Casual game - multiplayer only

If I understood it correctly, EA's Battlefield Heroes are meant to be something like this, both in style and purpose. If EA thinks there's a point in making such a game, then there probably is. :D

On a personal note, I still believe that the divison to "casual" and "hardcore" games makes no sense at all and isn't really a great way to define things since it mostly depends on player's personal approach to -any- game.

Simple games can be and usually are very competitive (when given a multiplayer option) and entertaining as such.

Quote:

Well, i'd like to know if making a casual multiplayer game makes any sense at all?

Online versions of competitive board games and card games are extremely popular. So is Puzzle Pirates and other puzzle games.

As for casual multiplayer shooters, I think Halo is your best example there.

Or if we take out the online component, multiplayer has been the bread and butter of casual console gaming for a very long time.

99% of Wii titles?

Quote:

Original post by Talin On a personal note, I still believe that the divison to "casual" and "hardcore" games makes no sense at all and isn't really a great way to define.

I agree.

You also can't stop players from playing hardcore in your game. If there are ins and outs, they will find them and study them to master your game.

Multiplayer does not imply competition. Other players can be in cooperative, social, divisionary, or simply atmospheric roles as well.

To me casual means being able to jump in and out pretty much whenever you like and that you're not forced to invest a lot of time or money. Multi-player only is somewhat at odds with this definition. In my experience at least, once you have more than one person involved a huge amount of time is spent in hurry-up-and-wait as well as implied social obligations once things have started. I can imagine games where other people are a strictly optional component but nevertheless the game is always online though.

Who forces you to invest a lot of time and money on multiplayer in Starcraft? You can play it just as casually as any wii game there is, with mates or just other players on your skill level.

In fact, most wii games (sports et al) require quite a bit of skill and manual dexterity, hence practice. Casual and hardcore is entirely in someone's (player's) head - not in the game.

I think the key to what you're going for is that the gameplay is simple enough that anyone can learn to play well fairly quickly, but flexible enough that it can be mastered. Yeah, I know, its the old "easy to learn, difficult to master" thing again, only its even more important in multilayer because people who play casually and for fun don't want to spend several hours a day practicing their twitch skills just to feel like they have a chance at victory.

A handicapping system can accomplish this, but is a bit uncreative. Mario Party does it with lots of randomness.

I think the key to making a "casual" shooter game would lie in placing the emphasis on tactics rather than twitch skill. No instant kill weapons, players take a lot of shots to bring down, maps are objective based, that sort of thing.

It is likely that "hardcore" players will hate it though. I've played a few mods that were on the right track, only to be turned into yet-another-twitch-shooter by a "hardcore" community pissed because their awesome FPS twitch skills didn't let them dominate the casual players.

There are plenty of casual multiplayer games, and certainly it's a market you could appeal to. I happen to be a hardcore gamer, but casual gamers are actually in the majority. Your design, however, lends itself towards hardcore players. Players who invest more effort in trying to get to the top score will do better than players who don't, and that's hardcore in a nutshell.

Instead of having a scoreboard be the objective, perhaps something else. The "fun of playing" without reward lends itself more to a casual audience.

Quote:

Original post by Talin On a personal note, I still believe that the divison to "casual" and "hardcore" games makes no sense at all and isn't really a great way to define things since it mostly depends on player's personal approach to -any- game.

There is a very clear and meaningful distinction between hardcore games/gamers and casual games/gamers. First, hardcore games are aimed at a hardcore audience, and the same is true for casual games and gamers. Second, the degree of required investment is much lower in a causal game than it is in a hardcore game.

In other words, casual games do not require large amounts of effort to be successful. Hardcore games do. Hardcore players are willing to invest large amounts of efforts in order to achieve success. Casual players either wont or cant invest that effort.

For instance, a blind game of rock paper scissors is a casual game. Starcraft is a hardcore game. One has a lot of learning to do to be truly competitive in Starcraft. The same is not true for rock paper scissors, which can be picked up and played by almost anyone.

Quote:

Originally posted by ZouflainThere is a very clear and meaningful distinction between hardcore games/gamers and casual games/gamers. First, hardcore games are aimed at a hardcore audience, and the same is true for casual games and gamers. Second, the degree of required investment is much lower in a causal game than it is in a hardcore game.

Clear and meaningful it may be, but not quite as much when you try to apply it to actual reality. I haven't the foggiest idea which audience I would belong to there, or how come that I fall into your definition of casual gamer and have never bothered playing casual games, nor do I feel attracted to them at all.

Are you trying to deny that millions of people play (or played) RTS, FPS or even the time-cosuming MMOs such as WoW completely casually no more than a dozen hours per week? Because that would just be factually wrong. We're talking about casual gamers here. Success is not a key factor to them - they will play a fun game whether they're successful or not.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zouflain For instance, a blind game of rock paper scissors is a casual game. Starcraft is a hardcore game. One has a lot of learning to do to be truly competitive in Starcraft. The same is not true for rock paper scissors, which can be picked up and played by almost anyone.

Your example of a casual game is "a bit" over the top there.

Who made, and who plays, rock paper scissors electronically? Computers aside, does anybody actually play rock paper scissors for the sake of game at all? You might have as well named tossing a coin as an example opposed to Starcraft. Name me an actual computer game that falls under your definitions. I do suppose there are some, but I'm also pretty sure that there aren't enough to justify the definition.

For example, I know that Tetris on high levels is hectic and requires quite a bit of practice and quick thinking. I also know that Spider Solitaire has three degrees of difficulty of which I only ever had the concentration and patience to solve first (two colors iirc).

Most puzzle games in general have levels of difficulty that make them not quite so simple and easy to beat, and require either careful planning and thinking ahead, and very good reflexes (if speed is a factor).

Quote:

Original post by Talin I haven't the foggiest idea which audience I would belong to there, or how come that I fall into your definition of casual gamer and have never bothered playing casual games, nor do I feel attracted to them at all.

No offense, but not understanding a distinction and a distinction not having a meaning at all are very, very different. And I did not say that casual gamers only play casual games, I said quite specifically that games of one genre or the other are aimed at a specific audience - certainly there will be people who are not part of that core audience playing. It's simply a mistake, however, to design without a core audience in mind - at least, this is what the vast majority (ie, every one I've come across) of professional designers have said.

Quote:

Are you trying to deny that millions of people play (or played) RTS, FPS or even the time-cosuming MMOs such as WoW completely casually no more than a dozen hours per week?

You should really re-read what I said. I said that casual gamers are in the majority, not the minority or non existent. And WoW lends itself to a casual audience far more than it does a hardcore audience, because of how it's designed anyway. EvE is a hardcore game, WoW is very much a softcore/casual game.

It takes about a month for a player to achieve the level cap in WoW. It takes +3 years and hordes of players working in concert to get anywhere near anything like a cap in EvE (ie, a DDD equipped Titan).

Quote:

Your example of a casual game is "a bit" over the top there.

Rather than looking only at the example, try to understand the meaning behind it. Or would you rather I come out some obscure online game that you may never have heard of and use it as a "perfect" example instead?

Quote:

For example, I know that Tetris on high levels is hectic and requires quite a bit of practice and quick thinking. I also know that Spider Solitaire has three degrees of difficulty of which I only ever had the concentration and patience to solve first (two colors iirc).

These are not online games, or even multiplayer games, so the distinction is not applicable here, or at least not in the same way.

Anyway, I would suggest starting your own thread about this and doing some google searching.

Quote:

Original post by Zouflain In other words, casual games do not require large amounts of effort to be successful. Hardcore games do. Hardcore players are willing to invest large amounts of efforts in order to achieve success. Casual players either wont or cant invest that effort.

Isn't effort and time relative? I've seen some teenage females play The Sims longer than I've ever played a game. I would have tired of a game and moved on, but years later, they're still playing it. They find little quirks and gimmicks in the game that I would have never had the patience to discover.

That, to me, is hardcore gaming. They have mastered the game, but still didn't move on. They stay there, grinding and grinding and grinding away. I see the same thing with other "casual" gamers. They pick up the same old game they've been playing for years and play it again. And their abilities show it. Have you ever tried to challenge a casual video game player at the two-player versus mode of the game they play the most? Prepare yourself for a quick death.

Personally, I don't think there's any such thing as casual or hardcore players. I think any player would be slightly hardcore, given the right game, and any player would be casual, given the wrong one.

Quote:

Original post by dMaze149 Well, i'd like to know if making a casual multiplayer game makes any sense at all?I don't know how casual gamers really want to compete vs other players rather than playing vs PC and having some storyline.

Sure it makes sense! There's a lot of people right now, as we speak, playing Yahoo Chess, various online poker games, and much much more! (My favorite is Majong).

The best thing about casual multiplayer is that you can start and end a game relatively quickly (like during your lunch break) without all the loading times and menu screens that a so-called 'core' or 'non-casual' game requires you to go through.

Quote:

Original post by Kest That, to me, is hardcore gaming. They have mastered the game, but still didn't move on. They stay there, grinding and grinding and grinding away. I see the same thing with other "casual" gamers... Have you ever tried to challenge a casual video game player at the two-player versus mode of the game they play the most?

Without a doubt, a hardcore gamer of that game would tend strongly towards slaughtering a casual player. 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. But you said it yourself by describing the Sims players - the hardcore gamer (of that game, naturally) would know all the ins and outs far better than a casual player would.

Quote:

I think any player would be slightly hardcore, given the right game

This is not always, and is quite often not, the case. Some people just don't have/wont commit the time to play games in to the same degree a hardcore player would. Perhaps they have a demanding job, or simply don't enjoy sitting before a blinking screen for that long. It's not a matter of how much they enjoy the game, it's how much they're willing and able to commit to the game.

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.

Quote:

But you said it yourself by describing the Sims players - the hardcore gamer (of that game, naturally) would know all the ins and outs far better than a casual player would.

Yes. The biggest point was that some of those hardcore players of The Sims are casual players. IE, that makes no sense. They wouldn't be hardcore with any other game. They were drawn to it because it was non-violent and related to their interests, not because it was a casual game.

Quote:

Quote: I think any player would be slightly hardcore, given the right game This is not always, and is quite often not, the case. Some people just don't have/wont commit the time to play games in to the same degree a hardcore player would. Perhaps they have a demanding job, or simply don't enjoy sitting before a blinking screen for that long. It's not a matter of how much they enjoy the game, it's how much they're willing and able to commit to the game.

No game should force players to commit large amounts of time. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to stop any time and resume later. Anything less is a design failure, not a category of gaming.

Quote:

Original post by Zouflain It's simply a mistake, however, to design without a core audience in mind - at least, this is what the vast majority (ie, every one I've come across) of professional designers have said.

There are other, more significant aspects of choosing the target audience. Such as the actual genre of the game, past experiences and popular demands in that genre, visual theme and presentation, and so on.

Most games, especially in the recent "industrial" era of game development, feature a span of difficulty and depth levels that are meant cater to both casual and hardcore players. In fact, hardcore gamers are a clear minority in nearly every popular game there is - vocal minority perhaps, but still a minority.

Nobody is denying the fact that there are hardcore and casual gamers - the distinction there is very clear. Just the assumption that they make two defined and specific groups and that games specifically target one of them.

Quote:

Original post by Zouflain EvE is a hardcore game, WoW is very much a softcore/casual game.

Relativity. Would a hypothetical MMO with a yet-unseen in-depth economy system, requiring about 5 years to hit the hypothetical cap, make EvE a softcore/casual game?

Incidentally, WoW breaks every single "casual game" rule I've ever heard of.

- It doesn't have simple and intuitive gameplay. It requires micromanagement of skills, health and mana, keeping track of multiple quest requirements, working the AH to get money, and other things I don't need to mention.

- It doesn't have simple mechanics in general. It has complex mechanics that require research and careful analysis to understand - or just reading materials that those who did all that made for you and learning from there.

- It requires very large amounts of time spent playing to be successful.

- It has a monthly subscription. Surely a "very much casual game" geared towards casual gamers wouldn't expect those casual gamers to actually pay money every month for a video game they barely play?

We can even turn it the other way around.

WoW requires that you constantly pay attention while playing - every single action in the game demands constant attention (and often concentration), except smelting lots of ore. This is a much more significant fact than the overall playing time needed to hit the top tier of content or the actual cap.

EvE offers you an opportunity for an undemanding, relaxed, and non-violent play . Just slowly building up your wealth and skills, occasionally blowing up an NPC ship, and not worrying about anything else in the world (no frustration). It is visually more relaxing than the colorful mess of WoW. It has a much better tutorial which tells you everything you need to know to actually play and a rather mature community.

That's quite a few advantages over WoW in terms of casual gameplay. Obviously, nobody is going to become successful with such gameplay, but that's not what casual gamers are after in the first place.

Quote:

Rather than looking only at the example, try to understand the meaning behind it. Or would you rather I come out some obscure online game that you may never have heard of and use it as a "perfect" example instead?

The meaning is clear, just not easily applicable to reality. That's why I want examples, and not obscure ones. An obscure online game would be just that - obscure. There are plenty of games out there geared towards a niche group of hardcore genre fans (usually developed by indie or one-man-teams).

You're telling me there's a clear distinction between casual and hardcore games.

If the distinction is so clear and meaningful that the entire game development industry steers their products specifically to one side or the other, then surely there are more significant examples of that distinction than naming virtual rock-paper-scissors, an obscure online game, or an MMO which couldn't possibly fit into the definition of casual as casual?

[Edited by - Talin on September 27, 2008 11:03:05 PM]

Quote:

Original post by Talin There are other, more significant aspects of choosing the target audience. Such as the actual genre of the game, past experiences and popular demands in that genre, visual theme and presentation, and so on.

All of which is influenced by the degree of effort players are willing to put fourth. For instance, a fantasy game about serious roleplay rather than stat building lends itself to a softcore audience more than a hardcore audience. Of course there will be hardcore players alongside softcore players, but a smart designer would gear the mechanics of the game towards softcore because the genre (and not just "fantasy" but "fantasy centered around roleplay and not statbuilding" as a genre) has more of the rewards a softcore audience would seek than a hardcore audience. That doesn't mean exclude the hardcore players, that doesn't mean ignore anything about them. It means if you have to choose between A and B, with no possible means of finding a middle ground, A being more for softcore and B being more for hardcore, choose A in any situation where your core audience is softcore.

Quote:

Nobody is denying the fact that there are hardcore and casual gamers - the distinction there is very clear. Just the assumption that they make two defined and specific groups and that games specifically target one of them.

Again I stress listening more closely. It was very much intentional when I consistently used phrases like "tend towards" and "target audience" not "only these people will ever play." I should mention, however, that a game that targets too many audiences wont appeal in any large way to any of them, so in general a game should focus on a low number of groups (hardcore/softcore being one distinction, but often too broad as hardcore fantasy players are less likely to enjoy a hardcore scifi game). If you disagree with this, you're disagreeing with the professional developing community - I'd suggest google searching a few post mortems and discussions from successful (and unsuccessful) games and developers.

Quote:

Relativity. Would a hypothetical MMO with a yet-unseen in-depth economy system, requiring about 5 years to hit the hypothetical cap, make EvE a softcore/casual game?

No... I never mentioned things being relative, I provided you with two real world examples because you spurned the very straightforward ones. A new game wont effect the degree of effort required to be more than marginally successful in another game, unless the existence of that game somehow had drastic changes to the original game (for instance, 90% of the population jumps to the new game, making EvE's economy much smaller and therefore harder to deal with... and therefore requiring more effort... not exactly what you were implying.

Quote:

Incidentally, WoW breaks every single "casual game" rule I've ever heard of.

Really easy to shoot down, actually. A slap on the wrist for a death penalty a hardcore game does not make.

Quote:

- It doesn't have simple and intuitive gameplay. It requires micromanagement of skills, health and mana, keeping track of multiple quest requirements, working the AH to get money, and other things I don't need to mention.

I'd love you to quote me saying anything about intuitive gameplay, micromanagement, health, or any of these things prior to this sentence. I said degree of effort. It seems you've made some assumptions based on who knows what, and you're trying to apply those assumptions to what I've said. Just as you can't put more tea in a full cup, you can't fit understanding in a mind cluttered with assumptions.

Quote:

It has a monthly subscription. Surely a "very much casual game" geared towards casual gamers wouldn't...

DEGREE OF EFFORT REQUIRED.

Quote:

WoW requires that you constantly pay attention while playing

No, I usually idled in the field for over half an hour waiting for friends. And even if it weren't, this has nothing to do with what I've said.

I'll ignore your post about EvE, because it sounds like you haven't played the game at all and I happen to be an avid fan who can rant for pages. Your assessment dies the moment you realize that even in 1.0 sec, a suicide kessy/squad can blast all your work to ribbons. I hope you had/could afford a decent clone... ship... weapons... mods... Or ten sets thereof, depending on how many kessies I want to throw at you. Not so in WoW. When you die in EvE, it's not such a slap on the wrist (loosing T2 blueprints anyone?).

Quote:

The meaning is clear, just not easily applicable to reality. That's why I want examples, and not obscure ones.

Evidently EvE was too obscure. I don't mean this offensively, but your analysis was dead wrong. This thread's been hijacked far too much for me to explain point by point exactly how wrong it was, so I'll leave it at that.

Quote:

If the distinction is so clear and meaningful that the entire game development industry steers their products specifically

Tend towards. Aim at. Not "only expect a certain kind of person to play" or "only consider one group." I really suggest you REREAD what I have said. I don't understand where these things are coming from - I certainly haven't said them.

Anyway, you should really start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion. It's disrespectful to rant on about something that's only marginally related.

There are plenty of casual multiplayer games. Multiplayer pong (yes, there are actually quite entertaining and popular versions of this, with 6+ players in non-rectangular settings), guess-what-I'm-drawing games (iSketch), and so on. They are very popular and as such they make a lot of sense.

But I have never come across a really casual cooperative game. That would be an interesting project.

Quote:

Original post by Zouflain For instance, a fantasy game about serious roleplay rather than stat building lends itself to a softcore audience more than a hardcore audience.

Define the gameplay aspects of serious roleplay. What is involved? Is it as pathetic as choosing between dialog options A, B, or C every few minutes, then running to the next scene? What sort of dynamics would be integrated? How interactive would it be? How much depth would it have?

Personally, it seems to me as though "casual" players simply want to avoid too much depth. They want to ride the rollar coaster without knowing how the track was built. They want to race, but they don't want to upgrade their vehicle parts.

I'm sorry, but that type of behavior is triggered by a lack of interest, not a type of player. A casual player who was interested in rollar coasters would want to know how the track was put together. Just as an RPG fanatic loves stats and some random teenage girl loves having a pet family on The Sims.

Everyone has their fix. If I wasn't interested in particular things, I wouldn't want to dive very deep into them, either. Just glaze the surface to check things out, then move on, casually. But every once in a while, when I rarely find the subjects I'm interested in, I would absolutely miss that depth. I certainly wouldn't want someone to cater to me as a casual player with it.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Define the gameplay aspects of serious roleplay. What is involved?

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. In short, a chatroom.

Quote:

Personally, it seems to me as though "casual" players simply want to avoid too much depth.

No, casual players would prefer any situation where they can be very successful without very much work, and minimal setbacks (which mean more work). The depth of gameplay doesn't matter, so long as it isn't perceived as work. WoW for instance, has only very minor setbacks and if you play long enough, you are guaranteed success. Combat Arms has almost no setbacks at all.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but that type of behavior is triggered by a lack of interest, not a type of player.

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

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.

Quote:

I certainly wouldn't want someone to cater to me as a casual player with it.

So, you really want to spend ten hours a day to get anywhere? And if you cannot/will not spend ten hours a day, you're effectively sunk?