[casual_games] surprising stats about casual gaming

[bizdev at injoygames.com]

What about the success of Fate?

Steve Meretzky wrote:

> Even if the gameplay of Diablo were appealing to casual gamers, the
theme/tone would be a turn-off.
>
>
>
> While the long play-sessions of many 5 minute games prove that casual
gamers have the time for a longer game, it doesn’t necessarily prove
that they have interest in a longer game. While a longer game can in
theory be just as easy to pick up, with as simple and intuitive a rule
set, the perception is likely to be that a longer game will be “like
those PC and console games my teenage son plays, and that I could never
figure out”. (And, frankly, I’m not sure that a longer casual game
wouldn’t end up that way any way, as the designers of the game give in
to the temptation afforded by the longer game to add more features and
complexity.)
>
>
>
> If there are going to be longer-play casual games, it will probably be
as a result of gradually weaning the casual audience in that direction.
I think the trend of many downloadable games to have a light uber-game
which ties together the 5-minute levels is promising movement in that
direction. For example, the familiar mechanic of a world map which,
after you complete 5 levels, shows you “traveling” from the oasis to the
pyramid, leaving a dotted line to show the journey traveled so far,
resuming playing at a slightly harder difficulty level. Thus you have a
many-hour game, which feels like a bunch of 5-minute games -- and which
in fact a player who is uninterested in (or intimidated by) the
uber-game can just ignore that uber-game and actually play it as a
stand-alone 5-minute game. (It would be interesting to know what
percentage of players of games that are thusly structured focus on the
uber-game, and what percentage ignore it.)
>
>
>
> --Steve
>
>
>
> From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
[mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of David Wessman
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 8:21 PM
> To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [casual_games] surprising stats about casual gaming
>
>
>
> For me the most interesting finding was when people play and for how
long.  The idea that casual games need to be designed around the idea of
quick 10-15 minute play sessions seems to me over-emphasized, if not
plain wrong.  Clearly, a lot of casual gamers aren't playing these games
simply because they can be played within some narrow window of
opportunity.
>
>
>
> Another consideration that perhaps explains some of the appeal of short
duration games is the fact that when casual gamers do sit down to play,
they know they're going to be able to play several games to conclusion. 
But then, is that so different from any level or mission-based game
where it takes 10-20 minutes to complete a mission?
>
>
>
> I think casual gamers would be receptive to games that are designed to
take hours to play.  Particularly, if they can save their progress at
any time (or at least every 5-10 minutes.)
>
>
>
> To me the main criteria for considering a game "casual" are that it have
a very shallow learning curve and a very simple interface.  Actual
gameplay can be quite deep and play time can be much longer than
previously assumed.
>
>
>
> I'm very curious how much of a leap it would be for a lot of these
so-called "casual" gamers to get into something like Diabo.
>
>
>
> Thanks for reading,
>
> David Wessman
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Casual_Games mailing list
>Casual_Games at igda.org
>http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
>