1 for the Fun, 2 for the Challenge, 3 for the Trophy?

The idea of ''addicting gameplay'' has transformed from an experience that steadily builds variety as it progresses, to simply collecting trophies. It seems to be the only part of a game that holds replay value today. Even though I haven't caught myself doing it, I see this mindset in 90% of all my gamer friends; in the end, trophies are the main reason for continuing to play a game. But what's the point of a trophy in and of itself, anyway? Most high-end trophies (or ''achievements'') are only unlocked in-game from either playing for a ridiculous amount of time, or doing something incredibly tedious or challenging that isn't fun to do in the first place. Most trophy-hunters will state that it's the challenge which motivates them to complete ongoing tests of dedication and skill, regardless of how unfair (albeit discouraging) the circumstances may be. The scary part? Game developers continue to tap this new trend by making a game's challenge the primary focus of the experience (refer to the now-acclaimed Dark Souls series).

But I ask the question, ''What if you didn't receive a trophy at all? Would you still play on the hardest difficulty against all those zombies, using nothing but a knife?'' After all, there's really nothing fun about being totally restricted, and there's no prestige to be gained without proof of your accomplishment. I think it's fair to say there really isn't any reason to play a game without its core gameplay mechanics. So then, why don't developers think of more ways to keep gamers playing that don't involve just making the game harder? I believe the reasoning comes from the fact that much of the time, developers are creating games that aren't very fun to play in the first place, so in order to curve-ball the lack of good design, they opt out of thinking of new ways to enhance the entertainment qualities in the game, and instead give players the option to ''challenge'' themselves, which they believe adds variety to the experience; and the incentive always goes back to that in-game trophy, that sense of accomplishment.

                                               

But is that really what gamers have always wanted? Have we been reduced to challenge-seeking glory-hogs who want nothing less than to have a big shiny title next to our gamer-tags? I remember an age where there was no such thing as online trophies, and people played games to have fun. Our accomplishments were known only by our friends and family, and even then it wasn't common knowledge. So why do so many people devote incredible amounts of time and effort playing on insane difficulties and completing wildly monotonous challenges for the sake of earning an imaginary trophy? Heck, most people who see your trophy are strangers!

You'll see this craze in the majority of games on the market; even the ones that aren't popular for their campaign instill a mindset of ''leveling up'' as an incentive to keep playing (regardless of whether grinding through the ranks actually grants you anything new). Take Halo 4 for instance. By level 10, you will have unlocked every item in your loadout; yet the level cap tops out at 130; so where's the incentive to keep playing? Call of Duty was actually the game that introduced the idea of leveling up in multiplayer, but it exceeds even the 130 level cap, because players are able to gain ''prestige'' by starting the leveling process all over again after they're reached the highest rank!

                                        

One might suggest that the challenge in a game, whether it's born out of tedium or unfair circumstances, exists to increase replay value (and even the value of playing in the first place). A game developer friend of mine even believes that the challenge of a game is the primary element that makes it fun to play. Obviously, this subject is very important. If developers don't understand the driving force behind what makes their games endearing, there can't be any innovation in the industry. So let me first say that I believe there are two types of challenges in games; each has it's own role, and I think the problem game developers have run into involves giving one of these challenges too much attention over the other.

On the one hand, the main objective (regardless of campaign or multiplayer modes) is supposed to be the incentive for participating in the game, using all of the assets available to you (weapons, gadgets, vehicles, the level design, etc). Without this ''challenge,'' there's no point in using anything at your disposal, which in turn forces you to ''make'' your own fun (empty game modes like Team Deathmatch are a great example of bad design in this area because there's such a lack of structure). The second side of the ''challenge'' equation involves the core mechanics of the game, and your ability to interact with any given element, like the enemies, weapons, and environment. This is the paradigm that developers don't pay enough attention to. Instead of honing a game's core gameplay mechanics to create an always-fun experience, the makers of most games nowadays aim to give players endless side-objectives (or at least, that's what these sorts of accomplishments used to be considered) like getting 1000 headshots, killing 500 enemies using various forms of tedious execution, or ''prestiging'' for the umpteenth time. The focus has shifted from playing for the moment, to wasting time trying to earn ''trophies'' for accomplishing menial tasks over a long period of time.

                                                    

                                                     Not really. But it's a funny picture.

''But it seems to sell,'' you might say. And with that, I'd have to agree. Regardless of the hurtful trends that have sprung up in modern video games, people still want to play. It's because we gamers see the potential in this medium, and we don't want to miss out on the latest and greatest releases. In spite of that, my point stands: the challenge of a game shouldn't be the driving force behind playing; instead, it ought to act as the catalyst for using the elements of the game that are fun to use. As anyone will tell you, there's nothing fun about dying. Rather, the incentive to complete an objective without dying is what pushes you to participate in the fun elements of a game; and that's what developers have missed.

What I think gamers are really looking for is a steady flow of novelty in their experience. After completing the story of a rich campaign, players want to experience the game again in all its glory; they don't want to lose that nuance they felt the first time around. Try examining what it is that motivates you to keep playing. You'll see it isn't just about wanting a new challenge; it's the hope of having a new experience that holds your interest, as irrational as that hope may be when all you're doing is turning up the difficulty.