English (US)
Português (BR)
Figure 1: E.T. the Extra Terrestrial (Atari 2600, 1982) Despite the exaggerated title, there is a reflection that has been tormenting me lately. The idea of the 1983's episode happen again. It is not from today that many companies prioritize money more than anything. For those who don't remember what happened in the 80's with Atari, here's a brief summary: In 1982, Steven Spielberg was about to release his newest film, no less than the long-awaited "E. T ". That year, the game market was already very large in the United States, raising millions and with several consoles emerging in the market. Atari then resolves to buy the rights of Spielberg's film, by investing "a few million dollars" and planning to have a much higher return by releasing the game a few months after the movie premiere, specifically at Christmas. The problem is they have given a 5 week deadline for a single programmer (Howard Scott Warshaw) to develop the en
Wait, isn't the same thing? In fact, there are many studies on this case and we still haven't a concrete definition. Not joking. This means that anyone can interpret the meaning of this words any way they want. But in order to establish a joint opinion, it would be interesting if we started thinking the same way, stipulating a meaning. For that, of course, we need to have a solid foundation in our arguments. I'm not saying this classification is the best way, but , i believe it's interesting to consider. I share in parts with the interpretation of Sato and Cardoso¹, Aguiar and Battaiola², and Rouse III³. From them, i could form the idea that: Gameplay: sums up to the game itself. Explaining better, is all parts of the game (graphics, programming, music, animation, plot, etc.) interacting with each other and all parts of the game interacting with the player. The word that stands out here is the interaction (Rouse III, 2001), because without it the game si