Thirith on 14/11/2018 at 08:23
Wouldn't episodic gaming also mean, at least in theory, that you get revenue during development? I'd imagine that the episodic approach with Hitman was less of a financial risk than releasing all the missions at once but a year later.
Malf on 14/11/2018 at 12:28
We're not looking at an either/or situation here.
And mobile gaming is not the future. It's already here. It's just not the same experience you'd expect from a console or PC.
Those people playing whatever iteration of Candy Crush / 1024 / Sudoku / weird ball bouncing game on the tube / train / tram / bus? Mobile gaming.
This is what heads of corporations are referring to when they talk about mobile gaming. They're not trying to make an experience to attract the more traditional gamer.
They're greedily eyeing up the mountains of cash companies like King get from microtransactions and advertising.
And to emphasise that first line again, just because some people are focussing on making games for the mobile market, it doesn't mean others will stop making more traditional games.
I don't think I've ever read or heard of some suit saying that the future of gaming is mobile exclusively.
Interestingly, thanks to how the Switch blurs the line between console and mobile, I am really enjoying a mobile version of Diablo, as mentioned in the "NOW what are you playing?" thread. Not Immortal, but good old Diablo 3.
While I think Blizzard definitely misread the audience at Blizzcon, I think the resulting shitstorm was ridiculously overblown. In the end, Blizzard are just experimenting in a new space, chasing those greenbacks. Corporations gonna corporate.
It's just that there's only two possible reactions to news online. Mute and abject apathy, or frothing-at-the-mouth, incandescent rage.
And far too much attention is paid to the latter.
Gryzemuis on 14/11/2018 at 12:48
There are 2 kinds of games. I never read about it on the web. Both kinds often get thrown on one big pile. But, imho, if you don't understand the difference, then you can't talk about "games". Business people are in the business of making money. They understand money. They often don't understand the product they are producing and selling.
A game has rules. A game has a goal. You can beat a game. Or you can beat a human opponent in a game. The outcome depends on skill. Skill can be reaction-time (arcade games), or eye-hand coordination (shooters), quickness of your fingers. Or coming up with a strategy (board games). Or just applying someone else's strategy (chess). In a game you do your best to win. This is type 1.
The second type of game is different. There are rules, there is often a goal. But they are not really important. The goal is to pretend you are in another world. Role play. Explore. Be surprised. Travel. See, hear or read a story. Computer role-play games are like this. Even MMOs (like WoW) used to be like this. Real-life RPGs sitting around a table were a bit like this. Immersion is very important. These games often last way longer than the type-1 games.
I'm only interested in type-2 games. I started playing type-1 games long ago, because there was nothing else. Donkey Kong, Pacman, arcade games in the eighties. Then in 1998 I started playing HL1, and then I became a gamer. HL1 is a shooter. But the shooting, the challenge, winning, I didn't care about that. I wanted to see all of Black Mesa. I used to finish games (like Unreal) because I wanted to see every level in the game. I still love that. I played all three Dark Souls games, beating every boss, because I wanted to see everything there is.
For me immersion is very important. I pay for a good computer, a good monitor. I need proper input devices. For me that is a trackball, a joystick and a keyboard. Because I don't want to be distracted by "the skills" to make my character do what my brain wants it to do. I'm not gonna use a gamepad, because that'll take ages to learn. Gaming on a phone or tablet ? The small screen looks like crap. Using the touchscreen as only input device is gonna be painful. A 10" hand-held tablet is never come close to watching a game on my 35" 21:9 g-synch va monitor.
Mobile games are like web-games. Farmville. Not interesting. They are type-1 games.
As long as there will be people like me, the type-2 games will be there. I believe there is a huge market for it (dozens of millions of people). I'm sure the market for type-1 games is bigger. So what ? Most people like McDonalds. That doesn't mean there is no market for good food (real food). If you want to make money, and that is all you are interested in, mobile games are maybe the way to go. But that doesn't mean "they are the future".
demagogue on 14/11/2018 at 12:51
While I wouldn't say it's a mutually exclusive either/or either, I have the idea that a not-insignificant amount of capital & talent is being diverted to mobile gaming that would have otherwise gone into making traditional games, and the punchline is relatively more investment in the former and relatively less in the latter, against the counter-factual baseline.
Actually in my bird's eye view of the field, it seems like the gaming scene is polarizing between mega-games like Rockstar & Bethesda monoliths that take 6 years to make a 300 hours to play vs. casual games old people play offhandedly during talk show commercials, and everything in the middle gets squeezed.
froghawk on 14/11/2018 at 13:08
I agree with the type 2 games statement.
However, in the case of Diablo, I did not play the third game (beyond the demo) as it seemed too 'lite'. However, I would not mind that sort of experience on mobile, and thus I actually have more interest in this mobile game than I did in D3 (or would in D4). I'm fine with what they're doing.
ZylonBane on 14/11/2018 at 15:21
Wherein Grizzlemuse writes a thousand words and establishes his own absurd taxonomy just to say he prefers games with exploration and a story.
EvaUnit02 on 14/11/2018 at 15:22
Quote Posted by Thirith
Wouldn’t episodic gaming also mean, at least in theory, that you get revenue during development? I’d imagine that the episodic approach with
Hitman was less of a financial risk than releasing all the missions at once but a year later.
For Telltale that was the case, certainly. Hitman though went from the traditional game release model to episodic and thus alienated a good chunk of the established customer base.
Kolya on 14/11/2018 at 19:38
I only played Diablo II, it was super repetitious - a mouse button killer. Point, hammer button, get pretty gems.
It's such a simple feedback loop that Blizzard discovered - more akin to a gambling addiction than a game - let alone a hardcore gaming experience.
If they had known beforehand they would probably have exploited this drug from the start. I can see why they think it would work on mobile. It is a slot machine, always has been.
froghawk on 14/11/2018 at 21:27
yep, and diablo 3 is supposed to be even shallower. I'm not sure why warren spector of all people thinks diablo II is a 'special' game and still has it installed to this day, though I did love it as a kid. I did a quick replay of it as an adult just to see what the online component was like, and it mostly consisted of skipping big chunks of the game (or doing a lot of it out of order) between high level players jumping in and doing all the hard parts for me, which seems like a bit of a design flaw. At least the original game had a lot of atmosphere and was shorter and harder.
Hence me thinking the series would make BETTER mobile titles than pc titles. I don't get the outrage one bit.
voodoo47 on 14/11/2018 at 21:53
about the Diablo Immortal situation - Blizzard took the most hardcore fans, dangled something they obviously wouldn't want in front of their noses, and essentially called them idiots for not liking it. any company that does such a thing deserves to experience the resulting shitstorm in its full ferocity.