RAKtheUndead said:
The video game media, as a rule, tends to be made up of people with experience in video games. This experience usually spans back several years; some of the staff of The Escapist possibly remember the Atari 2600 and such. Therefore, most of their experience is with traditional video game platforms. The idea of iOS devices, multi-purpose devices which happen to have the ability to play games, isn't one that's been heavily explored in the past, and as mainstream developers (as opposed to those few independent developers making games for Windows Mobile and the like) haven't shown the idea much attention in the past, it's difficult to see why they would do so now.
This is true among handhelds but not home systems. I'd be curious to hear from people who were adults around the time of the 2600 at what point were PCs considered valid gaming systems? I don't see the multipurpose application of iOS to be significantly different from the multipurpose application of Windows (possibly DOS might be a better analogy given the weak multitasking support). If I were to argue that my laptop is a home gaming system, thanks to the fact that it plays Portal and Half-Life 2, I wouldn't get any arguments. Hell, a Windows 95 system that plays Final Fantasy 7 and 8 wouldn't get any argument either, even though it's ported from the PS and uses a different control scheme.
Again, there's a reason for this. Most of the developers that have found major success on iOS are indie developers who have made low-budget games which have managed to punch above their weight. However, it's important not to lose sight of the forest for the trees, and recognise that application take-up on the iPhone is notoriously top-heavy. Figures demonstrate that there's a significant drop-off by application #1,000, and an even more significant one after application #5,000 in the sales charts. Therefore, your investment isn't particularly secure on iOS compared to the more traditional platforms of the DS and PSP, and is probably a contributing factor into why applications tend to top out at the $10 level.
What's noteworthy is that these developers are having any success at all, as compared to the PSP, which is flat out losing developers on all sides. iOS is easy to develop for, so the risk is much lower and the return on investment is much higher (due to investment being as low as the risk). It's because as a platform to develop for it's easy enough to put a game out in your spare time while you hold a second job, even full time devs mention that it takes ages to develop for any PlayStation system.
To mainstream developers, this is a bit too much of a craps roll for their liking; there's a reason why certain developers are known as "big-budget". You have suggested Assassin's Creed and The Sims 3 as successful iOS games by mainstream developers, but it's difficult not to suggest in turn that these are really just baby steps for the developers versus the budgets and development times of comparable games in the same franchises as these for the respective developers. GTA: Chinatown Wars is a cross-platform game, developed to cover all bases. The uncharacteristically low-budget approach of these games doesn't mean that they're necessarily low in quality, but it does suggest that the developers aren't confident enough in the platform to really focus on it.
GTA Chinatown Wars is the same across all platforms. If iOS doesn't inspire confidence, then neither does the DS or the PSP. Comparing handhelds to home systems doesn't really make sense here. On the one hand there is logic to that argument, but on the other hand you're not comparing apples to apples, rather like comparing a home racing game with a steering wheel or a home FPS with keyboard and mouse to a handheld.
You've been very supportive of the touchscreen control schemas used by iOS developers, whereas most of the rest of us haven't. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think I've recognised the most significant reason why we prefer the traditional button-based controller model. We're familiar with it, and even though the touchscreen model demonstrates more flexibility, it's very different to what we're used to, and means that we have to learn an entirely new way of playing games.
Not all that different from moving between keyboard and mouse and a gamepad. How many people dismiss Windows as a gaming platform because it uses a different input method from the PlayStation?
To those that have honed their skills on a controller, this can be especially frustrating. Even if a new control schema has certain advantages over an older one, the chances are that we're still going to like the older one better unless the advantages are significant. This is why Sony have kept the general Dual Shock controller arrangement from the mid-1990s, even though the left analogue stick is awkwardly placed,
I disagree with this completely. How is it that only the left analog stick is awkwardly placed and not the right? The only problem I have with the Xbox 360 controller is the left analog stick placement - and that's because it's different from the dual shock. I'd contend that the DS has stayed the same because there isn't a better layout, and that Microsoft experimented with a different layout with the Xbox just for the sake of being different.
and I'd speculate that this is why Miles Tornami prefers the dual-analogue control schema for first-person shooters, despite the extra precision demonstrated by an optical or laser mouse, although I'll allow him to comment separately on this.
Certainly there's preference and that's one thing, but to hold that up against objective superiority is another. People are perfectly happy to play with objectively inferior control schemes on multiple home consoles, yet they see this as an insurmountable barrier for iOS? The logic doesn't carry. If that were really a valid reason for not seeing iOS as a game platform, then the PlayStation 3 isn't a valid platform for FPS, strategy or fighting games, and really only works for 3rd person over the shoulder adventure games.
New players might be better served with a traditional controller than with a touchscreen as well, even if this makes the leap to touchscreen controls more difficult later on. A controller has one major advantage that the flexibility of either a keyboard-and-mouse or touchscreen layout cannot replicate: The controller lends itself well to consistent controls between games.
While the controls are consistent, this is a major drawback too. Some games just don't lend themselves to certain control schemes, and switching things up helps. Certain PC games will have you change from just mouse, to keyboard and mouse, to just keyboard, to joystick and so on. There's flexibility on the platform even with just the keyboard and mouse and not counting additional peripherals. Switching control schemes to whatever is most appropriate is an advantage of the platform, and the lack of consistency isn't a barrier to entry for anyone - even the most casual of gamers. Speaking of casual gamers, the control difference between PvZ for PC and iOS has no effect on gameplay at all, and you'd expect players of such games to be most susceptible to problems with switching a control scheme.
In any given Xbox 360 FPS, I can be reasonably assured that the right bumper button is for firing, that the A button is for jumping, that other face buttons are for reloading, melee, et cetera. With a keyboard and mouse controller, my favourite for FPS games, I already have a non-standard layout as soon as it comes to crouching. Most games use the left Control key as standard for crouching, while I use the left Shift button, as it's in easier reach of my fingers. Depending on the game, this means at least ten seconds of reconfiguring keys before I can play the game, a problem I don't get with console controllers, and a bigger problem with people who just want to sit down and play the game quickly. With a touchscreen interface, with potentially vastly different control schemas for different games, the problem is compounded.
I would much rather take the 10 seconds to alter the layout than deal with a default scheme, and not all console FPS games are the same either - particularly with some having a button to run and others having the button to walk. Also, in the case of a console FPS, if the interface doesn't suit you, you're screwed and just not going to play them. With iOS and different control schemes you can select the games that do work for you.
As much as you seem to deride mechanical feedback, others wouldn't be so quick to give it up. That knowledge of when a button press will be recognised is very important for certain genres of games, including 3D platform games and fighting games.
You see whether there was feedback based on whether the action you expected happened. If you're typing faster than the computer can keep up because it's doing heavy work in the background or is stalled, it's good to know if what you're typing actually came out, or if you're just typing so fast that you can't correct as you go. Fighting games already have a problem with gamepads anyway, and while platform games are specifically designed for them, even having the same feedback on a keyboard doesn't turn out so well. It's less the feedback and more the appropriate layout. Where having physical buttons really is important is simultaneous presses of adjacent buttons, which iDevice multitouch screens can't handle (making Super Mario unplayable on emulators), but again it's the differentiation and not the feedback that's the difference.
A lot of their gameplay elements are dictated by timing, and that little click gives you more indication on when something should or shouldn't be doing than watching the feedback on the screen. The reaction time of your hands can be faster than that of your eyes, and this knowledge is useful to know when you're playing something that needs rapid response.
Like what games for example? I can't recall anything in Super Mario Bros or World that requires me to put out multiple button presses before an action comes on screen, and it's pretty reliant on fast reactions, and is also not possible to play properly on iOS. It's not the feedback that makes the difference though.
Sure, you can make a control schema that has as few compromises as possible on a touchscreen, but mainstream developers probably find it easier to use the familiar controller as much as players do. Nintendo seems to be the major exception to this, apart from iOS; they've created significantly different controllers for each of their television consoles since the NES, and developed a few new ways of doing things along the way. This hasn't necessarily aided third-party developers, though; look at all of the games badly implementing Wii motion controls. Likewise, there are so many ways to screw up touchscreen controls, partially because of that flexibility of the UI.
Sure, but most games have demos, so if it sucks, you don't play it. I'd rather take the chance of a control scheme sucking or being absolutely brilliant than not have any variation at all. Particularly over multiple generations. We've been using D-Pad and action buttons since the GameBoy in 1989, it's time for something different.
As a result, mainstream developers are going to be a bit wary of working on this nascent platform. They seem to like consistency and predictability; one need only look at how many sequels and franchise spin-offs there seem to be this generation, with few original IPs. Of course, this means a goldrush for the indie developers ready to work on iOS, but remember that goldrushes end with a lot more people disappointed than satisfied.
Sure, they like consistency and predictability, but you seem to be ignoring that mainstream developers are moving towards iOS development in preference to DS and PSP. Sonic 4 is a major mainstream title that I have yet to see announced for any non iOS handheld platform.
