| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (14)

Posted: May 7th 2009 10:09AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, applying the usual algorithm, are our bodies tokens? Just like avatars, the answer at first seems to be "of course not, they're way more than that", but on deeper consideration we *do* invest alot in tokens, just like we do in bodies (or avatars), so maybe they are. Sort of. :)

Posted: May 7th 2009 10:41AM Myria said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Fundamentally I think there are two extreme views, with most people being somewhere in the middle.

Oversimplifying a tad, most people see their avatar as either a chess piece or a doll.

A chess piece is wholly separate from you, a token whose shape and parameters are mostly meaningless. Given a choice, someone who sees their avatar as a chess piece will pick one based first on any in-game advantage (real or perceived) and second based on whatever they find most visually pleasing or appropriate. In the end appearance and gender, these things are merely cosmetic and not overly important to the function of the chess piece, nor does the chess piece itself hold much inherent value beyond whatever may be attached to it (achievements, gear, what have you).

A doll is you, some part of you as you are or would like to be. You infuse the doll with personality and life, part of the fun of the game is the fun of living vicariously in the game world through your character. As such, you want the doll to represent yourself and/or your vision as closely as possible. Appearance and gender are of critical importance, the doll itself has inherent value based solely on the life you have infused into it and independent of whatever is attached to it.

Most people are somewhere between the two extremes, with, as a gross generalization, men tending to see avatars as chess pieces (thus the jokes about men playing female characters) and women tending to see avatars as dolls (As a percentage, how many women play male characters? Darn few). As is typical of such things, neither side tends to understand the other -- most don't even seem aware there is another point-of-view -- and if they do then they tend to view their opposite with disdain and their own view as inherently correct.

As the chess view has been dominant in gaming from near the beginning, it tends to be the default position. Fortunately that is waning -- note the ever-increasing character creation options in newer games -- but it's going to take a while for the old school to fade.

Posted: May 7th 2009 10:42AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree with Dale- are our bodies tokens ?

Sure, we start off being given our bodies by our biological parents, and in our developmental years our appearance and behaviour is shaped by by our parents/guardians etc.

Eventually though, we start to define our own identity, choosing what clothes we want to wear, the style of our hair etc. (whether or not we do it uniquely or as a "dedicated follower of fashion").

Personally, I'm not particularly attached to my body, but I have nowhere else to put myself presently, so I make do with what I can. Avatars/tokens tend to be more customisable than our biological shells....

I wonder if this makes me transhumanist ?

Posted: May 7th 2009 10:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Some think that our own bodies are tokens that we have have less choice about.

Posted: May 7th 2009 11:07AM Joystiq Login Bugs SUCK said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would guess augmentists see their avatars as tokens (or as Myria says, dolls) choosing just what gets the job done best, maybe dressing them up a little as a status symbol.

Immersionists though will become the avatar, to lose the distinction it isn't them.

As I see it though everyone could become attached more, they just don't get the chance. In social games like redlight, entropia, home, opensim where the gameplay is more about leisure and relationships then this link between the avatar and yourself can be more intimate, such is the nature of those games, in WoW though where the social interaction is based around a more work like environment like how to best kill that boss... then the grip is more tenuous.

Posted: May 7th 2009 11:15AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The only avatars I have are in MMORPGs now more commonly known as MMOGs. These avatars does not represent me, they represent my CHARACTERS and each character is distinct. Referring to my character as a "token" or "toon" is somewhat degrading to me (and any role-player, I suppose) but I can understand that is how the majority plays since role-players are in the minority.

Posted: May 7th 2009 11:34AM Rive said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All things being equal you could certainly consider avatars and even our own bodies to be nothing more than tokens. However, all things are not equal, and our bodies and to a much lesser degree our avatars represent more than that. They are an extension of our own inner personalities. I

I don't think you can make much of an argument for our bodies being nothing more than tokens. Even if you strip us naked we have mannerisms, expressions and other intangible qualities that betray our inner makeup.

Avatars are trickier. They aren't expressive in the same way are bodies are and as such its much easier to make the case that they are simply tokens. On the other hand they are, to a degree, a product of our own creativity and thus tell a little something about us.

John Locke touched upon an idea similar to this when he talked about the idea or property. He explored the concept that whenever we spend time and energy to create something that it is in turn imbued with our own essence and has a part of us in it. I think you can easily extent this argument to avatars which we spend time both creating and growing.



Posted: May 7th 2009 12:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My core point was that those who think that they are chess pieces are outright wrong, at the very least in terms of how the human brain works and how other players react to the avatar.

Posted: May 7th 2009 12:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Absolutely. We mostly agree with that too!
Reply

Posted: May 7th 2009 12:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Heh, I wasn't answering the article, but the thread. :)

I do agree that we form attachments of varying degrees to tokens, by the way. So I agree with the article. But I think that's a much more complex area, whereas I consider the avatar issue pretty black and white -- there's no shortage of studies and science around it.

Posted: May 7th 2009 1:11PM mszv said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think of my avatars as either characters I identify with, in the game, or some fictional representation of myself in the game. It's like that, for me, for solo player games and multiplayer games.

I think it's kind of odd that people would think of your avatar/character as merely some sort of game piece you move around the virtual board - where's the immersion in that? The great thing about games, particularly ones with characters and story and a world setting, is that you can be in another world, similar, but not exactly the same as reading a book or watching a movie. The character places you in that world. I like that.

Posted: May 7th 2009 5:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In a game like Monopoly or a virtual world like Second Life, I think your argument holds the most obvious truth. Especially in games where the style of the piece chosen has no bearing on the game, we tend to reflect the most of ourselves in the tokens we choose. They become our signifiers whether we admit it or not. I mean, who the hell wants to be Zoe?

In a Descartes sense, the Avatar is often more representational than ourselves than our bodies. If our thought goes into the creation of our avatars, and as you learn in philosophy class, "I think, therefore I am" than the only truly important reality is the one we consider for ourselves, and therefore the only true definition for ourselves is the one that comes from our own minds.

I think this is what drives many people to the strange, seeming irrational behavior they exhibit on the internet. I feel that the argument that people act the way they do because of the anonymity is false. Anonymity is not liberating. Full disclosure is, and people who fully disclose themselves are free to behave in any way that suits their natures. Thus, griefing and the like.

Look at murders, suicides, and other extreme acts associated with internet interactivity. How is it that people attach so much to these things? Because they are us, moreso than our own skin. Take a river, for example. Is a river really the banks, the sod, the rocks and the bends that are the identity of that river, or is it the fact that water flows through it? Suppose the water is lessened, does it cease being a river, and therefore become a stream? If the water dried up, wouldn't it then cease being a river? Just like the value of a river is the water within it, the value of a person is the thoughts, feeling and personality, not simply the flesh and bone which, as Descartes claims, could just as well be a figment of a brain in a jar. It is our minds that make us real.

In games where character choice does impact play, like choosing a warrior or a mage, that initial choice might be for more pragmatic and tangible reasons. However, as many, many forum posts will attest, altering the play style of your chosen class is often tantamount to an attack on you personally. Yes, you've invested much into that character, but no doubt you have invested as much into several alts. Why would people foam so rabidly? Another illustration might be this; how often do you play the same role? Melee DPS, Tanking, Healing, Ranged, these roles repeat themselves in MOGs, and each betrays a piece of the personality of the mind behind the choice.

And everyone knows the Scotty is the best.

Posted: May 7th 2009 9:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Tateru: I'm not sure how common this is, but my avatar, at least, does represent some of my cultural and political viewpoints, and those of my social groups - which I don't believe is quite the same as representing *me*. Does that sound right?

Dale, Marv:
From the Webster:
Token (noun)
3: a distinguishing feature
4 a: souvenir, keepsake b: a small part representing the whole
I especially like the second definition for the purpose of describing avatars - tokens have importance, particularly to their owners; also, tokens represent part of a whole - avatars represent a small part of us, as do our bodies. I do not identify with my body as my 'whole self'. My body cannot express everything about me all on its own, but it is representative of me.

My body is somewhat malleable - it reponds well to exercise, hair dying, and so forth. My body is something I'm very attached to, psychologically; I don't feel like a passenger in a lump of flesh - occasionally, people do feel this way. But it's still not all of me; therefore, a token.

Myria: I agree, those extremes do seem to exist. I myself represent an exception: a female user or player (depending on the environment) who regularly picks male avatars (though not exclusively), who lies between the extremes (somewhere) in the way I feel about and relate to my avatars.

I think there will always be people who attach less importance to tokens than others. I'd be interested to know whether the changes that are occuring are due to changes in people's ideas and perceptions (which would be great, but which seems less likely), or whether there are more people joining these games and worlds, bringing their extant ideas and perceptions with them.

Any ideas on that?

Jay: I know people who become very attached to the characters they play even in third person 'action' games. Are they in the minority? Maybe. However, they do exist, and no doubt there's some of them playing WoW now, and are attached to those avatars no less.

Kdolo: I don't get the feeling that human behaviour is altered *significantly* by the use of the Internet as a communication medium. Psychopaths and sociopaths are not created by a different communication type; they might have quicker access to information that makes them dangerous, but the Internet itself is not what causes the problem, it's the information. AFK, griefers tag walls with graffitti, slash tyres, and cause arguments for fun - griefing merely has a new presentation online.

Our minds do make us, I agree. Our minds are less tokens than our bodies, because the mind is of primary importance, but it's all a matter of degrees. The mind alone does not make a person.

Additionally: go the Shoe!

Posted: May 7th 2009 9:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
perhaps even our real life bodies are our avatars as well as our tokens, since after the end of the universe, minds that might be interpreted as being our minds, that for all that can be perceived as real are controlling our bodies and organic minds from the future might emerge from the random quantum fluctuations that persists beyond infinity

Featured Stories

Betawatch: May 19 - 25, 2012

Posted on May 25th 2012 8:00PM

Coming soon
Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW