You and Patrick above are touching on a similar issue that I’ve actually developed a theory around in my PhD thesis. It has to do with the different kinds of videogames that are out there now, and are evolving over time. I’ve blogged a little bit about it, though the blog versions are a little under-developed compared to what I’ve actually written now, which is how it should be I guess! Search for “metanarrative” in the blog and check out the two entries there for some of my thoughts.

That last part you talk about, finite choices and the player not being part of the game is really debatable for me. Firstly: there’s been a movement towards looking at videogames (and games in general) as things that happen, rather than objects you can point at. Of course you can list off all the rules and point at the disc or whatever, but nothing happens until the player starts interacting. You know what I mean? Nothing happens, the game doesn’t mean anything to anyone until its played. Further to this, if you look at recent literary theory (since about the 70s onwards) you get into ‘reader response’ theory. I don’t buy it wholesale, but I think there has to be some negotiation between the finite choices (or text or scenes or whatever) written by the author and the pretty much infinite meanings those things can have to each different player. Its what I was talking about on the BioWare forum, and is why I find this aspect of Mass Effect so intriguing. You don’t have to be a literary critic to have these conversations, and people are so willing to put their thoughts out there!

I think the division between complete player agency / authorial intent will come to be an important one in the classification of games. That is to say, I think both kinds will continue to be made for good reasons, but developers recognizing the differences will help to embellish each.

I think you’re on to something when you say that the supposed centrality of player agency is an issue, but I don’t think that minorities feel any greater desire to see/experience representations of characters similar to themselves though. I think EVERYONE feels entitled to representation in this form. When you sell a product or artwork as “Be whoever you want to be,” but then you haven’t actually enabled that, its a problem.

On the one hand its a PR/Marketing problem. On the other we could just avoid it by holding onto artistic integrity, and allowing all voices to be heard. Some voices will not include LGBT type material, others will. I think BioWare is getting saddled with a heavy load as they’re one of the few mainstream developers even attempting this stuff, so they’re the only place under-represented folks have to go to if they wanna be a space marine!

I am struggling to come up with a position on whether videogames are “meant” to let the player do whatever he/she wants to do, or if they are “meant” to deliver a message. I really can’t articulate my ambivalence strongly enough…

There is probably a lot of complaining about the lack of variety of sexuality in mainstream media; I wouldn’t know, but I wouldn’t describe it as large enough to be influential on media producers and publishers, or I would have heard more about it. What I do know, however, is that the pressure on RPG developers to include homosexual options is widespread and intense and the PR/Marketing people from the game publishers have responded to it.

Do you think the difference comes out of more variety in sexual preference in the RPG audience? Is it rather that when player agency is central to the form, minority voices feel more entitled to representation? Is the gamer audience more favorable to equality in this area? Is there another option?