A lot of mainstream video game design centers on capitalistic design. Critics talk about how good Destiny, Anthem, The Division, etc. feel to play- the "Left trigger right trigger" FPS is good. But the core design of these games is around constant attainment or growth. "Making the numbers go up". Waypoint talked last week about how the core design of The Division 2 is to drive you towards the next, better gun. The way these games are designed, they're mechanically satisfying but largely devoid of drive outside of attainment. The Crucible, Destiny's PVP arena, uses the same mechanics as the rest of the game but isn't regarded by many as the most fun part of it. It is functionally identical, but the playerbase is incentivized to play the game to attain the next piece of loot.

All of the above are "Loot Shooters" so it makes sense that on some level, the game design pushes towards that. But this same model is present elsewhere. Battlefield and Call of Duty are games that, purely as games of virtual murder paintball, are fun to play. But they both feature parallel advancement tracks to unlock new features. I highlight both of these because the advancement tracks fature new weapons and perks/skills, things that mechanically change the game. Once you have unlocked those, there are new cosmetics to be unlocked (in the case of Battlefield V, there are multiple weapon parts that make up an entire cosmetic set, just for one gun).

Recently there has been a lot of discussion around Late Capitalist models of business growth. Specifically, about how growth is *the* ideal model of business. Sustainable profit and support is not enough, in order for a business to be considered successful, it must be growing, expanding, taking in more than it did this time last year. The numbers going up. This is, definitionally, unsustainable, and has proven to be a model that values growth over employee's needs.

This is not to say that growth is totally undesireable. Having goals can be satisfying. Monster Hunter is a series that has made the core loop of the game enjoyable to play, alongside a progression track where taking on more challenging hunts carries the promise of new equipment that will enable the player to take on even harder hunts. Warframe has experimented with new ways to add challenges to the game without simply adding challenges with higher numbers associated with them.

A friend frequently describes certain games as "skinner boxes". Press a button to do a thing, recieve a hit of endorphins, and i argue that a lot of mainstream game design is built around this. Again- the numbers going up is satisfying. But the way many of these games are designed, progress is at the core of that satisfaction. Replaying events or challenges is frequently unsatisfying. The mechanical triggers (left trigger right trigger) may still feel satisfying, but without the numbers going up, the same enjoyment isn't there.

I argue that fighting games (or at least the FGC) breaks this convention. Fighting games are, frequently, games about mastery that do not involve a progress track. Players play and practice to get better, but the focus is on organic, personal growth. One Johnny player may have mastered combo strings that make a less experienced Johnny player look like they don't know how to play the game, but both players are using the same Johnny. Fighting Games are an environment where the same experience is repeated every time you play it. Some of these games have been played for over a decade after support for the game has stopped. But the core experience remains enjoyable. At no point do Ryu's numbers stop going up. Even if a player peaks with their main in a fighting game, the experience of playing at that level isn't necessarily diminished.