To me, this is different choices in player autonomy/agency. No player is truly autonomous in a game world, but giving the player choices and having the choices have outcomes that actually impact the gameworld makes it feel like it’s your own agency making the choice.
For example, why would I eat the fish in Nier Automata? Doing so kills me. Why would they give me the option to have a game-ending early on in the game based on eating a fish? Because in giving you the choice to do so, they’ve given you a level of autonomy. They let you find out for yourself what the consequences are, and the consequences make sense in the context of the game world.
Rockstar is bad at respecting player agency, but you know what the worst was in my experience?
Hogwarts Legacy. (Note: I pirated this trash to not give Rowling any money)
Right off the bat, at the beginning of the game, you’re meant to follow your Professor through a dark seemingly endless empty space. If you leave the side of your Professor, nothing terrible happens, just big red scary words cover the screen saying you’ve failed because you lost track of the Professor.
In a game that actually respects player agency, you wouldn’t just be like “Hey, you’re doing THIS MISSION WRONG” (which is basically what the message said in nicer terms), you would give the player an actual event showing why it was dangerous.
What would be so hard about animating a shadowy horror coming out of the shadows and snatching you, instantly killing you? At least then you have learned why you shouldn’t venture alone. Because there are scary monsters in the dark and they could kill you! This respects the players agency by allowing them to explore but also giving them clear limits that fit the theme of the world in which they exist. There’s definitely scary horrors in Harry Potter, and a myriad of things that could kill a new student. We don’t see any of them, just big all caps “YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG!”
The game would pose further issues, like not being able to jump over obstacles that your character is clearly jumping higher than. Invisible walls is another thing which disrespects player agency and breaks world immersion.
It’s been a while since I played it, but the whole game was crammed to the gills with these kind of wag of the finger “we didn’t tell you to play that way so don’t” instead of using compelling story-based reasons to keep people from doing those things.
Shorter answer: games give us what real life refuses to give us anymore.
Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose.
They give us autonomy to complete things how we see fit in the frameworks given. They give us an opportunity to master a set of skills. Finally, the story gives us purpose and drive to continue the “work.”
The game gained controversy when it was discovered that the homosexual designer Jacques Servin inserted an Easter egg that generated shirtless men in Speedo trunks who hugged and kissed each other and appear in great numbers on certain dates, such as Friday the 13th. The egg was caught shortly after release and removed from future copies of the game. He cited his actions as a response to the intolerable working conditions he allegedly suffered at Maxis, particularly working 60-hour weeks and being denied time off. He also reported that he added the “studs”, as he called them, after a heterosexual programmer programmed “bimbo” female characters into the game, and that he wanted to highlight the “implicit heterosexuality” of many games. Although he had initially planned for the characters to appear only occasionally, the random number generator he had created malfunctioned, leading them to appear frequently. Servin was fired as a result, with Maxis reporting that his dismissal was due only to his addition of unauthorized content. This caused a member of AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP), a gay AIDS organization, to call for a boycott of all of Maxis’ products, a measure which Servin rejected. Some months later, a group named RTMark announced its existence and claimed responsibility for the Easter egg being inserted into the game, along with 16 other acts of “creative subversion.” Servin stated that he had received a money order of $5,000 from RTMark for the prank. It was revealed later on that Servin was a cofounder of RTMark.
Servin would go on to be one of the founders of The Yes Men.