2238: Mobile Games Aren’t Always Shit: Mister Smith Edition

A lot of mobile games are shit. Some are just a little bit shit. Some are really shit. The upside of this unfortunate situation is that when something enjoyable and fun comes along, it’s all the more noteworthy as it becomes as a sparkling diamond, floating majestically atop the sea of shit that is the mobile games marketplace in 2016.

The trouble with a lot of mobile games is that they try to be something they’re not: they try to be big-budget, triple-A experiences — inevitably using the term “console quality” somewhere in their description — but then more often than not ruin the experience in two major ways: firstly, by hobbling the player experience by making it free-to-play and consequently limiting their enjoyment unless they repeatedly pay up (or, in some cases, grind until they want to kill themselves), and secondly, by using god-awful touchscreen approximations of joypad controls, which never, ever work because touchscreens don’t have buttons you can feel and consequently you can’t do the “muscle memory” thing you can do with an actual controller in your hand.

No indeed, the best mobile games out there make the best use of the platform that they’re on and the context in which people use them. Mobile phones these days are used 1) when you don’t want to talk to people around you, 2) when you’re on the toilet, 3) when you’re waiting for some form of public transport and/or friends to arrive and 4) when you can’t sleep. As such, the ideal mobile gaming experience is something that you can do during any of these activities without having to think too much, display any sort of manual dexterity beyond tapping a few clearly indicated things with your fat, greasy fingers or commit yourself to any sort of lengthy play session — that train might turn up any minute, after all, despite the automated announcement assuring you that it is “very sorry” for the delay to this service.

Anyway. I found a good mobile game the other evening while I couldn’t sleep. It’s called Mister Smith and His Adventures, it’s published by Ayopa Games and penned by Scotland-based comedy writer Steven McDade whose work, in his own words, “hasn’t quite crossed the line to allow for fame, fortune, adulation or comedy legend status”. Based on Mister Smith, however, McDade should have a bright future ahead of him, as his breezy, conversational writing style is immediately appealing, and an excellent fit for a game such as Mister Smith and His Adventures.

But what is Mister Smith and His Adventures? Put simply, it’s a very straightforward interactive novel with quizzes. Telling the story of Mr Mister Smith [sic], it unfolds over the course of several distinct stories, during which you have the opportunity to make a number of choices to determine how things unfold, and how farcical the outcome of Mister Smith’s various adventures will be. Along the way, based on your choices, you’ll be presented with a number of quiz questions in various categories, which will ultimately score you in the fields of Knowledge, Bravery, Friendship and Love and present you with a final score for the story based on how many questions you got correct and how quickly you answered.

To be honest, the quizzes seem a little forced at times, but McDade recognises this and lampshades them effectively during the narrative, and given the light-hearted, silly tone to the narration, it’s not a big problem; it gives the game a degree of replay value, after all, particularly as it’s riddled with achievements for making different choices and answering certain particularly challenging questions correctly. For those who particularly enjoy the quizzes, there are some “stories” that focus exclusively on the quiz aspect, though these are still written in McDade’s distinctive authorial voice, which makes them a lot more entertaining than other, drier quiz apps on the App Store and Google Play.

McDade’s business model for the game is a good one: you can download it for free, and play the tutorial and first story without paying a penny, after which you have a few choices. You can unlock new stories by repeatedly playing the ones you’ve already done to earn “Smiths”, which can be spent on the new stories and quiz packs currently available. You can purchase bundles of Smiths to selectively purchase stories without grinding. Or you can slip McDade a couple of quid to unlock the game completely, remove all advertising (mostly for itself) and gain immediate access to all new stories as McDade writes and publishes them into the game through automatic updates.

After playing the first two stories, I was more than happy to take the latter option; McDade’s writing is very readable (although there are a couple of typos here and there), the game presents it in short, easily digestible sections with endearing stylised illustrations, and each story is enjoyable and self-contained while helping us to build up a more complete picture of who Mister Smith (and Paul) really is as a person.

It’s an extremely simple idea, and one that works very effectively. It’s a well put together, well-presented game that uses the mobile format well, and I hope to see a lot more of in the coming months; I sincerely hope that McDade finds some success with it, and that it helps him to kickstart his comedy career.

You can download Mister Smith and His Adventures for iOS here, or Android here.

1372: The Good Old Days of the App Store

I’d been pondering this a little recently, but I actually confirmed it for myself today: the games on the App Store of today are not a patch on those that were on it when it first went live.

Oh sure, they’re technically more impressive, with all manner of lovely “console-quality” (whatever the fuck that means) graphics and download sizes that will easily fill up a lesser phone, but there’s really something missing from modern App Store games that was there in spades in early titles.

The title that really drove it home for me was a game called Tilt to Live. This was a score-attack action game that some described as “the iPhone’s Geometry Wars“. It’s not quite an accurate comparison, since Geometry Wars is a twin-stick shooter and Tilt to Live doesn’t involve any shooting whatsoever, but they share a couple of important similarities: they’re easy to understand and super-addictive.

Tilt to Live, lest you’ve never had the pleasure, sees you controlling a small arrowhead-shaped… thing as it attempts to fend off the unwanted attentions of its red dot rivals. In order to destroy red dots, you have to pick up powerups, each of which has a specific effect. Nukes explode at the spot where you picked them up, for example, taking anything caught in the circular Missile Command-style explosion with them, while lasers take a moment to charge before firing a broad beam in the direction you’re travelling. As you progress through the game, you unlock more and more different weapons which are then available from the outset in subsequent playthroughs; the more weapons you have, the easier it is to maintain a combo of dot-killing without stopping, and consequently attain higher scores.

Tilt to Live is so genius because it’s built for its platform. It uses nothing more than the iPhone’s built-in accelerometer, tuned to perfection, and all you have to do is tilt your device around like one of those old “Labyrinth” games. Nothing more than that. There are a couple of other modes, but in essence, all you’re doing in each of them is tilting to move your arrow and attempting to avoid red dots. Simple. Addictive. The perfect mobile game.

Tilt to Live was far from the only game from the App Store’s early years I have fond memories of, though. The early stuff from ngmoco was fantastic, for example — titles like Dr. Awesome (essentially tilt-controlled Qix), Dropship (Defender meets Thrust meets Geometry Wars) and Rolando were all top-notch games that were pretty much essential purchases in the early days of the App Store — everyone who had an iPhone downloaded them, and Apple even featured them in advertising for both the iPhone and iPod touch, the latter of which it looked for a while like Apple was attempting to position as a serious handheld gaming device.

So what happened? Why have I largely lost interest in what the App Store has to offer today? Well, this is probably a gross oversimplification of the matter, but essentially I believe things started to go downhill with the addition of in-app purchases to the App Store.

I remember being skeptical about the supposed benefits of in-app purchases when the upcoming new feature was first announced — it sounded awfully like what triple-A publishers were doing with downloadable content for console games, and that was something that a number of teams had proven could be done very, very wrong. Oddly, initially only paid apps could have in-app purchases, meaning that free apps were always just that — free, though sometimes ad-supported.

Nowadays, of course, the words “free” on an app more often than not mean that you can download the app in question for free, but are often then expected to cough up extra, particularly in the case of games. In-app purchases have gotten so out of control on iOS that it’s rarer not to see a game have a “Get More Gold” button allowing you to purchase in-game currency. And, of course, the moment you see that “Get More Gold” button, you have to start questioning whether the game has been deliberately made more grindy and inconvenient — experts call this “adding friction” or “fun pain” — in the name of squeezing a few extra pennies out of you.

Herein lies the issue, I think: modern App Store games are designed to be money-making machines that trick people into thinking they’re having fun, then encourage them to open their wallets to have even more fun. It’s all a ruse, of course; the “fun” is more often than not an illusion created through carefully-paced rewards and ego-massaging, and the “pain” is created by suddenly denying the player access to these rewards that they’ve come to accept. It’s good business design, but bad game design.

Compare and contrast with a game from the App Store’s earlier era such as Tilt to Live, or ngmoco’s early games. These are games designed for pure fun — and more to the point, they’re highly creative, interesting, distinctive games. Not one of them is a predictable “tap on everything, then wait until you get a push notification to tap on everything again in three hours” title; while some are inspired by classic retro games (or even more recent games such as Loco Roco in the case of Rolando), they each put their own twist on things, respecting the player’s time and wallet in the process — in other words, once you bought these games, they wouldn’t ask you for money again, except in some rare instances such as in Tilt to Live where the developers later added a whole new game mode and sold it rather than bundling it in as a free update.

One of the saddest sights in the App Store is, I think, the massive decline in quality that ngmoco’s titles have taken since those early days. Games like the aforementioned Dr. Awesome and Rolando were genuinely excellent games that helped to define the platform; now, however, all ngmoco does is churn out some of the most tedious, derivative, copycat titles in the entire industry, all in the name of exploiting the social gaming bubble. RIP ngmoco; I thought you were going to be the next big thing in creative indie games at one point, but it was not to be.

True creativity and distinctiveness in the App Store isn’t dead; but with well over a million apps and games on the App Store now, and the charts dominated by free-to-play titles that have effectively bought their rankings rather than earned them, it’s getting harder and harder to find them. How sad.

1336: Where’s My Paid-For Version?

Disney released a sequel to its popular iOS game Where’s My Water? recently. Where’s My Water?, if you’re unfamiliar, is supposedly one of the best iOS games out there, and even managed to pick up an Apple Design Award at WWDC in 2012. It’s an extremely popular game that was well received by both press and public alike, and spawned a couple of spin-off games prior to the recently released official sequel.

The official sequel is, inevitably, free-to-play, unlike the 69p original. Said original did have in-app purchases, yes, but they were mostly actual additional content — new levels and so on — plus, until recently, the game was continuously supported with weekly challenges that kept the game relevant over time. (The removal of these weekly challenges in the most recent update has annoyed a bunch of players, incidentally, but surely they can’t expect Disney to continually support a game from 2011 forever.)

Where’s My Water 2 has, unsurprisingly, been torn a new one by App Store reviewers for being free-to-play — and with good reason. Like Plants vs. Zombies 2, there is not one single convincing reason why making it free-to-play is a good thing for anyone except Disney. At least you can play Plants vs. Zombies 2 for as long as you like, however; Where’s My Water 2 adds the ultimate insult of incorporating an energy mechanic into the game, effectively blocking people from continuing to play every few levels unless they pay up.

I hate energy systems. They were a fucking pain in the arse when I had to review mobile and social games because they meant I could only play the game for a certain amount of time before having to leave it for several hours (because I sure as fuck wasn’t paying), and they’re a fucking pain in the arse if I just want to enjoy a mobile game these days. They’re a slap in the face to the player, and effectively a sign that the developer/publisher of the game don’t trust their player base to actually slip them some money if they’re enjoying themselves. It represents the absolute worst of everything about free-to-play, and it needs to stop.

I’m glad that App Store reviewers are starting to speak up against things like energy systems and excessive in-app purchases, because it’s getting out of control. I find myself actually wanting Where’s My Water 2 to fail, because it will teach Disney a lesson. This may sound harsh — I haven’t played Where’s My Water 2, so for all I know it could be a great game, and I’m sure the dev team worked hard on it — but this continuing trend of games that hold their content hostage needs to stop. Rather than it being an incentive to download and try something for myself, I will now actively avoid games on the App Store that are “free”. And since most of the games on the App Store are now “free”, this means I’m simply avoiding most of the stuff on the App Store, which is probably doing a great disservice to the few people out there who are doing great work, and who are treating their players with respect.

You want to see how to do free-to-play right? Go play Card Hunter.

1298: Far from the Valley

Jeez. I am so glad I’m not reviewing mobile and social apps any more.

I know I’ve said this numerous times before, but I feel like every day I come across something even more offensively vapid and pointless that makes me want to punch everyone involved in the face for thinking it could possibly have ever been a good idea.

Today, I came across an app called “Kahnoodle.” Here it is.

Kahnoodle is a “relationship app” that, according to The Atlantic, “wants to make maintaining your relationship automatic and easy — as easy as tapping a button. Its options include sending push notifications to initiate sex; ‘Koupons’ that entitle the bearer to redeemable movie nights and kinky sex; and, of course, the love tank, which fills or empties depending on how many acts of love you’ve logged.”

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Kahnoodle isn’t the only app of this type, I might add. As the Atlantic piece linked above notes, “couples’ apps” have been around for a while now, and represent some of the most pointless implementations of social media I’ve ever seen: they’re social networks designed for just two people. I reviewed one a while back called either Couple or Pair (I forget which one it was, because they changed the name from one to the other, which made all the App Store reviewers of it disproportionately angry at the developers) with Andie, and we both agreed within a matter of seconds that it was an utter waste of time.

The reason that apps like Couple/Pair and Kahnoodle are utterly pointless, of course, are because there are infinitely better ways to do the same thing already available that don’t require their own dedicated app. You can privately message people via Facebook, Google, AIM, Skype, email, text message, What’sApp, Kik… hundreds of other potential apps, from which you can talk to, you know, other people as well as your partner.

Kahnoodle’s selling point is that it “gamifies” your relationship, and as we all know from listening to Silicon Valley startup tosspieces, “gamification” increases “engagement” and “brand awareness” or whatever bullshit they’re talking about this week. Because these apps, despite appearances, aren’t really about bringing people together and helping them communicate at all; they’re about building up a captive audience who can then be either advertised at or monetised straight up the bumhole — sometimes both, in some sort of hideous business double-penetration scenario.

I apologise for that mental image. But if you need to “gamify” your relationship in order to remember to have sex or whatever, then perhaps you should sit down and have a very serious talk with your partner, because I would suggest that’s a sign that Things Aren’t Going All That Well. A real-life relationship is not like The Sims, where you can get yourself out of the doghouse by grinding the Chat, Compliment and Joke options until the meter climbs out of the red.

Sigh. Anyway.

One of the big reasons the App Store, Google Play and its ilk are such frustrating places to browse these days are because there are so many of these ridiculous apps available that provide nothing of any particular worth to society. The few useful apps that are available for phones inevitably get buried under this torrent of digital sewage, leaving those who are making good things consistently frustrated at the fact their stuff can never get noticed. It’s not just in mobile games this is happening — it’s in all types of apps. I’ve pretty much given up looking at the App Store now — I use my phone for basic communication through Twitter, Facebook, email and the like, and only download something from the App Store if I know precisely and specifically what I’m looking for.

So good job, shovelware merchants; you’ve pretty much destroyed the concept of “discoverability” with your relentless pursuit of the crap. I hope you’re pleased with yourselves.

1179: Open for Browsing

A few days ago, the app AppGratis was pulled from the App Store for specific reasons unknown, but many conjectured it was due to the service that the company provided for developers — specifically in promotion of their apps. AppGratis, it was claimed, was gaming the system and manipulating the charts of the App Store so that they didn’t really accurately reflect reality. I don’t know whether or not that’s actually true, but it’s plausible given the shadiness of some parts of the mobile sector.

What I do know, however, is that the App Store charts are useless anyway, largely due to the huge amounts of miscategorisation (is that a word? It is now) going on, making it absolutely impossible to browse and find something you’re looking for.

But is it really that bad? I decided to do a little experiment to see how accurate the descriptors in the Games category — the only App Store category to have subdivisions — actually are. Let’s take a look at the Top 10 in a selection of these categories and see if the games therein actually belong in those groupings, shall we? Wait, where are you going…?

Huh. Sod those guys, we didn’t like them anyway, right? Here we go, then.

Adventure Games (Paid)

Wikipedia’s definition of adventure games:

An adventure game is a video game in which the player assumes the role of protagonist in an interactive story driven by exploration and puzzle-solving instead of physical (e.g. reflexes) challenge.^[1] The genre‘s focus on story allows it to draw heavily from other narrative-based media such as literature and film, encompassing a wide variety of literary genres. Nearly all adventure games (text and graphic) are designed for a single player, since this emphasis on story and character makes multi-player design difficult.^[2]

Temple Run Oz — not an adventure game, it’s an action/arcade game
Minecraft — not an adventure game, it’s a… Minecraft
Badland — not an adventure game, it’s a platform game
Doodle Jump — not an adventure game, it’s a platform/arcade game
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City — not an adventure game, it’s an action game
Temple Run Brave — see No. 1
Dead Crossing — not an adventure game, it’s a shooter/driving game
Eden — not an adventure game, it’s a Minecraft-alike
Clear Vision — not an adventure game, it’s a sniper-centric shooting game
Blue Toad Murder Files — HOLY SHIT AN ADVENTURE GAME

One out of ten is correctly categorised. So that’s not all that good, really, is it? Let’s look at the free adventure games.

Adventure Games (Free)

Gangster Granny — shooter
Temple Run 2 — See No. 1 in the Paid category
The Simpsons: Tapped Out — citybuilder
The Sims: FreePlay — It’s The Sims, but more boring
The Croods — citybuilder/farming game
Frontline Commando: D-Day — shooter
Minecraft Lite — Minecraft
Jail Break Now — vaguely adventure-ish
Tap Paradise Cove — citybuilder/farming
Nimble Quest — Snake with a twist

Nope. Nope. Nope. One out of ten, and that might not even count as it’s more of a stealth game. Let’s look at a favourite genre: role-playing games.

Role-Playing Games (Paid)

Wikipedia again:

A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game^[1]^[2]) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.^[3] Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.^[4]

Slayin — arcade game with RPG elements
Gemini Rue — THIS IS AN ADVENTURE GAME WHAT THE FUCK IS IT DOING IN THE RPG SECTION
Mighty Dungeons — old-school dungeon-crawler. It counts.
Skylanders Battlegrounds — Sort of RPG-ish, but more action game than anything
Dentist Surgery Game — NO. Not even a little bit.
Minecraft Explorer Pro — Not even a game; this should be in the Reference section.
World Explorer – Made for Minecraft — Crap Minecraft clone. Not an RPG.
Monster Wars — Strategy game
Surviving High School — Visual novel/adventure game, not RPG
Minecraft Papercraft Studio — Not a game at all

Hmm. Slightly better. Still not great. And the presence of Gemini Rue in there just feels like the App Store is mocking me for writing this. Let’s look at the freebies.

Role-Playing Games (Free)

Beauty Dentist — NO. (Also what the fuck is up with all the dentist games?)
Tekken Card Tournament — Vaguely RPG-ish, but no. It’s a card game. There is a card game section.
Mighty Monsters — Pokémon ripoff. Crap, but could accurately be described as an RPG.
Come on, Zombie! — More of an RTS than an action RPG, but I’ll allow it.
Campus Life — Poor-quality The Sims knockoff.
Campus Crush — Visual novel/dating sim, not RPG
Dungeon Hunter 4 — Yes!
My Beauty Spa — No!
Epoch — shooter
Crime City — Citybuilder wanting to be edgy, actually just crap. Not RPG.

Oh dear. (And seriously, people, why all the virtual dentistry?)

What about board games? I like board games, and there are some good adaptations on the App Store, I know that for a fact. So what do the charts look like?

Board Games (Paid)

Monopoly — Yep
Scrabble — Yep
Words With Friends — Yep
Monopoly Here & Now: The World Edition — Yep
Trivial Pursuit — Yep
The Game of Life — Yep
MahJong — Please learn the difference between “Mahjong” and “Mahjong Solitaire”, but yep
Pentix: warning! this developer likes to put stupidly long titles in things in the hopes of making their game look better! — Nope
Doodle God — Nope
Risk — Yep

Much better. Not perfect, but better. Shame all the top-selling ones are crap board games, though. Seriously, people, two different varieties of Monopoly? I don’t mean to sound like a board game snob (actually, I do) but there are far better games out there. But at least it’s actually in the right fucking category.

Board Games (Free)

6 Numbers — Countdown ripoff. More of a puzzle game.
Lazors — Again, more of a puzzle game, but there is a board game a bit like this.
Bingo — Nope. To the Casino section with you! Away, filth!
Four In A Row 2013 — (Spoiler: it’s the same as Four in a Row has always been) Yep
Words With Friends Free — Yep
Monopoly Hotels — NOPE. This is a shitty Monopoly-themed building game, not a board game. Sadly, there isn’t a “shitty building game” category, but it would better belong elsewhere.
Sudoku — Puzzle, not board game.
Ruzzle — Yet another Boggle ripoff, but yep
Chess Free — Yes!
Friendle — Live Board Games with Friends and Family — The clue’s in the name!

Again, better. But again, crap that has nothing to do with board games (except the name in Monopoly Hotels’ case) is in the board games category.

So the situation varies a bit from category to category. But it should hopefully be clear from that that there are some significant problems there. Imagine you really want to play an adventure game on your iPhone or iPad — something like the excellent Gemini Rue or Broken Sword. Browse through the adventure game category and you may well have trouble finding things that are actually adventure games. That’s a problem.

Sadly, without a complete wipe of the App Store’s catalogue and recategorisation of everything, I think we’re too late to really do anything about this. Developers deliberately submit their titles to the wrong categories to get greater visibility, and this effect spreads as more and more people do it — and in the meantime, Apple don’t appear to care all that much when things are incorrectly categorised. The whole situations is a big ol’ mess, and I’m not surprised independent developers working on genuinely great games are enormously frustrated that it’s impossible to get their stuff seen amid all the other shite.

1152: Gaming on the Go

I play a lot of mobile games for my day job. Some of them are great. Some of them are fucking atrocious. Very few of them hold my attention after I have reviewed them. I’ve been trying to pin down why this is, and it comes down to a variety of factors.

Firstly, and probably most seriously, is that I don’t get any real feeling of “accomplishment” (or perhaps more accurately “fulfilment”) from playing them for the most part. In the vast majority of cases, I find myself drawn to games that have a bit more “structure” to them, usually in the form of a strong narrative. So many mobile games — particularly those with social features, or which purport to be a “mobile MMO” — completely eschew any sort of narrative in favour of a completely open-ended experience with no discernible end and no real “goal” save for the short-term objectives set by the ever-present quest system. If I have nothing to aim for, I have no incentive to play. And no, “reach level 50” isn’t enough of an incentive for me — I know it is for some people, just not for me.

Secondly is the fact that it’s often difficult to shake the feeling that in many cases, there are plenty of better games I could be playing. I play something like Candy Crush Saga with its obnoxious £35 in-app purchases and just feel that I’d rather be playing Bejeweled 3 on PC; I play something like Infinity Blade and feel that if I wanted to play an extended Quick-Time Event, I could just play Fahrenheit or Heavy Rain and have a decent story to go along with my occasional carefully-timed button pushing; I play a slot machine game and I’d rather slit my wrists.

Thirdly is the frequency with which in-app purchases ruin everything. If they’re not throttling your play sessions (hello, Real Racing 3), they’re unbalancing the gameplay so that you need to pay money to progress — that or grind the same level for three thousand years to earn the money you need for the slightly better gun that is always just out of your reach. I also just get a bad taste in my mouth any time I play a game in which I have the choice between using my skill to progress or simply paying up to bypass anything that might be a bit difficult. Again, I know there are people who are fine with this; I’m just not one of them.

Fourthly is the fact that so many mobile games are so fucking completely clone-tastically identical to each other that I have absolutely no need (let alone desire) to play them in my free time. I have no desire to ever play another bubble shooter, Bejeweled ripoff, slot machine game, text-based “card battle RPG”, isometric-perspective citybuilder or “hardcore” (hah) strategy (hah) game. I wouldn’t mind so much if these developers were ripping off good ideas, but as far as I can tell they rip off the lowest common denominator, “most likely to make idiots pay through the nose in IAP” ideas, flooding the market with complete turds and making the genuinely good games utterly impossible to find if you don’t know what you’re looking for.

What this leaves me with is a significantly reduced proportion of mobile games that I can actually find enjoyable. If you discount all the directionless free-to-play crap in which the sole purpose of playing is mindless busywork with no long-term goal, there’s significantly less in the way of quality interactive entertainment. But thankfully there are still developers out there who cater to people like me, even though people like me don’t necessarily lead to obscene monthly profits.

Today I reviewed a title from an indie studio called Vlambeer. The game was called Ridiculous Fishing and has been in development for two and a half years, which is an incredibly long time for a mobile game. The reason for its incredibly long gestation period is that shortly after the team started development, they discovered that a large mobile game publisher called Gamenauts had completely ripped off their game idea (from an earlier Web-based version of what would later become Ridiculous Fishing) and released their own iOS game before Vlambeer could even officially announce their own offering. Understandably demoralised, they put the project on the backburner and almost cancelled it, but this week it finally hit the App Store and has been doing very well. It’s a $2.99 paid app with no in-app purchases whatsoever. I bought it immediately without hesitation; I like the developer, and I was sorry to see how bummed they were when their game was cloned. I also want to support the survival of the “pay once, play forever” business model, because it’s a dying breed in the mobile sector.

Ghost Trick. Chaos Rings. Sword of Fargoal. Anything by Jeff Minter. Anything by Cave. Support these developers and the great work they do, because if you don’t, mobile gaming will become a wasteland even more devoid of creativity than it already is. Fuck it if the price of admission isn’t “free” for these games; “free” doesn’t mean “free” any more. Forgo a latte and a sandwich from your local coffee house and support the hard work of developers who have brought you quality creative entertainment rather than regurgitated clonesville crap.

#oneaday Day 977: The Eternal Struggle Between Business and Pleasure

If you own an iOS device and haven’t yet purchased a copy of Rayman Jungle Run, congratulations! You are the problem with mobile gaming. I won’t get into why you should play Rayman Jungle Run — you can read my review for that — but I will reassure you that it is a game that you pay for once and then never have to pay anything for ever again. (At the moment, anyway.)

On the surface, it’s easy to see why the freemium/free-to-play sector has exploded quite so much. People casually browsing for things are always going to be immediately more attracted to things that say “Free” on them rather than things that say “$2.99” on them, regardless of whether or not that “Free” comes with a caveat, which it usually does. But there’s a growing level of discontent and frustration with this fact, particularly among “core” gamers — or, more specifically, people who have been playing games for many years. We’ve reached a stage now where this demographic actually wants to seek out paid games and apps because they know that “Free” tag always comes with a catch — and, sadly, more and more paid games are also coming with “Get More Coins!” buttons and unbalanced gameplay attached in an attempt to squeeze more and more money out of their player base.

I always have a curious sense of hypocrisy over this issue. I mean, my day job is reviewing mobile and social games, after all, and from a critical perspective I have to consider each title from a business perspective as well as that of the player — is the game going to make enough money for the developer for it to have been worthwhile? I can do this with no problem — though I will call out titles that are obviously taking the piss with their monetisation strategies — but it doesn’t stop me from having a sour taste in my mouth whenever I’m “off the clock”, as it were. I’ve dialed back my consumption of iOS games massively since realising that the vast majority of them are little more than time and money sinks designed as not-particularly-subtle attempts to extract players’ money from them. And many developers and publishers don’t even attempt to hide this fact — we’re dealing with an industry that refers to users who spend a lot of money on in-app purchases and DLC as “whales”, after all, which should give you an idea of the sort of people we’re dealing with a lot of the time.

Now, I’m not saying that people shouldn’t make money from their creations. Quite the opposite, in fact — I told you at the start of this post that you should pay money and download Rayman Jungle Run, for example, because it’s great. But herein lies the rub — you should pay money for things that you think are worth money, things that you want to support, not things that are designed to psychologically manipulate you into pressing that “Get More Coins!” button. As soon as you become aware of a game’s business model, it stops being quite so fun — at least, that’s how I feel. Apparently I’m in something of a minority, though.

There’s a problem with the system as it stands right now, which is partly why this situation has arisen. The distorted sense of value that the App Store has brought means that if people see anything that costs more than a dollar, they won’t buy it unless they’re absolutely sure it’s worth the money. (These people are probably the same people who will happily spend four or five dollars on a coffee — yes, I’m aware that I’m English and automatically using dollars as my default currency, but that’s what you get after working for American employers for the last two years — and consequently are quite happy to throw their money at something they will piss out within an hour or two) To exacerbate this fact, there is no requirement for app developers to provide a free trial of their products. Some do anyway, either by offering a free “lite” version of the app or distributing the app for free then unlocking it via in-app purchase, but there are many cases where it is impossible to “try before you buy” — so people end up not buying at all, instead reaching for those ever-tempting “free” apps and their spiderweb of monetisation.

Free trials won’t solve the issue entirely, obviously, but they would be a good start. Personally speaking, I just find it a crying shame that a gaming platform with as much obvious potential as iOS (and, to a lesser extent due to lack of support by many developers, Android) finds itself focusing on shallow, fun-free timesinks rather than truly creative games — of which there are many available that go completely unnoticed. Quality games like Rayman Jungle Run should be celebrated and championed; crap like Tap Campus Life should be ridiculed.

That’s enough for now.

Oh, one final thing. Buy Rayman Jungle Run.

I thenkyaw.

#oneaday Day 965: Geometry Makes the Best Games

Being “in the zone” is a curious experience. On the one hand, it’s enjoyable and satisfying, whatever the context — sports, games, music, writing — but on the other, it can be terrifying. The second you become aware of your own “in the zoneness”, panic strikes. Your pulse races and you worry that you will fall out of said zone any moment. You struggle to maintain your “in the zoneness” but as you become more and more stressed, you get more and more likely to make some sort of critical mistake until, eventually, you give up and go and do something else.

This is the feeling you are constantly battling against while playing Super Hexagon, a new iOS game from Terry “VVVVVV“ Cavanagh.

In Super Hexagon, you play the role of a teeny-tiny triangle attempting to not meet a sticky end against the various walls that are being inexplicably flung at it from outside the screen. Or perhaps it’s attempting to escape a maze without crashing into any walls. Or… well, it doesn’t really matter what it actually is. It’s an abstract, “pure gameplay” game in which the aim is simply to survive as long as possible. In essence, it’s similar to those “endless running” games that are so popular on mobile platforms right now, with the difference being that you’re rotating a shape around a point rather than jumping, ducking and sliding.

In your first couple of games of Super Hexagon, you’re likely to last a matter of seconds — five at most. This brutal level of difficulty will likely be enough to put many people off immediately, and that’s fine. Stick with it, though, and you’ll find yourself increasingly slipping into “the zone” as you survive just a tiny bit longer each time, your skills consistently improving as you learn to spot the various patterns that come your way — and how to deal with them.

Then, of course, you make the mistake of thinking “gosh, I’m doing quite well this time” and plough straight into a wall while 0.05 seconds away from beating your high score. Then, you will immediately tap the screen to try again and be unable to break this cycle for at least half an hour. (Consequently, I do not recommend playing Super Hexagon on the toilet.)

The simple, addictive, abstract nature of the game brings my love affair with Geometry Wars 2 to mind. Both are completely different types of game, of course, but both also have a lot in common. Both tend to have relatively short play sessions, both have an aesthetic so abstract that it stirs the imagination to a surprising degree, and both have a relatively low “penalty” for failure. Mess up and you’re back in the game within a second or two to try again.

This latter quality is one of the most important factors in making a game “addictive”. Super Meat Boy is another game that understands this — fail a level in that and simply by pressing a button, you’re trying again, with no loading breaks, no obtrusive “You Failed” screens or statistical breakdowns, just a tap of the “Retry” button and an immediate response. Geometry Wars 2 did this; Super Hexagon does this. Because it’s so simple and habit-forming to just tap the screen to retry after a failed attempt, you get locked into a compulsive cycle, determined that this time is the one, that this time you’ll be able to progress just a little bit further and hear Jenn Frank’s voice whispering the name of a shape with even more sides at you.

Super Hexagon is out now for just 69p. Grab it from the App Store.

#oneaday Day 836: Brandwatch

So, at the time of writing, the No. 1 free iPad app and No. 2 free iPhone app is this game. A quiz. About logos.

This seems to be something of a craze at the moment, as it’s far from the only title like this available in the App Store, and doubtless there are similar offerings on Android that I can’t be arsed to look up right now.

This is what we’re reduced to for entertainment now? Seeing how deep the brainwashing of advertising has burrowed into our skulls? I’d argue that scoring highly on one of these quizzes is not anything that we should particularly be proud of, as all it simply proves is that advertising has successfully drilled its way into your subconscious.

The same goes for anyone who uses the word “simples”, describes anyone as being “so Money Supermarket” non-ironically or sings that bloody “Go Compare” advert. (If you do the latter, I will likely punch you in the face. If you do the “so Money Supermarket” one, whether or not you get punched in the face will depend entirely on how good your Patrick Stewart impression is.)

The counter-argument to this, of course, is that many of these brands, logos and slogans have transcended their original meanings and become pop culture phenomenons or memes in their own right. And to an extent that’s true, but I can’t shake off the feeling that these things have been forced into the public consciousness, while true phenomena and memes should grow organically, naturally and without marketing spend. In many cases, they do, of course — look at the Know Your Meme page for Katawa Shoujo or the astonishing popularity of My Little Pony among people that it wasn’t originally intended for, for example. But I think we can all agree that anyone who takes an opportunity to sing the Go Compare song is a grade-A arsehole of the highest order.

Perhaps I’m just being grouchy. Or perhaps I’m just fed up with feeling like I can’t escape advertising any more. It seems to encroach on my time more and more. It’s all over the Internet. I get text messages from lawyers inviting me to seek compensation for the accident I supposedly had (funny, I don’t remember it). I get phone calls from twats trying to sell me shit even though I’m registered with the TPS. (Note: this is the main reason I never answer my landline. Call my mobile if you need to speak with me.) I get people knocking on my door trying to sell me double glazing or get me to switch energy suppliers. It’s plastered over certain games. It’s smeared all over Facebook like festering shit. It encroaches on Twitter occasionally in the form of “Promoted Tweets” and “Promoted Users” — though these are, thankfully, easy to ignore. I even had to remove a Chrome extension yesterday because it was inserting an ad at the bottom of every page I viewed.

Ads allow things to be put out there for free, of course, and without them we’d be having to pay a lot more money for the things that we do, so I guess we should sort of be grateful for them. That said, it doesn’t excuse the sleaziness of some ads, particularly on the Internet — take the large “Download” links on software sites, for example, or the “You Have 1 New Message/Virus/Picture” banners you get on mobile apps. Or indeed the “lose 3 tons of belly fat with one weird old tip” thing. (Spoilers: you probably won’t, otherwise the world would be talking about it.)

You know what? Thinking about it, I’d actually be happy to pay for more things and have them advertising-free. I pay for Spotify premium and don’t have ads. I’ll happily pay to remove ads in iOS games I intend to play for more than five minutes. I pay for Netflix and get movies and TV shows without ad breaks. I’d even happily hand over some money to WordPress if it became a premium-only service, such is the excellent use I’ve got out of it for free over the years.

In short, provide me with a quality product and the means to not be battered around the face with people trying to sell me shit I don’t want, and I’ll happily hand over some money. Yell “Buy! Buy! Buy!” repeatedly at me with no means of respite and I will, yes, punch you in the face.

#oneaday Day 638: Idiots of the App Store

Everyone knows that you shouldn’t read Internet comments where the public has been allowed to voice its opinions without any filtering. It’s why sensible people avoid looking at 4chan, YouTube comments and App Store reviews. But, like a car crash, sometimes you just can’t look away from these comments sections, no matter how infuriating they might end up being.

I made the mistake of browsing the App Store tonight and perusing a few obviously stupid apps which, inevitably, had rather low ratings. Let’s see what the reviewers had to make of them, shall we?

First up is Mario and Friends. This decidedly copyright-infringing app makes it very clear in its description that it is a soundboard featuring music and sound effects from classic titles such as Mario, Zelda and Sonic. Let’s take a small sample of the reviews:

“This is not a game. Where is my money?” — Cheat11111111

“Please do not buy this app does not work my young grand daughter was so disappointed !!” — ena Sproule

“Thought this was the game what a load of rubbish I mean why wud we want the listen to the music without playing the actual game?? Waist of 69p!!!” — lisa green

“None of the buttons work so it’s impossible to play waste of money” — Al24467

What you’ll see from most App Store reviews of this type are a few consistent features: overuse of exclamation marks, an inability to know when one sentence ends and another begins, and an inability to use the correct homophone.

Let’s take a look at another excellent example: Unlock It! which promises new lock themes for your iPhone and, again, in the description makes it clear that it’s a spoof app, not an actual means of overriding a fundamental way the iPhone works. Here are some choice reviews:

“I was so happy that I would be able to Chang e the lock screen but then it turned out to be a scam! I doesn’t let you change the lock screen! Do not get it! SO UNHAPPY!!” — Kezmatron

“Should’ve read the reviews – this is tripe!!” — Jonzo15a

“Don’t get it.. I was so happy with idea.. Then so upset with the lies that lied deep inside!! C***S!!” — Bleepsound

“This app is a complete con. Do not buy it. It does not have any of the functionality it claims to offer it simply takes a photo which you can save as your background to imitate a security function. Very poor.” — Black and White Army

“A new this app sounded 2 gd to be true” — Dj disco dave

What have we learned from all this? That the sort of person who leaves App Store reviews probably hasn’t read the app description before downloading. This type of person can be regularly seen elsewhere on the Internet indulging in very similar behaviour in other places — commenting on N4G having only read the headline, not the whole article; commenting on a YouTube video without watching the video; commenting on a news story without reading the story; commenting on a Facebook page without looking to see what kind of page it is; and numerous others.

It’s very simple, people. Slow down. Read things. If you’re looking at something, look at it properly. You’ve taken the time to click a link to something or other — why not check it out properly rather than immediately flying off the handle and crying “scam!”/”fake!”/”bias!”/”fanboy!”/”bullshit!” etc.

Ahhh. It’s nice to want things, isn’t it?