Support NeoGAF

[MrNyarlathotep]

I think half of the issues people complain about for mobile games are due to the player base. There are tons of great games on mobile. Tons. But the idea that a large sect of people are too cheap to pay $3 or more for a great mobile game will continue to limit the market's growth and just push more developers towards the F2P hook model. I mean just look at the Monument Valley statistic of how many people payed for that game. It's absurd and disgusting, but it is a reality of the platform and causes a lot of the crap and issues seen among mobile gaming. If a larger portion of mobile players had the same willingness to actually pay for great games, we way see a lot less F2P crap.

Those Monument Valley statistics were thoroughly debunked in that selfsame thread about them, and its just as meaningless looking at mobile piracy rates as it is looking at PC piracy rates.

The numbers that matter are actual sales, not hypothetical lost sales, because all we know is that the ratio of people who pirate software that would otherwise purchase it if they were unable to pirate it is above 0 but below 1.

 

[commish]

I play mobile games at home because they are good games.

This thread...

 

[Mandoric]

I think a lot of the people who are really into cellphone gaming and described by people like us as "casuals" probably would not be playing anything if mobile games didn't exist. It scratches the itch for them, and does it in a very cheap way with a super low barrier to entry. It's not like if clash of clans or candy crush didn't exist that person would be playing Bayonetta 2. They probably wouldn't be playing anything. Stuff like mobile (and to some extent the ps2 and the wii in their hey days) captured a new segment of the market probably moreso than they converted die hards into casuals.

As for the games, yeah most of them are shovelware and don't really appeal to me, but I find it intersting that from a very basic mechanics level (even the IAP and f2p models) they are probably the closest thing to a throwback to the early 80s arcade games that sort of built this industry. Granted stuff has evolved over the last 30 years so I'm not saying everyone has to like them but I think people get the same basic and simple rush from playing these games as those old arcade games used to. Something like Gauntlet, where your life is constantly depleting and the game is prompting you to insert more and more quarters to buy more health is like the precursor to the whole "give us money to speed up the timers" thing so many mobile games do now.

It's very similar, especially the energy and/or stats-gated models. Which in turn add a new element of difficulty that's basically missing in console AAA, and often an entire layer of metagaming to break through those restrictions sooner or faster than intended.

That's why the whole judging entertainment value thing is so futile. By all means, use it as a tool for your time & money. But the moment you push your assessments and tastes on to others, you've lost.

I think that mindset's silly, nihilistic, and almost denies that culture can exist, and I think that gaming will need to grow out of it to ever gain any real acceptance or broad-based interest. It's important to be able to look at what works for other people and understand why it works for them, but there's a world of difference between "shish kebab, corn dogs, and kushi are all great one-handed festival food" and either "i grew up on corn dogs, get this (ethnic slur) shit outta my sight" or "you know, maybe crab legs would be too, since some people like them."
Sadly, that binary is a very "engineer" reaction to unquantifiables, and gaming's nothing if not an engineer preserve.

 

[r3ddvil]

The game industry is so young compared to film, music, and literature.

We're witnessing the first shift from one form to another, just as we evolved from Classical, to Jazz, and then Rock, and then Hip Hop, each generation thought the new sound was a dumbing down of the previous generations work.

Films were a poor mans theater, for poorly skilled actors without the craft to complete scenes without multiple takes.

I'm sure over time, creative and ambitious people will forge new and excellent experiences on any device.

 

[Li Kao]

Your point isn't not novel, it's just being silly.

The ratio of poor quality games to good is bad on mobile? Go into Community and ask for help. They'll be more than happy to help you sort through the trash.

The prevailing mindset is "free or get out?" Yeah...I guess if you're looking at F2P games only. I gave you a list with like ten games that have a price and only two F2P titles.

Believe me, I'm fully aware of the community thread, no need to mention it in every post (well, ok, they deserve it). There are some great posters there, yeah. They can help, yeah. But opinions varies and community or not if you are serious about mobile gaming you better get you shovel and dig each week through a smoldering pile of shit.

And about the mindset, my point still stands. Again, don't think I'm not aware (heck I even bought most of them) of the titles you list. It is still a pitiful number of (great, admittedly) games in the vast sea of freemium games. And as long as the trend continues, I don't see how the true potential of the platform can reveal itself. I'm really no corporate apologist, but devs can do so much at a 0.99 price point.

Edit about your edit - Yup, I will admit you have a point with the Wii.

 

[serenewarfare]

Those Monument Valley statistics were thoroughly debunked in that selfsame thread about them, and its just as meaningless looking at mobile piracy rates as it is looking at PC piracy rates.

The numbers that matter are actual sales, not hypothetical lost sales, because all we know is that the ratio of people who pirate software that would otherwise purchase it if they were unable to pirate it is above 0 but below 1.

Even if you assume the statistics for that part game aren't correct, you cannot say there isn't a decent amount of people that look at mobile games and say "I won't pay more than two or three bucks". Hell, when mobile games come out that are in the $7-10 range, people scoff. It's just a general bad attitude that leads to the devaluation of all the games collectively.

 

[King Gilga]

Easier to open a pack of Pringles than make a sandwich.

The barrier to entry is so low on smartphones because they're always on and by your side, that you may tend to graze on crap rather than walk 5ft to pick up a console controller

Perfect answer.

These days I can barely be assed to set my self down and play a console game unless I have people over for multiplayer.

It's the same reason I play my Vita/3DS over my PC which I play over my console (because my PC is almost always one anyways). It's just more convenient.

If my phone wasn't so old and semi broken I'd definitely be using it to play games way more than my vita/3ds as well, simply because its always in my pocket.

 

[MaLDo]

Easier to open a pack of Pringles than make a sandwich.

The barrier to entry is so low on smartphones because they're always on and by your side, that you may tend to graze on crap rather than walk 5ft to pick up a console controller

That's the real reason. And very low access time.

 

[Ansatz]

I play mobile games at home because they are good games.

This thread...

This thread is about people who have a PS4 at home, purchased Metal Gear Solid 5, but still insist on picking up a smartphone to play an endless runner instead. While playing it you openly say how shallow and simplistic it is and you prefer the richness/depth of a MGS title. But what you think ideally and actually do in reality are two completely different things; barely played MGS while having hours upon hours spent on shallow mobile apps.

 

[commish]

This thread is about people who have a PS4 at home, purchased Metal Gear Solid 5, but still insist on picking up a smartphone to play an endless runner instead. While playing it you openly say how shallow and simplistic it is and you prefer the richness/depth of a MGS title. But what you think ideally and actually do in reality are two completely different things; barely played MGS while having hours upon hours spent on shallow mobile apps.

Sometimes I forget that those endless runners can't be more fun than console games.

 

[TheSlySoul]

It's the same reason I play my Vita/3DS over my PC which I play over my console (because my PC is almost always one anyways). It's just more convenient.

See, that is why I think the thread is more about "why play a handheld when you have a console right there?" more than anything else.
It would be like asking someone why they play Smash 3DS when there is Smash Wii U in the same room.

 

[redcrayon]

This thread is about people who have a PS4 at home, purchased Metal Gear Solid 5, but still insist on picking up a smartphone to play an endless runner instead. While playing it you openly say how shallow and simplistic it is and you prefer the richness/depth of a MGS title. But what you think ideally and actually do in reality are two completely different things; barely played MGS while having hours upon hours spent on shallow mobile apps.

In a similar example, sometimes I'll sit and watch the telly after work. I've got a handful of DVD box sets on my shelf of some of the programmes I've wanted to watch over the last couple of years. All of them I'm looking forward to, and all come highly recommended. But I just end up watching whatever is on the BBC iPlayer, youtube, Netflix or 4OD as it's that whole 'immediacy' thing. Even just opening a box, putting the disc in and committing to watching an hour of a 20-hour-long great TV series loses out to watching (usually) worse TV if it's more accessible.

Games are quite long these days, and sometimes committing to starting something that's going to take a dozen evenings to finish, even if I'm really looking forward to it, is something I'm happy to put off if I'm shattered.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Oldmanyellingatcloud.jpg

 

[evangd007]

But this is the point. These games that my friends play are not worthwhile. Even they can admit it. Sure, other times they play some good defense or strategy mobile games (these are great). But im talking about these few games i mentioned in the OP. There was nothing, i mean NOTHING worthwhile about that corridor shooter or the racing game. They just passively played those games, no expressions, no excitement, no nothing. While admitting that they would never play those on other platforms and while having similar (but much better) games on these other plarforms nearby.

I'm pretty sure Finale Fireworker hit the nail on the head: the games are simpler and the entertainment that they get from those games is much more passive in nature than other games. Why worry about drift boosting in Mario Kart when you can just flick your fingers across a screen a couple of times and win in that shitty racing game? Granted, when I want some passive entertainment I just throw on some Hulu or Netflix, usually something I've seen before so I can jump in at any point and still know what's going on, but to each their own.

And for all you guys trying to argue mobile gaming quality, remember that the OP is describing people who are playing crap, admit that they are playing crap, and yet still keep playing crap.

 

[Mandoric]

This thread is about people who have a PS4 at home, purchased Metal Gear Solid 5, but still insist on picking up a smartphone to play an endless runner instead. While playing it you openly say how shallow and simplistic it is and you prefer the richness/depth of a MGS title. But what you think ideally and actually do in reality are two completely different things; barely played MGS while having hours upon hours spent on shallow mobile apps.

What if the mobile apps aren't particularly shallow? Something like SIF, for all its whale-baiting collectables and investment/RNG/both dependent scoring at the top end, could easily have shipped as a $100 game+controller combo pack on PSOne without too much drama. It's an objectively worse rhythm game for the top few percent, the guys who still play IIDX in the arcades or are making Miku a viable franchise in the US, but that barrier is dozens of hours in for a player whose last dip into the genre was Guitar Hero.

What if they have a PS4 at home, but rather than crazy Kojima's adventures in actually experimenting with how games can grow as a unique medium, they dropped their $60 on Destiny? Is the Loot Cave of the week really a deeper experience, just because it's voiced by a known actor, has more shaders active at any given moment, and it has ~serious scifi for serious people~ theming?

And for all you guys trying to argue mobile gaming quality, remember that the OP is describing people who are playing crap, admit that they are playing crap, and yet still keep playing crap.

And having established that they're eating crap, he's asking "why are they giving themselves Montezuma's Revenge when they could be giving themselves good old-fashioned typhoid?"

 

[King Gilga]

See, that is why I think the thread is more about "why play a handheld when you have a console right there?" more than anything else.
It would be like asking someone why they play Smash 3DS when there is Smash Wii U in the same room.

It's just convenience, 90% of time I'm playing my Vita, it's in the same room as my PS3, I have such a large PS3 backlog, full of much better games than I'm playing on my vita atm, but I just can't be assed.

 

[Stereogatari]

Apart from the weird choices of "pinnacles" you made (Persona? Mother? Really?) we've already seen Final Fantasys originating as a mobile game with Type 0, and a fairly high profile series called Grand Theft Auto appear on mobile.

Mother and Persona yes, 2 of the best games ever created. If GTA gets an exclusive mobile game that is catered to the control scheme then I'll be convinced, not just ports.

It's just convenience, 90% of time I'm playing my Vita, it's in the same room as my PS3, I have such a large PS3 backlog, full of much better games than I'm playing on my vita atm, but I just can't be assed.

Sleep mode on PS4 would solve this problem for me. It's all about the pick up and play aspect.

 

[Laconic]

This thread is about people who have a PS4 at home, purchased Metal Gear Solid 5, but still insist on picking up a smartphone to play an endless runner instead. While playing it you openly say how shallow and simplistic it is and you prefer the richness/depth of a MGS title. But what you think ideally and actually do in reality are two completely different things; barely played MGS while having hours upon hours spent on shallow mobile apps.

I have a smartphone.

And yet I always carry my 3DS with me, in light of my desire to play games.

 

[GregLombardi]

I agree 100% with the OP. Even hardcore gamers around me are falling into the rapid gaming consumption trap that is mobile gaming in many ways. It's like eating mcdonalds -- except cinematic and well defined artistic gaming creations are your heart and mobile games are your poop.

It is interesting from a behavioral standpoint. Not only are children (and adults) retreating into their devices in a much more dangerous way than happened during the initial videogame industry rush of the 80's and 90s, but they rarely have a critical eye for what is a good or a bad product or gameplay. It is simply "consumption" that is driving this and many other domestic industries right now. Honestly it isn't a great place for the industry, or for the U.S. as a whole. But the earth keeps spinning so we'll see where it goes.

 

[Natureboy99]

I, like many others, was excited to try out all the mobile games we hear about every day (angrybirds, minecraft pocket, words with friends, flappy bird, etc etc etc). I would say for a solid year I had all sorts of phone games installed. Then one day I realized they were all trash and the hype was pure bloat from non-gamers. Today I have about 5% of the games still installed, for moments when I'm truly without any other options. I'm done with phone games, and ignore hype when I see it now.

I think there are others like me out there. Casual gamers may have bitten on phone games, but core gamers won't be satisfied on that stuff. Also, some people will want more after getting a taste from phone games.

Lastly, I think console makers still have room for improvement on getting people into the game quickly. Loading screens are much better than last gen, but they need to be non-existent. Suspend/resume needs to be a day 1 feature for all platforms. Basically they need to reduce the time and number of actions to be in game playing.

 

[catbrush]

Aside from the limitations of the touch screen for action games, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with mobile as a platform. However, a lot of mobile games are cynically designed around addictive hooks to keep the player invested in its ecosystem.

Honestly, scummy Silicon Valley types ruined mobile by flooding the market with their get rich quick scams. Nearly every popular mobile game is a clone that's been re-skinned and filled to the brim with addictive hooks.

Trying to stop playing a mobile game you've invested days/months/years into is similar to trying to quit WoW.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Even if you assume the statistics for that part game aren't correct, you cannot say there isn't a decent amount of people that look at mobile games and say "I won't pay more than two or three bucks". Hell, when mobile games come out that are in the $7-10 range, people scoff. It's just a general bad attitude that leads to the devaluation of all the games collectively.

There is an assumption there that "cost", "worth" and "value" are the same thing however.
Right now a traditonal AAA title "costs" more than the $60 sticker price "value" that 'real' gamers are prepared to pay (or what they consider its "worth" to be), which is why we get things like nickle and diming DLCs, multiple special editions, retail exclusive content and season passes.
Does that make "real" gamers cheapskates because they don't want to pay more than $60 MSRP any more than "casual gamers" don't want to pay more than $5?

 

[Mandoric]

Mother and Persona yes, 2 of the best games ever created. If GTA gets an exclusive mobile game that is catered to the control scheme then I'll be convinced, not just ports.

Those two in particular would work amazingly on mobile, wouldn't they. Persona even already has an energy mechanic that punishes you for playing too long in one sitting, and collectible cards you pull from a gacha after every battle!

I agree 100% with the OP. Even hardcore gamers around me are falling into the rapid gaming consumption trap that is mobile gaming in many ways. It's like eating mcdonalds -- except cinematic and well defined artistic gaming creations are your heart and mobile games are your poop.

Hah, "cinematic" as a great ideal that's being sullied. That's great, I hope you get a few bites. :^)

 

[JudgmentJay]

I, like many others, was excited to try out all the mobile games we hear about every day (angrybirds, minecraft pocket, words with friends, flappy bird, etc etc etc). I would say for a solid year I had all sorts of phone games installed. Then one day I realized they were all trash and the hype was pure bloat from non-gamers. Today I have about 5% of the games still installed, for moments when I'm truly without any other options. I'm done with phone games, and ignore hype when I see it now.

Pretty much this for me, except I stopped playing phone games after about a week. I don't have any games installed in my Nexus 5 at the moment. Far too shallow of an experience for me. Not really sure I agree with the ease of use/time aspect of the argument though. It takes me less time to boot up Dark Souls (with DSFix) on my PC than it does to load Angry Birds on a phone. I guess there was the initial 5 minutes of downloading the mod and configuring the .ini, but if that's a "barrier," then all I have to say is people are really damn lazy.

 

[Ansatz]

What if the mobile apps aren't particularly shallow? Something like SIF, for all its whale-baiting collectables and investment/RNG/both dependent scoring at the top end, could easily have shipped as a $100 game+controller combo pack on PSOne without too much drama. It's an objectively worse rhythm game for the top few percent, the guys who still play IIDX in the arcades or are making Miku a viable franchise in the US, but that barrier is dozens of hours in for a player whose last dip into the genre was Guitar Hero.

What if they have a PS4 at home, but rather than crazy Kojima's adventures in actually experimenting with how games can grow as a unique medium, they dropped their $60 on Destiny? Is the Loot Cave of the week really a deeper experience, just because it's voiced by a known actor, has more shaders active at any given moment, and it has ~serious scifi for serious people~ theming?

Nope you are absolutely right. There is nothing inherently bad about mobile gaming itself except for the lack of buttons, so only certain genres can work really well.

What we're discussing here is the same thing as spending your time playing shallow/repetitive blockbusters that exploit us with reward systems, such as Destiny.

We can't do anything to reverse this process of de-evolving game design, we can barely change the situation around eating unhealthy. Food is essential for us and not eating right can affect your physical health negatively. If we can't change someone's eating habits then how in the world will we change our current gaming habits, considering it's unecessary entertainment? People always resort to arguments like fun is subjective, this is what the audience wants, etc. But in my view these kinds of games are the equivalent of fast food.

 

[Beardz]

The only time I play with my phone is when I'm taking a shit.

 

[Clefargle]

Whatever OP, games are games, therefore anyone who plays them is a "gamer". Stop trying to make "gamer" into a lifestyle or a subset of gaming.

 

[TheGraykid]

Complexity doesn't equal a better experience. And I have more fun playing games like Year Walk, Sword and Sworcery and Device 6 than any Mario game. This thread just reads as super elitist "hardcore gamer" stuff, like people who ask "why do people listen to pop music, it's so simplistic".

 

[GregLombardi]

Whatever OP, games are games, therefore anyone who plays them is a "gamer". Stop trying to make "gamer" into a lifestyle or a subset of gaming.

But it was a lifestyle for 20-30 years. Now its just an avenue of consumption. I think that's what the OP is getting at.

 

[King Gilga]

But it was a lifestyle for 20-30 years. Now its just an avenue of consumption.

If video games were/are how you define yourself as a person that's pretty pathetic imo.

 

[silvermember]

Regarding the title of thread.

It is only a devolution of a "gamer" if your fun is dependent on what other people are doing.

I see smart phone vs console gaming like NCAA and Professional Sports, they both exist to serve a similar but different need. There are some people who only watch NCAA and they are some who only watch Professional and some who like both. The existence of one shouldn't and doesn't directly impact the other. And if you are worried that it will eventually, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it anyways.

Would you play those games if they were on the console/handheld/PC?

why does it matter? Do you intend on funding the ports?

To me mobile vs console gaming is similar to movies/tv shows vs plays. They are similar in their goals but are achieved them in different ways.

But it was a lifestyle for 20-30 years. Now its just an avenue of consumption. I think that's what the OP is getting at.

Games should not be a lifestyle. You should be living just to play game or something.

Anyways, drawing arbitrary lines over hobbies is silly.

 

[GregLombardi]

If video games were/are how you define yourself as a person that's pretty pathetic imo.

This statement ignores the historical context in which one can speak about the birth, growth, and state of an industry. That does make me question your age, but it is fairly easy to boil things to black and white on the internet so I guess it goes both ways.

 

[Mandoric]

Nope you are absolutely right. There is nothing inherently bad about mobile gaming itself except for the lack of buttons, so only certain genres can work really well.

What we're discussing here is the same thing as spending your time playing shallow/repetitive blockbusters that exploit us with reward systems, such as Destiny.

We can't do anything to reverse this process of de-evolving game design, we can barely change the situation around eating unhealthy. Food is essential for us and not eating right can affect your physical health negatively. If we can't change someone's eating habits then how in the world will we change our current gaming habits, considering it's unecessary entertainment? People always resort to arguments like fun is subjective, this is what the audience wants, etc. But in my view these kinds of games are the equivalent of fast food.

That's definitely a fair assessment. But it's pretty telling that "smartphones" is in the title and even a catchphrase like "Skinner boxes" isn't, and I think phrasing the argument like that is in large part modern gaming's psychological defense mechanism when faced with the huge, demonstrated gaps between their ideal and actual play habits or between such criticism we have and how focus groups inevitably turn out. And I think it often turns into excuses to ignore or even encourage similar commoditization on other platforms--per your food equivalent, loathing the huge but soggy and bland burgers McDonald's is pushing, and instead feeling secure in that 1/3lb patty (grocery store butchers here don't even sell them any smaller anymore!) cooked in one's Foreman grill.

 

[Brutalitops]

I played and enjoyed more of The Simpsons Tapped Out in 2014 than every single console/PC release. And ive been gaming since the Mega Drive.

I just removed the barrier between them all being different and just played what I felt like playing.

 

[GregLombardi]

Games should not be a lifestyle. You should be living just to play game or something.

Anyways, drawing arbitrary lines over hobbies is silly.

My point on this note was more from the perspective of the game designer. What if you both made games as a passion / art and played them? Some very famous game designers in the world today spent their entire lives on an industry that you are stating is unimportant. My point is that it is as important as anything else that anyone holds to be important. It's easy to philosophize when one hasn't lived the life.

 

[Eusis]

Wonder if that'll continue once the honeymoon phase ends with their devices? Though there's the fact that it's easy enough to slot in some time for a quick mobile game whenever versus a more dedicated console title, and sometimes whims just work that way: you know objectively that it'd be a better use of time to play some other game, or read a book, learn something, whatever, but you just don't FEEL like it so you go for the cheap lightweight fare. Also kind of like skipping on actually making a meal in favor of opening a bag of chips (or taking an already open one) and snacking on that.

 

[Dreavus]

I've been guilty of playing a few Puzzle-Dragon-likes (Brave Frontier, Monster Strike) on my phone when I'm browsing the internet at the same time, but that's mostly because I was in deep on those games and not because I was too lazy to play anything else. Less of a "fun" thing and more of a habit of the time.

That said, I'm not sure this is a hugely widespread thing. Anecdotally, I almost never hear about my friends playing phone games when they have the perfect chance to play something else, even the more popular games. A majority of the time it has to do with the situation (on the bus, waiting for something, etc).

I dunno. Are there any statistics on these habits somewhere out there?

 

[Stereogatari]

Games should not be a lifestyle. You should be living just to play game or something.

Anyways, drawing arbitrary lines over hobbies is silly.

Appreciation of high quality video games is definitely a valid lifestyle, just like it is with movies, music, art, sports etc. you name it.

 

[petethepanda]

Gamers aren't devolving, the breadth of available gaming experiences is growing.

 

[Mandoric]

Wonder if that'll continue once the honeymoon phase ends with their devices? Though there's the fact that it's easy enough to slot in some time for a quick mobile game whenever versus a more dedicated console title, and sometimes whims just work that way: you know objectively that it'd be a better use of time to play some other game, or read a book, learn something, whatever, but you just don't FEEL like it so you go for the cheap lightweight fare. Also kind of like skipping on actually making a meal in favor of opening a bag of chips (or taking an already open one) and snacking on that.

Why assume there's a honeymoon in play? There's been almost exactly as much time between Angry Birds and now as there was between Super Mario Brothers and Super Mario World; iOS and Android both reached installed bases comparable to the Wii's LTD by mid-2011.

 

[TouchMyBox]

The mobile market just needs a good crash, like the console market crash in the 80s.

I'm not sure how a crash happens with a free-to-play market though.

 

[Eusis]

Why assume there's a honeymoon in play? There's been almost exactly as much time between Angry Birds and now as there was between Super Mario Brothers and Super Mario World; iOS and Android both reached installed bases comparable to the Wii's LTD by mid-2011.

That's not the comparison you want: if they've got iPhone 6, Samsung Galaxy S5/Note 4s, or just plain got a new phone period they'll want to play with the new toy. It's not novelty in the sense that Angry Birds lets you play with your finger, it's novelty in the sense that you just got a brand new Wii U and got a Mario game to have something to use it with, or like wanting games such as Dark Souls II to come out on PS4 rather than PS3 so you can use your new system rather than the old one (... though especially in cases like that you'd also want that so it'd run better.)

EDIT: Actually, I wonder if that sort of novelty's one reason handhelds have been increasingly marginalized and console games threatened, because on the right plans you ARE making a jump to fancy new technology every year or every other year, rather than about every 3-5. Nevermind the fact most phones can murder handhelds graphics-wise now and that they competed for pocket space regardless.

 

[Razzorn34]

That's the real reason. And very low access time.

This. It's flat out laziness. People know these crappy games aren't better than what is on their dedicated game consoles, but immediate gratification is a bigger draw to some folks than good game experiences. It's pretty damn sad, but becoming more and more true.

 

[mazpratim]

All mobile really needs is buttons IMO

 

[Aaron D.]

What we're discussing here is the same thing as spending your time playing shallow/repetitive blockbusters that exploit us with reward systems, such as Destiny.

We can't do anything to reverse this process of de-evolving game design, we can barely change the situation around eating unhealthy. Food is essential for us and not eating right can affect your physical health negatively. If we can't change someone's eating habits then how in the world will we change our current gaming habits, considering it's unecessary entertainment? People always resort to arguments like fun is subjective, this is what the audience wants, etc. But in my view these kinds of games are the equivalent of fast food.

It's your right to view mobile games as fast food. It is not your right to judge others for enjoying them. If someone was never going to purchase a game console to begin with, that Candy Crush fast-food is fine dining to them. No amount of looking down your nose at them is going to change that.

I think this is where people who argue against mobile gaming get stuck. They can't separate personal appraisal ("Mobile gaming is not for me.") from other's enjoyment of the platform ("Why can't they see that they're doing it wrong?!"). The former is just fine. The latter is an exercise in narcissistic frustration.

 

[TouchMyBox]

All mobile really needs is buttons IMO

it would help the niche indie scene, but for the games that actually make large amounts of money it would just turn "tap the screen to wait 8 hours" into "tap the screen or press X to wait 8 hours".

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

My point on this note was more from the perspective of the game designer. What if you both made games as a passion / art and played them? Some very famous game designers in the world today spent their entire lives on an industry that you are stating is unimportant. My point is that it is as important as anything else that anyone holds to be important. It's easy to philosophize when one hasn't lived the life.

And a lot of those very famous game designers (Sid Meier, Peter Molyneux, Brian Reynolds, Ron Gilbert, Soren Johnson, to name a few) have moved to mobile gaming as their primary medium to work in.
So where do you think the industry is actually headed?

 

[tbm24]

This. It's flat out laziness. People know these crappy games aren't better than what is on their dedicated game consoles, but immediate gratification is a bigger draw to some folks than good game experiences. It's pretty damn sad, but becoming more and more true.

Choosing to play 1 game over another is not a matter of laziness. It's a matter of want. I wanted to play Terra Battle when I got home from work yesterday and chill out in my apartment. I didn't want to boot up my PS4 and start my copy of The Last of Us that i've had sitting on my HDD for over 2 weeks. What's sad is your judgement.

 

[Mandoric]

That's not the comparison you want: if they've got iPhone 6, Samsung Galaxy S5/Note 4s, or just plain got a new phone period they'll want to play with the new toy. It's not novelty in the sense that Angry Birds lets you play with your finger, it's novelty in the sense that you just got a brand new Wii U and got a Mario game to have something to use it with, or like wanting games such as Dark Souls II to come out on PS4 rather than PS3 so you can use your new system rather than the old one (... though especially in cases like that you'd also want that so it'd run better.)

EDIT: Actually, I wonder if that sort of novelty's one reason handhelds have been increasingly marginalized and console games threatened, because on the right plans you ARE making a jump to fancy new technology every year or every other year, rather than about every 3-5. Nevermind the fact most phones can murder handhelds graphics-wise now and that they competed for pocket space regardless.

I can see what you mean from that perspective, but I'm not sure I'd call it a honeymoon benefit as a whole. I know for me, personally, successful consoles have also come on a two-year cadence for nearly my entire life; while releases have been clumped, most gens have had a plausible runner up that got hot a few years in. Is the 2-year upgrade cycle really that different from the average Gaffer who plausibly got his hands on a NES in '87, a Game Boy in '90, a SNES in '91, dipped into Genesis in '93, PSX in '95, N64 in '96, GBP around Pokemon launch in '98, Dreamcast in '99, PS2 in '00 or '01, Xbox around Halo 2 in '04, X360 or PSP in '05? Surely you wouldn't argue that console gaming through these years was one long stretch of honeymoons rather than innately appealing?

 

[silvermember]

Appreciation of high quality video games is definitely a valid lifestyle, just like it is with movies, music, art, sports etc. you name it.

Just because the other kids do it doesn't necessarily make it good.

Well oh not like it matters anyways.