The Casual Conundrum

[david.dakota]

The Internet Expoded. I saw it with my own eyes. Severed servers. Copped out copper lines. Frazzled fibre. Ubisoft. Spyborgs. Within a matter of a few days, the Wii community broke the internet.

 

OK, an exaggeration of sorts, but a mildly humorous way to start my post.

 

Wii's proved a massive untapped market exists, a market for more casual gamers, a market which has seen several publishers enter with little to no critical success- Carnival Games, Mario Party 8 and Smarty Pants, to name a few, have all failed to achieve an averaged score of 70% at Gamerankings.com. 70% is, arguably, a benchmark - representing a reasonable, but unltimately flawed product. Some gamers may potentially take a punt on something over 70%. These rules govern the games industry, as us gamers are not going to part with our hard-earned cash for 70% marks, developers want to be hitting at least 70% to take pride in their work, and reviewers will be more than critical to a product with a 70% mark. Incidently, as a side note, this isn't a model that sits well with the casual games market - take Carnival Games, awarded a staggering 85% by The Sun Newspaper (only 7% below their own review of Metroid Prime 3). Newspapers and similar media act as a valuable resource to the casual crowd, they're not going to visit the likes of IGN, Gamespot or N-Europe. Perhaps we have a responsibility to our interest in gaming to be more vocal about off reviews, and unearned praise?

 

As i've said, the more casual games are profitable, and can't be ignored. Carvival Games is a million seller, as is Mario Party 8. These games bring in the greens. I don't want to be the one to break it to you, but this means people do actually buy them - but the furore surrounding them in gaming circles almost seems like casual games simply should not exist. Do we really, really want to alienate the casual crowd?

 

No. They're a valuable source of revenue. Thats why the industry is keen to hook them. But once they're hooked, what then? High Voltage Software, a developer most Wii gamers have a keen eye on, made their name churning out licensed software (another bane of the gamer) which have ultimately been awarded 'fair to middling' reviews at best (their Family Guy earned 50% at Gamerankings). They've earned their bread and butter working on licensed products, probably under the pressing milestone development strategy, with publishers, and now they've matured; actively working on an exciting game, a brand new IP, using an impressive custom-developed engine. Regardless of how The Conduit turns out, thats impressive stuff for any developer. All thanks to the cash from licensed software. A great example of how to use the cash cow for a greater purpose.

 

So, here I am now advotacing the games i've earlier barrated. But why?

 

As a passionate gamer, I want gaming industry to mature. Like music has, like the VCR and more recently the DVD. I want gaming to become a valuable pastime, as valuable to others as it is to me. Not everyone has my tastes - not everyone is going to lap up the next Metroid or GTA, not everyone is going to get stuck into Zelda or Halo. I understand the boundaries have to move, our perceptions of what a 'game' is needs to change. Dr Kawashima's Brain Training, WiiFit, Nintendogs are examples of how Nintendo have captured the imagination of older people, younger people, girls (just like they captured me, 20 something years ago)- and still engaged with the established fans.

 

Whats the argument, then? Its that age old argument. Quality.

 

I don't mind if ultra casual games exist; in fact I want to see casual games; they can nurture talent, attract new people to gaming, bring in exceptional profits and open new avenues for entertainment. These are all positives, they shouldn't be seen as anything else.

 

I mentioned earlier, I'm passionate about introducing new people to gaming. The current generation of casual games is not something i'm that happy to talk about, to recommend. Where do casual games go after Brain Training or Nintendogs? How can we actively encourage these new gamers to try things, take new steps - jumping into Mario Galaxy or GTA4 isnt the answer. But whats between Brain Training and GTA4 is not a good enough. How can we as gamers honestly recommend gaming as a pastime when the quality is so insultingly low, if we can't recommend Mario Galaxy because its too traditional of a game, what can we honestly recommend?

 

Publishers are in the games business, surely, after all these years, they should know that any game needs investment; time, resources and passion. Most publishers are simply ignoring these three vital inputs with their casual output, and churn out that sub-70% game. Look at the passion in Nintendo's most popular casual output, WiiSports, WiiFit, Brain Training ooze quality, they've been nurtured, cared for and, essentially loved - and ultimately proving very, very profitable. While perhaps not for the die hard gamer, its clear passion and pride were at the heart of these endevours. Don't get me wrong, i'm fully aware Nintendo have chugged out Mario Party 8 and DK Jet Race, but the former are examples are how it should be done.

 

Publishers, we need you to up your quality in the casual space. We need to see you respect your development teams, your customers and those casual prospective buyers.

[Emasher]

How about Mario Kart, Or excite truck, they both have simple controls and are both fun for casuals and cores.

[Deathjam]

My eyes "Expoded" when I saw the length of that post

[scubahood]

I don't mind casual games like carnival but only as long as they are a good price. I picked up carnival for £15 bargain!!

[Gaijin von Snikbah]

Id like to see a casual title with the lenght of an adventure game. Simple gameplay and an interesting story. Zomg they would say and play it for more than an hour a week.

[Emasher]

What they should do is make a "casual" title that as you begin to play it seems pretty casual, enough that someone's mom could understand it, but then, as you get into it more and more it gets more like a hardcore game. And at the end it leaves casual players wanting more so they might go out and buy another hardcore game. The only real problem with casual games right now is the 3rd party ones are lacking in quality and that casual games lack any sort of transition in them like I described above.

[tapedeck]

What they should do is make a "casual" title that as you begin to play it seems pretty casual, enough that someone's mom could understand it, but then, as you get into it more and more it gets more like a hardcore game.

 

 

Sounds kind of like what Mario Kart is trying to do. (A 'bridge' title) I totally agree with you though. There is enough opportunity for dev's to re-imagine their key franchises yet many don't seem to have the vision nor imagination to do such a thing. (Nor want to.)

 

Put it this way: Many platformer devs have spent the past ten years trying to get to a 3D gaming standard set by Mario64. Many can't even beat out that title. Then there are 2D platformers better on the SNES/MD than now. And the FPS genre seems like it's just "shinier with online aspects" over what appeared in 2000-6. If developers can't even best previous generations of work (or even want to,) they will never produce anything of such premise on wii.

 

EA seem to be trying hard by having "many, many" options in their sports titles, thus engrossing the player and trying to get them into the "pro" controls. I doubt many take the leap though. Other than that, perhaps Nintendo are the only ones taking this - bridging- route.

[darkjak]

I have nothing against casual games. As long as developers don't start making them INSTEAD of real games. They can churn out as many crap games as they like, as long as they take at least a fraction of what they earn, and invest it in a really deep, memorable game.

[Emasher]

Mario Kart isn't quite what I meant. Mario Kart more starts out with skill and ends up being more luck based, it really should have been the opposite.

[tapedeck]

Not really a new thread starter.

 

From the guy who brought us the "birdmen" philosophy on gaming comes a brilliant read on casual gaming:

 

Check it out here!

[daftada]

Interesting thread! You've pretty much nailed how I feel about casual games. They have their place in the market just as mindless action films or CGI cartoons have their place in movies. As long as developers inject a decent amount of funds from them into interesting hardcore titles then i'm happy. THQ is another good example - tonnes of licenced games, now bringing two intruiging titles exclusively to Wii (Deadly creatures and De Blob). If Ubi are using the cash from the petz series to offset the inevitable losses from Beyond Good & Evil's sequel then awesome. Likewise with EA and Boom Blox.

 

There are some better games in the casual pile anyway, if you take the time to look around. My sister has a bunch of them for the wii including My Horse and Me and Dog Island (which I think is great!) which she plays all the time and they sit nicely in her collection next to Mario Galaxy and Zelda.

 

Maybe we as gamers need to take a more objective view to the games we recommend to non-gamers. I've been asked countless times by work colleagues which games to get next and trying to sell games like Zelda and even Boom Blox has been difficult so I've compiled a list for them to consider and some to avoid. Dog Island has been a popular choice, as have Mario Party 8, Sports Island, Dance Dance Hottest Party and Raving Rabbids.

 

At the end of the day if non-gamers are having fun playing games, no matter what the gaming community thinks of them, shouldn't that be enough?

[Hellfire]

daftada you realize none of us here wrote the article lol

I skimmed it yesterday, but didn't have time to put much into it. I'll read it later.

[DazzeL]

Put it this way: Many platformer devs have spent the past ten years trying to get to a 3D gaming standard set by Mario64. Many can't even beat out that title. Then there are 2D platformers better on the SNES/MD than now. And the FPS genre seems like it's just "shinier with online aspects" over what appeared in 2000-6. If developers can't even best previous generations of work (or even want to,) they will never produce anything of such premise on wii.

 

I think games in general have come a long way since 2000 tbh, it's just we find it harder to see. Platformers are the perfect example of a stagnant genre. I'm not really sure why they've gone out of fashion either, a bit of a strange one. FPS on the other hand has come on leaps and bounds. I would argue one of the most improved genres in recent years. We talk a lot about using the wii mote for immersion but modern shooters really show us that graphics can be incredibly immersive aswell. The progress in the online multiplayer, whilst the most important, is also the most obvious improvement. But compare the single player of, for example, Call of Duty 1 with Call of Duty 4. Massive improvement in my opinion.

[Gizmo]

I find this to be quite an arrogant stance to take.

 

The Internet Expoded. I saw it with my own eyes. Severed servers. Copped out copper lines. Frazzled fibre. Ubisoft. Spyborgs. Within a matter of a few days, the Wii community broke the internet.

 

What is wrong with Spyborgs, exactly?

 

70% is, arguably, a benchmark - representing a reasonable, but unltimately flawed product.

 

Review scores are such a flawed way of "benchmarking" that it's pointless. Let's take for example a few of the games sitting on the shelf on my computer desk.

 

Black and White:Creature Isle has less than 70%. Does this mean the time I put into playing it should be erased?

 

But Black and White 2 got 76%. But I preferred Creature Isle, personally. So why is ok and CI isn't?

 

How about C&C:Tiberian Sun Firestorm vs C&C3? I hated C&C3 with a passion but have put hundreds of hours into Firestorm. Yet Firestorm got a lower score.

 

Basically, review scores are not suitable in the current format to be used as a deciding factor in whether a game is good or not. Read the reviews and get an impression of the game from them, but don't take the percentage at the end as the be-all-and-end-all.

 

Incidently, as a side note, this isn't a model that sits well with the casual games market - take Carnival Games, awarded a staggering 85% by The Sun Newspaper (only 7% below their own review of Metroid Prime 3). Newspapers and similar media act as a valuable resource to the casual crowd, they're not going to visit the likes of IGN, Gamespot or N-Europe. Perhaps we have a responsibility to our interest in gaming to be more vocal about off reviews, and unearned praise?

 

So what you're saying is, The Sun's opinion is invalid? For what it's worth I agree on that actually but for different reasons. Who is to say what is an off review?

 

As my own sidenote, take Peggle as an example. This game got a higher GameRanking average than Ninja Gaiden II. Does that mean that Eurogamer, PC Gamer etc who reviewed Peggle are "off"? Because Peggle is about as casual as you can get.

 

As i've said, the more casual games are profitable, and can't be ignored. Carvival Games is a million seller, as is Mario Party 8. These games bring in the greens. I don't want to be the one to break it to you, but this means people do actually buy them - but the furore surrounding them in gaming circles almost seems like casual games simply should not exist. Do we really, really want to alienate the casual crowd?

 

Someone has different taste in an entertainment media and therefore it shouldn't exist?

 

Should High School Musical not exist, because it a) isn't as high quality a film as Lord Of The Rings and b) I don't like it?

 

Should Linkin Park not exist because a) Metallica are better at playing guitar and b) I don't like them?

 

No. They're a valuable source of revenue. Thats why the industry is keen to hook them. But once they're hooked, what then?

 

So people get hooked on Linkin Park, really love listening to them, and then have to get gradually brought into what you consider good music? It's the same thing. People love playing Carnival Games, why should they have to gradually get into playing Zelda and Call of Duty?

 

High Voltage Software, a developer most Wii gamers have a keen eye on, made their name churning out licensed software (another bane of the gamer) which have ultimately been awarded 'fair to middling' reviews at best (their Family Guy earned 50% at Gamerankings). They've earned their bread and butter working on licensed products, probably under the pressing milestone development strategy, with publishers, and now they've matured; actively working on an exciting game, a brand new IP, using an impressive custom-developed engine. Regardless of how The Conduit turns out, thats impressive stuff for any developer. All thanks to the cash from licensed software. A great example of how to use the cash cow for a greater purpose.

 

I'm also struggling to see what makes it a "greater purpose", apart from the fact it's a new IP. Sure, that's nice and all, but because it's an FPS it is suddenly greater than anything else? That is a very arrogant / elitist view to take.

 

 

 

As a passionate gamer, I want gaming industry to mature. Like music has, like the VCR and more recently the DVD. I want gaming to become a valuable pastime, as valuable to others as it is to me. Not everyone has my tastes - not everyone is going to lap up the next Metroid or GTA, not everyone is going to get stuck into Zelda or Halo. I understand the boundaries have to move, our perceptions of what a 'game' is needs to change. Dr Kawashima's Brain Training, WiiFit, Nintendogs are examples of how Nintendo have captured the imagination of older people, younger people, girls (just like they captured me, 20 something years ago)- and still engaged with the established fans.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. You've just completely contradicted the argument you've been making up to now, that Casual gamers need to get into hardcore games.

 

Whats the argument, then? Its that age old argument. Quality.

 

I don't mind if ultra casual games exist; in fact I want to see casual games; they can nurture talent, attract new people to gaming, bring in exceptional profits and open new avenues for entertainment. These are all positives, they shouldn't be seen as anything else.

 

Again, this seems contradictory to me. You just finished saying that casual games should not exist other than to make money for the publishers.

 

I mentioned earlier, I'm passionate about introducing new people to gaming. The current generation of casual games is not something i'm that happy to talk about, to recommend. Where do casual games go after Brain Training or Nintendogs? How can we actively encourage these new gamers to try things, take new steps - jumping into Mario Galaxy or GTA4 isnt the answer. But whats between Brain Training and GTA4 is not a good enough. How can we as gamers honestly recommend gaming as a pastime when the quality is so insultingly low, if we can't recommend Mario Galaxy because its too traditional of a game, what can we honestly recommend?

 

Mario Galaxy seems a poor example in this argument. I bought my Uncle galaxy for christmas last year and he ended up completing it with 100~ish stars, and the only games he owned previously on his Wii are Wii Sports, Wario Ware, Mario Party and Happy Feet.

 

Who's to say they need to get into hardcore gaming in the first place? You've contradicted yourself again here as far as I can see; you want people to buy casual games to make the publishers money, then you want the publishers to stop making them, then you want casual gamers to play hardcore games, then you don't, then you do again, and then you want publishers to keep making casual games. You're trying to live in an ideal world where everything happens at once in the exact cycle necessary.

 

Publishers are in the games business, surely, after all these years, they should know that any game needs investment; time, resources and passion. Most publishers are simply ignoring these three vital inputs with their casual output, and churn out that sub-70% game. Look at the passion in Nintendo's most popular casual output, WiiSports, WiiFit, Brain Training ooze quality, they've been nurtured, cared for and, essentially loved - and ultimately proving very, very profitable. While perhaps not for the die hard gamer, its clear passion and pride were at the heart of these endevours. Don't get me wrong, i'm fully aware Nintendo have chugged out Mario Party 8 and DK Jet Race, but the former are examples are how it should be done.

 

Publishers, we need you to up your quality in the casual space. We need to see you respect your development teams, your customers and those casual prospective buyers.

 

So you're overall argument is simply that publishers need to put more time, money and passion into their casual games. But you've already said that casual games are only necessary for making money to fund the hardcore games, so doesn't that go against their business model?

 

You need to decide whether you want casual games to be a gateway into hardcore games, a flawed argument (why is this necessary for the publishers, would the casual gamers want to transition, is this even possible) or you want casual games to be a cash stream for hardcore games, also a flawed argument (publishers are businesses, why would they fund hardcore with casual necessarily, why does quality need improved if it's only for making a quick buck).

 

 

Sorry if alot of that made no sense / was described badly, it's early.

[Hellfire]

Still haven't read it, but from what I take it, it's more about game design itself than the market right?

Because he might be arrogant and whatnot, but his view on the market is totally spot on and covers a wide range of aspects.

[Aimless]

What is a 'casual' game? If it's a piece of software that has a low barrier to entry then that encompasses titles such as Tetris, Phoenix Wright, Animal Crossing, Guitar Hero, or Wii Sports. Are you a 'non-gamer' for playing those?

 

A piece of licensed shovelware isn't a 'casual' game, it's a bad game. That's the only real dichotomy here: the good and the bad. What many refer to as 'casual' games aren't poor because of their intended audience, it's because they fail at being games — unresponsive controls, inane design decisions, or simply not being fun.

 

Games are games. Some are simple, some complex, but quality will always shine through.

[Gizmo]

Still haven't read it, but from what I take it, it's more about game design itself than the market right?

Because he might be arrogant and whatnot, but his view on the market is totally spot on and covers a wide range of aspects.

 

I agree, but his proposed solutions are no good. Unfortunately though I can't think of anything better, it's simply a bit of a broken marketplace in gameland right now.

 

What is a 'casual' game? If it's a piece of software that has a low barrier to entry then that encompasses titles such as Tetris, Phoenix Wright, Animal Crossing, Guitar Hero, or Wii Sports. Are you a 'non-gamer' for playing those?

 

A piece of licensed shovelware isn't a 'casual' game, it's a bad game. That's the only real dichotomy here: the good and the bad. What many refer to as 'casual' games aren't poor because of their intended audience, it's because they fail at being games — unresponsive controls, inane design decisions, or simply not being fun.

 

Games are games. Some are simple, some complex, but quality will always shine through.

 

This is an important point; the difference between shovelware and casual games. For example;

 

High Voltage Software, a developer most Wii gamers have a keen eye on, made their name churning out licensed software (another bane of the gamer) which have ultimately been awarded 'fair to middling' reviews at best (their Family Guy earned 50% at Gamerankings). They've earned their bread and butter working on licensed products, probably under the pressing milestone development strategy, with publishers, and now they've matured; actively working on an exciting game, a brand new IP, using an impressive custom-developed engine. Regardless of how The Conduit turns out, thats impressive stuff for any developer. All thanks to the cash from licensed software. A great example of how to use the cash cow for a greater purpose.

 

Family Guy, the rubbish licensed game, is shovelware.

 

Peggle, the excellent original game, is a casual game.

 

For me, david is somewhat mixing the two up and together inappropriately to come to his conclusions.

[Tellyn]

This is an important point; the difference between shovelware and casual games. For example;

 

 

 

Family Guy, the rubbish licensed game, is shovelware.

 

Peggle, the excellent original game, is a casual game.

 

For me, david is somewhat mixing the two up and together inappropriately to come to his conclusions.

 

To be fair a lot of people confuse the two since a lot of licensed games are released alongside a movie or other form of media which it ties in to. The gameplay is often flawed, simple and short with a low barrier to entry and could be classed as a casual game. They're not usually marketed at 'core' gamers since the advertising primarily uses clips and references to the media it ties in to and is intended to get young children or people who simply like the film/book/etc.

[Gizmo]

I personally wouldn't regard stuff like that at all a "casual" game. A casual game is Peggle, Guitar Hero, FIFA.

[tapedeck]

Each to their own. A casual game is what YOU think is a casual game. This could go on forever...

[brynpearson]

Why is fifa casual??

[Pete]

Yes, this is all down to opinions isn't it. IMO as long there is choice of game style thats all that matters. I enjoy Pro evo, Mario Kart and Wii sports all on the Wii, I like games of all different kinds and as long as there is choce im happy.

[darkjak]

I personally wouldn't regard stuff like that at all a "casual" game. A casual game is Peggle, Guitar Hero, FIFA.

 

Guitar Hero is a casual game. I have no clue what Peggle is. Fifa however is MAINSTREAM, and nothing else.

 

A casual game is a game that is immediatelly understandable. Fifa is not, since it uses practically all the buttons on a PS2 controller for something, which is hard for let's say, my mum to get grips on.

 

To Tapedeck: that's not true. Developers DO sit down and say "now we're going to make a game for the casual market" or "this game's going to be for the absolute hardcore audience". Core and Casual aren't words for "kick ass" and "utter crap", they're descriptions of sofistication so to speak.

 

Licensed games are NOT casual games. At least not by default. Goldeneye was for example very core for its time.

[Hellfire]

I agree, but his proposed solutions are no good. Unfortunately though I can't think of anything better, it's simply a bit of a broken marketplace in gameland right now.

 

Again, not in regards to his latest article, he didn't propose any solutions, all he did was state what Nintendo is doing and explain business models. I'm too tired to read an entire article right now,as interesting as they usually are

[Emasher]

Licensed games can be casual or hardcore, they can be good or bad (but usually bad).

There is a reason casual games exist, they have a market. The problem isn't that they are casual, the problem is that they are badly designed and people still buy them instead of other games that they would enjoy more.

 

I originally posted this in another thread, but I think it makes sense to put it here too:

 

You know, I think there's another reason why there are so many sales of some of the crap casual games. I was just in Costco today and I looked in the Gaming section. There was one copy of Smash bros sitting on the shelf in an abused case and one copy of Galaxy and that was it for decent Wii games. I looked at every single other Wii game there. They were all crap. And do you know where most causal and non gamers buy games, not to many of them are going to go into EB games/Gamestop/Gamestation/GAME/ect. They're going to go to stores like Wal-Mart, Zellers, Costco, Superstore,ect. So they're not going to really see the decent games, just the crap ones that Ubisoft ect. keep pushing out every month. After that I went to Zellers They keep all there crap games out in a bin right in the front that you see before you walk into their electronics section and are probably going to look through seeing as its a bargain bin and you might be able to get something decent for cheap. But obviously, instead of the good deals on decent but slightly older games we've been used to from past generations, you find Ubisoft's complete Wii library, its all very convenient. If you want to get decent games now, you need to look way back into the department, behind the desk where you need binoculars to read the titles (as all the games are on the side so you can only see the end labels). And then you need to pick out the decent games from the crappy ones that aren't in the ubi bin yet. One of these days I'm going to go into Costco just when they open and not to many people are there yet, put all the crappy games into a cart, put some other things around them so nobody can see what's in it and then park the cart in some isle on the other side of the store.