[casual_games] [design]Geometry Wars

[Joe Pantuso]

I agree, the semantic discussion over whether casual refers to the game, the
player or the commitment isn't very useful.  Besides which, it doesn't seem
that 'casual' has caught on with users anyway, any more than 'hard core'
has.  Any moms out there shopping for games for their 'hard core' game
playing kids for xmas?  Didnt' think so.

I do like the term 'pick up and play' which we've taken to using.  I'm not
sure where that originated but it is a good description for a large part of
what the casual term was trying to describe, even if it doesn't exactly roll
off the tongue...


On 12/6/06, Tim Turner <tturner at cmpgames.com> wrote:

>

>  I think we need to stop trying to massage the term "casual games" into a

> serviceable catch all.  The business that is now "casual games" was once

> "puzzle games" and instead of adding genre titles we attempted to create

> this umbrella term.  As our sophistication level increases doesn't it makes

> sense to add classifications not increase the level of abstraction?

>

>

>

> I think Adam makes a good point.  GW's design implementation makes it a

> "console based action casual" game and that needs to be held in mind when

> comparing it to "casual downloadable PC puzzle" games.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>  ------------------------------

>

> *From:* casual_games-bounces at igda.org [mailto:

> casual_games-bounces at igda.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Headley

> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:34 AM

> *To:* IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List

> *Subject:* Re: [casual_games] [design]Geometry Wars

>

>

>

> Retail games that sell at a bargain price due to age, do not count.

> Geometry Wars takes very little time to learn how to play. If you can say

> it takes any time at all. Its very intuitive, like many casual games.

>

> Just because it is hard, does not mean it is not a casual game. There are

> many skill based casual games.

>

> Many people spend more time playing casual games, than "hardcore" games.

> So that does not eliminate it from casual gaming either.

>

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

>

> 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

> > >

> >

> >

> _______________________________________________

> 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

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20061206/986d5b96/attachment.html