28 replies to this topic

[Hana-Nezumi]

There's been a press event about Nintendo's collaboration with DeNA to develop games for smartphones:

 

(That's all I have to say that's objective. Incoming are the opinions of an obsessed out-of-touch Nintendo fanboy who doesn't even own a smartphone...)

I was disappointed and very worried at first, but after fully listening to Mr. Iwata's speech, my fears are somewhat alleviated, and I understand the reasons for Nintendo taking this course of action. I suppose the goal does justify the means... If Nintendo's smartphone games really do entice more people to become interested in real games, then that will be a wonderful thing. And it's good to hear that they will be making new, dedicated games rather than lazy ports of games which wouldn't work with touchscreen controls. Something that made me very uncomfortable and sad as a Nintendo fan was thinking of this as like Nintendo acting as a third party developer for another console... but when Mr. Iwata compared it to how they first started to take advantage of TVs so many years ago, I realized it really is MUCH more comparable to that. With how widespread smartphones are, they practically are like TVs in that everybody has them, so it's not giving in to competition, but instead, utilizing the next generation of media outlet.

[Sir Turtlelot]

It was only a matter of time I suppose.

 

From my understanding, their mobile games really only seem to serve two purposes, create an additional source of revenue and advertise for Nintendo's core business of dedicated hardware and games. The confirmation that dedicated hardware and games were to remain as the core business was welcomed, since so many have been asking for them to abandon those in favor of developing for mobile and other competing dedicated hardware platforms.

 

Overall, I think it was wise of Nintendo to partner with another company to tackle their online distribution and management, since the Big N only recently discovered that the internet does in fact exist. Although I am a little torn on Nintendo internally developing the mobile games. On one hand, the games stand a better chance of not be your typical shoddy mobile games, but on the other hand it's one less dev team to work on Wii U and 3DS games. Considering that I don't really play mobile games anyways, I doubt that I'll playing any of these anyways.

 

The most exciting part of this announcement was the confirmation of the upcoming NX platform. From what I've read, we won't be hearing anything about it until 2016, probably at E3 mostly likely, so at least I know I've still got another year or so of life out of my 3DS and Wii U. I'm still really hoping for a hybrid console/handheld system, but I've also read that it might be a console and handheld pair that share system architecture to allow for cross-play. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

[DarkJuno]

Remember when Nintendo said awhile ago that they would start working with other companies licensing out their characters for them to use while still keeping watch over it? And that other time Nintendo said they were going to start putting apps on smart phones that wouldn't just be their full games and just entice people to go for their hardware?

That's all this is. Yeah, they literally already said all this before, and so I'm surprised everyone's freaking out about it.

Anyway, DeNA tends to make card battle games and the like for mobile, and are pretty profitable. I know for sure they've made the Transformers one amongst many others, and while it is absolutely filled with that F2P garbage like status bars and waiting, most of the money comes from buying packs of cards and whatnot. Honestly, I'm seeing them probably just doing the same thing for Nintendo, though given how much of a control freak Nintendo is (this is the same Nintendo that, when given a rough version of the Villains Meeting from Wreck It Ralph, made a point of telling Disney to change how Bowser was drinking his coffee to keep it in character, after all), they'll probably keep a closer eye on the games then, say Hasbro did.

I'm also almost entirely sure they didn't really want to even talk about their next piece of hardware and only really brought it up because they knew people would start panicking because of this news. From the sound of it, they won't even entertain talking about it again till next year, so we're at least two years out from it, at minimum.

[Raien]

There's more to this announcement than smartphone games and character licenses.

 

Nintendo has become hostile to TVs. A game console attached to a TV made sense when everyone got their digital entertainment from it. But now the TVs are sharing space with PCs, smartphones and tablet computers, and it doesn't make sense for Nintendo to attach itself to just one platform anymore. The reason why the Wii U has that bulky gamepad is to allow people to play games away from the TV. The TV has become an encumbrance. According to what Iwata has said, it's unlikely that Nintendo's new NX platform will simply be another box-connected-to-a-TV. It's going to be something that connects to smartphones and PCs and make use of the different hardware's capabilities. It's certainly going to involve a new account system, the one that is replacing Club Nintendo.

 

The big question I have is the games. It all comes down to two fundamental problems:

1) Nintendo refuses to embrace its arcade/NES roots.

2) Nintendo refuses to create new worlds and characters.

 

It doesn't matter how good of a platform you have if you don't have the games to support said platform. Hopefully NX will represent a fresh start for the company, like the Wii was in its early years.

Edited by Raien, 18 March 2015 - 02:17 PM.

[SteveT]

2) Nintendo refuses to create new worlds and characters.

 
It irritates me that this is such an unshakable reputation.
 
New Nintendo IPs since 2001 (GBA/GameCube era):
 
- Pikmin
- Animal Crossing
- Golden Sun
- Nintendogs
- Wii Sports
- Chibi Robo
- Miis
- Splatoon
- Dillon's Rolling Western
- HarmoKnight
- Pushmo
- Assorted other eShop games
 
Gray Areas:
 
- Introduction of Wars and Fire Emblem to the West
- Wario Ware
 
 
Nintendo is still creating IP.  They just don't get any credit for it.  Either people are overlooking the new IPs, they aren't realizing Nintendo made them, or embracing them so hard it feels like they've always been around.  It's like people say, "Ok, so you created Splatoon this year.  What new IP have you made lately?"

Edited by SteveT, 18 March 2015 - 02:35 PM.

[Raien]

Nintendo don't get credit for recent IPs because they're not very good. Even when the games are great, like Pushmo, the worlds/characters are just awful. When people say they want new IPs, they mean GOOD IPs.

[SteveT]

And that's the dismissive attitude that leads to Nintendo saying, "Just throw in Mario.  People already love Mario."  We're lucky Splatoon is going to be a new IP, because that almost happened.

 

And a pox on anyone who claims Pikmin isn't one of Nintendo's best IPs.

Edited by SteveT, 18 March 2015 - 03:10 PM.

[Selena]

It's wise of Nintendo to do this. For however innovative they are when it comes to new gaming technology, they're traditionally slow to embrace gaming norms that they haven't personally created. Tablets and smartphone are a huge corner of the gaming market. It'd be bad business not to capitalize on that.

 

It's also a generational thing. Our generation grew up with Gameboys. We're used to the idea of dedicated handheld consoles -- handhelds that pretty much do one thing, but they do it very well. Younger generations? They're growing up to be intimately familiar with tablets and smartphones. My brother has a tablet and a DS. Of the two, the tablet gets 90% of his attention.

 

It's ridiculously easy to install and swap out games. The pay-games never cost too much, so they're tempting splurge purchases. It can be addictive. Which bodes well for a developer. And because so many people have smartphones/tablets, and do pretty much everything on them, it's a huge potential market. Having a dedicated device for your various needs (i.e.: simultaneously carrying a phone, mp3 player, and Gameboy) is a thing of the past. Now everything's consolidated into one powerful device. And it'll be that way for the indefinite future.

 

 

 

If they give their mobile games the proper TLC, then they could potentially make a shitton of money. But if their mentality is "make these games to get people into REAL games," then that's worrisome. Smartphone games ARE real games. They are simplistic. But so were the games of the so-called "golden age of gaming." And frankly, a lot of small DS games my brother owns are of poorer quality than some $3 smartphone games.

[Veteran]

Smartphone games ARE real games.

No no no no NO NO NO!


I have no eloquent argument to back that up, but no no no.

[Spikey]

Ehrmm Nintendo doesn't do enough with its existing franchises /  characters, really. Also, each Fire Emblem has practically a new world and HORDES of new characters =). Fire Emblem is by the way the perfect game to port to mobile devices, as it requires no real time action. I always play FE6, FE7 and FE8 in fast forward mode on my Android devices when I'm on the go without my handhelds.

 

 

2) Nintendo refuses to create new worlds and characters.

 
It irritates me that this is such an unshakable reputation.
 
New Nintendo IPs since 2001 (GBA/GameCube era):
 

 

And things like Geist and Eternal Darkness....pls Nintendo, revive.

 

 

If they give their mobile games the proper TLC, then they could potentially make a shitton of money. But if their mentality is "make these games to get people into REAL games," then that's worrisome. Smartphone games ARE real games. They are simplistic. But so were the games of the so-called "golden age of gaming." And frankly, a lot of small DS games my brother owns are of poorer quality than some $3 smartphone games.

 

There are a few exceptions to this of course, but that segment is really low I guess in comparison. On I can think of are digital versions of board games like Small World by Days of Wonder for Android and iOS, and things like Carcassonne. Also, there are straight ports of classic complex games too, like the 7th Guest for iOS.

[Selena]

 

Smartphone games ARE real games.

No no no no NO NO NO!


I have no eloquent argument to back that up, but no no no.

 

 

YES VET THE FUTURE IS NOW. REMEMBER THAT YOU ALSO THOUGHT THE WIIMOTE WAS RIDICULOUS.

 

There are lots of cool little games that are similar in size and scope to simplistic, old school Nintendo games. Which is why they're so easy to pick up and play.

[Raien]

And that's the dismissive attitude that leads to Nintendo saying, "Just throw in Mario.  People already love Mario."  We're lucky Splatoon is going to be a new IP, because that almost happened.

 

First of all, since I didn't correct this point in my last post, the majority of the games you listed are hovering around 10-years old by this point. You wouldn't call a 10-year old film "new" or "recent", and it's ridiculous to group all those games together despite the age difference. It's also ridiculous that Nintendo created more IP within the space of five years on the NES than they have over the course of 15 years over several consoles. Seriously ask yourself, why do Nintendo have so much trouble creating successful IPs today when they were so successful at it back in the 80s? It's not the herculean task you're making it out to be.

 

Secondly, that sentence is honestly the most tool-ish thing I have ever read on this forum. Are you really going to be that guy who blames every bad decision on the filthy, unwashed masses? At what point are Nintendo allowed to take responsibility for their own terrible products?

 

 

If they give their mobile games the proper TLC, then they could potentially make a shitton of money. But if their mentality is "make these games to get people into REAL games," then that's worrisome. Smartphone games ARE real games. They are simplistic. But so were the games of the so-called "golden age of gaming." And frankly, a lot of small DS games my brother owns are of poorer quality than some $3 smartphone games.

 

I don't quite agree. The golden age of gaming was not just about simplistic games, it was about arcade-style games. It was that magical quality that made gaming back then so addictive. But arcade-style games need tactile buttons. Touch screens are terrible for arcade-style games. That's why most of the famous smartphone games, like Angry Birds and Touch the Rope, are puzzle games. RPGs and strategy games like Clash of Clans are also successful on smartphones. The touch screen is also why the DS became a haven for JRPGs.

 

Arcade-style gaming is the gaping hole in the modern video game industry. I think if smartphones had buttons and could support arcade-style gaming, their games wouldn't have the terrible reputation they have now.

Edited by Raien, 18 March 2015 - 07:03 PM.

[Selena]

 

I don't quite agree. The golden age of gaming was not just about simplistic games, it was about arcade-style games. It was that magical quality that made gaming back then so addictive. But arcade-style games need tactile buttons. Touch screens are terrible for arcade-style games. That's why most of the famous smartphone games, like Angry Birds and Touch the Rope, are puzzle games. RPGs and strategy games like Clash of Clans are also successful on smartphones. The touch screen is also why the DS became a haven for JRPGs.

 

 

 

Wording it like that makes it seem like arcade games are inherently "better" than other genres. Classic gaming was dominated by arcade games and platformers because that was how you could make full use of the NES's primitive controller. They were popular because the vast majority of games made for the NES were arcade games. If one genre dominates 90% of the market for a decade, is it really fair to say they're inherently superior? That's like saying a dictator is beloved by his people just because he won't let anyone run against him in rigged elections.

 

Once controllers evolved and new genres could be fleshed out, arcade games stopped exclusively dominating the market. For a reason. People had more options.

 

 

Smartphone games are addictive. They're designed to be addictive. That's why so many people waste a ton of hours playing them. The thing is, we've never considered those people to be "gamers." They spend hours playing on their devices, and the developers of those games make a ton of money off their products. By all counts, that's a thriving game market. But we disqualify them as "real games" or "real gamers." That's not a sign of smartphone games being inherently subpar -- it's a sign of us being gamer-snobs. Angry Birds alone is on it's way to a billion downloads. That dwarfs even the best selling NES games.

 

We might not play smartphone games. But millions of people are -- and they don't care what we think. Because they're too busy having fun.

[SteveT]

First of all, since I didn't correct this point in my last post, the majority of the games you listed are hovering around 10-years old by this point. You wouldn't call a 10-year old film "new" or "recent", and it's ridiculous to group all those games together despite the age difference. It's also ridiculous that Nintendo created more IP within the space of five years on the NES than they have over the course of 15 years over several consoles. Seriously ask yourself, why do Nintendo have so much trouble creating successful IPs today when they were so successful at it back in the 80s? It's not the herculean task you're making it out to be.

 

Glad you noticed.  I picked 2001 for very specific reasons.  That's the year both the GBA and GCN came out.  It was also the year that the whole "Nintendo never makes new IPs" line really started gaining traction, and maybe it was justified because all the high-profile new IPs of the N64 era were either Rare games or new twists on old IPs such as Smash Bros.  

The other reason is to demonstrate that every new IP becomes an old IP, and their sequels get used against Nintendo as examples of never making new IPs.

 

And finally, let's go back to your original statement.

 

 

The big question I have is the games. It all comes down to two fundamental problems:

1) Nintendo refuses to embrace its arcade/NES roots.

2) Nintendo refuses to create new worlds and characters.

 

 

That has been demonstrably false for over 10 years.  That's my point.

 

Now, you could have taken a softer form of that statement, such as, "Nintendo doesn't make enough new IPs" or "Nintendo's new IPs aren't as good as their older ones."  That's easier to defend.

 

 

 

It's also ridiculous that Nintendo created more IP within the space of five years on the NES than they have over the course of 15 years over several consoles. Seriously ask yourself, why do Nintendo have so much trouble creating successful IPs today when they were so successful at it back in the 80s? It's not the herculean task you're making it out to be.

 

That's not ridiculous at all.  In the first five years, new IPs were all they had, and games in general were easier to make.  Plus, look at the ones they dropped on the floor because they didn't stick.  No one's clamoring for a Balloon Fight sequel, for example.  It only carries on when nostalgia is a factor.  It's like the Classic Rock dilemma.  It seems like the 70s had a higher percentage of good rock songs than the present, because time hasn't filtered out the dreck of the present yet.  

 

From an economic standpoint, as time goes on, development resources are split between creating new IPs and updating old ones.  I'd also like to see a better balance between the two.  And now that you bring it up for the first time in this conversation, it is very difficult to generate a successful new IP.  For example, I gave a list of new IPs since 2001, and your response was, "Those are all terrible."  Is it because Nintendo sucks now or is it the Classic Rock dilemma?

 

So how many new IPs a year should a company shoot for?  How much development resources can they pull away from their cash cow to support new ideas that may fall flat?  I think we can agree that Nintendo isn't taking enough risks but again, sequels and spin-offs are what allow them to take those risks in the first place.  And even then, they seem to have years where they don't even support the established IPs and just seem to be biding their time until the new hardware comes out.  Clearly, that's no good.

 

 

Are you really going to be that guy who blames every bad decision on the filthy, unwashed masses? At what point are Nintendo allowed to take responsibility for their own terrible products?

 

No, I'm saying that regardless of the quality of the game in question, it's financially safer for Nintendo to find a way to put Mario on the cover.

 

 

 

Secondly, that sentence is honestly the most tool-ish thing I have ever read on this forum.

 

Oh, so you're not interested in having an actual discussion.  Sorry to disturb your venting.  Disregard the above.

Edited by SteveT, 18 March 2015 - 08:27 PM.

[Raien]

Wording it like that makes it seem like arcade games are inherently "better" than other genres. Classic gaming was dominated by arcade games and platformers because that was how you could make full use of the NES's primitive controller. They were popular because the vast majority of games made for the NES were arcade games. If one genre dominates 90% of the market for a decade, is it really fair to say they're inherently superior? That's like saying a dictator is beloved by his people just because he won't let anyone run against him in rigged elections.

 

Once controllers evolved and new genres could be fleshed out, arcade games stopped exclusively dominating the market. For a reason. People had more options.

 

 

Smartphone games are addictive. They're designed to be addictive. That's why so many people waste a ton of hours playing them. The thing is, we've never considered those people to be "gamers." They spend hours playing on their devices, and the developers of those games make a ton of money off their products. By all counts, that's a thriving game market. But we disqualify them as "real games" or "real gamers." That's not a sign of smartphone games being inherently subpar -- it's a sign of us being gamer-snobs.

 

We might not play smartphone games. But millions of people are -- and they don't care what we think. Because they're too busy having fun.

 

 

I don't mean to imply that arcade-style games are "better" than other kinds of games (that's a purely subjective term). What I mean to say is that arcade-style games are still very mainstream and very important to the health of the video game industry. There have been many, many successes in video game history but I've never seen the public interest explode the way they did around the NES and the Wii. It's the kind of excitement and anticipation that our generation seems to have forgotten. People used to watch a whole movie just to see footage of Super Mario Bros. 3. Is there a modern video game that could generate that kind of response? Minecraft is the world's most successful game and even that hasn't generated the kind of earthquakes that Mario did.

 

Also to address your second sentence, the 3D era of gaming (i.e.PS1/N64) did not simply give people more options, it took many of those options away. Game developers back in the late 90s operated under the assumption that 3D rendered 2D completely irrelevant. And since a lot of arcade-style genres don't translate to 3D, they were simply abandoned. No more 2D platformers, no more run-and-gunners, no more top-down shooters. This was the point when the Japanese game industry went down the can. Nintendo became a more niche player in the industry, Sega gave up on console development entirely, Capcom and Konami brands became more limited. I don't see how any of this was "evolution" for the industry or for customers. When Nintendo and Japan embrace their arcade heritage, they thrive. When they reject that heritage, they suffer. Thankfully the Wii (or at least Wii Sports) and the indie development scene have gone some way to correct the market's lack of arcade-style games. We just need to wait for Japan to finally figure out what their industry is missing.

 

And while you are right that millions of people play on smartphones, it has to be pointed out that the majority of those games cost next to nothing. And many of them have to prod and manipulate the players in order to spend more money on micro-transactions. Arcade-style games were addictive but not in this cynical manipulative way. "Replay value" simply meant "this game is fun, therefore I want to replay it". Ever since the 3D era, replay value is something that has to be incentivised. Players will not play the game just for fun, they must have side-objectives, collectibles,hidden endings, etc. And smartphone games constantly prod the players to buy upgrades and in-game currency in order to keep the fun going. The fact is that people don't have the same relationship with their smartphone games that they did with old-school arcade-style games. Gaming on smartphones and tablets has always been a perk of the hardware. People don't buy phones to get to the games. But people bought the NES and Wii to get to the games. That's the all-important difference.

 

 

The big question I have is the games. It all comes down to two fundamental problems:

1) Nintendo refuses to embrace its arcade/NES roots.

2) Nintendo refuses to create new worlds and characters.

 

 

That has been demonstrably false for over 10 years.  That's my point.

 

Now, you could have taken a softer form of that statement, such as, "Nintendo doesn't make enough new IPs" or "Nintendo's new IPs aren't as good as their older ones."  That's easier to defend.

 

Okay, I know this is the internet but can we please establish as a general rule that when someone says something along such lines of absolutes, THEY ARE NOT BEING LITERAL! I know Nintendo has created new IP since 2001, the point is that the new IPs were so few and ineffectual that it almost doesn't matter.

 

Seriously, people use exaggerated absolutes all the time in the real world and there's usually an understanding that it's an exaggeration. Why do we have to have drawn out arguments online because someone said something like, "Everyone hates the Zelda CD-i games"? It doesn't matter if the absolute statement is factually wrong, everyone should understand the context and the exaggeration by this point.

Edited by Raien, 18 March 2015 - 08:47 PM.

[SteveT]

Smartphone games are addictive. They're designed to be addictive. That's why so many people waste a ton of hours playing them. The thing is, we've never considered those people to be "gamers." They spend hours playing on their devices, and the developers of those games make a ton of money off their products. By all counts, that's a thriving game market. But we disqualify them as "real games" or "real gamers." That's not a sign of smartphone games being inherently subpar -- it's a sign of us being gamer-snobs. Angry Birds alone is on it's way to a billion downloads. That dwarfs even the best selling NES games.

 

 

If GamerGate has taught me anything, it's that all game developers need to cater to my personal interests at all times, or they are violating the social contract and deserve to be doxxed.

[Selena]

And while you are right that millions of people play on smartphones, it has to be pointed out that the majority of those games cost next to nothing. And many of them have to prod and manipulate the players in order to spend more money on micro-transactions.

 

The low cost is precisely why they sell well. As for micro-transactions, they are almost always optional. I've never paid for anything in a game that features micro-transactions.

 

And smartphone games constantly prod the players to buy upgrades and in-game currency in order to keep the fun going. The fact is that people don't have the same relationship with their smartphone games that they did with old-school arcade-style games.

 

Of course they don't have the same relationship -- it's a different market. Catered to different people. And, as mentioned above, buying upgrades and other micro-transactions are optional. You can fully play most of these games without spending an additional dime. It should also be said that a fair chunk of the smartphone market didn't play video games until now. That alone speaks volumes about the success of smartphone games. Old people, young people, even toddlers. If Nintendo is considered a success for reaching out to unconventional audiences, then the same merit has to be given to smartphone games.

 

 

Gaming on smartphones and tablets has always been a perk of the hardware. People don't buy phones to get to the games. But people bought the NES and Wii to get to the games. That's the all-important difference.

 

You're applying console economics to the smartphone market -- doesn't apply. So it's not really an important difference at all.

 

Smartphone game developers are tapping a market that's already there. They don't have to sell devices, because almost everyone is already carrying one. Because cellphones and tablets have many functions, they're everywhere. All a developer has to do is create a game that will be appealing enough to download. The fact that these games are digital downloads also keeps costs low and profits high.

 

 

You've listed a lot of reasons for why smartphones games aren't up to par.... yet the smartphone game market is booming and making a ton of cash. So obviously, consumers would respectfully disagree with your assessment. The smartphone market isn't dominated by "traditional gamers." These people don't care about classic gaming or Nintendo's golden age legacy. A lot of them have probably never played a classic Nintendo game in their lives. They only care about what's fun. And they find these games fun.

 

 

 

 

Also to address your second sentence, the 3D era of gaming (i.e.PS1/N64) did not simply give people more options, it took many of those options away. Game developers back in the late 90s operated under the assumption that 3D rendered 2D completely irrelevant. [...] Thankfully the Wii (or at least Wii Sports) and the indie development scene have gone some way to correct the market's lack of arcade-style games. We just need to wait for Japan to finally figure out what their industry is missing.

 

 

The N64 came out roughly 20 years ago. Things have changed.

 

The indie development scene isn't just something happening on the sidelines -- it's a huge part of modern gaming culture. Arcade games are going through a fantastic renaissance period. Some of the best arcade style games ever made have been made in the last couple years. They're beautiful, innovative, and there are a ton more on the way. Steam, Xbox, PlayStation -- most of the big gaming markets give players direct access to the latest in arcade games.

 

 

 

This is one of the most exciting time periods to be a gamer. I don't understand why you sound so pessimistic. There are so many beautiful, awesome games out there -- from every genre. And people are way more into gaming than you assume. Especially young people. My brother loves Minecraft more than I ever loved Super Mario Bros. as a kid.

[Hana-Nezumi]

If not thinking of smartphone games as "real games" makes me a snob, then I'm glad to be one. I don't care how popular they are, I do not think they compare quality-wise at all, and certainly not to classic arcade games or Wii games just because they also happen to be casual. They're more similar to stuff like Bejeweled and the 99-games-in-1 CDs we had on Windows back in the day. The vast majority, at least. But as I've said, I will admit that it's entirely my opinion.

 

By the way, "real" was my language. The word Mr. Iwata used to differentiate games on Nintendo's own systems was "premium". I think that's less arguable.

[Selena]

Most definitely don't compare quality-wise, but that doesn't mean they aren't fun -- and it definitely doesn't mean they (and the people who play them) deserve the bad reputation they have with traditional gamers. I've seen a lot of nasty things said about "casual" gamers who play on their phones. It's just a different branch of the same market. One that's growing, developing, and bringing in money. Not all cellphone games are like Candy Crush and Farmville. Some are really neat. Which isn't to say I'd force you to like them -- different strokes, different folks -- but I'd encourage people not to be so... dismissive or antagonistic. Especially to people who primarily play those sort of games.

 

I used to be opposed to cellphones just on principle. But I'm surprised by how much I use mine. Especially surprised by how likely I am to play games on it, since I always have it with me anyway.

 

There's room in the market for these games, even if they aren't "as good" as bigger titles. Sometimes you're in the mood to watch a lighthearted B-list movie rather than the Godfather, y'know?

 

 

 

 

....Although come on, guys. A lot of NES games were really awful. We just don't as readily remember them.

[Raien]

I think you and me are talking at crossed-wires, Selena. I'm not pessimistic at all about the state of gaming. You're absolutely right that the indie development scene has thrown open the doors to all kinds of gaming genres that have been neglected or undeveloped, and I myself have discovered several new genres over the last couple of years and have been having a blast with them.

 

But here's the thing. I accept that smartphone games are a successful addition to the gaming landscape, but I don't think they're above criticism and I don't think it's fair to label everyone who criticises smartphone games as snobs. The fact that smartphone games are so cheap is an indicator of the low value they have in the customers' eyes. You can talk about the differences between console and smartphone economics all you want but at the end of the day, it still stands that millions of people paid $250 for Wii Sports. The difference between the value of Wii Sports and Angry Birds is so staggering that you cannot simply compare sales numbers and call them equal. And while you may not personally pay for micro-transactions, the fact that it has become a standard practice for smartphone gaming shows that it has become a key part of how developers design and sell their games to customers. You can argue the right for smartphone games to exist, and I would agree with that right, but you cannot convince me that smartphone games are equal to or as important as arcade-style gaming.

 

PS: Just to clarify, I really am just talking about the dominant smartphone games and their importance to gaming. I'm very much aware of the great smaller smartphone titles on the market and I'm not really including them in my argument. I'm not trying to generalise and group all smartphone games here.

 

And there's a good reason why I like to stress arcade-style gaming over other genres. Arcade-style gaming integrates new technologies much better than other PC-type games. The secret of the Wii remote was that you could make arcade peripherals out of it. Steering wheels, light guns, golf clubs, simple pieces of plastic that snap on to the Wii remote but potentially allow cool arcade games to be played at home. And now we have a new technology on the horizon; VR. VR is actually very cool but the industry's vision surrounding it is limited. Everyone is trying to force VR into the standard PC/Console idea of gaming. The development of the VR tech revolves around "immersion" and getting it to work with FPSs and the end result feels underwhelming. It's just a new way to play the same old boring games. But imagine how VR tech could be used in an arcade environment. The best modern arcade games encourage players to use their bodies in interesting ways, like Dance Dance Revolution, and there are so many possibilities for VR arcade games.

 

It's very easy to say that consoles killed the arcades, but I actually think that a lack of new kinds of hardware and controls killed the arcades. The games you still see in arcades are the games with unusual hardware that consoles failed to emulate without an expensive peripheral; racing games, light gun games, dancing games, etc. And when a new kind of arcade game takes off, it's genuinely exciting. There's nothing quite like a new tactile experience; something that you experience in the real world as opposed to a virtual world. But since nobody in the industry even considers the viability of arcades, that amazing potential has been left to wither.

 

In a nutshell, we have the potential to create a new golden age of gaming right now, but we're failing to achieve that because there is a great arcade-shaped hole in our understanding of the medium. But I am nonetheless quite happy with this current silver age of gaming.

Edited by Raien, 19 March 2015 - 12:24 AM.

[Selena]

I didn't say that everyone who criticizes smartphone games are snobs, nor did I say that individual smartphone games were above criticism. I do think it's unfair that these games are criticized simply for being on smartphones, regardless of their actual entertainment factor (that is being snobby). Some smartphone games are ridiculously fun. And that's the whole goal of gaming.

 

And the only reason I brought the billion Angry Bird downloads was to illustrate how large the smartphone audience is. Not to directly compare it with console profits. I'm trying to say that there's a legitimately large market to be tapped into, and that Nintendo can and should take advantage of it.

 

 

Again, for emphasis: I am not trying to say that cellphone games are equal in quality to console games, or even a lot of classic games.

 

I am saying that they are a different market. I am saying that a lot of people love to play them, including people who never played games before in their life. I am saying that it's a rapidly growing branch of the gaming industry, and that it can net developers plenty of profit if they develop good titles. I'm saying that it's the future of gaming, whether it sits right with us or not. They are light, easy to learn, and easy to pick up and play.

 

They are cheap because they're little tiny games -- and being so cheap is why they get downloaded a lot. Angry Birds may be a little $3 game, but the company has made hundreds of millions in profit off those dinky $3 games. So I'd say it's working for them just fine. Are they as big as Nintendo? Hell no. Do we place as much value on Angry Birds as we do on a collector's edition of, say, Majora's Mask? No. But that kind of success isn't something to discredit.

 

Even if these games are small and simplistic, they are still video games, and they are still fun. Surprisingly fun, sometimes.

 

And kids, especially, loves all these little tablet games in the same way that we loved old S/NES games. But people try to be buzzkills about that, because the games "aren't as good." Which is a bad attitude to have, I think. That kind of passion for gaming should be encouraged. We might not see the enthusiasm, but my little brother and his friends are all crazy about various little games. It's endearing.

[TheAvengerLever]

Just wanted to log in and say that I personally see no difference in an arcade machine that eats up everyone's quarters, an NES game designed around getting a high score, and a smartphone game like Angry Birds or geometry dash.

 

They both eat up your money if you let them, they are addicting to play and they are fun. I just don't think people realize how closely related those platforms are. In that manner I see this as Nintendo going back to their roots in a way. If they make little arcade-y type games again it could really help them in the long run.

 

Alright, see ya guys.

[Raien]

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with smartphone gaming in principle. I know there are lots of great smartphone games because I've bought some of them. However, I stand by my point that the touch screen is a serious limitation of the hardware. It's just not suitable for games that require fast reflexes and good timing. And if there was a way for smartphones to offer some form of tactile feedback out of the gate, I think you'd see a change in the kinds of games being developed for the platform. I also think you'd see a drastic change in the most popular games on the platform. I do not think Angry Birds would have been nearly as successful on a platform that could support Mario.

[Sir Turtlelot]

[Spikey]

Not only 2D platforming / side scrolling adventures were abandoned for a while, also classic point&click  adventure games totally died in the 3D era. More so than any other genre, the tablet/mobile gaming thing should be perfectly suitable for that type of adventures (which had over 30% of the market share around 1990-1995 on PC gaming). However, most games I've played so far in that category on mobile are so shit they aren't even worth it. There is just not enough money anymore to even produce quality games that almost rely 100% on story and still provide interesting and challenging gameplay. This results in point & click being of the most casual crap I've ever seen, or games that are interesting but just way too easy, like Nintendo's own Another Code and Hotel Dusk.

 

There may be a break on that front though, as Activision has supported the original developer of Gabriel Knight (Jane Jensen) to remake that game for PC (/steam/gog) and tablets with her own indie studio last year. The results were pretty amazing, even though Jane has said that the team had to operate on "starvation wages"; and that while the story / dialogue was almost completely unchanged. I think there is almost no money for marketing either. And what will it do? The game is so hard, that when played from scratch will make your head explode with story based mysteries/puzzles, even with the easier systematics it presents. All the casual gamer will do is think "this game is boring, you don't even play", and abandon it not knowing that if they pressed on they would find themselves in a bloody and exciting voodoo thriller.

 

Activision now also revived Sierra Entertainment as a brand, to push forward another King's Quest for PC, Playstation 3/4 and Xbox 360/One, developed by indie developers Odd Gentleman. This will not have a point and click interface, but it will be true to the classic adventure style, or so they say. I pray they are right.

 

Also, I pray Nintendo will start with their franchises that have a pure point/click interface, like Fire Emblem. And hopefully a more intersting/challenging true p&c game, like Another Code and Hotel Dusk only better (much, much better).

Edited by Spikey, 19 March 2015 - 07:58 AM.

[JRPomazon]

I was going to stay out of the discussion here because I don't really know much on mobile gaming. Sure, I've played Angry Birds and Flappy Birds and a few touch pad and find games and they were all well and good. Hell, I've played the Square-Enix developed Song Summoner game on my old iPod. And time and time again, there is one reoccurring problem that destroyed my game progress every time.

There is no way to save your game data and back it up on a smart phone. On multiple occasions, I had to do a total wipe of my iPhone's memory ans restore my data from a backup. Not once have these restores ever salvaged my game data.

With a game like Doodle jump of Flappy Bird, not a big deal. However with a game that you can progress through like Final Fantasy (which has iOS releases for mobile) or even Angry Birds, losing your game saves takes a heavier toll.

Personally, I theink the games released for mobile that Nintendo is planning are probably going to be super simple, possibly even ports of their older games like Mario and Zelda 1. They'll be quick and easy consumable versions to get people to play. I sincerely doubt we'll see a game for mobile that will have much depth to it.

[DarkJuno]

Hoookay, a lot was said since I was last off and had the time to really read anything, so all I'll do is not repeat things that were already addressed and not really directly respond to anyone but sorta just put it out there.

 

The thing with Nintendo isn't that they're completely against new technology or advancing hardware, it's that they're ridiculously stubborn and refuse to do what everyone else is doing because any perception of following the leader, no matter how small, is bad to them. If it's not something they came up with that revolutionized the industry or other people followed up on, they'll ignore it for a generation or so before quietly slipping it in, hoping it'll be overshadowed by whatever wacky thing they've cooked up for the hardware. It's been both to their credit and detriment, and the fact that the company is based in the most conservative area of an already conservative country doesn't help matters. It's actually stunning that Nintendo has been so open to the emerging Indie Game boom in the last few years on the eShop because of the three console makers, you'd figure they'd be the ones with the worst relationship with Indies when it's demonstrably been Microsoft who's been the worst with the two Japan based companies being head and shoulders above. X-Box has certainly been making in-roads and all businesses and businesses and have their bs to deal with, but Nintendo being Indie friendly is something no one expected. 

 

As for phone games, really, the big problem with phone games is how the majority of them are made with the sole purpose of taking as much money from you as you can, especially the "free" ones. There are exceptions, there are certainly a few games that you can absolutely play and master without spending a cent, but the most popular like Clash of Clans and that one with Kate Upton's cleavage thrive on throwing up pop ups at you telling you about how you can make the time limit go by faster if you just toss them a buck or two here, because, hey, why wait? Waiting's for LOSERS. You're not a loser, are you? Oh, good, you're not, because you'll give us the money, that's great! Oh, wait, sorry, you've played as much as you can for today, like the nerd you are.......but you're not a nerd! You know you can give us a bit more so we can lift those restrictions for today....unless you ARE a nerd. And so on and so forth. The thing about it is, it's not a self sustaining market as much as they;d like to think. The reason why there were so many commercials during the Super Bowl this year is because they needed a new audience to sucker into the game, since the gaming audiences grew wise to the trick and they aren't going to get any new people to leech off from there. Once you run out of new players, those games are in trouble, no matter how many whales are playing them already, and I'm not looking forward to the day that they suck this new wider audience dry as well.

[Hana-Nezumi]

Personally, I theink the games released for mobile that Nintendo is planning are probably going to be super simple, possibly even ports of their older games like Mario and Zelda 1. They'll be quick and easy consumable versions to get people to play. I sincerely doubt we'll see a game for mobile that will have much depth to it.

Mr. Iwata said they will be making games designed specifically for smartphones, and not simple ports where the control scheme is not suited for the platform.

[Raien]

There is no way to save your game data and back it up on a smart phone. On multiple occasions, I had to do a total wipe of my iPhone's memory ans restore my data from a backup. Not once have these restores ever salvaged my game data.

 

That certainly would be annoying. I guess the trick would be to look for roguelike-type games that are RPGs but emphasise replay value over sheer length. And if you want a good interactive story, there are various gamebooks available, which combine the choose-your-own-adventure format with RPG elements. Tin Man Games have adapted several Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, Inkle have partly adapted the Sorcery series as well as added a game based on Around the World in 80 Days, and then there are the Choice Of games that are more about building a personal story. I recommended Life of a Wizard in the Skyrim topic and I stand by that recommendation. These gamebooks aren't too long but they are surprisingly pick-up-and-playable, great for commutes.