Enter the Avatar: The Phenomenology of Prosthetic Telepresence in Computer Games

  • Rune KlevjerEmail author
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 7)


In this paper I will give a phenomenological account of embodied presence through computer game avatars, based on Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s analysis of bodily intentionality, bodily space and bodily extensions (2002 [1962]). The core idea is that when we play, directly controllable avatars like Mario or Lara Croft, as well as racing cars or other kinds of controllable vehicles, function as prosthetic extensions of our own body, which extend into screen space the dual nature of the body as both subject and object. Because they act as proxies or stand-ins for our own body within the gameworld, prosthetic avatars are crucially different from more familiar kinds of bodily extensions, like tools or musical instruments.

In navigable 3D environments, the main “body” of the avatar, in the phenomenological sense, is not the controllable marionette itself (for example Mario or Lara), but the navigable virtual camera, which becomes an extension of the player’s locomotive vision during play. In this way, the navigable camera, extending from the player’s eyes and fingers, re-locates the player’s bodily self-awareness – the immediate sense of “here” as opposed to “there” – into screen space. This displacement of our visual perceptual apparatus through prosthetic avatars creates a distinctive kind of prosthetic telepresence, a phenomenon that nineteenth-century philosophy could not imagine or foresee. Prosthetic telepresence operates at the ground level of the phenomenology of the body, and does not rely on imagination or fictionality. Prosthetic telepresence offers – and indeed demands – full perceptual immersion, yet is not dependent on technologies of audiovisual immersion.


Computer Game External Object Dual Nature Bodily Extension Virtual Camera 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Carr, Diane. 2002. Playing with Lara. In Screen play, cinema/videogames/interfaces, ed. Tanya Krzywinska and Geoff King. London: Wallflower.Google Scholar
  2. Dovey, Jon, and Helen Kennedy. 2006. Game cultures: Computer games as new media. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Eco, Umberto. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fuller, Mary, and Henry Jenkins. 1995. Nintendo and new world travel writing: A dialogue. In Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community, ed. S. Jones. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Also available at Scholar
  5. Gibson, James J. 1986. The ecological approach to visual perception. In Resources for ecological psychology, ed. R.E. Shaw, W.M. Mace, and M.E. Turvey. London: Lawrence Erlbaums Associates. Original edition, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. Gingold, Chaim. 2003. Miniature gardens & magic crayons: Games, spaces, & worlds. Master’s thesis, School of Literature, Communication and Culture, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. Also available at
  7. Klevjer, Rune. 2007. What is the avatar? Fiction and embodiment in avatar-based singleplayer computer games. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Bergen.Google Scholar
  8. Linderoth, Jonas. 2005. Animated game pieces. Avatars as roles, tools and props [online]. Aesthetics of Play Conference Proceedings [cited 12 May 2006]. Available from
  9. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 2002. Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge Classics. Original edition, 1962.Google Scholar
  10. Newman, James. 2002. The myth of the ergodic videogame. Some thoughts on player-character relationships in videogames [online]. Game Studies 2(1) [cited 25 July 2005]. Available from
  11. Rehak, Bob. 2003. Playing at being: Psychoanalysis and the avatar. In The video game theory reader, ed. M.J.P. Wolf and B. Perron. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Ryan, Marie-Laure. 2001. Narrative as virtual reality. Immersion and interactivity in literature and electronic media. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Salen, Katie, and Eric Zimmerman. 2004. Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Sudnow, David. 1983. Pilgrim in the microworld. Eye, mind and the essence of video skill. New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar
  15. Wilhelmsson, Ulf. 2006. Computer games as playground and stage. In Proceedings of the 2006 international conference on Game research and development. Perth: Murdoch University.Google Scholar


  1. Breakout. 1978 (coin-op). Developed by Atari. New York/Lyon: Atari.Google Scholar
  2. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. 2009 (Xbox 360). Developed by Infinity Ward. Santa Monica: Activision.Google Scholar
  3. Diablo. 1996 (PC Windows). Developed by Blizzard. Irvin: Blizzard.Google Scholar
  4. Donkey Kong. 1981 (coin-op). Developed by Nintendo. Kyoto: Nintendo.Google Scholar
  5. Grand Theft Auto III. 2001 (Playstation 2). Developed by DMA Design. Windsor: Take Two Interactive Software.Google Scholar
  6. Half-Life. 1998 (PC Windows). Developed by Valve. Fresno: Sierra On-Line.Google Scholar
  7. Halo: Combat Evolved. 2001 (Xbox). Developed by Bungie. Redmond: Microsoft Game Studios.Google Scholar
  8. Marble Madness. 1984 (coin-op). Developed by Atari. New York/Lyon: Atari.Google Scholar
  9. Pac-Man. 1980 (coin-op). Developed by Midway. Chicago: Midway.Google Scholar
  10. Pong. 1972 (coin-op). Developed by Atari. New York/Lyon: Atari.Google Scholar
  11. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. 2003 (PS2). Developed by Ubisoft Montreal Studios. Paris: Ubisoft.Google Scholar
  12. Quake. 1996 (PC Dos). Developed by Id Software. Richardson: Id Software.Google Scholar
  13. Silent Hill. 1999 (Playstation). Developed by Team Silent. Tokyo: Konami.Google Scholar
  14. Spacewar! 2006 (Java version). Developed by Russel/Graetz/Wiitanen. Silverman/Silverman/Gerasimov. Available from Original version, 1962.
  15. Super Mario 64. 1996 (Nintendo 64). Developed by Nintendo. Kyoto: Nintendo.Google Scholar
  16. Super Mario Bros. 1985 (Nintendo Entertainment System). Developed by Nintendo. Kyoto: Nintendo.Google Scholar
  17. Tomb Raider. 1996 (Playstation). Developed by Core Design. London: Eidos Interactive.Google Scholar
  18. World of Warcraft. 2004 (PC Windows). Developed by Blizzard. Irvin: Blizzard.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Science and Media StudiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations