Is he right Sup Forums?

Is he right Sup Forums?

>Shitty mobile game thinking it'll be the next big thing

I wanted to like this post, it started strong, but down the middle it lost its way somewhere and just kept getting worse and worse from there.

>Make it more like Pokemon a traditional JRPG

What did he mean by this?

This is what's wrong with the gaming industry today. You have boardrooms full of people discussing marketing strategies, rather than talking about elements which make an interesting world, character or gameplay mechanic.

I understand why big-name developers and publishers do this shit. They need to stay afloat. But when indies put this much effort into reaching a demographic, it's just pathetic. Stop trying to make what sells and make what you WANT to make. I'd rather buy a work of passion than a work of a clever marketing strategy.

>60% of League matches are team vs AI

not included in the presentation:

Make the game good & not a micropayment mill cancer shit

If you can't tell by the slides, this guy is a consultant for supercell and ubisoft's mobile division, so he's probably talking about the other recent pokemon title.

>60% of League sessions are vs AI

What the fuck?

About Go, yeah. Hopefully the retard was specific in his presentation to make up for that lack in his slides.

Where did they get that number? That really is the most shocking part.

Isn't PAD pretty successful in the west?

out of their ass

what tipped you off, was it the screenshot from pokemon go in the second slide or the part where he described pokemon go?

yes, outside of any legitimate stats this entire thing is retarded misinformation and mostly assumptions that are at best only half correct.

It's the nature of capitalism. A good game that is a work of passion can sell well, but a game made by a group of marketing majors telling people much smarter (programmers) and more talented (artists) than them what to do sells better.

I've seen a bit of that presentation on a Jap gaming site.
It's full of bullshit.

I especially loved the part where he had "design of women" from Japan, Korea and US of fucking A... with Triss Merigold.

To be able to make a game like Pokemon Go they would need to release a unique and memorable game and then wait 20 years to cash in on nostalgia. Go did not do well because of its features or design. It died quickly despite being a Pokemon game because it was poorly designed.

>mobileshit "games" talk
I'm unironically puking as I write this.

If you're a beta faggot like me then it makes sense. Some people just want to have guaranteed enjoyment and play the big PVP games without hampering the experience for anyone else. I know i'm not good at most PVP games so why subject a) my team to my bad skill and loss and b) myself to being chastised and attacked by people who should be trying to work together? No, at the end of the day, I believe there are a lot of people that'd much rather keep to themselves. I don't think that stat is a fallacy at all.

Everything checks out. The proof is the posts above mine just generically spouting it's shit and horrible without explaining.

It's spot on.
The industry has the West figured out.

The only part that seems out of nowhere and out of place is "motivation through story".
That was an idea born in AAA CoD boardrooms and was never true.
Because video game stories are always shit, with some rare exceptions.
Tacked on plotlines that push you along are the worst.
>OH NO user YOUR LITTLE SISTER GOT KIDNAPPED!
I sure am emotionally attached to her thanks to the 6 minutes intro cutscene!

These are also the kind of slides that consider people who play Candy Crush "gamers."

"gamer" is a meaningless empty word. I'll never care how any idiot uses it and neither should you.

>League of Legends has 60% of their sessions as Team vs AI

You don't really que into ai games because you're afraid of people, do you user?

>"gamers."
What did he mean by this?

no, i don't queue because i don't play the worst genre in existence

>almost every slide reads like a small paragraph with bullets added here and there

>It's a "corporations pretend they understand a market they have no idea about that some analysts made a spreadsheet over" episode

>60% of league games are vs bots
I don't believe that for a second

>muh e-spurts
some people actually play games for fun, n**d

they forgot the censoring everything ugly dykes dont like part

It was entirely relevant in my post not because I identify as a "gamer," but because the way it's used there does not properly split demographics as one should when they want to do actual market research.

this is exactly what i thought of when i saw the OP image

do you happen to have the spider man slides, by any chance?

I think it's a bit hit and miss. It's easy to misinterpret stats and use them to back up what you already believe. For example, he cites that 60% of "sessions" in League of Legends are player vs AI, but a session of player vs AI takes half the amount of players as one of player vs player. Taking that into account, it's more of a ratio of 3-to-4 of players playing against AI to players playing against other players. More simply put, about 43% prefer to play against the computer. Still a high number but not nearly as high as 60% and therefore also not the majority.

I agree that the motivation through story thing is completely retarded. There's not even a slide on there to back it up, unless it was left out of this picture. I've never heard of casual players caring about the story, and most hardcore players barely pay attention too.

Pad is too hardcore for the west

I know you guys want to shit all over this because youre a bunch of 16-24yos without any experience making games or with business... but from the perspective of someone who has built and sold software this is a really good presentation if the intended audience are 40-55yo publishers who dont know crap about actually making software.

All their points are valid for making a game targeting normies. They arent making mobile games for us.

I fucking despise co-op and team-based multiplayer. When you're in the top percentile of players, finding others on your level is both difficult and time consuming. Let me play against others without getting dragged down by weaker teammates.

>but from the perspective of someone who has built and sold software

Show us your software, hot shot! Go ahead! Sell us on your product!

Oh also I forgot to mention that my math there assumes the player vs AI games are "full" (i.e., 5 players on the player team). You can play with less, which would also suggest the 43% figure is probably too high. I'm sure there are plenty of "sessions" of one or two people playing with 3 or 4 bots on their own team.

It's definitely not doing poorly. Also P&D has co-op now, and there are plenty of good sub unit drops from decends that most players grind and use. Presenter doesn't know anything about P&D.

Why does every game have to tick off every box these days? Christ.

>60% of League matches are Team vs. AI
how the FUCK

The game is already about grinding for 20 minutes before wimpily fighting the enemy's team. How does someone derive any pleasure from that? Grinding so long so you can cut through the AI's wet cardboard tactics with no effort?

Now of course I'm sure this statistic is higher since AI games are much shorter, but still. What the hell.

Nothing of what they say is outright wrong, hell, none of it is even controversial so I don't see why you fags are getting so ass ravaged over it. It's a good list of how to make a game that appeals to the widest demographic possible without pissing of people not part of that core audience.

They're probably right, though I'm not sure most gamers are over the age of 35.

Personally, I dislike just about everything on that list, but I realize I'm a minority voice.

Co-op is more fun

But not for mobile gaming.

>Why does every game have to tick off every box these days?
It's people who are paid/rewarded to appealing to the lowest common denominator. This is done by boiling down game development to a science with the help of statistics collected from successful games. The problem is that development goes beyond ticking off boxes. A lot of small decisions that get made without thought can make or break a game because they determine how the game "feels". I'm pretty sure there are too many of these small decisions to count, meaning you need skilled direction for your developers. Of course, consultants and executives don't want to think about this because that means it's out of their control.

almost all of this is stuff I would like to see as part of an approach to making a decent game.

you just don't seem to understand what this presentation is for. It is not a substitute for discussing 'elements which make an interesting world, character or gameplay mechanic'. Besides, If you do that and that alone without thinking about the overall type of game you want to make you're going to have an incoherent mess, with lots of cool features that don't work together.

That's how a lot of games are these days. Because developers just try to come up with awesome cool ideas, chuck em at the wall, and see what sticks.

What the fuck is this powerpoint trying to convey? The fact that Pazudora is a niche title in the West?

Oh no, someone had a marketing discussion! That used up the development slot for the gameplay discussion!

Threads like this really shows how retarded Sup Forums is.

Like, you always knew you're surrounded by retards here, but they really shine in these threads.

Sorry every professional discussion revolving around vidya isn't all about mechanics and designs. The people who take care of those things need paychecks.

SURPRISE: Overall difficult grind-heavy mobile game where you have to plan your teams and set your own goals over the course of months is niche in the West! Who would have thought.

Your point would stand if the last slide didn't specifically touch on gameplay aspects. A player character as the lead of a team, exploration, story & progression, set monster gives, etc. are all gameplay aspects and not marketing. And in monetized mobile gaming marketing and gameplay go hand in hand, it's a part of the typical mobile F2P model.

This slideshow is ok, needs work. I don't get how monster catching games makes "being someone" worse? Also a lot of this is reductive rather than analytical. It's more of a discussion of "What works" than "what players want".

Also that last slide is antithetical in some ways. Pokemon's only non-PvP multiplayer feature is trading, which is almost made useless except for getting exclusive pokemon or getting handouts. Needs more co-op or interaction between players. Pokemon go only has gyms going for it. Pokemon is a limited example. Even many fan realize the lack of an actual pokemon mmo is a missed opportunity.

People, at a base level, want a fun single player adventure where they can go on an adventure. They also want their experience to be able to be influenced and or shared with others if they wish to do so. Being a good single player game, that is better with friends is what developers should aim for going forward.

These are the safe gameplay aspects. This kind of thinking will further homogenize the industry even further.

>Food & Man living in harmony

>LoL
>Competitive
>E-sport
>60% of games are against bots

What the fuck are they doing? Kill yourselves holy fuck. This is like buying a GTA game so you can drive the speed limit and avoid killing people.

>Play competitive game
>Vs boys
Just what the fuck? This is so retarded, there are even nerds that found out in competitive gaming like starcraft Dota csgo etc. Playing against bots will actually lower your skill level overall. Apparently vsing bots when you want to be ""Pro"" means your not challenging yourself and your skill will cap. It's like a grown 7ft adult vsing 5 year Olds at basketball.

Some people are just playing games for something to do.

They may have the delusion they are pretty good, but they also may not want to deal with the stress that comes with competition.

This looks like it was made by a highschooler for a group project