Space shooter at #5 on RealArcade

[Martoon]

I noticed that #5 on RealArcade this week is a space shooter (Star Defender 2). I had always had the impression that RealArcade will occasionally release a shooter to score a few sales from a minority audience, but that it never really represented a significant portion of their demographic. So I was a little suprised to see it at #5 overall.

So I pulled up James' handy RealArcade history spreadsheet (http://www.kimberandjames.com/clip/realaracde_top_10.xls), and noticed that Atomaters and Alien Sky each enjoyed a few weeks in the top 10, and our good friend Platypus actually hit number 1 in it's third week. Also the somewhat related Airstrike 3D had one week, and Airstrike 2 just made it into #10 for a couple weeks.

It's good to see that even the most casual of portals can sell a few space shooters.

[DFG]

Even though the casual audience is predominantly female, you still have 35-45% male. Occassionally, a highly accessible shooter will appeal to a segment of the female audience. Put those 2 together and I believe you have the possibility of a RN top 10 shooter.

[arcadetown]

Sounds good to me as I'm personally a space shooter freak and think our users are somewhat more ammenible to that style game than typical. If they aren't, I'll whack em over the head till they are.

[svero]

I would point out that platypus, also a shooter, also did very well.

As well I would say that zuma and luxor etc.. are essentially shooters. They're far more shooting than puzzling.

[Black Hydra]

Why don't women like shooters?

I think you are falling back on false stereotypes when you think that a women would only buy a cutesy Zuma type of game. (Besides, Platypus has a pretty soft feel to it).

An aunt of mine says she loves Swarm. I'm not trying to draw conclusions from 1 person, but I think it is a little presumptious to assume women only play match-3 or breakout games. I'm sure some men play match 3... ;)

[Coyote]

I think the industry is WAY too quick to assume casual games means "match-three gem-poppers" in general. I was reading David RM's blog about the potential coming "bust" of the casual game market, and I wonder if as a whole the industry is confusing the audience for the product.

Of course, I am just as guilty of generalization when I call the action-puzzle genre "Match-three gem-poppers." I actually do like to play those games - I'm just not usually for shelling out the bucks to buy them.

But the point I'm trying horribly to make is that the rapidly-growing 'casual games market' could very easily include shmups and other game genres that won't be called genres until a single game has a half-million clones. There's room there for a lot more.

[Black Hydra]

I think the word "casual" has grown to become to specific when talking about games. I always thought it was funny when Cas said he couldn't think of making a 'casual' game.

Funny, but by my definition of casual ultratron IS casual.

Sorry, but casual != cutesy. That may be the case, but if you look at a lot of successful "casual" games they weren't really cutesy at all. Ricochet? Cosmic Bugs? Swarm?

All of those are casual games but don't have a fluffy feel to them.

I think the best definition of casual (or at least the one that appears to represent this area of the gaming market best) would probably be a game that:

1) Low entry barrier to begin playing.
2) Suitable for short playtimes (5-15 minutes)
3) Smaller content and feature scale (as opposed to AAA games)

So when people say they aren't making a "casual" game (usually based on style) does that mean they are making a "hardcore" game?

Void War, would be a good example of a hardcore indie game.

[DFG]

I think it is a little presumptious to assume women only play match-3 or breakout games.

I would agree with you and I don't think anyone in this thread made that assumption...unless there is a post I am missing somewhere.

I think you are falling back on false stereotypes when you think that a women would only buy a cutesy Zuma type of game. (Besides, Platypus has a pretty soft feel to it).

Again, I don't see anywhere that I said that. I merely said most women don't play shooters and the numbers prove it. Here is my post again just to make sure you didn't misread it:

Even though the casual audience is predominantly female, you still have 35-45% male. Occassionally, a highly accessible shooter will appeal to a segment of the female audience. Put those 2 together and I believe you have the possibility of a RN top 10 shooter.

If you can find numbers to tell me that just as many women play shooters as men, I will give you $10 and heartily recommend your findings to the world as a breakthrough discovery.

[Nexic]

Heavy Weapon also did quite well (#6 I think) and Astro Avenger made it in somewhere as well.

I'm glad some shooters achieve this kind of success, but unfortunately most (including mine) don't :-\

[princec]

I always thought it was funny when Cas said he couldn't think of making a 'casual' game.

Funny, but by my definition of casual ultratron IS casual.
It doesn't appear to be the portals' definition of casual though - none of them want it.

Cas :)

[Anthony Flack]

And the wind... cries... inaccessible controls...


If you can find numbers to tell me that just as many women play shooters as men, I will give you $10 and heartily recommend your findings to the world as a breakthrough discovery.


I think the point was, though, that it's perhaps more a matter of theme than gameplay. Most shooters are quite macho.

[princec]

On reason I think Evil Invasion will do so well. It's not at all macho, has trivial controls, and it's utterly addictive :D Wish I'd written it.

Cas :)

[Mike Boeh]

I do not think ultratron is casual. Obviously the controls are not accessible.

The play mechanic is the thing that really seems to determine whether a game is casual or not. But theme definitely counts too. Despite Cosmic Bugs doing well, I don't expect to do a space-themed game any time soon.

Heavy Weapon DID NOT do well by PopCap standards...

[Martoon]

Heavy Weapon also did quite well (#6 I think) and Astro Avenger made it in somewhere as well.
I guess the reason I didn't include Heavy Weapon is because it was only in there for one week, and almost all of games on RA are in the top 10 their first week. It's the second, third, etc. weeks that count. But I do see Astro Avenger hung around a couple weeks. Missed that one.

I'm really disappointed that Heavy Weapon hasn't done better (on RA or elsewhere). I was hoping Popcap would do more games like it, to help legitimize the genre in the mass downloadable market.
I'm glad some shooters achieve this kind of success, but unfortunately most (including mine) don't :-\
But I think you're on a pretty steep incline with each successive release. Personally, Xeno Assault II didn't really do anything for me (I would never consider buying it), but Desperate Space is an absolute blast, and I'm really considering registering (and I very, very seldom buy games anymore). If the improvement between DS and your next release is anywhere near as big as the gap between XA2 and DS, you'll definitely have a sale from me.

[princec]

The only problem with HW was that it was shite, not that it was a shooter.

Cas :)

[Bmc]

almost all of games on RA are in the top 10 their first week.

Actually not true. Heavy Weapon for instance, only appeared in the top 10 after being released for it's second week.

If a game happens to appear on the Real Top 10 after their first week of release there is a strong chance it will go on the be at least a moderate hit (staying in the top 10 for 2-3 weeks). I wouldn't say that almost all of the games on RA can claim that.

[Black Hydra]

Yeah, I agree. I think the reason HW did poorly was because it sucked. There are many games on PopCap I would have much rather played...

[Savant]

I thought Heavy Weapon was brilliant. I bought it and had a great time...

[Martoon]

I also really liked Heavy Weapon. Not the absolute best ever made, but it ranked up there pretty well in my book. And I play a lot of shooters.

[Nexic]

I bought HW and don't regret it, it's all down to taste. Yes it was a bad seller by Popcap standards, but Popcap usually do match 3, which will always sell better than a shooter.

But I think you're on a pretty steep incline with each successive release. Personally, Xeno Assault II didn't really do anything for me (I would never consider buying it), but Desperate Space is an absolute blast, and I'm really considering registering (and I very, very seldom buy games anymore). If the improvement between DS and your next release is anywhere near as big as the gap between XA2 and DS, you'll definitely have a sale from me.

Thanks for the compliments, if only your opinion was reflected in sales numbers!

[Anthony Flack]

I was looking forward to HW, but I found it really repetitive and I got bored with it long before I finished the demo.

[arcadetown]

HW is an excellent game. I blew through the demo in no time and know a few others that also did. I perhaps could see how some would not find it that fun though.

I believe it's critical flaw is it has too few levels to compell a buy. You can easily blow through 10 levels in the demo so you only get 9 more levels if buy it? A poor sales proposition. I find a good % of shooters suffer from this same issue, to few levels. I would have liked to seen atleast 50 levels. Sure it's tough to make that many levels, but if you mix things up appropriately it's pretty doable.

[princec]

I think that may be the problem I had with it too - no compelling reason to keep playing. Although I didn't really like the graphical style either. I would rather have had proper hardcore graphics for what was very much a proper hardcore shooter. Y'know, metal stuff, etc. etc.

Cas :)

[Coyote]

Heavy Weapon DID NOT do well by PopCap standards...
I wonder if that'll scare them off from doing their casual action-RPG they hinted about last year?

I enjoyed it a lot, but I didn't feel particularly compelled to buy it, either. At least not yet. But it did fit the need for a quick-fix action game.
Void War, would be a good example of a hardcore indie game.
Softcore hardcore, maybe? In retrospect, while I did emphasize making it easier to play than the average hardcore space combat game, I didn't go nearly far enough. Not that it would ever have been a 'casual' game - I didn't intend it to be, but it could have used an approach that erred more on the side of casual.

Stuff for an ex-hardcore industry guy to learn.
So when people say they aren't making a "casual" game (usually based on style) does that mean they are making a "hardcore" game?
I think there's a HUGE gulf between the traditional "casual" game and a stereotypical "hardcore" game --- between, around, behind, and so forth. That area has barely begun to be explored - there may yet be many more islands that have a sizeable market.

I think a lot of the games found at Reflexive and Retro64 prove there's some kind of market out there - I'm not sure how big, but they are there.

My next game is definitely not casual, nor hardcore. Dunno what you'd call it. "Semi-casual?"

[DFG]

Jets N Guns I feel is the best shooter I have ever played. All it needs is a better name and more marketing.

[princec]

Jets N Guns is a great name - very very memorable, evocative, and easy to spell.

Cas :)

[papillon]

(Speaking of memorable names, I wonder if Nuns n Guns ever got finished...)

[Dan Prigg]

I still push hard for arcade/shooter games. As stated earlier, even if women dont play these, there is still a 40% market out there that could.

But I do work with these developers to make sure that its still easy to play (mouse controls) and that they understand that the key is level difficulty. Your either making the game for yourself or your making it for your consumers.

When I first saw Star Defender 2, I told them to make it easy for them (the devs) then take it down another 30% for the audience. What you then have is a game that anyone can play and is fun (accessibility). Sure you can always make it hard, just dont make it the default.

my 2 bits.

Dan

[Nexic]

I also think Jets N Guns is a great name, what's wrong with it?

[arcadetown]

Dan makes a great point, make it mouse playable and make it easier so users can get into it. Many devs make their shooting games far too difficult. Also provide liberal save points, allow users to keep retrying, and make levels smallish. Nothing more frustrating than having to restart a huge level or entire game from scratch, guaranteed to make the user click the exit button and go away.

To me Jets N Guns has great production values but it's far too difficult. If I (mr. Robotron freak) have trouble, I know most users will. Also, the upgrade system ui is pretty confusing. Overall it could be made more accessible and smaller demo download.

Correct me if I'm wrong, a large part of Retro64's fixing Platypus and turning it into a good seller was making it more accessible by adding mouse controls, smaller demo download, and tweaking down the difficulty.

[Anthony Flack]

Yes, that's it exactly. And even though it wasn't made to be a downloadable game, and certainly not a casual game (there wasn't really any such thing back in 2000), I'd be the first to admit I botched the difficulty of Platypus.

I really do like hard games, though. Part of why I don't care to play casual games is that they just go on and on and on, with the only challenge being to stay awake as you grind through level after level of repetitive filler designed to keep you busy without making you work for it. There's little replay value; often there's hardly any first-play value. The levels are just there to waste your time and stop you from finishing the game by their sheer number.

But I really like short games with tough challenges. One of my favourites is Sega Rally - a game that you can complete, start to finish, in about four minutes. But in order to get good enough to win it, you need hours and hours of practice. Which I did, quite happily. The fact that it was so short made the challenge manageable (plus the fact that it's a brilliant game which is great fun regardless of whether it's your first turn or your fiftieth).

People don't seem to go for that so much any more though, and it's a great shame. Short, hard, perfectly formed games like Sega Rally are so beautiful, and well suited to being made by small teams, too. But instead, we mostly get hundreds of watery, inconsequential levels with little variety or challenge.

Well, it's true, you're either making the game for yourself or you're making it for your consumers. But that makes it sound so selfish and negative! Another way of putting it is that you're either trying to make the game as good as you can, or you're trying to make as much money as you can...

[Nexic]

The thing is that even the new super easy version of Platypus is still pretty hard for some people. I can complete in on medium skill level, but only after a fair bit of practice, and can't do it on hard. My girlfriend who really loves playing it still hasn't managed to win on easy mode, and I'm sure there are many many people like her.

Whilst it's tedium for you, its not for you market, it *is* a challenge. However, I do agree lots and lots of games are long, tedious with little skill required.

[Dan Prigg]

I think the skill will increase as users become more comfortable and skillful. Its an evolution of the consumer just like the early coin op days. First you need to create and expand a market, increasing it as fast and as wide as possible. Eventually players will demand harder games as they become better and it becomes no longer a "challenge" for them.

A lot of these consumers can barely navigate their computer, let alone be skilled at anything beyond surfing.
I feel the developers pain, I totally do, but in the meantime I would rather make sure they still suceed.

Dan

[Anthony Flack]

The thing is that even the new super easy version of Platypus is still pretty hard for some people.


Nah, Platypus was quite hard for me too. And now that it's been a few years since I made it, it's really really hard. The other skill levels were very much a compromise; Mike hacked a few things in to make it easier but didn't want to touch the scripts. So the other skill levels weren't really "designed" and are therefore a bit patchy.

But I don't think this is about different skill levels so much - it's more about challenge. I like being given a short, difficult challenge. Like:

Get through this door on the other side of the screen. Okay. I see it there. It's not far away... except - argh! squashed by a rock. Okay, I'll just - arrgh! another rock. Well maybe I'll just... eek, here come some bats... okay, up here... and... closer... arrgh! Another rock!

I can play games like that for ages. The challenge is manageable; you can see it right there in front of you. You know it will only take a minute... if you can only do it right! Before you know it, you've been there four hours.

The other sort of game is from the school of thought that repetition is frustrating (which it is, if you have to repeat lots of stuff that isn't challenging). So these games give you a challenge just by being really long. I don't enjoy this sort of game; and making all those levels are a tremendous waste of resources.

But it seems like these days, people will dismiss the short, challenging game as being "too hard". Well, Sega Rally would be too hard, if you had to practice two hours worth of track. But since it's only four minutes long, it's perfect. I think if more people had a good go at this sort of game, they'd come to like it. But they just give up too quickly.

Anyway...

Eventually players will demand harder games as they become better and it becomes no longer a "challenge" for them.

Let's hope so. And fair point; it doesn't help anyone to go out of business in the meantime.

[stanchat]

I think the skill will increase as users become more comfortable and skillful. ...... Eventually players will demand harder games as they become better and it becomes no longer a "challenge" for them.
Dan
But are you sure that some users are not being held back already? For instance assume Real has been in business 5 years with a sizable customer base. The breakdown probably will be as follows

20 - 25% (3 -5yrs)
45 - 50% (2 -3yrs)
20 - 25% (< 2 yrs)

A case can be made that the top tier of users are ready for more challenging games already. Has anyone considered maybe creating a separate smaller more focused hardcore version of RealArcade (RealArcade - Extreme, RealArcade - Ultra, or RealAracde - Advanced) and still keep the original portal intact. Customers who are satisfied with the status quo can stay put, however those looking for more spice or challenge could subscribe to your premium hardcore portal.

Also I think it will be critical to start weening those customers away from using the mouse as the only form of input. As an incentive you could give away gamepads/joysticks to get them to join and also you could create some user-friendly tutorials on using gamepads/joysticks.

[Dan Prigg]

My biggest concern is that trying to understand what the consumer wants especially since they dont know themselves.

RealArcade has been around for 5 years, thats true but lets also take a different assumption that the players are getting more skilled. Lets say for arguement that these players are only playing 1 or 2 hours a week at most. While perhaps their internet sophistication has increased, their skill level and/or emotional needs from gaming may not be.

The bottom line is that consumers vote with their dollars. I bring out the occasionally more challenging games to test their resolve but ultimately I still cater to what the majority is asking for.


Dan