In this module, we will explore some of the new questions and issues video games and other digital

media pose for philosophy.  Part of this will involve broader considerations about the very nature of

digital media themselves; other questions will be more specifically related to video games.

The module will begin with some historical and conceptual background about computers, digitality,

programs, and so on.  It will especially emphasize how and why all computing depends upon

‘programs’ that are both binary and linear.  Video games are no exception to this.

With some computing basics in hand, we’ll then consider three issues more specifically related to

video games:  (1)  Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Non-Player characters (NPCs); (2) the ‘Virtual,’ the

‘Real,’ and ‘Virtual Reality’; and (3) the relation between ‘personal identity’ and ‘avatars’ in video

games.

For this module, you should read Jesper Juul, Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and

Fictional Worlds.  Also, you should readCogburn and Silcox, chaps. 1 and

6 and Sageng, Philosophy and Computer Games, Chaps. 12 and 13 (downloadable free from DU

library in .pdf format).  Of course, don’t neglect to spend some time with the materials posted for this

module.

 

At the end of Module III, you will be able to:

? Explain some of the basic features and limitations of digital programs relevant for video games

? Compare actions of player-driven characters vs. machine-driven characters

? Evaluate philosophical ideas of free and meaningful choice in relation to videogame play

involving avatars

 

The Stanley Parable (Links to an external site.) appeared in the last year or so and has generated a

good deal of heated debate in internet ‘gameworld.’ (Do check some of this discussion out — it’s

quite interesting.)  Though it can be played through (if that’s what you’d call it?!) in two or three

hours, it leads us into some really difficult philosophical problems.  Questions like:

? What is the nature of ‘free human choice’; in fact, is the idea itself really even coherent?

? To what extent, if at all, can video games present genuine ‘meaningful choices’ to players?

? What actually goes on ‘behind the scenes’ as game designers consider the overall architecture

of their games?

? Are video games more a simplified model of human freedom of choice (a ‘weak AI’ perspective)

or is ‘free choice’ a sort of human delusion that we use to console ourselves in a world that

operates according to the same determinate laws as digital games (a more ‘strong AI’ sort of

view).

? In fact, since TSP pretty much tries to break or question all the rules and assumptions of most

video games, it leads us to ask what a video game actually is and does.

? Of course, all of this provides interesting perspectives when we discuss NPCs, Digital

Ontologies, and Avatars in this module and part of your writing assignment will be to consider

some of these connections.

As soon as you can in this Module, use the link I’ve provided, which will take you to a download from

the ‘Steam’ site. The game is available for both Mac and PC and currently costs $15 to download.

(There is a free ‘demo’ version, but I don’t think it’s worked for some time; you should play the full

version anyway, otherwise you miss a lot of the point of the game.) If you don’t have it already, you

will have to create a ‘Steam’ account, which is very easily done on the website. Do spend some time

playing this game; you’ll mainly be trying to discover all the ‘multiple endings,’ but it shouldn’t take

you more than about 3 hours or so to do it.  As you go along in the Module, keep some of the

philosophical questions that the game suggested to you in mind; it will be good preparation for your

writing assignment for this module.  Do have fun with it, I think you’ll be impressed.  It is important

that you get this game and play it right away, as it will be an important part of the topic for

your next paper.

Week 3: AI and NPCs

During this part of the course, we’ll look at some of the basic concepts involved in discussions about

‘Artificial Intelligence’ (AI) and then we’ll consider the most conspicuous example of AI in video

games, ‘Non-Player Characters’ (NPCs). Read my powerpoint for background and then check out

some of the other materials dealing with AI and NPCs. Notice that NPCs have lately gotten a lot

‘smarter’ as opponents and ‘bondable’ as followers and companions (see Ellie from The Last of

Us and Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite above).  How far do you think this can continue?  Are there

limits created by intrinsic limitations of digital processes themselves?  What light can the

philosophical discussions of AI shed on these questions?  Share you views about this on the

discussion forum for this module. Especially relevant for this week is Cogburn and Silcox, Chapter

6.

 

The first link will take you to my powerpoint introducing Artificial Intelligence in Video Games:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Non-Player Characters (NPCs)

 

Click on the following link for an excellent paper discussing the background, history, and

philosophical questions about AI and its implication for video game design, with some specific

reference to NPCs:

Link (Links to an external site.)

 

A Turing Machine – Overview (Links to an external site.)The ‘Turing Machine’

was originally a philosophical idea proposed by Alan Turing (who was also a leader of the group that

broke the German ‘Enigma Code’ in WWII).  This idea proved to be the basis for the modern digital

computer. However, unlike most philosophical ideas, it was one that could actually be realized in

practice.  Here’s an interesting clip of someone who built a functioning Turing Machine and his

reflections on what it represents.

 

Artificial Intelligence in ‘Halo 2’ (Links to an external site.) provides a good practical introduction to

how AI in video games is designed and functions.  Remember, however, that this article was written

in 2004 (about the time Halo 2 came out).  That means it’s almost 10 years old — and Halo 4 is now

out.  So what’s described here is relatively simple compared to current version of AI.  Still, a good

place to start.

 

Artificial Intelligence in Video Games (Links to an external site.)Check out this

lecture by Ian Davis, a leading game designer, founder and CEO of Mad Dog Software, and director

of a major academic program in vg design.  The actual talk (excluding questions at the end) is about

45 minutes and includes a demo of some new concepts in design his company is working on as well

as some interesting reflections on the future of AI in game design.

 

Top 5 Best & Worst NPCs (Links to an external site.)Here’s one gamer’s

opinions about the best and worst NPCs.  You might not agree with all of his picks (I don’t), but he

provides an interesting discussion of what we like and dislike in NPCs. What would your own lists

be?

 

‘Improved Companions": Elizabeth vs. Ellie is a comparison of two of the ‘new generation’ of

‘companion NPCs’:  Ellie from The Last of Usand Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite.  What do you

make of the fact that they’re both female characters?  This short essay is a reaction by a female

gamer.  Do you agree with her?

 

The Uncanny Valley (Links to an external site.)One phenomenon often noted

in connection with attempts to develop AI in video games to the point where it simulates ‘reality’ is

the ‘Uncanny Valley Effect.’  (Cogburn and Silcox discuss this on p. 111.)  First, view this short clip,

then ask yourself whether the increasing trend in video games toward ‘perceptual realism’ is either a

desirable or practical aim.  Given the ‘Uncanny Valley Effect,’ do you think that the resources of

video game producers are best utilized in the pursuit of further ‘perceptual realism’ or should they

redirect their efforts more toward the mechanics of gameplay, ‘meaningful choices,’ or more

engaging narratives?  Post any thoughts on this you may have on the discussion forum.

Week 3: Virtual Reality and Digital

Ontology

In this section, we’ll be considering novel philosophical questions posed by the advent of ‘virtual

reality’ technologies, of which video games are often cited as important examples.  This will involve

us in a discussion of the most fundamental philosophical field of ‘ontology’ — what sort of things are

‘real,’ what  ‘unreal,’ and what constitutes the difference between them?  Further, in the case of video

games, they’ve been viewed variously as ‘fictions,’ ‘virtual reality,’ and ‘possible worlds.’ Which do

you think is the most adequate and productive way to view video games? By now, you should have

read most of Juul, whose ideas will be helpful in considering these issues.  Also, read Chaps. 12

and 13 in John R. Sageng, Philosophy and Computer Games for discussions of current views on

the debate between viewing video games as ‘fictions,’ ‘virtual reality,’ or ‘possible worlds.’ (This is the

book that you can download from the DU Library site in .pdf format.)

 

Read through this Ontology and Virtual Reality ppt for some background on ‘ontologies’ and

‘virtual reality.’

 

Click on the following link for an interesting, if occasionally ‘technical,’ discussion of the history and

current status of the ‘ontology’ of video games.  Though I don’t agree with everything he says or

some of his conclusions, this is ‘state-of- the-art’ thinking about this topic.  It also refers often to things

you’ve already read.

Link (Links to an external site.) to "Video Games Are A Mess," by Ian Bogost

 

 

Infinite Reality: Avatars, Eternal Life and New Worlds (Links to an external site.)

Jeremy Bailenson heads the Stanford Virtual Reality Lab.  Here he gives a

presentation about his work, the future of VR, and its philosophical  and ethical implications.  View

and think about this clip in relation to our discussions of both ‘Virtual Reality’ and ‘Avatars.’

 

 

Oculus Rift: Step Into the Game (Links to an external site.)This is a sort of

‘infomercial’ for a new virtual reality headset for video gaming, the Oculus Rift.  The reviews of

prototypes have so far been very positive.  Is this the future of gaming?  Will you buy one?

 

 

Week 3: Personal Identity and

Avatars

In this section, we will be considering the connection between ‘personal identity’ and avatars in video

games.  ‘Personal identity’ has been an important philosophical issue long before the advent of video

games and I review some of the most important philosophical theories of personal identity in my

powerpoint at the beginning.  Videogame avatars, however, present novel problems when viewed

against the background of traditional philosophical theories of self-identity.  One of the best ways to

see these issues is to consider what decision-processes go on in constructing our avatars for video

gameplay.  Check out the examples provided. For background, be sure to read Cogburn and

Silcox, Chap. 1.  Also consider the essay at the end of this section as an general discussion about

factors involved in identification with videogame avatars.  How should we regard our avatars:  As

extensions or projections of our actual selves? As pure constructs, separate from ourselves, that

merely ‘represent’ us as players within the ‘possible world’ of a video game? As partial projections of

certain aspects of our selves? Are there other alternative ways of viewing this?  Think about this and

share your thoughts on the discussion forum.

 

Personal Identity and Avatars

 

Cool Websites: Create Your Own Avatars (Links to an external site.)This clip

isn’t specifically about VGs but suggests how widespread the practice of creating avatars is

throughout the internet.  It also gives you some handy websites (some of them free) that allow you to

create your own avatar.  Give it a try if you want.  It might even be cool if you include an avatar

you’ve created when you post your next essay for this course.

 

Creating a Great Character in World of Warcraft, Part Two (Links to an external site.)

This clip walks you through the creation of a customized avatar for World of

Warcraft, one of the longest running and most populous MMORPGs.  Notice the ‘ontology’ employed

by this process of avatar creation (‘gender,’ ‘races,’ ‘professions,’ ‘skills,’ etc.).

Ask yourself these questions:

(1) How determining is this choice of ‘ontology’ for the rules and play of the game itself?  Can you

imagine other sets of choices for avatar creation than this one?  Would these constitute a different

game? or, Within what limits could the ‘avatar ontology’ in WoW be altered and still issue in

essentially the same game?  (The basic question here is to what degree do the basic assumptions

we make about avatars determine the broader ‘world’ experienced in a VG?)

(2) Now think about the ‘real world’ from this perspective.  What is the basic ‘ontology’ (i.e. the basic

assumptions about features of actual persons) that we make in ‘sorting out’ and distinguishing

between various individuals and the groups to which they belong?  To what degree do these

assumptions determine our broader assumptions and views about how the ‘real social world’ is

structured?  (The basic question here is to what degree do the basic assumptions we make in

distinguishing among various individuals and the social groups to which they belong serve to form

our views of the ‘real social world’?  Would you say that these assumptions somehow reflect natural

features of ‘real human beings’ or do they seem mostly arbitrary and variable?)

(3) To what degree do the ‘avatar ontologies’ of video games reflect those of ‘real world’ judgments

(or perhaps ‘stereotypes’) concerning other ‘real persons’?  In what respects do the two ‘ontologies’

differ?  How do the ways in which they differ help to clarify the limitations and maybe prejudices

operative in ‘real world’ judgments about other persons, their possible actions, and social situations?

(4)  What would you say about VGs in which you play an already fixed character (i.e. in the case of

games that are not RPGs)?  Does this alter the overall rules and dynamics of gameplay?  In what

ways might this correspond to the actual situation of ‘real persons’ in the ‘real world’?

 

 

Fallout 3 – Character Creation (Links to an external site.)Here’s another

example of avatar creation, this time from Fallout III.  Ask yourself the same questions as in the

example from World of Warcraft.  Also, consider the differences in the ‘avatar ontologies’ (i.e. the

different types of choices one can make about avatars) between this example and WoW.  How do

you think these differences influence the rules, type of gameplay, and overall experiences in the two

games?  (Note that WoW is a full-on RPG, while Fallout III employs only limited elements of an

RPG.)

 

 

Read this somewhat ‘scholarly’ but very informative paper called Identifying with an Avatar (Links

to an external site.) on the processes involved in how, in what respects, and to what degree VG

players come to identify with their avatars.  What conclusions would you draw from this regarding the

advantages and limits of ‘avatar indentification’ in VGs?  How would you formulate a response to the

following questions:

? How important to the overall game experience is it that VG players ‘identify’ with their avatars?

? How important is it that players be able to maintain some ‘distance’ between their ‘real selves’

and their avatars?

? What can this discussion of avatars tell us about the various ways in which we form our own ‘real

self images’?

? How might this influence our existing ‘theories of personal identity’ or give rise to new ones?

Any of these topics are fair game for the discussion forum for this module.

 

Finally, watch this video for an interesting discussion of the difference between ‘being’ and

‘controlling’ an avatar and the philosophical issues it raises.

Controlling VS Being Your Avatar (Links to an external site.)

Need assistance with this?