next »

[Derek]

Let's just have one thread for the whole casual/hardcore thing and leave it at that.

This article has some really good points, I think:

http://www.zenofdesign.com/?p=864

Generally, it is true that the best games have many layers of complexity, with the most superficial layer being hopefully the most "casual," or easy to pick up.  Nintendo's really good at this... being able to make games that are so completely accessible on the surface, but have lots to offer for people who want to poke around.

I like some of the terms he uses, like "min-maxer" and "achiever."

People who read TIGSource probably think that I hate casual games, but what I hate (strong term - more like, find distasteful) are derivative games that don't have any creativity or passion put into them.  I think Chocolate Castle is a good example of an ostensibly "casual" game that I really like.  It's just so thoughtfully made.  (It also has that "many layers of complexity" trait, I think.)

[Alec]

Its also solid and delicious. One might say.

[xix]

I have to agree. Games that are easily accessable and also deep probably are the best games out there. But that's the easy part.

The hard part is analyzing current (or your own) games to see how to make them either:

more accessable without losing depth

AND

deeper without losing accessability

Just as much as I hate (I'll use the word, I'm not scared) the been-there-done-that of most "indie" games, I hate the holy-shit-what-the-fuck-is-this type of game. Most gamers would gloss over this part as learning is part of gaming, but that may be being a little too generous. In the end it hurts the developer because his audience shrinks, and, despite us being artists, that's not a good thing.

For example!

I really, really love me some Street Fighter. I really do. But I know for a fact that it is impossible to bring the series back from the dead in its current form because it's just too inaccessable. Compare it to a game like Virtua Fighter where cool combos are pretty much guaranteed. Street Fighter so far has thrived on either a)the hardcore or b)the otakus willing to put in enough time. That I was willing to put in the time to read through something like jChen's massive CvS2 combo FAQ was more about MY effort to like the game and genre that it was about CAPCOM's effort in making it accessable.

Hell, I'm still not a 'Gief fan purely because I can't do a standing 720. Or a jumping one.

[Anthony Flack]

I think that Chocolate Castle is a monstrously hardcore game. It's a stone cold brain-shredding puzzler that would make casual gamers weep.

The difference between casual and hardcore is, in a way, the difference between wanting your game to be well-liked, and wanting your game to be right.

[DrDerekDoctors]

I think that Chocolate Castle is a monstrously hardcore game. It's a stone cold brain-shredding puzzler that would make casual gamers weep.

I think that if it had a tutorial which explained the rules rather than text, that it'd be fairly casual up to about level 30 of easy, personally.

The difference between casual and hardcore is, in a way, the difference between wanting your game to be well-liked, and wanting your game to be right.

Nah, it's easier than that. Casual = Worse than Hitler, Hardcore = Nicer than Ghandi.

[Xion]

[rant]
Casual, to me, means easy to learn, hard to master, easily picked up, hard to put down. Like statically charged plastic. Also, para mi, ideally, there are no repercussions from quitting, aside from maybe losing a high score and starting from level one. And not like "the first area" level one, but like "things move slower" level one. And that's what makes the game so casual; the ability to quit without worrying about not getting that key or missing a part of the story or logging out in a dangerous place/place you won't get rested xp. I mean, the word "casual" just seems so fitting for those games: you play them, have fun, and when you're finished with them down you have no regrets the game is over and done with until you play it again, where you have too then begin your quest from the beginning, and see if you can overcome the same obstacles that you defeated before. Like Tetris. Sometimes I fail at level 50, sometimes I fail at level 150.
It's like, you can get into casual games easily, and it may very well be possible for a newb to get to level 50 or what have you, but it's a feat of incredible skill to be able to have a score exceeding 1,000,000 by the time you get there. And you keep playing, saying "I might not be where he was when he was where I am, but if I keep going, I'll eventually pass him up." That's what makes them so addictive (at least for me [BTW, I've never had my name on a high score table...not even close]).

It's not so much that casual games are the ones that are too common, too repetitive, or depthless, they just have a different approach from "hardcore" games, which, honestly, I find much more appealing. Hardcore games like, try to force the player into them, methinks. There are like, these objectives that eventually lead to the completion of them - whether that completion is inbred to the game or made up by the player - but they require time to master and unless you master them, you probably won't get very far. Techniques that aren't in the handbook/tutorial/readme.doc must be learned by either observation, experimentation, or having someone else tell you. Also, Hardcore games seem to have overlapping tasks and such. I mean, with a casual game, I think two gameplay elements will suffice, but with hardcore games, that hardly ever seems like enough.

I think I've lost my meaning somewhere in there, and my fingers are tired.
By the way, this is all extremely...um...what's the word...amorphous. I mean, there are always exceptions. TO EVERYTHING. So I know there are casual games that have aspects of my description of Hardcore games and vice versa. Honestly, if I were to reread what I just wrote, I'd find a hundred counterpoints to argue with myself. But, as the tags say, this is a rant, and now is the time to end it.
[/rant]

[Anthony Flack]

Actually I don't think "hard to master" is a requirement of casual games. Casual games don't need to have depth to be successful, and I would say that if you were following the "casual" design ethic then you would be inclined to sacrifice some of that high-end mastery if it made for extra simplicity. In fact I would say depth of mastery is the defining characteristic of a hardcore game - the kind of game which has enormous scope for you to get better and better and better.

"Easy to learn, hard to master" is the best of both worlds; it indicates a really, really well-designed game - neither casual or hardcore (terms which, I think, both indicate that something has been compromised). Unfortunately, knowing that doesn't really help you to achieve it.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

To me, hardcore means retro. People who like hardcore games tend to like NES and SNES games. Whereas casual means "you don't have to have grown up playing videogames to play this".

I think both types of games have their use: hardcore games exist for those who grew up playing games, casual games exist for those who almost never play games.

[Anthony Flack]

I think that old games mostly tended to be hardcore, because videogames were such a fringe activity in the early days, and people were willing to overcome the general unfriendliness and inaccessibility because of the novelty of it all.

[jankoM]

chocolate castle is not causal or I am really stupid.

casual game to me is "zone in and play play play (ussually click click click)". Here you have to stop... think and maybe move something ...

I call them "hard-puzzle" because puzzle has been taken by you know what..

[ZombiePixel]

I think the difference is what the game requires of the player.  Hardcore games require the player to adapt, to adjust to new controls, to strategize, to develop their memory and reflexes.  Casual games don't make those demands on the player or certainly not to the same extent, they're more of a "zone out and click" experience.

[Bezzy]

Causal, to me, is a category that everyone seems to believe they have the correct definition of, and yet funnily enough, no-one's definition is the same.

Hardcore, to me, is a category that everyone seems to believe they have the correct definition of, and yet funnily enough, no-one's definition is the same.

So to me, Casual = Hardcore, and Hardcore = Casual.

Just like most genre categorizations, I find it a distinction for marketers and audiences to stumble over, and for creators to make games in spite of.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Nobody is saying they have the correct definition, the ones that I've seen trying to define them even said "to me". I see definition as a process, not an end goal.

I agree with you Anthony, games in the past could get away with inaccessibility. They got away with it so well that accessibility now turns some people off to a game.

I don't think casual games are only about clicking and clicking, there are plenty of casual games that aren't like that; I'd consider Kudos and Virtual Villagers to be casual, people who didn't grow up playing Super Metroid or whatever can pick them up pretty easily, but they aren't just about clicking.

But I think it's true that casual games usually use the mouse more (usually exclusively) and hardcore games usually use the keyboard or joystick more (sometimes exclusively, sometimes in a mix with the mouse). There are some exceptions, but I can't think of any casual games that only use the keyboard or too many hardcore games that use only the mouse.

[Keops]

I have trouble trying to define Casual games... I blame the ones who started slapping a "Casual" label on every iteration of the Match-3 formula XD