Do younger gamers like games from 16-bit era?

[Tamina]

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".

 

[NamEtag]

What the heck are you on about?

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 conclusion like this.

Well I've played a number of gacha games, over a dozen if you include the pre-gacha clash of clan type stuff and kemco, and I agree with kirbwarrior. I've been watching the last couple of years, and I'm not terribly impressed.

A lot of mobile games DO largely revolve around eye-candy. Their advertisements front and center are about the waifus and cute monsters you can throw around, so much so that you're lucky to get an actual screenshot of gameplay in the screenshots meant to tell you what the game is about. The defining trait of "top quality" mobile game is READABLE ENGLISH. That's how low the bar is.

So don't throw that ad hominem crap without actually offering an argument. There are good things that SOME mobile games do, but that does not invalidate what everyone is saying about them.

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".

This is going to go in circles. First, because you two are using different definitions for presentation. Second, because even if you were to clear up that misunderstanding, you're still disagreeing. So neither of your arguments are going to mean anything to the other.

The presentation that Tamina is using refers to style and deliver of lines and action. Large focus on spectacle, etc.

The presentation kirbwarrior is talking about is graphical fidelity, fancy UI, deliberately open slots in the cutscenes and story to showcase the technology, etc.

You guys sort that out, because I am definitely biased for this.

Tamina, mobile games are not the peak of style in storytelling. They have an excess of one-liners and over the top ultimates that are cool the first time except you need a skip button the third time. That's hollywood tier. They make the story more entertaining, but if it stretched it from a week of gameplay to 3 years, it wasn't worth it. The ones with good story just have people talking, with or without voices, most of which can be accomplished as a visual novel, simply because it's a solid amount of content on a more acceptable timetable.

 

[kirbwarrior]

May as well not to read most stories according to you.

I take it back, don't start a new thread, if you're going to misread what I'm saying this intentionally then I don't see a reason to continue this.

Back on topic, I ran into a group of teens today who all were super happy the Switch has access to NES and SNES games, they were loving all the games on there and had never played any before. One of them even said that these were the best games they had ever played (namely Super Mario World and Super Metroid but also everyone was loving Mario's Super Picross). It's totally anecdotal, but I thought that was neat, someone thinking SMW was the best Nintendo game after playing the recent Mario games.

 

[Tamina]

A lot of mobile games DO largely revolve around eye-candy. Their advertisements front and center are about the waifus and cute monsters you can throw around, so much so that you're lucky to get an actual screenshot of gameplay in the screenshots meant to tell you what the game is about. The defining trait of "top quality" mobile game is READABLE ENGLISH. That's how low the bar is.

So don't throw that ad hominem crap without actually offering an argument. There are good things that SOME mobile games do, but that does not invalidate what everyone is saying about them.

I did not say all of the mobile games are best games ever. I said some of the top quality ones aren't all eye candy and have 1 or 2 good things to learn from.

On the other hand some people made generalized statements like "mobile games are mostly eye candy!" "No gameplay". It takes 1 Google search to see not all mobile games work like that.

Don't make super generalized statements, then there won't be any ad hominem. It's easy to assume people don't know better if their generalized statements directly conflicts my personal experience.

I take it back, don't start a new thread, if you're going to misread what I'm saying this intentionally then I don't see a reason to continue this.

If you don't want people misread your point you need to present your argument better, man.

Presentation in story medium to me has always mean acting, writing, directing, cinematography, concept design and such. That is what separates Academy Award for Best Story and a B movie, despite all of them has the same story structure.

How would I know you meant something else like fancy UI or technology if you never say anything until someone else clarify it for you?

Tamina, mobile games are not the peak of style in storytelling. They have an excess of one-liners and over the top ultimates that are cool the first time except you need a skip button the third time. That's hollywood tier. They make the story more entertaining, but if it stretched it from a week of gameplay to 3 years, it wasn't worth it. The ones with good story just have people talking, with or without voices, most of which can be accomplished as a visual novel, simply because it's a solid amount of content on a more acceptable timetable.

You missed my point. I did not say mobile game as a medium has inherently better story telling, I said they generally have higher budget in today's industry, so many mobile titles ended up having better execution because you need $$$ to hire good writers. And voice acting definitely adds extra layer of depths in story telling.

A well made, high budget visual novel can accomplish the same thing as mobile game in theory, sure. Except some of the top Japanese visual novel writer from 2000 era like Gen urobuchi, Kinoko Nasu, Jun Maeda, mostly work for mobile game/anime now, because VN industry is less profitable these days. I honestly can't name of any super successful VN since Steins;Gate.


So....if the goal is to learn from successful games, and many top writers currently work for mobile titles but not VN, what is the point to learn from VN if top writers no longer work for them?

(Edit: Btw, mobile stories are generally more episodic than VN, sure. but IMO episodic isn't inherently bad. Although you can start a new discussion about this.)

That was what I meant when I said game designers should learn from mobile games, I believe we should learn from every genre if it works well. But you are all too quick to fight back the moment somebody said "mobile game", only because of the business model.

Funny if I said fps game designers should learn from rpg and create better world building and progression, I bet no one would want to argue about it.

 

[NamEtag]

This is the last I'm posting on this, this is not going anywhere.

I did not say all of the mobile games are best games ever.

Great, neither did I say the opposite. And a good chunk of the people above were exercising restraint in their disagreement to avoid claiming that mobile games are unsalvageable or anything like that.

"mobile games are mostly eye candy!"

"No gameplay"

I dunno what to tell you man. You could have argued that the same applies to steam or other platforms for showcasing games, or that the advertisements are just more in-your-face, but other people's personal experience do, in fact, mean something.

Don't make super generalized statements, then there won't be any ad hominem.

I think you have completely failed at the discussion process if you think, at any point, wielding ad hominems as a threat wins you anything.

I did not say mobile game as a medium has inherently better story telling, I said they generally have higher budget in today's industry, so many mobile titles ended up having better execution because you need $$$ to hire good writers.

....but they don't have better execution? That's the whole problem? They've managed to spend a lot of money and time to tell pretty meh stories. Hiring good writers is a pretty new thing for mobile, and it's hard to quantify since not many of them state who the writers are in the first place. I wouldn't expect to use Heaven Burns Red as the gold standard rep for mobile games.

The primary disadvantage for gacha games is paralyzing itself with too many characters and micro-plots. Character Alters and even swimsuits need to be used just to have more screentime to develop existing plots to something approaching a conclusion, and I haven't even seen that happen yet. As hard as it tries, Genshin can't properly cap off a lot of characters since world-altering main story events kind of impacts the personal lives of everyone.

That was what I meant when I said game designers should learn from mobile games

I don't understand. Is the thing we should learn "Get a bigger budget"? "Rely on pre-existing talent instead of growing new writers"? "Don't cheap out on writing"?

There's a couple things I would say we could learn from mobile, regarding gameflow, cycle of combat, turn/resource economy, or how to make use of Living Game structures to iterate on mechanics with much less cost on time and money, but I don't see any of that here. What is the case you're making?

 

[Tamina]

The primary disadvantage for gacha games is paralyzing itself with too many characters and micro-plots.

This is more of a plot structure discussion here. Although I agree that episodic structure of mobile game story is not always applicable to every single player game, it isn't inherently "bad".

For example Kiseki series also has endless new episodes and new characters since 19 years ago. One piece (manga) has endless new episodes and new characters since 1997.

As long as the reader enjoys the story for what it is, and each episode has a mini conclusion, being episodic isn't all that bad. Many readers still enjoy Kiseki and One Piece fyi.

There's a couple things I would say we could learn from mobile, regarding gameflow, cycle of combat, turn/resource economy, or how to make use of Living Game structures to iterate on mechanics with much less cost on time and money, but I don't see any of that here. What is the case you're making?

I mentioned progression curve and instant gratification at the beginning, and how some mobile game being quite good at getting player's attention at start and keep them. This is all part of gameflow design.

I don't understand. Is the thing we should learn "Get a bigger budget"? "Rely on pre-existing talent instead of growing new writers"? "Don't cheap out on writing"?

You missed my point again.......

I said if you want to learn game writing, learn from successful writers, some of them happened to work in mobile game industry now. Therefore playing their game is one way to study their game writing techniques.

I did not say "learn to get bigger budget" at all. How did you read it completely wrong?

If this isn't going anywhere, that is because you keep missing my point.

 

[Seacliff]

I mentioned progression curve and instant gratification at the beginning, and how some mobile game being quite good at getting player's attention at start and keep them. This is all part of gameflow design.

Mobile games have 'hooks' because most people have a barrier around making first-time purchases within an app. Breaking that barrier with instant gratification, and then presenting a really good monetary deal tied to that experience makes consumers more comfortable making purchases in that environment.

I said if you want to learn game writing, learn from successful writers, some of them happened to work in mobile game industry now. Therefore playing their game is one way to study their game writing techniques.

Except we're not here to use games as a simple monetary tool. We're not looking for new ways to get cash from our players.

Mobile games aren't designed to be fun, they are designed to be profitable. Every. Single. Element. Of successful mobile games prioritize profitability over a satisfactory gameplay experience. Such has been confirmed by CEOs of companies that make mobile games.


We aren't interested in learning the models from game designers who say "Make sure your games aren't too skill-based" or "Put morality aside for a bit".

You missed my point. I did not say mobile game as a medium has inherently better story telling, I said they generally have higher budget in today's industry, so many mobile titles ended up having better execution because you need $$$ to hire good writers.

Money gets you prestige. Not talent. Amazon's Rings of Power is one of the highest-budget shows ever produced, yet has been heavily criticized by fans and critics alike.

Learning from only the successful will only lead to blandness. We're not looking for ways to cater toward the lowest common denominator.

 

[Tamina]

Mobile games have 'hooks' because most people have a barrier around making first-time purchases within an app. Breaking that barrier with instant gratification, and then presenting a really good monetary deal tied to that experience makes consumers more comfortable making purchases in that environment.

Are you saying that single player games don't need a hook?

So if players purchase a single player game, get bored after 1-3hrs then quit and waste their money, it isn't a design flaw that should be improved?

I don't think having a hook is a bad thing, in all games. The whole point of any game is to keep players entertained. What are you trying to say here?

Except we're not here to use games as a simple monetary tool. We're not looking for new ways to get cash from our players.

So commercial single player game developers aren't selling their games and make money?

Mobile games aren't designed to be fun, they are designed to be profitable.

They are both, so does commercial single player games. Fun and profitable aren't mutually exclusive.

Maybe you think mobile games aren't fun, but I've seen plenty of game mechanic designs from mobile game that certainly fits the definition of fun in my eyes.

If you remove the "mobile games are all bad!" lens maybe you'll see a different perspective.

We aren't interested in learning the models from game designers who say "Make sure your games aren't too skill-based" or "Put morality aside for a bit".

One person's opinion doesn't represent every developer's.

And "Make sure your games aren't too skill-based" is a common design philosophy that is often used in single player genre aiming for low skill players too. It doesn't make mobile games inherently bad.

Some mobile game genre like idle has less skill requirement because it is designed with a different target audience, who doesn't have all the mental power to focus when they play a game on their phone on the go. But that doesn't mean the game isn't "fun". "Fun" and "skill based" are 2 different things.

Not all mobile genre has low skill requirement. There are a few strategy genre that I've played certainly does. It depends on the genre.

I know many mobile game developers out there still look for ways to entertain players and make profit on the same time. So whatever one CEO said doesn't apply to everyone.

Amazon's Rings of Power is one of the highest-budget shows ever produced, yet has been heavily criticized by fans and critics alike.

The opposite applies to many metacritic 9/10 games such as God of war Ragnarok.

Money may not always make a game successful but it doesn't change the fact that some of the talents do work for money. I wasn't trying to suggest people pick the learning material based on budget, I suggest people pick the learning material based on result and not to limit oneself with genre.

Learning from only the successful will only lead to blandness.

successful games like Stardew Valley and Hollow Knights pretty much all learned from earlier successful games like Castlevania, dark souls and harvest moon. Very few people think those games are bland.

But you do you. Feel free to choose not to learn from anyone if you like.

Personally, if I see a good idea from a mobile game(or any genre really) I am going to learn from it. I don't need that "mobile games are bad!!!" lens stopping me from learning.

I get that you dislike mobile games. But even the post above agreed that mobile game has at least something to learn from. What are you trying to tell me here exactly? Mobile games are all bad so I shouldn't learn good ideas from them ever?

 

[Seacliff]

Are you saying that single player games don't need a hook?

So if players purchase a single player game, get bored after 1-3hrs then quit and waste their money, it isn't a design flaw that should be improved?

I don't think having a hook is a bad thing, in all games. The whole point of any game is to keep players entertained. What are you trying to say here?

I'm an advocate for in media res within narrative storytelling when it's appropriate. The issue isn't about good or bad pacing, it's pacing specifically designed to correlate with the younger generation's attention span. Again. As a priority for monetization.

For example, Energy Currency. Systems where you have to either wait or pay to continue playing. It's specially designed to prevent burnout and (along with login bonuses) is socially engineered to subconsciously turn a game into a habit, or pay to bypass what is an entirely arbitrary limitation.

So commercial single player game developers aren't selling their games and make money?

There are significantly better and more reliable ways to make money than making RPG Maker games. I think it's safe for me to broadly assume that even the majority of commercial developers on this forum are merely hobbyists.

They are both, so does commercial single player games. Fun and profitable aren't mutually exclusive.

Maybe you think mobile games aren't fun, but I've seen plenty of game mechanic designs from mobile game that certainly fits the definition of fun in my eyes.

If you remove the "mobile games are all bad!" lens maybe you'll see a different perspective.

I have given mobile games multiple chances. I think there was a time when they were even good back in the later 2000s. This is a very different era.

I have yet to play a Free to Play a mobile game that I believe benefits from the inclusion of Free to Play mechanics. If you are referring to indie games that don't include these mechanics, which I do think it an admirable part of the mobile market, then I would assume you would have specified this by now.

I do not find socially engineered experiences to be fun or moral. At best I see mechanics that merely echo the of satisfaction I find by playing an actually fun game.

One person's opinion doesn't represent every developer's.

And "Make sure your games aren't too skill-based" is a common design philosophy that is often used in single player genre aiming for low skill players too. It doesn't make mobile games inherently bad.

You completely ignored the context.

The context behind "Make sure your games aren't too skill-based" with the Tribeflame CEO was to incentivize players to buy microtransactions. It wasn't a samaritan statement to encourage accessibility.

I know many mobile game developers out there still look for ways to entertain players and make profit on the same time. So whatever one CEO said doesn't apply to everyone.

Smaller indie devs that don't follow these practices, sure. But any games with these mechanics are taking advantage of video games as an interactive medium to exploit.

If you want to provide any sympathy for companies using mechanics that are borderline on gambling. I can't agree. And trying to somehow guilt me into thinking otherwise, putting it very mildly, is distasteful.

The opposite applies to many metacritic 9/10 games such as God of war Ragnarok.

Money may not always make a game successful but it doesn't change the fact that some of the talents do work for money. I wasn't trying to suggest people pick the learning material based on budget, I suggest people pick the learning material based on result and not to limit oneself with genre.

Broadening scopes is a very important technique. I agree. However, you are doing that very poorly.

You literally contradict this very ideology right here:

if you want to learn game writing, learn from successful writers

Because learning from the faults of others is just as important as learning from others success. That's how you learn to make something successful and unique.

Yet for some reason, you seem to believe that only the victors are worth remembering.

successful games like Stardew Valley and Hollow Knights pretty much all learned from earlier successful games like Castlevania, dark souls and harvest moon. Very few people think those games are bland.

Hollow Knight is also inspired by Zelda 2: The Adventure's of Link. A game many within the Zelda community dislikes. It's also inspired by the original Faxanadu, which is a niche series even within Japan.

Hollow Knight would not be what it is if the developer did not look at Zelda 2 and tried to improve on elements he liked from it. He did not ignore Zelda 2 because of its lukewarm to poor critical reception, or Faxanadu in spite of it not being a big commercial success.

If Hollow Knight was inspired by Castlevania and ONLY Castlevania, then it would at best be a worse Castlevania. And that would be bland.

Personally, if I see a good idea from a mobile game(or any genre really) I am going to learn from it. I don't need that "mobile games are bad!!!" lens stopping me from learning.

I get that you dislike mobile games. But even the post above agreed that mobile game has at least something to learn from. What are you trying to tell me here exactly? Mobile games are all bad so I shouldn't learn good ideas from them ever?

Quote me when I said all mobile games are bad and I will tell you that they have nothing to learn from.

Believe it or not, there are specific elements of specific mobile games I will praise. Recent ones too. Even ones with F2P mechanics. For example: I like how Genshin Impact limits the use of healing items, a flaw of Breath of the Wild.

Even in border terms, I won't deny the impact mobile games have on the evolution of touchscreen UI.

And as previously stated, I also at one point believed mobile games to be one of the few places with actual innovations in the gaming industry, but that was over a decade ago in the wild west days of Angry Bird and Cut the Rope.

My issue isn't gaming on a mobile device. That is silly, and trying to frame me as if that is the root of all of my issues is a bit rash. My issue is the culture surrounding the mechanics behind Free-to-Play economies. I believe them to be predatory and immoral. If I miss out on the occasional innovation because of my moral distaste for these systems, whatever, I have literally thousands of games that aren't free-to-play to pull from.

 

[The Mighty Palm]

So this is the first thread I come back to. What a strange thing to even be asking. "Do people like this artstyle anymore?"
Its totally subjective. I'd be more interested to know why people choose to make games in these styles, and whether or not theyre doing it out of nostalgia, necessity, or just because they like that style. I'll give my two cents anyway.

It's no secret here that I love the old 8-bit look. Its so colorful and limited that it just makes me happy to look at it. It also is really efficient in terms of how long it takes to produce. That's why I use it for almost all my main projects.
16-bit though, I actually don't care for as much. Its fine, it just doesnt tickle me as much as something more archaic looking.
Is that cuz I'm old? I don't think so.

My brother is the younger generation and he hates 8-bit, but loves 16-bit. I don't think either of us would refuse to play a game in either style if its done well.

It's just an artstyle. Some games make it work and some don't. It's all about theme, composition, consistency, readability, its art. It can't be dissected by a board of directors asking things like "what kind of artstyles do kids like these days?" without feeling soulless.

Worrying about what the majority likes best is how you lose that personal touch that makes a game yours.

 

[Sword_of_Dusk]

so many mobile titles ended up having better execution because you need $$$ to hire good writers.

So, did you have any examples to present for this? I was waiting to see if you would mention some, but you never do.

 

[Seacliff]

Back on topic, I ran into a group of teens today who all were super happy the Switch has access to NES and SNES games, they were loving all the games on there and had never played any before. One of them even said that these were the best games they had ever played (namely Super Mario World and Super Metroid but also everyone was loving Mario's Super Picross). It's totally anecdotal, but I thought that was neat, someone thinking SMW was the best Nintendo game after playing the recent Mario games.

I think this is why accessibility is an important factor in this discussion. Despite my criticisms towards NSO, it has become a pretty good way to play some of the most important titles on the NES and SNES for a good price.

Some people are willing to go further out of their way to play a certain game than others and that will also effect their experience.

If the question was "are younger gamers willing to buy older game consoles and game cartridges" the answer is mostly no. But if the question is "are younger gamers willing to give older games a chance if they are easily accessible" then I would say mostly yes.

There are a lot of younger people who like older films, but I don't think that audience would be as big if so many of those older films were so readily accessible thanks to streaming services and legacy DVD/Blu-Ray rereleases.

 

[kirbwarrior]

If the question was "are younger gamers willing to buy older game consoles and game cartridges" the answer is mostly no. But if the question is "are younger gamers willing to give older games a chance if they are easily accessible" then I would say mostly yes.

The opposite is also true; I have no want for the PS4, but if someone gifted me one with fifty games I'd absolutely try them all out and likely find a bunch of new games I liked, maybe even genres.

Despite my criticisms towards NSO, it has become a pretty good way to play some of the most important titles on the NES and SNES for a good price.

And unlike previous ways Nintendo has done it in the past, the Switch is the most accessible version of that. Not just in getting the games, but where you can play them. I do have criticisms myself of NSO, but this is definitely the biggest pro of it.

There are a lot of younger people who like older films, but I don't think that audience would be as big if so many of those older films were so readily accessible thanks to streaming services and legacy DVD/Blu-Ray rereleases.

It's wild being able to watch Sherlock Holmes movies from the 40s easily. I didn't even know they existed until a few years ago, literally next day I was able to just find it on youtube and watch it with no hassle. And I think legacy games are getting there, there's multiple abandonware sites for games that were once popular and just dropped by the big companies (there's a whole discussion about how fixing copyright laws could help this immensely, but I'll just put this in an aside so as to not derail this topic).

 

[Finnuval]

All I am going to say is

My son likes games and doesn't care if they are 8,16,32 bit or the newest hottest graphical thing.
He wants them to be fun and cool (and preferably payed for by me xD)

He is 11

 

[Tamina]

Hi, thank you for at least attempt to discuss the points, rather than directing the discussion to a different direction. There are a few things that I agree with but I also have a few questions though:

it's pacing specifically designed to correlate with the younger generation's attention span. Again. As a priority for monetization.

Why is correlate with the younger generation's attention span equal to priority for monetization?

To me video games exists to entertain players and keep them engaged. This same principle applies to all games. Free games, commercial games, mobile games, mmo....

To me "keep players engaged" isn't a tool to monetize, it is every game designer's mission. Their ultimate goal.

So....if mobile games do this part well, why is it a bad thing to implement the same engaging pacing in single player games?

Why is it acceptable to sell a single player game for $50-$70, but the content can't keep players engaged for more than 3-5hrs? (This is exactly what happened to at least 30% of single player games that I've bought in the past....)

If a mobile game kept me engaged for 50-100 hrs, without needing to pay a single cent, why is it inherently "worse"?

If I am going to rank how good a game is purely based on how long it kept me entertained v.s money spent on it, I can tell you, as a player who brought hundreds of single player games but couldn't finish 30%-40% of them, mobile games aren't worse.

Of course there are good single player games that is masterpiece to me and bad mobile games that I uninstalled almost immediately. But I have neutral view on the genre, and I encourage every game designers judge each games independently regardless of genre.

There are significantly better and more reliable ways to make money than making RPG Maker games. I think it's safe for me to broadly assume that even the majority of commercial developers on this forum are merely hobbyists.

Noted. I wrote with the perspective of viewing game design as a career which includes commercial games. If you wrote from a pure hobbyist point of view with different goal then I can understand why we are different.

I have yet to play a Free to Play a mobile game that I believe benefits from the inclusion of Free to Play mechanics. If you are referring to indie games that don't include these mechanics, which I do think it an admirable part of the mobile market, then I would assume you would have specified this by now.

Except I did in a slightly different way? I guess you missed it too.

Quoting myself:

100% agree that single player game developers should learn from modern mobile games. Maybe not the business model, but how they implement progression or present story.

Mobile games have different business model, of course they work differently from single player games. Single player game developers shouldn't copy everything, but they can learn the successful design philosophy and apply it in single player games, if it works.

Because learning from the faults of others is just as important as learning from others success. That's how you learn to make something successful and unique.

I agree with this, but this doesn't contradict what I said about learning from a different genre.

There are a couple of mobile games that I've played, I really liked some ideas but dislike another on the same time. Essentially I learned both positive side and a negative side of an idea from one single game.

The best part is, mobile games are f2p so I can learn from a title, uninstall it after I am done with learning, install a new one for free and continue, without needing to pay a single cent. This is something I can't do with single player games since they cost money to play.

I don't know man, I've benefitted so much form this free learning method in the past, but people completely dismiss it only because of the business model, even if I said don't copy the business model right from the start.

So, did you have any examples to present for this? I was waiting to see if you would mention some, but you never do.

What do you mean???

I gave one execution example on page 2 and listed names of the game writers in another post. That doesn't count as examples?

If you want even more in-depth examples, I can write a 3000 words essay analyze narrative design techniques that Jun Maeda used in his game, what worked and what didn't work, the pros and cons of each, and how we can improve from his techniques. But that will need a new thread because I think this thread has been derailed for too long.

And to be honest I would rather end this discussion in this thread because all of us who participated in the discussion have been repeating the same points over and over, but the main point from both sides ("bad business model" and "learn from a different genre") are 2 different topics. It's a waste of time to continue if my main point from the last page gets sidetracked or missed in every subsequent posts.

 

[Milennin]

Those are very different things. One of the big issues I hear a lot about AAA and specifically mobile games is the amount of effort put into making the presentation good without giving it a good story. Like icing on an unbaked potato.

As someone who plays mobile games quite a lot after Nintendo discontinued their handhelds (Switch is too bulky for me to count), I can say that some of the mobile games have had more engaging story than most PC/console games I've played. In fact, some of my all-time favourite videogame stories come from mobile games, lol.
Bad story isn't unique to mobile or AAA, like every game type out there has a large share of games with bad stories.

I would just simply ask to expand on this because as far as I can tell mobile games have both too fast progression (you can get a character maxed out pretty quickly) and incredibly, tediously slow progression (play this event one hundred times for some crumbs).

Depends on the game. Some let you max out characters very quickly, while others require a time investment. Overall account progression is naturally slow as they're meant to be played steadily over a long period of time, similar to MMO's. It's something you log in to on a daily basis, clear 15-minute dailies and partake in whatever event is going on.

The scummy part is the constant manufactured FOMO and taunting you with solutions to problems they made by spending money. That and the way they manage to get around gambling laws with technicalities so they can get kids to gamble.

It's not all that scummy, considering they are designed to be played and enjoyed without spending anything (the good ones, at least). While the gambling part itself is scummy and even more so if the game features PvP/competitive modes, it's the player that chooses how much to invest as the (non-sucky) mobile games don't require any monetary investments to clear all of the content in. If you're someone with only a very limited hobby budget, mobile games should be at the top of your list to check out.

Kids shouldn't even have unsupervised access to a mobile device with internet or an unlocked credit card in the first place (IMO), so that sounds more like a parenting issue. It should be up to the parents to keep an eye out on their kids, rather than expecting the multi-million gaming company to play the role of babysitter and ensure all of their content is toddler-friendly because irresponsible parents don't wanna parent. (Ideally, it should be a balance between both parties, but to put all the blame on the games developer is definitely not okay.)

 

[kaukusaki]

I'm an old head, my first console was a c64, and my retro graphic preference is in pixels (easier to draw. 3d irks me to no end, best i can do is ps2 era style). i like old school games and that's what i create (when the gremlins aren't destroying my drives again).

 

[Indinera]

There are significantly better and more reliable ways to make money than making RPG Maker games.

It might be specific to me, but personally I've never found any.

 

[sabao]

I thought the only question here was whether or not 16-bit era-style pixel art was still visually appealing to younger audiences?

I'm not sure it's still cool to go down this hole the thread is going into, but until we see some bold blue text, I'll throw my hat in:

• NARRATIVE: I feel you guys are making an unfair comparison of mobile game and traditional RPG Maker/RPG narratives. Traditional game narratives (including RPG Maker games) have a fixed start and end. Mobile game narratives are more serialized in nature: the story expands with every major update.
  
  To say one method is inferior or superior is foolish. There's a wealth of one-shot narratives on either side of the spectrum of good & bad. Likewise, seemingly perpetual narratives like Dragon Ball, One Piece, or western comics like those Marvel and DC churn out some good and bad story arcs.
  
  I confess it is very difficult for any RPG Maker game to capture my interest these days. So many of them look alike and variations on gameplay are minimum at best. Save some very rare gems, most projects on the engine live and die based on the writing. More often than not, the writing's not there for me, either.
  
  
• ENGAGEMENT: Regardless of what platform or medium you're building on, if you're not thinking of player engagement, you are absolutely not doing your job.
  
  Always be thinking of hooks: 150+ recruitable characters (Pokemon). Three-minute play sessions for your toilet breaks (Marvel Snap). PS1 era-faithful 3D graphics (Bloodborne Kart). Anime butts (NIKKE). It can be argued that a hook manifests itself in any idea, but careful understanding of what the hook might be helps ensure the overall product consistently supports what the author sees as its strongest selling point.
  
  ex. An item collecting and crafting system might be a nice mechanic to have, but does it really enrich the experience of your horror RPG? Maybe. Stardew Valley-style rote gathering and crafting might kill player tension, but limited access/capacity for crafting materials a la Resident Evil create additional tension?
  
  Mobile games are one of the first games to really dive into concepts like player retention because previous mediums just did not have that kind of analytics accessible to devs. Hard numerical data of playing habits informed devs what worked and what didn't work with their games, and having these laser-accurate stats helped devs hone game experiences better for their audiences. Mobile game devs get a bad rap for making metrics and analytics dirty words in the game dev sphere, but the studies have been beneficial to the industry across all platforms.
  
  ex. Analytics indicate players stopped playing your game after ten minutes. Was the in-game tutorial not effective in teaching game mechanics? Were you not able to showcase enough of your game's strong points to convince players to keep going?
• MONETIZATION: While it is certainly possible for a Freemium (Free to play with microtransactions) experience to be enjoyable without ever having to pay, that's only possible off the backs of a small population that pump in large amounts of their own money into the game. Any intentionally designed mechanism that potentially exploits people into repeatedly sinking their own finances into it without cap is ethically questionable at best, predatory at worst.
  
  ex. The choice to purchase a specific skin you want for your favorite character? Sure, why not? Spending hundreds to thousands of dollars to roll the dice for a 0.1% chance to unlock your anime waifu and related cosmetic upgrades? Not cool.

I think a lot of y'all are too hard up on your biases to acknowledge both sides of the aisle have something of value.

Kids shouldn't even have unsupervised access to a mobile device with internet or an unlocked credit card in the first place (IMO), so that sounds more like a parenting issue. It should be up to the parents to keep an eye out on their kids, rather than expecting the multi-million gaming company to play the role of babysitter and ensure all of their content is toddler-friendly because irresponsible parents don't wanna parent. (Ideally, it should be a balance between both parties, but to put all the blame on the games developer is definitely not okay.)

Runaway spending on mobile games isn't exclusive to unsupervised children. Fully grown adults are equally susceptible to some very scummy monetization strats.

I agree it's a multi-party issue: parents have to be vigilant, laws likely have to be put in place, and devs have to be more conscientious of the matter. In this case, we are very specifically the devs, so for the purposes of discussion I believe it's prudent to actually be finding solutions beyond passing the buck.

 

[kirbwarrior]

I thought the only question here was whether or not 16-bit era-style pixel art was still visually appealing to younger audiences?

It is. Which makes this hilarious;

thank you for at least attempt to discuss the points, rather than directing the discussion to a different direction.

This is literally why I asked for there to be a new thread made. Instead, we got what basically amounts to a Gamefaqs discussion.

---

To touch upon accessibility helping a lot again, I still remember how cool it was that the PS3 could play PS1 and 2 games. I was sad when it seemed to pretty quickly drop that in later versions. If the PS5 could play 1-4 games, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Just imagine how cool it would be if some newer gamer heard about this PS2 game from a friend and was able to buy it and play it on their current gen system without having to rely on whether or not someone decided to port it (if the company that made it was even still around!).