A fundamental problem with how many fans approach analysing games- not media around the game, but the game itself- is that they don't take into account that it's an interactive experience. Debating themes and story and character is great! But it would be nice if some fans could remember, it is a video game, an interactive medium, and you can't approach it just from a standpoint of writing or visuals. Well, I mean, you can. But it's something of a waste, in my opinion.
If you are analysing a game as a whole, you have to play it. Gameplay is a fundamental part of a game. There's a debate about how you can make games accessible to people who would have trouble playing them, whether that's alternate controls or modes or difficulties, but at the end of the day, if you'd like to get a full picture of the story and how it plays...You've got to play it. Gaming isn't a passive experience, not in the same way as television or a book. You have to have some impact, some agency in what's happening. The game can push you towards linearity, certainly, but you still make the choice to press on. The divide between avatar and character becomes very messy, sometimes.
Anyway, I bring this up because it rubs me the wrong way that I see a lot of meta completely ignoring how gameplay shapes character. Behaviours, sounds, response to commands- all of that comes under gameplay, and a lot of that can be used for information and characterisation.
I should really write a longer piece about this, but, essentially, if you're going to ask for more characterisation, please consider that it is a video game. You can use something other than text.
