After spending some time with Marvel’s Puzzle Quest, it is yet another example of a developer who thinks that the best use of microtransactions is forcing the player into spending money. When it comes to F2P design, the ultimate goal is to convert free users into paying customers, but the ways to do it without angering your consumer base are not easy.
In the past I’ve spoken about how great crowd-funding and early access are to the changing landscape of game development and developer freedom. But for today, I feel like playing Devil’s advocate on the topic and why I’m sitting here with three games I’m incredibly excited to play… but I can’t.
Over the last decade, we saw two fundamental shifts in how the Game Industry operates: First was the rise of digital distribution and second was the industry becoming mainstream and accessible. Game design and controls became streamlined and it became easier to learn new games thanks to tutorials and such.
But this was also the time of many gamers citing that the Game Industry was being “dumb down” in the pursuit of money as opposed to creating unique games. And today’s debate if it’s better to create a profitable game or a long lasting game.
It’s time to stir up the hornet’s nest yet again. As the debate continues over sexualized female character designs, there is one criticism and one defense used by both sides: One dimensional characters.
Every critic of poor female character design focus on how women in games are barely defined characters meant to be rescued or ogled over. And the defenders focus on the fact that because the men are just as poorly written, that things are fine. For today’s post, I’m going to tread the line and explain why in my opinion this is a flimsy defense for both sides.