however, arise, when communication of scientific contents is thought to be influenced by interests or tainted with persuasive communication methods, creating an atmosphere where people are suspicious of bias. If an average person comes to doubt the communicated contents, they are no longer able to rely on it and therefore unable to make informed decisions. As an example, if information shared about the benefits and risks of vaccination is no longer relied upon by the public, people will tend to rely on speculation or faith rather than actual knowledge. This leads us to one big challenge in the field of science communication, as with it comes a large responsibility: science communication is an extremely important link between the actual scientific knowledge and the public. How credible science itself is perceived is actually depending massively on the communication of it. 

There is an abundance of sources that supplies people with scientific information (e.g. science PR, scientists, science journalists) through different media / channels such as TV, social media, or newspapers. Now one has to remember that there are multiple actors involved in communicating science and it is assumed that these may have own underlying  interests in their ways of communication – be it generating interest in the hopes that controversial technological projects are more widely accepted, ensuring legitimacy for expenditure, or politically motivated propagandistic communication. Cases like these also identify some significant groups of stakeholders: on the one hand, there are government officials and administrators, on the other hand, we have event management firms that employ specialists in marketing or exhibition. 

Source: Weingart, P. and Guenther, L. (2016). ‘Science communication and the issue of trust’. JCOM 15 (05), C01.
https://jcom.sissa.it/article/pubid/JCOM_1505_2016_C01/

https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050301

The following blogpost will be focused on the dissemination of the article Will Podcasting and Social Media Replace Journals and Traditional Science Communication? No, but . . ., which was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, as it offers valuable insights into science communication that makes use of new media as a means for conveying scientific knowledge.

The digital world we find ourselves in these days is a rapidly changing landscape, with the emergence of new developments and platforms constantly redefining our ways of communication. There is a vast offer of platforms to use, with new ones continuously being added. The relevance of these tools in science communication has been increasing, offering a large-scale audience content that was previously mainly accessible within the scientific community.

The authors recognize great potential in new media usage in order to build on knowledge translation and education, as digital media can often be openly accessed and therefore more useful in reaching larger and more diverse target groups, including scientists, trainees, and the lay public than traditional forms of science communication. 

Blogging emerged as one of the first forums to relay scientific information apart from traditional channels such as scientific journals. But the digital landscape is vast and new platforms are emerging continuously. 

Looking at the topic of epidemiology, for instance, the coronavirus epidemic sparked substantial interest from the public, thus platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Twitter (now X) or Facebook, as merely an internet connection is needed to access social media platforms and their contents, while few people have access or subscriptions to scientific journals.

Twitter, for instance, offered many ways that could be used for engaging with and disseminating scientific content. 

A widely used approach was making use of the so called „tweetorial“, which are series of tweets that provide short tutorials for certain subjects. A tweet could be 280 characters long and be accessed openly. Tweetorials are therefore a lot shorter than a conventional manuscript, as the character limit forces the authors to focus on simpler language to get the information across within this limited space. 

While a medium like that is maybe more suitable for big-picture explanations and not necessarily conducive for details study descriptions and analysis, it could be a valuable supplement to traditional approaches rather than a replacement.

Another way Twitter was utilized in order to disseminate research was the live-tweeting of, for example, seminars scientific conferences, making some of the content available for people who could not attend the events. Live-tweeting means the posting of a series of tweets about a presentation’s content in realtime, often including a shared hashtag.

A completely different approach to sharing scientific information with the public is the usage of podcasting to do so. Podcasts are recorded audios disseminated via the internet and can be replayed through browsers or in a podcast application. A lot of these podcasts are freely accessible and can be subscribed to by individuals. 

As download and offline options have emerged, offline usage presents no issue to the listener, making podcasts a popular medium, for instance while commuting, traveling, exercise or walks. 

Podcasting enables researchers to explain study results to a more diverse and larger audience than traditional methods and cover a vast number of topics across numerous disciplines such as basic science, public health, or clinical medicine. The number of listeners varies, with some podcasts reaching niche audiences, while others are being listened to by hundreds of thousands of people. 

Now, while these and other formats of science communication are rising in relevance, also the question as to why these new media are gaining influence in this field can be posed. The authors of this article assume that 2 of the biggest reasons for this occurrence: user cost and convenience. While conferences require fees and traveling costs, journals require costly subscriptions, and the contents of academic talks are frequently limited to those in personal attendance, new media formats are available at any point in time, with easy access to information. People often make use of this in „found-time“, which mans the time in between activities, for instance during travel. Free platforms are therefore highly effective when it comes to science communication and have the potential to reach larger audiences than traditional channels. 

Furthermore, new media has been contributing to the democratization of expertise, and also access to experts. International correspondence poses no issue through the worldwide availability of online platforms, allowing for engaging with experts, learning from professionals, or diversifying the field, also offering a platform for previously marginalized or excluded voices. 

The authors describe a use case for the field of epidemiology, which can surely be considered for most fields of science topics. Curricula can be expanded and made to include new media. This enables the supplementation of traditional contents via podcasts, YouTube video talks, online course lectures or tweetorials, for instance. As much of this content is available for free, it is easier to integrate into classes, as students do not have to worry about extra expenses, as would be the case with journal articles or textbooks. Also, independent student engagement in expert online discussions on relevant topics is possible with little effort. New media can further the facilitation of non-traditional paths into the respective fields, as information can be shared with those who are not up to date in the area, supplying them with current expertise and conversations. 

The commentary concludes that new media might not (especially in the near future) replace traditional methods of science communication, instead they are adding to them, augmenting, influencing, and improving traditional media. Social media is continuously finding places within the scientific community and offers great potential for future endeavors. Many journals, academic institutions, and conferences already make use of new online technologies, impacting the future of science communication significantly. 

This blog post is largely concerned with the more positive potentials of new media  science communication and will be continued in the next post with the challenges and risks that arise through its usage.

Quelle: 

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/190/8/1625/6292357#google_vignette

In a world increasingly attuned to environmental concerns, media consumption often escapes critical scrutiny regarding its ecological footprint. Nadia Bozak’s book, The Cinematic Footprint: Lights, Camera, Natural Resources, bridges this gap by investigating the film industry’s dependence on natural resources and its environmental ramifications. This blog post explores the core themes of Bozak’s work, shedding light on the hidden environmental costs of cinematic production and consumption.

The Hydrocarbon Imagination: Cinema’s Fossil Fuel Dependency

Bozak introduces the concept of the hydrocarbon imagination, a framework that underscores cinema’s reliance on fossil fuels. From celluloid film production, which traditionally used petroleum-based materials, to the energy-intensive processes of digital streaming, Bozak reveals how deeply embedded fossil fuels are in the creation and delivery of moving images. She argues that cinema, much like industrial society, has evolved in tandem with the exploitation of hydrocarbons, making the medium an unintentional yet significant contributor to environmental degradation.

Materiality of the Moving Image: A Hidden Environmental Cost

The romanticized notion of film as an ephemeral art form often obscures its material underpinnings. Bozak meticulously dissects the physical components involved in filmmaking—from raw materials used in celluloid and digital hardware to the energy expended during production, distribution, and exhibition. Through historical analysis, she illustrates how even the shift to digital technology has not absolved the industry of ecological impact; instead, it has merely transferred resource consumption to data centers and electronic waste streams.

Cinematic Case Studies: Filmmakers Engaging with Environmental Themes

Bozak anchors her arguments through case studies of filmmakers who consciously address environmental concerns. Directors like Dziga Vertov, Chris Marker, and James Benning emerge as pioneers who not only explore ecological themes but also experiment with sustainable practices in their craft. For instance, Benning’s minimalist aesthetic in landscape films showcases nature’s fragility, encouraging audiences to reflect on their environmental responsibilities.

Digital Media: An Illusion of Greener Alternatives?

The transition from analog to digital has often been touted as an eco-friendly evolution. Bozak challenges this assumption by highlighting the substantial energy consumption associated with streaming services and data storage. She cites the extensive carbon footprint of server farms, which are essential for cloud-based platforms like Netflix and YouTube. This digital infrastructure, she argues, perpetuates a cycle of energy consumption that remains largely invisible to end users.

Reimagining Cinema: Toward Sustainable Media Practices

Bozak concludes with a call for more sustainable practices within the film industry. She advocates for increased transparency regarding the environmental costs of media consumption and encourages filmmakers to adopt eco-conscious production methods. From reducing location shoot emissions to embracing renewable energy sources for data storage, Bozak outlines practical steps that can mitigate cinema’s environmental impact.

Final Reflections: A Call for Awareness and Action

The Cinematic Footprint serves as a wake-up call for both industry professionals and media consumers. Bozak’s interdisciplinary approach, blending film theory with environmental science, reveals the intricate connections between cultural production and ecological exploitation. As audiences continue to engage with media across diverse platforms, the book underscores the importance of recognizing the environmental price tag attached to our screen-centric lifestyles.

In essence, Bozak’s work challenges us to rethink our relationship with cinema—not just as an art form, but as a resource-intensive industry with tangible environmental consequences. By fostering greater awareness and encouraging innovative, sustainable practices, the film industry can evolve toward a greener, more responsible future.

Source:

Bozak, N. (2012). The Cinematic Footprint: Lights, Camera, Natural Resources. Rutgers University Press.

Immersion and appeal are two critical factors that contribute to the success and enjoyment of video games. Immersion, the feeling of being deeply absorbed in a game’s world, is often cited as a key element of player experience. Similarly, appeal—the attractiveness and likability of a game—plays a significant role in whether players choose to engage with a game in the first place and continue playing it over time. While both factors are widely recognized as important, their relationship has not been thoroughly explored. The paper “The interplay between immersion and appeal in video games” by Georgios Christou delves into the connection between immersion and appeal, drawing insights from a study, examining these factors across two popular games: World of Warcraft (WoW), a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG), and Half-Life, a First-Person Shooter (FPS).

Immersion is often described as the ability of a game to draw players into its world, creating a sense of presence and engagement. This feeling of being absorbed in a game is a major contributor to player enjoyment and is frequently cited as a key factor in the success of games like WoW and Half-Life. Appeal, on the other hand, is what initially attracts players to a game. It encompasses factors such as visual attractiveness, likability, and the overall impression a game makes on potential players. Without appeal, players may never even start playing a game, let alone become immersed in it.

The study in the paper aimed to investigate the relationship between immersion and appeal across two different game genres and two categories of players: those with prior experience playing the game and those without. The games chosen for the study were WoW, an MMORPG with a focus on long-term player retention, and Half-Life, an FPS with a linear narrative and a clear endpoint.

Participants were divided into four groups: inexperienced and experienced players of WoW, and inexperienced and experienced players of Half-Life.

Inexperienced players were defined as those who had never played the game before, while experienced players were those who had either completed Half-Life or reached the maximum level in WoW. Participants were asked to play the game for a set period and then complete questionnaires measuring their perception of the game’s appeal and their level of immersion.

The study revealed several important insights into the relationship between immersion and appeal:

The results showed a significant positive correlation between immersion and appeal across both games and player groups. Players who found a game appealing were also more likely to report higher levels of immersion, and vice versa. This suggests that these two factors are deeply interconnected, with one influencing the other.

The study found that WoW players reported higher levels of both immersion and appeal compared to Half-Life players. This could be due to the nature of WoW as an MMORPG, which offers a persistent world, social interactions, and long-term goals, all of which may enhance immersion and appeal. In contrast, Half-Life’s linear narrative and first-person perspective may limit its ability to engage players in the same way.

For inexperienced players, the initial appeal of a game played a significant role in their overall experience. Players who found WoW appealing from the start also reported higher levels of immersion, while those who were less impressed with Half-Life were less likely to become immersed. This highlights the importance of creating a strong first impression to draw players in and keep them engaged.

Interestingly, the study found no significant difference in immersion or appeal between inexperienced and experienced players. This suggests that a player’s initial impression of a game may have a lasting impact on their experience, regardless of how much time they spend playing it.

The findings of this study have important implications for game designers; first, they underscore the importance of creating games that are both visually appealing and immersive. Designers should focus on crafting engaging worlds, compelling narratives, and intuitive gameplay mechanics to capture players’ attention and keep them invested.

Second, the study highlights the role of first impressions in shaping player experience. Games that fail to make a strong initial impact may struggle to retain players, even if they offer deep and immersive gameplay later on. This is particularly relevant for MMORPGs like WoW, where player retention is crucial for long-term success.

The strong correlation between immersion and appeal suggests that these two factors should be considered together when designing and evaluating games. By understanding how they influence each other, designers can create more engaging and enjoyable experiences for players. Immersion and appeal are two sides of the same coin, both playing a vital role in the success of video games. This study demonstrates that these factors are deeply interconnected, with appeal driving immersion and vice versa.

By focusing on creating games that are both attractive and engaging, designers can captivate players from the very beginning and keep them coming back for more.

On the topic of good design, it made me consider the importance of appeal in character, especially animal designs, in games, as well as other media franchises. To that end, I found the article by Alex Daud Briggs for gamerbraves.com, named “The Importance of Good Monster Design In Pokemon, Digimon and Other Games”.

Monster design is a cornerstone of many beloved video game franchises, from Pokémon and Digimon to Final Fantasy and Shin Megami Tensei. These creatures are more than just enemies or collectibles—they are the heart and soul of their respective worlds, shaping the tone, identity, and emotional connection players have with the games. This article explores how iconic franchises use monster design to create memorable experiences and why these designs are so crucial to the success of RPGs and monster-collecting games.

As the biggest media franchise in the world, Pokémon has set a high standard for monster design. Overseen by artist Ken Sugimori, Pokémon designs are intentionally crafted to be approachable and memorable. Sugimori emphasizes the importance of balance, often adding “uncool” or quirky elements to make creatures stand out. For example, Oshawott, an otter-like Pokémon, has three freckles on its cheeks. While removing them might make Oshawott cuter, the freckles add a unique touch that makes the design more memorable. This approach reflects the role of Pokémon in their universe: they are meant to feel like natural, everyday animals with exaggerated, cartoonish features. By taking a simple theme—like an otter using a shell as a weapon—and amplifying it, Pokémon designs feel both unique and grounded in their world. This balance of familiarity and creativity has helped Pokémon remain a cultural phenomenon for decades.

In contrast to Pokémon’s friendly and approachable designs, Digimon takes a darker, more surreal approach. Designed primarily by Kenji Watanabe, Digimon range from cute mascot-like creatures to humanoid warriors and grotesque demons. Inspired by 90s American comics, Digimon designs often feature belts, knives, tattoos, and guns, giving them a distinct edge.

One standout example is Vademon, a Digimon based on 50s-style space aliens. Its giant brain-like head, wiry body, and beefy arms make it both bizarre and unforgettable. This design philosophy aligns with the Digimon universe, where these creatures are intelligent beings capable of speech, higher thinking, and even creating technology. The use of weapons and armor reinforces their identity as more than just wild animals—they are complex, dangerous, and deeply integrated into their world.

Monster design isn’t limited to monster-collecting games. Many RPGs use their bestiaries to establish the tone and identity of their worlds. For example, Dragon Quest’s iconic Slimes, with their cartoonish smiles, set the stage for a lighthearted adventure, while Final Fantasy’s larger-than-life beasts like Chocobos and Cactuars emphasize the epic fantasy elements of the series.

The upcoming Final Fantasy XVI is doubling down on this tradition by spotlighting summons—recurring creatures that embody the grandeur and drama of the franchise. Similarly, Shin Megami Tensei and Yo-kai Watch draw on mythology and pop culture to create monsters that feel both familiar and fresh. These designs not only enhance the gameplay but also help players connect with the world and its lore.
Why Monster Design Matters. At its core, good monster design is about creating a lasting impression. Whether it’s the quirky charm of a Pokémon, the edgy intensity of a Digimon, or the mythical grandeur of a Final Fantasy summon, these creatures define the tone and identity of their games. They are the constant elements that tie together different entries in a series, providing a sense of continuity and nostalgia for long-time fans.

Moreover, monsters are often the first thing players encounter in a game, setting the stage for the adventure ahead. A well-designed monster can evoke emotions, tell a story, and immerse players in the world. In games like Pokémon and Digimon, where the monsters are the main attraction, their designs are even more critical. They need to be visually appealing, thematically consistent, and memorable enough to stand out in a crowded field of competitors.

From Pokémon’s balanced cuteness to Digimon’s surreal edge, monster design plays a pivotal role in shaping the identity and success of video game franchises. These creatures are more than just pixels on a screen—they are the heart of the worlds they inhabit, the companions on our journeys, and the adversaries that challenge us. As games continue to evolve, the importance of good monster design remains constant.

For this paper I drew information from “Caring for a companion as a form of self-care. Exploring the design space for irritating companion technologies for mental health” by Jordi Tost, Rahel Flechtner, Rahel Maué. It deals with the problematic of creating assistive technology for people with Social Anxiety Disorder, which would provide them with meaningful companionship and support.

Recent research explores the potential of companion technologies to address this challenge. Unlike traditional mental health apps that focus on task-driven routines, such as journaling or meditation, companion technologies aim to evoke empathy and emotional responses. However, overcoming anxiety disorders often requires stepping out of one’s comfort zone. This is where the concept of positive irritation comes into play: “Nevertheless, considering that anxiety disorders can only be overcome by gradually expanding one’s comfort zone, these companions need to be more irritating and confrontational. We argue that there is a need for irritating qualities of user experience that support the disruption of established patterns of behaviour and thought. With this, we propose that both empathetic and irritating dimensions of user experience are crucial in supporting individuals coping with SAD because they can leverage behaviour change and support social inclusion.”

Positive irritation refers to intentionally designed interactions that disrupt established patterns of behavior and thought. While empathy and emotional connection are crucial, irritation can serve as a catalyst for perspective change and personal growth. For individuals with SAD, this means gradually expanding their comfort zone through small, manageable challenges.

The idea of integrating irritating qualities into companion technologies is inspired by frameworks from psychology and human-computer interaction (HCI). For example, the Tamagotchi, a virtual pet that demands care, represents a counterpoint to traditional assistive technologies. Instead of serving the user, the Tamagotchi requires the user to care for it, fostering a sense of responsibility and emotional attachment. This dynamic shifts the relationship from “technology assisting people” to “people caring for technology,” which can enhance self-compassion and well-being.

At the heart of this approach is the metaphor of caring for the companion as a form of self-care. By nurturing a virtual companion, users learn to care for themselves. This reciprocal relationship integrates the companion into daily routines, creating opportunities for emotional growth and social inclusion.

The metaphor operates on three levels:

Connection with the Companion: Building emotional bonds through meaningful interactions.

Connection with Oneself: Encouraging users to reflect on their needs and resources.

Connection with the Social Environment: Promoting inclusion by bridging the gap between the digital and physical worlds.

To operationalize this metaphor, researchers propose eight principles for designing companion technologies that foster positive irritation:

Metaphorical Design: Using metaphors to give the companion a unique personality and story. For example, the companion could be designed as a friendly ghost or an externalization of the user’s anxiety, helping users reframe their mental models.

Strangeness: Incorporating unexpected behaviors to evoke curiosity and wonder. Strangeness can make the companion feel more alive and relatable, especially for individuals who feel “strange” themselves.

Reciprocity: Creating a give-and-take relationship where both the user and the companion care for each other. This dynamic promotes a sense of teamwork and shared control.

Synchronicity of Needs: Aligning the companion’s needs with the user’s emotional state. For instance, if the user feels anxious, the companion might exhibit similar emotions, encouraging the user to address their own feelings.

Adaptability and Careful Integration: Tailoring interactions to the user’s individual needs and context. The companion should balance proactivity with respect for the user’s boundaries.

Provocation and Confrontation: Using warm-hearted teasing or unexpected behaviors to challenge negative thought patterns. This principle draws from provocative therapy, where humor and confrontation are used to reframe perspectives.

Humour and Irony: Creating a light-hearted atmosphere through playful interactions. Humor can disrupt harmful thinking patterns and make self-care feel less daunting.

Embodied Experience: Integrating the companion into the user’s physical environment to enhance emotional connection. For example, the companion could respond to real-world stimuli, such as the user’s movements or surroundings.

While the potential of irritating companion technologies is promising, there are significant challenges to address. For instance, what one user finds humorous or motivating, another might perceive as intrusive or triggering. This highlights the need for careful adaptation to individual preferences and sensitivities.

Additionally, the use of generative AI in companion technologies raises ethical concerns. While AI can facilitate dynamic and personalized interactions, it also risks generating harmful or inappropriate content. Future research must explore how to model complex nuances, such as humor and provocation, in a way that aligns with users’ psychological needs.

Companion technologies for mental health represent a new frontier in HCI and psychology. By combining empathy with positive irritation, these technologies can support individuals with SAD in overcoming anxiety and expanding their comfort zones. The metaphor of caring for the companion as self-care and the accompanying principles provide a framework for designing meaningful and transformative interactions.

As technology continues to evolve, so too does the potential for innovative approaches to mental health care. By embracing the power of irritation, one can create companions that not only provide support but also inspire growth, resilience, and connection.

For this post, I drew the information from the paper “A Study on the Scalability of Design Content Using Pixel Art” by Qianqian Jiang and Jeanhun Chung.

Pixel art, a distinctive and nostalgic art form, has carved out a unique niche in the world of digital and traditional art. Its origins can be traced back to the limitations of early computer technology, where low-resolution displays and restricted color palettes forced artists to work within tight constraints. However, what began as a technical necessity has evolved into a beloved artistic style, celebrated for its retro charm and creative potential.

The pixel art style emerged in the 1960s as a direct result of the limitations of early computer graphics. With low-resolution screens and limited color options, artists were forced to create images using small, blocky pixels.

“In the early stages of pixel art’s development, technical limitations resulted in artists being able to only use black and white pixels or limited colors to shape image elements. This creative method initially formed the basis of pixel art. With the gradual maturity of technology, although the high-resolution and rich colors of images become possible, pixel art has been inherited and developed because of its unique visual charm and retro feelings.”

These constraints, however, gave birth to a unique aesthetic that would later become synonymous with retro gaming and digital art. Interestingly, the roots of pixel art can be traced even further back to traditional art forms such as cross-stitch and mosaic art. These crafts, which rely on small, discrete units to create larger images, share a striking resemblance to the pixelated visuals of early computer graphics. This connection underscores the deep historical origins of pixel art and its ties to human creativity across different mediums.

The development of pixel art can be divided into several key stages, each marked by advancements in technology and shifts in artistic expression: in its early days, pixel art was characterized by stark black-and-white images or limited color palettes, often using no more than 256 colors. Games like “Super Mario Bros” epitomized this 8-bit style, with its simplified shapes, sharp edges, and abstract designs. Despite these limitations, early pixel artists managed to create iconic and enduring works that continue to resonate with audiences today.

As technology advanced, so did the possibilities for pixel art. The introduction of isometric pixel art, as seen in games like “SimCity 2000”, allowed artists to create the illusion of depth and dimension on a 2D plane. This style, characterized by its 45-degree angles and equal proportions, added a new layer of complexity to pixel art. Meanwhile, the rise of voxel art, popularized by games like Minecraft, brought pixel art into the third dimension, using 3D pixel blocks to create intricate and modular structures.

In the 21st century, pixel art has continued to evolve, embracing high-definition techniques while retaining its core aesthetic. HD pixel art, for example, uses larger canvases and richer color palettes to create detailed and textured images, all while maintaining the clarity and charm of individual pixels. This fusion of traditional pixel art principles with modern technology has allowed the style to remain relevant and adaptable in an ever-changing digital landscape.

Today, pixel art has transcended its origins in gaming and computer graphics, finding applications in a wide range of design industries. Its unique aesthetic—marked by pixelated visuals, jagged edges, and matrix arrangements—has made it a popular choice for everything from fashion to environmental design.

In the world of fashion and accessories, pixel art has been embraced for its retro appeal and bold geometric patterns. Brands like APM Monaco have incorporated pixel art into their jewelry designs, using sharp contrasts and simple shapes to create pieces that are both modern and nostalgic. Similarly, clothing designs featuring pixelated game characters or patterns evoke the golden age of video games while appealing to contemporary tastes.

Pixel art has also made its mark in environmental design, where its modular and geometric qualities lend themselves to innovative architectural and interior projects. For example, the pixelated dome restaurant in Oman uses reflective glass and concave-convex shapes to create a dynamic and interactive space. In France, an apartment building in Nanterre features a facade designed with pixel block color contrasts, transforming the structure into a visually striking pixel sculpture.

In web design, pixel art’s bright colors, retro fonts, and dynamic effects have been used to create engaging and interactive user experiences. Websites like Piskel and Habitica incorporate pixel art into their interfaces, using it to enhance usability and evoke a sense of nostalgia. These applications demonstrate the versatility of pixel art as a visual language, capable of conveying both functionality and emotion.

As technology continues to advance, the potential for pixel art seems limitless. With the rise of new media and digital tools, artists and designers have more opportunities than ever to experiment with and expand upon the pixel art style. From 16-bit and 32-bit styles to block art and pixel puzzle styles, the diversity of pixel art sub-styles reflects the ongoing fusion of technology and creativity.

Pixel art’s enduring appeal lies in its ability to evoke nostalgia while remaining adaptable to modern trends. Its simplicity and clarity make it accessible, while its potential for complexity and innovation ensures its continued relevance. For designers and artists, mastering pixel art offers a unique way to connect with audiences, blending the past and present in visually compelling ways. Pixel art is more than just a relic of early computer technology—it is a vibrant and evolving art form with deep historical roots and boundless creative potential.

In the ever-evolving landscape of education and motivation, the concepts of gamification and ludicization have emerged as powerful tools to enhance engagement, learning, and behavior change. While both approaches emphasize playful experiences to support pedagogical and motivational goals, they differ significantly in their mechanics and underlying philosophies. Drawing from Qi Zhang’s insightful paper, “Investigating the Effects of Gamification and Ludicization on Learning Achievement and Motivation: An Empirical Study Employing Kahoot! and Habitica,” this blog post delves into the nuances of these two concepts, their differences, and their applications in real-world scenarios.

Gamification is a well-known approach that integrates game-like elements—such as points, badges, leaderboards, and challenges—into non-game contexts to motivate and engage participants. The term itself derives from the Latin word “facere,” meaning “to make,” which underscores its focus on creating game-like experiences within existing frameworks. Gamification is often described as an essentialist approach, as it enables participants to enjoy a ludic (playful) phenomenon by simulating real-world contexts.
For example, platforms like Kahoot! use gamification to transform traditional quizzes into interactive, competitive experiences. By incorporating elements like timed questions, scoring systems, and leaderboards, Kahoot! motivates learners to engage more deeply with the material. The simulation of real-world contexts—such as competition and achievement—encourages participants to immerse themselves in the activity, fostering both learning and motivation.

In contrast, ludicization takes a different approach to playful engagement. The term combines “ludus” (Latin for “game” or “play”) with “-icization,” which emphasizes the transformation of a reference situation into an idealized, playful experience. Unlike gamification, which focuses on making activities game-like, ludicization highlights the participants’ willingness to engage in playful experiences by metaphorizing their desired behaviors into imaginary meanings (Sanchez et al., 2016).

Ludicization simulates reference situations through analogical relationships between target activities and virtual ideas. For instance, Habitica—a habit-tracking app—transforms mundane tasks like exercising or completing chores into a role-playing game. Users create avatars, earn rewards, and battle monsters by completing real-life tasks. This metaphorical approach encourages participants to view their daily activities through the lens of an imaginative narrative, making the experience more engaging and meaningful.

While both gamification and ludicization aim to enhance engagement through playful experiences, they differ in their underlying mechanics and goals:

Gamification simulates real-world contexts to promote involvement. For example, a leaderboard in a classroom setting mirrors real-world competition, motivating students to perform better. On the other hand, ludicization uses metaphorical relationships to transform activities into playful, imaginary scenarios. Habitica’s use of avatars and monsters is a prime example of this metaphorical approach.

Gamification focuses on the action of making activities game-like, often through extrinsic motivators like points and badges. Ludicization, however, emphasizes the transformation of the activity itself, creating an idealized, playful version of the experience.

Gamification aligns activities with real-world contexts, making them more relatable and practical. Ludicization, in contrast, creates imaginary contexts that allow participants to explore idealized scenarios without real-world consequences.

The growing interest in gamification and ludicization has led to their application in diverse fields, from education to health and wellness. For instance, gamification has been used to spread awareness about thyroid cancer through purpose-designed games (de Oliviera, de Figueiredo, & Rodrigues, 2024). These games simulate real-world scenarios, educating players about the disease while engaging them in a competitive or collaborative experience.

Similarly, ludicization has been employed to motivate individuals with intellectual disabilities to engage in physical activities (Mooney, 2022). By transforming exercise routines into playful, imaginative experiences, ludicization makes physical activity more accessible and enjoyable for this demographic.

Both approaches tap into fundamental human desires for play, achievement, and meaning. Gamification leverages extrinsic motivators like competition and rewards to drive engagement, while ludicization appeals to intrinsic motivators by creating meaningful, imaginative experiences. Together, they offer a versatile toolkit for educators, designers, and motivators to create engaging and effective experiences.

Gamification and ludicization represent two distinct yet complementary approaches to enhancing engagement and motivation. While gamification focuses on making activities game-like through simulation and extrinsic rewards, ludicization transforms activities into idealized, playful experiences through metaphor and imagination. Both approaches have proven effective in diverse contexts, from education to health, and their continued exploration promises to unlock new possibilities for playful learning and engagement.