This post is going up sooner than I thought it would, or maybe it is just on time. And I know we aren’t in summer yet. For instance, this morning was cold. But here I am, a little too anxious to begin.

A horse is different than a car, but in what way? I don’t know many. I’m thinking too much about Red Dead Redemption 2, but hey, I guess I’m thinking about it because I’m playing it? That makes sense..

In the other Rockstar games (that being Grand Theft Auto), to play the car, one uses the right and left triggers to get the car to go or stop. In Read Dead 2, the player uses either the “x” button or forward or the left analog stick. Going forward (to borrow a phrase) seems to be a complex conversation for Rockstar.

In Red Dead 2 you play as the character who controls the horse, instead of playing as the horse. In GTA your player player becomes the car. Is that because Rockstar allows this horse to have agency, while they do not yet give agency to cars?

Am I wrong to assume that the player becomes the car in Grand Theft Auto? Is that so weird to assunme? Well, to defend it let me try a metaphor and maybe something else. When your player character enter a car in GTA, that character becomes the heart, and the player transforms into the car itself. The player gets a new character, the vehicle.

Is it obvious that the horse has agency?

Is there agency in having needs, as the horse does have needs? The horse needs food and medicine or it will die. The cars have needs in their terrain, in their physicalness (if they get roughed up too much they explode).

Agency sure is complicated…

Subverting the norm is common in my work does one see? how subverting was such a common trait among early videogame play but play much more complex until can you believe it? phycho mantis unplugs the TV reads your save files knows you are playing a game unlike chess which is so rigid and proper Not To Imply That You’ve Been Sleeping On The Job