Virtual worlds are a mainstream phenomenon -- in an extensive survey, an amazing one in eight Americans said they regularly participated in a virtual world -- but "avatars" as we know them in Second Life are still a relatively obscure concept. The most popular worlds have cartoonish graphics or a fantasy game context, and consequently, their users are more likely to call their avatar a "character" or (in World of Warcraft's case) a "toon". The practice of having an immersive avatar, a digital representation that embodies you in a very significant, transcendent way, is still fairly unique to Second Life.
Until, that is, James Cameron took the world step-by-step through the process in a movie that's earned $232 million in several days. Yes, the avatar of Avatar interacts in an alien world, not a virtual one, but the underlying concept is the same. (And somewhat similar to the movie, Japanese scientists have already hooked up a paraplegic man's brain to Second Life, so he could interact in-world.) It helps even further that most of the movie's avatar sequences are also rendered in 3D graphics. Now there's a very prominent anchor point to explain to a mainstream audience what Second Life is beyond saying, "Like a 3D game, but..." How much more effective to say, "Like a real version of Avatar, except the world you're going into is on a computer."
But perhaps I'm overreaching, especially as I haven't seen the movie yet; if you have, what's your take on the relationship between Avatar and avatars we're more familiar with?
Image credits: Above left, Fox. Above right, a Second Life avatar found for sale yesterday on xStreetSL -- but considering Linden policies, probably not for long.
I'll generate interest in the video game for the movie, but not virtual worlds in general.
-ls/cm
Posted by: Crap Mariner | Monday, December 21, 2009 at 09:09 AM
A: No, but sims that support >100 visitors and remote-visiting of events on the web will. or would, anyway ;)
Posted by: magggnnus | Monday, December 21, 2009 at 09:15 AM
I saw the film last night, and although the using of avatars to expand self knowledge of a larger world is a great expansion of what we currently do, it's very much a small plot point in a grander story about Humans VS Gaia.
I would have liked there to have been more philosophical ideas about Avatars being a way to understand one self better, but they kind of avoid anything to mind bending with the Avatar idea.
Posted by: Loki | Monday, December 21, 2009 at 09:16 AM
Time will tell, Crap. After all, SL is the place where you can look exactly like you want to look, no matter what your whim of the moment is.
The question of the second that occurs to me is, are these SL avatars licensed? There'll be Title 17 hell to pay if they aren't.
Posted by: Harper Ganesvoort | Monday, December 21, 2009 at 09:17 AM
Harper Ganesvoort -
Probably just as licensed as the Disney, Fox, Dreamworks, and Warner Brothers trove on Neverland sim that I stumbled across this weekend.
Ugh.
-ls/cm
Posted by: Crap Mariner | Monday, December 21, 2009 at 10:20 AM
James Cameron, by the way, is an investor/partner in Multiverse, which is similar to Blue Mars, but far as we know, is only doing some branded co-promotion stuff related to the movie:
http://www.pamil-visions.net/avatar-virtual-worlds-good-for-brands/29900/
Posted by: Hamlet Au | Monday, December 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Trying to pitch Second Life (or most any other VW) on the basis of Avatar is like letting somebody drive your Mercedes and then trying to sell them a bicycle.
Seriously, media portrayals like Avatar, Star Trek's holodeck or The Matrix raise people's expectations of virtual reality far beyond the ability of current technology to deliver.
In a sense it moves the field forward, because we see the future and we want it. Badly. But people get impatient and fed up in part because our MMOs and virtual worlds can't live up to Hollywood's promises. Few of them sit still long enough to explain that every single frame of computer effects in a movie or TV show takes minutes to hours to render. They want it now and they want it perfect.
I think in part that's why the cartoony worlds are thriving -- because nobody is asking them for a photorealistic experience in realtime.
Posted by: Arcadia Codesmith | Monday, December 21, 2009 at 01:25 PM
I also saw Avatar last night. Apart from the name, it has really nothing to do with virtual worlds or the metaverse industry. Glad to have seen it anyway. It is an enjoyable remake of Ferngully I say.
BTW, the SL avatar of John Scully as a Na'vi looks better than the movie avatar. To the creator, I would suggest making Na'vi inspired full avatars for SL instead. You're more likely to be able to continue listing it. I'm sure there is a demand among SL's community. I would want one. Cheerio!
Posted by: Chenin Anabuki | Monday, December 21, 2009 at 05:09 PM
Avatar as a movie will of course bring the word to the fore. I suspect though it will confuse people as to what goes on in virtual worlds and they will think that we are in some scifi future.
I have already had to explain to several people that Avatar is a long standing word relating to how a remote body is used as a puppet. This comes from mythology, but of course was adopted into virtual world terminology.
As has been pointed out this could be the dawn of something for Multiverse though, Cory talking to John Landau on stage the other year at the VW conference in LA. The cross over of gaming and virtual world experience may occur for more people due to the buzz of the film.
In particular it is more of an anti-capitilist eco story than a hardcore sci-fi or wizards and orcs story. That in itself may bring a different inquisitive audience if we have some experiences such as just living to learn the forest and the natural history of the Nav'i.
Posted by: epredator | Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 12:20 AM
And believe me, there's nothing more rousing than an anti-capitalist eco fable distributed by Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp and produced on a supercomputer server grid consuming enough power to light Belize for three years.
:)
Posted by: Hamlet Au | Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Well... may be fewer people will ask, "What's an avatar?"
The 3D IMAX was great. The first one I've seen.
Posted by: Nalates Urriah | Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 12:57 PM
>single frame of computer effects in a movie or TV show takes minutes to hours to render.<
Yeah. Actually, If you were to render the Devestator robot (the one from Transformers 2 comprised of several vehicles), it would take a wopping THREE YEARS to render a single frame, using a high-end gaming PC.
Now, THAT'S lag:)
Posted by: Extropia DaSilva | Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 03:03 AM
'Well... may be fewer people will ask, "What's an avatar?"'
A question which won't necessarily lead to virtual worlds at all, since, totally aside from the origin of the word, avatars are used in all sorts of online contexts outside of virtual worlds.
As to the question of whether avatar will lead to greater discoveries of virtual worlds? Having watched the movie, I can't begin to imagine how it would even cross the thought to cross anyone's mind, let alone actually have them do so. Virtual worlds and virtual reality didn't enter my mind at all during the watching of this.
Posted by: radar | Friday, December 25, 2009 at 11:57 PM
that should be "cause the thought to cross anyone's mind".
Posted by: radar | Friday, December 25, 2009 at 11:59 PM
I saw the movie two times and I think you are correct. I have met a lot of people who have autism and use Second Life. One of the benefits for them is that they can communicate on a level playing field with everyone else. My guess is that this would benefit a lot of people who's human bodies either effect their way of communicating and/or interacting with others. When you mentioned the paraplegic, I can really see the benefits of having an avatar in order to experience the feeling of running around and playing. In the movie, as a human his legs no longer worked, so when he first used his avatar body he had to run and run. I think Second Life can provide people with that same benefit.
The interesting thing about the movie is that one realizes that even our human bodies are avatars for our souls. The body is not the person, only a vehicle to use for awhile.
Posted by: Koshari Mahana | Saturday, December 26, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Radar I totally agree with your comments. One of the first insights I experienced after creating my Avi, was wow what if the human me is an avatar for my soul.
Started looking at everything and everyone from that perspective.
Posted by: Wisdom Davi | Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 10:52 AM
I'm newbie here, I hope to get friends at this forum
Posted by: Clainiade | Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 09:28 PM