Body Armour and the Problem of “Avataritis”

It it interesting to me that somewhere along the line, the Digital concept of an Avatar, via the offices of Mssrs Gibson and Stephenson, came to represent what we call our in-game characters. As the authors used them, they were *literally* an online version of themselves, instead of what we have today, which are distinct digital beings who act by our command and in our stead.

All symbols have power and the word Avatar is an exceptionally powerful one. But not, I think, the correct one for our usage in our online worlds.

I wonder how our perceptions of our ‘Avatars’ might be different today if the person who first applied the term to an ‘in-game character’ had instead used the more correct term of ‘Agent’.

And make no mistake, they are nothing more than agents: These online beings, regardless of what fantastical abilities they may possess, do precisely what we tell them to and nothing more. They relay information about their world modified through their sometimes unique perspectives that allow us, as handlers of these agents, to interact with their digital worlds. But they are not *us*.

I suppose the problem lies in the difference between “The Avatar is Me” and “The Avatar is a distinct entity that does my bidding”.

At first I find it very interesting that you recognized, that people are cautious, when talking about their gaming experiences. This seems to be a very troubling and rather social problem, than a problem on the individual level.
This situation provokes the question, if those people are ALWAYS shy, or not?
And if so, do the games liberate/empower them, to overcome this shyness, by providing them with an option and tool to create a (new) self, or if they are just building up an even stronger shell/skin/armor.

I find your thoughts quite interesting. But I have some trouble understanding what exactly you are criticizing, so I will try to draw around what you wrote, by stating my thoughts, which came up while reading, I hope that is enough for a comment.

So as far as I can summarize, what I read (instead of what you wrote ;-D), is that you are criticizing that people do not venture into any roleplay, and just reconstruct their person, when playing, in the (their) game(-world), with the same (self and socially imposed) limitations of self-expression/-formation and -representation, which they practice in the “real” world, on a daily basis?
But don’t people, who play games, want always, to some extend venture into this/another game world?
So maybe one rather should ask, how to improve this quality of traveling, in and by games, which lets the player, play with his/her identity. Something he or she, cannot do in the social, daily life, with all their limitations and taboos.
So I it is maybe not the question, why people do not experiment with their armor/skin, and in that respect, with their identity; but rather, why they do it so cautiously, and how the programmer/the game designer, and the whole (gaming-)society, can provoke a deeper confrontation with their or others identities (e.g. Heroes/Stars), especially with more experimental, and provocative identities, like (anti-)heroes, villains, real people, disguised people, “freaks”, obscene characters, etc., basically, with the whole spectrum of “errorised” identities, which our diverse universe empowers and provides us with (sorry, the end is a bit far off).

That said, I cannot agree, that the customization, and creative play, or just self-reconstruction, of oneself, and thus by the players, with, and by avatars, is a problem.
But to back to your core statement, I think that you wanted to point out, that this ‘avataritis’, is without goal.
As you said, any attempt to dive deeper, into a character, created, from minute to minute by actions, by playing, traveling, dancing, etc.; and represented by its skin/armor/clothes/avatar is not experimented very deeply, on the contrary, as you said, it is approached much more cautiously, shy, or even self-oppressing.
But still, I think playing with an avatar (which I think is a part of your identity, as well as you are a part of his/her/its identity), is still much more creative, and has a much more interesting quality, to play with your identity, self-perception, and self-representation, than any normal approach, in our modern culture, by for example just identifying with a hero on screen, which delivers you a finished and complete package, you only have to choose.
But still (again), I THINK, that I see what you wanted to say, that this dull use of creating ones avatar, just to reconstruct the same cautious identity, of oneself, which you have already in the real world, is a problem, but as I said, at the same moment, it is a strong tool, to reinvent yourself.
Something which often is missing in our modern culture, because we only have one stage on which we stand and present, and perceive “the”/”our” world, and that is rationality (with rising importance, when art, or other irrationalities becomes unimportant).
So I think this tool of creating this abundance of avatars, is a new way to get back to deeper understanding of the whole concept of identity, and its world around it, and how they interact.
But for that, as rituals need conductors, games need programmers/designers, which guide the actors, on their journey through the ritual dance, and travel, and play.
Thus games, as far as I am concerned, should neither just give you an avatar or hero, which you can relate to, or even identify with, neither they should kill the hero, and let the people and players (dancers/travelers), alone, with that objective to break through all those boundaries of identities which they can relate to, and know how to handle, when the identities emotions and character break its own boundaries (for example by a new world, or plot/travel), and come in direct conflict with their perception of THEIR world, and the “real” world, which impose some habits on them, by for example taboos, ideologies, etc.

Because this topic, as you pointed out yourself, is massive, and because I do not know if I have covered your blog-entry correctly, sufficiently, or even fair , thus I just want to close here my comment, and give you some links, which I find quite inspiring, and adding to your own interesting entries and suggestions (e.g. links), which I found, regarding this kind of topic, on my journey of playing life (and games, of course ;-D):

- A VERY interesting movie concerning this topic, is a Second Life movie called “Molotov Alva and His Search for the Creator. “
http://www.minimovies.org/documentaires/view/secondlife
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/molotovalva/index.html

And for a more wider perspective I recommend, Anthropology as a whole.
Because anthropology deals also a lot with the “Hero”, and as well as with identities, and how they are constructed in cultures, and other (daily) worlds, for example by different role-plays, e.g. as I said at rituals, especially how they dress up and paint their skin, and which functions these practices have.
In general this whole topic, reminds me of the whole fashion, and carnival, as well as costuming culture and discussion, of identity-play.
A good starting point for the whole topic is Joseph Campell (but I could imagine, you know him).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell
(There is also a abundance of video material, on the internet, where he sums up the whole topic, very well)

Thus keep up the great entries and thoughts, every post of yours is like a delicious meal, especially for a playing player ;-D.
And I am eager to read your comment/critique/feedback on my rather spontaneous, and thus maybe not fitting, thoughts.
Yours, Nsae Comp.
Vienna, Austria

It might be good to consider that players do not always recreate themselves, or not themselves exactly, in avatar systems.

I have two friends who got really into Mass Effect a while back, which I haven’t played myself but I understand it implements character customization. Both of these friends had created characters that looked nothing like themselves. One of them could best be described as “banana-like”, an oddly constructed thing that obviously didn’t belong in the game world; I’d assume this character was made by stretching all the settings to their limit in order to create the most bizarre character possible. The other character didn’t look outrageous at all, in fact, he looked like he fit into the game’s universe quite well; you would have thought the game designers, and not my friend, had created this character. Again though, neither of these characters looked anything like either of my friends.

I assume that one of my friends created their avatar in order to break the game world, and the other to sustain it, yet neither of these follow the unwritten law of avatars: “create someone who looks like you”. An important thing to remember about game features like this is that they may not be used as intended, whether for better or worse. Where one player may attempt to distance their character from the game world, the other may try to further immerse themselves. While you can give players a tool and tell them how to use it, there’s nothing to stop them from using it the wrong way, and there’s no definitive way for the game to determine whether the player has followed the supposed rules or not.

If I understand you correctly, you argue that avatar systems should not be in place because they allow the player to distance themselves from the game world? Couldn’t this same argument then be made of any interactive feature? It’s a fairly common pursuit in games to attempt to “get outside the level”, an activity that requires only the ability to move. This act is an obvious removal of oneself from a game, and an unavoidable one at that. There is no way to stop a player from attempting to exploit a set of rules. Perhaps this all is a bit off-subject, but maybe one of the underlying problems of interactivity in narrative is that while it can allow for a player to be more deeply immersed, it has an equal potential for the player be more distantly removed. This conflict may be unavoidable, but the problem of avatars at least helps bring it to light.

–

I’d also like to say that I only recently started reading your blog due to a link on 4cr. Quite unlike most game journalists and essayists I’ve read, your writing really inspires me to make more games. Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to the gaming community!

“The idea that the avatar somehow has ‘personality’ itself, and that it jumps into a fully social world the second the player logs in.”

The Avatar is both the “Body” and the “Controller”, the Avatar itself has no ‘personality’. ( In contrast to an “Agent” which given functions to enable interaction can seem to have personality.)

““The Avatar” (that is his/her name), my pc in the game, is *not* simply an extension of my body nor an agent that does my bidding… s/he is a fully self-responsible thing”

The “Avatar character” has no “self” and acts as the body for “Controller”. ( Not an extension nor as an agent.)

“I must, in a sense, craft my behaviour *around what the world of Britannia requires of me* rather than using the PC as a tool or representative of myself. Does that make any sense?”

Your behaviour isn’t crafted around what the world of Britannia requires of you but is colored by how you the “Controller” decide to take on the “Persona” of the “Avatar Character”. ( This is a good example as the aspects of this “Persona” are often potentially conflicting and are not fully defined by the default history of the Avatar character.)

More to the point the “Avatar” represents the “controller” both as the “controller” and the “Body” of the “controller”, however its up to the “controller” how to represent the “Persona”.

I always thought of this issue of Avatar more along the lines of Cyborg theory…a sort of boundary between “Human” and “Machine.” Cyborg theory, according to Donna Harroway, is a theoretical model that straddles the fence between worlds, taking on characteristics of both. In cyborg theory, one isn’t male or female, but embodies both traits in order to survive. Cyborg theory takes on the notions that “natural” is the idealized state and “artificial” is the fallen state of man, and says that we need to acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of both in order to be honest of our observations.

In discussing Avatars, I always think of cyborg theory. We sort of incorporate these avatars as technological extensions. We construct ourselves as part of the avatar. We never say, “OMG, Mario just died”, we say, “OMG, I just died.” When something fictional catches on, we want to embody that fictional persona.

This is something that we’ve always done. Klaus Theweleit’s “Male Fantasies” is a good starting point, but you can also look at Superheroes as another starting point…especially the superheroes of the 1990s which seemed to embody the reinforcement of cyborg bodies as both natural (see Marvel’s Cable) and sexual rigidity (see most of Image’s line of comics which have very homo-erotic sounding heroic names that sound like genitalia or things you would attach to your genitalia, like Maul, Spartan, War Blade, Ripclaw, etc). I think you could easily draw a line from the comics of the 1990s to video games of today which employ many of these artists or at least similar-style artists in current games today.

In the end, I think I like the idea of “Fiction-naut” or “Fiction-suits” as a good way to describe how we use avatars. Coined from Warren Ellis’ Planetary (as well as Grant Morrison’s Invisibles), Fiction-naut is sort of like treating virtual reality as a entering a new environment that one must put on attire to full immerse themselves within that space. Deep Sea divers need a wetsuit. Astronauts need a space-suit. Video Game players need a “fiction-suit” in order to link down and immerse themselves within a fictional reality that has its own rules and its own ecology.