Alright, let's give this a whirl.
1.
Featureless protagonists are nothing new.
2. Fiction in general will almost always feature some core ideas. As usually is the case - this is because they WORK and are necessary. To have a plot, you need to have "conflict". Without a problem to solve, there can be no effort to solve it.
3. "If you want to send a message, use Western Union.", said Samuel Goldwyn. There is a difference between an
Autor Tract and its opposite. It's not a clear-cut one. The most basic intution is this: if a person neutral on the subject cannot reasonably be expected to enjoy the work of art without enjoying the message, it's probably an Autor Tract.
4. What "messages"? Here's an exercise for you:
I've played
Takenoko with a group of friends recently. Name me the messages and possible influences.
A difference in quantity isn't meaningless. You can argue that ALL mushrooms are edible, though some only once. That "only once" does make a difference. You can paint a beautiful picture with words, sounds, colors... You can construct a wonderful plot, you can arrange circumstances. What is BEYOND your control is how the audience interprets these things and how they react to them. You can make a series of games where the sky is always green - this is unlikely to instill in people the belief that the sky in their world is green as well.
You can write the most passionate speech (or even forum post), and yet not everyone will think "truly, he is a prophet!". Some will conclude "That guy is a nutjob" and move on. Is it ALL in the message?
Is it JUST the person interpreting it? Relationism would say - it's a bit of both... but that's an axiological story for another time.
5. I honestly don't know about these gamers who don't want messages and just want fun. As such - I'll speak for myself:
I want fun. I like fun. Want to make games that are fun? Go for it! I might even throw a decent sum your way.
Want to make games that are not fun? Go ahead! I might check out what they are about, they might be interesting experiences... and they, of course, may end up being
Dinner Date x_x.
Want to make a game with the singular purpose of spreading your beliefs? Might not be the best of ideas, but - hey - go for it.
Want to make a game that shows things and makes me think, gives me choices? Hooray! Make one!
Want to make a game that tries to avoid all "messages"? DO IT.
See a pattern here?
I want people to make stuff they want to make. This gives art the best shot at greatness. Making something you DO NOT want to make doesn't sound promising. Sure - I have vested interest in people making stuff I will like, but I like almost everything, so that shouldn't be an issue.
6. For America's Army to make a person want to join the army, the person in question would have to make an effort to install the game, play the game, enjoy the game, find the real-life thing to their liking, make an effort to enlist, pass the qualification.
Shorter version: "the guys sitting in front of screens all day, playing violent video games? These are not the people I'm afraid would mug me in a dark alley". Hardcore gamers would be too busy playing games to mug people ;).
7. The more experience you have as a gamer, Kasper, the less reasonable your "mind control" argument becomes. I've mentioned this in another thread, I think, but if you've played all these games and they haven't (as I assume) warped your perception of reality the same way they (presumably) do everyone else's... Well then - what makes you special? Why can't other people also play stuff, read stuff... and distinguish it from reality properly?
8. Your use of the terms "progressive" and "reactionary" sounds straight out of stalinist Soviet Union. The sad thing about this is that you probably wouldn't be shot for phrasing things otherwise, but are acting out of your own accord. YOU DON'T REALLY CONVEY INFORMATION WITH THESE WORDS. I could replace "reactionary" with "degenerate" a'la /pol/ and your statements would make as much (and as little) sense. The way you use them is as shorthands for "good" and "bad", which is a connotation people who read you are unlikely to share.
Match the lexicon to the audience.
9. I'll be explicit about this one: stop throwing everyone into the same basket. If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they have to be part of all the factions that you disagree with.
Lacan. Scapegoat mechanism. It sure can be convenient to have these "Jews, Masons, Communists, and Cyclists" to blame for all bad things in life. Life's not that simple.
10. A man playing a woman playing a man ranks very low on my scale of "crazy".
11.
tl;dr: Everything affects everyone, but people have sanity (to distinguish reality from fiction), intelligence (to tell apart strawmen from enlightenment), and their own discretion (to choose what they want to expose their minds to in the first place). We play games, not the other way around.