But isn't the fact that so many people work on it at once just further dilution from the original authorial message, unless we're following an auteur game designer?
But that assumes that any one person on the team is the true 'author' of the piece. That depends more on the design and development process than anything else. Often a design document will specify things such as the intention of the piece, its mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics, etc. Also, whilst the team will all have their input and such, they will usually all be on the same page in terms of the intent of the piece. If they're not, it often shows in the finished product.
Well maybe the invisible walls in Elder Scrolls are just the character refusing to leave the land until they 've completed a quest that's important to them, things of this nature can be debated in circles for years by looking as deeply into things as possible, that doesn't make them true, it just makes them unexplained.
Welcome to what I spent the last chunk of my academic life writing about.
At no point did I say anything was 'true', I merely presented an interpretation of the intended aspects of a single game - you then tried, and failed, to apply similar interpretations to other games, which is to be expected, as I said, not every game tries to tie these things into a narrative, nor does it need to.
It's a similar case to how the inevitability of defeat present in all arcade games of the time can be argued to be a core aspect of Missile Command's narrative, or in another medium the scene changes that allow us to skip the boring bits irrelevant to the story being told are explicitly used in the Doctor Who episode Forest of the Dead as part of the plot (To name just one time Moffat has done something like that).
I kind of wish they clarified at the start the degree of spoilers for Journey. I quit the video at the first point because I'm deathly afraid of having that game spoiled before I get to play it. I guess this series has to wait.
Sorry for digging this up, but I started reading The Hero with a Tousand Faces because of this episode, or more like these two episodes. Now I've read through the steps Call to Adventure and Refusal of the Call, so here I go:
The Refusal of the Call is not a necessary step in a hero's journey. It is more like a possible way to deal with the call. Joseph Campbell points out that those "boring" heroes, by refusing, turn into victims who have to be saved by future heroes. With the given example of Minos, who refuses dealing with the Minotaur once and for all and rather just locks him away, I'd say that's the way "villains" can be born. The interesting ones, of course.
"True" heroes will always at some point accept the call. Otherwise they wouldn't be heroes.