Products can't keep up with demand.
Text/Stream of Light
「xxx？ Slipped away."
"It's 2021, why are you still doing xxx?"
"Standing drawing/modeling, plot feel good, but you xxx or forget it..."
Replace the above xxx with so-and-so play, then similar remarks can be said to be common, especially in 2021, this phenomenon seems to be becoming more obvious. For example, some games in a two-dimensional turn-based game, no matter what details are integrated into the gameplay, during the exposure period, it is always indispensable to the player's doubts, and the volume is not small.
One of the hot reviews of a two-dimensional turn-based new tour under the promotional video of Station B
Of course, for the industry, turn-based is a classic category that has a depth and breadth, and there are countless famous works that have made their own characteristics in history, which is obviously not the category of "bad streets" that players say now. But the impression of this category seems to have stayed on the "old-fashioned", even if it is similar to Mihayou's "Crash: Star Dome Railway", it can not avoid a few similar evaluations.
At first glance, it seems that players are disgusted with certain categories, but in fact, similar remarks do not only appear in turn-based two-dimensional games. For example, earlier this year, under the RPG product of a two-dimensional card cultivation, some players bluntly said, "Don't talk about copying or plagiarism, the biggest problem of the game is that it is not fun."
In the latest review of another placement two-dimensional game this year, some players also admitted that there is "no playability". Behind these ubiquitous phenomena, it seems to reflect a problem: two-dimensional players are more and more demanding on gameplay, and even exceed the expectations of manufacturers.
Actually, how?
The previous mention is only some subjective feelings, so specifically, how big is the difference between the player and the product at the gameplay level? With this question, Grape Jun made a simple statistic on the domestic two-dimensional games that were publicly tested in China this year.
Since TapTap will count the detail tags in the current rating mechanism of each platform, the statistics are based on tapTap's score. At the same time, the domestic two-dimensional games (excluding agents, excluding guofeng, guoman, otome, etc.) that will be launched before the deadline for publication this year are selected, and the total number of comments is less than 1000, and there are obvious suspicions of brushing points. We can get 20 games.
Specifically, there are 9 products with interesting gameplay, which is not much different from the 11 products with poor gameplay. Among the products with interesting gameplay, 4 are the more popular products with more than 10,000 reviews during the year, and the other 5 products are relatively unpopular. In addition, there are two popular products, which are rated as poor play by players.
At first glance, the overall evaluation of the two-dimensional gameplay by players is half and half, and the good products are good and the reputation is normal logic, and the bad reviews of individual products are also within the acceptable range. But in fact, the meanings of "interesting" and "poor" are closer to "acceptable" and "intolerable".
So to be precise, this year's "play qualified" products are close to half, of course, if you consider more unknown niche products, the qualified ratio will be further diluted. In other words, two-dimensional players are still extremely eager to "aspire to the emergence of innovative gameplay products" and show no mercy to mediocre products.
But these superficial phenomena are not the point.
A closer look reveals another phenomenon: there is almost only one product in each play category that can stand. Among them, the two products in the direction of cultivation, specifically one is a classic card cultivation game with partial RPG, and the other is a scene-based composite gameplay cultivation game based on placement, which is very different.
In turn, it can be concluded that the new domestic two-dimensional games basically rely on avoiding the strong categories of head products to obtain player recognition, and the window opportunities brought by "changing tracks" are very limited, and almost only one new product can be accommodated.
Although there are also some products that rely on factors other than gameplay to harvest early market results, but because the most fundamental gameplay can not block the long-term operation, it is easy to fall into the situation of demolishing the east wall to supplement the west wall or pulling seedlings, and then quickly abandoned by players, resulting in a dilemma similar to the following two-dimensional turn-based RPG products:
Putting aside external factors, the direct cause of "too narrow track" has two possibilities, one is that the overall level of research and development is not high and cannot support the market; the other is that the gameplay innovation is not enough, and players have no choice.
The second dimension has been rolled up for so many years, the product standards have been very high, at least as a product launched in 2021, in the basic art, dubbing, world view level, are a bit of a unique skill, then the level of research and development is not high and high. Therefore, the latter cause is more likely to have an impact.
So since we talk about gameplay innovation, this is the unique skill of the traditional game market, after all, since the era of the dota legend, this aspect has been fiercely competitive, comparable to the two-dimensional art inner volume. There are two kinds of innovation in traditional games, one is micro-innovation, such as card 1.0 to card 2.0 in the past; the other is pure innovation, and the Supercell products that everyone chased in the past are representatives.
Here comes the more interesting.
Pure innovation is more like "making something out of nothing", just like the sudden battle royale in FPS games. If pure innovation is understood as "providing players with a concept other than conventional cognition", then providing a new category for the secondary group that is different from the traditional card cultivation, that is, changing tracks, can also be seen as a kind of "out of nothing" innovation.
With this relatively broad concept, not only can it be applied to all the quadratic games recognized by players this year, but it can also explain the successful quadratic products in the market in the past few years. For example, Crash 2, Crash 3, and The Original God, even if they don't look at the quality, they are all products that obviously step on the gap in the secondary market; the blue route steps on the ship Like's innovative gap; the less front steps on the ship Like stylized innovation gap; and then the later Ark moves out of the overlooked tower defense game; the battle double plays the ACT match three...
Moreover, after these products that have seized the opportunity, the products that compete with the track have almost not succeeded, and the most tragic track is the two-dimensional 3D action. It seems that there are only three ways for latecomers, either to change tracks, or to survive under the aura of others, or to lose. Almost no way to live for micro-innovative products.
This is very different from the traditional field.
Take SLG, there are now two kinds of classic SLG mobile game systems, one is THE COK class, and the other is the rate. In particular, COK SLG, successful products in the market are not uncommon, no less than 5 big hits, they can be called "micro-innovative products based on the COK framework".
However, in the field of the second dimension, over the years, it is almost impossible to see products that rely on the success of micro-innovation in gameplay, most of them are borrowed from the traditional field, overseas places, or the mature gameplay in the field of its host, and then get the specific environment of the domestic mobile game market, relying on poor cognition to fight the country. Or just make a new set of things yourself.
This is not the same as the overseas secondary market.
Taking the Japanese market as an example, before being impacted by domestic secondary products, the demands of local players are highly consistent, and they have a special love for collection, and they will not be repulsive because they are everywhere cards, turn-based, and royal RPG. On the contrary, because it is these classic categories, they are more willing to study the different details of the gameplay.
Even after receiving the impact, such products have not completely lost their foothold, especially a series of IP masterpieces, still harvesting the market with sophisticated production + traditional gameplay (of course, the share will be squeezed out of part).
The Neil mobile game at the beginning of the year and the slime rebirth mobile game at the end of the year
Back to the domestic secondary market.
In terms of the products in the previous table, turn-based is a more competitive direction, a total of 4 products have received a certain degree of popularity, but only one of them has been obtained by players
I seem to see a loop.
Players desperately crave innovative products → New products are forced to choose between "doing better" and "changing tracks" → Mainstream tracks are too strong to change tracks → New tracks are quickly occupied and raise the ceiling → Later products were driven to continue to make the same choice → Single track pattern Solidified Competition Entrance narrowed → The same type of largely innovative products became less → Players are more eager for new products.
Regardless of the grasp of the degree of micro-innovation and how to carry the personalized consciousness of two-dimensional players, it seems that at the fundamental market logic level, micro-innovation in two-dimensional games has become a pseudo-proposition.
Some people may say that this year is only a small year of the second dimension, and good products may still be hidden underwater. But at present, the new works of Miha You and Eagle Horn are invariably filling their own vacancies in the turn-based system; Scattered Explosion has made a Roguelike; the new game of paper-folding has even played a stealth game; the overseas White Night Aurora has chosen the Poklon Maze gameplay, and last year's more promising star is to use a 4X-like gameplay. Everyone is grabbing their own "new track".
Therefore, Grape Jun also wants to take this topic to listen to the views of readers on "is there a way out for the micro-innovation of two-dimensional games"?
Game Grape Recruitment Industry Reporter/Content Editor,
Click "Read the original article" for more information
Shanghai Talent Warfare | Guangshen Talent Warfare | original god map design
League of Legends mobile games | from Blizzard to Sky Beauty| Harry Potter art
Crash new game | Dark Dungeon 2| piracy is rampant