Thinking After Dark: Day One

Panel 1: The Horror Video Game: historical, narrative, and generic aspects

The sessions I made it to yesterday was very interesting, as one of my colleagues, Dominic Arsenault (Introduction à la pragmatique des effets génériques: l’horreur dans tous ses états) presented on the evolution of genres; talking about and demonstrating both our need/desire to categorize video games, and the processes through which these categories evolve over time. Using the example of Doom as the quintessential first person shooter that started the “its like Doom” qualifications of other games that were released after it, in order to show the historical break when games stopped being compared to the one game, and started being discussed as a genre in general.

In the spirit of a bilingual conference, the next speaker – Carl Therrien (Jeux de peur. Un survol historique de l’horreur vidéoludique), another colleague of mine, presented his work on genres in french. An interesting talk that seemed to flow quite well from Dominic’s work. Carl outlined the definitional boundaries of the horror genre, and how, through these conventions, construct a history of the genre, as well as how these conventions are carried over (or not) into video gameplay – and the methodological issues that ensue such as the broadening of the scope that can be considered horror games based on particular traditional conventions. At least this is some of what I understood. Feel free to comment if anyone has a better details on the presentation =)

Finally, the session wrapped up with Ewan Kirkland‘s talk called Storytelling in Survival Horror Video Games. Keeping with the theme of genres, Ewan elaborated on ” … survival horror’s relationship with the narrative and narration” , how the genre relies on certain conventions and how this translates over to survival horror games. I found the talk very interesting, even if I felt a bit out my element with some of the background information.

Panel 2: Figures and Adaptations of Horror

The second session I attend was equally interesting. The first speaker – Clara Fernandez-Vara (Dracula Defanged: Empowering the Player in the Castlevania Series) began her talk by stating that the Castlevania is not a horror game, even though on first glance, it’s imagery and themes may suggest otherwise. Clara talked about the symbolic conventions that would seemingly connect the game to a horror genre – particularly the Dracula series; however, upon further inspection, what appear to be traditional symbols have been re-appropriated for a different cultural audience. Of course, there was much more to her talk, but as always, I get too wrapped up in listening and being game studies, there are always great images to look at at the same time! As always, feel free to add more in the

Finally, the last talk of the day was given by Alexis Blanchet (L’adaptation de films d’horreur en jeu vidéo: réflexions autour d’une absence) who had a more quantitative approach to looking at the history of videogame adaptations of film over approximately the last 30 years (I believe the earliest movies were from 1975 in his analysis). He looked at over 400 films, and evaluated them by the elements traditionally thought of as horror. By doing this, he demonstrated the breadth of what constitutes a horror film (beyond the pre-labeled categories) and then discussed those titles that have been adapted into video games, which essentially were more scarce than one would have thought.

After these two panels, there was a short book launch for Bernard Perron’s upcoming edited collection Gaming After Dark. Welcome to the World of Horror Video Games, McFarland, Jefferson (N.C). due out in Spring 2009. Afterwards, there was wine and videogame play for everyone. Unfortunately, due to living in the same city as the conference I mentioned in my previous post – I had to duck out early for family stuff. But surely the rest of the evening was as great as my afternoon.

Conference In the City: Thinking After Dark

I always love conferences.  A place where you can go and be fully immersed for two or three days (sometimes longer) in a limited subject with the same group of people. Most of my conference experience has been outside my home city – Montreal, and come to think about it, I think I prefer it that way. Not for the content side of a conference, but mainly the best bits – the in-between sessions conversations, the day’s end 5 à 7; the organized or impromptu  social evenings that sometimes turn into late nights of conversations that blend deep theoretical (or conference contextual) content with the ‘getting to know someone’ fun.

Besides the conference on research methods that Shanly and I put together a few years ago (the site is no longer there), I have only ever really attended two here in Montreal. The trouble with conferences in your home town, is that after the day is done, you go home. For some of us, that means cooking dinner for our children (seems no matter how old they are, they still want dinner made) and following your usual daily routine, perhaps getting work done that you feel guilty about putting aside the way you would if you left town for a conference. Each time I step away from a panel for breaks or lunch time (sometimes lunch is not available on the conference site, so you become at the whim of a slow waitress in a busy restaurant), if I am running late, I find myself wondering if I shouldn’t go and do some work – no matter how much I was enjoying myself while at the conference itself.

Currently, the conference on horror and video games “Thinking After Dark” is going on in Montreal. The last day is Saturday and I cross my fingers that I will make it early enough to attend the keynote. When I am away, in a hotel bed, it is easier to get up at 8am and trek to the conference site – usually only a few steps or blocks away. At home, I am at the mercy of the comfort of my own bed, and the bus ride to wherever the venue is.

/Rant On

RE: Online streams of TV shows blocked

I understand (some) of the underlying reasons about why American channels cannot (or will not) stream previously aired tv shows to Canadian IP addresses – but sheesh – we pay for American channels on our cable (since there is actually VERY LITTLE choice otherwise), so – in my logic – we contribute to their success – why not allow your shows to be viewed online by Canadians … I mean, even if I had to enter a cable code to prove that I at least subscribe to their channel to have access…

/rant off

Professional Identity

I have been working on the same stream of research on identity and video games over the last five years. My argument has been relatively consistent over the years, with a few flaws here and there as to be expected. Regardless, my goal has always been the same – to decentralize the concept of identity as a “result” or thing that belongs to the individual player and move towards thinking about identity as a process that occurs throughout game play instead. There is a lot more to it – of course – and you can read all about it when my dissertation is finished 😉

That being said, I have had a few side-streams of research over the years as well, mostly concerned with how people (young people, and often girls) integrate technology into their every day lives and discussing the pros and cons of the increasing use of web spaces (forums, blogs, university hosted sites etc) for university classes. Over the last year, while I have been thinking about the details of my dissertation, I have been working  on these side projects (publication/conferences etc).

What has been worrying me is that it has been a year and a half since I presented at a conference, and it was not on my “primary” research. I have been becoming increasingly worried about my “professional” identity as a scholar of X or Y topic. Is this line of worry even necessary? Is it better to be known as a scholar of X topic or a scholar that researches a broader scope of issues that surround a particular topic or technology? I have many interests, and enjoy working on several things at once with different people, but my question is – does it damage my “professional” identity – do I even have one yet?! Perhaps it is a silly thing to worry about – but as I sit here working on conference papers and abstracts, I wonder how far from my ‘primary’ research is too far – or is that even a question to be asking myself/worried about?

Holiday Weekend Sword Play

Just a quick note – this weekend, I was sitting in my kitchen when I noticed out my back window 2 kids with huge duct tape & foam swords (one massive sword and another massive axe). They ran up and down the alleyway swinging their swords at each other yelling “on guard”. Shortly afterwards, I noticed what I assumed to have been their father – I was thinking he would tell them to stop yelling,  or to stay out of people’s yards – but instead, he pulled out his own sword! And with him was a wee little one – perhaps 3 years old, swinging an itty bitty thick sword. The four ran through the alley, ducking behind cars and clashing swords merrily. It was definitly a (great) sight to behold.

Step in the Right Direction

I am two pages shy of submitting my dissertation proposal. It seems like forever that I have been working on it – falling in and out of love with my research topic and direction – being this close to finalizing it feels right. I know that there will inevitably be feedback from my advisor and some changes to the overall proposal, but after spending this much time with it (too long to share), I am starting to feel comfortable with what I have put down, in black and white. I see not only a direction, but a solid framework to forge ahead with. With my chapter outlines almost finished, I am eager to get to the “fieldwork – of course, I have to defend my proposal (both in writing and then orally) before I can get too far ahead in terms of actual work, but as the sun peeps out of the foreboding clouds (it has been raining for days), I think that the step has been taken, a solid, heavy step in the right direction.

That Sinking Feeling

A feeling that, as an academic, happens every once in a while when you are scouring the literature on your research topic, when you stumble upon that title that both excites you and makes your heart sink. The title that says “hi kelly, your thesis has already been written by somebody else, move along”. I think everyone that I know has had this feeling at least once. For me, it has happened a few times – video games and identity (to be fair) isn’t exactly the most unique research topic out there in terms of ‘key words’.  Today, I found this book, due out in May. On the one hand, I am really excited to read it, on the other hand, I am scared that it will say everything I have been working on over the last few years, making my research a moot point. Mind you, I had a similar shiver when I saw I, Avatar (and a few other titles)

To be fair, I know that more than likely I am panicking for nothing. My work is about the process of identity construction in video games (generally speaking), not the psychological influence of avatars on “real -world players”, I am not using Gee’s work as a theoretical foundation, and other than the “recommendations of terminology for future identity researchers”, which could really be useful in the long run, I have different experiences, ground my work in a different literature and (more than likely – or … hopefully) have something different to say and/or contribute something different to the world.

Thinking: The Hidden Work

As I sit here, trying to work through yet another draft of my PhD Proposal, I have been struck with a sense of guilt that I hadn’t “done” anything all day. But when I stop and take a minute to think about what I have been doing, I realize that I haven’t done “nothing”, but that I have spent most of my day “thinking”. There is just very little outward signs to show that this is what I have been doing. Nothing scribbled down, nothing to “show” for the last 4 hours of sitting here with my cup of coffee – looking out the window at the dreary gray damp sky. No “product”. But somehow, after spending the last 4 hours doing seemingly nothing, I come out refreshed, and ready to work. Addition by subtraction is the motto today – I just deleted a portion of my proposal that has been bugging me (it felt forced and out of place). After cutting and pasting, renaming and filing in a separate “bits & pieces” folder for safe keeping, I feel that I have accomplished something big. But to the outside world … not so much. From this little choice, I am opened up again, to another blank slate of possibilities. It feels better – even if there is nothing actually on that page at the moment.

My partner is not in academia. He works long hours working on airplanes. His work is very manual intensive – with an end product in mind, and progress is visible every step of the way. We have had long talks (and even arguments) about the ‘work’ that I do. While he does not wish to ever trade places with me, as he knows that what I do is challenging in its own right, he has a hard time grasping the fact that by the time I am writing – actively producing a written product – most of my “work” has been done. He has a hard time understanding that sometimes, when I am sitting on the balcony with coffee/wine/beer in hand (depending on the weather and time of day) and seemingly staring into nothingness (which is hard to do when you live in a lego kinda world,  surrounded by apartment buildings and 50 other balconies overlooking the same alleyway), I am actually doing the hardest part of my work – the thinking part. The part where you talk to yourself in your head, contemplating paths of inquiry, potential literature to support or tear down your ideas, possible methods and case studies…this is the part – for me – where it all comes together. By the time I am at my desk, I am ‘ready’ to write. Not as much “thinking” as going through the process at this point. Admittedly, this thinking process doesn’t always pan out – especially when I am working with an imposed framework and timeline (comprehensive exams, funding reports, conference deadlines, etc.). You can’t rush the thinking – it is just something you have to work through (at least for me).

That being said – I guess it’s time to put some of those thoughts on paper – to materialize some of these ideas, and to validate the hours of ‘thinking’.

The Path

I have never been much of a player of horror video games, but thanks to a good friend of mine, I have found one that I absolutely adore, and can’t quite seem to get enough of. The Path is

… a short horror game inspired by older versions of Little Red Ridinghood, set in modern day. The Path offers an atmospheric experience of exploration, discovery and introspection through a unique form of gameplay, designed to immerse you deeply into its dark themes. Every interaction in the game expresses an aspect of the narrative. The six protagonists each have their own age and personality and allow the player to live through the tale in different ways. Most of the story, however, relies on your active imagination.

The Path is designed with accessibility in mind. There are no ticking clocks or monsters to defeat. No hard puzzles will ever halt your progress. Most activities in the game are entirely optional and voluntary. The player has all the freedom in the world to explore and experience. The Path is a Slow Game

Six sisters live in an apartment in the city. One by one their mother sends them on an errand to their grandmother, who is sick and bedridden. The teenagers are instructed to go to grandmother’s house deep in the forest and, by all means, to stay on the path! Wolves are hiding in the woods, just waiting for little girls to stray.

But young women are not exactly known for their obedience, are they? Will they be able to resist the tempations of the forest? Will they stay clear of danger? Can they prevent the ancient tale from being retold?

Developed by TALE OF TALES
Designed and directed by Auriea Harvey & Michaël Samyn

Music by Jarboe

While the website touts a “little red ridinghood meets emily strange, I find it kind of has a Fatal Frame feel to it. The graphics are rich and eerily inviting. Even though at the beginning, it says to go to grandma’s house and stay on the path, the forest looks so inviting, I have yet to actually walk the path the entire way! While the pace is slow – the run function alters your perspective to a point where you can no longer see where you are going … and eerily increases the pounding of your character’s heartbeat … the screen becomes darker and bloodspots appear… making walking the optimal choice, and really, why run when the game is so visually stunning, and there are many things to find hidden in the forest.

The price is right ($9.99), payable through paypal (gotta like simplicity) and even though they call it a “short horror game” , with 6 different characters to select, and a vast forest to explore, the replayability of this game is undeniable.

Plagiarism and Patents

Throughout my academic career, the question of plagiarism has always been at the forefront of my mind. Many conversations have been had over the years about what constitutes an “original” idea, and what ideas are merely a result of some form of intellectual ‘mash-up’ of books read, stories heard and other intellectual conversations. It has been argued that there isn’t really any “new” ideas out there anymore, with the bombardment of media forms (etc) we are filled with external information from the get-go. When writing papers for my undergrad, a colleague and I used to discuss to what extent our paper was at all orignal (since the primary form of paper writing at that stage is synthesis writing …). Even now, my ideas are a combination of what I have read, what I have thought about and what I believe in (all influenced by some ‘external’ source or another at some point).

So, as an academic we learn the boundaries of (and ways to reference) original thought, quoted material, and speaking/writing generally about ideas that have been previously written about by multiple authors (even if their ideas are contradictory, as long as the ‘topic’ has been discussed).

All this to say – I don’t quite understand how patenting works. How can one person say they thought of something independently of everything else, and they, therefore, own it, and all of the profits that can possibly come from it? The general idea of a virtual world is of no exception. It is a vague concept – that can embody MANY types of online spaces – yet, after reading this article, I am amazed that this is even legal at all. I mean, I might have come to learn about identity through the works of many theorists, but I don’t think anyone can patent the general idea of “identity” and profit when anyone else uses the word…at least I hope not.