It’s true that the word “tradeoff” is simple to comprehend as exchange, but in today’s corporate jargon, it refers to the cost-based exchange of one commodity for another. I was playing Final Fantasy’s Dissidia on the trusty PSP yesterday when I marvelled at the game’s replayability. Yes, I’ve played it for more than 50 hours already, and that’s the whole point of this discussion.
Typically, the oldest video games, like Mario and Dave, had one thing in common almost universally: addiction. Not that I’m encouraging fixation with anything, but this is what the gaming industry has become in its current form: a commodity. I have always been a gamer; I won’t try to deny it. Today, though, I have a problem with gaming. The original video games included a variety of elements that made players interested, but the player’s level of interaction with the game’s setting, or “world,” was what mattered most. Furthermore, this interaction is not particularly related to the advanced choices or 3D visuals.
Let’s examine the progression. The first step was the introduction of straightforward arcade games, which were fantastic up until a certain point. kept players interested and brought the world a brand-new media explosion. Your Pentium II and III computers had Sega and NeoGeo emulators installed (mine still has both installed, by the way), and the game play components involved challenging instructions paired with creative sequences. At this point, practically every child was pleading for an Atari system. If you take this a step further, you’ll find that the same two systems have decent mixed tales and game continuity that improve the media capabilities being explored in the two pathways. A strong example of this is the fighting game series KOF, and from there arose the subsequent explosion of turn-based strategy and role playing games, which resembled “user controlled novels” on computers. The turning point in the gaming business can be attributed to both game play and media’s adaptation.
The promise as a business commodity was evident even then because this was the point at which many business leaders discovered that the games could be used to imitate a wide variety of things, pretty much anything. The focus of development after that point was improving the game’s visual effects. It was clear that more work needed to be done on the graphics, which prompted an infusion of funding for gaming firms and the push for 3D graphics in the industry. Since it was reached, the potential for business benefit from gaming became second to none, that point can be referred to as the secondary curve. Hollywood films will always tell you the tale of boom and bust, but games have the added benefit of replayability, which, regardless of audience size, ensures reward.
Next, this replay factor was used. We can all see how internet capabilities supplied by games have also made it possible for gamers to simply purchase the newest powerup or update online. We can point to the idea of “purchasing all” as evidence that gaming has deteriorated. So, at a moment where gaming was enjoyable with increased complexity, such as in Metal Gear Solid, Ys, and Baldur’s Gate, the games evolved to become more about commodity value.
The biggest component in all of this is undoubtedly mobile gaming, and here I specifically refer to time-killing apps for smartphones. The issue arises when the bulk of smartphone gamers are merely passing the time and are not regular players. Therefore, there is some amount of competition between the console/PC games and the phone games when you give a game like Subway Surfers internet purchase advantages for the “regular” folks. Varied classifications, different niches, and different sizes are all present. Farcry 3 cannot be likened to a game like Temple Run, but ultimately when the games become about money, these elements sidetrack and blend in.
Fantastic game-play aspects are currently being added, provided, and improved. Given that complexity exists, certain features fit while others don’t. The holistic emphasis on sales, which frequently forces them to make trade-offs on a variety of game play-related issues, is detrimental to the gaming paradigm as a whole. The entire purpose of playing a game is ultimately removed when it becomes more about buying than playing. For more details Nutaku
