Considering that people all seem to be developing them...

[princec]

...there's remarkably little discussion about them in here. What gives?

Cas :)

[jankoM]

I know someone has to ask for us blonde ones to understand.. who or what is them??

[Mickey Crocker]

By them he means casual games.

[princec]

Well, casual games. All the discussion about casual games seems to occur in the rest of the forum. I just wonder what the point is of this separate forum. Might as well rename it "Realarcade top 10 discussion".

Cas :)

[papillon]

I think it's that it's so far down the page - and past another heading - that people just don't bother scrolling this far when figuring out where to post. :)

[jankoM]

I know someone has to ask for us blonde ones to understand.. who or what is them??

//later: Uh.... I just saw you are in Casual Games section so us blones know now what them is.

I gues there is so little *normal* discussion about "them" because "them" are very combustive or flamable material and hard to handle in a forum like this (too much explosive particle effects).

//even later.... how did I make another post of this, I was editing the old one..

[electronicStar]

Well this particular forum is CASUAL GAMES>DEVELLOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION.
I figure it's for talking of dev & distribution matters (like the top ten lists for example). Nothing says that casual games can't be discussed in the rest of the forums, like in the GAME DESIGN section for example.

[jankoM]

I just wan't to add ... maybe there is not so much casual game desing discussion because these games are done for more clear commercial reasons and competition is more present .... and nobody wants to explain his own little twist on swaping the gems.

[Raptisoft]

Hell yes! It's bad enough that clones of your game start popping out two months after release... imagine giving anyone a sneak peak at what you're doing?

Reap the whirlwind, dudes and dudettes.

[Savant]

Or perhaps my dream is realized and everyone is working on something cool and new and thus the casual games forum is dying.

Or not.

[Bmc]

Or perhaps my dream is realized and everyone is working on something cool and new and thus the casual games forum is dying.

Or not.

who says a casual game can't be cool and new?

[Ricardo C]

who says a casual game can't be cool and new?


Ssssh, you're interrupting Savant's metamorphosis stage... He's no longer just a crusader against clones, he now goes after licensed remakes and casual games in general ;)

[princec]

who says a casual game can't be cool and new?
This is where Titan Attacks comes in ;) There's no secret that it's pretty much a casual game... might even see it on a portal or two. Just because it isn't about matching and has no coloured balls in it doesn't exclude it from portals I hope!

Cas :)

[Sharpfish]

Yes. Casual games have a dirty image around here, purely becaus in general a casual game - thus far - has been seen as a formulaic gem-swapper. I have a feeling a lot of people have learned what is good about casual games but are not just going to be making gem-swapping games with that knowledge. Casual is about being accessible, user friendly and not requiring great lumps of time to enjoy and get fun from.

This is where the crossover begins and I can see small moves being made to broaden "what is casual" over the next couple of years.. ergo the word "casual" should not be used in the same context as "clone" or "parasitic" because it has nothing to do with them it just happens that most "clones" are casual because most games worth copying are casual.

Casual != bad or unoriginal by default.

[whisperstorm]

For me, one of the best casual games I've encountered in quite a while was Fate, which has no gem swapping that I know of. (Well, except when you pay for your swords and such)

I think casual games are like the "pulp sci fi" or "harlequin romance" of gaming. You can make a killing but you have to work twice as hard to be taken seriously after that.

[Bmc]

For me, one of the best casual games I've encountered in quite a while was Fate, which has no gem swapping that I know of. (Well, except when you pay for your swords and such)

I think casual games are like the "pulp sci fi" or "harlequin romance" of gaming. You can make a killing but you have to work twice as hard to be taken seriously after that.

I don't know about that. Anyone who wouldn't take you seriously after having made a decent casual game isn't worth having the respect of anyway.

[Anlino]

Well said, Bmc.

When we are into this combined casual-gemswapping discussion, let me put some coal on the fire: What defines casual?

[Bmc]

to me, one word that should always be used when describing a casual game is accessibility

the ultimate user-friendly software if you will ;)

[cliffski]

over the last few months most posts on indiegamer have focused on the puzzle game match 3 genre with very little variety. Increasingly people are using indie and casual and match3 as virtually interchangeable terms. There is very little talk of pushing the indie game boundaries into other genres, like RPG, RTS, FPS and Sim. I guess that's inevitable with the growth of identikit match 3 clones.
It saddens me though, as it reinforces the stereotype of the indie gamer as a college kid trying to make a game to put on his CV and get a 'real job'. I had one guy on another forum say blatantly to me that "all indie games should be under $10, because mainly they are a way for the developer to gain some experience and get a better job"
Such a mindset makes my blood boil.
I hoped that the casual games forum would be the popular, buzzing forum for people to discuss how best to design, make and sell match-3s and the like, and the other forums would be free of it. Maybe just moving this forum to the top would help?
But the word 'casual' means nothing. 'puzzle' would be much more helpful.

[Bmc]

I hoped that the casual games forum would be the popular, buzzing forum for people to discuss how best to design, make and sell match-3s and the like, and the other forums would be free of it. Maybe just moving this forum to the top would help?


that is the type of mentality I'm totally against. games are games.

[cliffski]

you think there are no such things as genres? Are movies all just movies? books all just books?
There is a difference between Tom Clancy and Bridget Jones, and there is a difference between Puzzle games and RTS games. That's not a mentality, it's a fact surely?

[princec]

I think that there are certain fundamental values in casual games that sets them apart from, er, non-casual games. I have hopefully captured most of these values in my most recent titles, but moved the style and theme onwards a bit to capture a slightly different but equally hungry audience.

For every bored 40yr old housewife with too much time on her hands there's a bored 40yr old husband with no time at all, and he wants to shoot stuff without getting sent to chokey.

So anyway: it's currently the state of play though that most of the developers in here developing casual games aren't really exploring the options available to them within the design parameters of "casual". Most, not all, I know there's one or two others who've got it sussed too but the clever bit is that they're making fat piles of cash and I'm not :D

Cas :)

[Bmc]

you think there are no such things as genres? Are movies all just movies? books all just books?
There is a difference between Tom Clancy and Bridget Jones, and there is a difference between Puzzle games and RTS games. That's not a mentality, it's a fact surely?

when you boil it down yes

they may be different in areas but they are all a form of entertainment. a game is a game, a song is a song, a movie is a movie

the reason they exist is to entertain, they may have other objectives like to teach etc, but if a movie, song or game doesn't entertain then it has no reason to be.

and before you use this as a counterpoint, i think art should entertain as well so don't try to play "the gamedev should be art" crap

[soniCron]

But the word 'casual' means nothing. 'puzzle' would be much more helpful. I don't get what's so hard to understand about "casual." Casual is casual. Not to mention that, no, not all of the games in the casual game-space are puzzles. There are word games, card games, mahjongg, shooters...


There is very little talk of pushing the indie game boundaries into other genres, like RPG, RTS, FPS and Sim. I guess that's inevitable with the growth of identikit match 3 clones. No, I think it's inevitable with the huge production times for those genres. It's certainly not impossible (you are living proof), but you need to understand that development of those genres by an independent developer runs razor-close to financial suicide. It's really not smart business-sense. Look at Reflexive -- they went from the RPG genre to casual, and I doubt they'd still be around if they hadn't made that adjustment. Are you saying it would it be better if they just didn't make games at all?

[cliffski]

*sigh*
Im not saying there is anything wrong with casual games. or that anyone should not make them. I'm saying that casual games are being confused with puzzle games, and that indie games are being confused with casual games.
This is bad news for people who are doing an indie game thats neither casual or a puzzle game, because the player is increasingly assuming that every indie game is a variation of bejewelled.
We cant get into a situation where even mentioning this issue leads to an instant attack from people making those games against anyone who isn't doing a word game aimed at the portals. This is just going to drive away those of us making games that dont fit that model.

[soniCron]

This is bad news for people who are doing an indie game thats neither casual or a puzzle game, because the player is increasingly assuming that every indie game is a variation of bejewelled. I'm not sure sure the player even knows that the majority of downloadable games are "indie," let alone cares about such labels.

EDIT: I understand your fear, however. I simply won't consider playing games based on licenced properties because they have such a long history of sucking. I understand that you worry the same type of thing will extend to indie developers as a whole.

[GBGames]

*sigh*
Im not saying there is anything wrong with casual games. or that anyone should not make them. I'm saying that casual games are being confused with puzzle games, and that indie games are being confused with casual games.
This is bad news for people who are doing an indie game thats neither casual or a puzzle game, because the player is increasingly assuming that every indie game is a variation of bejewelled.
We cant get into a situation where even mentioning this issue leads to an instant attack from people making those games against anyone who isn't doing a word game aimed at the portals. This is just going to drive away those of us making games that dont fit that model.

I think it is a valid concern. I don't like getting lumped in with pirates/copyright infringers just because I use Gnu/Linux, but people make such claims. I think something similar happens whenever anyone talks about "commercial vs open source" because such talk automatically makes the conclusion that open source can't be commercial.

I don't get what's so hard to understand about "casual." Casual is casual.

Right, but I think defining it is important. You can't expect casual games to conjue up vague thoughts in our heads forever; the development techniques and skills have to be passed down to posterity eventually.

People associate "casual" with Bejeweled. When you make a game that isn't anything like Bejeweled except that it is easy for anyone to pick up and play, you might like to be able to say it is appropriate for casual game players without feeling that people who play Half-Life 2 or Age of Empires 3 would immediately scoff at the idea of playing it.

As to why there aren't many indie games that aren't puzzle games, I think it is also because most other games take up a lot more development time. I think you also need to distinguish between those puzzle games that have constant layouts from session to session, like Bejeweled and Tetris, from puzzle games that have different levels like Lemmings and Professor Fizzwizzle. The latter games are presumably harder to make just because you have to deal with level layout issues for each level. The former games have what is essentially a single level and shouldn't take as long to create. I'm, of course, making amazingly simplified assumptions. Correct me if I am wrong. I just think that you'll see many more Tetris clones than Lemmings clones.

[soniCron]

Right, but I think defining it is important. You can't expect casual games to conjue up vague thoughts in our heads forever; the development techniques and skills have to be passed down to posterity eventually. Then I think it's being approached from the wrong direction. Labels are applied in order to better define content. Labels are not applied in order to be defined by their content.

[Grey Alien]

I would regard casual games as easy to download and setup, mouse controlled, easy to understand and progress, profiles and save options (no restarting from level 1), sometimes no levels at all, windowed mode available, puzzley in some way, fun for a quick blast!

I enjoyed bejewelled and other match 3s. I played a lot when making XMas Bonus and some were clearly better than others. I enjoyed making XMas Bonus and enjoyed playing it too, it's very addictive. Match-3s may not be original but they can still contain original elements, and besides they can be good fun to play. Too many people sit on a game design high horse. If you want to make a non-match 3 good for you, because I like non-match3 games too of course, but don't instantly say all match3s are rubbish, millions of people (buying customers) would simply disagree.

[cliffski]

where has anyone said they are all rubbish?

[Grey Alien]

Not necessarily in this thread (can't be bothered to check) but words like "crappy" etc crop up all the time. Maybe I should have written "all match3s *since Bejewelled*", although imho Bejewelled has been superceeded by better versions, like Jimi Hendrix *ducks*.

[Anthony Flack]

I'd love to hear who this better Jimi Hendrix is supposed to be...

[princec]

Perry Farrell?

Cas :)

[Grey Alien]

Jimmi pioneered and was ace, but he was frequently sloppy, esp on live stuff imho. People have trained a lot harder for technical excellence since then, this doesn't mean they are souless either so don't fire that one back. There have been some amazing blues, rock and metal guitar players since.

[Anthony Flack]

Aw, come on, let's hear some names so I know what page you're on! I've never found a technically excellent player who I enjoyed as much as the sloppier, more spontaneous ones. There's no danger in a controlled performance.

Technical excellence isn't something I admire in Jimi Hendrix or anyone else - it's his creativity and the intensity of his character that make him interesting to me. There are very few technically excellent players who can really capture people's attention. The legendary musicians all had something else about them that made them special - Jimi Hendrix was probably in the minority as a legendary musician who also had a high degree of technical mastery.

...well, at least this forum is getting used for something now.

[Ricardo C]

Aw, come on, let's hear some names so I know what page you're on! I've never found a technically excellent player who I enjoyed as much as the sloppier, more spontaneous ones. There's no danger in a controlled performance.

Technical excellence isn't something I admire in Jimi Hendrix or anyone else - it's his creativity and the intensity of his character that make him interesting to me. There are very few technically excellent players who can really capture people's attention. The legendary musicians all had something else about them that made them special - Jimi Hendrix was probably in the minority as a legendary musician who also had a high degree of technical mastery.

...well, at least this forum is getting used for something now.

Brian May, Steve Howe, Steve Hackett, Slash, Kirk Hammet?

[cliffski]

Yngwie malmsteen, Steve Vai, John Petrucci.
Hendrix was amazing because he was the first, a bit like the first star wars film.

[Grey Alien]

OK then (in no particualr order): Ritchie Blackmore, Randy Rhoads, Michael Schenker, Yngwie Malmsteen, Joe Satriani (he taught Kirk Hammet), Dave Mustaine, Adrian Smith, Jeff Beck, Dimebag Darrel, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Eric Clapton, Mark Knopfler. I could probably go on. I not saying they were all better than Hendrix but they all have had brilliant moments that's for sure. Like I said Hendrix pioneered and was a showman, but others have trod in his footsteps and done a damn good job.

[Anthony Flack]

Ah, good. I was wondering if I was missing something.

I'm familiar with most of those guys, and although they're all very skilled for sure, I honestly don't enjoy listening to any of their music very much. Which is not to say it's wrong to like them (of course!) - but certainly none of them are hitting the spot that Hendrix occupies for me.

I guess music works on many levels, and what seems like a progression to one person will seem like two completely unrelated things to another person looking at it from another side. I don't even think in terms of "guitar players" any more.

[Grey Alien]

So you're a *real* Hendrix fan then. I like him too for sure, I just like those others as well, some of them quite a lot! Some of them play blues, some classical style metal, others more shredding etc. I also missed out John Williams and Julian Bream, although they can't really be compared to Hendrix as they never play electric (as far as I know). Oops also missed of David Gilmore too. Like I said, I've probably missed quite a few.

btw do you play guitar? I have played classical for about 20 years and electric for 14, been in a metal band, all that stuff. I also play blues on acoustic and electric. So naturally I'm a little guitar centric.

Well we certainly have digressed this topic somewhat, hope noone minds.

[Anthony Flack]

Well, the original topic was about how nobody was using the casual game forum, so what the hey.

No, I'm not really that big a Hendrix fan, although there is something about him that puts him in the "stuff I like" column, while so many other guitarists don't really do much for me somehow.

Yeah, I've been playing for about 20 years as well, and I used to be very guitar-centric, but somewhere along the line I stopped having any preference.

[Grey Alien]

I gotta say I still like guitar music a lot and I tend to focus on the guitar players in a band. However, I do listen to classical and trance/rave whatever and also retro music like sids and mods. Electronic music is best to code to I find, as it's motivating without being too distracting. Only thing with sids is I want to fire up a C64 emulator so I tend not to listen to them when working.

So what sort of music do you play on the guitar?

[Anthony Flack]

These days, I actually don't, because of work and having a young girl to look after. No instruments in the house!

However, right now I'm working on writing (with students) a score for our school production, which will be mostly recorded loops, keyboard drones and percussion, probably the only guitar in it will be some chiming harmonics. And I'll be playing drums I think.

As for what I'll do when I get the time again... I've been thinking about that. Something slow and heavy for bass guitar, synthesiser, drums and vocal I think. It's kind of hard to say... I want to incorporate the things I like about other kinds of music, while trying to make something that doesn't really sound like anything I've heard before. Either that, or I'll get some friends together and play a supportive role.

[Grey Alien]

Yeah I know the feeling about time. Perhaps more depressing is actually having a marshal stack and stratocaster in your office (at home) and not being able to play it due to a) you are working or b) the kids are in bed, sigh. The last band I was in folded over a year ago due to the drummer having too many commitments and decent rock drummers are hard to find cos they have normally been snapped up by another band already.