Define "casual game"... okay... sure...

[Arbre]

Last day, I was on the phone with a friend (not an easy thing to do) and we just ended wondering what really made a casual game.

So I tried to come with a couple of rules, knowing that in the end, it's about an ensemble of rules, which can't be dissiociated from each other.

• 
  
  1. Any idiot should be able to understand the controls, even if there are more than 3 buttons (the DDR carpet is what? 9 buttons to smash with your feet, right?). Instant fun is the key.
  
  2. You can play 5, 10 or 30 minutes of it, it wouldn't make a difference, and you don't need to devote significant pans of your life to the game.
  
  3. It must be available to as many audiences as possible, in terms of age rating. If not, it has to be balanced by being utterly and easily available to the audiences you target.
  
  4. It's supposed to sell a lot, even if it's cheap. Well, it should be cheap, actually. But there seems to be exceptions on that one.
  
  5. If it's smaller (software size) than the other games from its generation, generally, there are chances that it will also factor in.
  

We've been asking ourselves just how casual a game like Guitar Hero was. I mentionned that point after looking at the BAFTA awards and seeing it nominated in casual games.
For example, the controller - the guitar - can range from $40 to more than $60. Plus the game. Guitar Hero II is found between $40 and $50 for the PS2.
And in the end, just how many people play it? Or even buy it?

If you don't reply, catgirls will start to die. Soon. So this thread is of the utmost importance, capice?

 

[Geoffrey42]

We've been asking ourselves just how casual a game like Guitar Hero was. I mentionned that point after looking at the BAFTA awards and seeing it nominated in casual games.
For example, the controller - the guitar - can range from $40 to more than $60. Plus the game. Guitar Hero II is found between $40 and $50 for the PS2.
And in the end, just how many people play it? Or even buy it?

If you don't reply, catgirls will start to die. Soon. So this thread is of the utmost importance, capice?

Really, is the game Casual, or is the player Casual? I might say that Puzzle Pirates is a casual game, but there are hardcore Puzzle Pirates players. Same for Solitaire, or any "casual" game. So maybe the distinction shouldn't be at the game level, but at the player level. And then you can classify games which appeal to casual gamers, or to hardcore gamers, or to both (like Guitar Hero), without pigeon-holing the game to a single demographic.

 

[krysalist]

"Casual game" is an insider's term. As game developers, or self-avowed players who keep an eye on the industry, we love to term ourselves "hardcore" or whatever, while "casual" gamers would never really self-identify as gamers -- they believe they're just killing time.

 

[Joe]

Let's not forget the hardcore casual [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_23/147-Hardcore-Casual] delineation.

That's right. I'm linking myself. I can because BANSTICK

 

[Geoffrey42]

That's right. I'm linking myself. I can because BANSTICK

That is, literally, one of the most compelling arguments I have ever seen. No, really. Though I think I've seen it <a href=http://bash.org/?99060>before...

 

[Meophist]

If it sells more than X number of copies, it's casual. X being any number you feel like.

 

[Mr. Bubbles]

There are no casual games, only casual players. Even games like Bejeweled aren't casual, because you can put as much time and effort into it as any other game if you really want to. It's all in the player.

 

[Bongo Bill]

I would say that the biggest difference between a "casual" and a "hardcore" game is that, in a casual game, the player can learn for himself how to play effectively, while still actually playing; whereas in a hardcore game, if the player does not already know how to play, the game must teach him.

At some level, all games require instruction, even if only to explain what the buttons do. This metric refers mainly to higher skills - not the mechanical act of interfacing with the game, but what the player does through that interface. Somebody - I want to say N'Gai Croal - suggested that we play games with our hands. If the interface of a game is a language, then the skills that a game requires are what the players say in that language.

Too complex an interface can prevent a game from being casual, but not only can a logically designed interface be complex without being intimidating - consider, for example, a saxophone - but a simple interface does not immediately prevent a game from being for experienced players only.

A player must learn on his own how to excel at Ikaruga, but he can't gain this skill while simultaneously succeeding at playing the game - on the other hand, a game like Geometry Wars provides players with opportunities for developing a concept of the game's strategies. Any idiot can win an encounter in Final Fantasy X, but show me the person who understands the Sphere Grid without viewing the tutorial; on the other hand, a game like Pokemon allows the player to discover the interactions between the elements on his own.

 

[Geoffrey42]

Bill, it seems more like you're describing the difference between intuitive interfaces, and un-intuitive interfaces. Complexity and intuition are not mutually exclusive, but often end up being so in implementation.

I like the analogy of language. But I still don't see the point in calling one game "casual" versus "hardcore". Easy versus hard, maybe? Gentle versus harsh learning curve? But why would a game be casual?

What if we applied this analogy to other mediums? Casual movies, versus hardcore movies? Casual books, and hardcore books? Or would it be more apt to describe people as casual readers, or hardcore readers, and so on. What is casual music? Hardcore music? I think at that point, you're making a value judgment (this is a "good" game, and therefore a "hardcore" game... That game over there is easy, and stupid, and "casual", and thus, below me.)

And, I decided to start my musical career on a trumpet because the saxophone interface scared me away. It is complex, and intimidating to me. Although, I think your whole sentence with the saxophone seemed a little disjointed. "... a simple interface does not immediately prevent a game from being for experienced players only." Who would say otherwise to that? Maybe you meant "inexperienced"? Or I'm just missing something.

 

[Alex Karls]

Right now, the most useful description I can think of is in terms of audience. And that's also a problem, as by saying that I mean that hardcore games are made for gamers, whereas casual games are made for anyone.

 

[Bongo Bill]

What I meant was, a simple interface does not a casual game make, nor vice versa. A casual game is most often one which can be learned by playing it, relying on only a handful of common universal skills (typing, for example), whereas a hardcode game frequently must be taught, either by a tutorial, by the manual, or by experience playing similar games. I don't just mean learning how to play the game, but attaining some level of mastery. Not expertise - just understanding what it means to play the game.

I didn't mean to make a value judgment. "Casual" and "Hardcore" are consequential attributes of design - one is characterized by a broad or even universal appeal, whereas the other is characterized by appeal primarily to those familiar with similar games. Much hubbub has been made about describing the differences between these two types of game, but I don't think there has been any satisfactory work toward defining them.

I'm not entirely certain that a parallel can be drawn to other media, since the distinction between "casual" and "hardcore" seems to deal with barriers of entry. Certainly there are books which are more sophisticated than others - as an example, compare a Tom Clancy novel with a Phillip K. Dick novel - but that's not an accurate comparison, since an abstruse game is not necessarily an intelligent game.

A more apt parallel might be drawn with music. Witness the contrast between very accessible music, from disposable pop to jazz standards and classical masterpieces, and the sort of avant-garde experimental music that is written by music theorists and apparently for music theorists. The former type of song can be enjoyed by everyone, whereas the latter type requires some musical background in order to determine that there is more to the song than dissonant noise.

There's a very low commitment involved in the more populist kind of music - any given phrase in it is recognizable and enjoyable for anyone who can follow a rhythm and distinguish pitch, and you can cut out thirty seconds of it and make a ringtone without feeling like you've been cheated (at least not by the song - the phone company certainly did rip you off). The more academic music, on the other hand, has a very high commitment - typically it is difficult to listen to, because it is a definite challenge (with definite rewards!) to uncover the structure of the music, and typically you will not be able to appreciate any given thirty seconds of the song without considering it in the context of the rest of it.

Which is better? Well, if you don't have a musical background, then the more accessible kind is certainly better. If you do have such a background, however, nothing's stopping you from enjoying Dave Brubeck - it just means that you can also appreciate Ornette Coleman.

 

[Geoffrey42]

I do see what you're saying, but I guess my personal connotations of casual and hardcore make it difficult for me to think of the media in that way. I think there is media which appeals to a certain part of the population, but I see it more as a spectrum, than as an upward slope of barrier to entry.

 

[OrenA]

A game where you have to reply to a forum thread to keep catgirls from dieing sounds like a pretty good casul game.

 

[Arbre]

A game where you have to reply to a forum thread to keep catgirls from dieing sounds like a pretty good casul game.

No, because you have to harness a controller that has more than a hundred buttons and there's plenty of combinations and secret moves.

 

[OrenA]

No seriously, the right side of the screen would have an appropriately clad (read: Not much) cat girl tied to a table with some sort of death device descending on her (I'm a fan of the guillotine but we can mix it up a bit), and the on the left side of the screen would appear forum pages which the player would have to click on and spell out some simple response like "OMG LOL" or "STFU NOOB," with said forum pages appearing at a faster and faster rate as you replied to more of them and then if you leave one unresponded to for too long it disappears and the horrible death instrument gets closer to the poor cat girl.

Along the way you could collect power ups like "Forum Bot" that would let you reply to more than one forum at once, and once you close a certain number you beat the level and the cat girl is freed (she probably does a little dance or something)

Rinse and repeat about 50 times or so with a different cat girl and steadily increasing difficulty level and you have a sure fire recipe for success.

Huh, huh? You listening Pop Cap? Want to spend some of your large sacks of money on me? Eh?

 

[Geoffrey42]

@OrenA: I see the game you're describing as more like something that Introversion would make, versus PopCap. It sounds like Uplink, with a twist.

But, while I am a big fan of the guillotine, a slowly moving one would be absolutely horrible. Depending on the speed, it would eventually decapitate the poor catgirl, but it would suffocate her, probably paralyze her before she actually died, and THEN she would die, of some combination of organ failure from paralysis and asphyxia.

HA! I just thought of a good setup. Schrödinger's Catgirl. I think you could also do something fun with a catgirl and a Pit and the Pendulum idea. Imagine the easter eggs...

 

[gromper [deprecated]]

imo, the term casual is a reference to the time commitment required to play it. when i log in to WoW for a raid, I am stuck playing for 2-3 hours min. When i play a casual game, I get as much enjoyment out of 5min of playing or 3 hours of playing. hence the reason these games appeal to people who have a RL.

 

[LisaB1138]

I'm not sure that one can define a hardcore game or casual game, only the gamer. I've spent many happy hours button mashing my way through "hardcore" action titles like Devil May Cry and God of War, but I would never dream of spending the countless hours required to master "jump canceling" in DMC or Titan mode in GoW. It doesn't bother me at all that my Tomb Raider Anniversary profile is less than 100% or that I haven't gotten every ending possible in my Silent Hill games.

A hardcore gamer is someone whose skill at the game or achievements in the game *matter*. His/her self-esteem is affected by them, so hardcore gamers spend more time and more energy "working' at the game. Hardcore gamers always frequent the internet or Xbox live et al., because sharing/bragging about their accomplishments is an important part of being a hardcore gamer. Hardcore gamers cannot be the last person to own or beat a game. There is a sense of urgency about the hardcore gamer that more balanced--*cough* I mean more *casual* gamers don't have.

I think it's possible to make any game "hardcore" by one's attitude to it. Trust me, I'm a mom who's seen my kid spend I-don't-want-to-know how many hours on games like Pokemon "catching them all."

Even games that are easy to learn like chess or golf become "hardcore" depending on how good one wants to be at it.

 

[Katana314]

I think you might be overstating it a bit. A lot of people, like me, would call themselves closer to "hardcore" simply because they're good at games and upgrade their computer a lot; but still don't scrutinize their rankings with a magnifier.

 

[LisaB1138]

It's not a question of scrutiny, it's a question of whether or not it *matters*. If it *matters* that you find every stray bead in Okami, I would say you're hardcore. If it *matters* whether you get 100% scenario in Onimusha 2 (which requires a minimum of four playthroughs if you do it exactly right), you're hardcore. It's not whether or not it's fun or whether or not you want to do it; it's whether or not it *matters*.

I mean, game achievements are really quite arbitrary things set up by game designers. Collect so many of these things, do this many of that thing, do it this quickly. I think casual gamers are capable of leaving such arbitrary measures alone. They play to have fun. *If* they master the achievements, they're happy, but I don't think it matters to the casual gamers if or when they meet these achievements.

I think there's a difference between hardcore and serious gamer. Serious gamers understand and enjoy games; they can appreciate techinical distinctions or combat systems, but I don't think their ego is involved--at least not to the extent of a hardcore gamer. It goes beyond personal satisfaction with the hardcore gamer.