Thinking About Hybrid-identity and Hybridity

Sometime during my Master’s research, I started to really question whether or not my work was truly about ‘identity’ (in a traditional sense). Coming from Sociology, the term has a lot of baggage, and while I was talking about the player-avatar relationship, or what exists/develops between them, I was always hesitant to firmly stake it as “identity”.  (For an interesting read on moving past “identity” as a term, read Brubaker and Cooper’s “Beyond Identity“). But at the the time, and up until my PhD defense last month, identity was the closest term to what I was talking about.

During my defense, I was asked whether or not I was talking more about player-avatar ‘hybridity’ rather than a (hybrid) identity proper. In the moment, I was very open to consider this shift in terminology but did not have the time to reflect on what it would mean to my overall conclusions. It would surely solve the many many times I’ve had to explain that my work was not about THAT kind of identity (I do not address issues of gender, race, or conscious/purposeful development of selves as such). So after having a few weeks to think about it, I have come to the conclusion that my Master’s work was indeed about identity proper. In my MA, ‘hybrid-identity’ explained what  developed between the player and their avatar and this ‘hybrid-identity’ was upheld and sustained by a wide range of social aspects both within and external to MMORPG gameplay. My theoretical framework was focused primarily on interactions between the player and the gameworld (to various extents).

But thinking about my PhD work, focusing on single-player gameplay and player/player-character relationships within the larger networked process of play, I think it is not necessarily about ‘identity’ proper (as something that becomes distinctly separate  from both the player and the player-character) inasmuch as it is about a hybridity between the player and the player-character. In this, I agree with my committee member who posited the initial question. Now, I need to go back and really flesh this idea out before I can make any significant shift in terminology, but I think it is the right direction that will help me iron out some of the issues I had when using the term ‘identity’. I have a few ideas already on how to make the conceptual shift and am really happy to have new direction to bring my work to its next level.

Call for Papers: Meaningful Play 2012

A bit short notice on my part – but the deadline has been extended to July 28th. Full site here.

Whether designed to entertain or to achieve more “serious” purposes, games have the potential to impact players’ beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, emotions, cognitive abilities, physical and mental health, and behavior.

Meaningful Play 2012 is a conference about theory, research, and game design innovations, principles and practices. Meaningful Play brings scholars and industry professionals together to understand and improve upon games to entertain, inform, educate, and persuade in meaningful ways.

The conference will include thought-provoking keynotes from leaders in academia and industry, peer-reviewed paper presentations, panel sessions (including academic and industry discussions), innovative workshops, roundtable discussions, and exhibitions of games and prototypes.

Conference News

July 14, 2012 – Special Events Announced, including pre-conference talk with Constance Steinkuehler, Opening Reception, Poster Session, and Game Exhibition, Indie Game: the Movie screening and director panel, and Conference Wrap Up, Closing Keynote, and Lunch, and the Meaningful Play Game Room!

July 9, 2012 – Call for submissions deadline extended to July 28. Submit Paper, Panel, Poster, Roundtable, Workshop, and Game submissions now!

June 25, 2012 – Michael John, Ann DeMarle, and John Ferrara announced as remaining three confirmed keynote speakers. See program for details.

June 1, 2012 – Phaedra Boinodiris, Donald Brinkman, and Kurt Squire announced as first three confirmed keynote speakers. See program for details.

April 17, 2012 – The conference hotels are now available for booking.

January 20, 2012 – Registration is open for Meaningful Play 2012.

September 12, 2011 – We are excited to announce the upcoming Meaningful Play 2012 conference to take place October 18-20, 2012 on the campus of Michigan State University.

Conference Audience and Themes

The conference is primarily for:

  • industry and academic game researchers
  • industry and academic game designers and developers
  • game educators
  • students
  • government and NGOs interested in games

The two primary themes of the conference are:

  • exploring meaningful applications of games
  • issues in designing meaningful play

The first theme includes an examination of games (of all types) from primarily an academic research perspective.

The second theme focuses on much more practical knowledge from the front-line of actual design, development, and use of games for meaningful purposes.

Call for Papers: Collage Animation, Found Materials, and Experiential Effects

This might be of interest to some:

Since the early days of cinema, collage or cut-out animation has been an integral and continuous strand of media history. Hand-produced collage animation survives today – primarily among experimental filmmakers – despite the availability of digital animation technologies; at the same time, digital software allows for both the simulation of collage animation and the integration of collage and digital techniques. A number of scholars have examined the works of individual collage animators such as Harry Smith, Stan VanDerBeek, and Lewis Klahr, among others. This panel, however, seeks to address the broader question of the particular experiential effects generated by collage animation. In addition, it seeks to explore the intersection between collage animation and found footage filmmaking – both of which often involve the appropriation of preexisting audio and/or visual materials – as well as the persistence of collage animation and/or its aesthetics within digital contexts. Papers on, but not limited to, one of the following topics would be of particular interest:

· Collage animation and the production of affect

· The experience and appeal of “flatness,” particularly in light of the opposite tendency in other forms to attempt a 3-dimensional image experience.

· Recognizability and unrecognizability, i.e. the tension between recognizably appropriated images (and sounds) and their transformation as they are incorporated into a new text

· Collage animation and narrative (or non-narrative)

· The intersection between collage animation and found footage filmmaking

· The source materials of particular collage animators and animations and their transformation through their appropriation

· The use of digital technologies in the creation of collage animation or in approximating its aesthetics

· The works of individual filmmakers working in collage animation including but not limited to Harry Smith, Stan VanDerBeek, Hans Richter, Man Ray, Terry Gilliam, Larry Jordan, Lewis Klahr, Eric Patrick, Janie Geiser, Jodie Mack, Stacey Steers, Leslie Supnet, Robert Breer, Jeff Scher, Kelly Lynn Sears, Mary Ellen Bute, Frank Mouris, Jonesy, Martha Colburn, Kate Raney, and Michel Ocelot.

· South Park, Blue’s Clues, and other mainstream media texts that incorporate or approximate the aesthetics of collage animation.

Please send a title, a summary no longer than 2500 characters, 3-5 bibliographic sources, and a bio no longer than 500 characters to Jaimie Baron at jaimierbaron@gmail.com by August 1.

Kelly Boudreau, PhD.

A bit late, but I successfully defended my PhD dissertation on June 29th! Although it has only been two weeks, it seems like eons ago already. The defense went well, it was a great mix of rigorous exchanges and academic camaraderie. It lasted just over 3 hours and I passed with excellence. A few minor tweaks (the dreaded typo of course!) and it will be submitted to the archives to sit on the digital shelf among the work of my peers. Although many people had said that when I was done, I would not remember much and that I would just want to take a break for a bit, I found myself excitedly recounting every detail for those who could not attend. So many suggestions and directions came out of the defense that all I wanted to do when I got home (besides having celebratory drinks) was to etch out some notes and get to work on the next phase.

Of course, I am not even sure what that really is at the moment, but for now, I am happily working with/for Dr. Mia Consalvo on great research on Facebook games and families, I am reading some work written by a new colleague I am planning to collaborate with in the future, and I am hoping to push beyond my comfort zone and take my research into new directions as suggested during my defense as I work on a post-doc application for the fall (government sponsored post-docs are due in October so best I get started, and find an institution and/or supervisor!). I am also working on some entries for a Video Game Companion (edited by Mark Wolf), and have dreams of reshaping my dissertation into a proper book. It has only been two weeks since the defense, but I have already started on some significant edits thanks to a meeting of great minds in Switzerland last week. Overall, while I don’t have a tenure track job lined up, I have a pretty good to-do list to keep me working happily through the summer as I work on my c.v. and keep my eye on the job market this fall.

All in all, I cannot complain. After 10 years leveling up, I finally made it to the end game, and lucky for me, the expansions keep coming!

The time has (finally) come: The PhD defense

It has been just shy of 5 years since I began my PhD, and it’s been almost 8 years since I have been working on understanding that weird ‘something’ that I felt between myself as a player and Velixious, my avatar from way back when. Over the years, the research has shifted from a quest for personal understanding to exploring how others felt about their avatars, shifting notions of identity, and finding ways to deconstruct videogame play to understand if, when, and how what I have come to term as ‘hybrid-identity’ occurred.

And now the time has come to lay it all out on the line and defend my work:

Between Play and Design: The emergence of hybrid-identity in single-player videogames

June 29, 2012
9 :30 – 13 :30

Short Abstract:

This dissertation examines the complex nature of identity in single-player videogames. It introduces the concept of hybrid-identity and proposes an analytical framework to deconstruct gameplay across genres to distinguish moments of identity emergence. Hybrid-identity is a fluid, at times fleeting form of identity that exists between the player and the player-character which is developed during the networked process of videogame play. It necessarily includes the player (experience, play-context, etc.), the game environment (design, mechanics, etc.), and the mediating technology (computer, console, etc.) that facilitates gameplay.

In order to delineate the different aspects of gameplay that contribute to the potential emergence of different types of identity, a multifaceted framework was devised to isolate specific interactions between the player/player-character, player-character/non-playing character, player/game environment, player-character/game environment, and player/player. This framework was coupled with a secondary frame of analysis which included the examination of the specificities of the individual player and the mediating technologies that facilitated gameplay. A systematic analysis of gameplay and design elements of three different games; Mirror’s Edge (DICE, 2008), Alone in the Dark (Eden Games, 2008), and Fable 2 (Lionhead Studios, 2008) was performed to illustrate the varying degrees of identity emergence in different game structures.

For more details on location etc., please contact me via email.

Call for Papers: Media, Fans, and The Sacred: Neoreligiosity Seeks Institution

Call for paper proposals

The deadline for submissions for this issue is August 1st, 2012
Edited by Marc Joly-Corcoran and Vincent Mauger

Kinephanos is a bilingual web-based journal. Focusing on questions involving cinema and popular media, Kinephanos encourages interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The journal’s primary interests are movies and popular TV series, video games, emerging technologies and fan cultures. The preferred approaches include cinema studies, communication theories, religion sciences, philosophy, cultural studies and media studies.

Theme

Kinephanos’ fourth issue aims to explore the relationship between the sacred, the mythological motifs in modern popular fictions, and fandom. Our goal is to understand how the sacred, a pure human emotion, is disembodied from the ‘official’ religious institutions – at least in the Western countries – in order to be reinvested in secular cultural activities like ‘going to see a movie’ or ‘playing a video game’. Eliade wrote: “Movies, a ‘factory of dreams’, are highly inspired by countless mythological motifs, such as the struggle between the Hero and the Monster, battles and initiation ordeals, figures and exemplary patterns” (freely translated from Le sacré et le profane, 174). These mythological stories, highly symbolics, exist since ancient times. However, we would like to address the following issue: how the immersive experience in a work of fiction, now facilitated with various technological media forms (movies, videogames, television shows, etc.), changes our own relationship with the emotion of the sacred sparked in people’s life.

We propose to identify this emotion with the term “neoreligiosity”. An English scholar of fan culture, Matt Hills, says in this regard: “Neoreligiosity implies that the proliferation of discourses of ‘cult’ within media fandom cannot be read as the ‘return’ of religion in a supposedly secularised culture” (Fan Culture, 2002, 119). Indeed, putting side by side the experience of the fan with the religious experience might seem appropriate. Due to a lack of words, needed by fans to describe their own affective experience with their favorite movies, the use of religious terminology seems logical, without calling upon religious institutions structure. Hills quotes Cavicchi: “(…) fans are aware of the parallels between religious devotion and their own devotion. At the very least, the discourse of religious conversion may provide fans with a model for describing the experience of becoming a fan” (2002, 118). This issue of Kinephanos proposes to explore how the sacred, the religiosity, and the neoreligiosity play out in modern popular fictions, and with those who experience it : the fans.

Possible topics include, but are not limited to;

  • Sacred and reappropriation (fans creations : fanfics, fanfilms, etc.);
  • Social network, sharing interests through Internet;
  • Reception, modern and contemporary myths (Star Wars, Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc.);
  • Cinema and religion, displacement of the sacred;
  • Videogames, replayability as a tool of self-exploration (Mass Effect, Heavy Rain, morality system, etc.);
  • Revelation, epiphany, and the fan’s experience;
  • Cinema and videogames, mythological motifs between the lines; vestiges of the sacred;
  • Repetition viewing as a ritual, ‘cult fandoms’ and television shows (Star Trek, Doctor. Who, etc.);
  • Archetypal figures in the modern mythologies (Order and Chaos, Lovecrafts’s Great Old Ones, the hero’s journey (monomyth) in Hollywood movies, etc.).
While Kinephanos privileges publication of thematic issues, we strongly encourage writers to submit articles exceeding the theme which will be published in each issue.

How to submit?

Abstracts of 1000 words including the title, the topic and the object(s) that will be studied. Please include bibliographical references, your name, email address and your primary field of study.

Send submissions (in French or English) by August 1st, 2012 to:

marc.joly@umontreal.ca and vincent.mauger@arv.ulaval.ca

Following our approbation sent to you by email (2-3 weeks later after deadline), please send us your completed article by December 1st, 2012.

Editorial rules

Kinephanos is a peer-reviewed Web journal. Each article is evaluated by double-blind peer review. Kinephanos does not retain exclusive rights of published texts. However, material submitted must not have been previously published elsewhere. Future versions of the texts published in other periodicals must reference Kinephanos as its original source.

Production demands

All texts must be written in MLA style. 6,000 words maximum (excluding references but including endnotes) with 1.5 spacing, Times New Roman fonts 12pt, footnotes must be inserted manually in the text as follow : … (1), references must be within the text as follow (Jenkins 2000, 134), a bibliography with all your references, and 5 keywords at the end of the text.

For the editorial guidelines, refer to the section Editorial Guidelines.

Kinephanos accepts articles in French and in English

*

New Facebook Research Project

As I sit and wait for my committee to work their way through my dissertation, I have embarked on a new research project with Dr. Mia Consalvo and Irene Serrano Vazquez. We have two projects in the works at the moment, one looking at how and why people play Facebook games with family, and the other on Facebook player’s perceptions of cheating in Facebook games. We put together a short survey combining the two projects and would love for it if you could take a few minutes (the survey does not take more than 10 minutes – we’ve tested it!), and if you could pass the link along to anyone you know who plays Facebook games, we would be really appreciate the feedback!

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/facebookgamesresearch

Making room (again) for sociality in MMOG’s

A recent blog post over at TAG  got me thinking about the role of down time in MMOG’s. Something a lot of (but not all) gamers complain about. It seems that if a game is not chalk full of action, it is often deemed boring or not very good. Over the years, MMOG’s seem to have fallen into this mindset as well, making quests faster (and easier imo), combat is swift, recovery time often little to non-existent, and corpse recoveries that used to take hours turned into a respawn or resurrection…Some people like the fact that the pace of MMOG’s have gone the way of an action-packed, single-player game.

The TAG post mentions that a colleague disliked SWtOR game because there was “no gameplay/no challenge” and the response to this is that he is right …. but the post goes on to say:

But that’s the point… I felt that familiar tedious rhythm of questing in MMOs return.  That steady pace, ever incremental, always one more thing on the horizon… time slows, workdays are neglected, worries recede.

And what’s this?  Time to ponder, time to think, time to reflect.  Playing SWtOR, like all MMOs, brackets time and space — its a virtual world excuse to chat and socialize  for some and it’s time alone for others.  But what is the nature of this time alone?  You are occupied at the keyboard but barely occupied cognitively… this is why MMO players are great multi-taskers.  You can play the game while chatting on the phone, watching television, doing email and even playing other games, or…  you can ponder and muse about stuff.

Time to ponder and think indeed. For me, the gaps in the gameplay brings mmog play back to its social roots… it is what the waiting is for…… see, back in the day (for me, this starts with EverQuest in 1999), mmog’s were known for long pauses between action, everything took forever to do, even finding a group and getting to the agreed upon location. But they were also known for the close bonds and relationships among guild and group mates because you had nothing to do but hang out and chat while waiting for mana to regen. as mmo’s developed, but as early as Dark age of Camelot gameplay started to shift to exclude the social bits. The big thing was closing the gaps between battles, speeding up the regen time, eventually moving to insta-recast, etc. While this made gameplay more ‘fun’ and action packed for some, what got lost was the available moments for sociality. It didn’t take as long to level up, you didn’t need as many people to help for quests, and battle could rage on almost non-stop as long as you could stay alive.  But it came at a cost.

For me, this idea that mmog gameplay should be quicker and there should be less ‘waiting’ is actually what ruined my mmog experience. There was no more time to chat even about in-game stuff; little time to strategize during combat. Every moment had a purpose, unless you consciously chose to sit somewhere and be social, it didn’t happen. See, a lot of people aren’t social by choice (especially in video game play). They don’t want to say “hey, instead of killing mobs and leveling my avatar, I am going log into the game, and go sit in a city or safe place and have a chat with my guildmates, or heck, with random players”. This is not to say that people don’t do this, but having the space to socialize within structure of play is different.

But when the waiting is designed INTO the gameplay then eventually, people talk. They strategize, tell stories of past battles, get to know each other but not “on purpose” … they socialize. Not many people like silence (at least when in a group) – even digital silence – when in a group. It was always just a bit awkward to sit in a group of 6 in EQ back when (or in WoW when I did play) where everyone just sat there, waiting for the mob to spawn or someone to have enough mana to continue… So people chose to fill the silence – the waiting  – with social bits… Even people who couldn’t care less about being social, ones who, when you talked to them about it later (as I did for my MA research) didn’t see the value in it as an end within itself, would talk about how these moments, over time, became the social glue that bound a group or guild together. To me, judging solely on the TAG post, it sounds like SWtOR brings that old “waiting” mentality back to mmog’s, slowing the action down and returning to a sort of ‘social’ (or potentially social, some people will just sit in silence, or choose to play alone, etc…) gameplay.

I was always furious when people could not see the value in those downtimes. It is where trust and bonds are made that lead to better gameplay experiences (I say imo, but I know this at least from my experience of interviewing ppl during my MA and just being an MMO player over the course of 5 different mmo’s- of a certain era of course – I stopped playing when the first WoW expansion hit, but still – there are so many stories of bad PUGS, people you will never see again, not only because they were horrible players, but because you didn’t have to bother getting to know who you were playing with. There was hardly time to do so. When you can sign your name to an automatic list for a group, get picked up solely based on your class, get insta-ported into the location, and get into battle within a short period of time, there is no sense of obligation to the group or the individual players. If a group sucked, it was nothing for many players to feign getting booted out of the game to rid themselves of a bad group. But when it took you an hour to get something going, the process of getting your foot into a group through chatting up your skill set and accomplishments, taking the time it takes to travel to the camp spot, when you get there and a group sucks, you stick around if only for the time you’ve invested in getting into the group.

Don’t get me wrong, in EQ back in the day, there were bad pick up groups, there was always that person who could never quite play their class right, or what have, but because you got to know people over time (smaller servers helped of course), and you had already committed so much time in getting the group together, you stuck it out (maybe even just a bit more). And while there will always be crappy groups, in my experience, I’ve found that if you have time to talk about things, even if its just strategy, the group usually gets better. But when the game forces you to be in action 95% of the time, there is less time for the glue to gel. Of course, the addition of VoIP enabled players to have these discussions ‘while’ fighting, but in my experience, voice chat never quite enabled the same type of bonding (I have many theories on that, but I will reserve them for another day).

In the end, I think that all the epic feats talked about among elite players would never have happened (here I am referring to EQ specifically, but it is transferable) or not with the same amount of pride that many elite players have when recounting their stories. In my opinion, without these ‘waiting’ times designed into the game – people would not develop the same levels of attachment to the game, to their avatars and to their fellow guild/group mates, for these epic battles to be successful (and fun), there needs to be a level of trust and camaraderie in place. And trust has space to develop in these moments of waiting….I could go on about this, but I will restrain myself…

Wow….. it’s done

The writing at least. I know there’s still the defense and whatnot, but the tome has been written… it’s incredible to think about it. A very strange bag of emotions …

I cannot believe that what I started in 2004 is done… in 2004, I was having a conversation with one of my professor’s at the time about my relationship with my avatar in EverQuest…Velixious ….  trying to explain to him that she was a part of me but that her identity was not mine… but she wasn’t just a character in a videogame… and she wasn’t just something i made … that there was more to it than that… and he pushed me to figure out what that something was that wasn’t otherwise explained by all the other theories of identity that was already out there .. and so .. in 2004, i wrote my honor’s thesis – a lit review of identity across disciplines and I finish 8 years later with one more theory to add to that paper…

still have to defend it but …. wow….

Current Findings in MMO Research and Marriages: Or, my rant about headlines and media coverage

The rounds of headlines that are coming out of the last round of research on the impact of gaming on marriages (and from what I see, MMORPG’s) look like this:

When it could look like this:

and the most balanced headlines I’ve seen:

See, all these articles reference the research of Michelle Ahlstrom, Neil R. Lundberg, Ramon Zabriskie, Dennis Eggett, Gordon B. Lindsay who researched and wrote an article called  ME, MY SPOUSE, AND MY AVATAR: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARITAL SATISFACTION AND PLAYING MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE ROLE-PLAYING GAMES (MMORPGS)

What bothers me the most is that every one of the articles linked above go on about the statistics and reasons people fight (and divorce) over excessive video game play. Of course, blaming the game, not the person or the relationship (thanks to Kotaku for pointing this out yet again for those who tend to forget). The titles reflect the negative view the media feeds off of when it comes to video games, addiction, social problems, violence, etc… (reminds me of the whole cigarettes are bad for you and lets do everything to make you stop smoking EXCEPT not selling cigarettes, because where would we make all that money from otherwise!? thing – but I digress).

What I find the most interesting is, after all the articles point out the negatives (without mentioning the context of the couples), is that there were positive effects found in the research. But the fact that the abstract itself gives six lines of the bad stuff (detailing it) and ends with ” Positive effects of gaming together were also identified.” …. can you maybe share in the abstract as much as you’ve shared the negative impacts?

Personal anecdote. My partner started playing EverQuest when it was released. It took up all of his time. It made me cranky (he has an obsessive personality). After a few months (3 actually), I decided to see what all the hype was about, made an avatar, loved it so much, we bought a second computer, opened a second account and we played together for 6 years (Dark Age of Camelot, Lineage II, and World of Warcraft). It was some of the best times of our lives as a couple – and as parents of young kids. We were housebound more often than not (never had any babysitters), and we played with Danes so our play schedule wasn’t infringing too badly on family life (and they loved fishing and doing tradeskills, so we all got to play!).

When we were faced with criticism from outside people (who didn’t play), we would always explain that it was no different than spending the weekend together camping, playing golf, whatever. The point was that we were doing something together that we both enjoyed. We even met people from around the world through our gaming experiences (and a trip to Denmark to remember!). Our circumstances and interests centered around gaming, and we are thankful for those bonding times. Don’t get me wrong, we’ve had plenty of fights because he didn’t heal fast enough (he was a gnome cleric for a while) or I didn’t get my slow in on the mob fast enough (I always played a shaman)… there were nights I went to bed mad because my corpse was left out to rot (in early EQ days, there was a timer, and if you didn’t get your corpse out in time, your items would disappear – most corpse retrievals were long battles in secondary armor if you weren’t friends with a good monk).

Point is, all of these articles quote the article as saying:

  • “According to the study, 76 percent of respondents from the “both game” group “reported that MMORPG playing had a positive effect on their marriages.”
  • “The take-home message is that doing things together, whether you’re video gaming or doing something else, is better than doing something apart,” Lundberg says. “This confirms the idea that doing things that create interaction and bonding is obviously going to strengthen a marriage.”
  •  However, shared gaming produced a positive effect on the marital relationship for 76 percent of the couples playing together (which constituted 62% of the study participants).