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.

This forum will focus upon new issues that video games raise for philosophy.  Don’t forget to post

early so others will have a chance to respond to your post.

? ‘Freedom’ in Video Games: We know that digital computer programs, which are the basis for all

video games, are binary and linear.  For the play of video games, this implies that, ultimately,

there is no real ‘freedom’ in video games; from an overall perspective, the possible outcomes of

any video game will already be determined in advance by its programs.  Still, we often feel that

some games allow us, the players, more ‘freedom’ than others:  some walk us through a

‘storyline’ upon which our choices have little effect, and others make us feel that we have a wide

range of choices.  From the broader viewpoint, does it make any sense to speak of ‘freedom’ in

video games at all or is this just a mistakened way of regarding them?  From the perspective of

the experience of gameplay, what factors increase our ‘feeling’ of ‘free play’ and what tend to

interfere with this?  Are there ways that games might be improved to enhance our feeling of

making ‘free choices’ in games or should  this be an important factor at all?

? The ‘Uncanny Valley’?: Many researchers of visual perception have noted something called the

‘Uncanny Valley Effect.’  Roughly, this means that the closer visual images come to representing

our actual visual perceptions of the objects represented, the more we tend to consciously notice

the differences between the image and the actual object with which we’re familiar.  (An example

often cited is the Conductor, for whom Tom Hanks was the model, in the film Polar

Express, which apparently frightened some children and many adults found ‘creepy.’) Assuming

that there is something to this, the question is what conclusions should be drawn from this

regarding video game design.  For the last decade or so, mainstream video game designers

have mostly been attempting to make games as ‘perceptually realistic’ as possible. Do you see

this as a positive line of development and prefer more ‘realistic’ games, or do you regard this as

a sort of ‘fool’s errand’ and prefer older-style, more schematic or ‘abstract’ looking games?  Also,

if it turns out that the ‘Uncanny Valley’ theory is wrong and that future game design can eliminate

this effect, would you then prefer games that were more like ‘interactive films’ than the games we

have now? Would some of the possibilities of the videogame medium itself be lost in this

development?

? The ‘Digital Ontologies’ of Video Games: The ‘digital ontology’ underlying any video game

serves to set limits upon how I, as a player, am represented in a game (for example, through the

choices offered for avatar construction) and the things I am able to do in a game (for example,

the type of objects that the game permits me to interact with). Given that computing memory is

always limited and both aspects of such ‘ontologies’ require large quantities of memory,

designers must consider trade-offs.  Do you prefer ‘open world’ or ‘sandbox’ games with little

choice of character or character-development (for example, Grand Theft Auto), or do you prefer

‘character creation and/or development’ games with much fewer interactive choices available

(like The Last of Us).  Of course, some ‘big’ games attempt a balance between the two (like The

Elder Scrolls: Skyrim).  How successful are they in this?  Finally, would you say that this will

remain a permament problem for videogame designers or will it be resolved as computer

memory capabilities increase?

? My Avatar, My Self?: When I can choose or create an avatar, I tend to prefer one which is quite

unlike me.  For instance, I almost always prefer to play as a woman or as some human/animal

hybrid (even if fully human avatars are available).  However, I know of many other players who

prefer to choose or create avatars much more like themselves. What (if anything) do such

differing preferences tell us about differing views of what it means to be a ‘self’?  Put in another

way, to what degree must an avatar be connected with our ‘actual selves’ in order to create

engaging and enjoyable game experiences?  I might add that I’ve played games that merely

assign you a character that I’ve quit playing because I simply couldn’t identify or never ‘bonded’

with my avatar.  Have you had such experiences?  What does this say about the player/avatar

connection?

Need assistance with this?