Type to search

Gaming: Evolution and Devolution


Gaming: Evolution and Devolution

People often have trouble understanding the word “tradeoff”, sure enough, it’s easy to understand as an exchange. Still, in today’s corporate parlance, it is meant to exchange one commodity for a cost for another. I was playing Final Fantasy’s Dissidia on the good old PSP yesterday when I marveled at the game’s replay value; yes, I have spent over 50 hours on it already, which is what this entire topic is all about.

Normally, if you look at the oldest games like Mario and Dave, they had one thing unanimously common: addiction. I am not propagating obsession towards anything; however, the current paradigm of gaming has come down to; a commodity. I have always been a gamer, I will not deny that, and this is exactly what my contention with gaming today is. The first games had many things that hooked people up, but it was mostly about the level of engagement that the player had with the game environment or the “world” of the game. And this engagement has little to do with the 3D graphics or the extensive options available.



Let us look at the progression; first, the advent of the simple arcade-type games, which were phenomenal to a certain point. It kept players hooked and introduced a whole new boom of media into the world. This was where literally every child was begging for the Atari systems, and your Pentium II and III machines had Sega and NeoGeo emulators installed (mine still has both installed, by the way) and gameplay elements were about difficult commands mixed in with clever sequences.

Take this forward a bit further, and the same two systems incorporated decent mixed stories and continuity in the games enhance the media capabilities being explored in the two avenues. The fighting game series KOF is an ardent testament to that, and from there came the further boom of turn-based strategy and role-playing games, which became akin to “user-controlled novels” on computers. This adaptability of both game-play and media can be called the turning curve of the gaming industry.

Because this was where many business heads realized that the games could be used to simulate a lot of things, pretty much everything, the potential as a business commodity was obvious even from then on. The progress from then on was about enhancing the game’s visual effects; the additives were obvious. The visuals needed more work, so in came the influx of investment in gaming studios and the push for 3d graphics into gaming. That apex can be called the secondary curve because once that was established, the potential for business gain via games became second to almost none. Hollywood movies will tell you the story of boom and fall without fail, but games have the replay factor attached to them irrespective of their audience size that guarantees reward.

And this replay factor was cashed in next. We all can see the online capabilities offered by games, which have also paved the way for players to buy the next powerup or update online. The concept of “buying all” is where we can point and say that gaming has devolved. So when gaming was fun with added complexity like Baldur’s Gate, Ys, Metal Gear Solid, the games became more about commodity value.

The biggest factor in all this is mobile gaming, of course, and here I point at the smartphone games, which are purely centered on time killing. The problem occurs when the majority of the smartphone gamers are not regular gamers but more so there to kill time. So when you give a game like Subway Surfers online buying advantages for the “normal” people, some level of competition envelopes between the console/PC games and the phone games. The niches are different, the categories are different, and the size is different. A game like Temple Run cannot be compared to Farcry 3, but ultimately, when the games become about money, then these things sidetrack and mix in.

Today you have fantastic gameplay elements being added, furnished, and perfected. Complexity is a given, and with that, some features sit well whilst others do not. What’s adverse to the gaming paradigm, in general, is the holistic focus on sales which often makes them compromise on a lot of things from the gameplay side. Ultimately, when gaming becomes more focused on buying rather than playing, the entire reason for playing a game gets taken away.

Susan M. Davis

Tv expert. Proud web nerd. Friend of animals everywhere. Hipster-friendly coffee trailblazer. Spent college summers short selling clip-on ties in Hanford, CA. Spent two years developing jack-in-the-boxes for fun and profit. At the moment I'm merchandising human growth hormone in Prescott, AZ. Spent several years implementing birdhouses for the underprivileged. Had some great experience lecturing about spit-takes worldwide. What gets me going now is building chess sets in the aftermarket.