This article studied the neoliberal ideas of choice and agency manifested in the structures of two interactive fiction or “choose-your-own-adventure” games, Choices: Stories you Play and Episode—Choose Your Story, and their free-to-play profit system to explore the hegemonic operation of neoliberalism and participatory resistances to it. Neoliberal choice was approached as a strategy that operates by encouraging an actualization of one’s best self yet inscribing what it should entail. Despite the rhetoric of agency and fictitious simulation, the “best” choices and endings in the games were visible and accessible only with cultural, economic, and temporal capitals. “Right” choices required legitimate taste which needs savviness in dominant readings or time investment, and the “rightest” choices required monetary investment. However, players’ subversive choices such as intentionally choosing “(not) rightly” to pursue negotiated readings and collective participation hinted at the potential of tactical practices in creating new strategies.
AnsteyJ (2005) Agency and the “emotion machine.” In: SubsolG (ed.) Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Virtual Storytelling. Using Virtual Reality Technologies for Storytelling. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 125–128.
3.
ArsenaultDPerronB (2008) In the frame of the magic cycle: the circle(s) of gameplay. In: PerronBWolfMJP (eds) The Video Game Theory Reader 2. New York: Routledge, pp. 109–131.
4.
BailesJ (2018) Ideology and the virtual city: social critique and conformity in video game power fantasies. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds10(2): 149–165.
5.
BerlinI (1969) Two concepts of liberty. In: BerlinI(ed.) Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 118–172.
6.
BourdieuP (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
BourdieuP (1985) The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory & Society14(6): 723–744.
CharlesA (2009) Playing with one’s self: notions of subjectivity and agency in digital games. Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game Culture3(2): 281–294.
10.
ChenE (2013) Neoliberalism and popular women’s culture: rethinking choice, freedom and agency. European Journal of Cultural Studies16(4): 440–452.
11.
ChessS (2018) A time for play: interstitial time, Invest/Express games, and feminine leisure style. New Media & Society20: 105–121.
12.
ChessS (2017) Ready Player Two: Women Gamers and Designed Identity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
13.
ChessSPaulCA (2019) The end of casual: long live casual. Games and Culture14(2): 107–118.
14.
ConsalvoM (2003) Zelda 64 and video game fans: a walkthrough of games, intertextuality, and narrative. Television & New Media4(3): 321–334.
15.
ConsalvoM (2009) Cheating: Gaining Advantage in Videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
CoteAC (2020) Casual resistance: a longitudinal case study of video gaming’s gendered construction and related audience perceptions. Journal of Communication70(6): 819–841.
17.
Dar-NimrodIRawnCDLehmanDR, et al. (2009) The maximization paradox: the costs of seeking alternatives. Personality and Individual Differences46(5): 631–635.
18.
DawesS (2016) Foucault-phobia and the problem with the critique of neoliberal ideology: a response to Downey et al. Media, Culture & Society38(2): 284–293.
19.
De CerteauM (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
20.
DelwicheAHendersonJ (2012) Introduction: what is participatory culture? In: DelwicheAHendersonJ (eds) The Participatory Cultures Handbook. London: Routledge, pp. 3–9.
21.
DentT (2020) Devalued women, valued men: motherhood, class and neoliberal feminism in the creative media industries. Media, Culture & Society42(4): 537–553.
DunneD (2014) Multimodality or ludo-narrative dissonance: duality of presentation in fringe media. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on interactive entertainment, New York, 2 December, pp. 1–4. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
24.
ExlineJJGeyerAL (2004) Perceptions of humility: a preliminary study. Self and Identity3(2): 95–114.
25.
FiskeJ (1992) The cultural economy of fandom. In: LewisLA (ed.) The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media. London: Routledge, pp. 30–49.
26.
FlemingND (1995) I’m different; not dumb: modes of presentation (V.A.R.K.) in the tertiary classroom. In: Research and development in higher education, Proceedings of the 1995 annual conference of the higher education and research development society of Australasia (HERDSA) (ed ZelmerA), pp. 308–313. Available at: http://www.vark-learn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/different_not_dumb.pdf
HockingC (2009) Ludonarrative dissonance in Bioshock: the problem of what the game is about. In: DavidsonD (ed.) Well Played 1.0: Video Games, Value and Meaning. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press, pp. 255–263.
37.
HowkinsJ (2002) The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas. London: Penguin Press.
38.
JenkinsH (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.
39.
JenkinsH (2012) Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge.
40.
JenkinsHItoMBoydD (2015) Participatory Culture in a Networked Era: A Conversation on Youth, Learning, Commerce, and Politics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
41.
JuulJ (2013) The Art of Failure: An Essay on the Pain of Playing Video Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42.
KeltyC (2014) The Fog of Freedom. In: GillespieTBoczkowskiPJFootKA (eds) Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 195–220.
43.
LatourB (1996) On actor-network theory: a few clarifications. Soziale Welt47(4): 369–381.
44.
LessigL (2006) Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0. New York: Basic Books.
45.
LinHSunC-T (2011) Cash trade in free-to-play online games. Games and Culture6(3): 270–287.
46.
LizardoO (2010) Culture and stratification. In: HallJGrindstaffLLoM-C (eds) Handbook of Cultural Sociology. London: Routledge, pp. 305–315.
McRobbieA (2001) ‘Everyone is creative’: artists as new economy pioneers?OpenDemocracy, 29August. Available at: http://www.opendemocracy.net/node/652 (accessed 23 April 2017).
50.
MénardADCabreraC (2011) ‘Whatever the approach, Tab B still fits into Slot A’: twenty years of sex scripts in romance novels. Sexuality & Culture15(3): 240–255.
51.
MontfortN (2005) Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52.
MontfortN (2011) Toward a theory of interactive fiction. In: Jackson-MeadKWheelerJR (eds) IF Theory Reader. Boston, MA: Transcript On Press, pp. 25–58.
53.
MurielDCrawfordG (2020) Video games and agency in contemporary society. Games and Culture15(2): 138–157.
54.
MurrayJ (2005) Did it make you cry? Creating dramatic agency in immersive environments. In: SubsolG (ed.) Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Virtual Storytelling: Using Virtual Reality Technologies for Storytelling. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 83–94.
55.
NewmanJ (2002a) In search of the videogame player: the lives of Mario. New Media & Society4(3): 405–422.
56.
NewmanJ (2002b) The myth of the ergodic videogame: some thoughts on player-character relationships in videogames. Game Studies2(1): 1–17.
57.
NieborgDB (2015) Crushing candy: the free-to-play game in its connective commodity form. Social Media + Society1(2): 1–12.
58.
NieborgDBPoellT (2018) The platformization of cultural production: theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society20(11): 4275–4292.
59.
OulasvirtaAHukkinenJPSchwartzB (2009) When more is less: the paradox of choice in search engine use. In: Proceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, New York, 19–23 July, pp. 516–523. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
60.
PaulCA (2018) The Toxic Meritocracy of Video Games: Why Gaming Culture Is the Worst. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
61.
PaulCA (2020) Free-to-Play: Mobile Video Games, Bias, and Norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62.
PlotkinA (2011) Characterizing, if not defining, interactive fiction. In: Jackson-MeadKWheelerJR (eds) IF Theory Reader. Boston, MA: Transcript On Press, pp. 59–68.
63.
RadwayJA (1991) The readers and their romances. In: RadwayJA (ed.) Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature, 2nd ed. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, pp. 46–85.
64.
SalerMT (2012) As If: Modern Enchantment and the Literary Prehistory of Virtual Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65.
SchwartzB (2007) The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. New York: HarperCollins.
66.
SicartM (2013) Beyond Choices: The Design of Ethical Gameplay. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
67.
SmethurstTCrapsS (2015) Playing with trauma: interreactivity, empathy, and complicity in the walking dead video game. Games and Culture10(3): 269–290.
TaylorT (2006) Play between Worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71.
TusseyE (2018) The Procrastination Economy: The Big Business of Downtime. New York: New York University Press.
72.
Van De MosselaerN (2020) Imaginative desires and interactive fiction: on wanting to shoot fictional zombies. The British Journal of Aesthetics60(3): 241–251.
WilliamsDMartinsNConsalvoM, et al. (2009) The virtual census: representations of gender, race and age in video games. New Media & Society11(5): 815–834.
76.
WilliamsR (1978) Dominant, residual and emergent. In: WilliamsR (ed.) Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 121–127.
77.
WilliamsR (2009) The analysis of culture. In: StoreyJ (ed.) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader. 4th ed.London: Pearson Education, pp. 32–40.
