View Full Version : Some Fresh Thoughts on Casual
Miktar
17-12-2009, 07:07 PM
http://thegameprodigy.com/why-casual-doesnt-mean-easy/
BlackShipsFillt
17-12-2009, 10:05 PM
Good advice there.
I'm not sure if he accurately characterizes casual games though. I would have described a bullet-hell game as casual. Those games require skill, but don't require investment. Whereas Oblivion doesn't require a lot of skill but does take enormous investment.
It is true that a casual game cannot have a steep learning curve... however we're seeing that more an more in hardcore games too... Crashing cars in GTA is definitely casual.
I guess my definition is different to his. I would argue that casual gameplay is defined by the ratio between the complexity of the input and the complexity of the result. A game like Halo, Oblivion or Warcraft is hardcore because the resulting complexity of the game is as complex, if not less complex, than the player's input. Whereas in the Sims, Majesty or Peggle the complexity of the game can be much greater than that of the input.
By this definition I'd put a bullet-Hell game, like Geometry wars, into the casual games section... They are played by hardcore players, because they are very difficult, but the input is simple and the resulting chaos of the game is quite complex (eg shooting enemies often fires off projectiles which kill more enemies and those projectiles fire at you from multiple angles and you have to analyse the patterns and dodge them all... but all you've pressed is up and moved your mouse)... So they are casual games for a hardcore/casual audience, hardcore players that don't have the time for World of Warcraft and rather want a casual experience.
Crimsonland works a lot like bullet-hell games but I'd definitely class it as casual. Though I do think bullet-hell games are closer to hardcore than Crimsonland, I don't think they belong with Halo and Warcraft. I think it is possible to design a casual game that hardcore players enjoy, like Spelunky.
The Sims is a much better example of a casual game though. Most of the player's time is spent watching. So there is very little input but quite a complex result. Same with Peggle. /same with Simcity (even though simcity can be tricky). However in Halo or in Warcraft the player is constantly giving input.
There are also other factors at play. I imagine one could also draw up an investment vs instant gratification distinction. That would relate nicely to the skill requirement distinction the article mentions.
I think the article does offer some great guidelines for casual game design. thegameprodigy.com has some incredibly useful information. But I don't think the theory is particularly rigorous (and weirdly I care about this sort of thing).
AndrewJ
18-12-2009, 11:02 AM
You might also find this series of posts (http://insultswordfighting.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-taxonomy-of-gamers-table-of.html) an interesting companion piece.
Nandrew
18-12-2009, 04:05 PM
I think the article does offer some great guidelines for casual game design. thegameprodigy.com has some incredibly useful information. But I don't think the theory is particularly rigorous (and weirdly I care about this sort of thing).
I always appreciate a certain level of theory in articles, but at the same time I'd be tempted to go with the idea that game development is still a comparatively young (and subjective) discipline, so some things are going to remain rather nebulous in that department. We don't have an established peer-review community analysing and publishing game development papers on the same scale as regular ol' science just yet. ;)
That, and I think your idea about casual games holds just as much merit as the one on GameProdigy. To be honest, when it comes to casual games, I don't think we need to be looking for a hard and fast definition -- there just needs to be some focus on dispelling myths, which is what the first section of that article did rather nicely. That's where my appreciation for the piece lies.
BlackShipsFillt
19-12-2009, 12:18 AM
Yeah... I still prefer my definition though, both hold true in about as many situations, but I think mine offers degrees of casualness rather than a binary distinction... Though I imagine a professional game theory academic wouldn't have given me as an agreeable response as you have Nandrew :)
I've been pondering about casualness and complexity in games for a while. I don't mean complexity as in tricky or difficult. I mean complexity as in not being reducible to a relatively simple description or algorithm. Complexity as in the way an image file may be more complex, and therefore have a larger filesize, than a text document even though the text document takes up more space on the screen. This sort of complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_information_theory). I think there's something to be learnt about casual games there too. (Though I don't think I should be teaching it)
I've got a buddy who is designing a game that I think could fall out of the casual market for precisely the reasons the article mentions... ie. trying to add too many mechanics. It's a very easy mistake to make. Once again, good article.
Those Insult Swordfighting articles look great... I'll give them a read once I can concentrate again.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.