[casual_games] [design]Geometry Wars

[Adam Martin]

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

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


So what did you mean when you said: "Casual Investment - ties in with
commitment. The game generally does not cost much so is a good impulse
buy."?


> 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.


No, that's clearly not true. In reference to my first post, please do
the googling I suggested - or, if you have, and still think that,
please could you explain this phenomenon, because my
(mis)understanding of the comments all over the web is in direct
contradiction to what you say above.


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

> many skill based casual games.


This game is intentionally very hard, yet has an easy part with some
odd unique characteristics at the beginning that serves to make the
hard bit *even harder* than it is normally, and also serves to deny
people the chance of playing the main game (the hard bit).

It is this "denial of gameplay" that concerns me, that seems to me
anathema to casual games. Why is that in there? Is it a mistake, a
felicitous accident, or something very clever serving a role I've
failed to appreciate?