Sounds interesting, love to know more.
My theory is that when we engage with a "traditional" text - watching a film or a play, reading a novel or a short story, etc - we take on the role of a passive bystander. We are positioned outside the text, looking inwards. We can observe and comment on the events of the text, and we can analyse and evaluate it, but we have no ability to directly affect the events of the text. Because of their interactivity, however, video games offer a deeper level of engagement. We are no longer passive bystanders, but rather active participants.
Fallout 4 is a prime example of this, as the decisions that you make have a lasting impact on the Commonwealth. Likewise
Far Cry 4, where the player's decisions influence the future of Kyrat.
Coupled with this is the emergence of home console ownership, which really took off in the 1990s. Prior to this, video gaming was a fringe hobby, but today it is a billion-dollar industry. Many gamers who were around for the original PlayStation and Nintendo 64 are gamers today, and as they have matured, so too have the games. I believe that we are now at the point where games can become literature, an idea that was inconceivable twenty years ago. Of course, we have to pick and choose which games fall into this category; I would not consider
Call of Duty to be literature and more than I would any of Michael Bay's films. Just as Michael Bay's body of work is not representative of all films,
Call of Duty is not representative of video games.
Because of the deeper level of engagement that video games offer, the demand for more mature story-telling and the lengthy nature of games, the medium is able to tackle some really compelling themes that I think would be beyond "traditional" texts. A prime example of this is
Metal Gear Solid, which examines the nature of ideological conflict.
Snake Eater establishes the idea of the individual being able to choose what they are fighting for, that this is an extension of what values and beliefs they identify with, and that this individuality is more enduring than politics.
Peace Walker continues this, with the creation of Militaries Sans Frontieres, a mercenary company that is independent of nation-states and able to shape its identity based on individual ideology. The game also reconciles this ideological concept with the reality by putting MSF in a position where any action they take is inherently political. But as of
The Phantom Pain, the situation has changed: the characters are no longer fighting for an ideological ideal, but for their place in history. It's a devolution that sees them do horrible things. Kaz Miller refuses to accept responsibility for his role in MSF's destruction, and is powerless to stop the MSF concept being appropriated by others and reduced to a business model, and so orders the deaths of strangers without proof of their guilt. Huey Emmerich is held hostage by the Soviets and MSF's successor, Diamond Dogs, and comes to view them as being no different to one another, using this to justify releasing a dangerous weapon. In fact, Quiet is the only character who stops resisting and accepts her fate - that she will eventually be forgotten and that she was never entitled to a place in history. In doing so, she takes control of her own destiny and is the only character to break free of the cycle of madness that possesses everyone around her.
Likewise,
Far Cry 4 challenges our understanding of tyranny and oppression. When you arrive in Kyrat, it is under the control of Pagan Min, and you inevitably join the Golden Path, a resistance group trying to overthrow him. The point of the game is to overthrow Pagan, but the game hinges on you accepting him as the villain and the Golden Path as heroes simply because you're told to. If you're paying attention, there is a version of events where Pagan is not a tyrant, but simply a heartbroken man who tried and failed to implement his vision for the country and is now lashing out at those he holds responsible. Likewise, the Golden Path's leadership try and manipulate you at every step of the way; at one point, Amita asks you to save a religious site from Pagan, but later asks you to destroy one that is inconvenient to her. Similarly, Sabal keeps appealing to your emotions; he implores you to destroy an opium field because it is used to produce heroin - but it could also be used to create legal painkillers, which would form the backbone of the Kyrat economy under Amita's leadership. Destroying it is as much about damaging her as it is about damaging Pagan. It's a game with multiple endings, but ironically, all of them are the same: Pagan is gone, and it doesn't matter who is in charge, because Kyrat is still in a state of civil conflict; despite everything you go through, nothing changes - you just substitute one tyrant for another. The "best" ending can only be obtained by literally doing nothing from the start. Pagan invites you to dinner, and asks you to stay; if you do, he returns fifteen minutes later and explains everything, you complete your mission (which is pretty much forgotten about if you leave the table and join the Golden Path), not a single drop of blood is spilt, and Pagan lives up to another person's memory of him, implying that he can move on and that Kyrat faces a stable, peaceful future.
Fallout 4 takes a similar tack. The search for Shaun becomes so overwhelming that you will do a deal with every devil in the Commonwealth to get him back. You will use every faction - and they will use you in equal measure - to do it. You will willingly walk into hell on earth, the Glowing Sea, for the faintest hope of finding him.
I'll make the child of atom easy for you ! They're a post nuclear religion or cult. They draw a few parallels with several religions. However they worship the atom by giving up everything and moving to an area of high radiation. Bomb sites and craters would be their equivelant of a church.
I picked up that much from Isolde at the Crater of Atom and Piper's story about her exposé on the Bunker Hill sewers. But I'm curious as to what their agenda is.