He Scores Through a Screen: Mediating Masculinities Through Hockey Video Games

Ouellette, Marc A.; Conway, Steven

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90581-5_7

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Judy Y. Chu’s germinal When Boys Become Boys (2014) outlines this healthy self-in-relation, an aspect of young boys’ identity until they learn to “not be a girl,” by acting as a Self-alone, “boys’ socialisation—toward masculine ideals that emphasize, for example, physical toughness, emotional stoicism, and projected self-sufficiency—may lead boys to devalue and disconnect from their emotions and relationships” (p. 7). As Ouellette (2018, online) summarizes this aspect of Chu’s findings:boys have their sense of connectedness—to each other and to others—driven out of them, or they, at least, learn to hide it. To be sure, this is an important finding, for it suggests that emotional distance is neither a pre-condition nor a requirement of becoming a man.…”

Section: Faye-talismmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Simply put, Kratos’ anger is his godly attribute, supplying the player with the masculine power fantasy of complete domination attained autonomously; the overwhelming power of a solitary, hypermasculine Self continuously, repetitively proving his credentials. As Ouellette and Conway (2018) remark, “it becomes clear that the building of masculinity and the empowerment of the character become one and the same…games become a ritual of traditional masculinity, in which the player…reclaims manhood” (p. 122).…”

Section: Ghost Of Spartamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For him, games are the favored terrain in which he flexes the techno-muscular power and keen rationality which mark his synthesis of both jock and geek. (p. 25)This highlights a tension between two depictions of masculinity: the contemporary “soft,” technologically dependent masculinity, and the traditional “hard,” immanent one (Ouellette & Conway, 2018). In digital games, this is often a contrast between the “cyborgian self-in-relation, rather than the supremely hypermasculine, natural self” (Ouellette & Conway, 2018, p. 123).…”

Section: Boy Toymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(p. 25)This highlights a tension between two depictions of masculinity: the contemporary “soft,” technologically dependent masculinity, and the traditional “hard,” immanent one (Ouellette & Conway, 2018). In digital games, this is often a contrast between the “cyborgian self-in-relation, rather than the supremely hypermasculine, natural self” (Ouellette & Conway, 2018, p. 123). While the earlier games focused on the intrinsic strength of Kratos’ martial skill and godly powers, the latest God of War (Santa Monica Studio, 2018) offers a direct acknowledgment of Kratos’ dependence upon technology, and of course his son’s abilities, to achieve his goals.…”

Section: Boy Toymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Poisonous Pantheons: God of War and Toxic Masculinity

Conway

2019

Games and Culture

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kratos, protagonist of God of War (2005–current), is an archetypal representation of toxic masculinity. For much of the series, his rage drives much of the narrative and game dynamics, as Kratos destroys the entire Greek pantheon. The latest iteration of the series moves Kratos into Norse mythology and introduces a son. This father–son relationship allows the developers to ruminate upon the toxic masculinity that has defined much of the series’ past. Kratos’ trajectory moves from the flatness of one defining characteristic, rage, to an introspective consideration of this emotion and its consequences. A parabolic supporting cast set the stage, each illustrating an aspect of toxicity; as explored, the mother–son relationship between Freya and her son, Baldur, is given a poignant twist. Overall, this article investigates how God of War articulates characteristics of toxic masculinity, explores its repercussions, and offers lessons for its rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Faye-talismmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Ghost Of Spartamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Boy Toymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Boy Toymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Poisonous Pantheons: God of War and Toxic Masculinity

Conway

2019

Games and Culture

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ouellette 2019). As we wrote in an earlier paper, we already know that video games have changed the way sports are viewed and played (Ouellette and Conway 2018). Moreover, the fact that financial houses are using games indicates that the ultimate post-Thatcher, post-Reagan arbiter-the market-has already decided games are important and "real" for those running the economy.…”

Section: Serious Vs Distraction (Symptom 1 -Incommensurable Goals)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Game Studies Crisis: What Are the Rules of Play?

Ouellette¹,

Conway²

2021

EJCGC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though no field or discipline’s historical vector presents itself as a strictly linear building of knowledge, the historical trajectory of Game Studies is problematic: certainly not linear, yet also not even multiplicious or rhizomatic. Instead, we are cyclical. Past debates often re-emerge, zombie-like, muttering the same arguments, often encased in binaries as endemic to our field as they are to the objects we study: unbridgeable disagreements on fundamental concepts; incompatible ontologies and epistemologies; incommensurability writ large. We view this as a chronic issue which has of late culminated in a crisis, exacerbated by changing institutional prerogatives championing multidisciplinary approaches and demands for “public impact”. This article takes a metaphysical approach, performing a meta-review to search for the root cause of our field’s cyclical nature. We identify and explore a key issue, namely our continuing status as pre-paradigmatic field, and ask questions designed to provoke ways forward, to provide more inflection points and fewer endless loops.

show abstract

A Feel for the Game: AI, Computer Games and Perceiving Perception

Ouellette¹,

Conway

2020

EJCGC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I walk into the room and the smell of burning wood hits me immediately. The warmth from the fireplace grows as I step nearer to it. The fire needs to heat the little cottage through night so I add a log to the fire. There are a few sparks and embers. I throw a bigger log onto the fire and it drops with a thud. Again, there are barely any sparks or embers. The heat and the smell stay the same. They don’t change and I do not become habituated to it. Rather, they are just a steady stream, so I take off my VR headset and give my recommendations to the team programming the gameified world of the virtual museum of the future (one depicting an ancient Turkish settlement, being built now at the institution where one of us works). As much as this technological world seems almost too futuristic, it actually retrieves obsolete items from the past—a heater, a piece of wood, and a spray bottle—in keeping with McLuhan’s (1973) insights regarding media that provide strong participation goals and the rubric for achieving them. Moreover, the VR world extends the progression of game AI that occasioned the love-hate relationship with the “walking sim.” The stronger the AI, the more clearly defined the rubric for participation. In the VR interactive museum the designers want people to be able to “play” with haptic devices—like the smell, smoke, and heat generators—in order to heighten not only the immersion but also the perception of being there, or what Bolter and Grusin (1999) call “immediacy.” Indeed, Bolter and Grusin argue that the need for immediacy overwhelmingly takes over, regardless of the media’s intrusion. However, in the example above, the system fell short because the designers had not figured for someone laying down the “log” on the virtual fire and having it send a representative—that is, a perceptual, based on experience, intuition, etc.—amount of sparks and heat. Someone else could throw the log as hard as they want. The machine only senses log in or log out. This corresponds precisely with how we feel about phenomena, for machines and AI are based upon a model of intelligence which prioritises mental representation and symbolic manipulation. For Laird and van Lent (2001), in their field defining presentation, the “killer app” of human-level AI was going to be computer games. Writing a decade later in the same conference proceedings, Weber, Mateas, and Jhala (2011), are still responding to this original position, by way of AI in strategy games. Writing for this year’s, IEEE meeting Petrović (2018) also makes the case for human-level AI in games. What becomes clear, then, is that as much as we have wanted games to offer human behaviours, perception has taken a backseat in the extant models.As phenomenology makes clear, the emphasis on behaviour over perception leaves out the crucial, indeed foundational mode of intelligence: affective intentionality. Simply put, how we feel about phenomena impacts how we perceive phenomena as significant, inconsequential, interesting, etc. Thus, we should be asking if machines can understand significance? Can they feel any particular way about a game, a move, or the phenomenon of play? This becomes important when mental representation provides the mode of symbolic manipulation and vice versa. This occurs in and through a given game or gameified world’s ability to instill, simulate, or otherwise produce affective intentionality. We would argue that herein lies the crux of the mixed reactions to Red Dead Redemption 2. Similarly, the example from the virtual museum highlights the ongoing omission. Human-level AI should not just reproduce a human’s response to inputs, but should produce responses that a human would perceive. In short human-level AI needs to perceive perception itself. Indeed, this is the primary cognitive and affective response. Phenomenology does not tell us that; first principles semiotics tells us that. However, phenomenology gives us the means and methods to understand the response to affective intentionality and, more importantly, to develop the contingent hermeneutic (Merleau-Ponty, 2013). Moreover, semiotics will never encompass the materiality required of such a system, let alone the simulated materiality that exists through the interaction with the AI device and its interface, a device that bears the mark of the maker, just as surely as a bespoke shirt does. Thus, our paper will consider the production of affective intentionality and the ways VR games and gameified systems, like the virtual museum and Red Dead Redemption 2, facilitate, impede, and especially teach the perception of perception. As a corollary, then, our paper necessarily considers meta-cognitive processes—that is, the strategies for learning about learning—that occur in and through interaction with AI in games and devices (cf Hacker, 1998, 2016). Indeed, meta-cognition becomes a contingent component for instilling affective intentionality.

show abstract

He Scores Through a Screen: Mediating Masculinities Through Hockey Video Games

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

Poisonous Pantheons: God of War and Toxic Masculinity

Poisonous Pantheons: God of War and Toxic Masculinity

The Game Studies Crisis: What Are the Rules of Play?

A Feel for the Game: AI, Computer Games and Perceiving Perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About