Notgames Forum

Hello everybody!

For the past year I have been working on a theory I call 'symbiosis'. (cough Also on a game I will release soon.)

The basic concept of symbiosis is that it is possible to have avatars take actions that players will accept as if they are their own. I argue this is philosophically possible with modern developments in the understanding of the brain and relate it to different aspects such as tools to create an initial proposal for what the concept means and that may be taken serious.

I will (officially) release a paper on the subject after I present the material at the "Avatars and Humans" pre-conference presentation during the ECREA in Hamburg (12 October, for those interested: link), but considering the theory is very much of use to Not-Games and directly inspired by my own experiences with The Path and discussions here (with Thomas in particular) I wanted to share it here now.

The paper can be found here: Symbiosis.pdf

A year ago I was already talking about 'symbiosis' and comparing games to fencing and sex in terms of how there exists between the player and the avatar some very close connection that blurs the lines of whom-is-whom - this paper is the first coherent argument I am making for it. I very much have arrived at the conclusion that symbiosis as an effect may evolve over the years. With The Path for the first time I felt genuine confusion on a 'sense of being' level with the character through the sparing actions she would take; my hypothesis is that in a few decades it may be far more common to see avatars taking actions in the way time manipulation have 'caught on' in cinema. I do not really offer any design approaches but I hope the theory can contribute to the developments here. Speaking as an auteur I very much want to move in the direction of avatars and players taking actions together, so I do have some ideas as to how approach it, but none formalised properly.

To address Thomas specifically, I have yet to play Amnesia through my (and my friends') outdated hardware, but I understand you use shock reactions which take initiative and overrule players as well as more in-depth body sensations... I think that is a hugely interesting angle because impulsive actions are more natural to be seen as our own; even though we do not remember initiating them.

The Abstract:
This paper functions as an experimental treatment of an extreme form of human-computer interaction: it suggests that through the manner of functioning of the mind, as explained in modern philosophy, it is possible to make players accept computer actions as-if they were their own. This concept, called ‘symbiosis’, is placed in the framework of avatars, embodiment and sympathy. Arguments are provided from sources on philosophy of the mind as well as psychology, making suggestion towards a ‘self-image’ as determining factor for the recognition of actions. In conclusion it is argued symbiosis is fit for more theoretical research as well as heuristic and developmental approaches.

Oh, finally! 

Very interested in reading this and will try and find time over the weekend. I actually spoke to Dan Pinchbeck (who is sort of your professor right?) about this last week and he sent me some papers. He also mentioned your research, and that has made me double interested in this (was already interested during discussions here!).

I will try and give some kind of reply and at least ask some questions here when I am done reading it (or perhaps during ).

I actually wrote a lil blog post on the subject a while ago. One of the the hypothesis I make is that because of switches in self-position, cut scenes in games lack much of the emotional involvement take same kind of scene has in a film. So I am currently very much in the mind set for this sort of things.

And oh, also eager to try out the game!

There has really been two sides to this. Those that accepted them and those that rejected it. I have not done any accurate measurements on this, but I would assume it is like 70:30 (more people accepting). In Amnesia, they are very in your face and start out directly in the beginning, so the player does not get any warm up, and has to take a decision directly. I think that perhaps some longer warm-up period for this sort of thing is required (Pinchbeck compares this to rituals in a paper, where there is a sort of training phase first, something I found very interesting). In retrospect I think that sort of thing would have worked better. I am sure there would still be people rejecting it, but far less I believe.

When it works well, people seem to believe that their own bodies have the same sensations too. For example, having heart beats at certain places make the player's pulse go up and we have also outright commands saying "be scared". These actually work quite well (among those that accept of course) and it is a bit like recorded laughter at a sitcom, one laughs not because one find something funny, but because one is in a way commanded to do so. I do not these sort of feelings should be played down as "imaginative" and they are just as real as any other feeling. There is a lot of research done how we do not "control" most of what we feel "rationally" and that is just part of being human.

To demonstrate how effective this can be on some people, check the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaK8XnZuZ4k
This is a compilations of clips from various "lets' plays" where people record themselves playing. There are some very fun reactions here, and some are even a bit disturbing. The interesting bit is that this mixture of forcing reactions and tricks of the mind is what makes most of this happen.

Hope this was not too off-topic

Capitol! I know, it has been so excruciatingly long and partially I regret my long absence - but there was so much to sort out. I was just checking the calendar and I think I should have sat down before doing so.

Yes, Dan was my supervisor for the MSc in Portsmouth. I very much picked up taking theory more seriously, accepting non-ludic sources for game theory and have come to really believe in the 'build it to understand it' approach. He actually mentioned your work on the main character's reflex and paranoid actions, not long before I left Portsmouth. This paper is so conceptual I chose not to use too many game references, but I have been tempted to name those along with The Path's drama princess method.

Funnily enough I actually mention the switch between 1st-person interactive and 3rd-person cutscene in the paper, albeit very shortly, but I do make a connection between that switch and narrative; supposedly the character the narrative keeps suggesting the avatar is 'covers up' that you are perceiving two completely different entities. Now I think of it, it is in some sense like the children's theatre trick where an actor walks off-stage and comes back as a sock-puppet of his general appearance; everybody knows it is completely fake but you can bring yourself not to notice it.

Symbiosis could definitely be a good approach in stopping that switch from being so jarring... a graduate blend between states could be achieved. But as I argue, for that to be publicly acceptable is a while off - as you seem to have seen in the 70:30 - for symbiosis of any more serious form that ratio would be skewed far the other way, I imagine. Having exact data on Amnesia ("and', he added, licking his lips, 'in proper academic format") would be quite interesting, in that light. For instance; do people decide half-way through a session to start accepting it, do they stop accepting it mid-way and what reasons would they self-narrate for this. I think academia has a great chance in pushing through such developments whole-heartedly in ways that commercial work would find difficult... since you had to choose a good game concept over a 100% audience.

I thought this all was quite fascinating but the paper was not the time and place to go into it beyond the amount it has gone into it now... happy to discuss anything related to symbiosis, embodiment, tools, &c., in this thread, though, I too will be making some free time this weekend for your blog.

As for Dinner Date, there'll be a trailer and press release next week - I am already ever-so-nervous when inviting people to a physical dinner date at my place, making all of this virtual is quite exhilarating.

Finally read the paper and thought it was really interesting!

I hope more try to explore this as I am very excited to see where the limit lies for symbiosis. I am also gonna try and think more of this for our upcoming projects.

What would be the proper link to the paper? I would be interested making a short post about it and post a link in the blog.

In case you are interested I posted another blog post with a similar subject:
http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-player-becomes-protagonist.html


And oh, hope the Dinner Date launch have been good so far! I intend buy and play it soon

Thomas,

I am glad you thought it interesting - I am about ready to think about research for the next project so I will keep producing more! I really need to catch up with your blog, too, it is very interesting to hear your experiences and how you combine theory with practise.

I have been thinking on evolving concepts of flow to manipulate the border between character and avatar... I think I took the 'stay calm and do things' approach with Dinner Date and to my content the principle of this had a warm reception with quite a few reviewers. The post you linked (which I will enjoy discussing when I have the time to read it properly) raises some interesting thoughts; with Dinner Date not accepting the 'powerless' state of affairs the whole game fails; in Amnesia it sounds like some players see a temporary 'powerless' state as a huge annoyance within a game they otherwise find acceptable. It is interesting because you 'have to' offer narrative content but this clashes with the 'player vessel'.

Current I am working out an idea where I make effort to prevent the player from developing a clear view as to what his actions are, without making him feel powerless and without sacrificing the world's integrity to the player's whims. I think the approach Chen took with flow was quite interesting, but perhaps flow as a concept has settled in too swiftly with low-stress, ambient-like content (like flOw, Flower, Eufloria, Bohm). It is interesting to think on how to do a horror / thriller / romance game with the principles of flow... without taking flow just to mean 'adapts to the player'.

The launch of Dinner Date did not have any problems! It was quite a smooth first release and it gives me confidence (albeit not financially) about producing another game. Seeing people react to the game has been quite a good lesson, especially the reactions to the type of play. It has given me quite a wider perspective on how to approach this type of content.

On which note I should note I am still intent on purchasing and playing Amnesia, just cannot find the right hardware right now

It would be wonderful if you could mention symbiosis on the blog - I will make sure the paper gets a good home on my site come Monday, just need to do a pass with spelling, some images and, above all, an eBook-resolution version.

PS: I wrote that last post almost two months ago? Good heavens, it feels like two years.

Good to hear planning on more stuff and that releasing a game did not scare you away! I have not yet played Diner Date, but plan to do so in the very near future!

Flow is something that has interested me too, although the way it has been used since the game flOw is in a more addicting sort of manner. And you are quite right that it may be very tightly linked with the feeling of being immersed. Since I have mostly heard the subjective feeling flow being as "forgetting about the world around you", it would suit quite nicely in becoming one with an avatar. Eager to hear what you can come up with

Regarding paper, just post a message here when you have the proper version up! I have the forum on my RSS feed so I see any new post quickly.

I got distracted by finally reading Homo Ludens but here it is - http://jeroenstout.net/:work#Show:Symbiosis-Masqueradingavatarautonomyasplayeractions

I got my hands on Homo Ludens as well as a book on Flow. But something which has intrigued me is Isaiah Berlin's thesis on two concepts of freedom because it is a good tool for developers. He outlines a person can be free from coercion (i.e., the government does not forbid him to do climb a mountain) but may not be able to do things (i.e., he cannot walk). The former is positive freedom, the later negative. It is interesting because it revolves around a person being allowed to make choices as well as having the capacity. Berlin is an immense relativist so his vision on your freedom depends, by his word, on how you define a human. It is interesting because it may be relatively easily adapted to games and the player's views on liberty; depending on how he views himself. Some reactions to Dinner Date I do view by remembering these people think not being able to get up is impairing their negative freedom (i.e. they are coerced) rather than their positive freedom (i.e., they are simply not capable). Because as game-designers we create all freedom there is no positive freedom, and the question becomes why players still regard positive freedom as such.

(His thesis is online if you Google his name and can spare the time.)

Thanks for the attention from your blog I wondered today (as I smoked my pipe in the snow, no less) whether you ever thought about writing your thoughts not in essay form but in paper form? The difference would be marginal if but it could be of some help to academics. I can quote your blog as well but a paper is clearer and more readily reference-able.

That is only true in so far as it relates to the fictional universe we create. But the player is never entirely absorbed in this universe. So part of his positive freedom comes from reasons outside of our game.

And we want the player to bring his knowledge of the world into our creation. If only to reduce the amount of things we need to explain (gravity makes things fall, wrinkles on a face means a person is old, keys open doors, velvet is soft, etc). But more importantly, because we want our games to be about the player's life, to be perceived as pertinent to their real world, if not a genuine and valuable part of their lives.

Very true, I may have been overzealous saying there is no positive freedom. It is a strange things because it is so perceptual - the player does carry over his perception of what constitutes his uninhibited possibilities... the peculiar thing is that the capacity for discerning gravity, wrinkles, keys and velvet is natural to most of us so we attribute that as our positive freedom but each bit of freedom in a game, even to experience gravity, has to be created by an author who is, in that sense, providing freedom.

At the highest context the only true positive liberty of the player is to choose to play or not or to meddle with the game files, essentially breaking the game. But once accepting the game world as-if real he forms both an image of positive and negative freedom. Some describe missing a platform 10 times as 'I am just not good enough' (lack of positive freedom) whereas you would rather say the creators do not allow you to finish the game (lack of negative freedom). An invisible wall is seen as impaired negative freedom, while not being able to jump can be seen as a lack of positive freedom - though even then I heard people express that 'they' do not allow him to jump as-if it is forbidden rather than just not possible. And sometimes the game 'gives you a big bomb' which almost implies that the game gives you the negative freedom to use some weapons, rather than you gaining the positive freedom.

I think the start of The Path lies to you in this sense - 'don't go off the path' means that when the player does go off the path he enlarges his negative freedom - even if he actually was never prohibited it sparks something. I heard people describe Dinner Date by saying 'you cannot do anything' rather than 'the game does not allow you to do anything', which means that Julian's capacities form the positive freedom and while they can be seen as lacking I as creator am not often seen to forbid the player to get up (if I read reviews correctly). An invisible wall or impossible jump is quickly seen as a lack of negative freedom.

I wonder whether giving the player a locked door and hanging a key higher than he can jump will be regarded as a lack of positive or negative freedom. Whether a player sees it as a cannot or may not situation may tell you quite something about their primal perception of your game.

It is a lot more complicated than I thought

If we want the player to experience gravity, we need to create it, yes. But if our world requires that gravity exists, we don't need to do anything. If a character walks on the floor because we are changing the z value of its position, we don't need to explain that he doesn't fly away because gravity exists. We know they know.

I think this level is very essential and should not be overlooked. We shouldn't assume that people will just make the switch and believe our game world and then simply interpret it on its own terms. Then, indeed, you run very quickly into ideas of being able or not to do something, being forbidden, or things that seem to be missing.

But if we can somehow create a stronger bond with the player beforehand, and agree that they should just accept the game world as it is and work with it rather than against it, we can both get a lot further. There's a whole range of gradations between playing and not playing. And there's a whole range of gradations beyond the decision to play, within the act of playing.

I've always felt that it's smarter (and easier, and more appropriate to the interactive medium) to focus on the willingness to suspend disbelief than on attempting to create a clever illusion. This is a kind of meta-game you play with the player. An invitation in a way, an invitation to play (in the sense of make-belief).

This is why the answer to the question "Why is there no chat in The Endless Forest?" is "Because deer don't talk." Deer don't dance either, and they certainly don't roll on the floor laughing (which they can do in The Endless Forest), but I have never heard a player use this as an argument in favor of adding chat to the game.


There's definitely a strong element of immersion in playing videogames. But there's no need to make this immersion total. If only because there's a lot of pleasure for a player to realize that they are playing. Like looking at a painting is augmented by the fact that you are standing in an ancient museum, wearing nice clothes, looking at the original canvas, etc. Trying to deny the artificiality of the fictional world we create in our games, only leads to players realizing that their freedom is limited (which in and of itself, is in fact a result of the player realizing that the game is artificial, since, in general, games allow for more freedom than their real lives). If our games can become part of the player's world, then they suddenly become 100% positive freedom: an addition, an enrichment.

http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2010/12/player-avator-symbiosis.html

There now a wrote a post about it Hope I summarized your theory correctly.


And regarding writing a paper: Do not really know where to begin I have tons of thoughts about this, but no real firm goal. But would be fun to write something lengthier!

Michaël,

Then it is about crafting a world in which the player gains a perspective on his freedom both in the positive and negative sense. Being unable to do something is firstly a lack of positive freedom and with time can become a lack of negative freedom.

Not making the jump 10 times generates the perspective you as a player have been prevented from completing it whereas those who spend too many hours on the game are not - an essential part of Berlin's definition of a lack of negative freedom. An invisible wall is more difficult; if the player sees the space in which he moves as completely liberate an invisible wall is offensive; 'I am able to travel freely here-and-here, but not here'; again lack of negative freedom. Not being able to fall off edges (like in Beyond Good & Evil) is more readily a lack of positive freedom, that is, until I find reason to create a contrasting normative view in which I am coerced into not falling off (like when it is very useful that I do).

It is also relevant to the discussion as to what duration of time we are talking. I suspect 'injustice' over time becomes a problem - when you start making plans taking into account more than just reflex actions.

I suppose allowing for some meta-information to create immersion is a good thing, the clothes, the gallery, the canvas. I like it when authors address me as a reader ("the reader may remember that we discussed the Rue d'Atange and its involvement in the revolt of 1932 - to this place we now return for different reasons") because it allows me to not demand pure realism of the world and rather see things through an author's eyes. This fits in with the Huizinga notion that the reality created through play is real and not real. I know deer cannot talk, I also know the deer is not real. But a deer not being able to talk is still more logical to me than a human not being able to talk. Even if the deer has a human face. As-if you are helpfully deflecting the argument to the deer-ness, a tool to help the player play rather than a justification. The chat-less experience is what matters, just like the characters of Hugo are more important than his (improbable) plot-lines. The later can (or could) count on culture to help make sure the book is read when he engages it with meta-content. The Endless Forest cannot really come to any agreement before one plays it because there is no realm for it to communicate in.

Perhaps if I am right in thinking that (with exception of when things are tacky as in Angry Birds) games are seen as needing to be serious. Perhaps this means the boundary between diegetic and nondiegetic is too strong. Perhaps contrast is seen as clarity rather than detail.

In most games I feel like I am coerced to doing things I do not want to do - Assassin's Creed being an example of a world I want to inhabit but absolutely not as an assassin. I have less freedom than in real-life Venice. Because that is because I expect different norms and see no reason to adjust mine because the culture which invites me in is not attractive. L'histoire de ma vie is equally unlikely, at times positively immoral and incestuous, but because I buy into Casanova's worldview I am willing to go along with it.

Thomas,

Thank you for the mention! I suppose a paper is walking around a problem in a coherent way and especially not about 'knowing' something.

I completely recognize the sentiment. But maybe many of the fans of Assassin's Creed want to play a murderer. Maybe this is just a question of working for a different audience.