When casting about for media to compare gaming to, most minds land on film. Action movies and action games still draw inspiration from each other, and when game budgets and incomes draw comparisons, it's always to Hollywood.
But over at The Atlantic, writer Yannick LeJacq argues that really, video games and television have much to learn from each other—perhaps, even, a shared future. TV, LeJacq explains, has been drawing in more and more interactivity, and games, particularly explicitly episodic experiences like The Walking Dead, have steadily been taking on more of the broadcast structure.
"Paying $60 dollars per package-not to mention the cost of consoles, other hardware, and related services-is an increasingly prohibitive venture for many gamers," LeJacq observes, before touching on the rise of the free-to-play genre as well as shorter, inexpensive, casual and mobile titles like Angry Birds. He points out that taking what could be a massive, "serious" game and breaking it into discrete, affordable chunks that require a low time investment from players may just be what makes the medium tick in the future:
more here
I really don't like that there becoming life like.
But over at The Atlantic, writer Yannick LeJacq argues that really, video games and television have much to learn from each other—perhaps, even, a shared future. TV, LeJacq explains, has been drawing in more and more interactivity, and games, particularly explicitly episodic experiences like The Walking Dead, have steadily been taking on more of the broadcast structure.
"Paying $60 dollars per package-not to mention the cost of consoles, other hardware, and related services-is an increasingly prohibitive venture for many gamers," LeJacq observes, before touching on the rise of the free-to-play genre as well as shorter, inexpensive, casual and mobile titles like Angry Birds. He points out that taking what could be a massive, "serious" game and breaking it into discrete, affordable chunks that require a low time investment from players may just be what makes the medium tick in the future:
The implication for consumer taste is that you're fine spending 99 cents on a game you'll play on your morning commute. But if you spend more than 50 bucks, you damn well better be getting your money's worth—if "getting your money's worth" means being able to spend countless hours in front of the screen day after day.This makes for a weird conflation of "time spent in front of the screen" with "quality." ... By serializing "serious games" of this caliber, long-form dramatic experiences can be doled out with more thought given to the lives of the people playing them.So far, this seems to actually be working.
more here
I really don't like that there becoming life like.