In mobile app stores, a large number of new games appear every day. However, quite a few of them have very obvious traces of imitation or suspicion of creative pastiche.
Repetition and dependence on game creativity
Many new games are not born from unique ideas, but directly borrow or even copy the core settings of mature works. For example, some action games consciously imitate the visual style and combat mode of the "God of War" series, using similar perspectives and special effects. Although this approach reduces development difficulties, it also causes players to feel aesthetic fatigue and find it difficult to obtain fresh game experiences.
Quickly adapting popular animation or film and television IPs into games is another common strategy. For example, a cartoon aimed at younger audiences is packaged into a brand new action-adventure game by adding "Metroid"-style map exploration and "Castlevania"-style weapon systems. This "material splicing" model often ignores the refinement of the game's own logic.
Homogenization brought about by lowering technical thresholds
With the widespread popularity of mature development tools such as Unreal Engine, the technical threshold for making a 3D game with decent graphics has dropped significantly. This has led some teams to rely too much on the ready-made features of the engine, but not investing enough in the core gameplay and level design. The end result is that there are a large number of games on the market that "look good" but play hollow and boring.
Some games used for leisure and entertainment also fall into the dilemma of similar gameplay. For example, many games used for party occasions claim to contain dozens of small games. However, many of them are just simple transformations of classic concepts such as clicking based on rhythm and quick reactions. The so-called "innovation" may just change the background music and the image of the character in a gameplay such as nailing.
Marketing rhetoric conceals the essence of the game
When launching promotional campaigns, developers frequently use exaggerated or vague terms to attract attention. For example, for a simple shooting game, it is described as "an effective tool for venting anger", and it is also forcibly related to "Angry Birds". This kind of marketing rhetoric is intended to use emotional labels to cover up the lack of depth in the gameplay.
Another strategy is to frequently use the title of "sequel", whether it is a match-3 game whose gameplay is completely different from before, or a puzzle game whose scene is switched from space to the age of dinosaurs. As long as it has the aura of a well-known predecessor, it can gain a certain initial attention. However, this often disappoints old players who are looking forward to an original experience.
Content water injection problem in mini-game collection
The "game collection" mode is very popular among small developers, but the quality of the content there varies. There is a collection that contains four or five mini-games, but perhaps only one or two are playable, and the rest are all used to fill the game. The so-called "small production but great sincerity" is sometimes more like an excuse for the lack of content.
The mini-games in this collection, such as memorizing animals and simple calculations, often originated from arcades or children’s educational software decades ago. Without the addition of clever mechanical iterations and modern interaction design, it would be extremely difficult for them to provide long-lasting fun for today's adult gamers.
One-sided emphasis on player choice
Such slogans, such as "You can challenge yourself or have fun," sound very considerate, but in fact, they may reflect the failure of the game's difficulty curve design. Sometimes the reason for leaving the level selection completely to the player is that the game itself cannot provide a naturally progressive and appropriately guided experience. A truly excellent design should be able to attract both core players and casual players.
Similarly, focusing on supporting party situations such as "multiple people on the same screen" is very likely to obscure the game's shortcomings in single-player experience or online matching functions. The success of party-type games is closely dependent on the social scene. Once it is removed from a specific environmental situation, the game itself is likely to quickly lose its appeal.
The breakout dilemma of independent game teams
In the case of small developers such as Korean indie teams, working with large publishers is a key way to make their works stand out. However, such cooperation occasionally causes developers to abandon some more experimental ideas in order to fit the market, and then create more stable game types that have proven successful like "Fruit Ninja".
This has led to a contradictory situation. Independent games should originally be the source of creativity, but the pressure they face to survive makes them tend to be conservative. As a result, what can be seen in the market may just be another follow-up to an extremely well-made match-3 game that lacks soul, rather than the kind of original work that can make people feel refreshed and refreshed.
In your opinion, what is most lacking in the current mobile game market is disruptive new gameplay, or more extreme polishing and optimization of classic genres? Welcome to share your views in the comment area.
