In Perron’s edited compendium of essays regarding horror video games subtitled Essays on the Fusion of Fear and Play (2009), much of the argumentation orbits debate regarding the definition and creation of the experience of horror compared between an ostensibly passive cinema reception (from whence the games take most of their conventions) and the ostensibly more active reception of ludological horror. As the argument goes, ludic activity creates greater identification with diegetic characters and therefore heightens the player’s experience of horror. But is this true, or is it a specious contention that does not really account for the complex mechanics of identification with characters in the ostensibly “passive” experience of cinema viewing, nor for the fact that lacking realism and “active” gameplay may actually compromise the experience of “transportation”?
AndersonS. L. (2013). Start, select, continue: The ludic anxiety in video game scholarship. Review of Communication, 13(4), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.886333
2.
BaranS. J.DavisD. K. (2015).Mass communication theory: Foundations, ferment, and future (Seventh Edition). Stamford: Cengage Learning.
3.
CarrD. (2006). Games and narrative. In CarrD.BuckinghamD.BurnA.SchottG. (Eds.), Computer Games: Text, Narrative and Play (pp. 30–44). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
4.
CarrollN. (2003). The philosophy of horror: Or, paradoxes of the heart. England, UK: Routledge.
5.
CondyS. (2020, March, 9). Group Presentation (on SOMA). In Horror video games: Active Ludology vs. passive reception. AHVS 311 - Horror Video Games at the University of Victoria.
6.
CoteA. C. (2020). Gaming sexism. New York, NY, USA: New York University Press.
7.
Egenfeldt-NielsenS.SmithJ. H.ToscaS. P. (2019). Understanding video games: The essential introduction. London, UK: Routledge.
8.
EskelinenM. (2001). The Gaming Situation. Game Studies, 1(1), n.p.
9.
GreenM. C.,BrockT. C. (2000). The Role of Transportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.701
LorentzP. (2014). Why failing in games is a positive aspect of play: A review of jesperjuul’s the art of failure. Journal of Games Criticism, 19(9), 146144481771320. http://gamescriticism.org/reviews/lorentz-1-2.
MetzC. (1984). The imaginary signifier: Psychoanalysis and the cinema. Transl. C. Britton et al.Bloomington, USA: Indiana University Press.
22.
MurrayJ. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck – the future of narrative in cyberspace. Nariman Point, Mumbai: Free Press.
23.
PerronB. (2009). The extended body genre. In PerronB. (Ed.), Horror Video Games: Essays on the Fusion of Fear and Play (pp. 121–143). USA: McFarland.
24.
PinchbeckD. (2009). Shock, horror: First-person gaming, horror, and the art of ludic manipulation. In PerronB. (Ed.), Horror Video Games: Essays on the Fusion of Fear and Play (pp. 79–94). McFarland.
25.
RombesN. (2017). Cinema in the digital age. NY, USA: Columbia University Press.
26.
RouseR.III (2009). Match made in hell: The inevitable success of the horror genre in video games. In PerronB. (Ed.), Horror Video Games: Essays on the Fusion of Fear and Play (pp. 15–25). USA: McFarland.
27.
Roux-GirardG. (2011). Chapter 10 – listening to fear: A study of sound in horror computer games. In GrimshawM. (Ed.), Game Sound Technology and Player Interaction: Concepts and Developments (pp. 192–212). Information Science Reference.
28.
SiaperaE. (2017). Understanding new media. NY, USA: Sage.
29.
TherrienC. (2009). Games of fear: A multi-faceted historical account of the horror genre in video games. In PerronB (Ed.), Horror Video Games: Essays on the Fusion of Fear and Play (pp. 26–45). USA: McFarland.
30.
WeiseM. (2009).The rules of horror: Procedural adaptation in clock tower, resident evil, and dead rising. In PerronB. (Ed.), Horror Video Games: Essays on the Fusion of Fear and Play (pp. 238–266). USA: McFarland.
