Written by Mark Johnson, 3rd Yr PhD Student.
At the end of May I attended the
“Canadian Game Studies Association” conference in Toronto thanks to the
department’s generous funding. The conference was part of the larger
"Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences", a yearly Canadian
conference which consists of many smaller components. As an ex-professional
card player and independent game developer in my spare time, I’m seeking to
move my academic studies in the same direction upon completion of my doctorate
and this was part of that move.
The conference was over two days
and perhaps eighty or ninety people turned up in total; there were a number of
talks including a fascinating discussion of the difficulties of writing “video
game history” in a medium so replete with hacks, mods, bootlegs and
international versions; subcultures devoted to the appreciation of games
commonly considered to be of no redeeming value; the use of death as a core
mechanic in many games; the definition of “genre” in games and whether clear
definitions of the formal characteristics of game genres are even possible to
create; the use of various types of games in learning environments for children
and teenagers; the “surveillance architecture” of the Xbox 360; and many
others.
My talk was on the semiotics of
“roguelikes”, a niche genre of games originating around 1980 which even now
almost universally eschew modern graphics for an appearance of a game focused
around text. This means that walls, floors and all foes and items are
represented by ASCII characters, such as ‘#’ (often walls), ‘]’ (often pieces
of armour) or ‘$’ (often piles of money).
My paper first explored the ways in
which these symbols develop epistemes unique to each game and show that they
demand forms of knowing that players have to be “trained” to comprehend.
Secondly it explained how these symbolic choices create conventions and
paradigms specific to each game and what these forms of categorization mean for
the player’s understanding of what is on screen. Thirdly and lastly, this paper
sought to build on earlier work on “reading” games, the relationship of this
act to the semiotics of games, and argues that in this regard the act of
reading a roguelike, and the significance of the symbols within the game, are
unique. I now hope to build this paper up into a full journal article and
continue pursuing my game studies metamorphosis.
Many thanks again to the
department for the funding without which I wouldn’t have been able to attend –
it was an amazing conference and I look forward to many more.
No comments:
Post a Comment