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.

I don’t think its insulting at all either to problematize these constructions in the media that we love to consume. Mainstream outlets like Gamasutra (which is probably the least-mainstream of them) will never deal with this kind of material because it’s just too jargon rich for their audience, but we still play games that take into consideration such thoughts (showing that at least some designers find this interesting): think the final scenes of Metal Gear Solid 2 when you run around naked – striped of your armour, weapons and sense of reality. Now THAT messed with subject construction and psychology.

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’m not arguing that avatar systems shouldn’t be in games – I’m arguing that they have become so ubiquitous only recently because there is a burgeoning psychological demand for them. I agree that any particular game feature can become a tool for creativity or exploitation in the game – the whole point is that any particular feature (narrative, gameplay, or otherwise) can be perceived in a multitude of different ways. Hence, “body armour” (as a psychological stance) is a way of playing games that *restricts* enjoyment and creativity, rather than opens it up. The assumption in Martyn Zachary’s post is that the player brings very few interpretive resources to the game and that Avatars are poor tools for dwelling – I’m trying to break open that assumption to show that there are many kinds of players. Some play in terms of their body armour, some do not try to embody the protagonist at all in favour of turning the game into a sand-box. (Which involves a whole new level of analysis – sandbox play styles open up some doors while closing others).

Glad the article evoked your critical response Ian – there are so many aspects of player psychology work probing that I can hardly capture them in one article!

(And re: the blog – thanks! It’s great to hear that it inspires you a bit – I write only for the sake of my unabashed love for an artistic medium that otherwise gets neglected, or is relegated to a form of mindless/soulless entertainment.)

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!

Thank you for the *very* lucid and articulate response to the article. I think you’ve managed to characterize the article just right, and in doing so, exposed some of the unspoken problems of role-playing in video games. I had not considered my post a critique of gamer identity, but I think you’ve got a marvellous job of extending it into that domain.
What I question in the article is the value of giving the self-suprressive gamer the tools for “creating” a new public identity — it reduces a very complex psychology to the surfaces of public fashion, instead of allowing private feelings to reach full expression. I fully agree that games have provided players with tools for reconstructing their social identities, but instead of creating a more integrated sense of self where people feel freer to talk about/enjoy gaming, it has created a private (hidden) place that never intersects with public life.

For instance, if I am sitting on the Metro and watching a gamer play Animal Crossing, she takes on a different identity in the game than I see on the train. She maintains a very careful and focused demeanour and never smiles while she plays – YET she *wants* to smile but feels too self-conscious about the people on the train watching her. If I ask her what she is playing, she will be too embarrassed to admit that she loves role-playing anime characters in a virtual town. She cannot tell her ‘real life’ friends how much she cares for her little town, because public life and virtual life do not intersect. The only option she has is to develop a community of virtual friends online, and join forums. This is a GOOD thing — she has opportunities for expressing herself online that she avoids in real social life. However — this is the problem: it is very unlikely that she learns how to integrate virtual life and real life — they remain two non-intersecting lives, and she lives a divided life: half of her is defined by her gamer identity, and the other half in her public social identity. This is what dutch psychologist J.H. Van den Berg called “Divided Existence” or “Leven in meervoud“. It is a problem because the self never becomes integrated: she wears armour in her games that prevents her from expressing her real life of family/friends/personal issues, and she wears armour in real life that prevents her from expressing her virtual gamer identity. Now keep in mind that this is a very extreme example, but I think that many gamers can appreciate how difficult it is to talk about their personal life in relation to games, as well as talk about games with the people they know in public social life.

So, I agree with you: avatars and creative play are not a problem themselves, but they can become a problem for the person who cannot integrate mutually exclusive social identities. Roleplay can become “escape” from real life — it is very real and psychologically crippling. I agree that this is much better than identifying with a pre-made hero of films and television, but it brings the exact same chance that people prevent their own self-transformation.

I’ve read Joseph Campbell (Hero of a Thousand Faces) and he is very good – I also have training as an anthropologist owing to my academic background. One thing I find interesting is that because many rituals have disappeared from modern society, we no longer have opportunities for “dressing up” or painting our skin, or dancing in groups – and this is part of the reason we fail to mature or develop a strong identity. Carl Jung had much to say about this in his psychological research/therapy, as I’m sure you know.

Identity-play is, I think, one of the most important developments we have in modern society, and much of it is owed to the internet. However, there is no “going back” to pre-modern society and ritual will never become strong enough again to repair a pluralistic social existence – so we need new ways of integrating self-identity. We are now psychological creatures (in the ‘inner’, mental, sense of that word) – prior to the 1700s we were not. I think certain games can offer chances at integrating self-identity, but it is only possible when the gamer her/him-self is ready to take the challenge of the “hero”. I’m not convinced that changing my hair color or buying new pants in Second Life will do that.

Thanks again for the VERY thought-provoking comment Nsae Comp! Your response, in many ways, has overshadowed the thoughts of my article.

http://www.in.com/videos/watchvideo-joseph-campbell-psyche-and-symbol-1-of-10-3702771.html

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

@Bryan – That’s a more social view of an Avatar, and seems to be pretty close to Neil Stephenson’s style of writing them up. (The idea that the avatar somehow has ‘personality’ itself, and that it jumps into a fully social world the second the player logs in.) That seems to be close to the standard MUD/MMORPG understanding of avatars.

I guess what I’m getting at is that Gibson, Stephenson, and all virtual world (mud/mmo) games tend to *conceal* the word ‘avatar’ in its meaning, rather than reveal it. The one game that seems to reveal the meaning of the word, in its original spiritual root, is the Ultima series (beginning at Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar) when your role as the player is to become the embodiment of virtue. This is a fairly Greek understanding of virtue, but it does maintain the importance of spiritual practice in the living of Avatarship. “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 (that exists prior to my playing her/him) that I have the luck to embody for a short while. 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? What I’m saying is that there is an assumption in virtual worlds that avatars must somehow be extensions of the player’s body, or representatives of physical selves, where in the Ultima series the player is expected to curtail his/her own desires in favour of populating a virtual body.

I’m not saying that there is any one ‘true’ meaning to the word avatar, but the Ultima series seems to unconceal a bit more if its originary cultural meaning.

Many thanks for the thoughtful responses! I suspect that this is a larger debate than some would expect – and will eventually become a central problem in virtual worlds. (btw – on a similar topic, Raph Koster has noted that the word “massively” no longer really makes sense in MMO – read his post here)

Except the authors use is correct, the digital avatar is an outward representation of the controller and as such is identified online as the controller.

Its not the actions of the controller that determine what is an avatar but how other controllers perceive the digital representation.

An Agent on the other hand simply extends the function of the controller, and is generally regarded as “property” of the controller rather then an identity.

From an online perspective an Agent is represented by Bots, which extend the controller’s functions and presence but do not directly represent the actual controller. ( Particularly well crafted Bots are often treated as a separate identity that acts on behalf of the controller.)

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”.