There’s nothing quite like the prospect of waiting for a delivery to turn up, particularly when you’re given the very convenient window of sometime between 9-5. Given the weather outside its not such a bad thing to stay indoors for a bit longer, hopefully it arrives closer to 9 than 5 though.

I played quite a bit of Assassin’s Creed over the weekend, and I can get why some people have a problem with it – I only completed a couple of missions and there’s really not any variation. However I was quite happy just to leap through the cities, Parkour style, and having epic sword fights anyway.

Interestingly I don’t recall hearing anything about the game’s meta-narrative, so I was quite surprised very early on in the progression of the game when you find out that your avatar isn’t actually a 12th century assassin, but rather his 21st century descendent who being forced to relive his ancestor’s life through the quite Lamarckian notion of genetic memory, so effectively you’re playing a character who is playing a character.

The game manual, set out in part as an instruction manual for using the genetic memory accessing apparatus, the so-called ‘animus’ , even makes reference to this strange twist, stating that the system became much more useful after switching to a videogame style controller set. This is interesting in itself as the control design of the game diverges from the norm in its ‘free running’ mode, where the player has to only hold down two buttons to move rapidly through the environment, scaling walls and leaping gaps, rather than the more usual approach of requiring the player to accurately time these actions.

In a way this approach kind of makes sense within the conceptual context of the game, the player is ’steering’ rather than controlling their character, and as it results in no jumping puzzles I quite like it. Interestingly the game refers to the in game interface that your actual avatar uses as ‘contextual puppeteering controls’, with the four face buttons assigned to the head, each hand, and legs of the avatar. This is interesting in terms of embodiment, however it’s implementation is a little quirky. For instance the weapon hand is assigned to the left most button, even though the avatar wields his weapons with his right hand. Another unrelated quirk is that while playing scenes which revert back to the player’s immediate avatar the game remains in a third person view when perhaps a first person one, effectively what the player is experiencing narratively during the main part of the game, would have made more sense.

In any case its an interesting game because of both the narrative and the control design in terms of embodiment, specifically because of its blending of first and third person perspectives, and in terms of what Hirose describes as embodiment as a process, rather than a static state.

As a result of change with my thesis structure its been a little strange writing this week, going from a 70 odd page monster of a document to a fresh blank page. The new start is coming along well, though I did have some problems getting started with it, mostly due to the difficulty of deciding on what to start with. Looking over the various games I’ll be looking at, and at the themes I want to investigate, it was a little tough to work out how to disentangle the themes from each other, as they tend to overlap considerably. For instance, the notion of the interface is heavily connected with questions of spatiality, whilst there is a similar problem with notions of presence and spatiality. At the moment I’m thinking of using the game I’m writing about at the moment [giantJoystick] by Mary Flanagan as something of a test case, going over it in detail to flag the themes and different permutations of the themes that can then be examined in more details with the other games.

So far this approach seems to be falling into place relatively satisfactory, though I haven’t got as much work done today as I was hoping to due to a series of minor distractions. I had a meeting this morning with the lecturer and other tutors for the course I’m teaching in next semester, which went on for longer than I expected. Then, checking The Age website whilst eating lunch I noticed that they were about to start a live stream of a dissection of a giant squid at Melbourne Museum. Having finished my lunch I thought that it was too good an opportunity to miss seeing a 250kg mystery of the deep being cut apart, I guess I have an unhealthy curiosity in giant cephalopods, luckily I’m not alone.

Last Thursday and Friday I attended a ARC Cultural Research Network workshop called The game of being mobile: mobile technologies, gaming cultures and the haptic, organised by Larissa Hjorth and Dr Ingrid Richardson. There were some very interesting discussions, including the suggestion of a location based mobile game for domestic spaces, and also on the nature of the haptic. It was also great to get to talk to scholars like Andrew Murphie about the notion of embodiment. Hopefully these discussions will carry on and present some opportunities for further research after I’ve finished my PhD.

On that topic, my thesis has gone back to the drawing board to a degree, as my writing has drifted quite far from what was originally intended. Though this was somewhat bound to happen with my particular writing practice, I think that I took the maxim of ‘don’t be afraid to write rubbish’ a little too far, and ended up in an exploration of philosophical issues somewhat outside of my purview. Hopefully some of the stuff that I’ve written will be able to be lifted out and worked into the new structure, which orientates around the close reading of a host of games I’ve flagged as potentially interesting.