I'm really hoping that entire thing was sarcastic, because Jim's misconception of the word deep (or at least in the usual gamer lingo 'deep', which I assume he's using) is rather astounding. I think had he used the word 'complex' instead this entire thing would make sense, because yes, more complexity does not inherently make a better game. Depth, on the other hand, is an entirely different beast and IS what separates good games from bad 90%-100% of the time.
For those of you confused, or unaware, by the distinction I'm trying to draw is that a complex game has 50 different options, a deep game has 10-15, but upon exploration and experience with the game it is revealed that by combining these elements an enormous amount of possibilities is discovered. An excellent example is Pokemon, easy to pick up and complete and generally straightforward, even simple. But upon a longer exposure to the game it is revealed that genuine mastery of the game is a long (but not necessarily arduous) road, filled with relevant decisions the player can make.
It seems to me Jim doesn't really understand this, because he draws comparisons to the retro age with games that simply don't hold up against them. The original Mario is certainly simple, but it is also deceptively deep. Advanced run-throughs of the game take a good long while to figure out, and require not only a mastery of the game, but of its systems and layout. This is where IOS games really fall down, is that they aren't that well designed (in comparison to the genuine classics, not that they are inherently bad) and are simply ... well simple, and can be completed very easily in a single run-through, and where player decision making is virtually non existent.
Additionally he's comparing games from over twenty years ago, to something made very recently. The fact that that is what it stacks up against is not actually a good case for the game in question.
Personally I find that the IOS would matter more if serious designers actually payed any heed to it, because currently most up-and-comers focus on making downloadable titles for consoles or PC for two reasons. One, they are easier to develop, and two, most 'actual gamer' devs aim to make games for people with history in the medium, perhaps that's a dated perspective but a common one nonetheless. Larger devs also have very little experience designing for tablets and whatnot, meaning they are more likely to develop for consoles and PCs. Until people actually start making games that are more enjoyable, and memorable, on the IOS, I think I'll stick to my other gaming devices.
