Itemization

i·tem·ize  (t-mz)

v. i·tem·ized, i·tem·iz·ing, i·tem·iz·es

v.tr.

1. To place or include on a list of items: itemized her expenses on the proper form.

2. To list the items of: itemized the expense account.

v.intr.

To list deductions from taxable income on a tax return: This benefit is available only to taxpayers who itemize.

 

 

---

 

Just like the word "mob" has come to mean something completely different in computer gaming than in standard English (one thing vs many), the word "itemization" has developed into something that doesn't jive with normal English usage. 

 

It drives me pretty much bonkers trying to work out the computer game meaning of "itemization," unlike the word "mob," possibly because I run into "mob"(s) a lot more often and understand the logical origin of the term (aka the MUD mobile object.)

Itemization, on the other hand, is weird.

In blogs and forums, the word is often used as a complaint. As in PLEASE FIX itemization NAO. Or the Itemization Sucks Balls.

 

It is used to refer to a very specific issue, in which the arrangement of the attributes or stats on a particular item is not consistent with an expectation of the item as a loot reward. Commonly, the expectation demands increasingly superlative, specific class-appropriate attributes in order for RPG-like character improvement and perceived worth to kick in.

This assumption annoys me to hell and back.

Take this paragraph from a Warcry Network article suggesting reasons why players should return to Age of Conan:

Probably the single biggest change suggested and championed by players has been itemization. The game is now more item-centric with everything receiving improvement along with revamping item stats. Before redesign, items might have a 20-30% effect. Now, for example, items carry a 50-60% effect. Armor and weapons can carry protections against magic or melee, rating system enhancements, magical immunities or resists and more.

 

Well. You've just made Age of Conan into WoW or Diablo, I guess. Excusing me the lapse into hysterical hyperbole - I really don't think AoC is at all like the above two Blizzard games, itemized or not, and who's to say that copying a formula that players are accustomed to will not attract a larger audience who like that sort of item-focused game? - I think the toothgrinding nature of the word is that this common usage blinds people to other sorts of non-linearly exponential ways to create items (and items as rewards.)

 

On the other hand, there can be a broader definition of itemization with reference to a computer game. This guy from Gamasutra takes a stab at defining it as "the process of defining what an item does." I disagree with some of the other blanket statements he posits on his blog, such as the purpose of items,  but this definition is agreeable enough to me.

Here's another guy who viciously attacks World of Warcraft as having borked itemization, a stance that I would be inclined to agree with, and would conversely cause perhaps 12 million other people to want to make voodoo dolls of both of us because the itemization suits their /lowbrow/ desires just fine. (I slipped the highlighted word in there because I can be bitchier and more subjective on my own personal blog.)

I've been playing two rather different-from-standard-MMO games lately. 

 

Magic: Duels of the Planeswalkers hails from a long proud generation of games based squarely on the Magic style of gameplay. This fellow gives us a brief look at the difference, standard MMO itemization is just not -interesting- to him. Whole articles that I haven't read in detail yet exist on the Wizards website discussing the design and philosophy of different Magic cards to appeal to different types of Magic players.

The core of Magic, of course, is what Guild Wars got in terms of their itemization of skills. Or would that be skillization, to describe assigning attributes and stats to skills. Fairness is mostly fixed after the fact when things become too "imba" and counter-counter strategies have not managed to develop. Skill synergies are an important part of the game of skill selection. In doing so, they turned skills into collectable pieces of loot, or items, almost. GW equipment by contrast is quite standard at max-level, only offering visual customization options for prestige, and limited stat customization by picking the few kinds of bonus you like and applying inscriptions and prefixes and suffixes in the forms of hafts and hilts.

Sol Survivor meanwhile is a Tower Defence type of game, a little slicker in style than Defense Grid: The Awakening (but both are very good if you like the genre.) Itemization there is again handled a lot differently than standard MMO style. You get to pick different heroes, who can place different sorts of towers. The towers can be ranked up to 3 levels of increasing power.

(I suppose you could argue that the heroes are classes, who then have a different selection of skills to fire off. Except these skills stick around, are positioned in one place and continually fire. Which give them more an "item" quality from their persistence. Except there's no inventory...

...This leads to one of those chicken and egg or semantic questions, I'm guessing. If there is no inventory to sort objects around in, can something be considered an item?

 

Consider games like Minecraft or other FPSes... do they have items? You may carry a gun, but is it an item? TF2 inarguably has items. And an inventory. And an item store.)

And yet more food for thought. Defence of the Ancients (DOTA) and League of Legends (LOL) games have itemization. So says Google. Guessing from context, itemization in those games means the proper selection (and thus, equipping) of items with appropriate attributes for maximum competitive efficiency.

However did this infuriating word evolve so many meanings and forms?