[casual_games] [design]Geometry Wars

[Robert Headley]

I dont think the core definition of Casual games, is that they are easy. It
can mean several things tho,

Casual commitment - you don't have to play for a long time to derive
enjoyment from the game
Casual gameplay mechanics - anyone can pick the game up and play it with
little knowledge of the game
Casual Investment - ties in with commitment. The game generally does not
cost much so is a good impulse buy.

I think that Geometry wars falls in with these nicely.

On 12/6/06, Adam Martin <adam.m.s.martin at googlemail.com> wrote:

>

> I'm sorry for being late to the party, but its only in the last few

> months that I've simultaneously had the 360 at home, a live account,

> and the spare time to play GW Evolved...

>

> I love the game, and as the cheerleader for XBLA for a long time it's

> become widely associated with Casual Games.

>

> But, after a few weeks and with Pacificism and the

> 250k-points-without-dieing achievements done, I found the game

> extremely time consuming and found myself having to overcome an

> inertia when it comes to starting to play.

>

> After a week, I realised why: the game starts with one minute where

> *nothing happens*. It is then followed by a further 30 secs to a

> minute where you have a uniquely useless weapon and you can't play the

> game properly. (for the next N hours of gameplay you always have one

> of two weapons which enforce very different game play strategy to the

> original one.

>

> Yet, if you die in this few minutes, you might as well start again

> from scratch, because your multiplier will be killed, and your chances

> of surviving to the first bonus life and first bonus smartbomb drop

> consuderably.

>

> So, it was taking an average of around five to ten minutes before I

> got into the main game - and that time was spent in boring wandering

> around the screen with very little to do.

>

> This is how it sucked up so much time, and why the enjoyment felt

> after an hour seemed pretty paltry.

>

> AFAICS, the main reason for this is to take a very hard game and give

> casual games players a couple of minutes of easy gameplay, whilst

> keeping hardcore gamers on their toes by forcing them to "turn on" -

> and turn off - their play strategies and patterns, without having

> separate difficulty levels. Since this game is so fast and hectic,

> very twitchy, the on/off process is non trivial (and in a house of

> professional game developers, with a xouple of very hardcore FPS

> players, *everyone* dies inthe first two minutes quite often, not just

> me!)

>

> But it seems to me the antitjesis of core casual game design. Yet,

> clearly, it is a substantial part of the game experience, attested by

> the number of deaths in that stage in our house. Just... it *seems* to

> me to be a wholly negative part.

>

> So...is it integral to the game, or is it something that detracts from the

> casual gameplay? I can't decide :), but givien the wide popularity and

> recognition, thought it an interesting example.

>

> FWLIW, I know that my own understanding and effectiveness at casual

> game design increased a lot as Casual Games gained recognition and

> became more analysed and more clearly defined and better understood.

> GW predates most of thus, so I wonder whether the authors would design

> it the same way now if doing it again?

>

> dam

> So...

> _______________________________________________

> Casual_Games mailing list

> Casual_Games at igda.org

> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games

> Archive: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/

> Archive Search:

> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=010373383720242846960%3Az3tdwggxil8

> List FAQ:

> http://www.igda.org/wiki/index.php/Casual_Games_SIG/Casual_Games_List_FAQ

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/attachments/20061206/aefd6790/attachment.html