Get Ready! Nintendo is about to launch its first mobile game on December 15th. This game is Super Mario Run, a platform specifically built with mobile controls in mind. The game will start out free to play, but at some point, you will need to spend $10 to buy the entire game. This is a extremely different business model than games like Candy Crush and Pokémon Go, which have micro transactions built into the game, which you can spend as much or as little on the game as you want to. These micro transactions will shape how fast and effectively you progress in a mobile game. Super Mario Run's business model flies in the face of what is the norm in mobile gaming. My question is this: is a $10 charge too much to pay for a mobile game? And is this one time fee a more fair business model for consumers than the Free to Play, Pay to Win model that has dominated mobile?
This would be a good topic to write about as the game is releasing. It highlights a key component of the game at a time when the game will have the attention of the mobile market.
I like the idea of the game. I would want to have a test trial to be able to decide if I think the game is worth spending $10. Through the free trial period I would make my decision. I do think that is expensive, but I think its reasonable comparing to other options from other mobile games. I'm iffy about it. I guess it'd have to be a really good game, for myself to pay $10. - Nads – Nads438 years ago
I personally think $10 is tooooo much – Haruskie28 years ago
Could explain why you think $10 is too much. It might help however ends up writing about this topic to get a clearer insight into how people perceive this product. – SeanGadus8 years ago
Could you explain why you think $10 is too much. It might help however ends up writing about this topic to get a clearer insight into how people perceive this product. Sorry for the spelling errors in the message above... – SeanGadus8 years ago
With the announcement of The Last of Us: Part 2, there's been a spur of excitement in the gaming world. This topic would explore the differences and similarities between The Last of Us and other survival-horror/zombie games, and what aspects made it become such a household title among gamers. What did it do differently, what didn't it change, and how did the narrative affect audiences and players? In essence, what made The Last of Us so memorable to players, and what new avenues did it open for its genre? (The author who takes this topic may even wait for Part 2 to release and add a comparative section between both games, adding to how Part 2 affected the gaming community as well as its predecessor).
The Last of Us is a game that has touched so many people, and can definitely make the case as to why video games should be considered an art form. You should explore why The Last of Us does that, and explain how the second can improve on the first one. – cbo10948 years ago
TLOU is different from the regular cliched zombie game because it focuses on the characters and their relationship, not on the zombies. The zombies and the setting are merely backdrops to Joel and Ellie. If this were simply a story about Joel and Ellie and their relationship, and the zombies were taken out entirely, I think it still would've been just as good of a game. I could go on and on about why this game is amazing and why Naughty Dog is one of the best developers out there, but I think that's the gist of it. Telltale's "The Walking Dead" (especially season 1) is the same way. I cried like a baby at the end of that one. I couldn't care less about the zombies. I just wanted Lee and Clementine! – Christina7 years ago
Many companies are seizing the opportunities presented by the growth and accessibility of virtual reality technology. The pornography industry is producing immersive experiences and violent games will feel more real than ever before. What are the limits of these technologies, especially for commercial use? Are we disconnecting people from the ethics of their society by immersing them in social constructs designed around amoral decisions?
Another interesting angle the writer could pursue: is there any psychological evidence that links immersive simulations like this with a decrease in sensitivity? I.E., does shooting a person or raping a person in a VR make a person more less psychologically disposed to committing those crimes? Might participating in this kind of play change the way they subconsciously view these crimes in society, or empathize with victims of these crimes. Basically, will we need to be screening for VR hobbies in our jurors in the near future? – ealohr8 years ago
In light of the underwhelming flop that was No Man's Sky, we have to start asking ourselves; "Are we putting too much faith in indie games?". For half a decade we've seen indie games skyrocket in popularity. However many gamers tend to forget that simplicity is always a recipe for a successful game.
I think No Man's Sky was a game with a lot of confusion around not just the game itself, how it was marketed, and how it was presented to consumers. This being said, I don't necessarily think that No Man's Sky's controversy and issues represents a lot of the indie game industry. Also, I'm not sure how your comment about "simplicity" related to indie games. I think many indie games use very smart formulas to succeed, for example, Shovel Knight was designed as a love letter to retro games. So I think your topic needs a little more tweaking or clarifying prior someone writing about it. – SeanGadus8 years ago
You have a good point Sean I think I'm having a little difficulty putting my point into words. What I mean to say is that just because indie games are made with more love doesn't mean they're always good. – JacksonAP8 years ago
That is a great point, look at mighty number 9 that game was supposed to be the next mega man and instead was a huge disaster according to most critics and fans. – SeanGadus8 years ago
On the one hand you have NMS which did use false marketing. On the other, you have Rimworld which has seen massive praise. Just an idea you could make it about how games in general have been plagued by false promises with crowdfunding failing to deliver on developers promises on gamer's expectations. You could analyze how much of the problem is consumer expectation versus failure to deliver by devs. – NickC8 years ago
Does DLC have the power to change the way that a game is perceived ? During my initial play-though of vanilla Dark Souls II, I felt severely underwhelmed by the base game and disappointed with the bosses. However, as the Dark Souls II DLC began to trickle out, my overall perception of the game became more positive due to the fact that I thoroughly enjoyed playing through the newer areas. Now that Dark Souls III is about to release its first DLC in about two weeks, is it possible that it can change the way that the base game is looked at or presented?
Yes, because in today;s society the DLC is something that is a must for all die hard gamers in a video games experience. Many people might not agree to this, but many games such as Call of Duty, Destiny, Minecraft, and GTA 5, would be boring to jump on to every day and play the same thing day in and day out, without the addition to any new content. – dff50888 years ago
Hyper Light Drifter's game experience is inspired by the developer's heart disease and his fear of meeting death at any moment. Death is constantly looming throughout the game as the protagonist continues to cough up blood. Players empathize with the fragile hero and the creator effectively shares his struggle
How effective is this channeling of personal fear in Hyper Light Drifter, and what other examples are in other games?
The title and article do not correspond. I suggest you either remove art from the title--the simpler revision--or include art in your topic. As it stands there is no aesthetic representation in your topic, though there are an infinite number of examples to choose from if you decide to include one, or more. – danielle5778 years ago
In The Legend of Zelda, the player character of Link can take a lot of damage. Being frozen solid, burning in fire or lava, surviving numerous types of melee weapons. The only armor he bears is a cloth tunic, with a chain-mail suit underneath and some pieces leather armor. If Link were in another game, how long would his green tunic last before he had to upgrade his armor?
This argument would mean little to nothing in a video game world where the female characters' armor consists of next to nothing, so it would probably be best to look at games with armor stats or ranks of armor. Is there a Nintendo game of this sort that could be looked at comparatively or would someone need to venture into other consoles and game types to analyze Link's armor? – Slaidey9 years ago
Do all fun games necessarily have to be good ones? Likewise does a good game have to be enjoyable? I think there is a lot of oportunity for discourse on the nature of fun and enjoyment in the space of games. Games like Mount and Blade come to mind when I think of games that are objectively bad, like in no world would I rate the game anything higher than 5/10, but anyone who's played it will tell you that there is something undeniably fun.
It depends on your use of the word "good," and what aspect of the game it pertains to. A game can be "good," in that it is "fun." Or it can be "good," in that it is constructed and designed well. But can something really not be fun even when it's good? Well then that really does depend on which definition you're going by. If it really isn't fun, then what exactly is "good" about it. If it isn't fun, then it probably fails as a game. And "fun" doesn't have to mean rip-roarious glee and excitement. Something can be "fun" simply because it never becomes boring, and you can end up playing it methodically for hours. So all of this would also hinge on what your chosen definition of "fun" is as well. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Building from what Jonathan Leiter said, "good," and, "fun," are very subjective concepts. Try breaking each down into what exactly it is you mean in using word; operationally define them, if you will. For instance, by saying a game is "good," do you mean that it's visually appealing? Or, do you mean that its plotline and character development are engaging? By saying a game is "fun," are you referencing the nearly endless possibility presented by GTAV? Or, are you more talking about the fast paced and challenging game play of games like Shadows of Mordor? I think this is an intriguing topic but it just needs a little brushing up around the edges. – Michael Richardson9 years ago
There are differences between good and fun. The main one would be that good can be an objective term (in that good would mean well-made), whereas fun would definitely be subjective. The problem that I have with this topic as it stands is that it is too nebulous, and if written, would likely devolve into an article regarding your own tastes in video games. As such, I would have to reject. – JDJankowski9 years ago
I would suggest discussing Cards Against Humanity which is almost word for word the difference between good and fun. It is a proclaimed "game for horrible people" and yet it is one of the most fun experiences you can have. – alexpaulsen9 years ago
I think this bears similarities to questions about books and films. It seems critics love the "good," and audiences love the "fun." – Kristian Wilson9 years ago
