Mario (YCH etc) exists across multiple ontologies. Take Classic Game Super Mario 64 Classic Game 64 for example, you have [1] cover art Mario, winged hat, smooth skin etc; [2] title screen mario, a more jagged affair than the cover; [3] in game mario, a squat little idol to the concept of “mario”. experiencing games in oscillating modes of Immersion and Spectacle can be seen here quite evidently: immersion enough to believe you are playing as the “mario” on the cover and not some mariosoulless totem, and spectacle when you are pulled out of the immersion by the games inherent gaminess, and the nature of the technology you are using/experiencing. drifting states of awe at the feat of Computer Doing A Thing and Actually Believing In The Game(space) occur. there is in active construction of “mario” taken from the 3 modes of mario you have been shown just by starting the first level; mario is all of those things yet separate (a mario trinity??). You “know” the mario you are being shown as you play hum dee dum around peachs castle is not exactly like the one on the cover, there’s a general acceptance that games are always showing imperfect visions of perfect worlds (whereas, as Wark would posit, life (or gamespace) is rather an imperfect mode of a game). Maybe since the dawn of colour film cinema has lost this lack of immediate scalability to the IRL; i don’t see video games ever losing it, it is so much a part of their inherent construction. the contemporary AAA, even, still has to ‘face’ with this ‘concern’, video game grass will never be real grass (fingers crossed!!) no matter how hard they (ominous corporate devs) try. mario can’t escape this kind of fractured ontology, and I don’t think he should need to! in fact I’m quite jealous. mario exists beyond 1 plane of existence, you don’t play as mario you play as the concept of mario. what you play is ostensibly him but not wholly him. [...] mario, then could work as Vitruvian Man.