Quote:

Original post by Zouflain A game focused more on pretending you are a character. Dungeons and Dragons by comparison to starcraft. Player on player interaction as opposed to hard coded scripts. In other words, a game whose only reward mechanism is the fun of roleplaying, no cookies for playing for a long time, or playing particularly well.

That sounds like something a team would put on the board before they begin planning. What does the player do? What interactive actions do they have, to role play?

Quote:

In short, a chatroom.

I take it this wouldn't make a fun single player game?

Quote:

No, casual players would prefer any situation where they can be very successful without very much work, and minimal setbacks (which mean more work).

So then they just don't like to be challenged?

Quote:

The depth of gameplay doesn't matter, so long as it isn't perceived as work.

Well, see, I would personally perceive pure chatting (to reach any objective) as work. Does that throw the pure role playing game into the hardcore category?

Quote:

Remember that certain players cannot be driven towards interest, no matter how appealing.

Who says they need to be driven? I'm referring to players who are already interested in the subject matter and interaction type.

For example, I enjoy creativity and destruction, and dislike chatting. I would browse a role playing chat game, casually. I wouldn't be interested in the details. Then I would dive head first into Gears of War or Civilization. Someone else might browse GOW and CIV, then dive head first into the chat game. Which of us are hardcore?

Quote:

If someone lives in China, for instance, they are constrained to something like 2 continuous hours before being forced off (or, this was proposed. I am not sure of the law).

This has been covered. No game should require players to invest large amounts of continuous time. They should be able to stop and resume. The time needed to wait to stop playing without losing progress should be around 5-10 minutes, not two hours.

Quote:

The rest of the statement doesn't make sense with regard to the definition I've presented for casual player. If you mean some other meaning of casual player, I can't see how we can discuss the two together.

I was going with the assumption that you would link casual gaming to less complicated depth. Most people do. Instead, you seem to have linked it to "work", which makes very little sense to me.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by Zouflain If, however, you're comparing someone who's familiar with the game, but plays casually, to someone who isn't familiar with the game, well, of course they'd be likely to win. My point was that casual gamers often spend more time (in total) playing their favorite games than I would spend playing any single game.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a casual player spent more time playing a particular game than a hardcore player, but I would be surprised to hear that the casual player spent more time practicing at and analyzing that game.



I think, for a multiplayer casual game, the key is to reduce the feeling of being in competition. Some options I see for this are:

1) Cooperative multiplayer - You're working together, so even if one player carries the team, the "team" is what succeeds. In direct competition, the weaker player would have lost instead of won.

2) Large variance in progress - You're down one minute, up the next. It doesn't matter if the other player is better than me since I'll still get to experience being on top for a significant amount of the game. He'll still win (his mean progress is greater than mine) but the defeat doesn't feel so crushing.

3) Score comparison is what matters - In sports like racing, diving, and bowling, you're first and foremost competing with yourself. Your goal is to get the highest score you can get. Then, after the fact, you compare that score with what others have done. Again, it's the lack of direct competition with someone else.

Quote:

Original post by Kest So then they just don't like to be challenged?

I think the answer is, "No, they want to be challenged, but only a little." When I'm playing casually, I want just enough challenge to push back at me, but not so much as when I'm playing more seriously.

There's also the matter of the flavor of the challenge. I think direct competition is more stressful than cooperative or parallel play.

Basically, you could say it's the amount of effort the player wants to put in. The amount of effort increases with lack of interest in the game (or some aspects of it), lack of skill, difficulty of the game, and active competition from other players (i.e. aspects of direct competition). So, if I'm only mildly interested in a game that I'm as yet unfamiliar with, the challenges better be pretty simple if I'm expected to play it casually, but they could be harder for times when I want to put some more effort into something. If I'm quite intrigued by the game and am familiar with it, I may even take on the relatively challenging bits after a long day when I just want to crash. Direct competition isn't something I have much taste for in general, so, if that's part of the game, the other aspects have to be pretty favorable for me.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Quote: Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by Zouflain If, however, you're comparing someone who's familiar with the game, but plays casually, to someone who isn't familiar with the game, well, of course they'd be likely to win. My point was that casual gamers often spend more time (in total) playing their favorite games than I would spend playing any single game. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a casual player spent more time playing a particular game than a hardcore player, but I would be surprised to hear that the casual player spent more time practicing at and analyzing that game.

I'll acknowledge the categories as a style of playing, but not as a type of player. If a player is motivated enough to increase their effectiveness at a game, they'll look under the hood to see what pushes them forward. That's playing hardcore, but it's not dividing into another type of person.

I might play that way with Civilization, but not with Oblivion. Where does that put me? And what if Civ didn't exist? How would I appear to you then? How do you design a "casual game" for players like me? It would have to be a game that I'm only remotely interested in winning the challenges of. Or perhaps a game that has no challenges.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by Way Walker Quote: Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by Zouflain If, however, you're comparing someone who's familiar with the game, but plays casually, to someone who isn't familiar with the game, well, of course they'd be likely to win. My point was that casual gamers often spend more time (in total) playing their favorite games than I would spend playing any single game. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a casual player spent more time playing a particular game than a hardcore player, but I would be surprised to hear that the casual player spent more time practicing at and analyzing that game. I'll acknowledge the categories as a style of playing, but not as a type of player. If a player is motivated enough to increase their effectiveness at a game, they'll look under the hood to see what pushes them forward. That's playing hardcore, but it's not dividing into another type of person. I might play that way with Civilization, but not with Oblivion. Where does that put me? And what if Civ didn't exist? How would I appear to you then? How do you design a "casual game" for players like me? It would have to be a game that I'm only remotely interested in winning the challenges of. Or perhaps a game that has no challenges.

I think in a past post I gave my definition of a hardcore player as someone who is more likely to play in a hardcore style. Two games is not enough to get good statistics on what's "more likely". Or, if the scope were limited to Civ, it puts you as a hardcore player (similarly for Oblivion).

But, if you're asking, "How would you design a casual game like Civ for a player like you," the short answer is, "I wouldn't, since you just said that you don't play that game casually." If you respond, "But sometimes I feel like I would enjoy a casual game of Civ," then, since I believe to play casually would involve lessening the challenges (since we're holding the other factors constant), I would ask, "Why does reducing the difficulty level not satisfy your desire for more casual play?"

I'm not sure what I said would lead to the conclusion that the game must be of only moderate interest to you or have no challenges. The level of effort is already decreased by your expressed interest and familiarity with the game, so relatively challenging scenarios can be offered (relative to someone willing to put in as much effort but with less interest and familiarity).

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker I think in a past post I gave my definition of a hardcore player as someone who is more likely to play in a hardcore style.

My opinion is that the play style is directly linked to the player's enjoyment of the activity and their motivation to win. Motivation and enjoyment are things that I actually try to create while designing. It's hard to imagine designing a game that purposely hinges its mechanics on a small amount of both.

You don't need to really want to do this in order to do this effectively.

Is that the gist of a casual game?

Quote:

Original post by Kest Motivation and enjoyment are things that I actually try to create while designing. It's hard to imagine designing a game that purposely hinges its mechanics on a small amount of both.

I never said anything about purposely implementing mechanics with a small amount of both. In fact, I was saying that if you can increase motivation and enjoyment, then you can offer a greater challenge to the player.

However, I do think that too much challenge can decrease motivation, especially when you just want a casual game. Or, equivalently, you're less motivated when playing casually, so there's less drive to get you through the challenge.

Quote:

You don't need to really want to do this in order to do this effectively.

I think that can mean a few different things depending on what you mean by "really want to do this" and "effectively". If I interpret it as, "You don't need to want to a high degree to overcome the challenges offered by this particular thing in order to find enjoyment in it," then I think it's correct.

To put it yet another way (but still, I believe, equivalent), you could say that the sort of enjoyment we're currently concerned with is the enjoyment that comes from overcoming (whether the process of overcoming or having finally overcome) the intended challenges of the game (as opposed to the challenges presented by figuring out the underlying mechanics, or from griefing, or whatever). When playing the game, these challenges have to be above some lower limit otherwise there's not enough enjoyment in overcoming them, but they have to be below some upper limit or there's not enough motivation to overcome them. The more casually one is playing the lower both of these limits are; the more hardcore one is playing the higher.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Quote: Original post by Kest Motivation and enjoyment are things that I actually try to create while designing. It's hard to imagine designing a game that purposely hinges its mechanics on a small amount of both. I never said anything about purposely implementing mechanics with a small amount of both. In fact, I was saying that if you can increase motivation and enjoyment, then you can offer a greater challenge to the player.

Eventually, the player will be motivated to such a degree that they will no longer be playing casually. That makes sense, doesn't it?

Quote:

However, I do think that too much challenge can decrease motivation, especially when you just want a casual game. Or, equivalently, you're less motivated when playing casually, so there's less drive to get you through the challenge.

It looks to me like you're choosing these behaviors to suit your own dispositions and playing styles. They don't fit me as well.

Not too many years ago, I used to play Street Figher Alpha 1 for the Playstation 1, casually. I would take occasional breaks from development work, fire it up, and try to accomplish something. My goal was to beat the game on the highest setting without being struck by an opponent. I never accomplished it. Most of the time, I lost entire fights before I got half-way to the end. I never actually "won" my goal. Of course, there was never really an incentive to win it, other than just to do it. I wasn't highly motivated to accomplish it, I just wanted to see if it was possible. That was enough to fight the best I could.

So for me personally, challenge and effort is irrelevant to casual gaming. I can put everything I have into it, then get stomped on, chewed up, and spit out, and still enjoy myself. It just makes me look forward to trying again next time.

My conclusion is that there is no single definition for a casual player, other than a lack of motivation to play. How do you design a game that doesn't require a lot of motivation to play? By making the mechanics more intuitive. By avoiding complex systems that require tutorials to understand. Just make the game easily accessible. These are things all developers should be doing, not just those who want to attract casual gamers. The difficulty of the challenge, once the player understands the mechanics, is not related to casual gaming.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by Way Walker Quote: Original post by Kest Motivation and enjoyment are things that I actually try to create while designing. It's hard to imagine designing a game that purposely hinges its mechanics on a small amount of both. I never said anything about purposely implementing mechanics with a small amount of both. In fact, I was saying that if you can increase motivation and enjoyment, then you can offer a greater challenge to the player. Eventually, the player will be motivated to such a degree that they will no longer be playing casually. That makes sense, doesn't it?

No, since motivation isn't just a function of the game. After a long day, I'll be less motivated to really push at a particular problem (whether in a game or otherwise) and so may desire to play casually the game that I was drilling at yesterday. For me, this comes up a lot in which book I choose to pick up. If I'm exhausted, I'm more likely to either pick up something I've already read or something relatively light than I am to pick up a text book or something with a deeply involved plot.

Quote:

Not too many years ago, I used to play Street Figher Alpha 1 for the Playstation 1, casually. I would take occasional breaks from development work, fire it up, and try to accomplish something. My goal was to beat the game on the highest setting without being struck by an opponent. I never accomplished it. Most of the time, I lost entire fights before I got half-way to the end. I never actually "won" my goal. Of course, there was never really an incentive to win it, other than just to do it. I wasn't highly motivated to accomplish it, I just wanted to see if it was possible. That was enough to fight the best I could. So for me personally, challenge and effort is irrelevant to casual gaming. I can put everything I have into it, then get stomped on, chewed up, and spit out, and still enjoy myself. It just makes me look forward to trying again next time.

I don't believe this is inconsistent with what I've said above. First, it does break one of the stated assumptions; you weren't playing to overcome the intended challenge of the game. Also, from what I've read of your posts, you like games. I like beer and brewing. Because I have an interest in the thing itself, there's less effort involved in learning about it, so, even though I may be quite exhausted, I may pick up a relatively involved book on brewing.

Quote:

My conclusion is that there is no single definition for a casual player, other than a lack of motivation to play. How do you design a game that doesn't require a lot of motivation to play? By making the mechanics more intuitive. By avoiding complex systems that require tutorials to understand. Just make the game easily accessible. These are things all developers should be doing, not just those who want to attract casual gamers. The difficulty of the challenge, once the player understands the mechanics, is not related to casual gaming.

Which I think ignores the reasons that some games are complex in the first place. Like you say, all designers strive to make the game as simple as possible. But, as Einstein pointed out, there comes a limit to the simplicity. There comes a point where making it simpler loses something. Every author tries to make the plot as easy as possible to follow, but some plots are just complex. To make it simpler may require losing an important character development. An imperial stout isn't something I'd consider a refreshing beverage to chug on a hot summer's day, but to try to turn it into that is to make it something it's not. American lagers don't have the same complexity precisely because they're a beer to drink casually.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker After a long day, I'll be less motivated to really push at a particular problem (whether in a game or otherwise) and so may desire to play casually the game that I was drilling at yesterday.

My point is that it's not impossible for a gamer to play casually and drill at the game at the same time. You might not do it, but others do.

I'm starting to question whether even motivation is related. I think it's entirely possible to be highly motivated while playing casually. You fire some random game up, get heavily engaged in it, give it everything you've got, lose horribly, cuss at the screen, turn off the console, then go do something more productive. Casual gaming.

Quote:

Also, from what I've read of your posts, you like games.

Who would want to waste time making games for people who don't like games?

Quote:

I like beer and brewing. Because I have an interest in the thing itself, there's less effort involved in learning about it, so, even though I may be quite exhausted, I may pick up a relatively involved book on brewing.

Exactly. Learning about it. Once the player knows exactly how to play, there's nothing we can do to make the game more casual that we shouldn't already be doing. Since we should already be making all games easy to learn, that's not an exclusive trait, either.

Quote:

Which I think ignores the reasons that some games are complex in the first place. Like you say, all designers strive to make the game as simple as possible. But, as Einstein pointed out, there comes a limit to the simplicity. There comes a point where making it simpler loses something.

Games shouldn't present the learning curve as part of the challenge or complexity. Learning how to play should be as quick and painless as possible, regardless of how complex the gameplay is.

Street Fighter makes an excellent example. The ease (or difficulty) of learning how to perform a dragon punch at the blink of an eye is completely unrelated to the possible complexity of using a dragon punch to win a fight. One is learning how to play a game, the other is using strategy, foresight, and reaction time to subdue an opponent. The complexity of the gameplay does not need to depend on the complexity of the learning curve.

Quote:

Every author tries to make the plot as easy as possible to follow, but some plots are just complex. To make it simpler may require losing an important character development.

If gameplay or enjoyment hinges on facts of this plot, then make those facts readily accessible whenever they might be needed. Otherwise, I don't see how a complex plot would be disruptive of casual play.