Editor's note:Jeff points out an interesting paradox in the way we criticize games: If a game provides too many open-ended decision options, we eventually stop focusing on what developers have included and start complaining about what they left out. What's worse is that this problem can become touchy when the developers have left out things like female character models or gay and lesbian choices. -James
"The choice belongs to the player." This is the line that has become a mantra for many developers. Titles like Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3, and the upcoming Alpha Protocol want to give players the freedom to choose how they overcome obstacles and whether they are the hero or the anti-hero. One of the paradoxes of choices is that the more that are available to a player, the more they expect. When the options seem virtually limitless in a game, critics are much more likely to pull it apart for missing some tiny choice.
People are far less forgiving when a game over-promises and misses hitting the mark. It begs the question: Is the developer of an open, choice-filled game obligated to provide every possibility to the satisfaction of any player?
In the espionage RPG Alpha Protocol, it isn't possible to play as a woman. The men and women at Obsidian decided it would be too expensive and time consuming to rework the entire game for a female character. This is understandable -- and a bit incongruous with their goal of giving choices to the player. Another choice that is taken out of the players hands in AP is the character's sexual orientation. Their reasoning for this isn't budgetary: It's authorial.
Obsidian views Michael Thorton, the game's protagonist, as a James Bond type, and James Bond is heterosexual. The player can decide if the character is more suave and engaging or more tough and swaggering. What they cannot decide is whether he's a professional spy who prefers to share his martinis with other men: Obsidian has already made that decision. I suppose this is their way of supporting the argument that homosexuality is not a choice.
As unfair as this may be to some players, it isn't Obsidian being actively exclusionary. The authors of the game have a right to protect their vision, but when they give so much control of that vision to the player, what logic dictates which choices are the player's and which are the developer's? What are females and homosexuals supposed to feel other than exclusion?
Other games have been friendlier to these subsets of gamers: If getting down with an elf is your thing, Dragon Age: Origins provides the option to play as a homosexual. But most games still don't contain the option to play gay. This has to be disappointing to the many players whose real-world sexual preference isn't represented. For a lot of people, escapism isn't necessarily about getting away from themselves: It's about finding a place where being themselves doesn't invite persecution.
This is a new paradox that game creators need to come to terms with. The more choices a person has, the less satisfied they become when the outcome is not a perfect recreation of what they wanted.
Should developers feel obligated to provide every potential choice? Maybe. They should a least err on the side of providing too many choices. And if they take choices out of the player's hands, developers will have to defend their creative decisions.
If a reasonable person considers Obsidian's vision to be clear, it is unfair to hold basic story choices like sexual preference against them.
