Anet's Mobile Game

[Goettel.4389]

I didn't care for GW, so no thanks.

[Jethro.9376]

We had some kind of garrison and that works well paired with an app as WoW has shown.

[Dawdler.8521]

I still say they should have taken the chance to make GW2 Mobile ArcDps Simulator by hiring the guy who made it.

 

It's just a golem that you tap until it die. Like, really really fast. And then you just repeat it on the next golem. With dps top lists online. And skills sometimes popping up that you have to tap before they disappear.

 

You can pay microtransactions that change the golem, such as making it black and white checkerboard textured, or giving it a cape. Also there is lootboxes that give you skill cards to use.

 

What, it's perfect. So dumb, yet so perfect. It would make billions.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > I'm not going to sit here and say that mobile gaming isn't gaming because that's just dumb, full stop. i will say though that mobile gaming as a viable income stream is a dumb idea built around the idea of short term gain. I will also point out that most gaming done on phones is reserved for times when people are looking to pass time in boring situations, like bathroom visits or being stuck at airports, and not when people are looking to enjoy a more robust gaming experience. in short, any game developer that already makes PC games trying to "break into" the mobile gaming market as means of additional revenue is already on the wrong track.

> >

> > And this will continue to be the case if no one ever attempts to make mobile games robust.

> >

> > If say, rather than try to pin why you feel mobile gaming isn't appealing, there are people that aren't armchair pop culture critics doing actual work to push change.

>

> What you call an "armchair pop culture critic" I call someone who is an actual target customer who already has a solid grasp of what mobile gaming is and what it will be...

 

..who is complaining on a forum for a PC online game which seems patently pointless but sure, use whatever lables you want.

 

>Mobile games HAVE to basically be under-powered and free or almost free to play with a super low barrier to entry, simplified mechanics that don't require high precision and incorporates incentives to open your wallet without explicitly showing that it is pay to win.

 

And what of the stronger performing MMOs of the current time? How graphic intensive and precision oriented are they?

 

>Thoseall things that classic gaming/gamers tend to bristle at, yet we are being told that this is the direction game companies have to move, and its ridiculous.

>

 

I'd say it's more that your modern FotM MMORPG with everything being voiced, detailed graphics and cinematics and including as many bells and whistles as desired are becoming a bloated financial black hole. It's not that companies have to move to mobile, it's just the market is pushing them away from AAA.

 

> Due to the platform you simply cannot make a mobile game robust enough to both get big groups willing to drop serious money on them, let alone stay with them. Certainly not in the way current big game companies think they can get into that market. Worse still, they think they can then apply those same money making tactics to their AAA titles.

>

 

FFXI is pretty robust and it's going to be available on mobile. Blade and Soul will have a mobile version. Also, smartphones advance too.

[Vieux P.1238]

hahhaha i dare Anet to make a mobile game. With there history im sure it will be a full success

[Trise.2865]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> I still say they should have taken the chance to make GW2 Mobile ArcDps Simulator by hiring the guy who made it.

>

> It's just a golem that you tap until it die. Like, really really fast. And then you just repeat it on the next golem. With dps top lists online. And skills sometimes popping up that you have to tap before they disappear.

>

> You can pay microtransactions that change the golem, such as making it black and white checkerboard textured, or giving it a cape. Also there is lootboxes that give you skill cards to use.

>

> What, it's perfect. So dumb, yet so perfect. It would make billions.

 

The sad thing is, you're probably right.

[PookieDaWombat.6209]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > I'm not going to sit here and say that mobile gaming isn't gaming because that's just dumb, full stop. i will say though that mobile gaming as a viable income stream is a dumb idea built around the idea of short term gain. I will also point out that most gaming done on phones is reserved for times when people are looking to pass time in boring situations, like bathroom visits or being stuck at airports, and not when people are looking to enjoy a more robust gaming experience. in short, any game developer that already makes PC games trying to "break into" the mobile gaming market as means of additional revenue is already on the wrong track.

> > >

> > > And this will continue to be the case if no one ever attempts to make mobile games robust.

> > >

> > > If say, rather than try to pin why you feel mobile gaming isn't appealing, there are people that aren't armchair pop culture critics doing actual work to push change.

> >

> > What you call an "armchair pop culture critic" I call someone who is an actual target customer who already has a solid grasp of what mobile gaming is and what it will be...

>

> ..who is complaining on a forum for a PC online game which seems patently pointless but sure, use whatever lables you want.

>

> >Mobile games HAVE to basically be under-powered and free or almost free to play with a super low barrier to entry, simplified mechanics that don't require high precision and incorporates incentives to open your wallet without explicitly showing that it is pay to win.

>

> And what of the stronger performing MMOs of the current time? How graphic intensive and precision oriented are they?

>

> >Thoseall things that classic gaming/gamers tend to bristle at, yet we are being told that this is the direction game companies have to move, and its ridiculous.

> >

>

> I'd say it's more that your modern FotM MMORPG with everything being voiced, detailed graphics and cinematics and including as many bells and whistles as desired are becoming a bloated financial black hole. It's not that companies have to move to mobile, it's just the market is pushing them away from AAA.

>

> > Due to the platform you simply cannot make a mobile game robust enough to both get big groups willing to drop serious money on them, let alone stay with them. Certainly not in the way current big game companies think they can get into that market. Worse still, they think they can then apply those same money making tactics to their AAA titles.

> >

>

> FFXI is pretty robust and it's going to be available on mobile. Blade and Soul will have a mobile version. Also, smartphones advance too.

 

Lets do a point by point here:

 

* you were the one who decided to use labels when posing your rebuttal. If you don't feel you can stand by them then perhaps you should refrain from using them in the first place as it doesn't help your argument.

 

* Are you literally asking how precision heavy these modern games are? Have you not played GW2 beyond core level 80 maps? Raids? PvP? Do you honestly think any modern phone can handle the number of inputs necessary to play any of that content?

 

* Companies are not being pushed to mobile. Companies are getting greedy and projecting sales numbers that are unrealistic and try to squeeze sales through monetization of content after the fact which is hurting their bottom line and their reputations all while trying to rush games to market. Game companies saw the kind of "quick money" others made in the mobile space and tried spreading themselves thinner just to get into that space. There is a certain Cyber game coming out soon that looks to be smash that i will gladly pay premium money to play, along with another space based one from the FO:NV folks that looks like it will be great. Both of those are AAA level games that will be worth the money spent on them and if they are smart they won't over project their numbers to investors, which is how it should be.

 

* Smartphones have two key design flaws as far as games are concerned: size and interface. Too small and the type of game that can be developed for it severely diminishes due to screen real estate being a problem. Too big of a screen and you're no long playing on a phone, and most people with tablets are not using them to play on, let alone carting them everywhere, nor are they as ubiquitous as phones. Interface of a touch screen also limits how you can design a game for the platform. This isn't even mentioning battery life, network latency issues, mobile service provider limits on data and/or network reliability. All of those things make phones as a "serious" gaming platform that can overtake or even replace console and PC gaming a non-starter. This of course gets even muddier when you have the likes of the Switch being a thing because then those trying to make mobile games for phones have to contend with them.

[MithranArkanere.8957]

There's already people who has managed to run GW and GW2 on mobile phones. I'd rather have something new that is also useful for GW2 players.

 

I'd like to see a Polymock game that can be played both as a standalone mobile game and in-game, like having it inserted in an in-game browser panel, and that shares minins with the ones you have unlocked.

You could earn minis for desktop playing the mobile game, and play the mobile game with the minis you find in the desktop game.

Minis would need to be improved to follow the player better, tho. Since the way they lag behind makes them rather unremarkable.

 

In lore, the Polymock game would have evolved over the years, and it would no longer be exactly as it was in GW1. It would be expanded to work more like a combination of the original Polymock from GW1, GW1s skill system, GW2's skill system and a trading card game, combining minis that have a fixed skill sets with selected cards you can put in your custom deck.

 

* Players would have to select 3 when entering a Polymock fight, and switch between them freely at the cost of an action turn.

* Polymock would have a panel with subpanels where players can check mini skill sets, and their skill card decks and unlocked related content, and there they'd be able to set up to 12 minis and ready up to 3 decks, and they'd be able to select them quickly at the start of a match.

* Polymock would have the same skillbar as GW2, with 2 sets of 5 skills and the hp orb in the middle.

* Each mini would provide 5 skills when summoned to the fight. They would appear on the right like weapon skills:

* Switching minis would switch these skills to those of the new mini.

* The race and equipment of the mini would determine skills 1, 2 and 3. For example, a tiger could have "Slash", "Bite" and "Maul", and a character with a gun may have something like "Quick shot", "Precise shot", "Unload".

* Category, Profession and Organization would determine skills 4 and 5. For example, an Outlaw may have a 'fight dirty' skill, a Warrior may have a kick skill. Creatures with no profession or organization like animals will be considered to belong to the "wilderness" category.

* Any minis that have self-healing will have that ability in the 5th slot only.

* Minis would also have an special power that would be determined by the rarity of the mini, and some minis may have an unique special skill. Rarer skills will not be more powerful than more common ones, but they may be flashier or have more complex behaviors that are trickier to deal with. The F1 power of each mini would only be usable once per match. The special skill would appear in the GUI over the left side skills, like an F1 skill or a special action skill.

* These skills would be usable through the match for as long as the mini is in play and has health remaining.

* Skill 1 would have no cooldown, but the rest will. Polymock skills would not recharge over time, but over turns, like belcher's bluff skills.

* The 'utility' right side of the skillbar would come from the deck. These would be the skill cards.

* The match starts with 5 empty skill card slots, and they are received once per turn. There won't be skill cards that can draw extra cards.

* The cards are received in a random order. The order in which they are stored in a deck panel is just to make them easier to read.

* Whenever a skill card is used, if there's no other effects that prevent drawing cards or reusing the card again, that skill is removed from the right side, leaving an empty slot.

* The deck goes with the character, not the minis, and remains the same when switching minis. The skills on the deck are used by the player, not the mini, and they will have no limitations in what they can do other than balance and technical ones.

* Skill cards would be able to do all sorts of things, like damaging the enemy mini, summoning allies, healing the other 2 minis waiting on 'the bench' if they were not defeated, sacrificed the current mini to revive a defeated one.... you name it. If it isn't impossible to code, it could be a skill card.

* Skill cards will be the only ones capable of summing adds to the match, and summoned allies will attack after the current mini attacks during the combat phase. No mini skills will summon allies.

* Since there's only 5 right side slots, it won't be possible to have more than 5 skill cards at the same time.

* There would be no particular types of slots, all five would count the same.

* Players acquire skill cards by using consumables that unlock them.These consumables are obtained as tradeable random drops, boss chests rewards from all over the content and BL chests drops, then they can also get account bound skill cards from crafting, renown heart vendors and living world vendors, laurels, daily polymock challenges, dungeon vendors, and from defeating NPCs in the game and the mobile app.

* Matches would be turn based.

* Each turn would have two rounds, one for each player. Each round would have 4 phases.

* The first phase of a player's round is the Draw phase. the leftmost empty skill card slot will be filled with a random skill card from the deck. If all 5 are full, nothing will happen.

* The second phase would be the Attack phase. Players order a mini to attack the enemy mini. The enemy mini would not fight back during this phase.

* The third phase would be the Passive phase. During this phase summoned allies attack enemies and other passive effects happen. Enemy minis will fight back against summoned allies that attack them during this phase. There would be no way to control summoned allies, they would attack on their own during the passive phase. Sit back and watch things happen.

* The fourth phase would be the Card phase. Players can use one of the card skills.

* The second and fourth phases will be timed, if the player does nothing in 30 seconds, they forfeit that phase.

* It would be possible to give up a second or fourth phase on purpose early by using the End Turn button. In the GUI, it'll be in the same spot as the Weapon swap/Drop bundle button. This would be useful, for example, if the enemy mini got retaliation and attacking it would damage too much.

* At the start of a match, the system picks a random player to be the first. The player who goes second starts with an extra skill card instead.

 

I may actually code something like this myself.

[Leo G.4501]

Now that I'm not blind and looking at any kind of lit screen doesn't cause searing pain, I'll get around to responding to some of this.

 

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > > I'm not going to sit here and say that mobile gaming isn't gaming because that's just dumb, full stop. i will say though that mobile gaming as a viable income stream is a dumb idea built around the idea of short term gain. I will also point out that most gaming done on phones is reserved for times when people are looking to pass time in boring situations, like bathroom visits or being stuck at airports, and not when people are looking to enjoy a more robust gaming experience. in short, any game developer that already makes PC games trying to "break into" the mobile gaming market as means of additional revenue is already on the wrong track.

> > > >

> > > > And this will continue to be the case if no one ever attempts to make mobile games robust.

> > > >

> > > > If say, rather than try to pin why you feel mobile gaming isn't appealing, there are people that aren't armchair pop culture critics doing actual work to push change.

> > >

> > > What you call an "armchair pop culture critic" I call someone who is an actual target customer who already has a solid grasp of what mobile gaming is and what it will be...

> >

> > ..who is complaining on a forum for a PC online game which seems patently pointless but sure, use whatever lables you want.

> >

> > >Mobile games HAVE to basically be under-powered and free or almost free to play with a super low barrier to entry, simplified mechanics that don't require high precision and incorporates incentives to open your wallet without explicitly showing that it is pay to win.

> >

> > And what of the stronger performing MMOs of the current time? How graphic intensive and precision oriented are they?

> >

> > >Thoseall things that classic gaming/gamers tend to bristle at, yet we are being told that this is the direction game companies have to move, and its ridiculous.

> > >

> >

> > I'd say it's more that your modern FotM MMORPG with everything being voiced, detailed graphics and cinematics and including as many bells and whistles as desired are becoming a bloated financial black hole. It's not that companies have to move to mobile, it's just the market is pushing them away from AAA.

> >

> > > Due to the platform you simply cannot make a mobile game robust enough to both get big groups willing to drop serious money on them, let alone stay with them. Certainly not in the way current big game companies think they can get into that market. Worse still, they think they can then apply those same money making tactics to their AAA titles.

> > >

> >

> > FFXI is pretty robust and it's going to be available on mobile. Blade and Soul will have a mobile version. Also, smartphones advance too.

>

> Lets do a point by point here:

>

> * you were the one who decided to use labels when posing your rebuttal. If you don't feel you can stand by them then perhaps you should refrain from using them in the first place as it doesn't help your argument.

>

 

I didn't say I can't stand by the labels, I just say if you're going to focus on my labels and then counter with your own, it's all just hyperbole. I'm just willing to admit they're hyperbole and not some ethics-based moral category that supersedes what the market actually reflects. It's called looking at reality.

 

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> * Are you literally asking how precision heavy these modern games are? Have you not played GW2 beyond core level 80 maps? Raids? PvP? Do you honestly think any modern phone can handle the number of inputs necessary to play any of that content?

>

 

I'm talking about games that actually retain their popularity over a long period of time. I mean, you can bag on Runescape all you like but it's actually doing better...

 

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> * Companies are not being pushed to mobile. Companies are getting greedy and projecting sales numbers that are unrealistic and try to squeeze sales through monetization of content after the fact which is hurting their bottom line and their reputations all while trying to rush games to market. Game companies saw the kind of "quick money" others made in the mobile space and tried spreading themselves thinner just to get into that space. There is a certain Cyber game coming out soon that looks to be smash that i will gladly pay premium money to play, along with another space based one from the FO:NV folks that looks like it will be great. Both of those are AAA level games that will be worth the money spent on them and if they are smart they won't over project their numbers to investors, which is how it should be.

>

 

And this is the same death-wails of the standard MMORPG die-hard fan who refuses to look at trends, look at how the industry has changed and take these into consideration when you're talking about a game being marketed as a service. Companies are greedy too, but they're also not stupid. What you see as pure greed, they see as common sense capitalism. When MMORPGs bloat the same as AAA games have, fiasco like SWTOR happen where they spent WAAAAY too much and couldn't make their investment back in a timely manner. They likely could have made MORE money if SOE didn't mess up Star Wars Galaxies back in the day and then in current day, made it accessible on mobile. Not add voiceovers to everything. Not improve graphics to facilitate DX17 and 4k VR support. Not twitch combat super-leet e-sports PvP. Just a big sandbox with lots of freedom and lots of variety.

 

 

> * Smartphones have two key design flaws as far as games are concerned: size and interface. Too small and the type of game that can be developed for it severely diminishes due to screen real estate being a problem. Too big of a screen and you're no long playing on a phone, and most people with tablets are not using them to play on, let alone carting them everywhere, nor are they as ubiquitous as phones. Interface of a touch screen also limits how you can design a game for the platform. This isn't even mentioning battery life, network latency issues, mobile service provider limits on data and/or network reliability. All of those things make phones as a "serious" gaming platform that can overtake or even replace console and PC gaming a non-starter. This of course gets even muddier when you have the likes of the Switch being a thing because then those trying to make mobile games for phones have to contend with them.

 

I disagree but it's not really my prerogative to defend mobile gaming (I'm not even a big mobile gamer myself). I'll just say put your money where your mouth is and go invest in an AAA MMORPG that isn't an arena-type shooter or MOBA that is exclusively not mobile. See where the market takes you. I hope you finally put WoW in the dirt or at the very least get the same success as FFXIV. I don't want standard PC MMOs to fail, but what I want and what is happening in reality don't always line up.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

Afaik, i started with a gameboy, with the size of maybe 100x100 or whatever pixels and I could play for hours. Probably longer than gw2.

 

But i guess phones are too low tech now for all you modern gaming kids.

 

Saying phones arent capable of this and that clearly shows how much you dont understand about gaming.

 

That there are people out there to exploit it, doesnt say anything about the platform at all. That is even the case for PC games.

 

 

[Henry.5713]

Mobile gaming is effortless gaming on a system you most likely already own. Which means it doesn't even require any investment from the players unlike other cases where a title is released on a console or system you might not own. While being a pretty safe investment for the studios who are able to reach a much wider audience.

Thus I certainly do not put it past any studio to start developing mobile games, or even to completely drop any further work on non-mobile titles given how much of a money maker they have become nor would I blame them for doing so. Look at NCSoft's quarterly reports. Sales by their mobile games completely dwarf all other titles combined. The difference is almost hillarious and a pretty good indication on where things are heading right now.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Shylo.1426" said:

 

> Ive tried Runescape, Ragnarok, Conquer Online and even seen PUBG and Fortnite on mobile.

> not to mention the LoL and WoW clones that dont completely charge you an arm and a leg to play.

So, you've tried them but aren't continuing to play them? What could ANet possibly do that these other studios haven't done that would keep you playing?

[Trise.2865]

Let us also remember trying to create a mobile project is what led NCSoft to layoffs in the first place.

[Deimos.4263]

> @"Shylo.1426" said:

> Let's pretend we actually do have mobile phones for a minute...

Ok.

> If Anet did come out and say they are making a mobile game would it be a bad thing

No. I'm sure they could put SAB on a mobile phone. Maybe even Mina's Target Shooting.

[Dovienya.6597]

Personally? I would like to not see this IP that was once (prior to the launch of GW2) known for its limited cash shop, PVP arenas and challenging hard mode end its days as an auto mode game on rails with lots of shiny things to buy.

 

Realistically, I stopped spending money on GW2 long enough ago that I don't care. I'm just rooting for the people who still love it and play it to keep their game running. I hope they do it.

 

 

 

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> If by "perfect" you mean "plausibly adaptable", then yes, it is. Touch controls work nearly as well as mouse-driven, and handheld PC's (let's be honest, they're not really phones) are just as powerful as desktops 14 years ago and use much of the same code structures anymore.

>

True

> But there are three problems. First, network usage. Not everybody has infinite or unlimited network, and ISP's (thanks to idiot government) can and will charge triple or more for phone and mobile service. More universally, for whatever reason, mobile networking hardware is simply inferior and lags behind running anything more complex than videos and simple programs. This could be circumvented by making it a fully single-player experience, but that both defeats the purpose and cuts out half the game.

>

Well, GW1 was mostly Peer to Peer. Most people would play it solo. They can easily make a solo play port. Also you can play it via wifi to avoid mobile charges.

 

> Second: Precision. Touch controls and small screen size are massive handicaps when it comes to precision, and GW1 requires some pretty precise movements and controls, even if you're just Necro-rolling everything. There's a reason the best mobile games are RPGs or single-axis arcade games, and imprecise controls are it.

>

Why would you need precision in a tab select game? You don't need to aim anything...

Also there's people playing FPS in mobile.

 

> Third, and this is a big one, is stigma. Simply put: the great majority of mobile games are trash. Even ports of good games onto mobile end up greatly inferior to previous iterations, for no apparent reason (why, SquareEnix?).

True...

>Now, the same could be (and has been) said of Steam releases, but there's enough established quality in PC games that the glut of tat is outshone in comparison. Not so on mobile. While there would undoubtedly be some renewed interest were it to release in some mobile form, it will just as undoubtedly become a major strike against the brand. Nobody wants that.

Steam releases? You lost me there.

 

I could almost bet that a GW1 port for mobile was one of the projects being worked on that they canceled. I mean last year there were a number of optimizations done to GW1, also NCSoft released a Lineage port not too long ago, and the mobile market is their greatest market, so it would make sense they'd attempt something there.

 

[Trise.2865]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > If by "perfect" you mean "plausibly adaptable", then yes, it is. Touch controls work nearly as well as mouse-driven, and handheld PC's (let's be honest, they're not really phones) are just as powerful as desktops 14 years ago and use much of the same code structures anymore.

> >

> True

> > But there are three problems. First, network usage. Not everybody has infinite or unlimited network, and ISP's (thanks to idiot government) can and will charge triple or more for phone and mobile service. More universally, for whatever reason, mobile networking hardware is simply inferior and lags behind running anything more complex than videos and simple programs. This could be circumvented by making it a fully single-player experience, but that both defeats the purpose and cuts out half the game.

> >

> Well, GW1 was mostly Peer to Peer. Most people would play it solo. They can easily make a solo play port. Also you can play it via wifi to avoid mobile charges.

>

> > Second: Precision. Touch controls and small screen size are massive handicaps when it comes to precision, and GW1 requires some pretty precise movements and controls, even if you're just Necro-rolling everything. There's a reason the best mobile games are RPGs or single-axis arcade games, and imprecise controls are it.

> >

> Why would you need precision in a tab select game? You don't need to aim anything...

> Also there's people playing FPS in mobile.

>

> > Third, and this is a big one, is stigma. Simply put: the great majority of mobile games are trash. Even ports of good games onto mobile end up greatly inferior to previous iterations, for no apparent reason (why, SquareEnix?).

> True...

> >Now, the same could be (and has been) said of Steam releases, but there's enough established quality in PC games that the glut of tat is outshone in comparison. Not so on mobile. While there would undoubtedly be some renewed interest were it to release in some mobile form, it will just as undoubtedly become a major strike against the brand. Nobody wants that.

> Steam releases? You lost me there.

>

> I could almost bet that a GW1 port for mobile was one of the projects being worked on that they canceled. I mean last year there were a number of optimizations done to GW1, also NCSoft released a Lineage port not too long ago, and the mobile market is their greatest market, so it would make sense they'd attempt something there.

>

 

Good for you. Live that dream, buddy.

[ElectricGoat.8253]

No thanks, this is not a good idea. It wont work well on mobile. Mobile is not a good market for anything but the next flappy bird.