GG is under appreciated

#61 Ok, Garagegames is god, end of story. Anyone who agrees give 'em a round of applause.

*Applause*

#62 Righty right... back on topic. Do recall though that I never deliberately insulted anyone...

Garage Games underappreciated? Meh, not really. I mean, the big problem everyone has is people complaining that Most new and interesting things that come out for Torque end up costing some money, and thats really only natural, seeing as no one really likes to just spend money. Its natural for the products to cost money though, seeing as Garage Games isn't exactly a non profit company. In the end, people should just decide what they want to do with their money and settle for what they pay for... doesn't mean they hate Garagegames though if they get a little uptight over another 45 dolar lisense once in a while.

#63 Seems like a flame war erupted over semantics.

Core and Casual are demographics, not game types. This is a traditional demarcation in the games space to identify target audience (and where you spend your advertising money) more so than a description on the type of game it is. Jonathan, you can call causal whatever you want, and put whatever classification you want on it, but that would leave you as the odd man out, as you are classifying it one way whilst everyone else is talking about something different. No need to get in an arguement here about it, you are fighting a losing battle.

Now, some of the games you mentioned above are casual games, not core. In particular, Mario has long been considered a casual game (most console games are). It should be worth noting that the last time I looked (last time I had access to sales numbers was a few years ago), Mario took the #1 slot, with Mario GBA #2, and Sonic and Pokemon GBA in the top ten. None of the big FPS games were in the top then, and none are in the top ten in PC games either. Things may have changed in the past few years, but I doubt it. It should also be noted that Tetris is up there in sales.

It seems that you are victim to the martketing hype. You see Doom and Unreal in the mags and you assume they are the 'big' games, when in fact, the sales on these are pretty average when you look at the big picture.

As for innovation, causal != clone. You are trying to create a straw man here, and it is not working.

Two games that I have seen that I thought were really innovative in the last few years were PikMin and Katamari Damacy. These are classified as casual games.

The big core titles (Halo, Doom, Unreal, Half Life, etc..) are all well done (very well done) but extrememly generic in what they are. They are all shooters.. Over the last few years the 'big' titles have not been the innovators. It is the small little heard of titles that are intorducing the new and interesting content and gameplay.

All I am doing here is trying to be the voice of reason and set the record straight. Core is not the domain of the innovators. It never really has been and it is becoming less so now. Big hype does not mean it is the best seller. The best selling games (top $$ makers) are not the ones you think they are.

More content does not mean better game. I am not saying (and no one else is saying) lets remake pong.. what we are saying is stop trying to draw some artificial line in the sand about quality and tools and sales. When it comes to sales and the types of games you are talking about, you lose.. the sales speak for themselves. When it comes to innovation, the causal market is producing far more innovative games than the core titles (both in number and in the bredth of game types). You can have your opinion on it, but I would think that you would be in the minority.

I have no beef with your opinions, but please be careful with the assertions you are throwing around, and the condescending attitude like we all just fell off the boat.

#64 This thread needs to be gone. It's probably the most out of whack thread I have seen in a long time

#65 "More content does not mean better game."

Not to bring back old arguments, but I never said that it DOES make a better game... merely that high content can make a game with already good gameplay better. Can anyone truly deny that?

I never even mentioned Doom or Unreal, and the whole casual versus core demographic was something I had originally thought applied to the gamers themselves rather than games, ended up getting excessively confused and mistook the whole concept. Looking back on it, casual shouldn't be a title applied to games at all, seeing as any FPS game can be played just as casually as Mario or the Sims. But then the whole casual gaming market issue came up, and yes, I got exceptionally confused by it all and ended up arguing on a faulty basis.

Seeing this current two path division of Core/Casual however, I am seeing that the only difference between the two happens to be that one contains violence, which was something I was almost positive couldn't be the difference between a game that is played casually and one that is played... hardcorely? It seems like this method of classifying games is some sort of sick joke which never should have born any real prevalence in the first place... I mean jeez, casual and hardcore don't even have similar OR opposite meanings in the first place.

Hey, I'll admit it, I screwed up, made some poor choices for words, and even stuck by those poor choices. I misdefined and got out of the right mindset for making a real point, and even went off on subpoints that carried no real prevalence to the primary topic in the first place. My Bad.

#66

Quote:Not to bring back old arguments, but I never said that it DOES make a better game... merely that high content can make a game with already good gameplay better. Can anyone truly deny that?

I deny it. I don't just deny it, I am firmly convinced of it. More is not better. Games should strive for being exactly the right size for what they are. I will bring up chess again. It is a game. It would not be improved by adding anything to it.

#67 Ok ok.. I came back... you were a good enough person to admit that you did stick to some bad points, blah blah... I'll admit I was tired and at work so it got to me more than it probably should have...

just to support Joe's comments... Tomb Raider... more stuff (some of it quite good) to the same gameplay... it got old, then even more old, etc etc...

It takes a very good person to admit they were wrong, I respect that :)

#68 Key word: can
not to be confused with: will

case in point: The Sims with all of its 10s of expansion packs. They probably would have kept making expansion packs to that game until the end of time had Sims 2 not been in development.

edit:
Oh, and an interesting way to add content to chess in a way to enhance the experience:
1. Multiple graphic sets for chess pieces
2. Multiple graphic sets for the board
3. Multiple board viewing styles (overhead, isometric, etc.)
4. Mutiple difficulty levels of AI

All of this has been done before, but its a perfect example of how adding content can improve a game.

#69 True... I'll concede to a point... but then again the Sims was made to be a world of freedom, they just explored that more... and their expansions added some pretty new gameplay... not just content

#70 Gameplay is a form of content in many cases :P

For instance, in Starcraft's expansion, adding new units is definitely seen as adding more content, but they do so in a way that forces the player to change their strategies.

#71 I wouldn't say that... I think theres a definite line... I think you can add both... but adding content is just adding content... new graphics... new assets... etc... gameplay would be that new unit's abilities... they really are two different things (at least in my book) like Tomb Raider didn't add much new gameplay... just more of the same.. while SIms and Starcraft adding more gameplay along with content

#72 The thing with a game like Starcraft though is that you can't add more content without adding more gameplay (well, one could add more missions and stuff, but that doesn't really fit a true Blizzard-esque expansion...)

However, it is in many cases, almost impossible to add new content to a game without adding gameplay (well, doodad expansions... not going to count those). Afterall, level design is considered a crucial part of gameplay in most cases no? The real problem with Tomb Raider wasn't so much of the continual expansion, so much as the lack of variance in the expanded content. They built the other tomb raider games in a way that more or less played similar to the first in every reincarnation. The levels in each game felt the same to. One can only expect someone to be willing raid a tomb so many times so to speak... sort of a similar reason to why Super Mario Sunshine was an easy game to get sick of with its repetitive tropical seascapes.

#73 Guys. Enough. Why are you fighting to change the mind of a 15 year old kid? He's wrong. This flame thread goes into bit bucket heaven. 10,9,8,7...

#74 I'm not 15...

More importantly, the arguing was over anyway. <_<

#75 I have to say, I agree with Jonathan here. But it seems this whole argument is based upon personal preference. Some people play light, shallow games for an hour a night--some people play massive, complicated games for several hours a night and continue playing that game for months (even years) at a time. Nothing wrong with either of these.
Having been involved with modding Civilization Call to Power and beta-testing Call to Power 2, as well as playing a great deal of Civilization 1, 2, and 3, and being in the community which likes those games, I can say that grand, involving games sell just fine and develop a huge fan base. (Case in point, I saw Age of Empires 2 *still* on the shelf of a game store up here...thing's gotta be 6 years old by now, and obviously still selling.)

For me, I'll take a huge epic game over a simplistic clone 999 times out of a thousand--personal preference. That's not restricted to turn-based strategy or real time strategy; if I recall correctly, Tomb Raider 2 was a shooter-type and did very well and was quite involving--I played that one for about three months before finishing it. Then I replayed it a couple times after that.

But really, I don't understand the logic here at all--a casual game sells more so it's better?
Who gives a damn which game sells more copies? Has nothing to do if it's a good game or not--of course, if your sole interest to accumulating profits, well, roll out the next clone ("with a twist") of whatever. I'm not going to buy it or play it. I generally have respect for game makers who put their hearts and souls into it, make it gripping and compelling, lots of levels, lots of options. But again--that's just me...it doesn't make these types of games "better" or worse than smaller, simplier games.

BTW, what makes a "casual game" anyway? I know people who played the Sims for hours a day, every single day. Doesn't seem casual to me--it's utterly massive! I've played it and modded it, and "casual" is not something I'd describe it as; in fact, it's one of the more involving games I've played, taking a while to finish.
A casual game is one that is played casually, IMO. Like Joe Maruschak wrote above, they're not game types. Any game that has a *save* feature can be played for a small amount of time each day or once a week. Something like Unreal, I would not consider a 'big' game at all; it sold well, but compared to the Sims or Civ games, it was pretty shallow.

Anyway, I don't judge a game by how it sells--I judge it by how well it plays, and by how few annoyances it has. Also, by how well it can be customized, and of course, if it's one that can be re-played. Determining its depth, well, if it takes me two hours to finish it, I don't consider it a 'big' game, or very deep or involving.
But then again, I'm a person who'd rather watch something like six hours of Lord of the Rings as opposed to a half-hour sit-com on TV.
I agree, however, that "more is not better"--quantity does not mean quality...and I like when quantity *and* quality come together. I would not watch six hours of crud; I'd watch six hours of something well-done, compelling, intelligent, and which won't put me to sleep. In a world where more and more people seem to have the attention spans of gerbils, holding someone's interest for that long is a grand exercise; and that earns my respect...same for any type of entertainment, movies, novels, music, and especially games.

#76 Casual games certainly sell more in aggregate, but it seems like a crowded market. Does anyone have any actual figures on what the individual games tend to sell?

There are an /awful/ lot of mah jong and solitare packages out there splitting the casual games pie, after all.

#77 "BTW, what makes a "casual game" anyway?"

Exactly what I'm thinking... it clearly isn't violence, seeing as Civilization (I'm pretty sure this isn't a casual game is it?) is nothing along the lines of casual, and it lacks violence, and it isn't simplicity, because The Sims has a far more complex mechanism of play than Wolfenstein. It isn't difficulty... because there are plenty of easy hard core games out there (I personally found Half-Life 2 on medium difficulty to be much easier than say... Mario 64).

"Also, as indie developers volume isn't something you can do well, and to sell well we need to appeal to the casual demographic."

Granted. Indie developers lack the massive budgets to create titles with tons and tons of art based content, and also that pretty much makes levels harder to create seeing as you can't just have the same crap strewn throughout all of your levels without risking bland repetitiveness. Its not exactly easy to put together a world the size of Grand Theft Auto or Half Life 2, and the cost to do so is no doubt astronomical.

That leaves me with only one real gripe right now... just what IS a casual game? There seem to be no predefined rules to decide whether a game is casual or hardcore outside of some form of gut intuition, which I'm pretty sure varies among different people.

#78 Boy, this topic has diverted.

This is the best place to start:
IGDA's White Paper on web and downloadable games

Note - most of the games I mentioned before are not "casual" games, really. In fact, I don't think Think Tanks would count, either. Retro64's games (and many of ReflexiveArcade's) wouldn't fall into the traditional realm of casual games.

The thing is, there's a broad spectrum of possibilities available. "Minions of Mirth," "Lore," "Starshatter," and Spiderweb Software's RPGs prove that it's very possible for an "indie" studio to produce a "big" game, even on a smaller budget.

But bigger isn't always better, and better certainly doesn't mean bigger.

But back on topic: Go GarageGames. Hurrah for extremely affordable tools in the hands of independent game developers!

#79

Quote:That leaves me with only one real gripe right now... just what IS a casual game? There seem to be no predefined rules to decide whether a game is casual or hardcore outside of some form of gut intuition, which I'm pretty sure varies among different people.

The casual and core distinction are marketing terms to describe the demographic of the audience. In the industry, where you spend your development resources and marketing dollars is based upon this classification. The demographic shifts, but generally, the core demographic is a serious gamer, that buys over 6 games a year, expects 40+ hours of gameplay, and is drawn to a more complex and chellenging experience (note this is usually 18-25 year old males). The casual demographic buys on an average of 4 games a year, expects 20 hours of gameplay, and is turned off by complex and dificult to use interfaces (age range is 4-45 for the most part.. and these people have disposable incomes and would think nothing of purchasing a console in order to play a game that they liked). Casual games are meant to have broad appeal.

I pretty much tuned out of this sort of thing because this sort of preclassification and broad generalization is making the industry a bit stagnant, and that the demographic is shifting a bit as gamers age and get families and the analysis is not keeping pace (I think they are 5-6 years behind in their understanding of the gamer demographics)

now, thinktanks had a very clear target audience. We wanted to get two groups. One I call ex-gamers.. people who used to be diehard doom geeks who have since gotten a real life (wife and kids, etc..) and young kids.. who have never played doom, as they were too young. We hit the nail right on the head with who we thought it would appeal to. We did not get a lot of the 'core' demographic (we did not expect to), but it confirmed my suspicisons that the marketing analysis of the 'big' industry is leaving many people underserved. It should also be noted that the thinktanks demographic is squarely in the 'casual' demographic.


@Jay. it has diverted quite a bit.. and covered a braod range of topics. I think everyone should stop posting in this thread and spend the time working on their games (/me takes own advice and tunes out)

#80 "Casual game simply means virtually no learning curve, easy to pick up and just as easy to drop. It doesn't have an involving storyline nor 1,000 pages of text."

No learning curve? That throws out just about every game Iv'e ever played. Mario and Sonic have learning curves (at least, I'm pretty sure that I found those games a heck of a lot harder to finish the first time than I do now...) and of course Sim City has an extremely steep learning curve, and to the first time player, building a profitable city is borderline impossible. Someone playing Jak and Daxter for the first time isn't too likely to be able to beat the final boss without spending the time to play the game. And many first person shooters don't have any real learning curve beyond getting used to new weapons and having played first person shooters before. I don't really believe thats the proper qualifier :/

Storyline? Unreal Tournament doesn't exactly have a deep storyline either. Neither did Tribes.

Fun, immediate, and addictive can all be applied to Half Life 2 as well...

And on the whole Age demographic thing...
Is Liesure Suit Larry a hardcore game? Iv'e never really heard of it being referred to as such, but in this definition of it, it is. Many people would just consider it light hearted role play though. (edit: Not unlike the Sims)

There are just so many variables to consider in all of this, and none of it really seems to be specific. Paper Mario: TYD had an involving storyline and a decent learning curve (granted that it was appealing to all audiences), but it isn't anything hard core.

On the violence end... well, Boppin (old Apogee game) was a light hearted puzzle game which involved your characters sticking a gun in their mouths and blowing their brains out, but it was still pretty casual.

So then... is the final definition of whether a game is hard core or casual whether it is light hearted? To me, that just seems to be a tad shallow a way to classify games.

As for tuning it out... yeah, but I didn't want to leave any points unaddressed :/