Real, realer, too much?: Why aren’t all NPCs made equal?

FarCry 3 - The Weekend Playlist – 12th January 2013

Here’s a short self-reflection about when my soul wept for the non-player character (NPC), a great cat, I had to slay and skin in Far Cry 3 to create a mobile phone pouch or whateverhell bag it was.

OK, so let’s start this off with a short personal description: I am not the most faint hearted person in the world. I grew up watching all sorts of gore movies from Cannibal Ferox to whatever sleaze from when I was quite little – and perhaps not even allowed to watch them. I have indeed killed a living being (I used to fish quite a lot while in Finland), I used to work in a place that produces all sorts of meat products, and I am not the best conservationist in this world – although I support the efforts of Australian Marine Conservation Society as I think they are on an important mission which is not publicly well supported.

Still, I have come to realise I dislike killing (some) virtual animals in (some) video games. This thought dawned on me in the early hours of Far Cry 3 where I basically needed to create all sorts of stuff from animal hides. From virtual animals that I needed to hunt and kill.

So, what’s the big deal here?, one could ask – and I am asking! Throughout my life as a gamer from NES to Xbox360 I have slain all sorts of virtual beetles, ice wolfs, sheep, dragons, angry fish, and animals whose name is just too strange or mythical to recall. Still, the fact of life is that I had to return Far Cry 3 back to the store as I didn’t find it engaging especially because of this aspect.

Now, my question is: why does the being Marko care? Why does this move him even an inch? They are just virtual animals! In contrast, I enjoy first person shooters (FPS) almost every day. You bloody kill people in these games all the time (well, lately mostly aliens for me)!

An Interlude:
And a word of reason to all you video game haters and non-players out there: no, it’s not about quenching some sort of thirst for death and killing. It’s about the challenge, the action, the play, the narrative and many, many other things. Mechanics that FPSs often have, are just a moderately easy way to create challenging interaction and antagonism. And no, majority of research at least I have read shows violent games do not result in more violent people in real life by default. Well, this isn’t the topic of this post anyway, So, onwards.

Also in contrast, I’ve recently been playing Skyrim and the newest Borderlands. In both of them, especially Skyrim, you end the lives of all sorts of life forms, for example angry ice wolfs and dragons. I never got this feeling of disgust of slaying virtual animals in Skyrim.

So the questions is: are Far Cry’s animals too real? Is the so called fidelity, lifelikeness, too high (for me)? Is this the reason? Or the fact that the game requests and depends on a systematic use of animals as an integral part of the game: instead of bypassing it somehow you need to slay as part of a mission, take the hides and prepare stuff like a bag or whatever – well, you need to pick berries, herbs and all whatever other stuff too.

Anyway, something in this process clearly reduced my game play engagement and enjoyment. Based on what I know, I will not be playing Far Cry 4 either, as it has similar kind of mechanics. At the same time I acknowledge many people playing these games don’t sacrifice a single thought on such matters. It is just a game, and killing an innocent virtual animal that does actually exist does not do anything. So does this mean they actually exist too much to me then or what? Hell, I guess asking such questions is the reason I am still stuck at the academia and pondering such matters…


‘Who cares if Skyrim wasn’t realistic with some imperfections’: From immersion to incorporation and Player Involvement Model

Realism in Skyrim

Recently I’ve been investigating especially the term immersion in the use of understanding human-virtual environment relationships. Many have criticized the real usefulness of this term. I especially enjoy Ryan’s argument that

It has become so popular in contemporary culture that people tend to use it to describe any kind of intensely pleasurable artistic experience or any absorbing activity. In this usage, we can be immersed in a crossword puzzle as well as a novel, in the writing of a computer program as well as in playing the violin. (Ryan, 2001, p. 14)

Some note the definition of immersion is often heavily preceded by a too simplified techno-naturalistic worldview – fellow traveller, that means BS about technology doing the whole thing and us being just cogs in the digital wheel. This seems to be the case especially in virtual reality research. I think I am beginning to see why lots and lots of virtual “worlds” just seem to fail to raise any real engagement, involvement, [your term here].

Lately I’ve also been reflecting how Gordon Calleja’s idea for a replacement, incorporation, might fit in all of this. Calleja describes incorporation as

the absorption of a virtual environment into consciousness, yielding a sense of inhabitation, which is supported by the systemically upheld embodiment of the player in a single location represented by the avatar (2014, p. 232).

It’s important to note that Calleja thinks a bit differently about the age-old virtual “there” and physical “here” division. Instead of technology somehow teleporting us to the virtual ‘other place’, he focuses video games to be something that take place in our consciousness – well, phenomenologically speaking, doesn’t kind of all interaction despite if for example a ball is on the screen or in our hand?

I also hope to have some time to reflect Calleja’s Player Involvement Model to some games I’ve been recently playing (Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel!, Skyrim, Diablo III & Bayonetta). Some have already used it with Bioshock, and discussed developing it further. Academic term jerking aside, let’s test in future posts how this really works in reflection to some gamez.

Oh, and I also want to debate this post about Skyrim being soulless, a kind-of-a-game-review I lately saw cited in Farrow and Iacovides (2012). As a sneak preview, I can say the dude has fallen into his subjective trap of “for some reason this particular aspect of the game needs more realism”. At the same time this guy is also right, but I don’t personally agree with him. Check out the discussions around Skyrim (for example here and here), and you might get the drift why (hint: player types like in the Bartle test).

References & more to read:

Calleja, G. (2011). In-Game: From immersion to incorporation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Calleja, G. (2014). Immersion in Virtual Worlds. In M. Grimshaw (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Virtuality (pp. 222–236). New York: Oxford University Press.

Check also Calleja’s Philosophy or Computer Games Conference keynote at

Farrow, R., & Iacovides, I. (2012). ‘In the game’? Embodied subjectivity in gaming environments. In: 6th International Conference on the Philosophy of Computer Games: the Nature of Player Experience, 29-31 January 2012, Madrid, Spain. Retrieved from Paper presentation on YouTube at

Ryan, M-L. (2001). Narrative as Virtual Reality: Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

(in)Fidelity, interaction and virtual reality: With some feeling

Blue Eye Soup

Image by Richard Paterson

This is a collection of thoughts, or sort of a “commentary track” to a recent post in Verge (

As it is reported, Valve has been designing VR hardware together with HTC.

The HTC Vive (rhymes with “hive”) headset…builds on years worth of virtual reality research, focusing specifically on creating an experience that’s ambulatory and interactive.

While Oculus is still coming up with a motion control system that’s worth showing off, Valve has made visible progress in interactivity — something that, more than any boost in graphical fidelity, is what we need to spur new, innovative uses of virtual reality.

I will not go into the language of this post because I think it’s quite obvious that the contemporary news media is under harder deadlines nowadays. I also will not comment the fact that similar kind of a hype, but also actual research was with data gloves already way before. But coming back to the comments, especially the bolded part. It makes a valuable point which seems to be missing from a large deal of academic papers I’ve been read lately.

What still sneaks up to amaze me is the gun-ho irresponsible use of the terms fidelity and interaction. It seems these terms are used however one feels like. I may have created a virtual environment, and although I do not allow my users to actually use it (interact with the environment by navigating its environment, manipulating its objects, and perhaps communicating with its characters or NPCs), I can still state they are interacting, that it is an interactive environment or a game.

Well boo-hoo. Such people are wrong. Real, embodied interaction with virtual environments assigns agency to the users. These are not restricted school classes where the high and mighty Instruktor owns the ultimate power over the students (the users) who sit and merely pay attention (i.e. are on the verge of sleep).

And the same goes with fidelity. Sorry if it is stating the obvious, but who invented that ‘fidelity’ was the same as representation or “better graphics”? When did this happen? If we take the good ol’ Merriam-Webster from our virtual shelf, and see what fidelity means (beyond the “staying true to your hubby or companion”) we get something like “accuracy in details”, “exactness”, and “the degree to which something matches or copies something else”. There is a lot more to copy in reality than just the graphics. Can you name one, two, fifty?

Now, if we were just some hovering eyeballs without any body, we might say representation is the only thing we have (although I would still disagree). But we aren’t. We have a thing called body, and we experience as embodied creatures.

You can easily try this out with empty virtual worlds or environments. For example, do a random visit to Second Life or try one of those graphics demo test thingies that put your PCs GPU on its knees and where you can nothing but move around and look at things: they are awesomely booooring. You don’t have much to do, no one or no thing to interact with, and no time-story continuum – OK, you might build all of this in Second Life (with patience), but that’s another story altogether.

But alas! A saviour on a white stallion and shining armour has come to the fore to build better theory. I really enjoy latest writings by Gordon Calleja who has started making some sense to this field. His theoretical contributions aim for better understanding in human-virtual environment relationships and user experience. I like his effort of using a new concept, incorporation, in order to root out some old terms such as immersion and presence.

He says thinking virtual is “there” and real is “here” is already a fundamental flaw when thinking human relationships with virtual environments. He suggests we should focus on the agency given to us to navigate and interact (to inhabit) a virtual environment, and that it inevitably takes place in our consciousness. It is an active human-computer interaction process, where we become involved with the virtual (if we feel like it, that is) and the system hopefully sustains our willing participation. I’ve played so many games with awesome graphics, but if something is not right, the missions, story or characters are boring, or the playability and usability is crap, I will opt out never to return.

Unfortunately, this just might be the major problem with at least VR applications for professional use: design-wise for such incorporation, they are merely hollow prototypes that are not able to sustain such interaction.

Read more:

Calleja, G. (2014). Immersion in Virtual Worlds. The Oxford Handbook of Virtuality.