- Dec 22, 2019
- Reaction score
- First Language
- Primarily Uses
I don't think this is true in any industry. Quality is definitely less important than marketing. Gacha players don't even hide that their games largely revolve around eye candy.
I see that you 1) dislike gacha mechanics to begin with 2) likely barely play many top quality titles because of 1). Which leads to biased opinion like this.
I am mostly a single player gamer and I own hundreds of single player games, I also played a few mobile titles as f2p player.
From my experience I can safely say single player games are not inherently "better" nor "more fun" than gacha games. It depends on the game design and production quality. Statements like "gacha is all eye candy with no gameplay" is super biased.
Many 1m-100m download mobile games with strong strategy element don't rely on visuals to sell at all, they rely on gameplay. Gacha is a business model that makes money after the user get into the game, not before.
If you look at steam achievement data, only about 25%-35% of player completed their single player game. This is about the same completion rate as one mobile title that I've played recently. If single player games are inherently better why is the completion rate this low? If gacha is this bad why do people choose to keep playing for so long?
Maybe it is something worth to think about.
I don't even know how to respond to this. Who is saying this? Who is calling the generic stories 'good'? In every medium most stories aren't good.
What do you mean? So you dislike most of the stories that you've read, but on the same time you believe presentation isn't important? May as well not to read most stories according to you.
Presentation makes a story entertaining, which is the whole point to read them: Entertainment. I would rather read an average story with good presentation as entertainment, than searching endlessly for that perfect story because most of the story "aren't good".