[casual_games] [design]Geometry Wars

[Adam Martin]

Precisely: this game requires a substantial investment of time before
you can even start playing the "real" game.

It is also almost impossible to play the main game using most of the
tactics that work in the pregame (google for "geometry wars tips" to
see the legions of people struggling to get beyond the same barrier of
 50-100k points).

So it fails on each of your criteria save cost - and yet most popular
games become available at similar cost on budget labels sooner or
later, so that clearly does not on its own point to a good casual
game.

On 06/12/06, Robert Headley <Rheadley at op-games.com> wrote:

> 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

> >

>

>