A critical reflection on how video games represent and include neurodiversity, emphasizing authentic voices and inclusive design.
In recent years, the concept of neurodiversity has found a prominent place in societal discourse. It acknowledges that people think, feel, act, and communicate in diverse ways, with no single approach being inherently superior or more desirable than another. While this recognition is gaining ground, questions remain about how it translates into cultural practices, particularly in the realm of video games.
A recent dissertation, of University of Antwerp, department of philosophy researcher Lisanne Meinen, examines this very intersection, exploring how games can contribute to our understanding and acceptance of neurodiversity in morally responsible ways. Yet, the inquiry, while ambitious, leaves space for critical reflection on its scope and assumptions.
This article delves into the promises and pitfalls of such an approach, offering an autistic perspective on the potential of games as both mirrors and disruptors of societal norms.
Games are a cultural medium unlike any other. Their immersive, interactive nature allows players not just to witness a story but to experience it firsthand.
The Unique Power of Games
Games are a cultural medium unlike any other. Their immersive, interactive nature allows players not just to witness a story but to experience it firsthand. Choices are made, challenges are faced, and emotions are felt. This active participation renders games uniquely capable of engaging with complex topics such as neurodiversity. The dissertation rightly argues that games can add an ethical dimension to representation, fostering deeper involvement and responsibility among players.
Titles like Celeste, Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice, and Night in the Woods exemplify this potential, placing mental health and atypical experiences at their narrative core. However, a critical question emerges: who are these representations for? And whose voices shape them?
Empathy as a societal concept can be fraught. When aimed primarily at neurotypical players, it risks framing neurodivergent individuals as objects of pity or fascination rather than autonomous subjects with agency and complexity.
The Double-Edged Sword of Empathy
One of the dissertation’s central claims is that games can cultivate empathy by allowing players to inhabit neurodivergent perspectives. While this is a compelling idea, it is not without its complications. From an autistic perspective, empathy as a societal concept can be fraught. When aimed primarily at neurotypical players, it risks framing neurodivergent individuals as objects of pity or fascination rather than autonomous subjects with agency and complexity.
Though the dissertation critiques the “top-down” approach often seen in game design and research, it may inadvertently echo this issue. Neurodivergent experiences are analyzed, interpreted, and translated, yet the involvement of neurodivergent voices in these processes appears limited. This raises the danger of perpetuating representations imposed from the outside rather than arising organically from lived experience.
Symbolism is not the same as representation. For whom are these symbolic narratives constructed?
Representation Versus Symbolism
The choice of games like Celeste and Hellblade underscores this tension. These titles are often lauded for their symbolic portrayals of mental health — battling inner demons, confronting trauma — but symbolism is not the same as representation. For whom are these symbolic narratives constructed? Many neurodivergent players may find them reductive, as they often reflect neurotypical interpretations of what neurodivergence “means.”
The dissertation highlights the issue of stereotyping in narrative and visual design, an important point. However, it also risks reinforcing the educational framing of neurodivergence — teaching neurotypical players “what it’s like” to be neurodivergent — rather than exploring how games might resonate more deeply with neurodivergent players themselves. Moreover, the limited range of neurodivergent experiences represented in the chosen games leaves significant gaps in the conversation.
Western culture is built on cognitive and behavioral expectations that disproportionately burden neurodivergent individuals, often leading to anxiety, depression, and marginalization.
From Adjustment to Inclusion
One of the dissertation’s strongest arguments is its critique of societal norms. Western culture is built on cognitive and behavioral expectations that disproportionately burden neurodivergent individuals, often leading to anxiety, depression, and marginalization. Games, the dissertation posits, could challenge these norms — not by encouraging neurodivergent individuals to adapt, but by questioning why adaptation is demanded in the first place.
Its call for inclusive game design is therefore vital. Yet inclusion cannot remain an abstract ideal; it requires participation. Neurodivergent creators, players, and thinkers must be central to the development and critique of games. Without their voices, inclusion risks becoming a token gesture.
The Role of Autonomy
A dimension that warrants greater emphasis is the role of autonomy. Games have the potential to offer neurodivergent players a liberating sense of control and exploration. Unlike real-world systems, games do not have to conform to neurotypical norms. Gameplay mechanics that embrace flexibility, repetition, or alternative forms of progression could create experiences that align more closely with neurodivergent ways of engaging with the world.
For example, instead of forcing players to adhere to linear narratives or multitasking challenges, games could allow for multiple pathways, reflective pauses, or nontraditional forms of achievement. This would not only enhance accessibility but also affirm the validity of diverse approaches to play.
Representation alone is insufficient; participation, autonomy, and diversity must underpin the design and study of games.
Conclusion: Toward a Layered Vision
This dissertation makes a valuable contribution by highlighting the potential of video games to engage with neurodiversity in meaningful ways. Its analysis of empathy, representation, and normative structures raises critical questions about the ethical and cultural dimensions of game design. Yet it also leaves important risks unexamined, such as the tendency to oversimplify neurodivergent experiences or define them from an external perspective.
From an autistic point of view, the centrality of neurodivergent voices is paramount. Representation alone is insufficient; participation, autonomy, and diversity must underpin the design and study of games. Only then can games truly become inclusive spaces that challenge societal norms rather than reproduce them.
Let games not merely reflect the neurotypical gaze but instead become windows into the full spectrum of human experience. By embracing complexity, rejecting stereotypes, and centering neurodivergent agency, games can transcend their traditional boundaries and offer profound insights into the myriad ways we inhabit the world.
The European Autist 