Not sex in games; the tired debate lambasted by one and all every-time a polygon nipple slips into virtual focus.  Sex and games.  The inter-relation of the two as experiences and, most aptly, sex as an allegory for the current discussion of the role of narrative in games (Death of the Author, E207 – a feature that’s sparked a heady debate in this month’s Inbox, E208).

            Think of it this way: sex is an experience.  Objectively, it is an interactive game of sensory titillation.  In videogame and narrative terms, it’s the What and How of play.  It’s the mechanic.  Removed of the Why and Where, sex is pointless.  It’s arguably also self-indulgent and may, dependant on moral stance and detached from emotion and “back-story”, have a negative effect on future relationships and perception of the opposite sex.  Removed of back-story and emotional investment, sex is the sandbox of life.  It is play without point.  Play for play’s sake.  Play with no purpose other than self-expression.  Not that self-expression is wrong; self-expression with emotive intent is fabulous.  Self-expression through the prism of self-centredness, however, is a little vile.   

            The argument, then, that the sandbox experience – titles without fully-fledged narratives/characters like TF2 – is the future of storytelling is a little frightening.  It’s the design equivalent of a one-night stand.  How many of these notches do we really want on our bed-posts?