This is a belated posting and I sincerely apologise. A few quick comments on my all too brief chat with Stephan Juergens who presented a paper at the Dialogue conference on the 23rd of May. I was the discussant for his paper at the conference and here is a brief summary of what we spoke about (or rather planned to speak about - we ran out of time!) These are just notes from Stephan's emailed comments with my own glosses - more like a research log, i guess.

.....................

SM: Interactive art ... i will start a discussion linking your paper to other kinds of interactive art - will ask for a definition of the limits of interactive art (if any)? Are computer games interactive art or Second Life?

SJ: Interesting question... in my perspective computer games can be art if used by an artist as a form of expression. Today artists use any kind of platform, medium or material to work with, why not computer games? It all depends on the artistic vision, I guess.
As far as Second Life is concerned, it is rather a platform, which allows you to interact with all kind of intentions, commercial, artistic and otherwise.SJ: I was very much into the Cyborg debate at the time of my MA (2001), but the more I investigated, the more the cyborg lost my interest... seems rather important as a cultural construct... but as a choreographer and dancer, I am naturally interested in "embodied" practices, in "intelligence amplification" as opposed to "artificial intelligence"SJ: I see technology rather as emerging from bodily knowledge; I use technology as a partner for performance, including "old technologies", such as light design, sound system etc.SJ: DDR in my view falls into the category of the "sensitive instrument", a reactive form of interaction. Though requiring some of the dancer's skills (coordination, rhythm, learning sequences etc.) it feels more like a limited "personal trainer"... don't know Guitar Hero to well.SJ: My favourite suggestion of yours! I think, this could be quite an interesting exchange, as we have a term in common and could compare! [later, Stephan compared the Deleuzian idea of the action in the 'Zone of Becoming' (from one of my conference papers) to similar ideas of agency in Mark Downie's work on dance ... must follow up on this. I think I introduced the religious debates on 'free will' in the discussion. Stephan, quite interestingly, brought up the idea of agency and action in Buddhism -again another interesting area to read up on.]
SJ: Yes! There are a lot of similarities. We could look more closely at Downie's work.SJ: We could have a look at Downie's "creatures" There is a "tree" amongst them... [regrettably, we didn't have much time for this one]
SJ: According to Sarah Rubidge interactive technologies are used by choreographer's of all kinds and styles; they are usually interested for different reasons!
......................

Well, there you go ... the ravages of time and a week spent in reworking a chapter does so much to the memory. We continued the conversation in the pub and unfortunately Mr Guinness took some of it away with him!


So this is more than a dialogue , then: it's on one-level a dialogue between me and Stephan and on the other, one between me-at-the-present-moment speaking myself-a-week-ago (and i expect Stephan is somewhere around, interjecting, interrupting and correcting).

.... So you see Game Studies isn't a baby any more.

Congratulations to Jesper Juul on five fruitful years of forming my thoughts on the ludic and posing conceptual challenges. Juul's post can be read here. Says Juul,

Dear me, how time flies. The long-awaited Dialogue Conference is now all set to happen. Part of our Research Practice Course project, it gives my classmates and myself an excellent opportunity to have our first experience of organising conferences. The website is up and running, the programme has been finalised and the finishing touches are underway.

We introduce a novel concept here (my classmates' brainchild) - with each paper we will have a non-expert discussant engaging in a dialogue with the speaker. I am supposed to be the discussant for Stephan Juergen's paper 'Strategies for Interactive Situations in Technologically Expanded Life Performance'. Interactivity, HCI, agents - Stephan has everything in it to make it interesting. I'm looking forward to this one, for sure. There are papers on a wide range of topics ranging from contemporary art to Gulf War literature. The latter being by my colleague Jenna Pitchford - all the best Jenna!

Well need we say more - let the dialogue begin.

Buongiorno paisan. After a stressful few days of battling with immersiveness in theory (Janet Murray, Ryan, Frasca et al.) I remembered that I have a just cause for doing some actual gangster shooting ... call it the experience of immersion if you will. Since I eschew the word 'immersion' as much as I can, let's call it my 'becoming-gangster'.

For two hours, I was driving to various little businesses and rackets in Little Italy and Hell's Kitchen and buying them out for my capo regime (Michael Corleone, in case you didn't know) and money wasn't the only thing that I was after. 'Respect' was high and it felt great to see the whole of New York make obeisance to my car as it passed. And I learnt two new execution styles and upgraded my Magnum and my extended clip pistol . The Barzini 's warehouses are difficult to loot but a few shots into the burning tar barrels has the outer guards frying and when the music changes from the Godfather theme to a more fast-paced tune, you know that the trouble has just started. I had forty five minutes (in game time) to kill every Barzini two-bit punk or I would risk a full-fledged mob-war. I killed them all. I blew the last two off the balcony as they shot me in my knee. That's 'becoming-gangster' for you! But I had to get home and drink that health power-up that lay on the bedside-table and to refill my tommy-gun with the two hundred and fifty bullets that I had fired.
The next scene sees me ambling towards the car. I stagger inside and then I 'become-car'. Yes, I, Tommy Angelo (my in-game identity) and I, in my out-of-game self, am now a car. I perceive myself as the bullet-riddled back of a black jalopy (what horrid cars they had back then). In my becoming-car, I drive through Broadway and knock down a few flower pots. In Corleone compound, I emerge from the car ... yet becoming-gangster and becoming-car ... are they different? I haven't got time to think. Those Barzinis - I will show them. But as Don Vito taught me, it's after all business and not personal.

At least, that's what I say to anyone who asks me how many games I get to play for my PhD.

Wow! I am on a blogging spree it seems. Well, I've just finished designing the website for the PKD-Day event at my uni (Nottingham Trent University) that I am co-organising. This is the second event of its kind and aims to celebrate the genius of science-fiction writer Philip K. Dick through various aspects of responses to PKD from among the Phildickian community.


GAMERS PLEASE NOTE: Barry Atkins has very kindly agreed to do a talk on PKD and videogames. His talk is titled "Videogames: Playing in a Dickian Universe".

Those interested in Phildickian news , please check out Total Dick-Head's and Frolix-8's blogs. They have both posted on PKD-Day 2. Last but not least, check out the event's website and also the designing skills (or the lack of them) of yours truly. I promise to buy a drink for the first person who tells me what the picture (the background of the header) means.

I am speaking at the Under the Mask Conference in Luton on 7th June. Got to stop playing and start writing, it seems.

My paper is titled: I am a Paddle, I am a Stalker, I am a Game. You can find more details about the conference here.

In Tarkovsky's film, the 'Stalker' lies on the grass and on water in the multiple existences that the Zone offers him. In doing so, it is as if he 'becomes' part of the Zone itself. It is this scene from the movie that keeps coming back to me as I remember the three days of the conference in Potsdam. The scene from the movie pretty much sums up what i wished to say about the experience of playing computer games and hence forms a key theme for my paper which attempted to explore ludic action through similarities with Deleuzian conceptions of cinema (though at the same time, keeping in mind the media-specific differences). On another level, the scene also serves as a sort of metaphor for my experience of the conference itself: in my present prosaic world of writing my thesis and my other jobs in the university, it seems like a different yet parallel existence. Never before was i able to meet so many people who had such interesting things to say about computer games.


The chance to meet and discuss my thoughts on gaming with eminent game-studies scholars was invaluable to say the least. It is beyond my ken to discuss all the papers here but I will try to address at least some that I think are more relevant to my own research. The first keynote address by Ian Bogost, especially its highlighting of the relationship between the player and the machine, was extremely interesting. His discussion of speculative realism
The game's relationship to all the various aspects to which it 'plugs-in' reminded me of a Deleuzian assemblage. In such a paradigm, the game would then have to be represented by a shape-changing jigsaw puzzle piece! Stephan Guenzel's analysis of ludic space in terms of what he called the 'space-image' is something that I am looking forward to reading about in more detail. I feel that this will complement my own research on spatiality and temporality. Some other papers that I can still remember fairly clearly are the one's by Gordon Calleja and Bernard Perron - both on the magic circle. Calleja, speaking just after lunch, nevertheless kept the audience awake in his talk about the frontiers of game and reality. I was happy to find him mentioning Case (Neuromancer) while speaking of the frontier metaphor operating in discussions of virtuality and reality. The discussion of the virtual and the real itself, however, was to me less satisfactory, especially where he brought in Deleuze and Levy in a rather sketchy manner. I am hopeful though that he has developed this angle more in his actual paper. Perron's presentation was quite eye-catching even though i am still scratching my head about whether to agree with him or not. Perron spoke interestingly and effectively replaced the concept of the magic circle with that of a 'magic cycle' where he showed games as existing on various levels of a spiral structure. I was happy to see that the narrative was firmly ensconced within his structure.
the palace: the only bit of sightseeing that I managed :)

I think I'll stop trying to summarise the papers ... and end by writing down some general impressions. And i suppose, i should say something about my own paper (which by the way, is available on my website ). Some of my best game research moments happened during this conference and most of them outside the formal conference sessions. For example, I had a really illuminating conversation with Jesper Juul and Richard Bartle at dinner: as such conversations tend to do, this one meandered around a host of topics like cricket, game-design, UK universities and even time in games. Something Bartle casually mentioned while describing his conception of game-design will, i think, remain with me for a long time: he described the design of the MUD as a river - what a lovely metaphor for sandbox games! The other extremely memorable moment was my conversation with Mark Butler. I had a chat with Mark on the train from Potsdam to Berlin - a journey of about forty minutes. In those forty minutes, I discovered one of the keenest minds working on game studies. Mark Butler's research encompasses computer games in terms of Lacanian psychoanalysis, Zizek and finally D & G. I am at present reading his book Would You Like to Play a Game? - which is turning out to be a struggle mostly due to my rather limited German.

My own session was chaired by Mark (which was fortunate as having a fellow Deleuzian chairing the session always is). Personally, i feel that my presentation did its job and despite my over-accelerated pace a lot of people got the gist of what i was saying. Pace the game-designers and the many whom i left restless, Deleuzian theory is perhaps the most germane single set of theoretical assumptions that help describe the ludic process in videogames.It is difficult to absorb Deleuze and he often is kept out of the common philosophy diet - so I'm more than happy to have had evoked the response that i got. I was asked some great questions: particularly one by Professor Mersch about the face in the FPS game which still has me scratching my head. Even from those who didn't ask me anything, I had some responses like 'I'm not sure how Deleuze is relevant to my approach to game studies but now i feel that he is terribly relevant ... somehow' : guys, you don't know how happy this makes me. I was in the selfsame situation and saying the same things not so many days ago and this kind of gives me the feeling that I'm not alone in feeling how i do. Finally, for those whom i left stranded on 'Deleuze island' :) , i'm sure they will be able to build bridges and to plug-in to numerous planes in the various assemblages around them.

I've got to get back to writing about 'immersion' (again!) for my current chapter: quite a depressing change from the stimulating conversations that i had with game studies researchers in Potsdam. There are quite a few people whom I' haven't managed to name in this post - however, they have indeed 'made, shaped and quickened' some of the opinions that i hold now. Both my co-speakers and the students at Potsdam have made my visit more than fabulous and I will jump at a chance to go back. Only this time I have promised myself some sightseeing.

Those who have reached as far as this, my apologies for writing such a long and rambling post. I thought I'd write down whatever came to my mind in whichever desultory manner ... a week has already passed and the memories are growing dim.

It's finally happening! I am going to present a paper at the Games and Philosophy Conference at the University of Potsdam in exactly four days from now. I'm quite thrilled (to say the least) because of two reasons mainly: 1) this will be my first visit to Germany and 2) I'll be able to meet game studies heavyweights like Ian Bogost, Jesper Juul and Richard Bartle to name a few.

What am I speaking on? It's a combination of all my pet obsessions - Deleuze, S.T.A.L.K.E.R , cinema ...

Will write a detailed post when i come back. I can't help noting that planning for this trip (including the visa hassle) has proved no less than a bad bossfight: let's see what the next level holds in store.