Again, it's okay to do stuff like this but you need to have some sort of authorial intent in mind if you're going to use that as a defence. There's three possibilities here:
1) The developers intended for the player to identify with the victim, and feel uncomfortable about that.
2) The developers intended for the player to identify with the rapist, and feel uncomfortable about that.
3) The developers wanted to shock for the sake of being shocking, without the player identifying strongly with either character.
These are all different types of reaction and you can't just bunch them all in under 'shock'. If the argument is that the game was meant to do 1) and Cara's reaction was exactly what they wanted, then it failed because it didn't create that reaction in you or loads of other people. If the intention was 3), as seems likely, then perhaps it has been successful, as most people seem to be reacting that way. But that doesn't invalidate Cara's experience and does mean that you can't tell her she's wrong because "that was the point of the game" because it wasn't. She had experience 1), the intent was experience 3).
I don't think she implied that. Again, maybe the intention of the developers was 2), that we identify with the rapist, and hence feel pretty uncomfortable. And that's also fine (and the approach Super Columbine RPG took), and perhaps the game also works on that level for most people. But by going to cut-scene and not making the player "Press A to rape" will weaken that argument.Quote:
I also take serious exception to Cara's implication that a guy would be completely unaffected by the rape.