You need an internet connection to play Words with Friends
Yeah, the ‘with friends’ implies that. Is it really a valid comparison when Mario Run’s multiplayer is only part of the game?
dasanman69 specifically stated "Whereas mobile gaming devices games have neverhistorically needed a persistent Internet connection to be playable." I'd say that a game that is designed to connect with other players on other devices over the internet is a different category, but he used the absolute term "never" and made no such qualification about types of "mobile gaming devices games."
You need an internet connection to play Words with Friends
Yeah, the ‘with friends’ implies that. Is it really a valid comparison when Mario Run’s multiplayer is only part of the game?
dasanman69 specifically stated "Whereas mobile gaming devices games have neverhistorically needed a persistent Internet connection to be playable." I'd say that a game that is designed to connect with other players on other devices over the internet is a different category, but he used the absolute term "never" and made no such qualification about types of "mobile gaming devices games."
If we're being pedantic, a "mobile gaming device" might be said to be restricted to Gameboy, DS and PSP-type dedicated units, whereas iPhone and their ilk are mobile computers, that do gaming on the side. In which case, he'd be right, Nintendo, Sega and Sony portables have never had persistent cellular connectivity (pretty sure that's true, maybe there's a weird exception).
Not sure these distinctions matter all that much though. This game doesn't seem to have any user features enabled by the connectivity the majority of the time (Toad Trial noted as an exception), so it's a definite difference whatever way you look at it. Do any other games (or apps even) on iOS, or Android, maintain a persistent connection for the purpose of security? It's a new one on me, and potentially an annoying precedent that other games will adopt.
You need an internet connection to play Words with Friends
Yeah, the ‘with friends’ implies that. Is it really a valid comparison when Mario Run’s multiplayer is only part of the game?
dasanman69 specifically stated "Whereas mobile gaming devices games have never historically needed a persistent Internet connection to be playable." I'd say that a game that is designed to connect with other players on other devices over the internet is a different category, but he used the absolute term "never" and made no such qualification about types of "mobile gaming devices games."
If we're being pedantic, a "mobile gaming device" might be said to be restricted to Gameboy, DS and PSP-type dedicated units, whereas iPhone and their ilk are mobile computers, that do gaming on the side.
If that's the distinction then we're not talking about Super Mario Run as it's only for iOS at this point, not a dedicated mobile gaming console.
Different connotations. A mobile device, especially for communications always needed some sort of connectivity, whether cellular, or mobile Internet. Whereas mobile gaming devices games have never historically needed a persistent Internet connection to be playable.
You need an internet connection to play Words with Friends and that's been a hugely popular game for many years now.
An Internet connection is vital to the game play of Words with Friends, but not for a runner. I could understand if it needed to be connected once a day for security purposes, but I believe a persistent connection is too much.
You need an internet connection to play Words with Friends
Yeah, the ‘with friends’ implies that. Is it really a valid comparison when Mario Run’s multiplayer is only part of the game?
dasanman69 specifically stated "Whereas mobile gaming devices games have never historically needed a persistent Internet connection to be playable." I'd say that a game that is designed to connect with other players on other devices over the internet is a different category, but he used the absolute term "never" and made no such qualification about types of "mobile gaming devices games."
If we're being pedantic, a "mobile gaming device" might be said to be restricted to Gameboy, DS and PSP-type dedicated units, whereas iPhone and their ilk are mobile computers, that do gaming on the side.
If that's the distinction then we're not talking about Super Mario Run as it's only for iOS at this point, not a dedicated mobile gaming console.
Huh? No one said it was. I think you've kind of missed the point that historically "true" (not the word I'd've used, but heyho) mobile games on mobile gaming devices do not require connectivity. If Super Mario Run is trying to be part of that lineage of "true" mobile games then limiting the mobility by requiring always-available connectivity is not a good start, because that has never been a requirement previously, and it means that you can't play it anywhere.
Different connotations. A mobile device, especially for communications always needed some sort of connectivity, whether cellular, or mobile Internet. Whereas mobile gaming devices games have never historically needed a persistent Internet connection to be playable.
You need an internet connection to play Words with Friends and that's been a hugely popular game for many years now.
An Internet connection is vital to the game play of Words with Friends, but not for a runner. I could understand if it needed to be connected once a day for security purposes, but I believe a persistent connection is too much.
What's your endgame here? Are you going to sue Nintendo for wanting to protect their IP because you don't think that a game classified as a "runner" should require an internet connection? Why are you right and Nintendo is wrong in wanting to protect themselves?
I honestly don't get the bitching and moaning here. From Tallest claims that it's not a real game to others stating that Nintendo shouldn't be allowed to require it to be connected to the internet I've never heard so much whining about a stupid game. If all know about the game so there will be no "gotcha" when it's finally released. Just don't buy the damn game and move on with your life. It's that fucking easy.
No I most certainly didn't, the distinction was in what dasanman69 was referring to with "mobile gaming device" not with what platform Super Mario Run is on. Referring to the state of historical platforms doesn't mean that you can't apply similar logic to the new breed of platforms, and I have idea why you think that would follow. I think you're just being unnecessarily argumentative now.
For a single player element of a mobile game with no network requirement for gameplay to require a persistent connection is largely, if not completely unprecedented. It is certainly unprecedented for the previous dedicated platforms for mobile games, which did not even contain hardware with cellular connectivity. That's all.
Different connotations. A mobile device, especially for communications always needed some sort of connectivity, whether cellular, or mobile Internet. Whereas mobile gaming devices games have never historically needed a persistent Internet connection to be playable.
You need an internet connection to play Words with Friends and that's been a hugely popular game for many years now.
An Internet connection is vital to the game play of Words with Friends, but not for a runner. I could understand if it needed to be connected once a day for security purposes, but I believe a persistent connection is too much.
What's your endgame here? Are you going to sue Nintendo for wanting to protect their IP because you don't think that a game classified as a "runner" should require an internet connection? Why are you right and Nintendo is wrong in wanting to protect themselves?
I honestly don't get the bitching and moaning here. From Tallest claims that it's not a real game to others stating that Nintendo shouldn't be allowed to require it to be connected to the internet I've never heard so much whining about a stupid game. If all know about the game so there will be no "gotcha" when it's finally released. Just don't buy the damn game and move on with your life. It's that fucking easy.
I don't think you're grokking the purpose of internet forums
Different connotations. A mobile device, especially for communications always needed some sort of connectivity, whether cellular, or mobile Internet. Whereas mobile gaming devices games have never historically needed a persistent Internet connection to be playable.
You need an internet connection to play Words with Friends and that's been a hugely popular game for many years now.
An Internet connection is vital to the game play of Words with Friends, but not for a runner. I could understand if it needed to be connected once a day for security purposes, but I believe a persistent connection is too much.
What's your endgame here? Are you going to sue Nintendo for wanting to protect their IP because you don't think that a game classified as a "runner" should require an internet connection? Why are you right and Nintendo is wrong in wanting to protect themselves?
I honestly don't get the bitching and moaning here. From Tallest claims that it's not a real game to others stating that Nintendo shouldn't be allowed to require it to be connected to the internet I've never heard so much whining about a stupid game. If all know about the game so there will be no "gotcha" when it's finally released. Just don't buy the damn game and move on with your life. It's that fucking easy.
My end game is the same as everyone else here, voicing my opinion on the matter. I'm actually tired of the runner games. I think it's lazy. A company like Nintendo should be able to put out a game with more substance than a simple running game.
When the Xbox One was first announced it was said that it would require a constant Internet connection, so many people complained that MS did an about face on that requirement. Sometimes complaining works.
Different connotations. A mobile device, especially for communications always needed some sort of connectivity, whether cellular, or mobile Internet. Whereas mobile gaming devices games have never historically needed a persistent Internet connection to be playable.
You need an internet connection to play Words with Friends and that's been a hugely popular game for many years now.
An Internet connection is vital to the game play of Words with Friends, but not for a runner. I could understand if it needed to be connected once a day for security purposes, but I believe a persistent connection is too much.
What's your endgame here? Are you going to sue Nintendo for wanting to protect their IP because you don't think that a game classified as a "runner" should require an internet connection? Why are you right and Nintendo is wrong in wanting to protect themselves?
I honestly don't get the bitching and moaning here. From Tallest claims that it's not a real game to others stating that Nintendo shouldn't be allowed to require it to be connected to the internet I've never heard so much whining about a stupid game. If all know about the game so there will be no "gotcha" when it's finally released. Just don't buy the damn game and move on with your life. It's that fucking easy.
My end game is the same as everyone else here, voicing my opinion on the matter. I'm actually tired of the runner games. I think it's lazy. A company like Nintendo should be able to put out a game with more substance than a simple running game.
When the Xbox One was first announced it was said that it would require a constant Internet connection, so many people complained that MS did an about face on that requirement. Sometimes complaining works.
Have you ever played Super Mario Bros.? All you do is run, the main difference is that because of the touchscreen as the primary control they made the running on by default but it sure seems like you're still doing all the other stuff that I remember from playing a Super Mario Bros. game. How the hell could wanting a D-pad on screen so you can control the running direction that an important of a need that you would pooh-pooh this game because it's an auto-runner? That just seems crazy to me. What I see is Nintendo doing exactly what Apple does by looking at the UI and then building the best experience around it.
Not sure what is the biggest bummer in all of this.
1) Not getting Super Mario Run because I cannot support their line of thinking.
2) That the new hope I had for Nintendo actually coming around to what made sense is now not actually happening. They are still lost.
If they add an off-line mode, I will consider buying it. While I would love to play some good Nintendo titles on my iOS devices, I'm not the desperate one in this scenario. Have not had a new Nintendo game for over a decade. I can wait another 10 years if that is what it takes.
Different connotations. A mobile device, especially for communications always needed some sort of connectivity, whether cellular, or mobile Internet. Whereas mobile gaming devices games have never historically needed a persistent Internet connection to be playable.
You need an internet connection to play Words with Friends and that's been a hugely popular game for many years now.
An Internet connection is vital to the game play of Words with Friends, but not for a runner. I could understand if it needed to be connected once a day for security purposes, but I believe a persistent connection is too much.
What's your endgame here? Are you going to sue Nintendo for wanting to protect their IP because you don't think that a game classified as a "runner" should require an internet connection? Why are you right and Nintendo is wrong in wanting to protect themselves?
I honestly don't get the bitching and moaning here. From Tallest claims that it's not a real game to others stating that Nintendo shouldn't be allowed to require it to be connected to the internet I've never heard so much whining about a stupid game. If all know about the game so there will be no "gotcha" when it's finally released. Just don't buy the damn game and move on with your life. It's that fucking easy.
My end game is the same as everyone else here, voicing my opinion on the matter. I'm actually tired of the runner games. I think it's lazy. A company like Nintendo should be able to put out a game with more substance than a simple running game.
When the Xbox One was first announced it was said that it would require a constant Internet connection, so many people complained that MS did an about face on that requirement. Sometimes complaining works.
Have you ever played Super Mario Bros.? All you do is run, the main difference is that because of the touchscreen as the primary control they made the running on by default but it sure seems like you're still doing all the other stuff that I remember from playing a Super Mario Bros. game. How the hell could wanting a D-pad on screen so you can control the running direction that an important of a need that you would pooh-pooh this game because it's an auto-runner? That just seems crazy to me. What I see is Nintendo doing exactly what Apple does by looking at the UI and then building the best experience around it.
Yes I've played Super Mario Bros., and the D-Pad did more than control the direction, it initiated the running. Super Mario Run is essentially Rayman with Mario as the character. The uninnovative game play, the price, and the need for a persistent internet connection is enough that I won't even consider buying this game.
Yes I've played Super Mario Bros., and the D-Pad did more than control the direction, it initiated the running. Super Mario Run is essentially Rayman with Mario as the character. The uninnovative game play, the price, and the need for a persistent internet connection is enough that I won't even consider buying this game.
You honestly don't see how having an on-screen D-pad overlaying the game to initiate running on an iPhone makes for a poorer experience?
Yes I've played Super Mario Bros., and the D-Pad did more than control the direction, it initiated the running. Super Mario Run is essentially Rayman with Mario as the character. The uninnovative game play, the price, and the need for a persistent internet connection is enough that I won't even consider buying this game.
You honestly don't see how having an on-screen D-pad overlaying the game to initiate running on an iPhone makes for a poorer experience?
I definitely see that, however it is quite amusing that 20 year old game play is the best way to go with state of the art technology in 2016/2017.
Yes I've played Super Mario Bros., and the D-Pad did more than control the direction, it initiated the running. Super Mario Run is essentially Rayman with Mario as the character. The uninnovative game play, the price, and the need for a persistent internet connection is enough that I won't even consider buying this game.
You honestly don't see how having an on-screen D-pad overlaying the game to initiate running on an iPhone makes for a poorer experience?
I definitely see that, however it is quite amusing that 20 year old game play is the best way to go with state of the art technology in 2016/2017.
1) According to your own comments, it's not "20 year old game play" because this Mario will run without user input.
2) Just because the wheel was invented 6000 years ago, doesn't mean Elon Musk is against using it in a Tesla.
Yes I've played Super Mario Bros., and the D-Pad did more than control the direction, it initiated the running. Super Mario Run is essentially Rayman with Mario as the character. The uninnovative game play, the price, and the need for a persistent internet connection is enough that I won't even consider buying this game.
You honestly don't see how having an on-screen D-pad overlaying the game to initiate running on an iPhone makes for a poorer experience?
I definitely see that, however it is quite amusing that 20 year old game play is the best way to go with state of the art technology in 2016/2017.
1) According to your own comments, it's not "20 year old game play" because this Mario will run without user input.
2) Just because the wheel was invented 6000 years ago, doesn't mean Elon Musk is against using it in a Tesla.
1.Like I said the game play is very much like Rayman which was first introduced in 1995.
2. The wheel comes from a timeless design created by nature. It is an unfair comparison.
I think they included the copy protection on this game to emphasize it is a RUNNER game. For truly, after that 20 hour flight, you'll be running to find an Internet connection so the $10 you paid actually has meaning.
Comments
Not sure these distinctions matter all that much though. This game doesn't seem to have any user features enabled by the connectivity the majority of the time (Toad Trial noted as an exception), so it's a definite difference whatever way you look at it. Do any other games (or apps even) on iOS, or Android, maintain a persistent connection for the purpose of security? It's a new one on me, and potentially an annoying precedent that other games will adopt.
Not sure why this is even a sticking point.
What's your endgame here? Are you going to sue Nintendo for wanting to protect their IP because you don't think that a game classified as a "runner" should require an internet connection? Why are you right and Nintendo is wrong in wanting to protect themselves?
I honestly don't get the bitching and moaning here. From Tallest claims that it's not a real game to others stating that Nintendo shouldn't be allowed to require it to be connected to the internet I've never heard so much whining about a stupid game. If all know about the game so there will be no "gotcha" when it's finally released. Just don't buy the damn game and move on with your life. It's that fucking easy.
For a single player element of a mobile game with no network requirement for gameplay to require a persistent connection is largely, if not completely unprecedented. It is certainly unprecedented for the previous dedicated platforms for mobile games, which did not even contain hardware with cellular connectivity. That's all.
When the Xbox One was first announced it was said that it would require a constant Internet connection, so many people complained that MS did an about face on that requirement. Sometimes complaining works.
1) Not getting Super Mario Run because I cannot support their line of thinking.
2) That the new hope I had for Nintendo actually coming around to what made sense is now not actually happening. They are still lost.
If they add an off-line mode, I will consider buying it. While I would love to play some good Nintendo titles on my iOS devices, I'm not the desperate one in this scenario. Have not had a new Nintendo game for over a decade. I can wait another 10 years if that is what it takes.
2) Just because the wheel was invented 6000 years ago, doesn't mean Elon Musk is against using it in a Tesla.
2. The wheel comes from a timeless design created by nature. It is an unfair comparison.