Smartphones Vs. Dedicated Handheld Systems!

[+Charlie Cat]

Hi guys,

 

I enjoy my Nintendo 3DS and my PSP Vita. But I haven't been playing them in weeks because I'm addicted to the games that are on my Android Smartphone! Plus I'm always having it around for internet, calls, texting and the selection of high quality games are making me want to download the newest games that are out there at a better price then the 3DS and Vita! I still like them both! But these smartphone game are giving them a run for its money!

 

Anybody else been playing smatphone games?

 

 

Anthony....

Edited June 22, 2012 by fdurso224

[Rex Dart]

What, like the current version of "Poke That Thing" or "Smear Yer Finger"? Hell no.

 

I have one of these.

[Emehr]

When they stop making games designed for D-pads or using that horrible "big head/small body" Farmville-esque artwork I'll pay attention to smartphone/tablet games. So far I haven't seen anything that plays to the strengths of multi-touch input without feeling gimmicky. Even Angry Birds can be played with a traditional analog stick setup. In fact, it would play better because there would be no false input. Also, if I'm tapping the screen like I'm hitting a button then they're doing it wrong. I might as well play a game on something with buttons and positive tactile feedback.

 

If Atari designed the VCS for paddle-use only we wouldn't have the breadth of games we have now on that system. Same deal with smartphone/tablet games, IMO. It won't take long to hit a brick wall in the games department.

 

As such, I'll take my Lynx, GBA, and (3)DS any day of the week and leave the phone for non-gaming stuff.

[Horst]

I've got Tetris on my Razr. Tetris from 1989 on a Gameboy is far better. However, I'm not about to carry around my Gameboy wherever I go just to play Tetris. The games are sort of "good enough" there is nothing spectacular from what I've seen.

[SRGilbert]

I've found that the smartphone (iPhone in my case) is great for games like Scrabble. I also admit that's I've played my fair share of the Angry Birds. I like the fact that I can do so much with one device, just about anywhere. If I get bored of a game, I can check my email. When I'm done with that, I can hop on to Craigslist (and even post a listing) or check out Atariage or Facebook. Heck, I can even make a phone call!

Edited June 23, 2012 by SRGilbert

[Austin]

They're fine when you are bored at work, but to be honest, the only game I played outside of work in an addictive manner is Plants Vs. Zombies. Everything else has felt like filler.

[+LS650]

I have to say I really like the Flight Control type games. There's a good example of a game that makes good use of touchscreen.

[goldenegg]

Anyone who honestly believes there's nothing more that Angry Bird clones on smartphones have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. It's a way too common response when this topic comes up. There are plenty of fantastic console quality games in all genres: RPGs, platformers, sports, puzzle, etc.

 

(I'm not calling out anyone who responded above me. It's just a general response to how these types of threads normally go)

 

I play games on my iOS devices on a very regular basis. Since I usually play mobile games to and from work, I tend to have all my handhelds in my bag with me. I mention that, to show that I will regularly choose to play on my iPhone/iPad, even when I have the option of the 3DS, Vita or others.

 

There's a ton of great games on the mobile platforms. The trick is being able to filter through the less than spectacular games. After a while, you get to know which developers create stuff you like. For those new to the platform, sites like Touch Arcade and even videos on YouTube are an invaluable resource to find the gems.

[fiddlepaddle]

My phone is for working, and telling my wife why I'm late.

[Eltigro]

It depends on the game for me. There are games which play great on a smart phone with a touch screen and some that don't. Angry Birds and Plants vs. Zombies are two great examples of games that do very well. However, there are lots of games that try to use an onscreen d-pad or something that just doesn't work that well. I've played games where I've said to myself, "Man, if I had an actual controller, this game would be great." The graphics, sound effects, music, powerups and everything else can be great, but if I can't control it worth a damn because the onscreen d-pad covers up part of the game and gives me no tactile response, I won't play it.

[BydoEmpire]

I've owned a lot of handhelds over the years, but I just never played them much... until the DS. I don't know why but I really dug that handheld and it got a fair amount of use. Still, a couple years ago I bought an iTouch and I'd never go back to a dedicated handheld. I just don't play handheld games enough to justify the cost of a dedicated system, and I like not having to lug around a pile of tiny carts when going on trips.

[Jess Ragan]

C'mon, people...PLUR. I used to have a jaundiced view of smartphone games too, but they've gotten A LOT better in the last three years. We've gone from Rolando (the best of a sad assortment of mobile games) to many great titles available for the iPhone series and Android devices. Asphalt has evolved into a quite respectable series, and it looks dynamite on a television, using an HDMI cable. PewPew has a lot to offer fans of Geometry Wars, and works with the Sony Xperia Play if you're lucky enough to have one. And all those complaints about touchscreen controls have been nullified thanks to Bluetooth controllers... I can connect my Wiimote wirelessly to my Droid X and play emulators that way whenever the mood strikes me.

 

Not every game is well suited to smartphones, but at the same time, they offer their own unique brand of gameplay which wouldn't make sense on traditional handhelds. I've tried Bookworm on the Game Boy Advance... while I wouldn't call it a disaster, the D-pad control was kludgy and there was a haunting sense of compromise from more powerful formats. I honestly feel there's room for both smartphones and handhelds, and I wouldn't want to be without either.

[Arkhan]

No dpad = no fun.

 

 

the vita is awesome. The 3DS would be awesome if the library was good.

 

Smart phones are junk for games. I tried playing Sonic on an iPhone and laughed at how awful it was.

[Rex Dart]

...all those complaints about touchscreen controls have been nullified thanks to Bluetooth controllers...

 

No, not all of them.

[HatefulGravey]

What, like the current version of "Poke That Thing" or "Smear Yer Finger"? Hell no.

 

I have one of these.

 

I also have one of these and it makes life so much better. Never again will I sit bored in the bathroom, or bored in a meeting, or bored anywhere for that matter. This phone will emulate 2600, NES, SNES, GEN, SMS, PS1 and N64 that I know of, and the 32GB card that came with mine holds more then enough gaming to keep my happy on the road. I'm not much for angry birds, but Mega Man 2 is a wonderful way to spend my bathroom time .

[Cynicaster]

When they stop making games designed for D-pads or using that horrible "big head/small body" Farmville-esque artwork I'll pay attention to smartphone/tablet games. So far I haven't seen anything that plays to the strengths of multi-touch input without feeling gimmicky.......Also, if I'm tapping the screen like I'm hitting a button then they're doing it wrong. I might as well play a game on something with buttons and positive tactile feedback

 

This sums it up for me. A touchscreen is not a controller with a d-pad and physical buttons, so it really needs to stop trying to be one. It's remarkable how, even a few years into the touchscreen craze, we still have so many games coming out that attempt to mimic traditional videogame controls. By any objective standard it utterly sucks shit, so I really wish game companies would accept defeat and move on to more promising endeavors.

 

There will always be the apologists who say "it just takes getting used to" or something similar. Even if that's the case, the fact remains that a virtual controller will always be sorely subpar when compared to a real controller.

 

It really is that simple: the unassailable superiority of real over fake.

 

And no, it's not "good enough" or "better than nothing". I find it unfathomable that such a vast leap backwards could be deemed remotely acceptable to any self-respecting gamer, especially in the year 2012, when we've had the same basic tried-and-true control technologies doing wonders for us for the past 30 years.

 

"Oh but it's a device that also sends tweets and texts, streams YouTube, and browses Facebook, blah blah blah". Just because such a device does these other things conveniently and with acceptable ergonomics does not mean that we are obligated to pretend it can do everything. Videogames with traditional controls is a prime example of something it simply cannot do--can we please cut the shit and agree on this once and for all?

 

Ok, so maybe you don't want to carry around a real, purposefully designed mobile gaming machine to play Super Mario, Pac-Man, Street Fighter, Sonic, Mortal Kombat, Kirby, or whatever your joystick/d-pad game of choice is--that's totally understandable, especially when you've already got your smartphone, iPad, and maybe laptop for work to lug around with you. But in that case, what's wrong with just accepting that you'll have to wait until you get home to play Pac-Man? In this age of instant gratification, why is it considered some kind of affront to humankind any time we don't have absolutely everything at our fingertips while we wait for the bus? How is a wretched, half-assed hackjob of our favorite videogames deemed a better solution than simply waiting to play them the right way?

 

Most seem to agree that the best touch games are those designed to use touchscreens natively, and I'm definitely one of these people.

 

I'm not much of a mobile gamer, but I've tried dozens of games on my iPad and iPod touch over the last 2 years to kill time when traveling for work. At first I really wanted to like them, but I eventually realized I was being distracted by how nice the games looked and sounded. It didn't take long for me notice that most games can be placed into one of two broad categories:

 

1) games that attempt to harness the 35+ years of accumulated wisdom in videogame design, and end up sucking horribly because the core gameplay is designed with a mindset accustomed to the availability of traditional control methods that are no longer present

 

2) games that use tilts, touches, and swipes natively, but end up sucking because the lack of precision and accuracy of these control methods necessitates dreadfully basic game mechanics.

 

I've reached the conclusion that these devices might be fantastic for word games and puzzle games, but they are tediously mediocre platforms for video games.

 

No need for anybody to get their iPanties in a bunch over this, because I fully realize it's just one man's opinion. But I like to think of it as a gamer's opinion, not the opinion of some techno-noob who thinks he's a gamer because he just downloaded Fruit Ninja and Jetpack Joyride from the app store.

 

I don't say all this simply to be obnoxious and provocative on the internet. The fact is, I realize these touch games sell by the boatload, which is precisely why I have a vested interest in my criticisms being heard. I thought I hated where the game industry was going with interactive movies being passed off as games, now I'm being sold imaginary controllers. It has to stop! Let's keep it real folks!

Edited June 26, 2012 by Cynicaster

[HatefulGravey]

I agree that it is stupid to try to use a touch screen to control a game that should be done with a standard controller. I agree that the games made for the touch screen are normally time burners at best and have little reason to really get into them. That said I can't say that these devices make a bad option for gaming.

 

I carry a Motorola Xoom, and it allows me to hook up a PS3 controller with no issue and play anything I want on it. It isn't as easy to carry around as a 3DS, but the gaming is much much better. The power of the machine is completely amazing in this way.

 

I also have what most people call "The Playstation Phone" and adding the controller to an android device makes it a great solution to both my mobile gaming and cell phone needs.

 

So, while most of these touch screen devices might suck at traditional gaming, there are some that are much more than just ok at it. There are also tons of things coming out there look to change all of this for every person with a smart phone. There are blue tooth controllers that fold up to nothing and slip into your pocket and connect to the phone or tablet for use with these games. When those get out into the market a little better we can have this little talk again and see how people are talking then. I bet that is going to have a very real impact of handheld gaming.

[Cynicaster]

So, while most of these touch screen devices might suck at traditional gaming, there are some that are much more than just ok at it. There are also tons of things coming out there look to change all of this for every person with a smart phone. There are blue tooth controllers that fold up to nothing and slip into your pocket and connect to the phone or tablet for use with these games. When those get out into the market a little better we can have this little talk again and see how people are talking then. I bet that is going to have a very real impact of handheld gaming.

 

Well, that's a completely different set of parameters right there.

 

I'm sure the knee-jerk reaction to my last post for most people would be to assume I'm "just another hater", but that would be BS, frankly. What I'm clearly saying is that the devices are highly questionable gaming platforms not simply because I say so, but because of the very conspicuous shortcomings of the controls they natively provide to interact with videogames. If somebody would like to provide a counterpoint on that subject and actually defend virtual d-pads for use in such situations, then I'd love to hear it.

 

I know one could say "well, it's called innovation... tablets and phones will revolutionize gaming as we know it". That's already pretty much happened, I'm afraid. Those poke-here-poke-there orangutan games are all over the place, spreading like wildfire. And if you actually think Cut the Rope and Temple Run are a step in the right direction from games that do it "the old way"--i.e. everything from Robotron 2084, to Super Mario Bros, to even Call of Duty--then I guess you're beyond help.

 

On the other hand, if these devices start allowing the connection of real controllers that work in a plug-and-play fashion with widespread support in games that desperately need them, then it's a whole other ballgame of course. Even better would be cutting the developers loose to design games from the ground up knowing that they will be played with real controllers. You look at the audiovisual capabilities of the iPad (for example), and it's just a shame that the games suck so consistently, because many of them look incredible. It's like an awesome looking car that you can't drive because it has no steering wheel.

[HatefulGravey]

I pretty sure no one here is going to even try to defend those on screen touch pads. Those things are just terrible.

[Rex Dart]

On the other hand, if these devices start allowing the connection of real controllers that work in a plug-and-play fashion with widespread support in games that desperately need them, then it's a whole other ballgame of course. Even better would be cutting the developers loose to design games from the ground up knowing that they will be played with real controllers.

 

That's the thing. As an xperia play owner, the physical controls still don't help much when the game isn't designed to support them.