Beings in the game-world: characters, avatars, and players

ABSTRACT

Immersive and engaging are words often used interchangeably to describe the player's experience of gameplay without clear distinction between what these terms refer to, and without investigation of the underlying basis of each experience. This paper aims to build upon previous work by other authors on the nature of the player's experience of gameplay by focusing on how these experiences are mediated by the player's point of control within the game-world. The relationship between the player and their point of control in the game-world is discussed in terms of embodiment to articulate differences between the terms avatar and character, distinctions that are in turn used as a basis for understanding how different attitudes towards the activity of gameplay arise from the interplay of different relationships between the player and their point of control. Finally there is a consideration of how the relationship between the player and their point of control and resultantly their attitudes towards the activity of gameplay may influence different types of an experience of being-in-the-game-world, namely immersion, engagement, presence, and telepresence.

REFERENCES

• 1: Carr, D., Schott, G., Burn, A. and Buckingham, D. 2004. Doing Game Studies: A multimethod approach to the study of textuality, interactivity and narrative space. Media International Australia, 110 (February 2004). 19--30.
• 2: Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001
• 3: Eskelinen, M. 2001. The gaming situation. Game Studies, 1 (1) (July 2001). URL= http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/eskelinen.
• 4: Friedman, T. 1999. Civilization and its discontents: Simulation, subjectivity and space. In On a Silver Platter: CD-ROMs and the Promises of a New Technology, G. Smith, Ed. New York University Press, New York, 132--152. URL= http://www.duke.edu/~tlove/civ.htm.
• 5: Game Ontology. Project. 2006. Locus of Manipulation. URL= http://www.gameontology.org/index.php/Locus_of_Manipul ation/.
• 6: Gibson, J. J. 1986. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
• 7: Hirose, N. 2002. An ecological approach to embodiment and cognition. Cognitve Systems Research, 3 (3) (2002). 289--299.
• 8: Huizinga, J. 1971. Homo Ludens. Paladin, London.
• 9: Jakobsson, P. and Pargman, D. 2005. Configuring the player: Subversive behavior in Project Entropia. In Proceedings of the 2nd International DIGRA Conference (Vancouver, Canada, June 16--20, 2005). URL= http://www.digra.org/dl/db/06276.20328.pdf.
• 10: Juul, J. 2002. The open and closed: Games of emergence and games of progression. In Proceedings of the Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference (Tampere, Finland, June 06--08, 2002). Tampere University Press. URL= http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/openandtheclosed.html.
• 11: King, G. and Krzywinska, T. 2003. Gamescapes: Exploration and virtual presence in game-worlds. In Proceedings of the 1^st International DIGRA Conference (Utrecht University, The Netherlands, November 04--06, 2003) URL= http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05163.05167.pdf.
• 12: Kucklich, J. 2003. Perspectives of computer game philology. Game Studies, 3 (1) (May 2003). URL= http://www.gamestudies.org/0301/kucklich/.
• 13: Linderoth, J. 2005. Animated game pieces. Avatars as roles, tools and props. In Proceedings of the Aesthetics of Play, (Bergen, Norway, October 14--15, 2005). URL= http://www.aestheticsofplay.org/linderoth.php.
• 14: Lindley, C. A. 2005. The semiotics of time structure in ludic space as a foundation for analysis and design. Game Studies, 5 (1) (October 2005). URL= http://www.gamestudies.org/0501/lindley/.
• 15: McMahan, A. 2003. Immersion, engagement, and presence: A method for analyzing 3-D video games. In The Video Game Theory Reader, M. J. P. Wolf, and B. Perron, Eds. Routledge, New York, 68--86.
• 16: Newman, J. 2002. The myth of the ergodic videogame. Game Studies, 2 (1) (July 2002). URL= http://www.gamestudies.org/0102/newman/.
• 17: Newman, J. 2004. Videogames. Routledge, London.
• 18: Perron, B. 2003. From gamers to players and gameplayers: The example of interactive movies. In The Video Game Theory Reader, M. J. P. Wolf, and B. Perron, Eds. Routledge, New York, 237--258.
• 19: Andrew Polaine, The flow principle in interactivity, Proceedings of the second Australasian conference on Interactive entertainment, p.151-158, November 23-25, 2005, Sydney, Australia
• 20: Steven Poole, Trigger Happy, Fourth Estate, 2001
• 21: Steuer, J. 1992. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42 (4) (December 1992). 73--93.

INDEX TERMS

Keywords:
avatars, characters, embodiment, telepresence