Handhelds vs. Mobile: Handhelds are superior
In case you missed my last article, I discussed how mobile games were kicking handheld games out of the market. Mobile games are so much more prolific nowadays. Between Sony giving up on the Vita, Microsoft never partaking in a handheld console, and Nintendo fading out of most mainstream news, they're winning the on-the-go gaming market. Which is terrible.
Mobile games aren't as fun; handheld games are more diverse
Candy Crush is painfully simplistic. You tap on a couple of things and go on your way. Deep Dungeons of Doom (Boss Studios), Mobile Strike (Epic War), Clash of Clans (Supercell), and all the other mobile games that are popular right now are still just as simple. They just take quick couple of simple swipes to play.
That's the problem though. Mobile games are too simple. Gameplay gets very repetitive very quickly and you start to get bored. Gameplay is not engaging as a result, either. Tapping a screen every once and a while is not what I consider good gameplay at all.
Handheld games are much more diverse in terms of gameplay. This is not to say that they're not going to get boring or repetitive as well, but it's much less likely. When it comes to handheld gaming, there are four buttons on the right, a D-pad, analog sticks, and usually a menu that allows you to customize a character or buy upgrades or access more information within the storyline. (There's actually a storyline too).
I prefer the challenge of these complications. Partaking in a boss battle and having to dodge, fight back, and heal is much more fun than tapping a couple of things on a screen. Frankly, handheld games just take more skill and that makes them more interesting.
Social Gamers and Mobile Gamers
Think about how mobile gamers or social gamers are often undermined as fake gamers. Why? Because mobile games were never considered real games that took actual skill and thus those who played them were not considered real gamers. I'm not going to argue the semantics of whether social and mobile gamers are real gamers or not, but there is some basis to the claim. Mobile games just don't take as much multitasking skill or hand-eye coordination or good reaction time as do regular games. That's not to say all mobile games are pathetic in terms of skill level, but most of them are and how many people are actually playing the ones that require some skill in comparison to the amount of people that play ones that don't require any skill?
The Diversity of Handhelds
Think about all the types of games that can be put on a handheld game because of the buttons, analog sticks, and D-pad. There can be hack n' slash games. There can be more diverse puzzles. There can be proper shooters.
Mobile games don't have that luxury because there is an extreme limit to what they can do. If it's not able to be tapped on the screen itself, it isn't going to happen; handheld games are allowed to do virtually whatever they want because of their extra buttons.
Mobile games are short. They're either multiplayer based games that basically go on forever because of the infinite number of other people playing, or they end because there's very few levels or the gameplay is all the exact same thing. This makes you quit the game very quickly (does anyone remember Doodle Jump? Doodle Jump is a prime example of extremely repetetive gameplay that makes the game very short).
While not all handheld games are going to be long, it's much easier to find one that is. There's more to do. There's more levels. Even after completing a main story there's a least exploration to be had. Handheld games are made to be full fledged games after all.
For example, Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Skies was a rather long game for the DS. The main story took around 60-80 hours not including extra exploration or any of the DLC content. That's much longer than most mobile games.
Screen Size and Play-ability
Phones are getting bigger, but that doesn't mean the screens are very large. (If you prefer a smaller phone that will actually fit in your pocket like I do, this becomes an even bigger problem).
When playing a game, I like to be able to see what is actually happening. I don't want to have to squint to find that one item or bring the phone right up to my face to be able to see.
Handheld consoles actually take this into account. The screens aren't humongous like a TV, or even a tablet, but they are bigger than that of a phone which makes it much easier to see.
It's also worth noting that because the buttons you need to press are on the side of the screen already present, they don't have to take over the screen as they do on the phone creating even less room for actual gaming. Just look at the Clash of Clans screen pictured left. Imagine how much nicer and less cluttered that would look if on a console. On a DS, all the money, XP, notifications, and character information could be presented on the bottom screen, leaving the top screen free to actually play the game. It would just look prettier and smoother, with less nonsense filling up every corner of the display.
Not everyone has a smartphone
Contrary to popular opinion, many people do not have a smartphone. How are they supposed to play all of the smartphone games that have pushed aside handheld gaming? Spoiler alert: they're not. They're still just sitting on the sidelines, waiting for handheld gaming to come back so they can play on the go.
A lot of kids nowadays have a smartphone, particularly in America, but many still do not, especially the younger ones. Many parents don't feel the need to give their child their expensive phone that they need for work and their personal life so their child can play one simple game.
People who are simpler
Although advertisements convince people they need to buy the latest phone every year, many people do not buy into that agenda; there are plenty of people who still have flip phones and sliding phones that don't have Google Play or the iOS store to play all these super popular mobile games.
Even if some people have a touch screen, it could be an older model that makes running games -- or apps in general -- harder. Processing systems do tend to get slower as time goes on after all.
I don't want to live on my phone
My phone has become my life. I need it for work. I need it for my personal life. I need it to schedule appointments. With all I can do on the internet, and the vast number of apps I can download, I spend a good number of hours on my phone. But I don't want it to completely take over my life.
I would like to put my phone back into my pocket, or purse, or backpack more often than I currently do. If I were focused on gaming on my phone, this would never happen. My life would be completely consumed by a small little screen with way too many scratches on it.
I believe mobile gaming has taken too much control when handheld gaming is the better option. Handheld consoles have bigger screens, the games are more complex. Living on my phone sounds like a terrible way to live, and not everyone has a smartphone, contrary to popular opinion.
So while you don't have to agree with me (you can think handheld gaming is the bane of the video game universe and mobile gaming is life), just think about handheld gaming in comparison to mobile gaming. Should handheld games be dying while mobile gaming takes the reins? Are there no perks to handheld gaming that should allow it survive in the midst of the mobile gaming rise?
Do you disagree with my points as to why handheld gaming is better than mobile gaming or do you have additional points you would like to add? Be sure to let us know in the comments below!