The frustrating potential of mobile gaming

In-app purchases, cheap cash-in microtransaction farming games, Candy Crush Saga, touch screen controls. The list of frustrations that I have with mobile phone gaming is a long, aggravating one. But do I think that mobile gaming will never be a legitimate platform? Controversially, I would say no. Mobile gaming has the potential to be a fully-featured and satisfying game platform in the future.

This may shock some of the more ‘hardcore’ gamers out there, many of whom will have looked upon the mobile gaming landscape with scorn and mockery. The word ‘casual’ is thrown around a lot when discussing mobile gaming. There is a kind of stigma in the topic where gamers feel that some genres are more legitimate pursuits than others. In terms of simple, ‘time waster’ games that are only made to entertain during short commutes, perhaps this criticism is somewhat valid. However, when talking about mobile gaming’s potential, there is certainly a possibility of more worthwhile gaming pursuits. 

In terms of raw power, the mobile phone market is more capable than it’s given credit for. Razer, a brand famous for PC gaming products, have even found value in the mobile gaming market. The Razer Phone carries 8GB of RAM on top of a state-of-the-art Snapdragon processor that matches rival flagship brands. The result is a mobile powerhouse that can output 120Hz gameplay, a standard not to be sniffed at by any means. 

Even the games themselves are quickly starting to catch up; the surreal experience of playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas on a mobile phone is testament to that fact. The humble smartphone is more than capable of handling complex 3D gameplay and graphics. The presence of Minecraft, Don’t Starve, and a growing indie market show that there is more than just Candy Crush available. With mobile’s signature portability, versatility and multi-tasking capabilities, it’s arguable that the platform could even become a preferred medium for the right kind of gamers if the technology is there. The Nintendo Switch is evidence of the fact that there is a desire to play fully featured, low-compromise games in a portable form, and undoubtedly it won’t be long at all until mobile processors come within grasping distance of Nintendo’s highly-successful machine. 

So what are the problems with mobile gaming? Firstly, it has to be said that those gamers who scoff at Candy Crush have a point. The install base of lifestyle users, as well as the barriers of simplistic touch-screen controls, make it difficult to see any real, quality entries in the smartphone space. Why would anybody create a relatively high-price, complex and rewarding phone game? It will make practically nothing in the face of massive, saturated competition that churns out exploitative low-price, free-to-play games that can capture the lifestyle market easily. Gamers on mobile are less tolerant of any game that has a price tag of more than a couple of pounds, so there is a massive culture change required from gamers on mobile expecting everything for free.

On top of that, touch screen controls just suck. To relate back to San Andreas, attempting to play the game on anything but a controller is an infuriating, painful experience. There is no kind of tactile feedback to help your hands know what to do and all you can do is vaguely rub the screen hoping it can catch some semblance of what you want to do. Not only that, but this control scheme means there are great finger-sized areas of screen being entirely blocked out from view. To play any kind of game that’s more complex than swiping at fruit, a controller is most definitely the way forward.

What mobile gaming needs is a unifying standard of controller. Much like how the Xbox 360 wired controller for Windows became the de-facto controller mapping for games on PC that needed joypads over keyboards, there needs to be a brand or product on mobile that universally becomes adopted and imitated as ‘the’ standard for controller maps. If we can decide on how to control the games, then we can start to see more complex games on the market as gamers become adaptable to the playstyles of mobile. I feel that we’re almost there, in fact, as gamepads on mobile start to look to console controllers for inspiration. My own controller for mobile is actually a modified 360 gamepad with a frame for attaching the phone, which is connected to the joypad by Bluetooth. The result is a much more satisfying experience than touch-screen controls, and it works with a wide variety of apps.

Ultimately, the key to solving the problem with the mobile market’s saturation of terrible games is simpler in theory than it is in practice. It requires a wider adoption by more core gamers, and voting by our wallets. If it is proven that there is a profitable market for more satisfying, premium games on mobile, then you can be guaranteed that there will be development. If there is one area where mobile excels it is in quickly and dramatically adopting a profitable idea. 

Until this happens though, gamers will continue to view the mobile market with scorn and righteous mockery, which makes the mobile market one of the more frustrating problems facing gamers today. Unfortunately with its widespread adoption by non-gaming users, its Candy Crush saturation, and its lack of a unified control scheme, it is difficult to see mobile gaming, for all its great potential, become the legitimate and vastly enjoyable platform that I know it can be. But solve those problems, and mobile gaming stands a real chance of being a lovable gaming platform, where the real benefits of smartphones in their growing power and versatility can shine through in a gaming context.

Loot Boxes in 2018: is it really worth it?

Amid news of EA Games bringing microtransactions back to Star Wars Battlefront 2, a move that had long been promised, the question has to be asked: are loot boxes even worth the negative press they’ll generate among consumers in 2018?

Gamers made a significant stand over the issue in the back end of 2017. The backlash over the implementation of loot boxes in Battlefront 2 was so powerful that even the corporate overlords of Disney were forced to take notice and step in to tighten the leash on EA’s executives. This was even enough to force microtransactions to be pulled from the game entirely for a while.

The handling of the fallout from the loot box scandal on EA’s part was just as disastrous; gamers rightfully mocked and ridiculed EA’s statement that loot boxes were supposed to give ‘a sense of pride and accomplishment’, and EA have even achieved the dubious honour of having one of Reddit’s most downvoted comments of all time. Goodwill was just about exhausted when EA stated to shareholders that the decision to remove microtransactions wouldn’t affect profit estimates. This made the situation even worse as it all but outright implied that the use of loot boxes on EA’s part was just a cynical cash grab, not, as had been claimed, an unfortunate necessity to be able to fund the spiralling cost of modern games development. In one fell swoop, practically every justification for microtransactions in full-priced games was dismantled, leaving a smouldering ruin of gambling regulations and unhappy customers.

Battlefront 2, then, is not a game on a good standing in any way. In the months after release for any FPS things get difficult: care has to be taken to keep gamers coming back for more. This all begs the question: was it even worth it to bring back microtransactions to Battlefront 2 considering the inevitable PR issues it would cause?

Imagine the goodwill that EA could have recovered for their IP if instead they listened to gamers and announced that microtransactions would be removed from the game entirely? While many of the more cynical amongst us would claim to see through such an act, many would find such a move to be a positive step. In fact, arguably now would be the best time to make such an announcement, with Battlefront 2 being a few months old surely it would be in desperate need of the good PR that would be generated to revive its player base. Dropping microtransactions would be the shot in the arm to help the game continue to survive as a multiplayer FPS.

Instead, however, we have a sad, predictable and cynical move from a corporation that feels increasingly disconnected from its customers, with many gamers commenting that they will now leave the game alongside the calls of ‘told you so’ from cynics the world over. The poor PR generated from the move must be costing millions, and will undoubtedly have a knock-on effect with player engagement and could cost the company any profit generated from the game in the coming months.

So why would any game company in 2018 continue to be associated with such a maligned practice as loot boxes? Surely any short term revenue boost through such cynical means will be miniscule compared to the loss of goodwill from customers in the long run. In 2018 is it really going to be worth it for any mainstream game to implement loot boxes, knowing that with 2017’s end the microtransaction bubble has burst? Surely by now any loot box announcement will be met with such cynicism and vitriol that any small amount of revenue squeezed from such a move would be insignificant compared to the unsustainable loss of customer goodwill.

No. The ship has sailed on loot boxes and the damage is done. Gamers have proven that they will not take such moves blindly. Surely now, it is time to put the final nail into the loot box’s coffin and accept that whatever measly, cynical cash that can be grudgingly squeezed from consumer’s fingers is not worth the unsustainable loss of goodwill that will soon put AAA gaming’s future in the balance. Loot boxes are dead, it’s time to move on.

Shadow of War Review

Shadow of War is a game that is simultaneously agonising and rewarding. While the experience itself is competently crafted, with eye-popping graphics, an eye for detail and possibly the best enemy-AI system to come out in the last ten years, the final package is a big downfall for a franchise that started so well in its first outing. Unfortunately, the game’s size is its biggest nemesis; forcing anti-consumer mechanics and creating a poor, over-bloated and over-long storyline that fails to showcase what should have been a triumph.

 

The storyline continues directly on from Shadow of Mordor; involving the creation of a New Ring.
Screenshot from in-game.

Shadow of Mordor was perhaps the best licensed video game since Batman: Arkham Asylum. Taking inspiration from the latter, the first entry into the franchise married satisfying rhythm-based button-mash combat with a well-designed open world to create what was at the time the best single player title yet to come out in the PS4/Xbox One generation. If that wasn’t enough, the exciting Nemesis system was brought into the world, creating a platform for emergent stories that put enemy AI in the spotlight. Combat became much more dynamic and exciting, as did the enemy forces themselves. 

It’s a shame that Shadow of War doesn’t follow suit. Despite a strong attempt, the game ultimately buckles underneath the great weight of its horrible design choices. The result is an experience that seems to both hate and love itself; it is just as ready to reward you as it is to destroy you and laugh at your attempts to enjoy the game, oh, and did you know that you could be slightly less annoyed by buying the Mithril Chest for real money?

One of the most controversial aspects of Shadow of War is the inclusion of loot chests, a practice that has been somewhat over-discussed recently as an anti-consumer pricing model, especially for a full-price game. To keep this aspect of the review concise; the inclusion of loot boxes here is painfully unnecessary and clearly informs some parts of the game to be more irksome than they should simply to attract players to dropping cash, which is not okay at best, and a disgusting and shady practice at worst. Given the game’s ambition, it’s probable that the sheer level of investment and production value that went into building Shadow of War was too high to profit feasibly from a simple full-retail purchase. In this case, my argument is this: if your game fails to profit in such a way, that’s a failing of your own budgeting and not of the market itself. 

 

The graphics are so sharp that this orc's eyes actually gave me nightmares.
Screenshot from in-game.

As for the presentation and production values; yes, every aspect of Shadow of War is out of this world, graphically speaking. This game really took my new PC out for a spin and it was an interesting experience to see the sheer power of graphical and gameplay fidelity made possible by ever-evolving technology. The textures often hit jaw-dropping levels of detail on every little part of Mordor. There is little to criticise here, except perhaps that some of the maps look a little bit drab and rely too much on that modern gaming crutch of brown and grey colour schemes, except for maybe one or two specific areas in the game.

The gameplay itself is the real wow-factor here though; the Nemesis system has evolved into its own and is suitably impressive, especially for a game of this scale. There is a multitude of strategies that become viable when considering the weaknesses of the multiple Orcs that one will face on their journey through Mordor. The sandbox nature of the combat that allows one to exploit different weaknesses through experimentation with so many intricately-overlapping systems is a wonder to behold. Many times, I found myself pleasantly surprised with how robustly the game’s engine could create a multitude of interesting scenarios. 

 

One of my favourite Orc Nemeses, was obsessed about his Black Blade but didn't win a single fight with me.
Screenshot from in-game.

Unfortunately, there was a desperate need for some extra tweaking here: while the system itself encourages exploitation of weaknesses in enemy captains, often combat can feel cheap and even painful. Enemy archers are overpowered and the respawn rates are set far too high. They became a constant thorn in my side and a source of annoyance that held me back from truly enjoying the free-flowing combat that I loved in Shadow of Mordor. Some captains often developed immunities to literally every combat move I had as an option, requiring an impressive, but ultimately irksome, set of hoops for me to jump through to create attacking openings. It would have been so much simpler if every orc captain had at least one weakness you could have exploited in combat, instead the game is satisfied with having you jump in and out of stealth for hours luring them between arrow markers on the map. Impressive for encouraging sandbox experimentation, but in combat terms it is often poorly-implemented and even broken at times. 

Orc recruitment and training is perhaps the biggest aspect of the game, and while it is a fun quest, this is where things start to turn from mediocre to worse. While it is fine enough to gather your army in the open world, especially in the later stages of the game this becomes a slog. One time I lost out on ten hours of progress developing my army because of a cheap love-tap by a captain who happened to have a one-hit kill perk. This is the point where the game is meant to encourage the purchase of loot boxes and microtransactions, and it is so transparently designed that the game almost becomes a parody of itself at this point. It is so clear that the latter part of the game is meant to encourage you to buy the loot boxes that I left feeling that on some level like I was treated to a worse game because of it. 

As for the game itself, it is certainly a ‘bang for buck’ purchase, microtransactions notwithstanding. There is such a mountain of things to do that at first it is intimidating to a new player. This has its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of how inviting and non-convoluted the game is to play, but the sheer size of the package itself is noteworthy. At over 40 hours I still am nowhere near seeing everything that the game has to offer and as a sandbox it is competently designed enough to create the right mood in the player for exploration and play. However, this is also a downside to the game because at the half-way mark it starts to feel over-long, like a painful slog. Enjoyment of the game eventually diminishes to a point that all it will take is a single frustrating battle to go wrong and the player will put down the controller completely.  The game is absolutely bloated and it is a shame to see such promise be underwritten by such a mixed bag, especially given that the maps themselves aren’t particularly memorable on their own; here the only location that really rivals Shadow of Mordor’s maps is perhaps Minas Ithil, but the player only spends a scant amount of time there such that its impression is somewhat missed.

Then there is the plot. There are so many mis-steps here in terms of Tolkien story that the game might as well be considered non-canon, and a face-heel turn toward the end that doesn’t quite hit the right notes. Story was never this series’ strong point. While the setting promises an epic tale that will engage gamers, instead there are a couple of charming scenes where some of the more interesting orcs can shine through. Unfortunately, here it is also a case of bloat where the storyline suffers from feeling padded because of the game feeling twice as long as it should have been.

Bruz is one of the more fun characters in the game.
Screenshot from in-game.

While Shadow of War offers a well-designed open world with a backbone of a great Nemesis system that promises more interesting orcs than the previous entry in the series, ultimately the poor, anti-consumer decisions force it into being a much worse game than it has any right to be. Despite amazing production values and satisfying gameplay, instead the fact is that the game seems at every turn to offer you something to love and something to hate.

Shadow of War is my marmite game of 2017; I have a love-hate relationship with it and it is difficult to occupy a middle-ground at any one point in the game. At some points, you’ll hate where things are going, while at other times you’ll find some genuine sandbox enjoyment, but ultimately the loot chests and terrible post-game create something that I would only recommend if it was at least half of its full-retail price.

This orc knew it, apparently.
Screenshot from in-game.