There Are No ‘Casual Games’ -article (yeh, i want my nose to bleed :)

[Polycount Productions]

I just published gameproducer.net's first long article: There Are No ‘Casual Games’ (http://www.gameproducer.net/2006/01/31/there-is-no-such-thing-as-casual-game/)

Comments?

[svero]

I think some of the IDGA white papers define casual games quite well using just a few criteria. But sure.. it's a fuzzy definition.

[Polycount Productions]

I think some of the IDGA white papers define casual games quite well using just a few criteria. But sure.. it's a fuzzy definition.
You *think*? ;)

[svero]

I "think" as in my opinion of their definition is that it's pretty good.

[TimS]

Comments?

Entertaining read, but your logic is atrocious. It's enough to make a freshman philosophy student blush... :o

[Uhfgood]

I agree your logic is totally wrong

[Polycount Productions]

I "think" as in my opinion of their definition is that it's pretty good.
Didn't mean to insult you - sorry if I sounded like that. I know you are a valuable resource for indie developers - and I very much appreciate your comments but - as I'm on my personal "war against vague definitions" ;) - I wan't to see that clear definition. If you have a good quote, please feel free to bring it here (or as a comment in the article).

If you are referring to this paper: http://www.igda.org/casual/IGDA_CasualGames_Whitepaper_2005.pdf then I must say that even IGDA cannot present a proper definition for 'casual games'. They give guidelines (kind of in the same way as I present them) but not a solid definition for 'casual games'

Entertaining read, but your logic is atrocious. It's enough to make a freshman philosophy student blush...
atrocious:
# shockingly brutal or cruel; "murder is an atrocious crime"; "a grievous offense against morality"; "a grievous crime"; "no excess was too monstrous for them to commit"
# exceptionally bad or displeasing; "atrocious taste"; "abominable workmanship"; "an awful voice"; "dreadful manners"; "a painful performance"; "terrible handwriting"; "an unspeakable odor came sweeping into the room"
# provoking horror; "an atrocious automobile accident"; "a frightful crime of decapitation"; "an alarming, even horrifying, picture"; "war is beyond all words horrible"- Winston Churchill; "an ugly wound"

I'm not sure if that's good or bad. :p I made a concious choice to "shake things up" to see what's really lying behind all this... ;) If I'm wrong - please feel free to mention where I made a mistake.

[Polycount Productions]

I agree your logic is totally wrong
Thanks.

Now - could you give me an example where I'm wrong. :)

[svero]

If you are referring to this paper: http://www.igda.org/casual/IGDA_CasualGames_Whitepaper_2005.pdf then I must say that even IGDA cannot present a proper definition for 'casual games'. They give guidelines (kind of in the same way as I present them) but not a solid definition for 'casual games'

Well as I said in my first post it's a fuzzy definition. If you're implying there is no solid definition, like a legal definition, of what makes a casual game then yes I agree. But I have to ask.. so what? How does that invalidate the concept of the group? We could make a solid definition but it serves no purpose. I could say, every game under 10mb is a casual game. There. I'm done. Now you can fit all the casual games into some box. So what about 12mb games that seem to sell in the market? Well those are non casual titles that appeal to the same market. In something like this we can claim any definition we want if we need a real solid definition for some reason. But we don't really need one. Furthermore it's evolving as the market evolves. By your logic there is no such thing as any categorized set like a species, or a tool, or a home etc... But would you argue monkeys don't exist because they're evolving? Or that tools don't exist because we can't agree whether a microwave is a tool or not by some totally standard definition? or that Homes don't exist because we can't agree if a trailer or a cave constitutes a home?

[Polycount Productions]

Well as I said in my first post it's a fuzzy definition. If you're implying there is no solid definition, like a legal definition, of what makes a casual game then yes I agree.
That's what I'm implying: there's no 100% definition for 'casual games'. As I state in the article: I think there are "more" or "less" casual characteristics in games. I agree with you :)

But I have to ask.. so what?
Well, I find it quite interesting that people are producing 'casual games' or researching 'the casual games market' without really defining what 'casual games' is. How can people say 'casual games market' is increasing - if there's no definition of 'casual games'?

How does that invalidate the concept of the group? We could make a solid definition but it serves no purpose. I could say, every game under 10mb is a casual game. There. I'm done. Now you can fit all the casual games into some box. So what about 12mb games that seem to sell in the market? Well those are non casual titles that appeal to the same market. In something like this we can claim any definition we want if we need a real solid definition for some reason. But we don't really need one.
I simply state that this concept of 'group' is fuzzy, in case of 'casual games'.

Furthermore it's evolving as the market evolves. By your logic there is no such thing as any categorized set like a species, or a tool, or a home etc...
Now you are making assumptions about something I didn't said - or at least didn't mean to ;)

Of course I can define 'casual games' as any way I want (that's acceptable) and put it in writing... but I presume you understand I was talking about a general, public and widely accepted definition - not personal one.

There are categorized sets. Of course. You can categorize "less than 10 meg games" (as I mention in the article) and call the category "less than 10 meg games". The games that are less than 10 meg in size could fell into that category - that's how they are defined.

Now - what is the 'casual games' category? When can we drop a game into that box? I try to say... that there ARE elements in games so that you can drop them into this box. But I think it's a matter of opinion rather than solid definition.

But would you argue monkeys don't exist because they're evolving? Or that tools don't exist because we can't agree whether a microwave is a tool or not by some totally standard definition? or that Homes don't exist because we can't agree if a trailer or a cave constitutes a home?
Hehee. Nice try. I wouldn't argue that monkeys wouldn't *exist* but I could argue whether they *are* monkeys* anymore ;)

About your "home" example: if we can define 'home' (like "place where you live") and check if "trailer is the place where you live" we can call it 'home'). No problem in that. I just wanted to ask what's the real definition for 'casual games'. It's a buzz word nowadays - but without solid definition. Downloadable games or shareware games or web games are much easier to define. Sometimes they can be more or less casual.. sometimes not at all.

I think we could go deep into this discussion, but the point still remains:
- There is no exact definition for 'casual games' - and if it's evolving, fine. Still - to make research about this subject without defining the research object... not good :)

[svero]

But you dont need a solid definition of what a casual game is for the group to exist. There are casual games.. the set of which includes games having various characteristics not everyone will totally agree on. The same is true of homes. You say if we can agree that home is a place where you live then we can call a trailer or a cave a home if people live in them, but by that token I can define casual games as being all games < 10mb. The problem is.. we wont always agree. I could say.. a trailer is not a home because its too small or something, just as I could say, a game being <10mb doesnt make it casual. That doesnt mean that there are no such things as casual games just in the same way it doesnt mean there are no such things as homes.

[Polycount Productions]

But you dont need a solid definition of what a casual game is for the group to exist. There are casual games.. the set of which includes games having various characteristics not everyone will totally agree on. The same is true of homes. You say if we can agree that home is a place where you live then we can call a trailer or a cave a home if people live in them, but by that token I can define casual games as being all games < 10mb. The problem is.. we wont always agree. I could say.. a trailer is not a home because its too small or something, just as I could say, a game being <10mb doesnt make it casual. That doesnt mean that there are no such things as casual games just in the same way it doesnt mean there are no such things as homes.
Maybe I'm the one leading this discussion to going in circles, but anyway:

In your case we could *expand* the definition. We could add that "home needs to be at least size Y square meters and a place where you live". Now we have expanded the definition and made it even more accurate.

'Casual games' is a very broad definition which makes it bit fuzzy. It's true that for "practical" purposes we both know what casual games (pretty much) are and we can spot one when we see - and maybe agree about 90% time if the game is casual or not - but still, the solid definition is not there. And it's difficult to define. As we both have said :)

And for market pure market research or academic research the definition of the research subject is important. To be able to talk about 'casual games' it's not *so* important: we pretty much "know" what it means. Same way we know what "human" means, but it sure is darn hard to define! (if we go really deep into this)

[TimS]

I'm not sure if that's good or bad. :p I made a concious choice to "shake things up" to see what's really lying behind all this... ;) If I'm wrong - please feel free to mention where I made a mistake.

It is most definitely not good -- I see no "shaking things up" going on here... As for where the article breaks down, that'll take a while, so I'll post that one later on tonight.

[soniCron]

What's a casual game? How about this:

A game system with a simple, easy to learn ruleset.

[Tom Gilleland]

What's a casual game? How about this:

A game system with a simple, easy to learn ruleset.


Sounds Perfect, I'm going to go with it. :)
On to the next thread...

Tom

[Dan MacDonald]

Polycount it seems you are more interested in criticism then theory. Criticism is important it allows us to refine and justify what we already know. Theory is what allows us to define new ideas. Theory is the rationalization of imagination and ideas, it is what enables us to approch the unknown and "know" it.

If you look at the abstract idea or theory of a casual game it is actually a quite well understood and communicable idea. The same is true of other game types, real time strategy, role playing games, massively multilpayer. While these games all have unique attributes just like casual games, they cannot be defined just by those attributes. It is the nature of a genera to defy strict classification. People must at some point make a jugement call and decide to which category a game belongs based on the idea or theory behind the game.

Just because we do not have an explicit definition for casual does not mean that we do not understand what a casual game is. Furthermore I would say that we do not have an explicit definition for any type of game, yet we able to categorize them reasonably. This is due to the fact that we understand the theory behind those game types, and that is sufficient enough to categorize them.

[Dan MacDonald]

Did this article get pulled? The link at the begining of the thread is broken...

[soniCron]

Perhaps this (http://www.gameproducer.net/2006/01/31/when-something-is-crap-get-rid-of-it/) is what you're looking for.

[Dan MacDonald]

Missed that, thanks!